07-12-2000 ARC PacketCITY OF MEIVDOTA HEIGHTS
' AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIOIV AGENDA
July 12, 2000 Large Conference Roo.m
1. Call to Order - 7 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of May 10, 2000 Minutes.
4: Unfinished and New Business: �
a. Update on Part 150 Study..:.;;_
b. Discuss Update of Airport Noise Plan of Action
5. Updates
a. Metropolitan Council — Update of 1996 Aviation Chapter
6. Acknowledge Fieceipt of i/arious Reports/Correspondence:
a. MASAC Meeting Agenda for May 23�d and April 25t'' Minutes
b. April Technical Adviser's Report
c. April Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
d. MASAC Meeting Agenda for June 27"' and May 23`d Minutes
e. May Technical Adviser's Report
f. May Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
g. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for May 12t`' and May 15t
Minutes
h. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda fior June 9th and May 12tn
Minutes
i. Airport Noise Reports
j. MASAC News — Spring Edition
k. SMAAC Newsletter
I. Article on Asia's Airports
7. Other Comments or Concerns.
8. Adjourn.
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.
- - . .:._ _ _ '_ ...... .:: . ._ _ �_._ .._i-' :,
� � � � � � � � � i(
�d-T �
CI�'Y OF MENDOTA I�EIGI�TS
DAKOTA CO�TNTY,IVIINNES�07['A.
Airport Relations Commission 1VViinutes
May 10, 2000
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, M�.y 10, 2000, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria
Curve. Chair Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The following members
were present: Beaty, Fitzer, May, Petschel, and Stein.
Commissioners Leumann and Roszak were absent. Administrator Batchelder was also
absent.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 12, 2000 MINUTES
Commissioner Petschel stated that she was listed as absent but, in fact, had notified the
Commission at the March meeting and City Hall that she would not be able to attend the
April meeting. Therefore, she requested that the minutes reflect that she was excused.
Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Fitzer secondec� a motion to approve the
April 12, 2000 minutes as amended.
AYES: 5
NAYS : 0
UN�+INISI3ED ANID N]EW BUSINESS
Discussion of Minneapolis Resolution on Multi-k+ amily Insulation
Chair Beaty stated that Administrator Batchelder's report states the Minneapolis
resolution regarding Part 150 prioritization to be consistent with current prioritization.
The ne�v prioritization program will begin before the 1996 program is completed so as
not to have a gap in time between the two programs. MAC has suggested that the multi-
family phase be completed in one year and the single-family program continue to 2005.
Eagan has expressed concern that the Part 150 fiinding for the multi-family programs will
delay single-family home insulation. Inver Grove Heights has suggested that equal
prioritization between mt�lti-family and single family homes. The City does not appear to
be affected, and Administrator Batchelder recommended that the Commission endorse
the existing prioritization system with the provision that the single-family insulation
continue unabated from the 1996 program to the 200� pro�am.
Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Fitzer seconded a motion that the
i Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission endorse the eYisting prioritization
}
C
C:
system in place for the 1996 program with the provision that single-family insulation
continue unabated from the 1996 program to the 2005 program.
AYES: S
NAYS: 0
Ground Run Up Enclosure
Chair Beaty noted that at the MASAC Operations Comrnittee meeting it was voted to
deny the MAC recommendation to build Option 2b for the Ground Run Up Enclosure.
Northwest Airlines opposes it, as does Eagan. The City Administrator then made a
motion to spend $5 million to build a ground run up enclosure, but there was no second.
Part 150 Update
Commissioner Fitzer noted that the study shows that over 22,000 people would be added
to the noise contours if the new 17-35 runway were not built.
Chair Beaty noted and agreed with the City's position to advocate fanning,operations
because creating "no-fly zones" creates problems among communities. The City do�s
not want MAC to limit any future options for the use of Runway 17. �
Chair Beaty noted that if hush-kitted aircraft were eliminated, the rediiction in the noise
'' contours around the airport would be over 30,000 people. Just eliminating hush-kitted
� aircraft at night would reduce the noise contours by over 20,000 people. However,
Northwest only plans to phase out the 727s by 2005; the DC-9s are not scheduled to
begin being phased out unti12009. Chair Beaty stated that Northwest has enou�h planes
to begin the phase-out immediately and he does not understand why it is being delayed.
He would like to see more pressure put on Northwest to begin the phase-out of hush-
kitted aircraft.
Commissioner Fitzer stated that although the media is aware of some information, more
education needs to be done on the issues. It is a matter of government mandates. If the
goverrunent expects hush-kitted airplanes to be eliminated, it �vill happen.
Commissioner Petschel noted that hush-kitted aircraft are not allowed at European
airports. Commissioner Stein added that Europeans are pushing for Stage IV aircraft.
Commissioner Fitzer explained that Northwest has not ordered new planes. A ne�v order
for planes will take three to five years to receive.
Public Open Houses on the Part 150 Study will be held May 23-25, 2000 at various
locations. Commissioner Stein stated that he will try to attend one and report back to the
Commission.
Commissioner May stated that since he volunteered to go to the Northern Dakota County
Airport Relations Corrunission, he has not been notified of any meetings. The
Commission will check with Administrator Batchelder to find out the meeting schedule.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REPORTS
1Vlarch Technical Advisor's Report
Commissioner Petschel noted on page 4 that there is a significant difference in the
ntunber of arrivals and departures for the City and Eagan in comparison to last year. She
would like to know if there is a particular factor that would account for the big difference.
March 2000 Corridor Analysis
Chair Beaty noted that flights are heavier on the south side than the north side, and it is
hard to understand why. The Cornmission wiil ask Administrator Batchelder to checic on
this information.
Chair Beaty stated that the City needs publicity to push its agenda regarding airport
issues.
It was the consensus of the Commission to request that the new Commission brochure be
�"� sent to residents with the next issue of Highlights. To just add the brochure to the rack of
-_ ' others at City Hall will mean that many residents will not know about it or read it.
Chair Beaty stated that he would like to begin preparing a video script at the next
meeting.
Commissioner May stated that he knows a contact person for the St. Paul Pioneer Press
and would be w-illing to contact that person with information about the Commission's
work for a story. He suggested inviting this media contact person to a Commission
meeting to inform her of the issues from the City's perspeciive.
Commissioners discussed a possible agenda of the following topics as educational
information for a newspaper article:
o Ask her to �o to certain locations in the City to understand the roar of noise that
residents must tolerate, such as Rogers Lake Park.
� Give her a brochure and a copy of the Coinmission's Noise Plan of Action.
o Provide information on head-to-head and hush-lcitted operations.
0 Make sure she understands that the Commission is a grass roots vohuiteer group that
is in a David and Goliath type of situation.
o EYplain positive results that have been achieved.
m Information on the run-up enclosure issue.
i l Q Future equity in the zunway use system
• Budget of the airport--the cost to move it versus what is being spent now.
It was the consensus of the Commission to have Commissioner May invite the media
contact person and irivite her to the next Commission meeting on June 14, 2000.
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deanne Gueblaoui
Recording Secretary
f `, r.
�
�
CITY OF M7ENIiOTA I-�EIGHTS
��.
July 6, 2000
To: Airport Relations Commission
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator
Subject: Unfinished and New Business
I)ISCUSSION
On VJednesday evening, there will two main items to be discussed. First, MASAC took
action at their June 27, 2000 meeting on a host of important Part 150 Study Update issues,
including runway use system, land use measures, 17-35 flight tracks, lo�v demand flight tracks,
and noise abatement departure profiles. Most of the votes were as recommended by Roy
Fuhrmann in the June 27, 2000 MASAC agenda included in your Acknowledgements. (Please
refer to these memos for a detailed discussion of each noise mitigation recommendation.)
Second, it is that time of yeax to discuss our annual update of the Airport Noise Plan of
" Action. I will be prepared on Wednesday evening to discuss our progress this year and begin a
�' _� discussion of priorities, goals and action steps for next year. (Please see attached 2000 Plan of
Action.)
. � , �: • , �
Acknowledge update on Part 150 Noise Mitigation actions by MASAC. Discuss the
Airport Plan of Action.
C�
_... �. , ,'
_ ..
,_ , .
; ; �. ,._
. ,,' ._ _ _ _ . ; ,..__
. s . . _ _ . __ _;
� ��;��,�! �
. Y `k w ,�� } - �.': # y, i
� '� January 10, 2000
C
��
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORi
TOPICS OF INTEREST
January �0, 2000
HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES
1. Part 150 Study Update
a. Equity of Current Runway Use System
b. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
c. Corridor Definition Issues
d. Nighttime Restriction on Aircraft Operations
2. Accelerated Conversion to Manufactured Stage Iil Aircraft
3. MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Issues - Expansion of Existing Airport.
. MEDIUM PRIORITY ISSUES
4. Global Positioning Satellite Technology.
5. Noise Measurement Issues - a. Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour
b. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring
( ,_. , (ANOMS).
6. Prevention of Third Parallel Runway — Amend Contract with MAC
7. Promote Run-Up Pad Enclosures �
ISSUES TO BE MOPIITORED
8. MAC Representation
9. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Uptlate and Related Land Use Controls
10. Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures.
11. Aircraft Engine Run-Up Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over
Minneapolis.
12. Implementation of MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan
TOPICS99.INT
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
l ` � 999I2000
FOCUS ISSUES
1. Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
A. Monitor the Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Procedures
B. Pursue the Adoption of "Ciose In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures
C. Urge the Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations
D. Impiementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor
E. Monitor Conformance with three-mile heading procedure.
2. Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heiqhts Air Noise Concerns
A. Educate Policy Makers About City Positions and Action Plan
B. Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line
C. Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information and Information about the work and
effort of the City.
D. Continue to collaborate with the Northern Dakota County Airports Relations Coalition
(NDCARC).
E. Continue to keep abreast of other communities' issues and actions.
F. Work with Metropolitan Council representatives.
3. MSP Lonq Term Com�rehensive Plan
A. Monitor and encourage promulgation and adoption of air noise mitigation requirements in
Mitigation Committee's plan.
4. Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System
A. Prevent construction of a third parallel runway.
B. Work to Eliminate the Use of Head to Head Operations.
j ��
4. Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use SYstem (Continued)
C. Monitor Progress of N/S Runway 17/35.
D. Monitor Runway Use System (RUS) for conformance with MAC Policies.
5. Specific Noise Control Measures
A. Assure conversion of Stage III quieter aircraft by federal deadline of year 2000.
B, Monitor MASAC's plan to reduce aircraft engine run-up noise and aircraft ground noise
during periods of departure.
C. Promote the implementation of Global Positioning Satellite Technology to control
departure headings in corridor.
6. Noise Reduction Throuqh Litiqation
A. Examine Feasibility of Legal Chailenge
7. Expand eligibility of Part 150 Sound Insulation Proaram in areas affected bv air noise exposure
8. Metropolitan Council Noise Zone Map and Related Land Use Controls
A. Revise Metropolitan Council land use zones and controls to the previous land use zones.
A:\FOCUS.99fin.doc
;
. � � � •`. � • �
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goai: Monitor the Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Minimize
Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure
Action Ste�s:
1. Monitor Compiiance with Tower Order
�
3.
4.
NSDP's — Request Continued
Compliance Reports
Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on
105 Degree Heading on 12R
Work with FAA and MAC to Achieve
Higher Levels of Use of Procedure
� � 1
VNho
Staff/
ARC
Staff
ARC
Staff/ARC
MASAC
Staff//ARC
When
Quarterly
Fali 1999
1999
1999/2000
. • � � . � � �1
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce
Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights.
Action Steps �Vho When
1. Review NADP Procedures
2. Continue to pursue adoption of
- . "close-in" vs. "distant" departure procedures
3. Review Park 150 Study Update's work on
departure procedures
�
ARC Part 150 Study
ARC/Staff Continuous
ARCIStaff Monthly
„ . _
� � ,� ■ � � � �'.
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation Over
Mendota Heights
Action Steps: V!!ho When
1. Advocate Incentives/Disincentives CCIARC
for Manufactured Stage III Only between
10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m.
2. Scoping Letter to MAC Requested �0 p.m.
to 6 a.m. Quiet Hours as component
of Part 150 Study Update
3. Advocate Quiet Hours and/or Mandatory
Rules during Part 150 Study Update
' � � 3
CC/ARG April99
ARC/Staff On-going
C,�
• � � � �' � � •
Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes Mendota Heights Air
Noise Exposure
Action Steps Who
1. Advocate for Maintenance of 5 mile final StaffIARC
arrivals and 3-mile corridor for departures
included in Scoping Letter to MAC on
Part 150 Study
2. Pursue the benefit of updating .Tower Staff/ARC
orders to original intent before shift MASAC
in magnetic headings included in Scoping
letter to M�C on Pa�t 150 Study Update
When
Continuous
1999/2000
3 Monitor Corridor Compliance and Departure Staff/ARC Continuous
Excursions
� �� 4. Pursue Removal of "Hinged Corridor" and ARC
the repeal of Tower Order on South Parallel
Runway included in Scoping Letter to MAC on
Part 150 Study
. 5. Pursue proper Location of Corridor ARC/Staff
based on GIS Analysis of Existing
Commercial/Industrial Uses and Land
Use Compatibility Theories .
Long Term
6 Pursue Corridor Definition Issues During ARC/Staff 1999/2000
Pa�t 150 Study Update
7. Consider Consultant to Assist with Corridor Definition
�
�' i
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures
Goal: Monitor Conformance With Three-Mile Heading Procedure
Action Steps: Who UVhen
1. Review Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Staff/ARC Monthly
2. Alert MASAC and MAC About Compliance Staff/ARC As necessary
3. Work with FAA to Achieve Corridor Staff/ARC As necessary
Compliance
4. Insist that Technical Adviser's Report Staff/ARC Fail 1999
Continue to Identify MACs Policy
Boundary of 095°
5. Consider Consultant to Assist with Corridor Definition
0
Issue:
Goal:
� � � � � , � � �
Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Educate Policy Makers about City Positions and Action Plan
Action Steps:
1. Develop long-term strategic approach to
relations with legislature. Work with the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
to educate legislators.
2. Educate MAC Representative to our
concerns and issues with operations
and use of the MSP Airport and reliever
system.
3. Review New MAC representation
with Northern Dakota County Airport
Relations Commission.
�
W
i" � j
Educate Federal Representatives on FAA's role
:
ARC/Staff
ARC/Staff
When
Continuous
Fall 1999
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Goal: Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line
Action Steps: VUho �ilhen
1. Advertise in Each Quarterly Newsletter Staff Each edition
2. Continue to Handout Magnets on Request Staff As requested
Basis
3. Mention During Public Meetings
and Telecasts
4. Produce Government Access Segment
a. Develop Script
b. Work with NDC4 Producers
c, Public Airing
� � 7
City Council
ARC
Spring 2000
Jan/Feb.
March
April
�
Issue:
Goai:
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION -
Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information and Information about the work and
effort of the City
Action Steps:
1. Continue to inform the community on
ARC projects and concerns usit�� the
City's newsletter and separate single
page mailings.
2. Mail letters and Heights Highlites to
State Senators and Representatives
regarding ARC issues
3. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings
(i.e., Mr. Hamiel, State elected officials)
4. Expand coverage of air noise issues
by pursuing informational meetings with
editorial staffs of major papers
5. Continue to send press releases to
newspapers, State Senators and
Reps.
6. Update and Promote air noise
mitigation document.
7. Host an Annuai Open House for Community
8. Develop Informational Brochure for
Display Case
9. Annual Report to the Community
(, ) g
VVho
Staff/ARC
Staff
Staff
Staff
Council
Staff
VUhen
_ �.
Continuous
Continuous
Quarte�ly
1999/2000
Continuous
Staff/ARC Annualiy
Staff/ARC
Staff/ARC
Annuaily In Winter
Fall 1999
C
�'
Issue:
Goal:
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Continue to Coilaborate with the Northern Dakota County Airpo�ts Relations Coalition
(N DCARC)
Action Steps:
1. Define Accomplishments of NDCARC
2. Provide Information to City Council
About the Benefits of Collaboration
3. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting
of ARC's
._< . .
4. Work to Build Trust Amongst Members ARC
and Respective Councils
' ) 9
Who
ARC
ARC
ARC
INhen
1999/2000
1999/2000
As Scheduled
Continuous
C
A
Issue:
e. -
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Continue to Keep Abreast of Issues and Actions of Other Airport Communities
Action Ste�s: Who INhen
1. Review Media Outlets for News Articles Staff Continuous
and Publish in Friday News '�
2. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting of ARC Annually
NDCARC
3. inform Other Communities of our Issues Staff Continuous
and Actions �
4. Distribute NOISE Newsletter to City Staff Bi=weekly
Council and ARC
LLJ
C
�
C�
��
Issue:
Goal:
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns
Work with Metropolitan Council Representatives
Action Steps:
1. Mail Letters and Heights Highiites
to District 15 Representative
2. Meet with District 15 Representative
to Educate and Lobby on Mendota Heights
Air Noise Issues
3.
0
Resolve Land Use/Air Noise Zones Issues
Meet with and Educate Met Council StaffStaff
�
Who When
Staff Quarterly and
As needed
Mayor/Staff Annually
Council/Staff Current
As needed
C
Issue:
Goal:
. � � � � � � •1
MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan
Monitor and Encourage Promulgation and Adoption of Air Noise Mitigation Requirements
in Mitigation Committee's Plan
Action Steps:
1. Participate in MASAC Action Plan
�- to Implement MSP Mitigation Plan
�` 2. Review MSP Mitigation Plan
3. Participate in Part 150 Study Update
to Ensure Goals of Mitigation Report
are met
�
�. ? 12
VVho l�lhen
ARC/Staff Monthly
ARC/Staff
.
••• 111
C
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System
Goal: Prevent Construction of Third North Parallel Runway
Action Steps:
1. Monitor MAC Compliance with Contract
2. Monitor possible MAC Ac�uisition
of Bureau Mines property
and MAC interest iri off
airport properties in 3rd runway area
3. Renegotiate with MAC on Terms in
Minneapolis/MAC contract.
5. Direct MAC on Preparation of Exhibit
of Affected Properties
� 13
l�►ho
StaffIARC
Staff
VUhen
Continuous
As necessary
Council/Staff Current
Council/Staff
C� ,
,
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System
Goal: Work to Eliminate Use of Head to Head Operations
Action Steps: Who �Ilhen
1. Advocate Completion and Projected ARC/Staff 1999/2000
Use of Runway 17-35 as part of
Part 150 Study Update
2. Eliminate Head-to-Head Operations
included in Scoping Letter to MAC on
Part 150 Study Update
3. Advocate a revise Runway Use System
that eliminates Head-to-Head Operations
during quiet hours
4. Negotiate with FAA on Head-to-Head
Operations - -
�
14
••• 111
ARC/Staff 1999/2000
ARC/Staff 1999/2000
C
C�
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System
Goal: Monitor Progress of N/S Runway 17/35
Action Steps: Who When
1. Oppose any attempts to revise projected ARC/Staff Contint�ous
use percentages of Runway 17/35 as
identified in MSP 2010 Comprehensive Plan
2. Advocate for Timely Construction of
New Runway 17/35
�
(� ) 15
ARC Continuous
� �
w ;
0
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: Advocate a More Equitabie Runway Use System
Goal: Monitor Runway Use System (RUS) for Conformance with MAC Policies
Action Steps: Who When
1. Review Existing Runway ' ARC/CC 1999/2000
�Use 5ystem
2: Request MAC to Reconfigure
Runway Use System to
incorporate changes consistent with
MSP 2010 Comprehensive Plan for
Runway 17/35
3. Monitor Gate Penetration Analysis
for Compliance with Established
Cor�idor Procedures
4. Review Technologicai Opportunities
to Equitably Distribute Traffic in
Runway Use System
5. Ensure Technology is not used to
Increase Capacity in the Corridor
� 1 16
ARC/CC
ARC
ARC
ARC/Staff
1999/2000
Monthly
r���
2000
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTI�N
Issue: Specific Noise Control Measures
Goal: Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000
Action Steps: � Who When �
1. MASAC Consideration of ARC/Council Periodic
Stage III compliance
2. Pursue the Adoption of an Incentives/ ARC 1999/2000
Penalties Program for Stage lll NDCARC
Compiiance by Airlines included in
Scoping Letter to MAC on Part 150 Study �
Update
3. Pursue-an accelerated phase out o� ` ARC/Staff 1999/2000 �
hush-kitted aircraft I
�
Issue:
Goal:
AIR NOISE PLAN �F ACTION
Specific Noise Control Measures
Monitor MASAC's Plan to Reduce Aircraf� Run up Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During
Periods of Departure.
Action Steps;
1. Review Bluff Noise Issue
2. Promote the installation of a Ground
Run-Up Pad Enclosure
3. Monitor Low Frequency Noise Study
for Mitigation Techniques to Address
Vibration and Back Noise along Bluff Area
` � 18
iNho When
ARC 1999/2000
ARC/Staff 1999/2000
ARC/Staff 1999/2000
Issue:
Goal:
�
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Specific Noise Control Measures
Promote the Implementation of Giobal Positioning Satellite Technology to Control Arrival
and Departure Headings in Corridor Without Increasing Capacity
Action Steps: Who I�Ihen
� 1. Advocate during Part 15Q Study ARC/Staff 1999/2000 �
Update to preserve Three and Five Mile
Finals on Arrival
2. Advocate During Discussion on °rof�r��,�
Runway Use System Revisions
3. Promote Standard Instrument Departures
and Final Approaches through the
Use af Global Positioning Satellites
� � 19
ARC/Staff Continuous
ARC/Staff Continuous
C�
�
Issue
Goal:
, . � • . � ► �',
Noise Reduction Through Litigation
Examine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air
Noise Distribution
a..,.
_ �. Who When
Staff/ARC Continuous
Action-Steps:
1. Continue to be kept abreast of other
communities' issues and possible
litigation process
2. - Consider Freedom of Information Request
for EIS or FONSI's on Increased
Opsrations in Corridor
3. -� � Consider Legal Challenge Options:if
North/South Runway is Delayed or
If runway use perce,ntages diluted
�� � 20
Staff/ARC 1999/2000
StaffIARC 1999/2000 � :
AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION
Issue: Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas Affected by Air Noise
Exposure
GoaL• Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation
Action Steps: l�tho When
1. Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn Staff/ARC On-going
contours and monitor the Part 150
Sound Insulation program completion
process.
2. Examine the feasibility of purchase or ARC/Council 1999J2000 . �,
.,;� acquisition through Part 150 for severely
impacted areas .
3. Ensure ANOMS data used for Noise Contour Staff/ARC . 9e�-� _
Generation for 2005 Part 150 DNL 60 MASACOn-going
__
} 4. Advocate for the increased use of Staff/ARC Continuous
Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) for Council
funding Part 150 programs
�
� 21
�
AIR NOISE PL�N OF ACTION
, ��
Issue: Metropolitan Council Noise Zone Map and Related Land Use Controis
Goal: Revise Met Council Land Use Zones and Controls to the Previous Land Use Zones
Action Steps Who IlVhen
1: Work with City Council and ARC Current � '
Planning Commission on Comprehensive '
Plan submission
;
2. Review MAC 2005 LDN Contours foc. ARC/CC 1999
Application to Land �Use Zones-
3. Consider Updating Sound Attenuation ARC/CC 2000 ;
Ordinance to current standards j,
I
�
� _
ti0.A�
!
Updated January 10, 2000
ACTIONPL.99fin
� 22
i
\ P
�
�
IVI�'I'ROPOI,I'I'A�T C��JNCII.,
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
May 31, 2000
Citizens, Local Governmental Units & Interested Parties
SUBJECT: AVIATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE
The Metropolitan Council is updating the 1996 Aviation Chapter of the Me�ropolitan
Development Guide. An aviation policy task force will assist the Council, its staff and
consultants, in the update process. It is anticipated that the task force will meet about six times
starting this summer, with completion in early 2001:
If you would like to receive a copy of the meeting notice/agenda please call the Council's Data
Center at (651) 602 — 1140, and ask to be placed on the aviation INTERESTED PARTIES '
mailing list. The task force will meet in the Council Chambers on the following proposed dates:
m
0
�
�
.
0
Meeting 1
Meeting 2
Meeting 3
Meeting 4
Meeting .5
Meeting 6
— June 14, 2000
— August 9, 2000
-- October 11, 2000
— November 29, 2000
— December 13, 2000
= February 2, 2001
8:30 to 10:30 a.m.
._ « «
« «
« «
« «.
« «
(NOTE: Schedules may change — please check the Councils' WEB site for meeting information
(www.metrocouncil.org). .
Key elements of the work program to update the Aviation Guide to a year 2020 planning horizon
are:
�
0
�
�
�
0
Identification of deficiencies in the existing 1996 Aviation Policy Plan.
Preparation /review of issue papers (e.g. on Aircraft Noise, Safety, System Performance).
Evaluation/preparation of aviation forecasts and forecast scenarios.
AnaIysis of the regional airport system plan and development alternatives.
Determination of facility costs and implementation priorities.
Coordination activities, public hearings, adoption and publication of revised aviation
guide. .
` When the project nears completion additional notice will be given concerning public inforrnation
meetings and public hearing schedule. If there are questions or concerns please call Chauncey
Case in Transportation Planning at (651) 602-1724.
; ; . . _
� • x, �" t,;' ii
5 '
TO:
FR�I�:
SITT�JEC'T:
Dt�'I'E:
MASAC
�
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Safellite Programs
Preliminary Recommended Noise Abatement Measures
May 15, 20t10
The Part 150 Update process has been moving forward at a steady pace. With significant input from
1VIASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee, the Part 150 preliminary Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs)
and associated noise compatibility program are predicated upon extensive analyses, data and input from all
involved parties. At the May, 22-25 public workshops, information -will be provided highlighting the
following topics.
Recomrnended 2005 Day Niglat Level (DNL) Contours " .
_ ,,,:. : .,
Proposed noise abatement measures for the recommended Part I50
Ilpdate .
Proposed land use measures for the recommended Part I50 Update
The information being provided at the public workshops is a function of several Part 150 Update noise
compatibility program measures. The following mitigation measures have been reviewed and analyzed by
the MASAC Operations Committee.
Runway I7 Flight Tracks: Several runway 17 departure track alternatives were reviewed by the 17/35
City Group and the MASAC Operations Committee. After receiving correspondence from the
impacted communities, the MASAC Operations Committee endorsed the 105° hybrid track dispersion.
This proposal results in 190 people removed from the 70 DNL, 230 people added to the 65 DNL and
1030 people removed from the 60 DNL. The total change within the 60+ DNL results in 990 people
being removed (all of the population change values are relative to the 2005 Unmitigated Contour).
Preferred Low-Demand Departure Flight Tracics for Runways 30U30R, 12U12,�, �4, 22: In an
effort to reduce-noise impacu during low=-demand periods the MAS�1C Operations Committee
endorsed preferred departure tracks for runways 30L/30R, 12L/12R, 04 and 22. T'he intent of this ini-
tiative is to determine flight track priorities and procedures for use by ATC, which would minimize the
impacted population, for use in low-demand periods.
` � � Runway Use Systsm (RUS): The MASAC Operations Committee reviewed several different RUS
.
options. After extensive analysis and review it was determined that RUS implementation required
evaluation relative to periods of varying operational density at MSP. As a result, the MASAC Opera-
tions Committee reviewed various options for implementation during low (less than 14 operations per
hour), medium (up to 60 operations per hour) and high (over 60 operations per hour) operational peri-
ods at MSP. The result was the development of an RUS which could be implemented during the low
and medium operational time periods at MSP. Use of the EIS outiined RUS would be used during high
demand periods. This proposal results in 30 people removed from the 70 DNL, 200 people removed
from the 65 DNL and 310 people removed from the 60 DNL. The total change with in the 60+ DNL is
540 people are removed (all of the population change values are relative to the 2005 Unmitigated Con-
tour).
Noise Abatement Departure Profiies (NADPs): After �onsiderable research and analyses, the
MASAC Operations Committee endorsed the existing use of the Distant Departure Profile for runways
12L/12R, 04, 22 and the EIS assumption of the Distant NADP for runway 17. In addition the Commit-
tee endorsed changing the NADP off runways 30L/30R to the Distant Departure Profile. This proposal
results in a reduction of 9,800 impacted individuals within the DNL 60 contour. �
Land Use Measures: The MASAC Operations Committee Reviewed 14 total land use measures for
consideration. Eight of the 14 were existing Part 150 land use measure modified slightly for incorpora=
tion into the Part 150 Update proposal. The Council endorsed the original eight land use measures. The
remaining land use measures (LU9: LU14) will be evaluated at the June 9, 2000 MASAC Operations
Committee meeting. Additionally the MASAC Operations Committee requested modification to the
Metropolitan Council's Aviation Guide Chapter to reflect language that designates the DNL 60 as the
land use planning standard for all corrective andlor preventative measures. It is the Committee's intent
to have ail communities consistent with their land use planning and ensure consistency with the PART
150 Program land use and impact area provisions. The Metropolitan Council is currently reviewing a
proposal endorsed by the MASAC Operations Committee.
° Other Recommended Aleasures for Further Evaluation: Additional mitigation measures are cur-
rently being evaluated by the MASAC Operations Committee. These measures include aircraft fleet
mix alternatives and future GPS applications. -
The resultant preliminary Part 150 Update noise compatibility program results in the following effects on
popularion within impacted areas relative to the 2005.Unmitigated DNL Contour:
• I)1VL 70 dBA contour - approximately 260 people added
� DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 320 people added
� DNL 60 d�A contour - approximately II,30D people removed
� Total change in the 60+ DNL contour - approximately 10,720 people
. and 4,290 dwellings are removed from the contour
It is important to note that the vast majority of individuals added to the contour levels above 60 DNL, are
already receiving noise insulation as part of the existing Part 150 program. The small number which is
added and is not already receiving noise insulation are a result of runway 17/35, which impacts a
predominately new area previously not eligible for insulation.
D: �masac�5-? l-Calmasac_may00u pd a ted.Im
\
(, .
The above information represents..a significant effort an behalf of the MASAC Operations Committee and
all those who have been involved thus far on the Committee level. A thorough briefing, by Kim Hughes of
� HNTB, will be provided at the May 23, 20t}0 MASAC meeting covering all of the above topics and
associated information in detail. The presentation wilI be in a review format in an effort to provide
MASAC with all the Part 150 Update information to date. This information will facilitate informed action
on the rnentioned items at the June 27, 2000 MASAC meeting. The resultant decision made by MASAC at
the June 2'7 MASAC meeting will solidify the Part 150 Update process and transition the document
preparation into the draft document phase of developmenL
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-'725-6326
9
D: �masac�S-33-DOM�sac_may00updated.tm
� � ;,: , ��, }i
�
p
` .!, .� :
k'R01VI: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
��
SLT�JEC'I': Revision of Metropolitan Council's Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for
Aircraft Noise
Dt�TE: May 15, 2000
At the May 12, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting Mr. Chauncey Case, Metropolitan
Council, reviewed draft revisions to the Land Use Compatibiiity Guidelines for Aircraft Noise.
'Ifie intent of the review and any propased revisions is to ensure all communities are consistent
with their land use planning and ensure consistency with the Part 150 Program land use and
impact provisions as included in the Part 150 Update. The following praposed revisions were
reviewed by Mr. Case:
� The deletion/replacement of dated or inaccurate text material -�_
� Incorporation of 1999 amendment recommendations from the public hearing document
� Incorporation of up-to-date noise policy contours for all system airports (currently being
coordinated with MA.0 to develop and provide to the communities noise contours in a
GIS format)
� Assessment/incorporation of low-frequency noise information (an issue paper is being
� prepared as part of the aviation guide update with recommendations in a public hearing
document)
m Assessment/revision of the MSP Noise Policy Area to reflect the 2005 Part 150 Update
Noi�e Exposure Map (NEM)
.------
Additional changes to the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Policy Plan were reviewed. T e'� `�.
proposed changes relative to future planning were as follows: ��( ��: 'S�` ��
a That the MSP 2005 Part 150 NEM submitted to the FAA include a D�L 60 noise contour
as recognized land use planning/implementation standards for the regional airport system;
� That the recommended 2005 NEM, with a DNL 60 contour and �ne-mile bufFer zone, be
incorporated in the Aviation Policy Plan as part of the land use compatibility guidelines,
and;
That the DNL 60 becomes the contour at which communities apply the compatibility
guidelines in their local plans for "corrective" land use measures in noise mitigation
programs.
As a result of this review and si�n�cant follow-on discussion, the MASAC Operations
Committee approved a motion recommending to MASAC that a letter be sent on behalf of the
Council ta the Metropolitan Council in support of the reviewed proposed future planning
changes for the Aviation Policy Plan.
If you have any questions, please contact.me at 612-725-6326.
Actaon Iteauested
That MASAC supports the Metropolitan Council's proposed future planning changes for the
Aviation Policy Plan Update, as outlined im this memo.
�
Apri125, 2000
City of
BURNSVILLE
100 Civic Center Parkway • Burnsville, Minnesota 55337-3817
Mr. Roy Fnhrmann
Metropolitan Auports Commission
6040 28`� Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 5�450
Dear Mr. Fuhrnzann:
(61Z) 895-4400
I continue to follow with great interest the many creative ideas proposed for distributing aircraft from the new 17-35
runway. I must reemphasize as I did in my June 20, 1999 letter to you, that Burnsville is adamantly against .
concentrating aircraft departure tracks over a reduced portion of the south metro area. Our position is based on the
following reasons. First, is the issue of basic faimess. One of the key issues associated with building the : 7-35
runway was equitable distribution of airplane noise. The new runway operates exclusively to and from the south.
This operarional fact prede�ermines that approximately 1/3`d of all airport depariures will be redirected away from
existing flight patlis-good for Minneapolis but not so good for Burnsville, Eagan, and Apple Valley. A large
number of people in these communities will be significantly affected by aircraft activities for the fust rime.
Concentrating these new aircraft events unnecessarily over a reduced geographical area is not in keeping with the
simple norion of each community doing its fair share ta support the internarional airport.
Second, is the issue of approaches. All aircraft approaches to the new runway, or approximately 17% of all
approaches to the airport, must fly an aligned straight—in flight path. This means nearly every approach will be
over Apple Valley and the Cedar Avenue corridor on the Burnsville/Eagan border. There is little option for
rerouring these aircraft particularly during high aircraft traffic times. This automatic concentrarion of aircraft
arrivals makes any suggestion of further concentrating departures over the same area a mockery of fairness and
common sense. It would perhaps make more sense to send departing aircraft west over Bloomi.ngton and the river
valley and southeast to avoid the arrival corridor altogether.
Finally, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was conducted for the new runway based on a 190° degzee flight
path dispersal pattern. This was done at least partly in recognition of the need to fan out aircraft on the widest
possible headings to minimize the impacts on surrounding communiries. Additionally, it is not entirely clear that
concentrating flight paths would not require reopening of the EIS process—a potentially controversial and time-
consuming process.
As you know, Bumsville has supported a responsible regional approach to auport issues since the. dual track
planning process began over a decade ago. Then Mayor, Dan Mc�.lroy, supported a"good regional citizen"
upp:oach tl:at included a fair ar.d eq��:teble di�pe:sio.^. cf aucraft noise �reur_� the international 2irport. At r.o time
did Burnsville promote a purely provincial "anywhere but here" approach. We feel very strongly that operations to
and from the new runway should be dispersed over the largest area possible in keeping with the flight track
modeling represented in the EIS.
cc: Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Jeff Hamiel, Me�opolitan Airports Commission
John Nelson, Chair—MASAC Operations Committee,
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Glenn Orcutt. Federal Aviation Administration �
� ��i � s .swy
;} -
May 2, 2000
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager
Aviation Noise and Satellites Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann:
PATRICIA E. AWADA
Mayor
PAULBAKKEN
BEA BLOM9UIST
PEGGY A. CARLSON
SANDRA A. MASIN
Councii Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Adminisrrater
E. J. VAN OVERBEKE
City Cierk
At its meeting on April 1$, 2000, the Eagan City Cauncil approved a position statement
regarding the inclusion of multi-family residential structures in the prioritiza.tion of the Part 150
residential sound insulation program. - �
The City of Eagan recommends that individual communities may allocate Metropolitan A'irports
Commission Part 150 sound insulation funds to insulate multi-family dwellings as long as the
multi-family units are not counted when apportioning residential sound insulation funds to each
community.
This allocation recommendation may be an issue that is more appropriately addressed at the Part
150 Policy Advisory Committee. For the purposes of the Part 150 update currently being
conducted, the City of Eagan favors prioritization of single-family residential units in the sotind
insulation program to 60 DNL unless multi-family insulation can be conducted without adversely
impacting the funding or timely participation of single-family homes.
Sincerely,
�/� ��''``' "�% i �-
�ames D. Verbrugge
Assistant City Administrator
Copy: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator
Steve Vecchi, Metropolitan Airports Commission
MUNICIPAL CENTER
3°�0 PILOi KNOB ROAD
�AGAN. MINNESOTA 55122-199'
PNON=: (651) 687-4600
i-AX (057)651-0512
T�^.p (651):.�5�-853�
TNE IONE OAK TREE
THE SYMBO� OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equai Opportunity Empioyer
MAINTENANCE FACILITY
3501 COACHMAN POINT
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE: (651) 681-4300
FAX: (051) 681-4360
TDD. (651) 454-8535
��
�w° �� xs= `� •
�sr ��.
���,; k;a � ••�� 1• •■ �� ll' • �!
22i�'�:__,��i����������eei<��c • Bicom�nc'an �.tt: 5:�:?31-3Ch?c • 01�4�'g-&?g0 . F^},:b12-�a8-&;5� • TfY:bi?-q4.F-�'�0
Gene L. Winstead
;�^�ti�.;
Mav 3. 2000
Mark Bernhardson
C:;t ...�.^CC�r
d
Roy Fulu-mann
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28`" Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN �5450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann.
This letter reports the BloozninQton City Council's preferences related to the Part 1 �0
Revision alternatives presentedyto the Council on Monday. May 1. Thanl: ��ou for
attendina this meeting and answering our questions.
ISSUE: UsinQ A Separate FIi�ht Track for Turbo Prop Aircraft
FAA Tow�er has suggested using a departure track "outside the fan" for turbo prop
; commercial aircraft and propeller driven general aviation traffic. Based on initial
�-- � analysis by MAC, it appears that this procedure would have minimal noise impact on
Bloominaton residents providing that, as described in the EIS, less than 20% of all turbo
prop departures from the airport utilize this track. The City Council understands that this
procedure would improve the operation of the resultina departure fan and also would
improve the ability to implement a Minnesota River departure procedure. If a separate
turbo prop departure track ���ill facilitate jet aircraft operational measures which reduce
_ noise impacts on Bloomington residents. the City of Bloominaton can support departures
of turbo prop and aeneral aviation prop traffic which turn over the City of Bloomin�ton.
ISSUE: Rumva�� 17 Departure Tracks
Pendin4� receipt of final noise impact analysis. the Git}- of Bloomin�ton supports the
altei-natire described as "eliminate Tracks G and F and add a 230 or 21� degree headin�
ti-ack." This is consistent with the Citv's written comments on the EIS and with our stated
�.zoal of minimizinQ the number of homes and residents within-the DNL 60 contour.
ISSUE: Ri��er Departure Procedure
The City of Bloomin�ton supports developin� a river departure procedure because it
minimizes noise impacts on residential areas and is a point of a�reement amon� cities
affected b�� rum�•ai� 17 departures.
-,r� �.rr��,�:i�.� .cn�r�;E::�_,:;' =`�::_-., . �;r;._ � �� _ ..
Rov Fuhrmann
Mav 3. 2000
Paae 2
ISSUE: Fleet Mix
The noise exposure maps showina the benefit of eliminatinQ or restrictin� hush-kit
aircraft illustrate the dramatic benefits which could be achieved by restrictions or phasing
the hush-kit aircraft out of the fleet mi�. The . City of Bloomin�on supports and
encourages efforts by NIAC's Board and Executive Director to find ways to implement a
. fleet mix solution. However, the City of Bloomington's position for Part 1 �0• is that there
must be a demonstrated ability to achieve any voluntary fleet niia program before it is
incorporated in the Part 150 contours.
Thanl: you for your consideration in clearly presentin� these alternatives and their
impacts. Any questions can be directed to Zarry Lee, Director of Community
Development at 9�2/9�8-8947.
Mayor
/c
cc: Gora1 Houle, MAC Commissioner _
Jeff Hamiel. MAC
a
l
i
May 5, 2000
S �� �: i' ��. � i
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager
Aviation Noise and Satellites Programs
IVietropolitan A.irports Commission
6040 Z8�' Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann:
PATRICIA �. AWr,DA
Mc,,.
PAU� BAKKE!�
BeA BLOMelUIST
PEGGY A. CAR! SON
SANDRA A MASih
Councd Mem�a��
THOMAS HEDC-ES
City Adminisrr�,�
E. J. VAN OVERbEKc.
Ciry Cler,
At its meeting on May 2, 2000, the Eagan Gity Council o�cially recommended the �5°
departure flight track fan, endorsing the elimination of flight tracks A(95° heading over Eagan)
and G(285° heading over Bloomington). The City Covncil strongly recommends that departing
aircraft over southwest Eagan be confined to the 160° and 170° flight tracks modeled in the.
Envirorunental Impact Statement. This recommendation was made after considering a number
of important and di�cult factors: . �- �
� Using the 2005 base:case percenta.ges, the addition of Runway 17-35 means that 63.6%-
of a11 arrivals at MSP will fly over Eagan —16.9% on the new runway and 46.7% on 30I.
and 30R. Translated into daily averages, 501 arrivals per day will severely impact our -
entire community, of which 133 per day will newly impact the Cedar Avenue corridor.
Again using the 2005 base case percentages, 44.5% of runway 17 departures will fly over
southwest Eagan. On an average day, that equates to 129 of 291 runway 17 departures
that will impact Eagan. Factt�r in the effects of the 12L/� departure tracks and it is very
apparent that the Eagan community will bear the brunt of more airport operations than
any other community.
� Eliminating Track A wonld shift those aircraft to Track B, still within the confines of
Eagan, and does not shift overflights in severe noise-impacted zones to other
communities. " "
o The area of severe irnpact in the �5° departure fan is largely in an area of Eagan that
would be included jn.the 60 DNL f 1-mile buffer.. There is currently an effort at the
Minnesota Legislature to create a mitigation plan for impacted communities that could go
beyond the area of eligibility for federally approved Part 150 progranis (60 DNL). This
is important when considering that Track A and Alternate Track H(60° fana will create
- substantial noise in a.reas that would not be included in the l-mile buf%r zone, and
therefore ineligible for even limited mitigation that individual communities may be able
�" � to provide through State legislative initiatives. '
�PvtUiNICIPAL CEt�TER
3E3� Pi! O'. KNOb ?�AJ
EAGAN. M�NN�SOiA 55122-1897
PHONE (651) 601-460C
r'AX (c57;68�•dCi2
TD� (85'; C�.c•9�.,_
THE LONE OAK TREE
THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWiH IN OUR COMMUNITY
Equai Opportunity Employer
MAIPITENANCE F,4CIG11'
3501 COACHMAN PO�r�;
EAC-Af:. MINfJeSOiA 55'22
P�ONe (65'; b8'-C3�_
FAX. (b� ; ) 6E � -c3b�
T�D (��i)d�G•p`_:°
• The 85° departure fan for runway 17 wouId add 170 people to the noise exposure area of
60 DNL or gzeater. The City Council understands that this is contrary to the intent of �.
Part 150, which is to min;mi�� the overall noise exposure of individuals. However, the
Council felt that this was an acceptable trade-off considering that:
➢ Most of the increase in noise exposure is in the Eagan community. In fact,
nowhere does an increased DNL impact in another co�munity approach the level
of perceptibility as a result of this recommendation.
�' Sample point analysis conducted by HNTB for the April 25, 2000 flight track
alternatives report showed a 6.0 DNL reduction at location Rl'7 Q in Eagan. This
� location is in a residential neighborhood under Tra.ck A. It is, by far, the single
greatest reduction in noise achieved in the alternatives modeled and the only
recluction that is likely to be an appreciated benefit.
This recom.mendation respects a notion of local control that the City Council should be allowed
to make the decision of which local impact is in its best interest – so long as that decision does
not negatively impact other severely affected communities, which the 85 ° departure fan
apparently does not.
The City Council also recommended that all operations during the nighttime and low demand
periods should be prioritized to the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor, the only azea around the
airport specifically;,.zoned and guided for airport-compatible land uses. Runway 17/35 should ',
only be used when operational considerations absolutely necessitate it and that those operations �°
should be confined to either the 170° departure heading or a river track departure heading.
On behalf of the Eagan City Council and the Eagan Airport Relations Commission, thank you for
continuing to engage the City of Eagan in this most i.mportant policy decision.
Sincerely,
�� —
James D. Verbrugge .
Assistant City Administrator
Copy: Mayor Patricia Awada and Eagan City Councii
Mayor IViary Hamann-Roland, City of Apple Valley
Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, Ciiy of Burnsville
� Mayor Gene Winstead, City of Bloomington
John Nelson, A�iASAC Operations Committee�Chair
`'
�ITI2�ISVII,LE � EAGAl�t • SAVAGE
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 191
Business Office �(612) 707-2050 • Fax (612) 707-2002
100 River Ridge Court • Bumsville, Minnesota 55337
i_' _r_:..�. �.:... _ .. ."�--- _ . . ..
• ���
• :ta�
-�..,.__. _
Mr. Roy Fuhrmann �
Metropolitan Airport Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis MN 55450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann, �
We understand that there are a number of p"roposals to modify the proposed flight tracks
relating to the north/south runway. School District 191 has 3,100 students attending 6
school buildings located in close proximity ta Cedar Avenue. These schools are at the
southeriy edge of the 60 DNC contour for the 2005 runway configuration. �
We are concerned about siudent safety as well as noise levels that would be disruptive
to teaching and learning. - . -
Proposals to limit the dispersal of aircraft would likely concentrate more traffic and noise
along Cedar Avenue, thereby having a more significant adverse impact than originally
projected. In our opinion, there needs to be a fair distribution of air traffic over the entire
metropolitan area, safety issues need to be addressed, and noise mitigation provided as
needed in school buildings.
Thanks far your attention to our concerns.
Sincerely,
L��..�:�-E,�,. � -�.-�.�...�.�
Carter A. Christie
Business Manager
CAC/mp
cc: Tom Hansen; City of Burnsville
An Equa! Oppartuniry Employer
� , _ ::, . � . i' .� ; � lI .,..' ' :'�':� � � ~ `t�. ji
�� �
. � � , . � � t�"
: . . '.i" � , �.: . . _ . . . ..
-.�. � . ...,: � .:.'. :. . ' .. . . ' . .
�; . . ..' . ' ;.; .. .
. i _.: . . , . �' . . . . . . "�..
.:�. . � . ,�. .:..:� . .. . . ...., .. � �.�. . ..
f
� ' '.'. ' ' "�: •:. ..;.
: . � . .:•�� .. .. . ',"
.;: . . � :.. .. ..�.. . ..'... . "_ � : � "
� ; �.�• �J :�i
� ' ,,1 J
. .. , . � . . . .
, .. , . '. . . �. ..
.. _ . . :,�: .. . . :..
. . : � • • , . ::�� . �. , .� - . . �� '. . .,.. .�.' _�� ....�.
, • ��' `; : :,.- i
..: . • ::�: � •.. . :�: ..- .,.... � . '.. ..''. ' '..: . .:... . ..'..... :� Ii..
. . : . . �. . .. _ . ... . .. .
:.. . �. �. . �;. . .. .. �.. _
'�' . . . . �., .�: .
. � '.'' . :. �. - . , . . , . •.,
.
•
. . .. . . . . . ,-, . . �� . � ..'. . .,.
. ... . . . - � - . . . .. .. :�. . �•; f 4�.
(� � ' _ . . ' ' . � ' , . . �.
-;..
,. .
. . ,:
... ;, _ : ; . ,,
;..
. �-
_ :. . ,
_
. �� _ r
�
�
�
METROPOL�TAN AIRCRAFT SOUND AlBA7['EIVIENT COUNCIL
GENE�2AL MEE'TIN�
April 25, 2000
�:30 p.m.
6040 28`h Avenue S.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order. Roll Call --
, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 7:30 p.m. The following members
were in attendance: -� .,
Charles Mertensotto Mendota Hei�hts
Mary Loeffelholz Northwest Airlines
Jennifer Sayre Northwest Airlines
Steve Holme Northwest Airlines
Nancy Stoudt Northwest Airlines
Chuck Curry ALPA "
Brian Bates Airborne
Chad Leqve MAC
Bob Johnson MBAA
John Nelson Bloomin�ton
Jamie Verbrua�e Eagan
� Chuck Thorkildson ,� Eagan
-- Kevin Batchelder Mendota Heights
Will EQinton Inver Grove Heights
Ne'rl Clark � Minneapolis
Sandra Colvin Roy � Minneapolis
Dick Saunders Minneapolis
Mike Cramer Minneapolis �
Glenn Strand Minneapolis
Joe Lee - Minneapolis
Jeff Beraom Burnsville
Pam Dmvtrenko Richfield
Itristal Stokes Richfield
Advisors ,
Cindy Greene FAA
Mike Pedro MAC
Jason Giesen MAC
Shane VanderVoort MAC
I�iark Kill MAC
Visitors
Gene Franchett Dakota County
; � � ?. Approval of Minutes
a
'�he minutes of the March 28, 2000 MASAC meeting were approved as distributed.
3. Introduction of Invited Guests , �
There were no invited Quests.
Receipt of Communications
• A letter was received from the City of Burnsville o�cially reco�nizing Jeff Beraom as the
city's NIASAC representative.
o"A letter was received�'from the City of Richfield officially recognizing Pam Dymtrenko as the
city's MASAC representative taking Mark Hind's place.
4. �. Potential Sound Insulation Options Beyond DNL 65
Steve Vecchi, MAC Part 150 Sound Insulation Prob am Manager, briefed the council on some of
- the potential options for insulation beyond the 65 DNL.
1996 DNL 6� Program Completion Status
Mr. Vecchi reviewed the "original" acoustic package now being used for the sound insulation
program. The following elements are included in this package:
• Window treatments
� Door treatments
� -• Roof vent baffling
• Wall and attic cellulose insulation (except in the walls of stucco houses)
o Air conditioning � � .
• Required IAQ/ventilation modifications �
These acoustic elements are used in combination to achieve an interior 5-decibel reduction. -
� Mr. Vecchi also reviewed the status of how many homes have been insulated and how many are
left to complete in the current pro�ram, as well as the program's costs.
� Between 1992 and 1999, 5,345 homes have been insulated at a cost of $127.6 million.
o The pro�ram's annual budget was recentl.y.-raised from $25.5 million to $36.5 million.
o MSP's Part 150 Sound Insulation Program is currently the largest in the nation and will be in
the future, as �ve1L
� The housin� stock has chanQed drastically from small single-story homes with�selativeIy few ,
windows and doors to thee-story brick homes with multiple window and door openings.
4 Since 1992, the average cost per home has increased from $19,OOD to $40,400 in 2000. The
increase in the cost per home is largely due to the housing stock and not to inflation.
m Of the $40,400 average, approximately $5,400 is for administration costs and $1,800 is for
IAQ/Ventilation testing. � � �
� Approximateiy 1,9�5 homes are left to insulate in the cui-rent program. Approximateiy 903
will be completed in 2000, 903 in 2001 and 149 in 2002.
o It is estimated that the 1996 65 DNL contour will be completed by early 2002.
e When the 1996 contour:.is completed, there will be ap.proximately 335 homes within the 2005
65 DNL contour that will need to be insulated. Once these homes are insulated, the program
will continue with the 64-60 DNL homes. : �
2
2005 DNL 64-601nsulation Strategies
Mr. Vecchi provided some insight into the issues and concerns the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) may have regardina MSP's proposal to insulate out to the 60DNL. These
include:
1. City support for the 60 DNL incompatibility designation - The FA A will want to see proof of
ciry support for this designation through city resolutions and city planning strateaies.
2. Insulation package differential between the insulation packages being provided for the 75-6�
contours and the proposed package for the 64-60 contours - There is no precedence for
insulation beyond the 65 DNL.
3. Maintenance of a 5-decibel reduction goal - Currently the program achieves a 6 to 10-decibel
reduction.
4. Contour boundary adjustments - The FAA is typically conservative with boundary
definitions. Currently, if the contour touches a block, the whole block is insulated.
5. Prioritization of single and multi-family structures within the 2005 DNL65
Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Vecchi how the FAA views the multi-family issue.
.. .._ Mr. Vecchi said he is unsure how the FAA will treat multi-family proposals, but noted that the _
MSP Noise Miti�gation Committee had listed multi-family structures as, a priority for insulation. -
Ms. Colvin Roy said the City of Minneapolis, when they passed the prioritization resolution,
believed it was confirmin� what had already been planned.
Mr. Vecchi then reviewed three possible acoustic insulation packages for the homes in the 64-60
DNL contour.
I. Original Package Options (5 dB Package) �
a. Contin�e to include air conditioning
b. Continue to include air conditioning with a$ cap (homeowners have option ta pay
- difference or not have air conditionin� included)
c. Use original package but do not include air conditioning '
2. Revised Packa�e Options (reduce the STC and ANLR goals for the acoustic doors and
windows) '
a. . Provide air conditioning with new package
b. Provide air conditioning with new package with a� cap (homeowners have option to pay
difference or not have air conditioning included)
c. Provide the new package without air conditioninb
3. Air Conditioning Only Option
Comrrients:
m Air conditioning accounts for about 1/3 of the cost of acoustically insulatiag a home.
o It is very difficult and expensive t�o provide air conditioning to homes with hydronic heat.
m Most homes with hydronic heat systems do not have existing air conditioning units or duct
work.
� ChanainJlowering the STC and ANLR goals would require a lot of research in order to be
sure this type of package would continue to provide a 5-decibel reduction.
� Providing air conditionin� only may not provide the required 5-decibel reduction goal.
� These are only options. No one option has been chosen as the best
3
Mr. Vecchi then presented a graph showin� how long it would take to complete the 200� 64-60
contour given two different average costs per home and an annual budget of $36.5 million.
o Approximately 16,083 homes are projected to be included in the 64-60 DNL contour.
• At an average co,st of �40,400 per home (using the original package), the program would not
be completed until mid-2020.
• At a,n average cost of $30,000 per home, the prob am would not be completed unti12015.
• The pace of construction is dependent on the availability of contractocs, as well.
• These scenarios do not include multi-family homes.
Mzslti-F'amily Structures - 75-6�DNL
« There are a total of 177 multi-family structures or complexes representing a total of 2,469
individual units. �
• A majority (132) of the multi-family structures are small (4-24 units).
, • Title II is designated as housing for the disabled. There is one complex desib ated as Title II,
which has a total of 54 units.
• The total estimated cost of insulating these structures is approximately $29.5 million to $31.5
million. a
Mr: Vecchi said a multii-family insulation prob am would be: similar to the school insulation
„ program in that it would primarily include the replacement of windows and doors and the baffling `
of interior wall air conditioners.
Mr. Vecchi also enumerated a number of unknowns associated with a multi-family insulation ,
pro�ram, including: �
1. Actual unit sizes and window/door opening sizes
2. City codes, EGRESS and ordinance restrictions
3. Construction staging, scheduling and access impacts
4. Regulatory issues for federally subsidized units
" 5. MAC Multi-family Part 150 program policies
6, Impacts of future economy (materials and labor)
7. Proaram development (start up) costs
8. STC and ANLR window and door requirements
9. Required IAQNentilation remediation
\
Mr. Vecchi also sug�ested that it may be best to run a multi-family insulation program as a�
separate program from the single-family residential program. He said it would be problematic to
stop the residential insulation program for both the residents and for the contractors that work on '
the homes.
Chairman Mertensotto asked how soon a recommendation for prioritization would be needed.
John Nelson, MASAC Operations Committee Chair, noted that the Operations Committee has
asked that each citysubmit i�s recommendations to NIASAC by May 1, 2000. �
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked what the estimated cost of insulating the remaining sin�le
family and multi-family structures within the 2005 60 DNL :�contour (based on an average of
$40,400 per home and �31 million for the multi-family structures) would be. Mr. Vecchi said the
total cost ���ould be approximately $750 million over the next 15 to 20 years.
r.�
`
4
There was a discussion reQarding how subsequent Part 250 Updates over the next 1� to 20 years
would affect the program. Several questions were raised, including whether or not everyone
included in the 2005 60 DNL contour should be guaranteed insulation no matter what might
happen to the contour. .
John Nelson, Bloomington, endorsed guaranteeing insulation to those people within the approved
2005 60 DNL and that there be language included in the Part 150 update to that effect.
Chairman Mertensotto said the sound insulation prob am is not an entitlement proQram and that if
the noise environment changes, so should the contours and thus who is eligible.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the particip�ants of th�._ current program are
guaranteed insulation. Mr. Vecchi said all of the people currently eligible for the program will be
insulated. He noted, however, that if the airport conducts a Part 150 update after 200� and a new
contour is approved, the 2005 map becomes null and void.
Kristal Stokes, Richfield, asked whether the homes that were deferred in Richfield due to chanaes
in runway 4/22's expected operations would be eligible for insulation. . Mr. Vecchi said these
homes are not included in the current eligible area and have not been grandfathered in.
Chairman Mertensotto noted that although the allowable Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) rate
had been incre-a5ed from $3 to $4.50 per ticket, the airport will not receive any more than i� does
cunentl_y:w• Iv1ary Loeffelholz, NWA, noted, too, that the airline lease a�reements were based on
an expected increase of $2 ��per ticket and that the $1.50 increase` falls short of the lease
expectations.
5. Part 150 Update Review of Pro�ress and Associated Items
2005 No-Build Runway 17/35 Contour Analysis
Kim Huahes, HNTB, displayed a"no build" contour that illustrated the effects on the contour if
the new runway were not built. The "no build" contour uses the existing 1999/2000 runway use ;
data, the expected operations level and the 2005 fleet mix. The no build contour also incorporates
approximately 7% of the day operations (approximately 110 operations) being pushed into the
niaht hours due to capacity constraints that could be expected (based on a SIMOD analysis)
without the new runway. . .
Compared with the 200� Unmitigated Contour, the no build contour adds approximately 22,280
people to the contour. In other words, �vithout runway 17/35, an estimated additional 22,000
people would be impacted within the 60 DNL leveL
RUS Developmef7t
Ms. Hu�hes then presented a briefing on the analyses done so far for the Runway Use System
(RUS).
The following factors influence runway use az�d are interrelated.
0 Weather and wind conditions . _
m Capacity and flow requirements
n - Traffic demand � � � .
� Aircraft separation -
p Pilot; compliance and safety considerations
� ATC
� ) o Safetv
• Runway use is determined primarily by wind and capacity requirements. These requirements
limit options to significantly change runway use, even with the addition of a new runway.
• Capacity requirements drive runway use during the daytime hours, so runway use altematives
are primarily viable only during nighttime hours when there is low traffic demand.
Existing Runway Use Percentages
ANOMS data from January, February, March, October, November and December 1999 was used
in conjunction with data from Apri1, May, June, July, Aujust and September 1997 to determine ,
an est3�ated annualized runway use. "
Existing Runway Use System
The existing priorities for runway use at MSP are:
1. Maximize the use of the Eagan/Mendota Heights Conidor with aircraft departing runways
12L and 12R and arriving runways 30L and 30R. .
2. Head to head operations should be used when operationally fea5ible: .
3. Balanced use of runway 4/2? when possible.
4. At all other times, depart runways 30L and 30R and arrive runways 12L and 12R.
The "balanced use of runway 4/22" means that the runways are used with equal prioriry 6ut does'
nof guarantee that equal numbers of operations will occur at each runway end.
2005 Projected (EIS) Runwav Use Percentages � -
The 2005 runway use percentaQes were taken directly from the Dual Track EIS and were used for
developing the Unmitigated 2005 Contour.
Although the FEIS did not specify an RUS, the methodology used in the EIS to forecast night
runway use for ZOOS was to shift existing nighttime 4/22 operations to runway 17/35 (except
during hi�h wind conditions) and concentrate the remaining traffic on the southern parallel
runway (departures using 12R and arrivals using 30L). �
RUSAlternatives Methodolo�y "
Three basic truths for RUS development: -
1. . RUS implementation is most effective during periods of low traffic demand.
2. The RUS must recognize weather and wind limitations.
3. The RU5 must be operationally feasible and safe for use by air traffic controL
1. Traffic Demand: In order to determine periods of low traffic d�emand, a traffic deriaand _
analysis was performed. To do this, ANOMS data was used to quantify the average number
of aircraft operations in 1999 during one-hour increments. This inforination was then used to
forecast the average hourly operations for 2005. Discussions were also held with Cindy.
Greene of Air Traffic Control in which she indicated that the RLj�S is best implemented when
there are no more than seven (7) operations in a 30-minute period or F4 operations in an hour.
- This is the criteria used to determine when an RUS could be implemented. �
The demand analysis showed thai in 2005 the best time for an RUS to be implemented is
bet���een 12 midnight and 5:00 a.m. during which time a maximum of 13.2 oper-ations is
projected to occur in one hour. The 12 midnight to 5:00 a.m. timeframe was used to model
the RUS alternatives. This is not to say that an RUS could or could not be implemented at all
:_ _ _ _ _ �_
,:�
�
times durin� this timeframe. The interactions between aircraft would still be a determinin�
factor.
The RUS could also be implemented durin� the middle of the day during periods of low
demand, but for modeling purposes the 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. timeframe was analvzed.
The demand analysis shows that the potential exists to reassign night runway use for up to
10.93% of the nighttime departures and 27.97% of the nighttime arrivals, or 18.87% of the
total nighttime operations. (This percentage represents 2.� 1% of the totaI daily operations at
the airport.) The analysis is purposely conservative.
Although the analysis focuses on the 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. timeframe, the RUS .would still be
applicable during low-demand daytime hours. Any changes tb the RUS modeled for the
nighttime hours would have benefits for daytime implementation, as well.
2,. Wind and Weatlzer Conditions: The RUS alternatives analysis also includes provisions for
nighttime wind data over the last 10 years (midnight to 6:00 a.m. from January 1990 to
December 1999). It is assumed that aircraft are capable of departing a runway with up to a 20
knot crosswind and/or a 7 knot tailwind. It is also assumed that aircraft are capable of
lan�in� on a runway with up to a 20 knot crosswind and a zero knot tailwind. Winds beyond
these limits would require aircraft to use another runway.
Additional Assumptions: The RUS alternatives analysis assumes a conservative methodology
in order that it does not overstate the possible impacts or benefits of any alternative. The
analysis also assumes:
s There will be zero interactions between aircraft durin� the low-dema�d period and that
� � - any runway can be chosen independent of traffic conflict and flow considerations.
- a Head-to-head operations can occur on runways 12L /12R and 30L/30R, and on runway
17/35 when deemed operationally feasible by ATG
� The projected percentage of nighttime operations on the north and south parallel runways
�vas determined by ANOMS data. The data shows that a higher percenta�e of aircraft at
night use the south parallel runway (of the total operations using either the north or south
parallel runway, 65% have used the south parallel runway).
0 Since the use of runway 4/22 is restricted due to the necessity of cross-runway operations
and other FAA safety concerns, the RUS alternatives are adjusted so as not to exceed the
1999 runway 4/22 nighttime use percenta�es.
In addition, the runway use percenta�es used in the FEIS and the forecasted percentages noted in
the RUS alternatives are operational goals. However, variation from these percenta;e forecasts
will occur due to safety issues, ATC, weather conditions and temporary runway closures.
Runway use alternatives were developed by:
1. Determinin� a runway priority order. (ie, the highest priority runway to the lowest priority
runway)
2. AssiQnin� rr�aximum use to the priority runway up to the wind coverage ]imitations.
3. Continuing to assian maximum use to each runway, as prioritized, up to its wind coverage
limitations.
4. This continues for each runway until wind coverage equals 100%.
R US A1 ternatives
! j Kim Hughes, HNTB, presented the six run�vay use altematives.
l. ExistinQ RUS
m The existing RUS maximizes the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor by departing on the
12's and amvinQ on the 3Q's, (�
• Uses head to head operations in the corridor when operationally feasible; '
• A balanced use of runway 4/22;
• As last option, depart 30's and amve on 12's.
When applied to 2005, use of ruriway 17/35 is:minimized during low-demand periods.
Compared with the 2005 unmiti�ated contour, this alternative adds appro:cimately 1,400
people to the contour (out to 60 DNL). (Ms.yHughes noted that total parcel and population
counts are still being verified.)
2. Alternative 1
o Maximize use of 12's (to the southeast) for departures and runway 35 (from the south) for
arrivals. ;
o Secondly - depart I7 (to the south) and arrive 30's (from the southeast).
o Use head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible in the corridor or on
17/3 5.
a Third priority - balance use of 4/22 _
� As last option, depart 30's (to northwest).and arrive on 12's (from northwest).
Compared with the 2005 unmitigated contour this alternative adds approximately 1,430
people to the contour (out to 60 DNL). .
3. Alternative 2 �
• Maximize use of runway 17 for depariures (to the south) and the 30's for arrivals (from • �
the southeast).
e Second priority - depart 12's (to the sautheast) and arrive on 35 (from the south).
e Use head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible.
� Third priority - balanced use of 4/22.
• As last option, depart 30's and arrive_on 12's. ..
Compared with the 2005 unmitigated contour this alternative would add approximately 1,310
people to the contour (out to 60 DNL). "
4. Alternative 3
� Maximize use of the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor by departing on the 12's and
arriving on the 30's.
m Second priority - depart runway 17 and arrive runway 35.
o Use head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible.
o Third priority- balanced use of 4/22.
• As last option, depart 30's and arrive 12's.
Compared with the 2005 unmitigated contour, this alternative would add approximately 1,060
people to the contour (out to 60 DNL).
5. Altemative 4:
� MaYimize use of runway 17 for departures and 35 for arrivals.
o Second priority - depart 12's and arrive on the 30's. � �
8
a Use head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible.
• Third prioriry - balanced use of 4/22.
o As last option, depart 30's and arrive on 12's.
Compared with the 2005 unmitigated contour, this alternative wouId add approximately 1,850
people to the contour (out to 60 DNL).
6. Alternative 5- A combination of all of the other altematives.
• Maximized balanced use and equal priority given to 12's and runway 17 for departures
and 30's and runway 33 for arrivals.
o Use o.f-h�ead to head operations when needed and operationaily feasible.
• Second priority - balanced use of runway 4/22. �
o As last option, depart 30's and arrive on 12's. �
Compared with the 2005 unmitigated contour, this alternative would add approximately 1,480
peopie to the contour (out to 60 DNL).
Although the initial analysis indicates that the 2005 unmitigated conto,a:ir, which uses the EIS
assumptions, provides the most benefit to the .communities, additional analyses are being
completed to determine whether there are other options available.
R US Recommendations �.�
l. Develop an RUS that considers a 24-hour period although modeling of such may be Iimited
to nighttime RUS.
?. Continue analysis using the unmitigated contour (EIS assumptions) RUS and inform
MASAC if integration of RUS and flight track analyses changes;this preliminary finding.
-:� �-
Future Analysis
Ms. Hughes then briefed the members on some of the upcoming analyses.
1. Fleet mix alternatives
e No-hushkit scenario (although not a viable alternative, communities asked for the
information)
� No-hushkit at night (although not a viable alternative, communities have asked for the
information)
• Potential voluntary program to cut hushkit use at night
2. Preferred departure flight tracks for each runway (except possibly runway 30L/30R) for use
durina low demand periods
3. RUS in combination with runway 17 dispersion recommendation �
4. Metropolitan Counci] Land Use Policy Review
5. Land use alternatives (modifications to the existing measures and possible ne�v measures will
be analyzed)
Chairman Mertensotto-asked how many projected �operations were used for developin� the 2005
unmitigated contour. Ms. Hughes said the FEIS high forecast of 575,000 operations was used.
She noted that in 1999 there were 510,000 operations.
Chairman Mertensotto also asked how the number of existing nighttime operations compares with
the projected number of nighttime operations. Ms. Hughes said there are currently about 140
/ operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. She said in 2005 that number is projected to be
� approximately 197.
0
6. GRE Feasibilitv Results
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the members on the history and backsround of the (�
Ground Run-Up Enclosure (GRE) Feasibility Study. y
�ISIpYy
• In 1998 staff conducted a Ground Noise Monitoring Study to determine the sources of ground
noise at MSP. �
• The Ground Noise Monitoring Study determined that � ound run up activity was a secondary
sourc� of ground noise at MSP, with departing aircraft being the primary source.
� In 1998, as a separate initiative, the east and south walls of the ground run up pad (GRP)
�were extended by MAC and the airlines for safety and liability reasons.
s In February 1999 th� MASAC Operations Committee asked staff to conduct a noise
monitoring study for the GRP. Tliis analysis included noise monitoring and initial interviews
with the airlines' maintenance employees.
• Through these interviews staff found that the maintenance crews wanted (1) to extend the
allowable times for performing run ups, (2) to have the ability to use any headin�, and (3)
improve the aerodynamics of the pad.
• In August, the MASAC Operations Committee directed staff to evaluate possible alternatives
to the current GRP at MSP to provide noise reduction at the airport.
• The airlines were involved throughout the feasibility study process.
Study Background -
.• Several types of aircraft ar-e run up at MSP including t�ie �8727, B74=7; $757, A320, DC9 etc.
• The three ]ocations currently� in--use for run ups include the GRP (the primary location), the
south end of runway 4/22 and the north end of runway 4/22.
• The south 4/22 location will not be available once the new runway is operational. '
• A majority of the run ups performed at MSP are run at below 80% maximum thrust.
Ted Woosley, Landrum and Brown, then briefed the members on how the feasibility study was
conducted and its findings.
Noise Monitoring Y
� Noise monitoring was conducted on November 23, 1999 from 10:35 p.m. to 11:18 p.m.
� � Northwest Airlines provided a DC-9 hushkit aircraft and crew for the monitoring.
• There were eight separate monitoring sites. Two were on the airport, one was in Richfield,
one was in Bloomington, one was in St. Paul, one was in Minneapolis, one was in Mendota
, Heiahts and the last was in Eagan. (A map of the site locations was provided.)
,.
: � All of the sites were manned except for site #2 on the airport, which was covered by the
individual at site 1. A staff inember was also inside the cockpit.
• The monitoring was conducted at night in order to determine what a worst case scenario for
run up noise levels. (Community ambient noise levels are lowest at night.)
� Noise monitoring measurements were taken with the aircraft both inside. and directly outside
the GRP to deterniine how well the existing GRP attenuates noise. �
Mr. Woosley then presented the noise monitoring results.
� The largest difference between ambient noise levels and the run up noise levels occurred in
Richfield atsi,te 3 where the difference between the ambient and the run-up levels were 15.3
_ _ , _ ��
�
dB. The highest recorded noise level durina a run up was 62.3 decibels with a corresponding
ambient level at 47 decibels.
� An aru�ualized average and single-event contours for a DC-9 hushkit, B727 and A320 aircraft
were Qenerated to determine the impact of the run up operations at MSP over the course of a
year and during a single event.
� There are no homes within the annualized average contour (which is similar to a DNL
contour).
• The single-event contour for the B727 was the largest. The A320's contour did not leave the
airfield.
Fz�ture Considerations
� Soon the only alternative location for run ups besides the GRP will be the north end of
runway 4/22. A single event run up of a'727 at this location affects 40 to 60 blocks in
Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Alternatives
l. Do nothing - cost $0 but will not provide all-wind capabilities or additional noise reduction
2.
3.
Enhancernents to the existing GRP - will not provide all-weatY�er wind capabilities but in
sorne cas�s may provide noise atfenuation
a) Add aerodynamic enhancements (rolled top) to the east wall - to minimize the burbling
effect experienced with east crosswinds, alth.ough it would do little to minimize noise
impacts - the cost is approximately $1 million
b) Extend the :west blast fence to 35 feet from 14 feet - the cost is approximately �1 million
and. would reduce noise about 6 dB to the west
c) Attach acoustical panels to the outside of the existing GRP blast fence, on the south and
east walls - the cost is approximately $1.5 million - it would reduce noise by about 6 dB `
�� to south and east - may require structural strengthening of existing blast fence and would
be minimally effective in reducing noise to the west-without an extension of the wall
d) Combine scenarios 2b and 2c - the cost is approximately $2.5 million resulting in a 6 dB
reduction to the south and east with an 8 dB reduction to the west.
Convert the existing GRP into a new Ground Run-up Enclosure (G�2E)
This would provide all-weather capability. The cost would be approximately $8 million
(hi�h). It would reduce noise by about 15 dB to the west and north, 5 dB to the south and
east and could be used nearly 100% of the time. It may also enable a relaxation of the
nighttime curfew. Yet, there are significant aerodynamic challenges for constructing this
type of enclosure and it would require a taxiway reconfiguration.
4. Sup.plement the e�isting GRP with a new three-sided GRE located directly north of the
GRP. This would provide all-weather capability. The cost would be approximately $5
million. It would reduce noise by about 15 dB to the west and north and 5 dB to the east
when the new GRE is used. It could be used nearly 100% of the time and may enable a
relaxation of the ni�httime curfew. It would also require relocation of approximatel� 300
NWA parking spaces, a new concrete apron overlay and taxiway stub. The.existing taxiway
wouid be retained.
�. Articulating GRE - It would use a center turntable and the blast fence wou.ld be on rails. It
would provide all weather capabilities and would allow aircraft to pull in easily, lo.ck into
position and then pull out again. It is estimated that an articulating. GRE would cost between
� 10 to S 1 � million. Some of the concerns with this type of GRE is that it is undeveloped and
(� ) � � � � � � � � � � . �
m
untested for both usability and noise reduction. There would also be additional maintenance
requirements.
Cost/Bene�t Analvsis
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the members on a per decibel reduction cost/benefit
analysis performed by staff.
For each of the alternatives, an expected level of noise reduction over ambient for both the day
and nighttime periods at each site was presented.
A cost per decibel reduction for each altemative was also presented_
Fzrnding Questions _
Mr. Leqve then presented two funding possibilities.
l. Include the projecf in the MAC Capital Improvement Proa am (CIP). CIP requests are due in ':
June for the following year with revisions made up throu�h December. This project is not
currently included in the CIP. Both MAC and the airlines would have to aaree to an� ,
chan�es to the CIP. If no aa eement is reached, the MAC would have to determine whether -
non-aviation generated funds should be used, such as from parking and concessions.
.` 2. Include the project in the Part 150 Update to make it eligible for aviation generated. monies,
although it would most likely end up in the MAC CIP fundin� process as defined in item 1. �"
Airlines Posztions - : �:,
Most airlines feel they can work within the eYisting parameters of the existing GRP and the
exisfing field rule. They also feel no enhancements are needed for the existing GRP.
Staff Recommendation > � i .
MAC staff has recommended that the west wall of the existina GRP be extended from 14 feet to
35 feet at an estimated cost of $1 million. This alternative would proyide some noise reduction
for the communities, is consistent with the 1998 modifications to the east and south walis, and
provides some operational flexibility for the airlines and increased safety on adjacent tasiways
MASAC Operations Coinniittee Recommendation
At its April 14, 2000 meetinj, the MASAC Operations Committee recommended that no ' �
modifications be made to the existing ground run up pad.
` JAIVIIE VERERUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND MARY LOEFFELHOLZ, NWA,
SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT NO FURTHER MODIFiCATIONS OR CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE TO THE
.
EXISTING GROUND RUN UP PAD. A BALLOT VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION
FAILED ti�ITH A VOTE OF 9 YEAS AND 13 NEAYS. �
Discussion on the Motion :
Jamie Verbru��e, Ea�an, presented several reasons for his support of the Operations,Committee's
recommendation and noted that EaQan's support of the Operations Comrriittee's recommendation
• is not due to the fact that Eaaan would not procure any benefit from the project. The fallowing
reasons were given for the city's support of the recommendation: .
1 The Ground Noise Monitorin� Study faund that run up activities at MSP are a minor source
• �
of ground noise at the airport.
2. Run up activifies are almost completely masked during the daytime hours. l .
3
4
The number of niohttime run up operations is too few to justify any change.
It is possible that four blocks west of Cedar Avenue in Richfield will be developed in the
future.
Many of the homes included in the single-event contours for the B727 and DC-9 aircraft have
already been insulated.
An estimated 20 nighttime run up operations per year would be shifted to the north 4/23
alternative run up location once the south location is unavailable. Of those 20 operations,
only four would be B727's or DC-10's.
Mr. Verbrug�e asked the members to seriously consider supporting the Operations Committee's
recommendation.
Will E�inton, Inver Grove Heights, reminded the members that the purpose of MASAC is to
improve the noise environment around the airport for the following reasons: -
� The $1 million expenditure was not sib ificant compared with the cost of sound insulation.
He said he felt that the cost of the project should not be a consideration when making a
decision.
• StafP� recommendation would improve, to some degree, the noise environment in
Bloomington, which will absorb much of the impact from the new runway.
m Many hours and much work has gone into reviewing alternatives for the GRP.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she was not convinced that the report provided meaningful
information that could be used to make a decision. She said the study invol�es too� many �`
variables. She also noted that Northwest Airlines, since the interviews were conducted, has
shifted the majority of its DC10 maintenance operations to Detroit. She said it was :i�-�umbenf
upon the members to consider the economics of the proposal and find solutions that all members
could support. � . - .
Chairman iVlertensotto said he did not beIieve MASAC should consider economic _factors when
making these decisions. He said the economic decisions would be made at the Commission level.
John Nelson, Bloomin�ton, noted that the area in Richfield affected by a B727 run up is actually
16 x 22 blocks. He also noted that many of the airlines, in their initial interviews, asked for the
ability to run up 24 hours per day with no restrictions. He said he felt the staff recommendation
was a fiscally prudent alternative compared with the other alternatives.
Jennifer Sayre, NWA, noted that Northwest Airlines had sent a letter in March explaining that
Northwest Airlines could live within the existing parameters for run ups at the �irport. John
Nelsori, Bloominaton, acknowledged that this letter was part of the report.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said the initial airline maintenance crew interviews reflect a wish list
from these employees rather than a carefu] consideration of the operation.
Chairman I�fertensotto encouraged the members not to lose sight of the . noise reduction
opportunity.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said that althou�h the number of run-ups per day/year are
relatively fetii�, there would be a reduction in the noise at MSP during those times. He also noted
that the predominant aircraft at MSP is still the hushed DC-9. He agreed that MASAC should
take an}' and all steps available to reduce noise around the airport.
13
�
Neil Clark, Minneapolis, said MASAC should focus on its purpose, which is to find ways to
miti�ate aircraft noise.
Pam Dymtrenko, Richfield, clarified that any redevelopment plans for Richfield would not be
realized for another 10 years.
Chuck Curry, ALPA, said he felt noise mitigation monies would be better spent on modernizing
aircraft. He said it is reasonable to look into the future to determine whether the cost of
modifyin� the GRP would be beneficial in the long term.
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that the number of Northwest DC 10 maintenance
. operations had not sib ificantly changed since .1998 and asked Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, if
Northwest Airlines was conducting a phased in approach to movina i'ts DC1Q m�aintenance
operations. Ms. Loeffelholz said in. the l:ogs she used to research the issue Northwest Airlines'
DC 10 operations were reduced.
Chairman Mertensotto reported that a number of airline representatives had faxed or emailed
letters to the staff regardin� their position on the issue. He said MASAC operates under the
Robert's Rules of Order and that proxy voting would not be accepted. A brief discussion
followed with some members arguing again�-the decision and others arguing for the decision.
WILL EGINTON; INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MOVED AND PAM DYMTRENKO,
RICHFIELD, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMNiENDATION TH�1T
`. THE- VWEST -WALL OF THE EXISTING GROUND RUN UP PAD BE EXTENDED TO 35
�- FEET AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF �1 MILLION. A$ALL01' VOTE WAS` TAKE�1.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 12 "TO 10.
Discussion on the Motion '
There «�as significant discussion regarding the appropriateness of making a decision on the issue
without all interested parties present to vote. Chairman Mertensotto commented that a vote`was
entirely appropriate and that decisions are made by those who show up at the meetings. Jamie
VerbrugQe, Eagan, said he felt a show of hands would have been more appropriate than a ballot
vote. 4 ,
7. Report of the April 14, 2000 Operations Committee Meetinas -�
$.
9.
Due to the late hou�,re was no report of the Operatior�s Committee meetings.
Report of the April 12, 2000 Communications Advisorv Board Meeting
Due to the late hour, there was no report of the Communications Advisory Board meeting.
Report of the MAC Commission Meetir��
(.
Due to the late hour, there was no report of the MAC Commission meeting.
IO.. Teehnical Advisor's Report
� ' Chad Leqve; Technical Advisor, briefed the March Technical Advisor's Report and noted the
� follo�vinQ;
0 58 complaints were received via the Internet ir� March. •'
m
• To date, 170 complaints have been received in April via the Internet.
m Prevailing winds dictated a mostly northwesterly flow.
• Durzng the nighttime, there was a favored southeast flow.
• The predominant �aircraft operatin� at MSP for the month of March was the DC-9 with
10,214 operations. The second was the A320 with approximately 5,000 operations and the
third was the B727 with approximately 3,600 operations.
• The predominant aircraft in the top ten loudest noise events was the B727.
Chairman Mertensatto asked Mr. Leqve why there was an increase in the number of noise events
in all noise level categories in March compared with February. Mr. Leqve su�gested that this is
due to the shift in operations to the southeast in March where. the fli�ht tracks are more
concenttated over the.RMTs due to the nature of the Eagan/Mendota Heig�hts corridor.
11. Persons WishinQ to Address the Council
There were no persons wishing to address the council.
12. Items Not on the A�enda
, There were no additional agenda items.
13. Adjournment
Chairman ivlertensotta adjourned the meeting at 11:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
� �� ) � �
_� .
15
.. �
;
- ; i
�
� ���s o� � � l, Z000 s�c
�� ��o�� c ���� _ �� �
. .� .
. ,
�
�
� , � _�
- }� � _ :,�
.
�
�; ,
,
_ _ �:
_ ,
.
�:
, ,
���.=- �. _ - - � �
c
.�:: '�. .��� : ,.: -: _ r ..
.., ,: t r , .., -
_ -':t ' ' � ..
..� . �.. . . :�. :f... . � ..,. . �,. ,... . , ...:. �� � -��.
� �
Al'PIlOV�E� 1��I I IV LT T' E S
I0�4S�.0 OPE�'I'�OI�IS CC9IViI�IT�'EE �
I�ay 1, 2000 �
The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and i
called to order at 10:30 a.m. �
;
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members �vere in �
attendance: , �
. - .. �
. Members• ,.w. �
John Nelson, Interim Chair Bloomington
Dick Saunders Minneapolis ;
Bob Johnson MBAA �
Mary Loeffelholz NWA . - ' ; �
Kevin Batchelder Mendota Heights . -
Jamie Verbrugge Eagan I
Roy Fuhrmann MAC � j
, ,, !
Advisorv: - . =
Chad Leqve MAC
Jason Giesen MAC - .
(:. _ .� Mark Ryan MAC _ �
-- Mark Kill MAC `
Cindy Greene FA.A . �
Visitors: �
i
Mike Mahoney NWA� i
Kim Hughes HN'I'B
Pete _ �INT'B
Tom Lawell Apple Valley -
Andy Peterson Apple Valley
_ Will Eginton Inver Grove Heights ,
� 7ennifer Sayre NWA ',
Pam Dymtrenko Richfield
Jan DelCalzo , City of Minneapolis
r��aEl�tl�.A . I
�
Receipt of Communications
Chairman Nelson acl.�nowledged. receipt of three letters:
e A letter from Mayor Gene Winstead of Bloomington regarding t�ie city's recommendations for
I
)
I
�
sound insulation priorities.
• A letter from Mayor Elizabeth Kautz of Burnsville expressing the city's posiiion regarding runway �
17/35's departure fan area.
• A letter from Steve Hughes, Chairperson of the Airport Noise Abatement Commission of Inver
Grove Heights, regarding its position on the runway 17/35 deparnire fan area, the sound insulation
priorities and the distribution of the Technical Advisor's Report.
Approval of I�tinutes
p , eting were approved as distributed with the following changes:
The minutes of the A ril 14 2000 me
0 JenniferSayre, NWA, was present at the April 14, 2000 meeting:
� The minutes should have been distributed as unapproved rather thari approved.
� On page 8, para�aph 7, Roy Fuhrmann should be designated as from MAC rather than from NWA.
• On page 10, Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, abstained from tfie vote on the first motion on that page. The
second to the last line should read, "The �ote was carried on a voice vote with Mary Loeffelholz,
NWA:, abstaining."
' Arrival Impacts for Run�vay 35
Shane VanderVoort, MAC Advisor, briefed the merribers on the Runway 35 Amval Impacts analysis.
Irripacts were assessed for the cities of Bloomington, Apple Valley; Burnsville and Eagan using existing
` arrival operations on runway 12R:
Bloon7i�iJzt�n .
North, south and east gates were constructed to simulate Bloomington's boundaries. These gates were
placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the n,ew north/south nuiway.
��
The east boundary showed that an aircraft would be at an average amval altitude of 500 feet above ,.
ground level as ari aircraft completes its final approach to ninway 35. �' :. `.
<; Birr-�tsville ,
North, south, east and west gates were consiructed to simulate Bumsville's boundaries. These gates
. � ` were placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the new north/south nznway.
The arrivals on run�vay 35 will affect the extreme northeast corner of Burnsville where altitudes will be
approximately 1,000 feet above ground level.
Depending on how the parallel runways are being used for arrivals, Burnsville will experience some '
downwind arrival traffic. This traffic would be from either the east or west of the city.
Traffic entering the south boundary would be beginning to line up for final approach and would be at an
` altitude of 4,000 to b,0.00 feet above ground level.
APPIe Valle}�; �
A north and south 'gate were consh-i.tcted to simulate :Apple Valley's north and south boundaries. The
gates were placed at the same distance' and angle the city will be from the end :of the new north/south
run�vay: : ', . : _
_ (:....
2
The analysis shows that arriving aircraft will enter the city's south boundary to the east of its centerline at
' an average altitude of approximately 2000 to 4000 feet AGZ. The average altitude of these aircraft at the
northem boundary will be approximately 2000 feet.
Eagan
West, northwest and south gates were conslructed to simulate Eagan's boundaries. The gates were
placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the new north/south nuzway.
The average altitude of arriving aircraft entering Eagan's south boundary would be approximately 2000
feet AGL.
The analysis shows that arriving aircraft will enter Eagan's south boundary to the west of its centerline
and proceed along the western edge of the city. Arriving aircraft will then depart the city's northwest
boundary at an altitude of approximately 1000 feet AGL.
Will Eginton, Inver. Grove Heights� asked if a similar analysis had been done for departures off runway
17. Shane Vandervoort, MAC Advisor, said a departure analysis for runway 17 using one of the other
runways would nof'yield credible results. He said an arrival analysis can be considered credible because "
arrivals always use a straight in approach. _ �
Fleet Mix Alternatives �_
. :�Kim Hughes, HNT'13, briefed the members on the possible fleet mix alternatives for the Part 150 Update.
, :;
� Changes to.the fleet mix will necessarily be implemented through a voluntary program. A voluntary I
program is best since mandatory requirements would require application.of a Part 161 Study, which ��
would slow the Part 150 process, and would allow immediate implementation. � ;
� A voluntary program also necessitates thorough coordinarion with the primary carrier at MSP. Staff E
and consultants have been working with the primary carrier to determine viable hushkit/nighttime -i
operational reductions. _
a` Coordination with the primary carrier is important so that the recommended program reflects �
achievable reductions in hushkit and/or nighttime operations. ''. - �
o The fleet mix voluntary program an�lysis will include different levels of compliance in order to ;
determine how these levels of c�mpliance would affect the Part 150 contours. -
For benchmarlan� purposes and in response. to community scoping comments, DNL contours have been
developed for: � -
1. No hushkit aircraft in 2005
2. No hushlcit aircraft operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. in 2005
The no hushkit aircraft in 2005 contour shows a reduction of approximately 32,000 people from the
2005 unmitigated contour. The no hushkit aircraft operations between 10 p.rn. and 7 a.m. contour show5
a reduction of approximately:21,000 people from the 2005 unmitigated contour.
Ms. Hughes noted, ho�veyer, that neither of these alterna.tives is viable given tha level of hushkit
r.
3
operations and aircraft in the fleet mix at MSP.
Ms. Hughes went on to say that the fleet mix alternatives will ulrimately consider incentives/disbenefits `
for coriiplying or not complying with the proposed voluntary program, and that these alternatives will not -
be part of the recommended program presented to the public at the May workshops.
Chairman Nelson asked if the consultants were working with the primary nighttime carriers. Ms.
Hughe�s said they have not yet engaged these carriers in a dialogue but that they would soon.
Mike Mahoney, NWA, then briefed. the members on how Northwesfi Airlines views changes to the fleet
mix. He said deternuning what cari be done to reduce the`number of hush kit operations at night is: a
three-phased process for Northwest Airlines:
1. Deternune what impact a change iri nighttirrie hushkit operations would have on the noise contour.
2. DeternLine the cost of implementing the proposed changes:
3. Deterniine whether the airline could operarionally implement the changes.
Mr. Mahoney said that Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, is' working closely with HNTB on deternziniz�g the
impacts and noted that for fiscal and manufacturirig reasons there`would be no way for Northwest
Airlines to eliminate all of their hushkit aircraft'by 2005.
Mr. Mahoney then explained why it would be difficult for Northwest Airlines to elirninate huslikit
� aircraft from the 10"p.m: to 7 a.m. timeframe. He said many passengers rely on conXaections out of MSP
to the east coast before 7 a.m. Northwest is, however, looldng at individual flights to defemiine whether
a change from a' 100-seat DC9 aircraft to another larger or smaller aircraft (non-hushkit) would make
sense. He said realistically between 6:30 a:rn. and 7:00 a.m. Northwesf will have fo operate some �'
, hushkif aircraft. _... - . .
Mr. Nlahoney said' he believes there is more opporhinity for success in this area during the evening
. hours. He'said Northwest is looking at compressing its'schedule in order to have most, but not all, of its
hushkit aircraft depart before 10:00 p.m. 'He said the company will be relying on'the increased capacify
of the ai�eld afforded by the new runway. ` _
Mr, Mahoney said Jennifer Sayr �
e, NWA, is cuirently working on deterriiining how Northwest could
change its scheduling while he is working to determine how it might work operationally.
` Mr. Mahoney said it is very irriportant that NWA presents to MASAC a realistic expecfation as to what '
can be accomplished in this regard. -
_._ .
Mr. Mahoney also addressed some of the hidden costs associated with making these types of changes:'
He said there is the potential with some of these alternatives for an increase in labor costs (if the � '
schedule were to be compressed) and the loss of passeneer revenue (if `the. size of aircraft were to
chan�e).
Mr. Mahoney summed up his coinments saying thaf Northwest Airlines'.top'management wants to make
_ this happen, that he belieyes the` airline can offer quality improvements in :the morning and substantive,
changes in the evening, and that the airline will continue to work both internally and with MAC on
,.
.. . _ ; ,
�.
4
developing a voluntary progzam that will work.
;w�:;;:
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if Northwest Airlines was suggesting that the nighttime hours be
changed from 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Mike Mahoney, NWA, said that he was not suggesting this
change but was worlang within the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. timeframe because that is what the Integrated
Noise Model (INM) uses as nighttime hours.
-� Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he was glad to hear that Northwest Airlines is willing to work
with MASAC on the fleet mix issue but said he did not have much sympathy for the airline's concerns
since the airline had adamantly supported having the airport stay at its present site.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he� was glad that Northwest Airlines has shown a willingness
to work with MASAC on this issue because it is very important to the communities. He also asked Mr.
1Vlahoney to clarify how changing the the number of seats available for early morning flights would
benefit the communities. Mr. Mahoney explained that a larger aircraft (I50 seats) such as the A320 or a
smaller aircraft (69 seats) such as the RJ85, both non-hushed aircraft,_ could possibly be substituted for
the DC-9 hushed (100 seats) aircraft.
:. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if the DC-9 hushed aircraft Mr. Mahoney referred to were for
arrivals rather than departi�res: Mr. Mahoney said this was correct. '" `
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked Mr. Mahoney whether a compression of the schedule or a change in the '`
aircraft type bein� scheduled v��as easier for the-airline. Mr. Mahoney said the compression of tfie
schedule would pose less problems and would be more:cost effeciive for the airline. �
1
( )
Jamie Verbrugge, EaQan, asked if the a�-eements Northwest Airlines had with its pilots influenced the
type of aircraft that could be flown in the morning, Mr. IVlahoney said the pilot ab eements would not
influence this decision.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked Kim Hughes, HNTB; if the fleet rriix being used for the Part 150
Update accounted for new carrier entries. Ms. Hughes said the fleet mix for Northwest Airlines is now _ -
set. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that there is some consideration for new service incorporated into the
fleet mix being used for the Part 150 Update, however modeling of exact information for new entiants is
not possible.
Lo���-Demand �'liaht Track Alternatives
a
Kim Hughes, �INTB, presented the members with information about preferred low-d�emand (either night .
or day) flight tracl:s. She noted that the goal of the analysis was to determine the flight track priorities
and procedures for use by ATC, which would minimize the impacted population, for use in low-deman
periods.
Ms. HuQhes said in order to determine the best low-demand flight tracks for each iunway the consultants
used DC9 hushltiit 90 dBA SEL contours to measure impact. She also noted that the analysis took into
consideration that fliQht track priorities carulot `severely detour aircraft from their destination (a
northbound departure cannot be assi�ned to a southbound flight track). �
IYIs. Hughes also notzd that the recommended flight tracks are inteiided to give ATC g�idance on
5
selection of appropriate flight tracks during low demand periods that will impact the fewest people.
However, there will be deviations fram these recommended flight tracks due to safety, aircraft
perFormance, pilot compliance, weather and traffic conflicts. �
Ms. Hughes then presented the recommended flight tracks for each runway end.
_ Runway 04
• Use of runway 04 for depariures will be rriinimal in 2005.
• A departure track of 355° was recommended in order to keep aircraft over the river basin as much as `
possible.
Recommendation: ;
" • Wlien practical, ATC will assign headings that roughly overfly the river basin (approximately 355°
truel353° inagnetic). Yet, precise navigation of this route is not possible `without external navigation
to aid the pilot. Therefore a departure procedure (DP) that overflies the river basin for use by non-
heavy and high-performance aircraft should be developed and implemented. `
Runway 22
• Use of nuiway 22 for departures will be minimal in 2005.
s Heavy, international flights that require greater takeoff distance are the most frequent users of
runway 22.
Recommendation:
�• Develop and implement two departure procedures, a west DP and a south DP.
• West DP - Flight track over the I494 Highway Corridor for use by west-bound and northbound
traffic.
. • South DP - Flight track with a turn prior to Cedar Avenue and then another turri to the south�vest
over the river for use by west-bound and south-bound traffic. ."" �`
Ra�nway I ZL and I ZR (..
m Use of the existing Crossing in the Corridor Procedure impacts the fewest people.
Recommendation:
a Continue .use of the Cross'ing in the Corridor procedure. - '
• Investigate use of future technology to opfimize flight 'track location and further'miniinize the
impacted population. :
Ra�nway 30L and 30R .
• Due to the heavy population density in this area, designation of speeific, preferred flight tracks does
not provide substantial benefits.
• Designation of specific flight tracks for use during low-dexnand periods �vould concentrate flights on ,
select tracks and would thus disproportionately impact the same people. :
'` Recommendation:'
� �� Continue the e�isting procedure of dispersing departure traffic� away,-from the runway centerline '
' flight track to avoid concentrating both amval and departure traffic on the same flight track.
o Investigafe a DP that overflies Trunk Highway 62. ' :
Rarnway 17
a A river departure impacts the fewesf people, but this route may not be viable in the short-terrri:
• The existing flight trackS that mostly avoid Bloomington and Eagan impact the fewest people and
�vill be available tivhen runway 17 opens.
. Recommendation:
., .
. . _ _ � �_
6
� Disperse deparnire traffic away from centerline flight track to avoid concentrating arrival and
departure tr-affic.
� East-bound departures use a 095° heading
a South-bound departures use a 160° heading
� West-bound depariures use a 185° heading
o Investigate use of a river DP for use by west-bound departures
Summary
• Development of some of the DPs will require the use of FMS/GPS technology.
o Coordination with the FAA wi11 be required to detern�ine feasibility and implementarion.
m New technology analysis currently underway will consider integration of these technologies at MSP
for inclusion withiri the part 150 Update recommendations.
Ms. Hughes also gave an update on the status of the Runway Use System analysis. � She said that the
analysis has been slowed due to the lack of a consensus on the runway 17 departure txack alternatives,
but that coordination with ATC regarding the RUS continues.
Jarriie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how many flights per day would be affected b the � !
y "preferred" departure
procedures. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said it would be impossible to detemline and thus wiIl not be included �
in the Part 150 Update as a mifigation measure �
I
;
�
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC; asked Mike Mahoney, NWA, if he knew the status of GPS avionics equipment �
implementation for the airline's fleet. Mr. Mahoney said he did not lmow whether or not the newly
purchased aircraft would be equipped with GPS equipment, but that he could find that information out. �
,rv ' j
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, expressed a preference for using the crossing in the corridor
� � procedure in the Corridor versus the use of a head to head procedure.
KEVIl�T BATCHELDER, MENDOTA ]EIEIGHTS, MOYED AND DICK SAUNDERS,
MQVNEAPOLIS, SECOt�DED 7['O ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOI1�NpATION FOR T�IE
PREFERRED LCIW-DEMAIV]p DEPARTLTRE FLIGHT TRACKS FOR RUN'WA,yS 30L/30R,
12L/12R, 04, AND 22 AND 'I'O FORWAItD �'I3gS R,ECOMII�NDATION TO THE FULL
MASAC BODY FOR ITS CONSENT..'I'� VOTE CA,RRIED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Action was deferred on the runway 17 preferred low-demand departure tracks until the May 12, 2000
meeting.
Part 150 Land Use Measures
Pete Rothfuss, HNTB, reviewed the current Part 150 Land Use Measures and recommended tlie addition
of several more. Mr. �Rothfuss also reviewed some of the changes that have taken place since 1992
affecting the land use measures.
� The existinQ noise coinpatibility program (NCP) consists of 14 noise abatement measures and 8 land
use measures.
°- The Noise Exposure Map affects the following cities: Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights,
Minneapolis and Richfield.
� The land use measures can be. categorized as preventive or corrective measures. A preventive
7
i
�
;
�s
measure is designed to restrict new development not. comparible with aircraft noise (currently 5
measures). A corrective measure is intended to alleviate and/or eliminate incornpatible land uses in r
i
existing developed areas (currently 3 measures).
Mr. Rothfuss then reviewed the existing eight land use meas�eseanht existing land use measures aroe as
five are preventive and six through eight are correcnve. S
follows:
Existing Land Use 1Vleasures
LU1 -Arnend local land use plans to bring them into conformance with Metropolitan Council's Noise
Compatibility Guideliiies. ` _
LU2 -, Zone far compatible development.
LU3 -;Apply zoning perforrnance standards.
LU4 -: Establish a public iriformation program.
LU�,- Revise buildin� codes.
. LU6, - Acquire developed property in incompatible use. -
LU7 - Property purchase guarantee.
�,Ug - Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. "�
Clianges in Land Use Policies �`
j. MAGCommunity commitment to apply mitigation measrn asures fo ne�w incomp t ble development
' ' 2. FAA's policy not to approve remedial noise rnitlgahon . .
that occurs in'the vicinity of airports.
In order for the FAA to approve mitigation below the 65 DNL level three criteria must be met: .:.
1, The airport operator inust adopt an NCP designation of incompatibihty differe�t.from Table l in
FAR. Part 150.
�. `The NEM contours' and NEM/NCP narrative must identify .the area below the 65DNL level as
y incompatible`and propose mitigation. `
3, The mitiaation proposal must meet the FAR Part 150 standard to reduce or prevent incompatible
�.`'l�and uses.
The new FA.A. polic}� states that after October l, 1998, the FAA will ONLY approve measures under the
Part 150 that: .
l. are corrective mirig�tion for existing incompatible development ,' . ' ::�
2. are pre��entive mitigation in areas of potential new incompatible development. This could include
areas currenfly undergoing residenti��l� or other incompatible construction,, areas zoned for residential
_.: .. . _ _..
. ,,
. __ . _ l
8 '
_
or other incompatible use where construction has not begun, or areas currently comparible but in
danger of being developed incompatibly within the time frame covered by the airport's NCP.
The new FA.A policy is not.retroactive and does not affect existi.ng Part 150 approvals. Under this new
policy airport operators may only appty corrective measures to existing incompatible uses. Corrective
measures for new incompatible development will not be approved/furided by the FAA: Preventive
measures must focus on potential new incompatible development.
Implications ofPolicy Changes for MSP Part1 SD Update
For the FA.A to consider land useS out to the 60 DNL as incompatible the Metropolitan Council and the
affected communiries need 'to adopt language in' their comprehensive plans and land use `controls that
define residential land use as incompatible within t1�ie 60 DNL area. The FAA. will,:not approve
corrective mitigation measures for new incompatible development that occurs after approval�of the NCP.
If communities choose to maintain incompatible development patterns, funding issues may arise.
Major mixed-use or other redevelopment projects with a residential component that. may occur �vithin
the approved NCP may not be eligible ior correcrive mitigation because it would be new incompatible
development.
,
. i
..
,..
Based on the desire to consider development out to the 60 DNL as incompatible and the newly
' esta�lished land use guidelines .from the FAA, previously excluded preventive measures should be
� ' _
reconsidered in this Pait 1.50 Update. . �
Recon d d L . � �
imen e and Use Measures for the Part 1SO Update
A fourteen point land use mitigation prograrn is recommended thaf includes the existing eight measures
along with the addition of six new mea.sures, of which four are preventive, one is preventive/corrective
and one is purely corrective. -
Mr. Rothfuss then reviewed the existing land use measures and the recommended changes or
modifications to them.
LU1 - The Metropolitan Council should adopt language that designates the DNL 60 as the land use
planning standard for all corrective and/or preventive measures. Affected communities should then
adopt the DNL 60 areas as the noise compatibility standard in their respective comprehensive plans.
LU2 - Local communities should adopt zoning cla$sifieations and ordinances, based on the changes in'
their eomprehensive plans, that prevent future incompatible land use:
LU3 - Revisit model ordinance for aircraft noise attenuation for effectiveness in light of new FA.A land
use policies "
LU4 - Continue a public information program and make use of new technology and other multimedia
resources.
LU� - Support efforts for revision of local and state building codes as needed to ensure interior noise
reduction based on adyanced bui.lding techniques.
��
LU6 - Continue the acquisition program in coordination with other mitigation measures. (
LU7 - Continue the property purchase guarantee progxam in coorduiation with other miti�arion
�,.
measures.
LU8 - Continue the sound insulation prograrri in coordination with other ?nirigation measures.
Newly' Recommended Measures
LU9 - Dedication of Avigation Easements (preventive and corrective)
'•' Require the dedication of avigation`easements as a condition for obtaining building pernzits
for incompatible development in noise impacted areas.
`. Purchase avigation easement outright frorri existing incompatible properties.
LU10 - Fair Property Disclosure Policy (preventive) '
o Incorporates aircraft noise infornnation in sales documents for existing and new residential
development. , , „ -
.
R.equire.s the disclosure of aircraft rioise levels by property owners and their agents.
LU11- Land iBan�;ing (preventive) '
: Involves the fee-simple purchase of privately-owned, vacant land by a local public agency to _
preverit non-compatible land use development. The land urould be held fpr later public use
_
not necessarily related to aviation but compatible with NCP guidelines.
LU12 - Transfer of DevelopmQnt Rights (preventive)
e purchase the interest in privately-owned land ivhich permits the MA.0 to prohibit any and all �
uses of the land that could be adversely:impacted by aircraft noise. tDdesi�Patedt e�eiving
would be transferred from properties within aircraft noise zones �
areas outside: of the:noise zones. .'
LU13 - Purchase of Developmeut Rights (preventive) . `
� Voluntary legal agreements that allow land owners meeting certain criteria to sell the right
o to develop their properiy to local government agencies, state government or to a.nonpiofit
oT�anization. An avigation/conservation easement would be placed on the land and an
agreement would be recorded on the title to permanently limit future development.
� LU14 - Creation of Sound BufferslBarriers (conective) �
' Consists of the combined use o� sourid barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscapirig to -
� reduce noise, This measure would only'assist communities immediately surrounding MSP.
Jan DelCalzo, City of Nlinneapolis, expressed concern with LU1.0. She said current'propei-ty owners
would be` very concerned with the effect this measure would �a��Q o�ers.r�He alsoasa d thatein
Rothfuss, �IN1�'B,' said the disclosure measure is meant to protec ,
values were not affected. Jamie Verbrugge,
other places that have instituted sueh .measures property - '
Eagan, asked"Mr.. Rothfuss i� he would provide the group with documentation regarding the ef�ect of
such measures on property values � �
` , . . :: . / �
l r
10 _
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said the use of sound buffers/barriers was not new to MSP and wasn't sure the
measure would be beneficial. He askd Mr. Rothfuss if a specific location had been identified. Mr.
Rothfuss said additionaI exploration was necessary and that a specific location had not been identified.
Chairman Nelson asked that Mr. Rothfuss provide the group, as an attachrnent to the meeting record; any '
research or informarion he has or could locate regarding the additional recommended land use measures. i
I
Metropolitan Council Land Use Policy Review I
Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council, reviewed the information contained in the meeting package. He I
noted that the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise have been revised, in draft format,
to reflect several new issues, including: , �
I
� 1. The deletion/replacement of dated or inaccurate text material. (
i
_ 2. Incorporation of 1999 amendment recommendations from the public �earing docuinent: i
, 3. Incorporation of up-to-date noise policy contours for all system airports (currently'coordinating with i
MAC to develop and provide to the communities the noise contours in a GIS format). �
4. Assessment/incorporatiori of low-frequency noise information (an issues paper is beirig prepared as I
part of the aviation guide update with recorrimendations in a public hearing document). i
5. Assessment/revision of the MSP Noise Policy Area to reflect the 2005 Part 150,Update NEM. �
I
i
Future Planning - -
The following proposed changes to the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Policy Plan were revieweds
• That the MSP 200� Part 150 noise exposure map (NEIVl� submitted♦to the FAA include a DNL 60 �
noise contour as a recognized land use planning/implementation standard for the regional airport
1 System;
' . .. , : . . . , .
That the recommended 2005 NEM, with a DNL 60 contour and one-mile buffer zone, be
incorporated in the Aviation Policy Plan as part of the land use com atibili �
p ty guidelines, and;
� That the DNL 60 becomes the contour at which communities a 1 the com atibili
PP Y p ty guidelines in .�
their local plans for "conective" land use measures in noise mitigation programs. '
The changes above would be part of the public hearing process for update and adoption of a revised .�
Aviation Policy Plan by mid 2001.
JANDE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND BOB .%OHNSON, M[�AA, SECOIVDED TO
RECOMMEND 'T() THE FUt,,L MASAC BpDy FOR CONSENT T�-IAT LAND USE
I�•ZEASUTZES ONE TI�ROUGI� EIGHT BE .INCLUDED YN 7['Y�E 1'AR7[' 150 IJPDATE. TI-�E '
1!'IC)TION CARK]rED ON A VOICE VO'I'E. �
i
After a brief discussion regarding land use measures, nine through fourteen, the following motion was �
made. I
DICK SAUNDERS ��]QVNEAP ' I
� O�.,IS, MO�ED AND BOB J�HNSON, NIBA.�A, SE�'ONDED, T� '�
'TAKE ACTION, FOLLOWL[VG D�S1E`�)SSION, Ol`d RECOl�IlV�I�E� I,AND TJs� '
MCEASURES i�'INE 'I'HROUG�I[ ]FOURTE�N AT TI3E 12EGULAItL�' SCI�EI)ULED JdINE i
OPERA'I'IONS CC)iVli'��TTEE 1��E"�"ING. 'I'I� MO'I'IOIV CA�RI�iE� OI�t A VO�CE Vi�T'�.
I
: �
. I
i
; '� ;
m
�S�C I`TOISE �I�IOT�T�JRII\TG �I� II�FC� ATIOI�1 �C,��JES'T
�O�
Additional Space if Re uired:
Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 2$tfi Avenue 5.,�
� IVlinneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. '` "
., _ _ (�
�. �
I�ASAC I�1E�SI�ET'I'ER II�IP�J'�' F�
On whose behalf are you requesting? (please
check one and explain where necessary):
I?ate: '
Name: Yonrself � i
Address:
City Council ❑ %
Mayor ❑ - :
_ Ciiizen ❑ I�tame• i
Phone: �rganizaiion ❑ Naffie: _ �-
- ::;; Other _
E-IVIaiL• � Na�e• ;
i
, . . � ' � . ' .. . . � . . . � !.�• :i.'.. � �
1'roposed artfcle topi.c.: �
, I
�arcle the desired publicaiion date: 2°d Qrt. 2000 3rd Qrt. 2000 4ih t�rt. 2000 ls` Qrt. 2001 ;
_ �
Reason for �-equest: '
_ - . ;;'
- � :
, _ - ` : - `I
.
Please provide a description of the �rticle's focus and conteni: �'
. �
� ` �
_ �
' .. i
4
° ., ' €
. . . � . . . � � � 3
� _ � � � '� ' � - ... .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. (
. . . . . . . . . . . , . . , � - . 7
. . . . . . ,. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . � i
� ...... �'�."_1____. .
�,' j-1Viinneapolis, IO�N 55450 or fax it to: (�612) 725-6310.
�:
c, , _
+! . �
N� �' 4� o�o •— O
� � O � M O
"L. C.D 3 �'
� � O
� � �
Vi . y�.�, � .
Q o � �
�, � � Z � o r-
� � � �
�„ ^ c" � '
� � c
�� Q
�
� �,
� � �
� � .L �
� � O � � M ' �.
� N v Q �
� � O.: �
� G �
r�q � �
V � � �
� o r � ' ��
� o � o � ,� o 0
� � � �
p ° � -�
� eV 'U � p
_ �" � �-= a�
_ }- �� o-'
�
� �
� � - .
� .�
�
i1,2 � o ' � . � r�„ ,.,,
� r/� �,, �� U '�' .-. o
,�, .�/ r .... C , �„�.
'� �. � = ,N�,
Z "v O C
� _ >
�r^ J .^ v . . - � .
. Vl O •.�'l � ' . ' �
� .�—�.� .�+ . � �.
� � C:-.. (�
� � � � � � � '�
� � � 3 � � M N
� � � �
� � -�
/� v; r
. . .. Imed . r "V L . . . � � .
� � -� � . .' � �'
. b� . . � � �v . � � �'L" � O .
. � � V � � , ': O �
� p .�.: cJ ' C � • �
y„ r.+
� � r � ci� Q � �
c
� ' �r L o.
�, ` . N � �, a �. � C.�
� rr --� c� :.�:,' � c �
� N -�' �: , � � �
L
� � � � F" C� 0"
rc �. . ... � c
� � .� � ,� .: ..
Gr� � r .� C. � ��
_ � o � � � � o. �
� � �., � � � � �
C
N f
I0
�
�
��
�
�
.,.,
�
0
�
�
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p O Q O O Gi v'� O O
r� V 1 � M M--� 00 O^ (
� 00 �' [�- C`� O� M� M I
� � {�}EAb�}�fi 6�}6�}646�i i
' Q � �
� � I
� : �- I
� �
C/] ' .
� �
O c,��,���,.������
� i. d' v� O� O O V'� v'� N,
N N C.�l N
,� � ��c-rn�ss�.ns�� �
� �
C�
� � -
� � � � � � � � � � �
, e � � � � � � �' � � �
� p O O O O O O O O O •
.-" � � �r., `r' � � �i � � �i
�' O� c� .O� cV'� N t� N co O�
�. � M �t' G� 'c!- O �!' �n GO
Ca �� N�/� � O c0 CT [�- N
�
ca :
. � � ' � .�� . ' ' '
;I � ' �
_ �
�N M tt' v� �D C`� oo O� E-+
O� O� O� C� CT O� G1 O� �
� � � � cT G� Q� U
� ..-� .-� .-+ (�
a
.r :
Metropolitan Aircrai� Sound Abatement Council (M1�,SAC) Technical Advisor's Report
. Table of �or�te�.ts f�r Apr�l 2000
, 1
Complaint Summary
Noise Complaint Map Z � '
� � � � j
^
FAA Available Time for Runway Usage '
i
i
MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4 '
�� ;
_
:�- � i
M�P Carrier 7et (?perations Runway Usage - 5 �
�
- : 6 1
MSP Carrier 7et Fleet Composition
�;.
: :.,
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage - � �'
_..
�
. ,
MSP Carrier'Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage �
. . �'.
15 Ni littirne O erator's b T e 9 �
MSP Top g p Y YP I
� � MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10 ��' ... �
Airport Nqise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14 - !
I
1S ;
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map i
Carrier 7et Arrival Related Noise Events 16
�arrier Jet Departure Related Noise �vents 17
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 18-��
Analysis of Daily and t1�lonthly Aircraft Noise Events A.ircraft Ldn dBA 2g-?9
_,.�
', f
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission AI�TUNIS Piogram
I1�iA�AC Naembers
ct,�,��:
Ch�ries Mettensotlo
(Mendota Heights)
First Ytce Chairman:
John Nefson (Bloomington)
NfASAC Operations Committee Chcrirman
( and Second DSce Chairman:
John Pielson (BloomingtonJ
Arrborne Erpress:
s�� sac�
ALPA:
Ron Johnson
City afBlooriringron:
Petra Lee
Metropolitan Airports Commission
I➢e�l�ration of Purpose
l.) Promote public welfare and national security: serve public interest convenience.
and necessit��; promote air navigation and transportation; international. national.
state_ and local, in and througli this state; promote the e�cient safe, and
economical l�andling of air comme�e; assu.re the inclusion of this state in national
and.international programs of air transPortahon: and to those ends to develop the
full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to
correlate tt�at area with all aviation facilities in the enti.re state so as to provide for
ta
the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and sertizces in that
m
Vetn Wilco: 21e3� I
City ofBurnsviJle: ,
cna�e5�•nnc�aae� 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan a.rea of the minimu.m euvironmental �
c'ty °l�°g°": impact from air navigation and transportation: and to that end provide for noise
Jamie Verbrugge
i,�n« s���na abatement control of airport area land use, and other protective measures: and
Ciry oflmer Grove Heightr: � . � • :
cna�� ���co� 3.� p�mote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the i
CiN ojMendota HeighLs: I
.rw srorti, public's exposure to noise and safety l�azards around airports.
Kevin Batchelder I
CiryojhfinneapoJir: IVICttOP011t�ll A1TCTiLft SOUIId L�BtCillellt �.'OUTACII
sa�c �ne Staiement of Purpose
Dean Lindberg
Jce Lee
c�e�� sc��a This corporation was formed in fuztherance of . the general welfare of the i
. se�a� co��n xoy �ommunities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport - Wold- �
M'� cmme` . Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
Citv ofRich,field I
x��� seakes thzough the alleviation of the pmblems created by the sound of aircraft using the
�"'" �j'e1�e1 �gpprt; 1�1rp11g11 Si11�� and evaluation on a continuing basis of the pmblem and of �
City ofSL Louis Park
xo�rta,;are�5 suggestion for the alleviation of the same: through initiation, coordination and
c;n�otsLpavr: promotion of reasonabie and effective pmcedures; controi and regnlations,
John Hnlls '
c;n� ofsunfiSh r-�: consisient with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and
c�,�tn�a P�s�-Y$ng through dissemination of information to the affected commuiutres, fheir affected
n�l`°A'ru»esr"`' residents. and the users of the airport respecting the prablem o"f aircraft noise
I,am Goehring
Dtri,�t.�.-�S: " nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and act�ons -initiated and taken to
r � Brian Simonson aj18V131e 1�1@ plObletTi. •.
� Federal F�rpress:
,,_-,'
aon� s�n��►er Nietropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Nrac s�a�7: -
Roy Fuhrmann ]�CT)iCSCIIt1t10I1
N18A�7: :
R°6e�r P. J°n"5°° The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, coiporations>
lvlesa6a Nanhwest A�rlink:
rnu s��� associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority
NonhweS��Jr�IneS: °: and responsibility or control over the airport, orby reason of their status as a.irport
aen�;re� sa.� �e�_ �ve a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be
Mn,y r,orrreino� rovided that the User
s��e xo�me called User Representatives and Public Representatives, p
Nancy Stoudt Representatiyes and Public Representatives shall at all times be .equal in number`
St Pau! Chamber ojCommerce:
Rolf Middleton
- � Sun CaunW Airhner. . � . � � � � � � � �
Gordon Grnves
United Airhnes lnc.:
Itievin Binck .
Unued Parce! Servrce:
� Michael Geyer
U.S. �1rrx�avs/na:
Larrv Yandle
li�iASAC Ad��sors
�t�etropolimn Atrportr Commrssran:
Chxd Ixqve
Mebopotrtan Airporu Commis.non:
,_ , Commissionec Alton Gnsper
Federa! Aviahon Admrnistranan:
Ron Glnub
Cindy Greene
AirTranspoRanon�lssonahon: ,
Eaul McGraw
A.f,V AirNadonal Guard:
hinjor Roy J. Shetks
U.S. Air Force Reserve:
r Captnin Dsvid J. Geriten
l � Secrewrv:
•,,_ '' A3elissa'ScavronsSd .... -
This repori isMprepared and printed in house by Chad Leqve, .4NOMS Coordinator and Shane
VanderV'oort ANOMS Technician questions or comments inay be d'uected to:
IviACA�zauon Noise and Satellite Programs
Minneapolis/St Paul International Airport
6040 28`� Avenue;Soulh
Minneapolis hiA; 55450
TeL• (612)725 6328. Fax: (612) 725-6310 `
MAC Em�iromnent Deparunent Home Page: www.macavsat.arg
The Aitpari 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complairtts to the hotline do not resuh in
changes in, airpor[ acti��it}: but provide a public sounding boazd and aitport information outlet
The hotline is siaffed during busrness hours, Mondoy - Fridoy.
Metropolitan Aircraft 5ound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
MS� �omplain�s by Ci�
�pr�l 2000
_, ; U
Sunfi�h L3ke
( i 'I
W est St. Paul `�
,:;,;;.,.>;:<::.:;:;::>;;:;;>::;>;;;::::;;: ;;:.;:,;;;::;:.;;>;>;:;;;:;;::;.>:;:.
:;:: :. .#�`;:>:;::<>:>:<::'�:: ::::>><`<:::<:>::::;:::;<>::� : ���;':;::;:'
::::::<::<::;:�'�t:.;:;>�:;::;:;;:: :.;:.;:.:>;:: :.;:::>:::.::::: :.;:.:;:���:;::.::.::
IPdatur� of I�'ISP Complaim
.:;.::.::::. �
, �..;::>::::<:::': r, � 37 ....... ��......... Iviitic.
(?th�.r , (:� ..... __(.K1-�;�9 ,
,;:<.;:,:>:: :.;;; ;:;::.
;. �'
.;><:>:::€»><:"<:<::>�<::::>:<::>:;:'..;,`{`;>;:;<::<:'>?::>:;:;>��>;::: s<::::>:>;;°:��<:�>:>>
.. . . �:>: � :. � ::::<::;:::;z>;»:::'�?:<:::::<c:>s:::�:::i;:::>::<:i?::>><::i>::<::':::ii;:f<;:%:s:��::[;: :::':;;:: .�. A:a . �'ik` . . .. ....,
� . ��}� :�ii'. . �:r:.:::::::::s::'f•P::[::::::1::;:'cY:::.::5::�:<.y:::.::::..
. .>::>::<.:>::>:::<.. ...: . .::<o»>;>:o-;:::t::o:::�»:::b>:»:;.:: ' :>:::ty;;:i::'r:«::::� :i::s:�>:: > •�:i�Ei;::ii:.P?:.::;;i:::::i:;r,+:i? �."� .....
. �} . ..::.��� ..:::::::: :..:::::: :.:.�:::::::::::. :.>::::::::::::::::: :::..:.SS>Y. :<tJi:i:::::: :.:::t::.>'::: ..
.. �:.�.. :::;i::::ii::ii::iiii :V.:LC�tl:i:i:::::::iii::::i:�i:<.:::::i::ii::::�::i:i ."�. i�i2::::::i:iii\:::?i..i::.:::::..� ::.....:::::::.::..�:.......::::::::::...:.:v:,:::::;::::.::..
. ..... :....... .. ...
.::: p
__
Note: �aded Columns re resent M� comPlamts filed via the Internet
).
— � -- _----�---- ,
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOIviS Program
1
� � o��� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisors Report
� e� O
•� .. � � . � .� . �� e e � . u„ .
,� �C� �t � ;� r � � � �
� P + z � �.:
`� � TT� -��." a . ` �l
� �
A Prar�iir.i: nPthe l�.T�irnnnlitan Airnnrre t•�.,,�„��.�,,,, ATTl1\,fQ D..;,,,,..,,.,,
Metropolitan Aircraf� Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
_ Ava�l���e 'I'inae �or Run��y �.Tse Ap�il �000
�F�. R�e�ag� I7se II�gs)
, -_ _. _
� --------
-----.._- � --
_. i �o --
___--- ai ��o _ - --- - s z — °°% '' _ __
------ __ _ �: �- `;�, ._ - ---
---- 3��ro .-'�:..._�-----�:-.�� ,
_ -- � l,r, _ r !
� ,, ,
=--- - a ��,. 55
_ _ �
-- , �
_ ,� ;,: : ,
=--- -;, � . ..
-----
— — . ... � 56°ro -- !
-•- -- i
_ --- - -- - /., 5�°io •
_ i
--- 7%. !
- �: � I
_ _ �
.. _ . -- __ — - r,-_ `_'-_-- _ '-'-'" � I
-... " .. . . . �_ . .
I; � � ; I
_ ... 300; _._... ---- / ;
-- --- -� : " � � - '�
. ,. . . - ..._ : ' ' ',, .. . -
,
�
• . . , . . �-�; ,�. ` ,
� f�1.�0UiS ' : ..: ?
-•-'-- ---- -- �
- t� - . I
�� } � �
1
�
` t
,;
,
�
Aprii 20(� �'A.A �l.irport 7'rafiiC ReCol�l Coa�nts
. , � . ,. ..
� . � . � �-���.�....... -� � ` ..�:::.�::::::.�::::;.;:.::.;:;:.>:.:«.;:;::.;:;:�:s:<:::::::::.;:::;:::::::is:E:;::::;;:;::i;:::;E::;::E:i::;;:>::i:;::;:i:::;::;?:i;ii;i:::;:i:;:: i �. . .
- . � . ., .... �, � � � . . ��. � �.. . � � , h::: i:.;o-:i:ii:;:2:C:i:i2:i � i::;::::::>::5:;::::::5:ii ::.::::.::: :...:.>::;;•:..:....... ::>::.>::; � :.;:X>i. ' ' y .. • :.. . .. .. : .: .: ...... : . y .; . . � �: � . �.: '. �. ♦ .
� �}��3���i':��#i#�:, ��#��::�'d�� �{��13�i�::;:i
;
AirCamcr � 8�� 726 �
Conunuter ''-7 'i 3?y
. ��neral A��iatioii ' '2� : 3-�C)
' . Militar� ':. 11 ' ,
If)
. . . , �.. . . ...:.�.::;::::>:<::.:.»:<:::: ->: �»:;:::>::>:<:>::>'>::� :�:.;;.:::.:<:>::>:<:>s>:::<::;:::`:::�;:>;:<::::::::>: �>:::;::`::":: �:� ��u;>:<:<:;::«:>:�:::»: ' : �' : . . �� . .
�' ...>:.;;:.:: .:... ... :::::::.;:>•:.;;<.;:;,;::.:.;;;::;;; • . ;;:.;::�;;;:<>;;;;;:<::>::.;;::,;; :.:;:>:<�4 .+�i.4+..: :;>:.> :.;;>::,::�
, ) :::::; '��x��::::>::::.:::<:>::<�:>,:::»:::.::;,;.::.>�.��5 :.: :.:::::....... ........ ....
3,,
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograrn
Met=opolitan Aircrai� Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
.All �per��i�ns
Runw�y I1se I�epori Apr°il 2000
;
. _ _ . ___ ,
. ._ , _ _ -- ,
------ __-----------_ .--�------ � __. —
- ----�-- -- -==_� - - o.s�ro =_ . -
- ---- � 2s.o°ro _ . _ _ — _ _ _- _ � .�.
- — — i — -- -�
o �
---�--- �5.5%—, _ _ _ _ 22.3% _ ..�.: 6'1 ;�- 0.1/0 '��`
, �_`.,,----.`�.
- -- — - — 22.3% .
, \�� , � �
-- _ � ' �" ,
----- � � - _ � ,,, 55 � -
- - _ - � - -- ,:. .` `,;� �
--- _ . � �
-.:..
: - 7 7 : ._ 263%
._. _. . -- -
_. `
. ,
- - ----_--��. , ,
, �
_ : ; . ��.?°ra
: . _ .._ . _ . - ---- ,, . ,
e .. ;;
: .:. .: , ' -
' , .. �----- ---- 27.1% . .
.. :
� `
_.. __..
.:.: ------ 1.9%0 �- _ , ' ,,
- - � ; � �5.0%
,- ` _ __ � - - _
: :.. . . _ ._
--- - . T-- � . .
--- �' ,
' 1.0% , ' - -- ( ; I ; i—�`�- -_
_ - — ii _
' ` --- .
. �
- -- � --- � i. ,
. _ ;
, --- , ; .. .. , _
.: ` ^. 1:' J . . _ .
. . . .. _._._ ,. .. • ; • . -._..-..
-.- �..-- --. ... . ..
_ •� lyiSl?�Rixnway Use Percentage Diagram �
;�
'::»'::>'::<';:=<:s::?>:>�:::::: �«:::::::::z:::>: :::;::.
's:�.�i$E$<:; .•:..
.: � : .............:. •
.
.;:�> :.:::::....... :
•::::.�:: ::::.
—�--�,-�
.........
.... ....... :: .... :;;;:;•:>;:»::
:::.:::::::..:::::: . :::::.......
........
;::::::.
..;;:;:.
. ......... :..::..:......... . ........
........ ......................
.. :::. �::::::::. ......... �:::. �:....::.::: :, .::: :.::::::::. ..'�
::::::.:�::.�:::::: : :.:......... ...... ......._.:: :•:: :.::.�.
.:::::.:: ::....... ............
. .......... .................::::::::�;;::::::: � . .:::::.�:. .................. ��`..:.
: : : :-: . _ . : : ;: :.»: ;;; : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . .. . . .. . . . . .
::::::::: ::..........:....... . �. �::: :�:. �:�................ :....:.....: _:..:..............:. :.::.:::.: .................................. :. ...................
: :;
.�.;;���5�...: .
:.:;:.::. ;>��:•
: ........ .::. . .:::..:: ::.:::::. �:•::•;;;*>:::::._::::::::.�:::. :.
:�;�:. J
:ii;::::i�;�;.:cs:.;;.:•..';�•{.:i:i'ii?'i::'i�;:':>3;;:i:::;i:i;';i:::::::;;i::i::::i;';i::;:i;`>:r;ii3;:`;i;ti;::ii?i`';:iiiiiii:�::::::`':i::�:i;;..:.r�:'.c>ii:::i:::::;i:;:s...;:��:';:'....`.��F;::..::;::i�:'::iiSs?>?:i;:i �?':?:;ii>`:;.`>:ii:;::i::::',•.•?::>i:::::^#'Ei`:c:`'�'�?''::`::':':i%i:.ij � .
". � :i;?iiii:i?i:i::i:::'?iii � � �. .
�• �� :::::>:;::>:;::::::i::: :.::�::a:.:::::. .. �. . .�...,. ...�..
.... .::.t ::::::::::::::.:. :: :.::::...�..�,#.�..y7�Y�l'.:::.: �:.�.�:.�:::x:.::::::::::::::::.:�:.�::.:::::::::: :..:.:.....::.�.�::::.�:..:.:::::::�..v.��'�:::::::>.—:::::::::::.:::::::::: :::::::. .. . ....... . . ::::.�:1 . .
..::.:::::::::::::::: �....................::.:. ::: �:.._:. ::.:...........................:..:.......:..:.:::::.�:::.:::::. ::..::::::: :.::::.�::::::::: :.:......_..........:.:::::::::: .�::::....�.,.'�..�ii�:......_: :::.:'���::::::: . . .
:. .:.. ::...:.:..s:.:�:::::::::::.�::.�::::::.�.<.::.:.:.:;..:.:�::::::.::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.:�:::::::.�:::::::::.::.-:::::::.::::.�::::::.�:..::::..:_�.�::::::::::::::::.�: .:::.�::::.:.::.:::::::::::::: :.::::::::::._:::::::::..,
:.: . ,:::.:<:. -::.:.:�.;�.� ::. ::::::::.: :::::.:>.�;::.::.;:.:..;.;;�,�: ::.: :.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:�:::::::..::::.::::.�.:�:::::::.:::;.>;::>:;:_.. :.::::.�:::::::::::: :::.� :..�;:.::..;,:;;;::::::::::_.::::::::::.�::: :::.: :.::
.:::::. . :..:..... ..... .. ;.>::::::::.: :.::::: . ..:.:;::: ..::. :: ..:: ::.: :::.:;:;::.::.;:.>:;:.;>;; ;>:: .::.�:::: :.:: ..::::::::.. _:: .:.:.:<.::.:.:;:;;:_::..: :. .:.�.:�:::::::.: ,.;:.::.::.;:;_;:� :.:.;::.;:,:.;:.::<:::..:
: ... �;�:>:<::<:>;�3.� .. . : �.:::f;::::::::><>::»:;: �:::;:<� �� � ................. .. :
. .:::; .::: , .. ........ ..... .: .......:.�:: ..: ....::. �.:: ::
.... :..:..... .
�::�;�:�::<:::::::::><::<:>::::::>::� ..: :���.::_:��c���:: � :.. ��t.��::r>:����� ::�
-� .4rr So. Richfield/Bloomin�rton i 371 �:; 1.9°ro �57. I� 3��� ,
12L Arr " So. Ma�nea olis,/No. Richfield i' �289 i 22.3°ro E�8� i.33.7%.`
' 1�R ' Arr � So. Mmnea olis!No. Richfield � �28� 22.3�,0 551? ! 27.8% i
?? ' :Arr St. Paul,rf-Iis:hland Parl: ; ?2 " p.l°ro C� 1' 0.3% '
3t)L �rr � Ea��an,�Mendota Hei<� ts ; �19� ': . 27.1°io 31-��' ': 15.9°r'o �
3t)R �Arr Ea�an/Mendota Hei��hts j itU-� � � 2G.,3% 4158. , 21.0°fo '
<. : ,..;..::..: ::. :.;::..;:.:<::.> ::.�::::::; :::::::::::::::::::: .:::: :.�::::.�:.:::::..: :.::::.:::::.�:::;,
::::: ..' .:.... ,
,...� .. ..,:::::::.:;::;:.:::::.:,�.;;:;:,:>::,..,: '::�,:�.>:��::;:>:>.<:<:>:::�::<:::«::::;::::::::;::z::::>::>:::::::::>;<;:::::::>�:>:;::;::::;;:::>::;;»».<:>v�::�`;�::><�;<�q::»::>:>::-:>>�>:'<;:;;;>�<r<<:;::::;::::><�:::�.::� ::..:.::.::.::.:;;:;$:::;,:::.:�:...;�.;.:;:::;:
.,. . ::ii:.`•::2::::i::::..6i::::,i;::::::;::.o-::::s:::::Y: .: •, 4 .:. ..�::::. . . ......... . . ...� .::� .
•::.�::.:::>:.:::..�: .:::.:::: :.:::.::.� ::.:: . :;: '. ;.>:.to::.:.:.:•.:>::>;;:t:::::::.t;:::f>::f:::::>::>i:::i ...... ...,:: . ;. . � .: :.:::::: . . .: :: <:.�.�:..::: • �j
...: :.::: :.: :.:: : :.:.: :<;>::;•.;::.::.:.;.;:;::'�tt��..���6`�5:.;>::.;:::.::.>;:.;:.;:.:;.::;:.>::::.;,:::.::::: ::.:: � �'� -;: .�. • �:.�'`�,:. :.:::::: : . ::;;.;:.;�.::.: : :: iD :;
. _'. . . . . . _#;...� .... .......:�:.: :�f.:::::::::: ;::.::>:.���j,,�,,,�.o;:;:<r::��i�+::�'�Y:>j �;:.
`�. De St. PauUHi<.�hland Parl: 1_�,. � 0.8% .�` 214 : �` 1.1%o i
1�L p� Ea�an/Mendota Hei�r: � . ;
P � �ts ; �3O7 I . , ��.7°io ' 6993 ; 35.9°ro
I �R De Ea�an,ilvlendota NeisThts � � �7�5 1 ?;..(1°io ���C . i 23.2% _ .
` " De So. RichfielcUBloomin�non , IRl . , � l�.O% ?11O : lO.8%
'` �: .3t)L: :' De Sa`Ivluuiea olis/No: Ric�eld i ���3. .'; 2�.�°io 2U2� � 10.4°ro I,
. . ,. < . , _ :
`` �OR De So Mmnea olis .Mo. Richfield i �7�7 ; 2;:(�'i�, 3C2�: � 18.6°�0 � `
� � .: - ��.c ..;;:::i�;:s�::;:::i:;ii:t;i;�i:i:;<.:;::;::i>::�:>:,:;><i;:?;;:.::t:;:::i;:i;::2::r;::2:ii:i::::i::::i::i:i:;i:;i:::;><;::::i;:::i:::;;i:i:i:::::i:>i:;it:i::::2:?::i:t:::S:;2:i�;ii::.::,:i:.:;;;>�:i;;:;:::;:;�:::::;>•:;>::;;:;f:;:::;::::: ::f::;::t:::::i::::::.>:.;:;:::.::.;:;.;>:;:�:<.;:.;;;;;:<,::.>;;:;>; .' . � .
�� ;:::>:::::::i::::::i;:::i:::;::i::: ::.:::...::::.: : . . .:.... .. ........:..y:2::>:::i�:::::::::C:.,:.::;:.:;:.:>:.::.;:.>:.:>:-:.>:.::.: :;::>:ii:::;::}:. C ' ::f :' ' ::: •:;:::.:.:.: : :• : ' :;:::::::;;:z�i: ' : 'i; ` ':;::� �'r.. .
� � ... x:: ::<.:::>:.y:. �. �::: :.:::::.>;>::'.::;.:. , . :.i ' > � ;.: :.::::o ^:.: s:.:>:>:::;:::.>::>o-:::.:>;:::: .5x.txta:: : � ; . :.:::;::t:...:. . : � .: >;::.::. . : � :. :� :... _: . ' .
......: .:. :.::::::::::::. %`ft1� � ....:>....::.. �.::.:..�::::::.:.:.:::..�::.::::::::..::.:.:.:::�.��}.��"t.�,.:::::.::�.>:�.�#�,�:1'�s: ::::::: .{9...`1.�...;;.::;:.;;T'�..�•:. •:.:
:::::.: ::::::::::::.::::..:
...... ........................... .... .................................._...........:....:. :.� :::::::�.::: �.. :..::�::: ::..:::.::.:::.:::::::.��;::�
t...:::::::;;<::»<:;.:<:>:::<:::;:<><�>::»:.:::::..... :<::::::>:»�:>:«::>::::::::>:>::<::: <>;::>:::«::::>:::;>:<>;:::<:>::::::::::;: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::>y�>:;;.::>::>;:«:::: . ::»::»::::.:>;:;.;<:.;:::;.:::::«::;>
.� . . . :: .: . ...:... . f. ... . i<.:iiii:i:.ii:v.i:v.i:: i::t:::::!:::.:::: :y. :v:::::::. . .. ... :::::::::: ' ' '. ' °'V /� �y .v::::.ti. .� . . .
. . _ � ..: ... ..:. .::::::)::::::.•:':::::'i':!ti::''':.'::•::i::::'':::i:i'i::•::i:: vy .jy'�{� �y ijiii:'i.y� �� . .. . .
. .................... . .:.. ... ......�35�::� "� '!•:J:ii::::.i:i.iiiii::iiii:•::ii:i):i:)i:::::•j):i:i:C:::•}::::i. : .. �'. ti:::}::i:"::� . �. ...;!w ........ . y:: .. : ::::•:'i:'i: �r � � t ... �. . :..
.. .. . . . . . . .... .:.......... ....... . . ..: ...:...... . .t,Ir!�!F..:::::::i:.:::::.i'::::::::.:::::::::: :w:..:.�:.: :.:���.C�P,�::.y.:.i.. e. .:.i:.i:ti:ifJ!•���i:::.i::' ' n. ' . . � .
l-
� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograrn
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Techrucal Advisor's Report
Ca�°r�e� .Tet �pe�-�����s
��m���T.��� �T�� ��n,��°� ���e� ����
i
i
-- ------.. ------ - -�d� � �.
_ ; , `,
e _
, .
-� • . ti
... _—._ _ ,
. ___ �
: : _ ,:;.
_ . __ _ 7 7 2s.���o i
-- - � ; _ �
. . _. - -- -- ; ,;. l ojo I
, ..
, .
.' I
. .... . ::_ _ ..�__ _-. g
.. _ :,_
� 28.1% " -.: - �
. _,_ . . ..
�
. ,., - -. � ;
. _ . i
0
- - - ?.1 /o ?5.1%
.. __
- - __ �a: "
- - _ _ -. 'i f : ----°
1.0% - -- -- --- - - .__ i� ��—` "
---- . i i
. _ --. --- — - 1 � � _ - ;I
. . _- -- �,--�, ?' ,� � ,,„f .
, , . / _.
.. _.. . . _ ._____ -- --�- -- /, �;�p-g��-y; Use Percentage Dia�am
( �' _
_ _ >::>� ::>::>:<:::;s .
.. . . . : . . .... . ::;>;::::::i:i::::::;a::iz:;E:;:i:::iz::t:i:;i iEi:::iz::ii;i:::;i: � : . .
� � � � .. � � .... : ,,: ... _�i:.;;w>� .
.. .:......... ..�.. . �::c.; :::.>:.>:.::... ............�.. :::.:r: :.::::.;>::. . . . . : .i:• + .::;�:;.: -�?� . . '�,
................... ......... . ..:......... .............. .. .:....>:»;:;:;:.;:-;>;:.;;;;:>:::::»:;:;.:>;;;;:.::»;>: �:�::>: ;»;;;:,;;:::.:. �:. ���'. ... . ..... ....
.::...................Q.....:..:.::.:::.:...........................:..�:........................::.::....................::.�..................::.:::::::::::::.:.��:::.:::::::::::.:::::; ::�...................,.:..:::::.�.::......:....�
� � � � � <::::3`:�:>:::>::»:>:>:i<>::::»::>::::>::::>;:<;::::::`;:<:::>?>::::::>::::>:;<x:::r;::>:<:?::::s:>�>:::;:;:>:;:>:<;::<:>;<>:>;::>::>::::::>:::>::>::::>;::::;:::<:::>::>:::::<:>:<::>:>:<:>:::;>:»:::;:::::::>;:>:.:::»:>:»::::::.: : _ ,
, � ;:•:ii::;;:�:i•:�i;;:::%'<::'c�;ii:.:. _ ...
...... ...: ........
.:�::.: :.;,-:.._ :•:::.
.: �:. � ::.;: .:'.: �::. �.
.:� :::::..:....:::::. . . .. ...... ..: .. ::::::... �...... ... ::.�:.
.::::::::..: .::•::: :•::.. �::::............... ... ................. .. : .
.... . . .:: : ::: :: •::: ...:: . .
•::: -.
.. :..:.. ............: ....:....... ..: •: �
...::;::t>:>;>:<;.:':o: . . :•. :::: ::.:::::.�::. �::. :•:.�. .. :::o-:::>:,dt:':°'.'ii''''iii""""CitCi _
:;:::.:::; :::: :.:::.::: �::. _:: ..
�::::. �. : ....:::::: ......: :.:: r;�:::i
_.>:.�:'t::::.::�::.:�:. �
i . .. .. . ...... ..::::::. �.:.>:.t:>::.::>:.>:.:: ::.. ... ......:: �::::.: :.::.::.: :.>:.:t: ::.:: •:.. d:::::::::r:1J:i:: :::::::;:i :::::::. ::tt:iii;y. .......:. :.:: "• ;:!''i[C;i '::i>i:��.'"�c'�:'i::;i;;[ . � ; ''
...... .....:.:.:::::::,:::::: .:..... ......::::.::::::::::::::::.......:.:::.�::.�::::::::....:::...:::.::::::::...:...::::::::. .: ..:...:::..:::.�:::.::::::::::::. •:::...'.�",��`i��:::.::::.::::::.........::.�.�:::� .
::.:� ::::.::.:..........:.::: .. t : :.:......:.::.. :::::.:::: ::.::::.:.....::._:::::.:.:_:::....::.:::::::.�:::::::.........:..��ia�.::.::..._........::.::::::::::::. .:::.:�::................:.:::.-:::::::.� ::.:.�.......:::
.: :. :.. : :.::.::.:::.:: :.:: . . . . : :: :...::: <.:::: ::.:: :.::: :.::::::::: :.::.::::::::::..:.::::.�:::...::::::::::::::::. :.:. :..: :::.:::.�: :.::::::::::::::..�::::.�...:.�::::::::.: .:.::::::::::::::::::::.:;.:.� -:::::::::::: :.:::.�::.:.:3
::::::::. :.::::..:.x......�,�.�. �::. .:.:.................::. �:::: :::.::........... ..:::::::. _:.............. :.:. .::: ::..:..........:.....:::::::::: .::::.::::............. ...: ::::.. �::: :.: :.:::::.:................ :..: �:::::::...
.......:: .. ::.:. ::..::: :.::::.:.::::::::.:......... :.. .:::::::::::::::::::........ :::.::::::::::::::::.......:::::::: :.::::::::... ..::::: :.: :..:�:. :: :.::........ :.:_.: .... �:::::::: :....:::: :: ........... :.:: . .:::::::::.::. :.::. �...... ::.. :::
,_ ::>:<:>::>.>�;;::>;<:::>:»;;>>:<><::»:::::>:::::::>:::<::<:::::::>::::<:::»<::>:<:;:::>:::::;;::;:::«::>::::::>.�.:,.>::::::;>::<:<::>::;:;;:<;:»:::<::»:»:::::_:>::>:<,...<::;::;;::.;..�<:<::;:::.::_ .. .:.::::.:..:.:: .: ... :.:.:.:::. . � .. . ;;_;:.: . .. .:
:>>::: :. . .,:;.::j .:: ...::.... . ::::.....;:;.;::<::<;;:>;;;;:.;:..:
. . . .: ;.:;::;.::;::;.>::;;: .;;. �. < : . :::::::�:����;: :� :. ;�� gt�::-:<�� �'�i:�� <i
�'� , ����a�� �� �'����.�,�.� .. ����� .. ... . .
-� 'Arr ' So. R.tchfield/Bloomin�ton � 288 ;: 3.1°�0 3�8 ��.6% I
1?L Arr �'So. M�nea olis/No. Richfield � 29f9 i 21.1°ro �1�� ; 36.6%
�
12R ,` Arr So. Minnea olis/No. Richfield ( 332� ; 2'?.9°io 3279 �?3.3%0 ,
�� Arr ; St: Paul/Hi�hland Park 13 ; U.l°ro 43 I Q3%
;OL Arr Eanan/Mendota Hei�� ts � 39;? , i 28.1°ro 186� ?` 13.3°�� �
3UR = Arr i Ea��an/Mendota Heights � 3G17 ��� 7°io 33CG ;�3.y°io '
... . . .... . .:: : : : . : . :: : ::: :. .. : ::: :.:.;:.;;;:::. � : : :.: . :.;: : :. : ::: �:: . ::.:: : .::::;:.::;:;:::::::: :.<::<::>:>:;:::> >:; � ,: .. : ;:;;.:: :,.: : :: �::: :.:::::: ;:::; :::: � ::;/;::>::
............................. :. :.:::::::::::: :.::: ::::: :.::. .;:,;;:.>:.;;:::.:<:.::::::::.:;;;;:;:.;: .:.:: :.::. :.:.;;:.; ::.:.;::.::. :: . :... :;:.::,;;:.:.:.: : : .:�IY � ..:::
.. .......:::::::: :::.: :.::: :.::::::. ::::. .:......:.,:::::..:::.::::::..::.:. ...::.:::::::::::: ::.....:..:::::::::::::::::..... :.::::::::. : . . ....::.::._:: . .: . � :<:: <::<:>:>:; :; . . ;;:;::.;-::. : . ea ,(.�
.�:::::.i:::y::::.�:::::::::.�:.�:::::::n� ::. ... :...:: :....:!..:....:•.i:.�:::.�::;:.�::::.::.:.::::::::::::.:::::::.:�.::::::::: . . :.:::v:i.�«y.. ....: .. y:::::: .. . �: ::.i::::i��i::....:biY::Y:V�ii �
.;;;::.:>:::; ::::.::.:::::::.:::::::::::..;:,.: :. . : .. :::::::.�::::::::::.;;;;;:::::::::.::::::::<.;>:.:::::.:: .���6�<.:::::::.:.1€3�.�..%.. :<.;:,;.:;�.�� ,�'��.:.�:::-::�.''�............
... ,;;;.::.�;<;;::.;<><:.>:<:»::>::>;;::>: >::>:::::;;:>:::�s���::���s::;:>:>;::::;>::;::»::;;;:.;;:.:.;:;.;;:_>;:<:.; :::.: :::: :..: :�...: .:............................. .........
, ... .... :.:. ::: ... ... . .
� De St. PauUHi�7hland Park i 1(�-I � 0.�°io , 1�4b `, � l.l°iy
1'L Dep EaQan/Mend.ota Hei�hts � I 31Q3 !??:I`io SF>j-� ! 40.�%0
]2R ' De Ea an/Mendota Hei�?hts ! 3�2�- � 2�.1°r� 2Cly„ ; 18:7°io �;
''? De �' So. Richfleld/Bloomin�ton � 1� ' l:t)°�o ]�l�) � 10.?% j -
�OL De ' So. Minnea olis/No. Richi�ield i 39��8 j 28. �°io 1311 I 9.4% �
' 3UR ���`. D�p � So. M�uiea olislNo Ri�hiield ; 31�9 ��'' S% ; �HU9 I?U 1% '
! ...... ...... .... .:::::::::.:.:::::::.:;:.:::.::.:::.;:..�::.;>;::::»; ::.;;<:::>:;:;::.,;.....:..:...:,><;<:»:�::: :: � :> :.;: :::::;::>::: .: ; .. ::: � >'
: . � .. :. .:::..::. ... .
� . .: ..::: :.... . . . :<::<>:>:=<:> ;:. . �>:,�:;:: .
>::::»:<:::;:<:>;:<>::;;>::»»:<:::>::»;;:::::<:>::>: :::,<:;<.«:: ;. : ::.>::;>;»;>;;:;::;>::<.:;::::<:»:;;:::<;:>:;:::;<:>:;:;::«>:>:<::<:::>:<>;;>::<:::::><:»::>:; : : ; :.:>:::;.;:>::>:::::: ; .. . ��
. ..
..;.:<.:;:.;:;;:;::.:.::.;:.;;�.:;:.::;:;.;�.;;:.:.: .:. . :.:�.:;.;::.> :.:..:.:::.::;::.<:.:.:::<;:.;:::.;::.;:::.::.:::�:���.>::.:::::.-:.�.��,�:.>�x�..::.::.��.�.�.�..::::�.::..:...;, .
:.::<.;;;;:<.>,:::;<:»»:.;:.»:.;:.>:.;:::;.;;;:<.;:.; .:�:��>�: �:>:»::::;.::.:;;;.>:.:;.:; :::::::.:::.:::.::. :. ::: :.::.::.:....... ................ .. .........
... .
I . :.;;;>::.;:< .::.: :.::::: .:::: ..::: :.:: :..: :'�;....:............. ................. :::::::::.�::::.�::.: :::::::
...................................:::::�:..::.<:»::>:::::;::;:<;;;>;;;::::::.:::: :.. :.>;;«:::..::.;:._.:�::.�::::::.: �
: ..............::.::::::.�:: ::::::::::::........,.....:.:::::::::: :.:::::::::::.:;;;;»;;::;,.;:;.::;:>:;::>;;;;>;:; .::........ . ..: .. ;::.;::.;;; , .. , ; � .:.:..:.. ; :}� ::«:>::>; '
< .:::::::::::::::::::::::.:..:.:.::. :.::..:::::.�::,::,,.:::::::::;..:..:::::::::::::::::::....:::::::::._:::::::.:.::.:::.:.::::::::. {�q�g:::::::::. , .. . .,,� . .::.::::.. ,
� ��- . t ::::.::.:::::::::::::.�<:<:..::<.::.::::.: :.�.�::. .: :::::�:.:.. a.........:::::.::.>:»;:.:::::::::::.::.;:<..�::.:.::::..:::::.:.::: .. ..:::::::. ,rt . u 1waF.,,4'�.::.:�:: . : :: :::;::.::' Gr '.,' '. !. . .. .
���. ;:.>:.:::.::::.;:�:.>o-:;:.::>:.:.::.:>:: :.;.;:.;:<:o>:: ; �:LF.4�.:7.::.;:.:i::<. „e d.,� ,u "::>:.:;c.:���i?,.:::::..� M .. . .
. .. . . t ..:..:::::::::::.s::.:;o- ::::.::;:..:::: �:..:.. . c. '� i � ���!:i:�ii;i:Ji:;i:::rii:i�i;::.:ii:Si:'::::i:`::ii::i:i:i>1;i: i;;::i::%::::�..................... • - . .
� ::::::>:;:::;»:::;::.;>;;;;;;;; :.:>:;:::;. :.;::'�`��a� .� .:.. �� . ........... .... ....... .
, � , .. , .
� ,
i A Product of the Metropolitan Airport.s Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 5
j
Meiropolitan Aircrafi Sound Abatement Councii (MASAC) Technicai Acivisor`s Report
.. � � ;�:� :� :r� .. i !1� 1 -
i ;1'.
B7-� 1
747-]OC�
llc:� i 10�.� ; McDonnell Dou las DC8-�00/(CXl
B743 I 10�.� i Boein 747-30O _
DCIG j 103.0 ! McDonnell Dou�ias DCIO
B727 i 102.� i Boein 727-200
..3� ::�:. ,,1�>:- :�.;`i0... ,>' �.
� 16 (11°�i,
' i 0 i QQ°io '
? i �� t).?0io
3 ( 1233 ; �.4° o ;
2 � 0 i 0(7' �� i
� B7-1-} � 101.6 � &�em 747-40O i � i ,
DCBQ , I 100.� i 4 ': t.):(w,�,..,
�IvlcDonnellIk>u las DC8 (Modified St . 3)` ; 1 �?y � p�,,, �
' L101 99.� Lockheed L-1011 ; � 8? , �;n.� -�
DCy � _ 9� I � McDonnzll Dou las DC9 '' (` � ( t) � U.CPro i
B7�2 i 9"i.7 ? Boein 737 ��00 j ? 0 I `U.(1°.b ' I
L BA l 1 � 9 7. 0 ( Britis h Aemspace (BAC) 1 I 1 � � ' �1 ��, o ;
� A�0 ! 96.� i Aubua Indtutnes A3� � i i (1 � O(po i
' i MDI1 9�.$ i McDonnellDou lasMDil i 3 1 I `t).C�;S� ;
i B76; � 9?. i � ' _ '� :
� Boeine 767-�CXl/300 3 I: U i (j:p��,� j '.
� DC87 ; 9�.;
� McLk�nn�ll Douslas DC8-7(� 3= � 4f ,; (i.?"r�, �
; ` ;�
_ ,
! B72Q. 9-4.� � Boeu1 727(Mc�d�edSt :3) � _� � ;-1-�1- i I�..i°:o �.
' B77? : 9�3.3 ; Boeins 777 _� ; : t1 " i O.(�',� � . . .
i A3(ki ; 9=�.0 U i.
. i Airhus Indu,stries A300B4-E�0 3 I 37 ; O,l �o '
' �;1�� � �� 9 � A-irbus Industrie� A310- � ; � p � � 0°��
' B?�Q 92.1 � Bc�eine 7�7 (Modified StE: 3) I 3 � 99, �";i:6% �
! MD2iO 9L� j 3. � �; � `�
McDonnzll Dou�las MD-80
! 87�, 91.-i ! , :C�".�
. � &�ein 7�7-200 I 3 4�?h i. 7.�,� I ':
; DCy(;) :
91.0 IMcDonnellDou las DC9(M�di.tied St . 3)) 3 9�53 ;�:U°•b �
'. B73-� $£S.� ! Boein 737-=�00 3 � 17G 'j 0�6°.4,
: /�3?U � �7.8 Airi�us Industries A320 `' ' ' �
� � I 46Er} � I C:E4�o C
' B738 ; f37.7 .
� I Bc�ein 7;7-8(X) 3 2 t).0°/u
i Bi3� +` E7,7 : ( Bozina 737-�O0 � ' ; 1$0 ' 0.6% ` ,
87.�7 $7.� i ` BozinQ 737-7C)0 3 ; 38 0.1°io
F3?i; 2i7.� I F3ciein 73?-3(X) _3 j?� _'i 1,9°rb .
` :�-'ly $7.� ; /�irhuti lndustries A319 ; �,}i � ;i .
( 1. �'.o
I F3A-lc; i f3�t.y � Brifi�h Aeros. ace lA6 3: , 1690. :! b.U41/o
g7 (' , g;.0 `; Boein 717-2U0 3 41 ` f C):2"•0
l P1(Xi � �1.8 :; ", Fol:l:er 1C� , 3 710 ... � 2:�%
' �1:�� ,` Kl.$ ' i Fsnhraer l�l� �
h'7U S�:).l .� � � y� .'.� U.7%
; ; � Fol:l:er7O I 3 '' ` 0.(pio
CARi 7�)H ! CanadauRz ional iet , ( 3 �� � 4t�) •1;�°.0
. � �'
,• : ............. :.�:::.:::.�:::. ............... ...:;......... .........:....................
, ............:.. ;:::•>::>;::.;�::.:;.;:;•;:;::.:;;>:�:.:;::;:;:::;;•;;:.>;>:;;::•;;:.;;:;.:::::::::.......:.�:::.�::::::::......:::::::::::::..:::::.:�:.�;.;::•;;::::.:_:::.::............ ........
;i :i::'s:;[y�' � �. ��:A."e:`;;;':t;i; ::i:iiiti:.: i;:`:2t,:::'': ";:i:>cn':::;;::`'::ii��;�::::::::cci';};:iSi:i'::� <::fii:'::i:: i:>i`::i:.:i::>if:;i::ii:i;:> ;?;�i: �::;:iti:.;i::::::i:<';:;ii;i ;:`.i;,j}ri:ci;;i;'i;;.; �
: � i::i::i;:ii::;;i:;:£i::i::;::::::;;:i::i:::::::i:.:::i::;:::i:::::;j:i:i:i:;i>::::i:i::: 8.i9Y �
� �;> :;;:;::fi:.<x:i?:>:r:r:::i::::::;::i:'i:::: % g .... �:
.. : . +s:: . �.: �.: ::..........:: �... .: �. �:::. � .::::.: �:::::::. � :.::::::::�::.:.>::.>:: �:.::>:o>:o-s:>o-:::::»:::::.`;:i::: :>:::::t.o-::::::;::::1 ::::::� , �. {t:i::: :::::>.; . . : .. . ;. .
.........................�#i!�.:::.��::.�:.�;�.+��Q....[ . .
:>;;;:: ::. .::...::::..::..::. ............ _.... ..:. , _:,
... .. ....
. �� � :�;•>.:>�<::<:::;fss:<�:s>s:<:>s: ;<::>;: t«:s::«;�:�>:=:�:<::;::•::;•:;c:�:;>s:«�>:•>s»>s>:;.:;;;»;;:;�;::;;;;:;:;:.::�:•;;;;;>:;;:�;;:;,.�:::: .:: ' � .
.. :............................. :.:: ::: ..:.>:.::.::.>:;.::: i::::. �.:::t: .. 7 . ,... ..
.. . . . .::::::•.:::::t:.:•>::>;:::::::.:::;' o:::::.>:t.;::>:.>:.::x::ii::i::o-::;::::::.:::::::::'<C;:;::f:;:;;::::::::::::i:::;:::::>::i:::::i:k:i;;J::i::::::::::;:%' :;: . .... . �.
. :::::::::::::::i5i::.::6:'<>:�::.:>:i:.>i::<:::::.»:>s:::•.:;:.:;;.>:.::::: ::::::::::::.<� ..:. .: 5:.:< :i: �_ ..:c�: . �. .
<• <.;: ;:: ...:;:;.;:.:;.::.;;:.::.:.;�i����:>:::::�,�i�1�::<:�:�#�3:�::����..'.�.;:
.. .. ... ..... ....... -
..
:.:.: .. .
..
' Sta e II 0 � 0.0% i 19:2%
Staee IlI � 1�216 �U.7°ru 32:5%
� 5[a<+z III Manufactur�d 13fiE9 f 4y.3%, �, .#8.3%
I
; '' Total St��e III 2�085 100.0% � 80:8%
Note: Stage III represnit aircraft mo�ed to meet all stage III criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This
Includes hushkit engines, engine retrofrts or aircrafi opemtional flight configwations:
,.
•The Provided Noise levzis from Fr1R Pazt 36 are the loudest levels documented per aircrafi �p�d�ing take-offmeasured in EPNL dBA (Eft'ective.
Perceived Noise Level). , . _
•EPIv'L is the level of the time irrtegal of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level ofan airrraft flyover measured in A- (
weighted decibels. �
6 A Praduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOIviS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisar's Report
� • � r ., a� h,° i�? ' �; i ., '' '` i� , ',; ;�� ,'� ;r
}
ti��' . :r, .... � n • t�� • ti ,1 " � �1 ? , ; ,.. �, ,'t ;'+
" i
�
: �
i
i
� -� � � .:��. !
1' . �
. . .. . �:..:. i
�
4
. . .. V . . _ . . . . _ .-.. . . . . . �: �
. . - . . . ;' . �', ' . t ` ._. _ . .'�. r
. . - - • • -- - - - - --- — - . / , Iv1SB' R� �Y Use P ercen tage Diagram
/ � , ^ _
� : .
. , ... . , .. . . �,.._ . � . . . . ............:....:....:..�..�.:..::..:::::::::.:::::::::::::.;•.;;>:�:,:�;::,;::,:;<.;;:;>:::>::>s::>:::»::>:z:>:<z::;:::>::;::>;:-:<:::<::<::::::�>::>::::::::::::::: »:"<:>:::y:$:::>:'•r�::<..:>;?:>;:::x'<:s>?<:"::>z«:::r�<>::>:::i: . .. . .�, , ..
.. .............:.� ... .. ..::::::.�:::::::.:.... ...: ..: .:::::::::::::::::: :..."_ :.: -::::.�::::::::::.:......::: :.:.�:::::: : ::....... :.:::.�:._:::: .::::: .
...::.::::::::........ ....................... ::.::::.:.:::.:....................: ..::::..:................ :.::::::............... ...:. �::::........................ #:: .:: :.::. :;.;:.>:,:.:;.>: �>:. :; ::.. .: ;:.::.;:.: ;. .;:.;::;:;3 ' �
::: :.:: �
. .::.:::::.:::::::.::.:::$::::::.::.:<:.:.;:.:�:.:.;:.:;._:::::::.:::::::::::::.:.;�.::.:<.r:::.:::::.:.:�::::::.:.;:.;>:.::::::::::::::.�::.::.:.:>::.:::::::::.::::::::::;.;:-:;.:.>:,.::r.�:._::::.::::.�:::. �:: : : .:: •.. �... �
:::. �. :.. �.� � .��:�;:.��:>:.:>::�..........
::.�
} - :::a>:;;:<::»::>:;<:>::>: �::;:>:..
j - - :3
�,a��- — ::�::�':'>i:>: '
.:.... ............... .... . ..... .................... ...........
. . �ii��:i;?;� �r` ::.i�' ::�,
..:�
i�`i7;;Yt':r��' .
. ���.��'iiii-:: ::::.. .
� .:.�::.; :.: :.y::.�:: .: .... ....:: ............ .. .. . ,....:».::::: ...::: .::::
� � :::::::>::::Ct>::>::::::i:: :.;::::: t::i>::i<i::i:i:i:::'<;:::tt.::::::>:�::::.':::iit.::::i:::i::.... " '
:.: i :< ::::::.>Y:?::.:::::::t::i:;:::3.:i�;:::i:.::iii•>:f:5:%%2:::f't:::>=`•:: �4;•'':.`:::itii:::::: Y:;tif ::Gt::i:�::i::t2;;`:::.ta:::::.:::::'::f::tii:: t::'.:i%i:[2..:::.: :c;>:ii:.: :::
;:.>; ::.:::;: _ :: .:;::.>:a: •.:.
�. � >�2<2i:i:i�fii:r;:ii;22: i :;:r>; ^::;:::i;ii:::;;%::�:;::::::::::i;:;:i::x2:;:::::;i::;:::;i:;::::::i'r.::<�%:?:::::::;:::i�:r:;::i �;:;:Y•i:::::»: ;::;:ir,:;:::r::: :::::;t:.r�/:'':�.' ,y
� .a::::::;:.:.a._ ::.: :.>:.. �::.�::::::::::<::::.»::>;:.: ::.::::::`i�::`;;:ii:?:i::::::::::::::;i?::[:it:i:t �i Fiii;[:ic: <: .:::. � �:i:.:;:<.:�>::. ::>:i:i::::: " . ?'r... .. .
� .:.....�4+.�.�}..::: :.::::.�: '• :::::::.:............: . :. . ���..
:::::::::::::::::::::.::o:;.:. .: � t. .:::.:.::.� ::..�.:�.::::::: :.:::::::::::: :..�:::::.::::::::::::::.�:::::::::.:::::..:.::.�:::. �§�.:::.�:::_�:::: :.::::::::::::::: ... ............ . .......... ..
�:::::::.�::::::::.:� . ..... . . . ....:..::.:�:::::::.................::.::.�::: ::.:............::.::.:: ::.::....... .....:.�.��..::................. ..:.::._ :.::::::::::::: ...:.................�:::: :.::.::::::::::...........:.:: .. .. ,
........s..:.:..i$�.�#4.� :.:.. ................:::::::::::.:::.............:.:: :.:::::..:...........: ::.:.� :::.:.............:.::::::::::::::..:.:.................... ...:: :.:::::::: :.::........... ......:...�:::::.�::.::..
:.�: :.:.
- :.;:;:.:�:�:.«<:.:::::<.::>: � :>:.;::.:;�.:;;�: �:::>:
'..''•''.'''i:}':':::::::::ii::ii:::.:i::i::i::::::::i:::ii::�:: : .. ':ii::::::.. . . .
?:•,i �::i:::':'::::':':'::i:y:::•::��:::':':':::::ti:::::•:::::::::<::::i .ti:::ii:•i':::::ii:::::i:i::::::i:::'::ii:':'::i':::5:::::ii::ii::ti:'.:i:::•:::':':•:i:i::::::'::ii:::� ii:::•Yi:::i::::':: :i::'::':v::::i:':?'
. ....:..:....:....:.ii:.:.....:i::::::...:�.::::::.:::>:::..:..:i:.ii:.i:�::: .'i:.:.:r.i::' F::v'.:.i':::�'.::.i'::.::.i::i::i::i::i:::�::ii�::in ti �:..::..�..y�{,�� {�� ..::. . ,..�...
._::s . .:. .. .. :...... ..i:':Si:r:::>T:O::-:�iT' Y. . .:: •. . .. �:::.>::::::::::::.::.: '. :#;iGi�k� ::i:a::�,,,�,,4,;�:�:: � n �.�i'3kF�::S<::��:;,,'�.,���„��,�.r,:l � �.:
' �... .... .
.�����:.�i8?� 3 >:: --�ir�z�E �:?�.�;�;:::>;:;,.;:::: � ..:.. ::::::. .:.:
� �rr. So..R.iehf`ield�Bloomin�ton l�U ;:13.7°�0 23� i 19.7°�0 ;
1?L .4rr So. M�nea olis,'No. RichField � 9U ;_$.3% 232 � 19.�°io C
13R .arr So. Ma�nea olis/N o. Richf`ield i 1 �3 ' 1�4. (i"% l U8 9. O°i� .'
�? Arr Si. Paul/I-Ii��hland Parl: � 6 0.�°io 33 �?.$°io .. �
;c)L Arr Ea��an./Mendota Hei�>hts i 378 � 3=�. �°io 11 � i 9.G% ;
3UR arr Ea�an;�Mendota HeiY.�hts ; 319 �?9.1°io -�73 j 39 5% j
.:... _.._ .................................::..:::::.:::::::::.�.::::::.;:;.:<.:.;:.;:.::.;:.;>;;:;<;:.;:s::;�a::<:>::>:::;:>::>:z:>:::>::::<:>:;:: <»<:>!::i:::»:::>i;::<;;;::;:..:;.>:::.:;;.::: ;;;::;>;,;;;;>::..;;.:::,:.:::::;':>::::>::zz...; :::.,,...:�:.;;..
-:..:;:..:�.;:.;»>::�� ::::::...:::::::.:::::::.r:.�.:>;;:::����::�::::::��:::.;:��,,:�:,:;;.::.::.::::::.::;�;:;::;:•.;�::::.:::::. <:;:;,::.::.;:—;:.. i� . • y{}� p�
:.::: :::::..:: .. ....: �. :.:.:...::: .. . : i::i5i:�i:;r.::: �t�l�k�::�:J:::
»:::s:::�:;.::�.;:;:s:::r.::.;::::>:::.::c<.;:::::.: . ......:..::: .:...:...:...:..r:.::::.::o:;.:;.::�:n.o-:.::>:>::a::::::t.>:.::::.:.:a:r,:::':c::;... . . ,..,::....�..k�;kl............�.. ............... .
.. , ::::::::::::::::.;<.;;::.:;:.;:.;;;;:.;:.;>:;..«.::: .. < : . . : �. :::::::::.;:.;;>;;:::;::.�::::::;.;:.:;.;;;:;;;..::::::.;:..;�.��;;;;;;;>:;,:.��#�!.�;1'�: .::..
. ;; :: .:::'�`���i:;.�.r�.��s .:; :.:.::::::::.::.:..::..................... ' .�.. ........ ...'. o--�-�-------�
-� De � St. Pau]/Hi��hland Parl: ; ly . ?.l°io �� ( �.Uro ,
( �L �ep _ - Ea�an/Mendota Hei��.hts ` ?32 � 26.2°ro 5O8 , i �.5% � � �
13R De Ea�an/Mendota Hei�hts 227 i 2�.C°ro 18?.. i 16.O°�o j
�� D� So. Richfield/Bloomin�7ton , '; ; 2.K°�o 11�� � IU:=�% ,.._
3OL : De _� So. Mmnea olisl'vo.:Ric.}�t'ield ; 1C3 ;, 18.3°io lU3 i 9.0% ,
3UR D� So 1�lmnea olisrNo Richfield ( ��� I�� (�'/o ly� � 17 1% �
.... .
:.� :.:::::::::.::::::::.....:;:::. �.::::.. .: :..: :..::::F�3'�- �:..::;.>:::::;;;�:€��.��*��a;�.::::::::�.�.��€... ...... .. �.� �*'�s.. i
_ ::;::;:; ;<::;::;;.;;:.::.; ::.:. :::.: ...::.. : � ����.::;::;:»:;;;;:.;;::;.:::<;:;.;>:: :.
. .. :: . :.:: .:: ...:::::.::: :.: :.:.::.::<:;:<'I°� �....: �e :: ..., : . .
....:...:.....::::: :::::: _.. .........
.:.:::: :.::::.::.:.:: ... ... .......... . ...... ... ...
....
_ . . .. . . . . . . :.;: .;: ;;;;: :.>: :. .: : : : . . .
.: . . . . . � : : :.:.: : : : . : : . : :: : : .; .;,:;:::,:
....:.:.......... ...:...... ....... � ��x . . »:::>:>::»:: :: ..;.:.;::..:,:.: :.: �
� :.:::.::.:: - .. ..::.... ...:..:...:;....;>:.::::........:..::.�::. :.:..::::.,;:;;;;<.::..;:< :. ..........:::......._.�:.:....
...... :..: :......:.:... : .,.... : :..:•.;:.:::: ,,. :, ,.�,�, ...�,. • T
......... ...... . ....:::.:.::.::::.,...::: .... .. ........:.:::;:: :;:::;;:,;:.;:.;;:.:><,:;.;:.::::::.::.........::::::::..: :.:>;:;;:: : q :;..;:;;;;:: ',
:...:::::,.::.� ::::::::::::::....:.....:.:: ...:.::. :: :.:: :.:.:.... �..:......::::::.�:.........:::.:.:�::::: :.:.....:..�..::::::: ::.:. . �.. �.:::;::.;:.>;:.?:s::i a �. .. u�t �. .:::i>i::»::: :. r :; .::;.:;:>::.;_ ; �.� �, . . - � . .
� :s::.:+::::.;:.>:.:::.:.::.::s:.::>:.Y.:;: :.::.:::.:.. . . �� �+�, . ., .>::.:R.:::.:::.:::.::.+>:.::.:::.::.;:;.::.;:.>:.:;..::>:.>:.::.>::::.;: �?:7'�:;.>::.::.s:.>� .. � +�..'�"!.. ti<.::•>:::����:.::s:.>:.:.:� .� M�_
E,;:::::>;:::>:::;::»:::>:::::;:::i:>:'::i::<:>'r';:::'�t#�it�-.�x . .�E+ �'A .�,.°.::;;:::�::;::>i::>::;.;::.;;:;;:>::::,;:<:;.;>; :.::::::..:.:.�, ..............
... .
i � _
; ,__ .
� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Frogram �
i _
�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report I
1�Ti�htiime Carrier �et �peraii�ns 10.30 p.tn. to 6:00 aome
Runway ITse Report Apr°�12000
. .. .._. , .
- -- � . _
_ �.
------ -- . ---- - ---- 0.4°ib — . - - .. . _
,— `•�'. 19.6% -------- '_. .' _. -..._.�._.,_,..
�, ---- � _ � - -- - - _--..
o �
, _' � — -
: _ _ _ o (�' 2 03 /o t -- -- �
24.5% ' _ 8.7/0 ._--�--;�-- \ . _•
_. -- -.
- l `. �: :.
-- -- . � - ^: ! �
-- ----- 14.2% , �
_ _ , ,.__
u -- - � �. � ,,--�" �
_ --- _ n i, 55 !'r
- -- - — - - „�e i i � ' '••� �`
- _ _ _ , .._ " � ,
-•--^- 7 7 . �
.,.: __..-• •---� :. . , 30.5%0.
.- ,• `
- - -- - ' ?7.7%0
- --- ---- o � _
: , .... _._:_._.. __-_ 33.0°io , ,
`. .:': , � ._.
.__ . .
...:. ---=--- 133% � . . ,
. , i.- .
. :. . _ � � � � 29.9% -
.. _..� _ '
-- _ '
� .i
- -;._.._ -.,,m,s... _ : _�
.. .. � -'--
�_ ,
, . _ .._ __ _._ - -- — --=
2.9°�b ` ---. __.._. �' � 4 j `
-- .... _ - `�, J ,- t - -
' �- _._.
--: :. . . _ ^- �'� � �; -_ ._. _
_ - - - - /' j,^ h+SSE'RuuHay Use P_�centage Diagram �.
_
:�ss•::>:<:;•::>;;:>: :::::;:>;;;:�:;; :::::::::.: ::: . �:::::. �: ...: .......
... .. . .. .........:::: :•: �:.:::::::.�:. :s»;::�:::::;:;:•:::•;;;>;:;<;:�::;:•::;;�::::::.:�::::::::. •: :.:.:........:......
.
::::s:::><»:::::;:<:>:�:>:::>:::::;::.:::.;;:::�;:;;:.;>;>;::<.;::;.:> :::.. ............. ................ ............ . . .............. . ... ......"
�>
. ..
..... . . .... .. ..........
.<:;:»::::::::x�»::::»� ;[:::::::::>• :::>::: :::
E;;:::i;i;'si;:::;:::':::?::�;::::::;:::<:::.;< .>;;;;:.;:::.::>::.;:;:>;:.r.o>;:�»::::;:i::::1:::::::: ;:i;:>::;::::i::::::;i::::::::�::::::�:::::;::i:::::=::>::;'s::i:::ii:::::':::i:i;:::::::? ::::: ::::.::r ::: •
: . .. ........... ... . •:::::::: ::.::. �::::: � •::::: :................. .p �
. . � � .;;:.. ::.::::::::: :.:.t.:iii::•:::ni?:i:.?:_>:iii?ii:::::::::i:y>i::i:.:qi:.:.;:it:::??>:.:!:i:i::;oi??i::ii??:iii:>i>i>:?i::?i:;:.:i.i::<.:.:::;:::.:�::i.>i::!�::.:................F:?i:>:.>?i::�:ii:i>:::.::. :i; :: :.:.i .. . ti:.:i:tpi: .:. . :}:::::::: ...'..
..�... ��.:�#v •.:.::::.� ...... ' .. .�..� ... .
. . ....... ��
' �. ...:.�:.:::.::ti :::::::.::. .::.�::::r.iiii:..:.:�:.�:::n.. ..�iii:iC<: :.::::::.� :.::n�:::: :i.::i.i:i:.�:.�::::::::::::: :.::::::.:: :..� :::iiiiiiii}i•.�::::::::::::::::::. .:i:i:<i:.�::::::::::::: :Y.... �. . .
... .........::::: :..� }v..... :....: .::: :.. .::.. ..........:.�:::::.� :.::::::'""......... :.::::. .�: :.n�::::: :...:.v..... ............:::::::::::::::...... ...:..:::::::::::..... ...... :.::.�:::: :.:::......... .n:::>,�,,�,,,�,.,�.......
.� ::::::::::........: ..�::: .:. ..�.... .::: ::.:�:.::..................:.:::.�:::::::.....................:..::.:.:.�..::::::::::................:.::.�:�..�:.............. :::. :::.:...............:.::::.� :�:..............:..:.�: :.
:;::;;.;;s:::::;::;:::J::::::: •... . �:::;:.::.;>;;::;;:;;::;::;:z:;::;;:::.>:;.:;;;;::.:;.:;:<.:�:;:;:;;;:;:::::<::::x:::;:,;:.;:.:;.:;:>:.;:::;:;.:;:.;;:.;,.>:::�;:;::.:;:�:,.:;:�;:::::;:::::::;::::t:.>:;.:: ;:;.:�::�:::.:;;::i:::::;:;,:.;:.::.::;.::;;:;::.:•.:.;:.;::.::::::.:.
�¢.:::::::._.� ::............:::::...::.:.. ......:.::::::.:�::::::.....::::;:::.;::.::; <
»:.;;:::::.:: .::�:::: :::;;:�,�iE4':�::.:: ;� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,;:>�.�. :: :.. ,:::: :::::.:.;..:;.:;.;.;:;;.:;:;.::::::::::. �:. ........ . ................. . . .. ... ��.y�.. ..... .. . .....
. . .� ::•
...<.::.:;:�:::::;:;.;;:>o-:;;:;�>::: ,i:_::... �;.: ::::::; . ._:.
.. . ��... .. ..... .. r.;:::i:�:>;:;t?;: . •
� � �. � ::<.:::Gii:::::i::::::::;�':>::.:x:o-:::.ii�:i::i:'c:::::::::0::.:6:::::�ii::::::::::>:;:::t.:::::q:::::>:i:::>:::::::>fS::::::::;R::::::::::::;»:.:t.::::::>:::::::Pit::: �a.i:.
.................. �`ttaftaa.-.:�::: ......: . . .:::.�:. ._�.
.. .:::..... ..:...........:::::..:�:::::::::.....::::. :..::::.�:::: :.::....... :.:::::: :.:::_:::::::::::::..........::::::::::::: :::::::::::.�:::::::::....:::::.�. ::::.�:.::::........:. ......:� . �
.:::� . .::. : .::...........:::.�.::�:. :...........:...::.�:._:::::::::..................:.:�::::::::::::::::..� . ....................:::::::: :..�: s......:....:::.:�::::. .........:.:.:::::::::::..... :.�: :.:....�`r.:�::::::
...: y.. .. .::: s :. ..::.::..... .. ::::... .::::: ::.::..:.�:: ..:...........:::...: :.:: :.:.�::.�::............:..:..::::::::::::::::::: :.::::.......:: :..�.�:::.�::.:.....:. .::.�.�::::::::::.:..... :.:::. .::�:.�::::::::........:
- :::: . ::i.::._.�.:_::.�:::.: ..:::..�: . ::..:.::: :::..:.::.:•;•::::::.�:::::..::: .:::.�::.._::..:.:;::::::::_�...:::::::..;::::::::..::.�::::::.:::::>::.:�:::::.��.:.�:::.:::::::;>::::::::
. . .::;;7E'3c�:::<;:::: � . � . ,.:.;;r.:>:::.:;;:.;:: : .:; : . .::..::x;�:>;::<.;>;: ; ..:..... �...:.:.:.;::- :. .....:...::::o;;•�y :�. •;::;.:::::::::.,x.;::�o-:;.�::...,:.:::::._::::;:;-;:.:
..:. . ,...:.::::,:� �'tis�>;::.::.:�:�;>:.:;;::>�:;:��;�:Y�E .�::�;�;'�;�.<::>:>:::<:::::>:::<:::::::::�. . :: .i�:::;:�::: .: .. . . ..«......;_::; :.::..:;..:.;. :;.
. . .. � :.. ....��t..: . � .: �: �� ��:�it:: � ... Q'�#as� .��,+�>=>t��;�:�: �
� Arr � So: R.ichfield/Bloomin�,non i 132 j 13.3% 19O 20.0%
l?L : .4rr : So: Mu�nea olis/No. Richfield I 80 j 8.7%0 218 23.0%0
_ 1?R : i .Arr � Sa Minnea olis/IVo. Richfield - 13Q j 1�.2% �E � 5.9%0
�� :: ,�1-j` `' .St. P�t77/Hi._hland Park 3 � 0.3°ro 21 2�%
3OL .Arr `, Ea�an/Mendota Hei�.�hLs :; 303 � 33.(1°ib CS . C>.9%
3UR : Arr � Ea�an/Mendota Hei�,hts i 2�U 30.5% 398 �?.0%
...- : .;;;;::;:;.::.::;,;.>:.:;:;:::::..<:><:»:•::::>;:::::>::::::::::>:::><::::;::::<:>::>:::>:<;:<:::»>:::::;::;:<::�:.»:>:<:»;:::;:;<::::: ..... :.:.;:;:<�>:>;;:..::;.:.;.�::.�:.� ::::..::..::::::..:.:....._....
� ; : .::::::::::..:;;;:<.;: ::;.;.;:<;:.:;::::. .. ...... ..
.. . . .: ..: .:.�:.� :::::: .:... ..:...:.: ..:..:.:>: :::>:::<::»:::.:>:.�::.:;>::::::::<�::::<:;:>;,::..::..:.:.::.;:
,;. „ . .. . . ..;�:::::::::;.;:,;;>: .... ...::;::::;::.; . . .;:,::..:�::.:_.: . . . . .... . . .. . . . . ,
�...:<::::<»:::>::>><;:>:::;;: ;:;::>:>:<:;>;:-:::>;::>: :: :;::,,�:,,;::;.:>;; :::::. : ::................. ............. . . .... . ..... .. . � ... .......... . . :....... .. . .. ....
........ .......... :::�`���i: �d�:�'.�€�::;.;::<:::::.::�::.::: :.::. ::::::;:;.::.;::.;;;>;:.:.;:�.;:.;.:::: :� ::. ;:.:;:.>::._.:. ., .. :. ,: .::.::.�:::. .::.:::;:.::;�:::. . . :. ..>:.,
.. ..... .... .:.. �.. � :::: . ��€s��.�;��::. :::,::<::;«:��:»::>:::<:> :�:::<�:�:�.�>:<
-� De St. Paul/Hi<� l.and Park i � I U.4% 7 j 1.0%. '
: 12L ' De � Ea�an/Mendota Hei�hts � 126 j 2?:7% 3�4 51.1%�
1 �R '_ De �: EaQan/Mendota Hei�hts ; l E�6 ' i 2�I.9°io 96. . I 13.9%
'-' De So: Richfield/Bloomin�ion ' 16 � 2.9% 6(
( 9.�% '
� 3i)L ; De � So. Minnea` olis/No. Richfield ; 13C j 2=�.�% " 39_ � �.6%
,3UR � Dep ! So Mmnea o1�/No Richfield � lO9 � 1�.6% ' 131 � 18.9%
:::<:::<:;:::::::<>;:::<:::::»:::::<:><:>:::>:<>::.:: :;;; .::: <:: :��;:::>.><:::>:::>�>::>::::;:::::�;::> :::::::::::::>:::>::::::>:>:«:::::>:::::::<:::::::;::;:::>::;><>::::::»>:::>:::_;.>;. _:.;:.>;»:;:;::<.;;;;:.:� .:::::::.: :::::::.:.;......... .......::..:...:..:......
:: : : . . a::. ; :: . :: «<:>::::::::� :...:..:::::>;;:>::<_,::;::...:.,,.:» ��::..<;>::::
...'�`t��� �e : . ......:....... ..... . ....:::::.�: ::. . :. � .:. .:::::::::. :... . �:.. , ; ,
:.....::.::.::..::::.:.:::::...::;::................ .. �.;:;>::<:;:;.;:::::>;::;><><>:>::»::>;:<:>::;;:::<:�::>:::::;:;;.::;: �► ..
.. . . ......................... ...:. :..: :..:.:::.:�:::::::::::: :::.�:::::. .�".s...�..�'.:::::»><:«::�:;�.��.�:::�a�:: ::: ::>�;;<:��� :;::::>::::»:::r»:: : : .: <.:.
>::;:::>::>;:::::>::�:..:.: ::.;;.;.::;: ,;;::;::.; .:...::.::.:::::::::::::::::::::..:. ........... .............. ........... ..................... .....:::.:..:.::�.::::::..: :.: �..��#�.:�le.::
.::::::::::::::;>;::;::>:::;;:;,::;;»:.. ..<::;,::�'�::: :: ::»::>::>:::::>:>:�;::;:::<;:::>:::::::::::::»:::::;»»:::::;>:>:»»>::::>�<:;;::>::»:::::;::<:>::>::>::�:::;::»>::;:::::::::;<>:::::<:<:. . ....................
� . ::::;:i:;i:i:�:i::i:::i:p::r,�;::>::i:::;�;::;;i:::;: : . , . . i:'s:ii;?:i;;?:::.::;.;:::;;:i�::i:;;;:::: k ' .� ,
>:::::�`'13$' ::
� _ . :.:;.:.:.>:::.;:;:.::.o-:.:.::>::;:.;::;.;:.: .. . . .`.'�. � . : . � �:>s:i:::<::E:E::::::� i:::::E:::;i'.>;<:i:s::i:ii?:izi:::: � i;:i:i .:;:::::;•:;::>::: � • .: :.. .::::.::.::::: �.
...... ......._.........: � .: . ���3::�:;;::;.;:«.:;.;:.;:::;;:;.:.:.:.;:.:; :.::.::.;:;.;:.: :.;;;:.;::.;;>:�:���;:.;:.:::.;:;;, ' >:::::�:::::;>:; : < .::�;<::::;: � ;
, ........ � . :::::::: �;�.���> :;.;;:.::
. , � .. '.
g A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metrapolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement C�uncil (MASAC) Technical Ad�zsor's Report
�,p�120�� Top 15 A�tu�l ��h�a�� J�# ���t�� by T� ''
10:30 p.rn. tv 6:�0 a.�. ,
� � :::><:::>:::{<:::::;::,.;;::;:>;:::>::::::»>%:;:::<:;:>::>:><.::z::<:>:::<>::::::» :::;:;'::'::>:>::<:>:si;;::;:;< � I
�::•: .
i �' :::::>.:�:::::s;>:.:>::>�::r>:;.::::::.;;::::>:.:::.>:::::.:
.. .. .. ... .. .::
;::::. �. � .:� n:' �.:t:>:::::::i:>::> >»:»;:: . . ':...
,::::i::::>::3��3�:z:>;::>;> ::» �><:>��::;::>::::»:;>z><:�'�.�:>:::2::�:<:><:;::: >�::>::>::> z:;::>.:::$i�#.::::,
:w
J� ; Arr�ncan � AAL `' � B7�Q � � '
r i American � AAL 3 � F1(K� ; 2b .
� ' i �� '
ri i American � .AAL � 3 � MDS(.1 C
i I Airhome � ABX i i ' DC8Q ' l� '�'
, i
i� Airhorne � AB:� ; ; � DC9Q : 2G ; �
t � �
i i Charr��ion � CCP � 3 i B72(� i _�t' i. I
i
� � ComAir � COM ' 3 � CRT 1 i �t� �..
1 �
� , D�:ita � DAL 3 � B72Q '
� i DAL ; j 137„ r '? % I
� ! I�:lt a ` ' � ,
; s Delta � DAL � ; i_ MDBp � � I
'� ' Fei�E� � FDX � 3.� Aa(k; ( 17 I
i
,'- . � FedE� i FD� ; ; I DC:I f� ; �t] ''
' � i
�' � Me,al�a j MES ! 3 BA�E I '� �
Total Nighttime Jet � ; North�t�est I NVv A 3 _A � 19 ��' 1 b �
Ogierafio�s. bvI�ur 1 i N�rth�i•zs( j NVJA � , i` A3�O i ?03
� � 'A i 3 � B73Q � '-� �
;>;:;.;::.�:>::>;;;::;.;-::.:�:: '
>�:<:>::::> :<:::::>::>::::;,:«::::;::»
° �r:::::>::>>�::«::>>Cr�..... � ` N�rth���est , Nti`Y � - � - �
�,,0 -� ; � North«�e,t I NV��'A ' � B7�1 ! 1 '
;
' � ; � B7�2 � � �
?;(x i �3U ; Nurth���e�t I NW A _
2-3(X� Ibl North�;�est I NVvA � � B7�? '?16 !
; l
� ) 1(Xi �b � � Nonh���e,t l NWA � � DClO 11 ,��
._.... ,: � ' � - � . ;
?Cx� ' 17 j ,{ North���e;t ; NWA , ;_ � D�'9Q � 12..� �
;�X, ,.� � I «� nu- ! oA�: I ., 4 Dc�o �c� �
-��.X) ; �= ' i R��an i RYN � ; i ��?� � l-� i '
�CX i �;� R� an Rl�T ' 3 i R73Q i � '; _
_ , ; . , �
;>::>;<::;::;:;>�; _ .
'�`i3'�'�.F ...:::'::;`:��73......: ; R��nn ; R�'I� � ; ; �7;� � 9 i
_ , � Sun C;ountn� i SCX 3 j B73Q 13� �
; ' _ �
� � DCIO 22 i
Sun Countn� ; SCX ; � i
�� `: Tran, Vdc�rid i_ TV��/� � ; DC9Q � 2�
'`� Tr�n, W�,rl�i � TV�,`A 3 ; MDSO � �
''� �inited ; - UAL � 3 � A319 � ? ';
1 , � �
t_ llnitcc3 ��/�L i ' i B'"Q � �� i
`. ' ` �
_ '1 ; ilnit�ci tIAL ; i F373� ! �
1`. � IJnitcd � II,AI. ; � `- F37,iQ I � '
�
� ; United U�1L ; i F37�2 :; i
`; t�� t r]�� , � � P72Q �" 1 i,
i � tJ1'� 11}'S � ; L�7�2 �' j.
�,� LtI>5 , � I1P5 ; � DC$� � �0 i
` Vaneuar�i i VCrI� , ' Bi�(� ?q �
: ...' . . .. ..:... �. � :::::::::_�.:..;;>•:.::�•.:;;::,:::;:,.::::::::<:::;>s::s;:;,;;:.:>:; .. ;>:>;:�>:>:�:<::<:::;:>:>5>:::»;:::::.::>::>;>: � � .
::.::>::;;: ,. .. �:���......'
...'�`���<;:;;»>::>:>:<>:::::<:>.>:<::><:;::>;:»>: �:::.:�::::, :.........:.........:......
:: :.. .>: .:;;:.:
� . . .. .... ..... . .
Note: The top 15 niglittvne operators represent 94.2°.0 of the total r�ighttune operat�ons;
( � -
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograin 9
i
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Regort
April 20001�1igbttime �'leet Stage Miz for'I'op 15 l�.irlines
10:30 p.zn. to 6:00 a.m
� ��� _
0
._
L 500 ` _
�
� 400
0
. L � � , . .. T .
� 300
� � _ ;
_, � 200 . �
100 , -
o .._�___��_.��..�.�::�_..� �� ..:�._ ��.����::�.�.
4-e"�' �-4'�' GG� C,��' .Q4`�',-�,.q`r' �'�',�fi�4' p4`�' ,�..�' g�,`�'' �,�4" .��"�' ,�4�' ���U
~ Airline
� Stage 2 ❑ Stage 3 � Manufici�zred Sta.ge 3 `
Apai12000 IvTightiire� �'leet Stage Miz for'Top 15 Airlines (- '
. ' 10:30 m. to 6:00 am. :
�;::;»>< _
: : : : : : . � : : : : : : : : : >:;.;:
:. ..:::. � ::.:. _::.;:.:>;;:.;:;. :::>::::::; ;»:�:
..::.:.::::...
..:.
........... :.::::::: .: :...:::.
...... ........ . �;::.;: ..
:.:�:..�::::::: ........::::::::::::.. ::::::�: >;::<::<:>:::::::>:::>::;:>:.;::.:;;:
........ .>:;.;:;:;;;::.;>:;: ;:....:::�:: .;;�:�::: ::.::.�.�:.�:::. ::::. ;
�:::>:;:>:::»;:>:>::<:::>;::>>::::>::> ......:::. � :::.....::::. �::: �::<::<;;>::::»:::;:::::.:::::::.: �:..:.::. .. .......... ................ .....: ..: ......................... .
.:..:�:::::.�:::::.�:::;:.::.:>:.:.;;;;.;:...�:::.�:::::.� ::.:::::::::.�.�::::::::.::::.:�.:.:..:.: � :.:::..:: .:.: .::.:..::.: ..�::::::::.:;.:.;:.;::.�:::::::::::::.�:1
:;:.;::.:;.>::;.;:;; :.:::::::::. ..:::. :.::.:;:;.>:.;:.>;:;.::.::.:;.;_�;:::;:.::.::.:.:;:.::.::.::;::;:;.;:.;:.; :;.�:. :
::::::.�:::.:�::::;::.;:.>:.;:.:;.,;:.::�:::.� :.:::::::::.::::-:.�:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :.::.:;.; ;::>::>:<::::::>::>:::;::>:::::::>:<:::;::»>:;.:::�
;:�>�;�> -
.::::�:��#ai��a�.�(::.�::. ,� :::::::::::::::::::: :.::.�:.
:::::. :. �:::: :.::. �::::: :.::.: � :::::::::::::::: ....... .
.:>;:::>:;::>::::;:::;::«:;»::>::; ::::::..:.:.::::::::::»::.;:::«:>:::::>:<:::::�::::::::<:::>::>:::«:>:;:>::>::::>:>�>:::::::.>:::»::;:.;>:::::.:::::::::»:<:>::>::»»>:::<:::>:;:»:<::; :::;�:.;;:.:�:::::»::»::.;;:;;<::<:;:1
:::.::.::.: .:.: : :.;:;:. ..;.;:.>:.:.:::.: ::.;>::-:;::.:. . :.:::.::.:::::: ::.:;>::::;:.::.:.>:.:.;::.;:: ..::.;:;;.:.:.;;>::: .:.:::.::.:::;;::::; :<:.:::.;>:::::.;:.:;:.:.:::.::::::.;:.;_
:<:::<:: : . ;::_>:::�>::: . ;;; ;�.:;:._.:.�:. .. .:..:. .:: :..�::::: :.. . . . .. ..:::;. :>::: :<::::::»:::.:.>::>::>:::;. ....: : ::<:>::::::::, -.:.
:�,�,�,::.;;� .:>:;.. :. . �::>�;::::::�::>:<: �i . .�::�:>:>::;:: >.:, ::::::::::::::>:<: .. . ;:�::;>:;:;:;.::::::. :.::.:::.:>: : ;::.;;:.:;:. ;
.. . . ..............�.: �::...............:::::::::���:::::.::.
AAL ' O " � ` 53 ` i �=1 '
ABX t) �—1 0 ` i. :.{�. � :
, CCP U �C� O ; I �E �:
COI��i ' O (; �p � 5O ;
' DAL i O < . -; . % 30 �, 32 �:, .
FDX < � �� , �� i �� �
1�1ES U U 2:� ; ; �;} !
, NWA '� O I�iK ? ��=� � E�O2 �`
OAE ',O t) 30 3U ;'.
R�'N ; 0, : 8-t :.: 23 i 107 i;
: SCX i O 13�� :- �� . s 1GO _
'T�.�'A � O ?3 ? i �5 1 �
UAL 0 ;7 7 'I C,:a. j
UP S : � . . O >:. :� 1 . i
7 'i �R
� I
�%GD . O 2�) O Zy i
::� .:..::: ::::.�::::::::� :: :.::::: ...... . ......................... .......... ......:..............:..:..........
.. . ... ..... .......... ............. ....... .
. �� .. . .��.� E;ii::;i;:i., :"•••''�'' �:ii:iiii;;:?i;iiii::;i;Eii `ii>?Eiiii;;?:::<=�i:ii:i::::iii;' '.:::.::;:E:ii:i:;i:;i:;::;i:::i:i::�iEi::i:iE;if;iii:'.":i'';::iii:ii'•::;;:iEiii:i�:?:i::i ,:�.�. .� �,��. � .. ,
.. �� :. . ::::;:::� � : :;�:.r::<.>r.;:::::.� ::::::::::::._>o-::r>::: � . :»:::;>::: a:.>:;�:.:::>::::::r,o-:: • ::::::::::::::::::>>:::;.::;:. ;. . ........ � "�. .. �
�:.:. :..: :.��..::::. ;• .:..::::::...:;;.: :;•::<::..::::::::: �3.�,`��.::::.::::..::::::: :::.: :::::,"f��.•:•.;;•:::.;;;:.: ::.: .::: ::.: ���.�a ::::.:..
{ �
, _ : . . . . . _ : _. __ , . _
- � l
10 A Product of the Metropolitan Air�orts Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitau Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
:�= • ' ;/. ;i` .� > ;� . r4 ; i :� �1 ' ti
i, I' � '� ) '.':
Airport Noise and Operations IVlonitoring System
� �:: Le�end
Remote Monitoring Tower
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
1�
s
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council(M?,SAC) Technical Advisor's Report
.: �� � -
• .� �� �: ; .. .
" 1 ' �; ;�;
_ - - ...__ . .,.......:. :::.� :.::. 6� .;.; :: ;:
1 Minnea olis Xerkes Ave. 8: 41st St. 401�
; 2 I, Minnea olis � Fremont A�•e. 8:. 43rd St. 3296 � 430 (
; 3 � Minnea �lis � West Elm�i•ood St. & Belrrx�nt Ati�e. 38�E � 1��2
�, j Minnea olis j Uakland A�•z. �X: �9th St. 3209 8p2
' � i Minnea �olis � 12th A��e. & �8th St. I �701 � 3OC)?
; � ' Minnea olis ?�th A��e. �-. 57th St. ( ;lOc1 � �591
� 7 � Richfield Wentt�•orth A��e: & ti��th St. � 24fi � `l;
� 8 � Minn�a . olis ! Lon fello��� A��e. &�3rd St. � 102 � ?
{ 9 � St. Paul ( Saratoea St. &, Hartford A�•e. � ?3 � 10
10 � �t: Paul ; Itasca A��e. & Bo���c�oin St. 20 1�
1 I � St: I'�ul ' Finn St. &: 5c:heffer A��e. , 6 � � �
1'- i St. Paul i Alton St. �, Rock�rood Ave. � �. y I
' 13 ' Menc�ota Hc:iQhts ! Southeast end of Mahican Court I �2 p
1�1 F.aean lst St. 8. Mckee St. �810 � i3 (
l� ! Niendota Hei�ht� i Cullon St. �: Le�in�ton A�•e. ( 169 4
l6 � Easan ;' A�•alon At�e. & Uilas Lane 4314 �. � I
191�
I% i Bluominalon ; ' f3�th St. &�[h A�•e. 309 ; I�8
I� I2ichficld ! 7�th St &. 17th Ati.e ; �75 i iCX) (
19 Rlc>umin<7wn ' 16th A�•e. �: fi-tth St. � 129 + ?
: 2(i Richticld � 7�t11 St. 8. 3rci A�•e. � 37 � 1
�( � In��zr C.;ra��c F lei�ht, ! E3arbara A��e. �. 67ih St. ! j;�; ; i
'?_' '. in�•er Gro�•e Heishts ; Anne Marie Trail I ?BSIti 5 �
i
?� i Ivfzndota I�eiaht; : E�iid of I�enndan .A�•e. � 1�7� i 16 I
'-� � Fagan Chapel i.n �i.Wren Ln i �c;l� i ;74 �
�'� F�3ean ' M���,nshinc: Park ]��1 Iuni� Rd � .�:.1t7 i � �
'_c, In��erCiro�•e l leiehts i t;7�J6Ark;insa, f1��e, �4'. i b3t; ; ) �
'-% t�linn�a olia l�nth�n�� Schuol �?�7 In�in . A��e. S. � 13� j ?
'-� � I2ichtield E�� Ibth n��enu� 5. � �� �8
'_9 ' Minnca <�lis ; Fricsson F1cm Schc�c�l -131� 31,t A�•c. S. � � I i
2 � (�
; i �
�
1� p
_ 0 i (1
?4y O
30� � 1
t) ) (1
0 ! p
0 � �
� �: �
ll � �)
0 I U
0 I '_�j
0 ! p
0 � 0
y � I
2 p
0 ( p
0 ( 0
� I 0
U I' p
0 i �
1 I U
9 j �
�� � �.
� � i �
�� �
, � 0
Q � p
16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airparts Commission ANOMS Program
�
Metropolitan A.ircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
� Carr�er Jei I)ep�rtur� l�elated �oise Eve���
Apri12Q00
� 1 ( Minne�olis
i 2 ! Minneapolis
� � i Minneapolis
�
�} MinncaPolis
i � i Minnc:a�oli,
i
; 6 ; Minneapolis
7 Richti�ld
b I�linneapolis .
' 9 ` 5t Paul
Xer.;es A�'e. & �41st St.
Fremont A��e. & � �rd Sc.
u'est F1rrn��ood St. R. Belmont A��e
Oal:land A�'e. &: 49th St.
12th A�•e. &: �$th St.
2�th A�'e. �. �7th St.
VJent��-orth A��e. & 6�th St.
Lc�nafzllo«� A��e. �: 43rd St.
Saratosa St. &. Hartford A�'e.
761 � 117 � t) (� '
IOS9 � 27� � � � «
2� "'";" � � � 39 ! �� .
���y i 7'1 i . -�i � 0
��� _, � ��� ! � �19� � IC� ,
��69 I 2b� i i ] fl��' � ] n%
;4F3� I 12C� � �x�- � O �
2089 � 69R � ;S ' 0 i
31 1,v� 9 � �_ � i
� � , C�
�
� g�
10 St. Paul Itasca Are. &&�ti�'dom St. �
1] � St. Paul ' Finn St. & Scheffer A1�e. ! �b
� `i� �" �t Paul � AltonSt &Rock-���oodlA��e. I �
` ` � 719
` 1� � Mendota H�i�hts � Southzast end of Mohican Court ; 2
' I�t � Eaaan � Ist St. &. M�l:ee St. ( ���y
�
1� ? Mendota Neiahts I Cullon St. e�.I,e�inston A��e. � '���
- 1G � FaLan ' A�•alon A�°e. c�. V'ilas I,ane i ����'-
, ,
1
� 1? ' I3luuminatun '' 8�th St. 8c. 4th A��e. ( 1�U
15 IZichlield � 7�th S�. & 17th A�•� ( ?�1
19 Bluominaton � 16th A�-e. c�. 8=}th St. j 168
2U Richfi�lci i %�th St. &. 3r�i A�•e. i �'-�
� � 1 In��cr C;rc��'e Hei�ht� ` Barhara A�'e. & b�th St. i 1�`�`�
�� ' In��cr C'rrc��'c H�i�hts � Annc: Marie Trail � 13`�y
�; ; I�4zndot� I lei�hts ; End of henndon A�:e. I `u)�
�.� ��� • Chape] Ln. &. Wren Ln. ! >>>>
?; ; I;�i��an � Moonshine Park 1331 iurdc Pd. i 1R79
?G `. In� �r Cn�u� � F-I�i��ht; ; 67yti Arl:an,a; A�•e. Vti'. � 1737
� r • Minn���olis Anthon�� Sc:hu��l �7�7In•inL A�'�. S. ! �1�'
��t Richlicld Ex}l� 16th .A�'cnue ti. ! ���
�9 ; I�4inneapolis ; Eric�son �em Schu��1431� ilst E\�•e. S. � 123)
� )
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
... � � ...
�; .
10
29�
10?�
4=it)
1�7�
36
1(�
68
Ih
116
K8
17:'
>j7
47
1�3
�J�
:}? ;
���
l; 3
4 ' 0
2 i U
I
j ; 0
�
91 i 0
8 i 0
� g_; ( p
1� � 0
39 � 4
1-� j 0
- ] I- 0
t� { o
0 ( 0
49? ; 1
l� ( 0
] ( 0
1 j �
1�— 0
; I o
�
1 ; 0
17
s
Date/Tune
4/29/00 15:26
4! 18/0013:28
4/19/00 21:12
M20/0010:07
4,�27/00 10:16
4/1/00 921
4/19/00 8:07
4/210Q 1623
M27/Q011:37
4/9/00 1 1 36
Date/Time
M29/00 17:35
4/15/00 8:04
4112100 19:03
M12100 8:08
4/I/00 1129
4/9/00 11:3 I
4! 19/00 11:44
a�2aoo Zo:2i
4J 1 I /00 21:30
4/19/00 73�
Date/Tune
M29/00 1526
4/24/00 6:21
4/4/00 1521
4/ 15/00 8:04
4/14100 15:40
4/ 13/00 4:06
4/?J00 16:23
4/28/00 8:58
4/28/00 8:08
M20/00 20:20
Metropolitan Aircrafi Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report
7['�p T'en I,oudest A.ircraft Noise Events for I�ISP
�-oo
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41 � St., Mumeapofis
Flight Number Aircraft Type ArtivaU Runway
BttllIB
tFnlmown Unlmown A 12R
NWA414 DC A i2R
NWA731 DC9Q A 1�,
UAL1801 B72Q D 30R
NWA375 B72Q D 30L .
SCX715 B72 D 30L
NWA561 B72Q A I2L
DAL1624 B'72Q D 30L
NWA619 B72 D 30R
NWA619 B72Q D 30R
(]ZMT Site#2)
Fremorrt Ave. � 43rd St., M�rn�eapolis
Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU 12unway
De arture
NWA614 B72 A .12L,
SCX325 B72Q D 30L
NWA1237 DC A 1�,
SCX325 B72 D 30L
NWA619 B72 D 30R
NWA1271 B72 D 30R
NWA616 B72Q A 12L
SCX408 B72Q D 30L
NWA1273 B72Q b 30R
NWA1036 DC9Q A i�,,
(RMT Site#3)
West Eknwood St. & Belmorn Ave., Muuleapo]is
Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrivall Runway
De artu�
Unknown Unlrnown A 12R
CCP512 B72Q D 30R
NWA19 B742 D 30L
SCX3ti B72Q � D 30L
KI�M664 B743 D 30L
ABX172 DC9Q A 12R
DAL1624 B72 D 30L
SCX715 B72Q D 30L
CCP101 B72Q D 30L
SCX408 B72Q D 30L
T.max (dB)
93.4
90.7
90.1
89.8
88.4
88.2
87.4
869
86.8
86.8
Lmax (dB)
933
92.5
92.2
90.5
90.4 _
903
90.2
�o.l
90
899
Lmax (dB)
999
97.4
96.6
96.1
' � 95.4
94.5
94.5
94.4
94.3
943
1 g A Product of the Metro�olitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
�
( �j
Date/T�e
4/28/00 21:16
4/5/001 �:18
M17/0011:47
4/14/00 23:13
4/20/00 20:39
M28/0011:29
M27/00 19:52
4/8/001125
4JI3/00 11:39
• M30/001�:57
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad�risor's Report
Top 'Y"en Loudest A.ircraft Noise Eve�ts for IV.�SP
AP�-oo
(RMT Site#4)
Oakland A�e. & 49th St, Mum
Flight Number Aizcraft Type ArrivaU
Departur
NWA�6 B742 D
SCX743 B72 D
NWA619 B72Q __ D
CTT 1709 B72Q D
DAL1683 B72Q D
NW A 1271 B72 D
DAL1683 B72Q D
NWA1271 . B72Q _ D
NWA619 B�2 D
DAL1624 B72Q D
Runway
�
�•
�.
i•
1•
�'
�'
1'
(RMT Site#5}
12th Ave. & 58th St, Minneapolis
Date/Time Ffight I3umber Aircraft Type ArrivaU ' Runway
MEJ00 626
4/2I0017:38
M2/0014:32
4/1/00 7:10
4/2I00 18:33
M17/00 14:0�
4/3/00 14:03
4/E�00 5:14
4/ 15/00 8:03
4/ 1 /0017:04
Date/Tane
41�/00 1 �:17
4/ 1 /00 19:48
4/7100 1 �:27
M27/00 1 �:06
4/9/00 11:30
4/8/00 20:�3
4/7J00 1324
4/8/00 14:59
4/IM00 17:19
4/ 1 /00 1128
(]ZM'I' Site#6)
ZSth AVS. SG S%th St., Minnea�
Flight Number Ai�raft Type AmvaU
De arture
SCX743 B�2Q D
Unimown Unl.ziown D
NW A 1168 B72Q D
SCX743 B72Q D
NW A 1271 B�ZQ D
NW A 1273 B72Q D
NWA 1296 B72 D
NW A 186 B72 D
NWA746 B�'Q D
NW A619 B72Q D
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission AriOMS Prog�am
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
Runway
�`
1'
1•
1'
1•
1'
1'
1•
�'
1•
LmaY (dB)
963
9�.8
95.7
9�.4
9�.4
94.7
94.1
93.8
93.8
93.6
Lmax (dB) �
104.1
ro�.9
102
101.6
101.4
100.8
100.7
100.3
100.2
10Q
Lrr�ax (dB)
107.4
10�.8
10�.5
10�.4
104.8
104.4
104.2
104.1
103.8
103.7
19
�
s
20
Metropolitan AircTaf� Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report
Top �'en �audest �ircraft Noise Events for IVISP
A�-ao
(RNIT' Site#7)
Werrtwnrth AvP .� �anc �+ u,�t,�ot,a
M 1 M00 1532
M27/0014:49
M27/00 15:06
4/11/00 7:24
4/27/00 8:14
4/14100 17:16
4J11/00 9:47
M6/00 17:3I
M1M00 18:41
4/ 13/00 17:20
Date/Tune
M 15/00 1 �:18
M15/00 15:40
M23100 15:17
4/27/00 15:13
4114/00 7:02
MS/00 10:59
4/ I /00 20:28
4l10/00 15:16
4/ 14/00 4:48
4/ 1 /(A 20:32
(R1�1T Site#8)
LongfeIlow Ave. & 43rd St., Minnea.polis
Flight Number Aircraf� Type AmvaU Runway
artur�
SCX743 B72 D 30R
DAL1731 B72Q D 30R
SCX743 B72Q D 30R
SCX710 B72Q D 30R
SCX325 B72Q D 30R
Unknown ' H25B D 30R
RYN399 B72Q D 30L
D�� B72Q D 30R
SCX408 B72Q D 30L
UAL1876 B"73 D 30R
(]�M'I' Site#9)
Saratoga S� & Hartf�rd Ave., St. Paul
Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway
De arture
NWA 19 B742 D 4
NWA83 B742 D 4
NWA I9 B742 D 4
NWA 19 B742 ll �
Unl.-nown BEI8 D 7�
UAL599 B72Q q �
KLM665 B743 A 22
NWA 19 B742 D q
UPS�58 DC8Q A 22
NWA106 DC10 A 22 , _
Lmax (dB)
9---_.__
96.3
95.6 .
94.3
94.1
93.5
93.3
929
92.3
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOIyiS Progr�un
C
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top '�'en I�oudest .�iirc�-�ft 1�oise Events for ldISP
�r-oo
� (RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St, St. Paul
DatelTane Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Isna�(dB)
De artute
4(27/00 15:12 NW A 19 B742 D 4 10? 4
4/15/0015:18 NWA19 B742 D 4 101.�
4J3/001528 NWA 19 B742 D 4 100.1
M23/0015:16 NWA19 B742 D 4 100 ...
4t19/0015:08 NWA19 B742 D 4 �.3
M27/00 1�:44 KLM664 B743 D 4 99
4! 15/0015:39 NW A 83 B742 D 4 98.9
4/1010015:16 NWA 19 B742 D 4 '�' 98.3
4/1�/00 8:29 SCX701 B72Q D 4 97.6
4/6/00I5:15 NWA19 B742 D 4 97.�
(]�M'I' Site# 11) .
r.•_... 04 Q. C�..1,af�nr Ava .C't P'ail� �
1'lllll JL. w vvaavu.+ . -. -.� --. - --
Date/Tune Flight Number Ai�raft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB)
De arture
M1EJ0015:30 NWA19 B742 D 4 � 99.5
4/6/0015:16 NVJA 19 B742 D 4 98.7
M20/0011:30 NWA1271 B72 D 4 93.3
M20/0023:31 NWA1273 Unknown D 4 93.2
4/3/001�:28 NWA19 B742 D 4 92.4
M27/001524 NWA723 B72Q A 30R 89.8
M20/0016:21 NWA19 B742 D 4 8g�2
4/ 14/00 1829 SCX4b3 B72Q D 4 �.4
4/1?J00 5:17 RYN610 B72Q D 4 ��8
4/20/00 11:45 NW A 1760 DC9Q D 4 ��3
(RMT Site#12)
Ata.,._.. C'+ 8. �r.r�r-cz�nn!'�i AVF �t Pr'�11�
.C]1W11 �,Jt. w i�vv.�...,...� . _. _'� --- -- -. .
Date/Tune Flight Nuinber Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lanax(dB)
De arture
4/15/00 829 SCX701 B72Q D 4 93.7
M19/001�:09 NWA19 B742 D 4 91.6
4/20/0011:20 DAL1057 Iv1D80 D 4 85'7
M20/0010:55 TWA658 MD80 D 4 SS.S
M14/0018:27 TWA385 MD80 D 4 ��g
4/20/001324 DALl88S MD� D 4 g''6
4120/0013:?..2 NWA98�3 B72Q D 4 8'.'
4/ 1 M00 I 8:10 NW A 1298 B72 D 4 83.1
4/18/006:37 BMJ48 BE80 D 12L 82.7
M 19ICO 17:30 NW A 1530 B72Q A 12L 82.2
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Cominission ANOMS Progr�un 21
Date/Tune
4/23/00 11:28
4/29/00 729
M18/0011:32
4/2/0011 �9
4/26f00 5:16
M17/OO 15:I7
4/15/0012:05
M23/00 20:47
M30/0012:I3
M29/0019:23
Date/Time
M1M00 14:33
M13/00 933
M22/00 14:52
4/ I7/00 9:06
4/16I00 9:02
M22J00 14:48
Mt5/00 12:16
M29/001 �:06
4/24/00 8:3�
4/13/00 8:08
Da[e/Tune
4/SL00 11:47
4/5/00 8:05
M I S/00 15:0�
M29/00 14:5�
4/5/00 14:10
4/ 14/00 5:1 �
4! 18/00 7:42
4130/00 12:13
4/13/00 2:04
4/30/00 9: I 5
Metropolitan Aircrafi Sound Abatement Council (MP,SAC) Technicai Advisor's Report
Top Z'en Loudest Aircraft I\1�ise Evea�ts for Il�SP
�-oo
(l2M'I' Site#14)
1 st St. & Mckee St, Eagan
FlightNumber Aircraft Type ArrivaU
De arture
SCX729 B72Q D
SCX791 B72Q D
NWA186 B72Q D
SCX791 B72Q D
SCX791 B72 � D
SCX748 B72Q D
NWA 1295 B72Q D
NWA 19 B742 D
CCP 101 B72Q D
CCP406 B72Q D
Runway
�
�
12I.,
12L
12I.,
12L
12I,
12L
(]�M'I' Site#15)
Cullon St & Lexin�ton Ave., Mendota Heights
Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway
Be arture
NWA619 B72Q D 1�,
SCX325 B72Q D 12L
NWA414 DC9Q D 12L
NWA 1762 Unknown D 1�,
NWA616 B72Q D l�,
SCX501 B72Q D 12L
NWA500 DC D j�,
UAL1650 B72Q D i�,
DHL142 Unlrnown D l�,
NWA561 B72Q D 12L
22 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Date/Time
4/5/00 21:36
M14/00 9:41
4/26/00 9:03
4/13/00 9:16
4/7/00 9:22
4/ 18/00 9:51
4/24/00 9:12
4/7/00 9:39
4/20/00 6:15
4! 15/00 14:00
Metrapolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad-��isor's Report
T�p `I'e� I.oudest �rca-aft I�ioise Events for Ii�iSP
A�-oo
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & V�as Lar�e, Et
Flight Number Aacraft Type ArrivaU
De arture
UAL1170 B72Q A
SCX407 B72 D
SCX791 B72Q D
SCX407 B72Q D
CCP504 B72Q D
SCX791 B72Q D
SCX791 B72 D
SCX407 B72Q D
CCP 101 B72Q D
NWA396 B72Q D
(]�MT Site#17)
84th St. c� 4th Ave., Bloornir
Date/Tane Flight Number Aircraft Type AmvaU
4l17/0015:1� NWA19 B742 D
4/ 1&�00 14:57 NW A 19 B742 D
4/21/0017:39 NVJA83 B742 D
M9/0015:08 NWA19 B�42 D
4(22J0016:00 - NWA83 B742 D
4/]/0013:15 NWA19 B"142 D
4/?J0016:11 NWA19 B�� D
M30/001�:36 NWA19 B�42 D
4/�/0014:�9 NWA19 B742 D
4122100 21:28 NW A 1299 B72 D
(JZMT Site#i 8)
�� 75th St. & 17th Ave, Richfield
Date/TIIne Flight Number Ai�raft Type AmvaU
De arture
M26/00 16:11 NWA 19 B742 D
MiRi0014:56 NWA19 B742 D
M 17/00 15:14 NW A 19 B742 D
4/8/001�:30 NVJA83 B�42 D
4/30/0015:36 NWA.19 B74� �
4/9/00 15:07 NW A 19 B742 D
4/5/00 14:�8 NWA 19 B742 D
4/I/0013:1� NWA19 B742 D
M2J001�:59 NWA83 B�42 D
4/21/0017:39 NWA83 $742 D
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograrn
Runway
-
Runway
22
2.2
22
22
2.2
2.2
22
22
22
22
Runway
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
I u�ax (dB)
Lmax (dB)
97.6
96.8
9�.9
9�.4
93.7
93.7
93.6
933
93.2
92.9
LrnaY (dB)
23
Metropolitan Aircraf} Sound Abatemeioi Councit (MAgAC) Technicai t�dvisor's Report
Tap T'en I,oudest Aircrafi 1�loise Events for 1l�SP
Apr-00
(l2M'T S ite# 19)
16th Ave. $� 84th St, Bloommgton
DatelTmle Flight Number Airoraft Type ArrivaU g�Way
De arture
4/8/000:19 AAL1058 B72 D �
M8/001624 SCX743 B72 D �
4/8/0018:02 SCX753 B72Q D �
4/9/00 7:11 SCX749 B72 D �
M8/00 8:30 NWA740 B72 D ,�
4l2J00 6:31 SCX533 B72 D �
4/M00 8:58 DALI702 B72 D �
M9/Q06:1� SCX629 B72Q D �
4/?J00 6:21 SCX481 B72Q D �
M1/006:08 CCP310 B72 D �
4/9/00 5:03
4/8/00 1�:30
4/9/001928
4/2I00 6:22
4/1/00 15:58
4/2100 14:58
4/3/00 22:11
4/8/00 18:58
4/8/00 1�:41
4/3/00 11:36
Date/Time
M 14J--�._�_
4/I3/00 9:08
M 18/00 7:28
4l2M00 11:33
M 1 E✓00 17:29
M2M00 1 J:23
4/18100 7:16
M 1 M00 13:27
4/�/OQ 13:37
4117/00 1�:18
24
(]2MT' Site#20)
75th St & 3rd Ave., Richfield
Flight Number Air�raft Type AmvaU Runway
De artu�
RYN610 B72Q D �
NWAffi B742 D 22 �
NWA572 A320 D 30L
RYN6i0 B72 D �
DAL1624 872 D �
NWA419 DC D . 30L
NWA200 DC9Q D ' 30L
Unknown SW4 D 30L
NWA21� DC9Q D 30L
NWA459 DC9Q D 30L
(IZMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67th St., Inver Grove
Flight Number Aircraft Type AirivaU
De arture
NWA921 B742 D
SCX715 B72 D
NWA652 B72Q D
NWA619 B72Q D
RYN431 B72Q D
SCX743 B72 D
SCX710 B72 D
NWA1270 B72 D
NWA1�46 DC9Q D
SCX743 B72Q D
Runway
m
�
�
12L
12I.,
12L
I.m�x (dB)
9�
95.3
94
939
93.5
93.4
93.3
92.6
923
90.7
Lmax (dB)
'_`_
95J
89.1
86.9
821
81.8
81S
81.3
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS �'rogram
a
C
( j
Date/Time
M1M00 14:34
4/2J00 $:ti
4/5/00 9:06
4/15/00 14:0]
4/29/00 4:39
4/17/00 9:07
4/2I0012:11
4/13/00 9:34
4/22/00 9:47
4/23/00 828
Date/Tune
M 1 �/00 11:�7
M 19/00 21:03
4/26/00 5:16
M17/0015:16
M23/00 20:46
4! 16/001728
M 1 EJ00 11:4�
M23/00 1128
M1EJ00 13:16
4/30/00 9:1�
Metropolitan Aircrafl. Sounsi Abatemeni Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'Top �'en I�oudest Airca-�ft 1'�oise Even� %r l�SP
Apr-00
(]ZM'T Site#22)
Arme Marie Tra�, Inver Grove i
Flight Number Air�raft TYPe Am°�
De artur
SCX729 B72 D
SG�723 B72 D
SCX791 B72 D
NWA396 B72Q D
RYN610 B72Q A
SCX791 B�2Q D
CCP406 B72 D
SCX791 B�12Q D
SCX325 B72 D
SCX723 B72Q D
� (RNIT Siie#23)
End ofKenndon Avenue, Mendota
Flight Number Aircraft Type " Arri�aU
De arture
NWA619 B72Q D
NWA615 B72Q D
RYN610 B72Q D
SCX743 �72Q D
CCP609 B72 D
RYN431 B�2Q D
NWA619 B72Q D
NWA619 B�2Q D
NWAbl6 B�2Q D
NWA561 B72Q D
(I�MT Site#24)
- Chapel Lane �c Wren La.ne, E
Date/Tune Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU
De arture
D
M 14/00 14:34 SCX729 B72Q
M10/0016:00 Unla�own Unl.�nown D
4/ 13/00 9:33 SCX791 B72Q D
4/6/00 8:11 MES3684 BA�ib A
4/13/009:08 SCX71� B72Q D
4/J00 824 SCX7?3 B�'Q D
4/�/00 11:27 NW A 1091 DC9Q D
4/16/00 9:03 SCX791 B72Q D
4/2�/00 21:16 NWA56 B742 D
4/6/0012:16 NWA986 DC9Q A
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commissian ANOMS Program
Runway
Runway
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
12L
Runway
�. .:
11
..;
..,
..
�: :
�:.
.;
.; ,
.; .
.; .
Lma� (dB)
__._.��-
952
94.3
93.1
92
91.9
91.�
91.3
91.3
91.3
90.8
25
�
26
Date/Tm�e
4/27/00 7:09
4/20/00 6:48
M16/00 17:45
4/ 19/00 18:09
4/19/00 8:17
4/19/00 7:37
M12I00 22:44
4/ 19/00 15:56
M16J00 17:53
4/18/00 22:11
Date/Time
4/ 17/00 11:33
4/14/00 8:01
4/6/00 8:12
M22100 12:16
4/13/00 7:57
4/30/00 7: ] 4
�ia�oo r2:r2
4/2/00 "7:13
M30/00 11:40
4/22I00 7:12
Date/Time
�`
4/5/00 13:00
M1 M00 15:00
M20/00 1625
M 18/00 1$23
4/21 /00 8:21
M2R/00 18:15
4/?J00 1432
M28i00 17:32
t
4/ 15/00 6:20
4/13/00 17:16
Meiropolitan A.ircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'I'op 'I'en Loudest A.ircraft Noise Events for ldISP
Apr-00
(]ZMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd.,
Flight Number Airoraft Type ArrivaU
De artur�
SCX710 B72 D
BMJa6 BESO b
SCX785 B72Q D
SCX793 B72Q D
SCX227 B72Q D
SCX710 B72Q D
CTT709 B72 D
DAL1624 B72Q D
DALSdS B72Q D
CTT709 $72Q D
(]�MZ' Site#26)
6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove
Flight Number Air�raft Type AmvaU
�e 32tlli�
NWA1296 B72 A
SCX325 B72Q D
NWA375 B752 A
NWA921 B742 D
SCX325 B72 D
SCX749 B72 D
NWA921 B742 D
CCP201 B72 D
NWA619 B72Q D
SCX710 B72Q D
(l�M'T Site#27)
Arrthorry Middle School, 575� Irving Ave. S.,
Flight Number Aircraft Type AzrivaU
Unlmown Unknown A
SCX748 B72Q D
DAL1624 B72Q D
UAL1407 B72Q D
CCP 101. B72Q D
UAL1407 B72Q D
SCX748 B72 D
SCX403 B72Q D
CCP�04 B72Q D
NWA�63 Unknown D
Runway
Runway
Runway
12R
30L
30L
30R
30L
30R
30L
30L
30L
30L
I n. . C
�e�i
•� .
.�
.��
:Z�
�
::
:��
�'
Ianax (dB)
99.6
95
94.2
93.3
. 93.2
92.8
92.1
92
9L5
91.5
A Product of the Metropolitan Air��orts Comuussion ANOMS Program
�
C a
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten I.�oudest �ircr�ft 1�loise Events for IYISl'
Apr-00
(RMT Site#28)
��nS 1�+i� AvF+rnu� �', Richfield
Date/T�me
4/ 12100 �:1 S
4IM00 720
4/3/00 20:4b
a�l rion i�:o9
M13/0019:33
4/3/00 7:2a
4/6/00 7:09
4l2�00 17:07
4/5/0017:41
4/5/00 18:03
Ericsson �ierr
Flight Number
RYN610
SCX621
NW A787
NW A 1282
UAL1272
NVJA 1220
UAL,692
NW A212
NW A212
SCX792
(IZMT Sit�e#29)
ary School, 431 S 31 st Ave. S.,
Aircmft Type AzrivaU �
Runway
0
1'
1'
April 2000 Remote M�nif4nng TovverTop Ten Summary
Lmax (dB)
'1.
:•
;. .
:•
:�
:•
:•
:�
::•
::•
7he top ten noise events and the event rartges at each RMT for April 2000 were comptised of
90.7% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type v�as the Boeing 7�7 Hushed with
67.2% of the high�st Lmax events. MoBe: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight
track data.
Apr�1 2Q00 Technical Advis�ot Report filotes
IVote: Missing FAA radar date for 1.4 days during the month of Apri12000.
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
27
Metropolitan Aircra8. Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report
. �'
,� � , �; :
:. �. . y 1 1. '� �.
�
`. 'i, ; , � i '';
•-.�• - .� . n� . -
i��? I 6(� ! 61.R I 6�.5 � 73.7 ' 7�.9 ; 673 ( 63.7 I 5?.9 � 51.9 I 48.9 i n/a ( 42.5 ; 66.6 �.38.4 �
i
! 57.� ! 6t�.3 i 6�.4 � 6� ( 7� i 7�.8 i ti7? � 66.1 � 33.; ��.b ��i._i ��1-3 � �ti.9 � tib? ��8.7 :
��9. ] i C�.; I 67.3 � 6E.6 ; 7�? '. 7�.4 f 71 � b�Z �.� 7� �� 6 1 �� � 43 -� I:� �� 63 7 �.a8 �:
:�6.�!5�.6�E�1.8f63.7'725:74.1-ifb.'jci;_1I41.1 �31.4� ,7.�i3�.61�8.2�E}l.t;.��9.;'
��.�iC�.��b�.h�ci7.2�7.i3'7�.7jEi.3�623��0.3��18.9�-169�39.3�E�(1.4�6ci.hi Ci.1 :
; �6.9 ��9.� i C�.n � b�. l' 76.b : 7-�.7 I 68.6 i ti�.8 j��.9 ; �� �� �ti j 43 1� n/a � 61 � I�7 �;
b
�9.3�61.1 �ci�.9�6;.�1722� 7� �6C.��61.7�;7.5�36.��42.1 (32.8i�9.2�68.7'�61.1;
j � � �
� 5G. �' C�.� ; 63.9 fr�? � 73.7 � 7� ' 6C.� � 64.2 I;5.9 � 57:R � n%a !'a93 i�.4 � ci�.h ��-1 ;
i � ; ` , ; , � I
� �8.1 ; 53.� � 61.8 � 6,.h ; 70.; ' 7�19 � h7S ; f*�.9 �1.9 I 3-�:R ��7.9 ! 37.R !�1�t.2 � E�O., �:#(�.l :
` nia ; 61.� � 67.? i 62.8 73.1 � nia ���.ci '-�3.1 � 4�.9 i ��9 ( 4�.; ; 38.8 i 6L� i 68. � � 6?.S i
� nlaihl,";:ti�.7�Exi.1!72.7�?�.1 �70.I �bC.l ��l I�}3.9i�.71�1.1 i49.8:70.�i�2.6�
i nla ' c�.l � ti�.9 ( 6�.9 ' 7;.? ! 72.6 I b�.l I 623 � 47.7 I E�.6 ! 57.1 � 39.9 I 6'- i C�.7 63.7 ?
: n/a ! 6�.� :�..} ; t�.$ i 7?.7 ; 73.7 ; 6? �; 61.� i 3) j 43.9 i n/a i, �8.4 61.7 j 6).� h=l.4 ;
` t�1.; ' 6?.9 ' 67.1 68.1 ?-�.1 ` 7�.1 � 65.1 � 6�.�1 ��J ; 56.7 !�ti.� i 51 61.7 I 68.9 G3.9 ;
� i
�61.��61.7; 6$ 6� i3.i'71.;'ti3.?� ti0 ��7.8�62.3�48.���3Z��).8i68.1 ..ci?ii
;b2.��C�.I ib7.� C�}.9'?C).��69.$!�I._�;3�.1 �37.8��.7;�b.��41:2 GO �b9.� b?Sj
61 � 63.9 � C�6.5 ci�.7 � 7(l.7 72.2 ��%J ': ��.6 ��.� (��.� ! 3y.� i•�3.i � 61.j � b� 63.b j
6"'.� ` 63." � c;r.3 6=t.h ' 7(i. i 70.b ' Sfi.� � 52.5 I 5? � 42J 1;9:8 � S1J i 6?.b ; 7C� 65 j
�(�1.� : cx;. ;: GS.ti � Exi.? � 72 71.1 ,�;.-t i�kiG i 39.9 ' �9.4 I�t-�.� � �3.1 � Ci.6 6ci.�4 Exi.1 !
C�(�.0 ' t�?.c; Cxi9 E�t; ?�t. % ?�.7 ` c;9.9 � G� : �9.7 ! C�.B � G?.3 � �2.�t � �9.8 ; h7.7 �7.1
;
: 5�).� `�9.� � 6� t�.E� 7�.1 7�.t� � ck'� j 63.� ?�.G I;�.6 I�U9 i 3a4 � 39.3 ! E1.1 �7 j
�c;.�S � t�1.E; ' 6? � i b�. i ti�? : 70.� �;7.-� ��t�.�' n/a j:�� I.:�.� I 42.7 ��9.� � E�.l E I.� �
�9. � I �. ' � � �
G_ I: Cx� t>_9 ' C>y ci9.� �:�y.> I=t�.R i�l.b ; �7.; j-1=�? I 4=1.8 I 61.y E�Fi.6 63.4 (
�- ' ��).� . G7 �1 � 61.R 7(t. � 7?.�l ': til? :. ��.� � 41.� i �$.3 ; n/a ! �.3 � �). f � fi�}.9 6O.2
�C�.y ;..� `�7 �t; � h(l� C�1 ' 31i.7 i n/a ' n/a i�7.A � 34.9 j n/<t �S � 63.1 �93
�5 c�).k C�4.� t��.:i 71.R 71.9 i;7.�i ` C,LI ;�2.�1 ;��.7 i 36.9 i�t.� ( 62.0 � h�.6 C?.7 i
. +
c>l.� c;:.i : G�.� � Ex;.; : 7.;.7 7c�.1 c;�t.-t ; c�t;.�t ;�t).9 ! C�.� i�1.1 �;9.2 I�2.R � c:?.8 �7.8 i
, �
��.-� ���?.-� ' b�.� i 6�.-� : 7�.�� ?-�. � 6�i.1 � 6=t.t� j�3.1 t �£i.1 ': ��.� ���.1 ��$.� f 6�.1 CiO..i �
� � � . ; , , �
�tt.; c� i.5 C�.9 I t; l tk5. ; ix;.5 :�3. I:�t�.�t ! 3�.7 � 39.9 ;_i?.? ' 3�. ; I C�c).� I c;7.9 (i?. I�
� , ;
� ; _ � i
��+.h � htJ �i '(i�.h f 6� i 7U.� .%i.� 6ti.�t ' 6i.3 i�� �K.) ' iU.� i7.9 j �9.4 ; 67.6 6U.1 i
2� A Praduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitaa Aircraft Sound Abatement.Council (MASAC.) Technical Advisor's Report
A.nalys�s of A�rcraft I�oise Eve�ts - Aircraf� I��n d��
�prii 2000
Remote Monitoring Toweis
_ i .
� 69.� ' ��.-� i 6� ; 6�S �3.5 � ��.9 � �8 � �9? ' 6-�.3 � �0.� ' S7.�t � e*�.l � 61.6 i �5.;
` 69.9 ' 6; i 69.8 � 67.� , �8? ��6 � ti0.l � 6ti.l ! f�.8 ;�-1.1 ' E�? � C� i 6� � h;.;
�
69 6 � 53 �i 8 ' =1� 6 i 5� � �.9 � �8.7 �7.1 � 65.1 � -�9.5 51.-� i 63.: = h-.� ( 62.5 •
� �
�6�.�� ' -�7.9 ( �1.6 � �?.$ � �CI.1 i �.i.1 ; �8.6 I 67.1 I b�4. i { j1 , �.1. � : b3 � 6�.'_ I E�O. � :
� i
7f�.� ; �i.�' ; �i. � =�$.� � �8.6 : �7..> `: ci?.9- i 6y ; 6ciS :;�$'1' � 63.t� ' h�.-� : Es�_6 i h-t
, 7Ci. � ; ?9.� ` �.'� ' 33.h ( �$.) � 4).1 ! �ti.9 j;.6 ! b; ; ;?.9 : E*t.� � b6 � ti3.9 I c�(?.� .
f i � '
71 I�3.3 I ci�? ;�7.$ I�.� �7.6 : �9.h 68.R � Exi.C> ; ti1.3 i h(1.� `. �8.1 � G:>.h ��6?
G�S � � �9 7 � C7 ; � 68.? i' �.9 � =ki.R � �G.2 � � � E3.7 ' �t1 � ti-1.9 i C3 1 ; 62 t 6(1.� ,
� 67 ' C�.f+ � i� t C,8.1 ! 62.9 ' �' : 5;.; i 4$.9 � 60. � ; ?8.9 •; �.' �9.R � c��.l � ;�?.1 ';
� 7O.9 : .:�j ,.. -��.i ' �7.6 _i�.G i �9.� ! �9.� j 71.9 ; h�.-� i b�.� ! �;;,,� ! -}?,� Sti � -�-�t.; •
4 � ' , , ; �
FS_� ! � ; -�'.8 ! �19.9 ( �7.6 � 5�.5 ; �5.7 ; ��.�1 ' h�.., � �1t�.1 ; �1.' .�, 6(?. � j 6�.h i 6?.5 ,
, ; ; ; -' � i
, �0 � �t7.1 � ;8 ; ��:� � �.1 � ��.� ; �6.�1 I 69.=� ; h� ': c�J.9 ; �9.9 � C�.�- i 6'_.9 I_;o.� ;
� 7� �1.i; i7.8! �fi.l !�}?.l i-+-�.9i tiO.�� h9.b: �.7 �6.i.3 i h�.-�IGI.�� 61.1 I�ti.h i
7(�.c� ' �t9? ` j0.� i �.� � -�?.� ' �9.�5 ' C� � 7L9 ! ��.� � 63.� i G3.9 � G3.1 I 6�.� � �6.� �
; �
7U.-� : �2. % ! �9.1 � -1-1.-� � ;y.y : �.; � ;9 � 7U.! ! C�.7 �9 i �7.-� i 62.�4 j 63.8 49.; ;
� �
71.$ ' E*�.� � 6�.1 ���.� n%a :�;? ,� J�.�) i i l.b � 6�? i ti�.�l j�7.ti ��1.� j 61.1 nia i
' 6C}? � 72 i 6c;.8 �; f�.� i GO (��.2 � 58.6 �7.K �
�� 0;,7 i ;y.? ' -t7.8 � -i(13 �8.; :
��.1 � 61.-� ; c�-3.5 ; � f �k�.y ' C�(i.8 ; Gl.h � 73.h ! 6�.7 ; E�U.�� � 63.ci ! �7.7 � 6'' =��.1 ':
7U �) 7� � t�-17 �1 -� �.i�' 8�i.(> j�.2 !�.6 62.7 Gci.8 ��$.2 j�lti.�> � E*1.7 3�.5 !
-� � tXi., : ti�.� . �-1.�) � �I.S � -I-1.1 ��i.i i �ii.� 6�.� ' 6�.7 � �?.1 ' 6�.9 i b5.� Jb.� i
' I
G�.I ��.7 : ��.-� '. �Iti.G I j.�'. . ,35.� ; ��.-t � �y � GI? i �; �#ci.9 ! ("�.-1 '; G? a 6`_'.� !
� �
i t � ' ci i � ! 6 � h : j(1 � i �) 7 : ?#.9 ° iy.1 ; C��) ; ti�._i ; ». % ; f �(1.-� � J�-1 � � i .:� ( �O..i
�;y .� ' C>� ` iq 1 � -1; 7 ( 3� � ��i.2 � �? � 7(1.(i '. E�.K ; f�t).� i Gl.? � 4�. i � ��7.�1 j nia �
t"�.ti �-1�) �i -�`) `) • �lU I � �►.i I �?.-1 ��.�) � (�`�.I : 61.� ' �ti.I i �7? ! Jt3.9 j 6O ( �1.I ;
t;; � ' ;� � ' ;� E, ' -k;-t i -1.-1 � ;;.�; ;�.� ! h�.l � Gl.� ' �1? '. S�.�t ; 36.� � �l.�i I n/u �
, . i ,
t;y,; ��1 I jj.4 :-1�.1 �-1t�.? �?.1 �7.I 7?.-1 C>?.S i�O.? ��').�': C�O? � Gl.�l I c"�O.l i
, i i
7tt j� ? j�i. ;��i.� iu,E, i(� C�t.1.li ' f�.-t ! C�(i.l '�i.2i ��.�i � G3.:> � �,;._4 (��).�) j
c ,: K ��' j7 ' U.i.�; � C�? I J�i.j i
(t,'.1) lii.�i ' t�� i-�J.� � ii, i ii. i ��.i �k � i�.7 ': �i... . i I
' �, . � • : i I .
t;y.� G�.� �: ���.-� � �c�.� ; nr'a �t;.ci �8.�� i t;y.S>' 63.y ; �7.7 ; �K.� � �tti.� ? �7.�4 � n/u �,
� � ;
• -- - - - -- -- - ' __ '
,
' 61).ti �� '��5.� ��?.1 ���.1 ' tiC�.4 . ��). i! 65? b� ;��.�) ! 61.�1 � �`�. 1 I 6.�..Ci 61 I
A Praduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
29
C
I
# �� ;� � u
4� x�yk ^1- -�jY � �� !i' F � k �
(�( f
� ,J_ 'I `k S€ 7 r � z � `z
i��',.. � t �.. w: :t��
�k:
_ � µ . . �`' ,.. a ', r -.i: i ,. :� 4 ��� t�- ;�, � i. ' �a:.
1. �`'�,� �.1; � � e�` 1.. k 4 ��1� '� ,;fi. v � � d
. ; . a .,
,
- . .+. s_ . _ ..
� , . ,1 r �; . , u.. . . . s :
�r
,5 tl .
4 `�S''=� � * _ '`' � 'tl � `� � 5
�
• �i�3'�'4'}LEc. �{�" `.2 • �
.54r.L`5.Y1.^Wik'i"iV,�3:tlYSXW' :di:+�^3+-S atdU�3Ai�YicRT'LlYFaY'[3+'klFRv WLf+T! XYY.Y."`.�Hi:�
\
<n
C
tVIetropolitan Auports Commission �, �;
� � ��o� �lm � l��m��uv�� 1�.�� �.r�� ��� ��rr��r ��� �����°���� ����a����n� �v���
I�Tm��� �� ��n� ���� c���°�°���r 1��a�m�c���°�v 1�a��°Il�� ��ra� ����
�;. ��
; ; ' /:'� �
�-, ^�;. ,--� � � a/ - ..
�
C
.� ` � 1i''.' � /' �
� -: Q . y � -
: , -� ;
_ �._ : ` 1 � ` ..:: ? /.. r
o -`� . �`� _ . _ � ��
•p ' . .. . �-.. . .. _ .
.. � . . . • � p . - '' ( � �' • . . . .
. ��
� � ' . . .: .. 5 a ..�' . �' � .� . : .. • • .^ .. . . ' . .
� \ ...
,
. . . . ' � b . _ ^1 _ 'v3-.� t'. . . . . . .
, . . . ^'^W' ,�. > � .
Q t '.
. ... _ O �il_�COffld� o n � � .� ' . .
r
; - 3 v. .�� 9 0 �
.�.. _ � , �„ a � .:; � "
.,,. .. ._... _.
' � ' �'ll a _ - ` r -
. • ' --=
:.: ... _ ' � i.: . .: , I ' _
, .. .,.
O . .. C . �
. .. � .;..
. - �, c:� 6 :. .
� . � � -- 4 .
c' i.:
�� o "4 8
- a _
�. �:� . r � .. �
: A .o ..
�
� - y�a 4..�ao a ,,
Q' � �} �1 ,-y.; � . '
d3 � �u 4��e
7�
z mi�e y
i � ^ — " . '
T - _.. .
-o ��.� � o ..
�
Pa°e 2 t�/Ionthly Eaganl�lIendota �eights �eparture Conidor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
��� ��a��m� ��ar��v�� �.���. ��c� i�2I� ������� ��� �����°��.�°� �➢���°������ �a��°�
�m�a��1� �� ��ice �a��°��c���° ��'�a��� �� ��� �.,a���� ��ce�� ������ ���°�� ����
�
i
�,
I � .. �
�flen�i�apolis—Si. Paul
��r���tra�iora Gate Plot fmr Gate Sou�h_Co�-sicic�P
` 09/0"i/20iB� Oi3:00:00 - 05/Oi/2t900 00:�0:�0
3?3'TracV�s.C�a�sses� Ca�#�: L�� _�79 (53.8%), �3Bg9�� = 1�4 {�6�.2%�
^ �0�0 . ;
us .
a� ............
� 5�0� ..:...... , ............. ................ : ..
.' � ; .
o' ................ ..........,. . ..
� �a�� ................ : ................ . :
� O � � ...........................:.
� 3��� CC� . . . . .� . . .Cj. . . . . . . . . . :. . . . .
� :� � : ;
O;��yC,���r' . a' :,_; . : � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g 2S30C3 � � , �'� '
Q p'� . Q `� r � :" `� : . . . . .
;�j �„ �. , � � .��
7 i i3t30 . . . . . . . . . . . . : . �'C� � � "� L �� o ;�-������'
o •
�
� � _ �
—� —� � �
Corridor End) (RWY Mid-Point)
( ���9�iu�ra ��a� ���a��� afi ���� ��l�l�s�
+ ��ri��� O D���rts��� ❑ Ov�ra�agh�,
Nfonthly Eagan/VIendota Heights Departure C:omctor Rna�ysis
Page 3
��i.:in.����ii(.ui .':,irj;�,rt:� ('�.>in;t�i,:,i�,i�
1 � (I),� �� � �.u���a� � �� �n� � �� �::�����i��• 2��� ����������-� ������-���s ����-� V _
�� ,�����a �� ��� ���°�-���a� �5° ��a��� �� ���, �.�a�������� ��r��� ����� 2��� ;
�inneapolis-St. Paul
Penetratio�ro Gate Ploi for Gate South_Corridor- 5deg
04/01/2000 00:00:00 - 05/01/2000 00:00:00
i 2'Tracks Crmssed �ate: l�efit - 4(33.3%), Righ� - 8(66.7%�
� 0000 .
a� : :
v 5�0(3 ........:.........;............... '
..................... ..... �
� . ........,...
o' ; : .
? 400� ..........::......:.�....... ' :
m : • . _
� 3�00 •••-:...:.......... :.........:..... '
o . : .
Q 2000 .:.:........ '�. .�.. :.�. ... ....
,. ...
's p t� � �
> � {300 . . . . . . . � . . . : . . . . . C? �.,� . . . . . . . : . .
...... .......... .....
o• • ..........
.s� . . .
cC � � • _
-� �� : � � \ 2
. lC�r,rdor E�cii �ej>aa��o� Fro� ��ra��� c3� t".,,ai�e (i�diies� (RV�•Y Mid-Pointj
�
+ �o rival ;� �e�ar�a��� ❑ 5�+��rfi9ag➢a� � :
��
�vicmini_y r,a�x�initv�enuc�ta �-1�ights ile�arture t�qrri�li>r Analy,iti
1' ?
Piietropolitan .4irports Commission
'�'�� �5 ��n��� ��� and 1�R �epa�t��� �e�t�na����� ���° ���°�� ����
�
2�s tn� -r^4" bS?"�"tsF',,,, ^t�cr�j ��+s-:�.;�;"+' �,«rw ��'�.m:.�Sr 1.! r.^�'��"�`'��"�:.
1' �" �, �L. '�`: � a 4Si �ta {� �. k i �'I'o�2'� w,t'`� sy �....
� .�,°�` , ��� "� F �,;�����'�`�'��, ` x ,.��-� � ���'�leu'clr#��p—T`���M � . 4��� �ercent��o�:'
'� , 4„ 'r3. ra R.a.�^"'�� � �, #J�e„d�,, v ��P.r�.�4.t � � - b' sr d -c'��2�� �' m' -�`'�'�`"�C,"'"'_
> � �- �� � .r� x �-k,� �` ' Y ai�,�3? +�{�S�'"'`� ml 'y"` 4�f ��d s� 3 'i.%�` � 4 .af�:: ��,n�l r
�,, �" . I 07�2���� ..,s,•� F."�`�u�„r�; #,x � ,�Cl���a����. � 'y�., ' ,;�� �s�,� �''/'* aa x,�.�� t� ' 2 r�i��7'�i °�� �� afa�0��s g`�"
�
t`� � � '�����.��.�,,cls�`'�k t � '����s �S�i�,�l' � �S°�u"^a n v`"�eE��r�"��S ��, � �'`4ti� ��'``.�. ��3 �"� , �r�-���n ��P.�`
��,.-3�'-.�n.?`'�e�3a���._eC�<_.�`�°.'�''�r�;�`..�a��itti�"�+�?rr`�i;"�iz.�_ .�`-�a�9�„�'���.»+ih�`��: ___...�. � ..,.,..._ .� , ,
�,.�, e �- � � � � �� ' •'i
r■�,-���I I k ,�, j , N/
t � { ,�� ';�� '`' i
I �; I' '} . ` , . 1 � '''�
'.���:'� �; '�'
. ':
� � � � • c F � , i
3 ��� • , il�p )
( j 1 ; � _ �r
i � , , � � � i � r '�� � i
i i I� I i � ; 1: �"i i
`,I�.�-� �•'�i
� � • ��t � � i
: ,
� : i. ; .
� � i� �
; � �;�� ' . � ����R ,
F ` � ��
' � i �
� •
I� I! I ' �' y�■1 / i,',
� j��Ili�1i����S :.
� r �•.
: , , , .. ` :. _ .
;���: �
. � .,
. , , ,
� ' ! ' ' i'����.
3 � �;r ������_''ll�? 1 • 1 .,� I
. � .�
� . 11 "�
; '�i
n
�
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Pa�e 5
(
� � � �"� � i
�
I ��� lA'i����� ����H..1 �iT .f��_i'�_� �i�.�� � � �J 1 `I � ; ',
� i
����19�3J�� � �J �.J 1 '1 ��� �
1Y��1, v ���� ������ ��.J'� ��� �
�T�I1�T�' 2%, 2��� � _ I I
11�.SA� I�E��'II�� I�C����o I
,
. - , .< i
❑ IVIASAC meeting a�enda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for _;
June � 7� 2000 - �
❑ Minutes of the May 2�, 2000 MASAC meeting -„
"ttee meetin�s `�
❑ Minutes of the June 9, 2000 Operations Comrn7 ,. ,� , �
❑ Minutes of the June 14, 2000 Comrnunications�'x���rY Soard meeting ' '
-- , ❑ Blank Noise IvSonitoring and Information Request Form '.
� i
C� Blank M�ISAC News FeedbacklInpui Forrn ': :_
❑ Monthly Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Pro�ram Update
❑ May 2000 Technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports
�
, :•
Y`1
l��.L-�� �������r �.�����.� �,����.. I
�.������ �..�� �.� ����..����.� ��� �
�_ ���� ��� ���� -
I
:
- ,
�i
� . , . �
{ _ ; _ _ : : ..
:..
,; _
. ��
t • r :•. ,, � , � • . �• , } . '',� .
��IJNCIL
Generat MeetinQ
June 27, 2000
� 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.in. �
A•Ietropolitan Airports Commission i
_ 6040 ?g�n Avenue S. .
Minneapolis, Minnesota ��
- i
i
l. Call to Order, Roll Call . �
2. Approval of I1�Iinutes of Meeting May 23, 2000 _ �
j
,. �
3. Introduction of;invited Guests ;
- �:
Receipt of Communications '
4. Part 1�0 Update Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) Mitigation Measures
"" 5. Report of the June 9, 2000 Operations Gommittee Meetings ` �
� � '° � � �
� ?
., . i
;6. �Report of ihe June 14, 2000 Communications Advisory Board Meeting
_ i
7. Report of theMAC Commission Nieeting - Chairman Mertensotto �
8. Technical Advisor's Runiva�� System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary
9. Persons ti�'ishing to Address the Council
10. Items Not on the Agenda .
1X. Adjournment � '
Next Meeting:
July 25, 2000
( j
�} y � � �. L i�
�����.����� 1��A�1�� �
I
. '�'�_ MASAC � j
�+'��$j�; Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
�jj����'�'; MSP Part 150 Update Public Workshop #3
�
�t��'Ee June 13, 2000 i
�
The third in a series of three Part 150 Update public workshops were held May 22 - 25 at locations � �
including the Pearl Park Community Ce'�ter, Eagan City Hall, and the Royal Cliff Conference Center. The i
cuinulative attendance at the workshops totaled 1,100 �articipants. The format of this final series of
workshops was conducted in a slighdy different format than ttie prior two series of workshops. The forum l
provided attendees with a video highlighting the MSP Part 150 Update process to date and the resultant
Noise Compatibility Pro�'am elements prior to individual kiosk sfations. The video and individual stations
provided information on the following:
p Recommerzded 2005 Day 1Vight Level (D1�L) Contours �
- '-- � pr.oposed noise abatement �rceasures for the recommended Part I50
� ) . I
_.. Llpda#e
� Proposed land use rneasures for the recommended I'art I50 tlpdate
_ �
The vast majority of residents who attended previous'workshops as well as the :third series pi-eferred the
video and kiosk format relative to the prior workshop formats. The information provided at the public
workshops is a function of several Part I50 Update noise compatibility program measures. The majority of
which are covered in more detail in attached memorandums and will be reviewed for action at the 3une 27,
�
2000� MASAC meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6326.
j
L L,
;
�� ORAi�I��.TI� r��s��
'TO: MASAC " . . _ I
�'�Qlyj; Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviat'ion Noise and Satellite Programs �
��J�J���'; Proposed Part 150 Update Noise,Mitigation Measure - Nois��batement �
�
Departure Profiles (NADPs) ;
_ �
D�i.'�Ee June 13, 2000 :� i
I
In the early T990s the FAA conducted significant research and evaluation to devel.op and standardize 'I
departure profiles that minimize aircraft noise.`T'he,intention was to provide standardization for Noise �
�
;Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs) at all airports around the country. At the time various NADPs
` were developed on an airport specific basis. Management of these intricate profiles posed a risk of �
compromisinb t he p i l o t' s a t t e n t i o n t o c o c k p i t d etails,
trafFic avoidance and other associated safety �
f un c t i ons. As a result of the FAA's deliberations, on July 22, 1993, FAA Advisory Circul,ar (AC) nurnber
`
91-53A titled Noise Abatert�•ent-Departure Profiles was published. .
; � AC 91-53A specifies two departure profiles which airport operators can implement for the purpose of
reducmg aircraft noise impacts around airports. The AC specifies roles for each party involved in the
NADP process. AC 91-53A outlines acceptable criteria for speed, thrust settings and airplane
configurations associated with two l�tADPs (Close-In and Distant pro�les). The Close-In Departure Profile
is intended to reduce noise impacts for communities in close proximiry to the airport (approximately 3.5
miles frorrm the start of take-offl and the Distant Departure Profile is intended to provide noise reduction far
- all other noise sensitive areas. It is important to note that aircraft with newer engine technology show .
minimal difference between the two procedures relative to the noise levels generated.
When the airport operator selects a procedure; the carriers are required to imple'ment the selected NADP -
for use on the specified runways. In parallel runway situations, such as the case at MSP, the sarne
procedure must be used when departing in the same direction off the parallel runways.
,.
One of the proposed major aircraft operational procedures providing substantial noise reduction as
included inFthe Part �150 Update is the implementation of the Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile
I �.`_
for all runways at IvISP. 'This action represents. a change over the South Minneapolis area where currently '
the Close-In Departure Profile is used. ,-
The proposed decision to implement the Distant Departure Profile on: all runways, through the Part 150
.Update process, was a result of significant review and analysis by the IVletropolitan Aireraft Sound
� Abatement Council (MASAC), impacted City Governmental Units, Metropolitan Airports Commission
(1YIAC) and 1YIAC's consultant HNTB:' Implementation of the procedure. can be pursued concunently with
the submittal and approval of the Part 150 iJpdate by the authority granted to the airport operator as part of
AC 91-53A.
j �
After considerable research and analyses, at the May 12, Z000 NTASAC Operations Committee meeting the
existing use of the Distant Departure Profile for runways 12L/12R, 04, 22 and the EIS assumption of the
Distant NADP for runway 17 were approved. In addition the Committee endorsed changing the NADP off 1
runways 30L/30R to the Distant Departure Profile. The proposal was forwarded to MASAC with a
recommendation for approval. This proposal results in a reduction of 9,800 impacted individuals within the
DNL 60+ contours.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6326.
►_
COU1eJCI�L ACTION FYEOUES'i'ED - . . -
MASAC endorse the use of the Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile on all runways at MSP (30L,
30R, 12L, 12R, 04, 22) including the future runway 17.'
� ' �
� .
_ �'
D c�cleqve�masac,ju n00. fm
' ..I
;
�:.�.. _ . . _ ,
� ,�„�.�... __ �._. _ ... .. ..._ ....
K,;���ii
——^�� ..
;��,.
! � � i
Y�
�: I,
t'!. ��� I
� ..�� E
,:::.;;:_�.:::.��F _ �
r �i!�it7�a��,�. !t � ki� 9. r � "".^`-•� 4`' � ' rh t �� ¢`'''S'-4-an'7.i7 rS� -• � - p t.i.�r J� -9� ' i i -� .
��.��' itv�'����{-, �,l � � `' r .M w'i�gr.'sL`,�.�,�—'�yL� , � iS�i,�-1S t `� �
i �"�'v t'`� ? r r.r! ,�` v„"a��c e.i;�:�� ��io1� i" �„,�.� �,.r �F !
� r ? .+-F �� L -^-h � g 2c � � �^' � r
1 Ds � a5,�,�y y fU. r � .� r r�eyr�*�1' �ttd� Yy t4- ,�t �"�C'� .^�� ��'
�a� �� t '�a,y i v,. ��. � �a ��ay, ���'�-w, t'��� Z��-s�� �-c_�(�.
e.���� n 'i'i��y.d �:�� f 7 � t� ��7 r�-r��"t�-, ��{! �� k•.�y�`-1'+`i''in �„4rii� � `�u-
.r3-�'�'j�,�,�i'aJf Y'�,.�5 M1Y� _ a '. h r �� avF�, ft' �+���"*�� ii�`�tcY~S� Ec �� �i.
xq � ,�„K 1Oj t �.{,� . 4
� ��-�5���<5� : `� � i'" '4.:1' �� �ro! 1 1 . ',�'
�'F�'r�- �i- r� y ' � � '�'--�;��`"v�`����"� � m.�ti' �'��,�� e�? � ,�
� y', �T c � � '., ;� ��,v�,��'�-�'t r.Cu. S r �. � ��.yfi''�l g�
r ,r ,� . --� � "
�i4Y �'t' ,� _ � � � iL - ' , ` ti, y���r �s" J '� �it .��� .
xs��y ti�x 41 b' �R�S .7 �"� �
`J�� .� 4t��4�11 �t � �`S �t�.yl '^'.., "o _e � j�, 'i yi tk.� `�
�%��f. }�� dy �t r; �f � .'4 t � ; vr r �y� ..X..�
!
C ` c� � � �
r�'' K, F.,�„ s � � r'rk, t ` � � '�` 4 .,, ...+ � . .��i . u� .
{ El „ `3`� �w -`t r � �' �5' *.• � f.� L� .h ji
f � y �� '1 � c ,� .
P 1 � I �{ . � a-ds'./ '�: " ,.�. : �`�a ; .
F i '� t ' . �'y ✓' ?� i—`axi �' r ,t
iw� � . . . : . w � v`�t �y '1 ���n�
a :.. � � :� �. ��1� :1
�...` 1 � •. . � S . : ' .'� . .+ '".. . _ .. .�f'1'ii � � 4 f ! .' ' y"'i ":^-7
t . I " � � _�, ��t ' I
r
} � t L�, '� e�.�. j�t s -i �� �,yy �Y 3.P � �.'�r.�� ..
�� L.: .- �..j.�� a i'i- .. l-{ ' i d x� �.� �c_ �. �. ir i.i
��. i r r, rc ,., �, ''t s i �
fa t : �� _. 1 t � -r��. x.� t�r�s+ ^�S-j '�. "� jt'
"�k'' ' � ta' ��'
. . , t. ".�4r . t . �� . . '-i .�, f � � ..
. �. �� J: i �r. . . rr � �� r � �5 'y.r� 9 t.
t ���;r . i , -r 4 . � � .;r a t . �. ,,� '•� t-.� ;' ' t..)
� . i �%4s it �t� .� .. i ` �' ... . . .
�Y 7 � .G f� �+�.. i 4 f � 4Ll . E 'i �L"� I..:
�� : u�7 AL��� 4 L L�� ~ . � iP� �^ r .f. � r.� �� !. � � .j .
Y' i f � }� � � t a # . � '�
y. �ry rj_ ,7> � ' . * . �.��� �
� ,,�.F '���`s.�y+ 3y � .y9,,§ t `� ?-`,,z..3-.�,f ;."' ��'�ji �
�4t :: � 1� ^ "� �� .iJ/ ;� . 1--T7is%w,�jy4n�vy ' � �i � 1
f -.' L� ' � t .
'" -�� i Si.. r ' �_ � i , �5. �i' � � , �� k�,�"�' x�iL ��- L+�� II1 � �
,c�y .+ . � ;'.. � �t,. ,,,� r ? �',� . i
� a r't1 '.r G f � � t .y- ea ra .. � - - - � �� _ �r 4 �.�'7 k � .Y. t ��
+.e. .�L i L., ��. i l 'Ik 4 . t 3i''.t i, 41 �,4.- ..�Y� ' 4. .
� ��� � ��1�� t �� - 7 .'l.� �r � A�,. �+ < i ., �, � �-�
ti "S'�n�. r �� 7 i � � ( � . . y 1 't ' � t w'r''r"" ;. � ., 3
. �,4t � . r � p � xf,i
t �u� � �°c \ ? t. . ' t � � i > � . �,�' t v �' `,F-'� A . �,R { � . ' . �Y �� � .
��� � . (� { , � � � -� .r 1 �r'F'Ll�r r i !� C �l 50 h f > . .
} � 'i,- 1 1 ('� . ; 1 1 � � � � C' . . . ` % 1 . i
a � 4 �. 6 . � . �'�. 1. � � � ( , S �T 1 ,[ � �
D 3' . rL '�Y - llf�
:s� ��w,r Tn � ����h✓Yb �A �>fs a �3�( �� �] � �'l .� �� ,` �11 , �
r r. s,�. �. i �.
�r � rfi� � i „nr ,'�`'y�3i�x. �� � { w t� , r C �s�. � }' �} � r'.�,��\� . . : �
�. � � � r�. 1 f � t�ti� . r - r t � � . ' r t�t7-- .iF � � . "i
.it' G a � . . s, 7,. t ,3 � e�"� � t . . , �� r �.�.. .r i i � - i .
�, '`t � ,,,� - I . . f 1. . �, , � 1 I i 7 G �. . w ' t � � � .. .
�"'� ° ' r s� 1 7 . _"U .y'.`,Z'r'�s z � � . r t � � `"�i 4,f. b `.� �`'' r . `��y ' t � � . .
,� t'i .. . k�. � "�` fi'f'' � . ._ , f � ��,�, � i 7t � �� i. . . i
c�.r' ��,r 3 K 1�S. ��rw�' 7-4 Y �+ 'uj � e r,F., r i
Kfr� S, qay.t"n � 4,,,-Y- jX4 �— y�� l� it# f � p 1 � . � � `� '� .� � . ,i 4 �,�.rJ,�; � �� "i �.
�-'4r'�.,�r '�- •'^'—� t r , r�,�` �� ,,,� � a,µ,f! t �� ,' y �� .Y '' c ? $ � 1. ,S.i. i
� �y�"'� � .,t I ' 1 i . { i.� :7 S°I�i w''� i: . � c+^i..( 7 ,
�`�T',i� j� ','r�` �: ''tT 1 p , I ,( � r" � , }� � � °� . � ' � e . � � �. .� � � y, � _ _ __ �. �h � . . .
�F. `',. J � r +`+ �'' 1 '( y�,'� `� . � � '+, z ..�.'S., >_ _ — --
�•;� ,,,,�..�'u'rV � 5 r� _3_�� _ —_ _ _ - - - —`
Yl �� �� ': ?�� �•� `Y- � �'d �
'.�'C):
�'I$Ol�:
SLT�JECT:
;
t. � ;'
MASAC � � �.
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Pragrams
Proposed Part 150 Update Noise Mitigation Measure - Runway Use
System
Dt�'�'E: June 13, 2000 I
j
The implementation af a Runway Use System (RUS) as a noise mitigation element of the Part 150 Noise i
Compatibility Program (NCP) can provide additional noise reduction benefits as part of an airports overall
op�erational philosophy. An effective RUS, when approached from the perspective of aircraft overflight ,`l
' noise reduction, can solidify ninway use selections which minirnize�residential overflights around an . ;
airport while at the same time maximize the use of , existing compatible land uses. The challenge of
successful RUS implemeritation is striking a balance between runway use for the purpose of maintaining
safe and expedient operations into and out of an airport with minimizing the noise impact on surrounding
residential areas.
, �
``-' Through the process of reviewing possible noise mitigation measures contained in the Part 150 Update �
NCP, the MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the possibility of implementing a revised RUS under
the auspices of the Part 150 Update. The evaluation encompassed several analyses. Implementation of an '
RUS is pred'acated on severat different variables including the following: - '
m V�'eaeher arad wind conditions :
� Safety �
� Capcacity and flow requiremsnts
s. �d raffic Demand
� Aircraft Separation
o �'ilot complirznce
� ATC
ThrouQh the evaluation of the above variables, several specific factors were discovered relative to runway
use at MSP. The selection of runways at MSP is determined primarily by wind and driven by capacity
requirements, which results in limited options to significantly chan�e runway use. This especially applies
to the day-time h.ours were capacity .driyes the runway determinations. Conversely the niehttime hours
provided a period were RUS implementation was a distinct possibility.
To further quantif_y the times of available RUS utilization, HI�iTB conducted an analysis which assessed
daily,operations at the airport on an hourly and 15 minute basis. It was determined that durin� times of
high demand (greater than 60 operations an hour) runway use would be dictated by the wind and capacity
� )
requirements. Although, during periods of inedium (between 15 and 60 operations per hour) and low (14 or
less operations per hour) an RUS for the express purpose of noise reduction could be implemented.
The MASAC Operations Committee reviewed various RUS options for implementation during low,
medium and high operational periods at MSP. The result was the development of an RUS which could be
implemented during the low and medium operational time periods at MSP. Use of the capacity driven RUS
outlined in the EIS would be used during high demand periods.
The proposed RUS to bexonsidered for noise mitigation purposes as part of the Part 150 Update_NCP is as
follows: - - ,
m Maximize use of the Eagan/Mendota Heights _Corririor: depart
.
' runways I2U12R, arrive 30L✓30R .
0 Second priority - depart runway 17 arrive runway 35
: �:�ertd to head operations when needed and operationally feasible
m Third priori#y - balanced use of runway 4/22
� Depart runways 30L30R and arrive run'ways I2U12R at all other
- times . : ;. , : _ '
At the May 12, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the above proposal was reviewed and is
being forwazded to MASAC with a recommendation for'approyal.
. By using the proposed preferred RUS of departure runway priorities 12s, 17, 22, 04, 30s and.arrival
runwaypriorities of 30s, 35, 04, 22, 12s, the proposal results ia 30 people removed from the 70 DNL, 200
people removed from the 65 DNL and 310 people removed from the 60 DNL. T'he total change with in the
60+ DNL is 540 people are removed (all of the population change values are relative to -the 2005
Unmitigated Contour). �
� �. .
If you have any .questions, please contact me at 612-725=632b. ;'
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED
MASAC endorse the Operations Committee recommendation for the Part 150 Update NCP Runway Use
System ` _ , .
•, (
D:k leq vc\mas ac,j u n00. fm
,- - --- _ , -: .. .... . _�.. _ -_ . .._.,-. ._.,. _____ ... ....
. . , . . _. . .._ . _. . . _
;; ;
. ,.. . �.._ _
;. .
.
u
y � : _ �� �
�Si��3"�`��,`�y 7 �. - - 'i - .: �.. : > ,�,, --1T�-*'�t-�� � s, �
� '' ' .�rM .+- 1 '�r :, 3�'�,��^vh "�.� _ _' `�,�, � . � s�
�-e- rr w� .°�"tx � .._.,. ��^ ,;�,'"�r . �/ .„.R�3s?����� • .., '"�. . •w� ,`,
� � ` � ��
�. : e ..^- -�- .�j '"�'/ ^n,�-. `� ,.,! a�' 3-�' ,,i:-, '` iyit' 'f�'�::•
. � �c:-�rti' t� y3� r - � �. �� �..�' '�i. �. `k �
p y_ ' � �' ''�� �� �� � � P.. F:
1 t ` . �¢�4' �fi. ` ., " �',4Y�{,�,7' ,4 ? : :%�.& �r� '' �' d�'... . !y .
� '''��",..: Y d� .;,r,3 r. ^S6 la�'� s� O..c+-�.`r'' �` �'`"� M1`` , e;
��:. � �v �`p=�.:���� 3 ".ai��.�„"`i�.. '� .: e; ...
�:- � �� � r��,P�.` s . . ^= 1
� �`� � ^� ° .• '� 1 � ��' �,�_'� _� � r
� y. x ': fY s� ' � .�j,. �,� -'�`'"„�`'°"''.�hi�. i.'` t,' �y � �+,k. . +,��}. - °` 1 ,�
.�� ' }�� y. � � F 4 • ��.k��'������ {,� . % �fi ��..` ^ n,�� � ``` t ' , � ��.
.> � . ��� �� .a�� 9 J � f �L� . �f �N iV�. Y ~ J..
�' -� ��. �'k � . :. �r �/ � 1 � �3.�` ����/ ~�� � - ar� E � C ,
'.y, _ 4 ''t�;}. e �'� -ro� f w� a, J � � �..
�
ea � � �* .81; ,� � . ��,�. •�; &�� �� � � ,q � . � '' �{p-. I
� � `� ik+rt''���'\��,} �' �� ,� . fF �.� :.r.: ,.� �t` *� : �. �� �.�~ ' i �# .
� � J L
. p. n, •�.,fA�r3,�.,��.^,� e•f �� '--i�"` �£ ����''+�;'+-^`� yy �. ��b� � �
. � � & � � � ..� r.,. -.. � _ - _ � :��V'��"'� n. ' �`',u,. °'j�`��%'�' r�/�/�,ta�� �.3''�ii{5.�. f� , I f � :�: JI i x� 'I
�-�+- I* y� '� �� �"'����." � -� . "J� �,� s�.at> . �{ . � I . � � � �' ; - f ..n
�"", 'E�, � ? ,�ii r � K'' �'"'� ,,�" ,�ry' a Y,a 3s� �G.� s y� z t•� sr "-� -� k �� , I
. � _ ,L'. �'' . �; �rt,ro. 4,,�.`h�.�`'4h :c� �s�.'a�'t r.3��„ ��; ,c:'-+� : y ��.' � . I
�'• � . ���,{�y �••rL ��� �r� ,� �.�!�.}�.� µ �� � F ���
. ' . . �. ^ � ' k �" � 1 � � i ��'Si' � ts �. l'"� �^'f �d �`��-".R7 �' � , � �� ^-�w . - S �'`� i . � �
. . 'v. ..o. � _ r���� rs #4�•._, vr aj t..y °ti�+v: "���- ,��g�''� >;&=� ��J.. :Yr '� �-" �,I
. ,� ,. !` yt +c3 ,q j \t3ti� ��';`� : I �� � P ."1. � i
. ✓..o.a� ,ex�? � " ,ra ,. ^o� ��x`r`"X*�-9��.3} /������G�c'tiir..'�: � ��'� �_���_ �' � � y��� ,5 � �.i
� � � �� �r'!'v '1 e .� ..ki'��-^� ��';�Y :. � +-�;T�,*w`'}� �VI . . 'C' i _ '� a ' S f U? � � ��,j
� "� y ' „� ` � � �� �,'�.a '.��ry"' ,'�� a��,� �'t'� �� �t'`i � + — ��..a�� ; �' i
i 0 ,4�s`ir^ 1���.�_��','-�, '�.� � � �,1 t
�
� ; . ; P �'t' � �,.,,_ y�„�'�, . ��� �; �'��;� �c`.� �'> ' If '' ^_' � �
....� 4J . � -/�. .I
. . . ' F . - .. •-iy.���,,}.��. �h�: Z t �;a ik��� • ',.,� ��s�..�������,�~�.a� � ��'� r '� �l � H . � � �I
. '�--�.`-�.i . � - , , � . .. , `n �c .' � t55 � � ��r.,.-.,� L;�+.l ,.: � � � . i��'(�' 9 � � � . � � � h'"^""'.' , �!.` � ''��. i�Ltt � x��'
� , „r�v� . � � �t i . . ,� y . � � 9 : s+'�1 : _ �t y �g " a � ) ��' ��i � �.�,T...3 i -o
� :4�+, *� . .� C'�, `'i�_� �t � . .�J ��i� -: � Ye:�i --t �H,. . � .
� . � �rTIG: 1 � +s`:' 'd� ' . . 7 .
.� "� � � /ji•+�.-s� � �y"��'.-_a�� .�[� .T "'`'f�'� yy t � . , * ...,_� ?' c�
� � 4� � ro,M1 b�y��".'�.i '�b Y`�.�,�r��._' i7` '{ 1�' '�� i
ic � �' r.'1' � t�r�- -A '`f' �S7 a� �� �,,.--�',, '�' �e -.r, y,� ; u� � � "1
' } ��, � �__-�-� � � �a �r. �^ ��� M^Ty���� � . . � ig �
n « -F .� �/�, � s- ,:, "`'���,y' �'�W-}' .1�� `� �-��^��'�c�. t..:� `' '�� x .a
. �C d1 � "4 . ^. � . . _'C' `. . -'t ��.---��------�,r�a. _ '.d �" �t f S � �+ i t'` � -?' � 1
�. �.�' ... Q.^� k -F' �. ♦ i�+- �.�+�i' - ��
�'"`' `� : ��. '�.{, +r i �` iz+h� ( ,C 3 .
� � � � �� � �� ,.— z - . . . ' . . . � . . .. ,
. . . . . � � - . r •,s'�r �^�a--�^
- � 4 �.rrv._.,� _�..,�'_-`-� � ,�,— r�'`.n� �,"-.." z—.,.d�r-t>{ -�
� � � � : � � � : - r �_�,r...W-'��`°'-='-s� � 3 +^� . �,,_.. -� t r � � '� � �..r.� 1 .,,�, i �s t y � � � .a� i
g• ti S' c �-v'K "�� ��-- _ "2F, �' C". ��-.,: �t*�
�,� � 4 • �--'-- �-� �--x -� . t-�- -,:�r^_w._ M� - ,�y
��
.' , f � �� �^••ss ,+'i7.� +� sr i�� ,y,t
"'f`}5' i te�'s � '
.... . . ' . .� , ' ` � . � ; � � ' � kYy +yt� Uz
� s . . }.-,i�A `�
t' h .�' � � 3�1'°"-�,, � � � �%'� .t �' "`5a
� � . � � � ' ��u E . � "+pvF: �l `�3. Zf.r � � , � � �
� �4� �p�' �.t��., `-�d ' _ �:� s �; ' .5.. `�z �(#
:. . � ..r, . -�,a�^-r�-v"l 3 I . " i : ' ��'ti �y5',x�'�`rJ�' .'1a- � Siau. �+,-..,, : . .3F ��'� f (�" �y? �1 .
�' .rc+ 1 i - � �, �#�f ~ oE', + ��"Vii�� ; � �.�, � k. �
� '�, �.. �� , � � � > ..� �� " � � �`��"��� � � �r,f� }/ f� -� � � �.�
, . ,ry r. *�iu,�i'"� .•;+2,.L� ? � F� :r' ,.�y �� �,1�l� �2+�!' . ,ti�ti�t ' �r�.. t 1 . � .
�i�ai.z-'k" �L �+3 .'�" 1 G � ,T `x���`�}r iY f. t� b } � .
. �z' n,. � y''�r5 f ��'� �i'�� �,.r.c�"" � �_� ,�a.a� rf�� ��,..rf' .r 'i�`����h�'�' �' , r����p�x�.. . � c �' �
'���� ��,...,,� Y� � "' '":��i` ��� �`�' �� �Fi'4"!`�'S`� ���,�� � r:l` �/". �Y��y � }. F , � l�� y '.
a ( �'�'�
��� u- b � � _ •• y i���_�<��' i 7 � � � .
�- z��ri�"z ��rt��� ��� � '� �' ._ �;> �'��. �� . -�� ti �pt �C k�°x �J�{, � �."+� �. ~\� 3`,3�.���^��' ��� .
.+�'' `�'��" . �.�a..,y`m,�^�°�'�' � ' zsr ,i a `�, 1t w�`F...,,.�J'�y�� . � Gy,6`� r r y � � .SJ�. � � �. r::�.�,'L F ��``�•' � ��rl j.� .
c�. �y�ys`` .�`-'Y=`�� i� ��� ��,,�L a - .�. s w � . :�. .t�,. ��,�' , ,�' ���. ; i�.0 �, ��1yk� . ��� _+�
E`�` tc� �`�,� ��' aY ,� i ;.7 f�, y y � �7'.�>Y,"�k''s ` �' S z F\t�'r �?dr Y.a" � r
� i�"dyi��`��� �4+� � � � � n 1� �� � �'7 .���'�,� �J� � �•u'. �, di � � *�"�ff�'��.s .. `� � i ... � � � .
. � .�, r' 2 � ' �'�ida '.' + � �i' � } •;t J' .� � '4"' w �� -As ,y
.�F" � -'�`��i^�'-.�'i�� 'y2.�r. '� `� �e., i � - " . � @.0 r �`'c, � _� '', h" �t °7"z''.c". A f) .'a' �� � .
�'� V��u x�'�' �3a � x ��'� � � �� } m.. .�t"� �.YT P`; � � ��� J � .�,-��fi � ��� � w� �� f1 f �� t � i.�. E ,
r�,r� s;
� �.��'"�•' �,.t° ( � i�.,,,�.� g%� •W �"'�' � � .. 0 n*� ;, .� .� .f : � a,�.� f ''�-ry .��r '�� `r� � � v�Y� '�+rr �'�"{ � .
. '� `��,,.�''��h.,�'�5�� � �'f�,�r ~ �' t ��a�ip,°� =� / ,�'F }° ,d 5'% F�d 1 �`�' ��:3 S „`'"�'' `�i ` -t c(- " y�-` `
. �'�� �� ������3a `W ���. �'�r ��F�� � �.'���:. � ., 1 ri�� � �r` ��Y"'� �;�.: k, �`��.n � S
g� '�.b�i ��,� ��t"-�N a,�"��'k_ - r� �xi "` � i' }'* �r i 1 "`z _ r'y+. t � : y � d
� �,�*��'`� .�''�-,�tT,-'3 �, �`r '�r'4�-�` ' _ ..��a�'' � - �f:r �-- �" ��� � , �;� r,�.��-.��� ,,,.y �� ����� � , i tti
^3�--�s� n � �-� i �, �
� . ;L�..�a.a�,,,,,,.,:�+ � 4i� ��5��'-'�'� ��� �/ . - "�� .�.'zt'�'1�. �'%�� _,n^J-„r"y`.��i£�� �;-�a.' �" + , �.� � .
� 2.`��.�k��"_...+.,..: � �� :
�'� 7�'i�'t=„`�t��'�*.� ,.'�S,R.,..y��`, a ,`.2,_... t' � 1 :.�• r° • ' ` t„c �'�`'?'�`` 3 `�.w ;1�� �•�-�.` :� ,; :��"+C :�-,,,,_�i'i�µ ''� Tr y�� 7� --SS , _ ^ � .
.� -�,-� � -� . �. - : �. , .d � a y -� -3 s i a 3� �
L���������� z��s� � � , 9 r ryry �q�`�� � � j' ��"'�i''' � �'��v � �raN,.�� �r�`.�`�n��t� � � � �
� ����.��.'t'�. i) N� f.+c'a''� ..n B.rF � } �, � �_�� �,yx+�` 3� f t � � � " � . .,* �� �t� � � 7 � h�+ 1 , ` b
'3k'�-E,�$,.F� t�i �5�'A��y^'�� .i�,' . '},�.a � n �47� 6 �� G �1� i '1� �� k`, 5i �� wFr� a � " t
'-�r �si'�� g.=,i:�ry+ ��b� ��"^-�` �ii�� � f. ,`�,�� y ��y�y�} �, �`� � i °��L�� :� �,. ��a�7� a 7 � ry �„^C ' �. .'
� � �E!� 9t ) � - �' ��v��
{--K, c��s(....k'Es.s �:�' S1^",»�' �' � "`:.,'�t' ' ,, rJ.. � . �U .t; . �� . � � '�3.i "
i.L'` y,21�`�4.,�a 1y�,3�: E Y. "� '��L c.xL'Pjr�,i`'� s:�- � i,�,� � ! %F" i 4 '� .::�� �4a,��'y � y�i•a � ..:j? �� rc� 1h.
. r .,�4�,N�.�i �".�yK'�.F� .k.r�'s. �r �..t01 �rir`^ . ,�t-. .�y.c�""!.t'"�;., .r�r�' �'.[,�, � ti; ,;��-'rlZ . �2. .. �� J�n�-'�� � i .
� � �,� � �t t- tr � i'3'�� .: '�,^,_ Y� `� �' �J'i w�-�" .r . : ,�.. +['isri.hUY� � -a 1z r � �� � �'9.St ��:� . :� r'". �. .,}���� ' 1 f .
' FS* � �yr�_"..'' .� .uc �s �•x'�' :''�.,�•,'�4mr:..-yh� r �x$�5'�'.f i ..�;,¢ t tq�- � ''�` � ' � .�� -'t� � �`• t�, _�_'a� `� r' �:a'' � �n�� }� �
°}a'�� �-s u-`i� x� k � �p'.�`-,s` e-�""� ta „�. � zrt�`��,'s'�T,t�gp �4 ,7�"��y rr"'.�+. 1 � , G7,ei � � �� y, - `k � `' �•"n'� -.74x'�T.__...i. 1
, . �.T �.,,, r r.�"�+ay�--^ s� :.l'�'�'i''1��' �y ` '� � a�.�i^a+r� 1 � ��t s , f � � i o l„1: .,y �c. \.".!'y-- ��p- � �_'-_.�� �� ,
� t•.�1"' :�F �' y�`'�z1`1"�. ..��'., '_..--.��•����r la�'1,''`'-c'Yryr ° "''�,.a,,,,.�,_ 7+=r-�.a .S. .'''".. . � �wM�»=t�`-�%.� i � 4 �i
�r- 3 �,�.��,_T,c 3'�i� -r.:..,_� 1� '',�'� i
, .. UF�T' �s } E i?S �'�r�'` y ['�S' . `t*5'� .r+ .f' T G � ' ��d�yj �"� .
r -y� �c.�c es�. �i , `i,�'1 � �"h 5�a^-'+' .,�'. yt ,f� �S �' {
. 4..Sc.�n t?f^'�'t a 3� If..� "'.�4 . cG� a���` �y .:g�� b� ,�,� � � ��`.--�� '%:F ,�'+.- � �-�f:� +��._ ���� ;���.. I�u 1 g'' i �r .
-3.,-�•�i'4. �,,r . -�_ t'cw U: r ,r to ....r:• �� { - l.�'-�--+"-.-' , � [ '�3 ,r, . �,. � a :Sz ,� '
� .�^a. y .4.."fi`ai�"i>SY3 ii ..zF> � � �. }:-'.'�r �a,,,� 1 v����:� „i--3�%�ij�T �r .� s. ;.w dxv.�.'��'g l.� : 4��� �
i . ar2.. a''Ze.4r��1 �----� �v"=',.:�a ..5",, �4'�'�;, e -? ' 'ij� . .� .-w.-.�., �, -y v. a �7 .
`'G '���`'�ra�. t� , .ss� d�"�..r� ,y;.,,'�,?Cr 4,s�.`'A' `'. ,Z, �+.� � �,{r.F-�rr1.�3ja.G���"� S"y� i�.�:^�i�jY�� �'�'�i }� � 9'.
� � ��f r c� .�i� l . '`.. ,. "t' �� Y.$ � .�li i . t t �^ '.a,f i il � �. "a�i � �"`---' ��� -
�4 t � � �t. w) � P"' '�" . � �Y {� L �d..,�=ur..,i"s . .
� �y' r Xy.isF�xt -t � � .''' "F' `�'�� �f '�`�..�r `w-7' � r � t "."`u'c� _ � ,1 .�`_-S. ---".as _ _r..i `�3�{ �"- 4�Y��n- [.:
( ,n -�-' 'c �,'�. .'„� c�:.�d., j �t -+--�: ..�n ry��v,�+.,cT r c A ; ,�qi 3� .f� ""`� t
Y. •t .
I ? _ '�":, -. � �._�,t, -f � :� �,,,�� �'�'--' � �\ ,�' f,.,� ��, � � y� �,�,�'����b����� � � a�G���a.,.�m.� .----
���--Fh �a rf� `1 : \' c'���s'� ������,��, t��r ������3 �h,,,� �4 �"'°�-_.,*„�w..+-„�"�`-k-a'r,''� �� ,�. _ � .
. � ts-r'� -, 'N � �. � p : ,,� -I^ :.. j �is.�t '�`�i� � � � .�+� : # � . [ 4 ! T .. _,k .,�y.;+�, . t , . . . . .,. _ . . . _ . .
i . �5 , d' � 9 -� `�V�+ �' P'., .�....y,��, =.1-'"r _,.:.�5., - -. . . ..., . . . . . . .. .
l y��......1 �y�, .f v.
� � J
^� 1 .
�
S, f . . ....... . ..'� �
nq . *Y 1:. . � � . .
' � � l,
i . � .. .' -w'� t'd" .� ( v�
. .s 'y_..f _�
� � c�i:�.ib� . . . .
_ ,
-.:.. .:: . _ ,. .,. . . .._.. _ �— -
::-. , _:- _-, : , . . .. _ _ .. . ,_. -
;
� �...., .
�:;:
.. .M —v��+:---..�,�-�7--� � xz�A''
p�C+Y 1 '" ^�.'.��,i�.
��...._. . . �... � .._._...�.�..ra•xa:-�di",�=='c�.�fi�.��'.r.3N�...lC.s �.r'^",5��!..=;����:a"'+_:�=�'i.A.'F`'A'1.`L'��'��.
��'wy� '� - -
�u�'����
f;�': i
i;)
. tr.'.:� '��.
=i�:.�.:!j ���..
� �4:1
I
1 � e�} '
;::"r',:::. �
'•n ve: �
X;`-
��� �
� �., �
' i
��Fi�:
�,' I
�
� r. �
�
( ��A �
+2;7:.� I
:,:;:�.��:,F y;j . .
{ �a � �
: vk�. I
:;.�a �
9 gt��.ur
:_"fFtl
L`} w.
I - ,�f� i
1 ." � ' �
E ��;
i:._ .:�F�`� . �
i ;" �„'' . �
� �'� �
�. �
l� f
E . �C"'.d� � I
Y f�ad �
�4i �
�P�_� �
p^��`i
�� `3
� 1,F.
;'`i ;;:.;,�FP::;
;.lrii
„��:,
- iid�h?
" a.'.�'
7'�4�
1._; �
� .1: -' . , . . � � � i7� � 1--�= 'r;1 . .
d:i���aal�n'-�'.. t.:n,f�o�i1..."S`v�_" S�.Fx �,._l.c �� 3T.✓`� �� ..�
� '�
y�fi ��- ��F s,`3''�'�'� x��-��;:`,"� nv �^�'�� ��' �-:.1
x 1:" Y
��Lr'`~�e�c'-'�FTnjrc,�y,`� �'�.k41.,"��+�','.s"'`'�ts� �ti'„ ��'���
, -�r,�-�f ��E� �. � . ����
,�-� ,� ,� —+ r '� �t� J� m a ;
4�1 i Y 1TN- `.3'tt' �.1 `.U. r k'V.} rt �'v i
°:�. ;�b,�y.j'.p�'yi4yS�Fl �,�--�����`'� �,�� r'� te�"�,..,. +t; �?j�
'�� ` j'�{'��Ty�i��'� a'�$'=ay��.ry. v$a. i! f`'t ���� L.`�
��1 ��,,� `� �t �� D' . �.- ��1N -� +7i�,t �'� �r,^k"1�.-+l_� 'r,.� .
: �y�.ji.'t3YC.i�.��-a'Sr'� `Sd:`a`.P1� � f^..�w r�. iC`= �
� �'.".* ,�y �'-+.�lC ����t.+yi�*^"�i}... iz�-� �S. �.li�.�I�I.Yt���uy �
a _,x.
.'.�� 3i� �if�F"�,�,F� ..�4i�''c'�°''�"� %;a�rr; 1s id 3 �°w ��� .
;�� �F�� "��+ � -�t': ��r�' ,'��-� � � zt" �,�; a�4 �`� .:; '
�i'�"'�� rxr��;'�`; �i��ay�i; )��t� 'cf' �' L�"��Ys. � r G f � N� .
.Y_ � i 1:-y ,l. x" : f BY� .2C' � J � � . ,^; � '
� f � v d�:VP'i'f � y��.�.i'rC�Yi .�.iFL �'�'r'�' � �^- 1 ��- �'��a.. • . i '
'S!" y 'x, y� '°C4 "�..y �z,.,�P.h` :�'�„a���y'E R � , .J � .
t%�' y�� ���y�, i`S'"�rn ar,� qk �tY_ ti �'-s.5,, '}�i
� t�1.'� �.A�„ ¢e„rj,,,,� �-�1a '.�.x 4 s.� o a� . .
���a a ���i�r
i��.�,���, ��>��J ��� �,-� xF. �
�;}��z�p�'it, - Q^� . i i}` 4s x. 5.� „i,' '•� t.. t:
.� ---� c
�'I�.�".x...� L,.�.�r'Yf�S...F._'�..ar�� �� ( ��
�
_ ... i;.. _ "' ; .
. :j
��k' � � � ��
� � i € � � 1 �,`� � e; yro �.,� ��
T'O: MASAC � � i
��$((�j�; Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of �viation Noise"and Satellite Programs ':
_. I
SIJ�,JE��': Proposed Part 150 Update IVoise Mitigation Measure - Runway 17/35 �
Flight Tracks _
�.,. _'�
D�'�E' _ June 13; 2000 _ i
� _:. ,.
The introduction of runway 17I35 in 2003 changes the dynamics of the noise environment around IvISP. i
'This is especially true when generating noise contours and alloise Compatibility Program as part of a Part ;
`150 Update predicated on 2005 airport`operation: As part of the review process for runway _17/35 the �
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) stated that noise `abatement �'
measures could evaluate,departure tracks off runway 17 in an effort to avoid populated azeas in close
proximity to MSP, specifically in Bloomington. Pursuant to that initiauve, the MASAC Operations , ;
investigated flight track options off runway 17 through the Part 150 Update process.
i
f � T'he EIS contained a series of proposed fliaht tracks off runway 17 which included tracks "A" through "G"
- which provided a 190° heading fan from 95° clockwise to 285°. Using these tracks as a starting point, the
Y MASAC Operations Committee .began avaluation of possible flP ht track option� off runway 17.
Throughout the process consideration was biven to procedures which royide su�cient uidance to ensure
that aircraft of varying perforriiance capabiliues could avoid, as much as possible, populated areas while
en-route to their destinations. ' i,
The MASAC Operations Committee goals relaave to the runway 17 flight irack analysis were as folTows:
m RPduc� �aoise zmpacts wiihin the 60 �l+IZ, c�ntou�
0 Avoid increased overflig�tts o,f other communi#ies
m 11�airttain nan3va,� capaci�y
� t�`edsibl� implementation by �'AA/�TC
; o�'rovede positive guarlu�nc9 to aircrAft sa tJzey can reasonably follo�v
' dssired,,tZight trac'�s
m t�dlow,�or possible,futzzre ta�a�tsition to �'1i�S/��'S r�avigakon
�Vith the above goals as,the corner stone of the evaluation ef,`orts, several options were discussed. The
opuons included varyin� departure track fan concentrations ranging from a 60° fan (headings from 140° to
200°) ta a full 190° fan. (headings fro.m 095° xo `285°). These various scenarios included the proposed
deletion of EIS modeled tracks, in some cases, to accommo.daie the various departure fan xanges. As a
result of the extensive' analyses condi!cted by the i�iIASAG Operations Committee and the Runway 17/35
C'ity Group, a proposal wa5 developed which addressed the areas west and east of runway heading (170°)
i ) uniquely relative to the existing land uses on either side of runway he�ding.
The resultant proposal endorsed a 105° "hybrid fan" (headings from 095° to 200°). T'his fan proposal
maintains the EIS assumption that allows aircraft to turn to on-course headings as soon as aircraft are off
the runway to headinas east of runway heading (headings from 095° to 170°). On the west side of runway �
heading aircraft would fly the various departure tracks from the 170° heading to the 200° headinas per the
same standards as used on the east side of runway heading with the exception of the EIS modeled tracks
"F" (245°) and track "G" (285°). Jet traffic on these tracks would fly runway heading to a point established
at approximately 1.7 miles using Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). Upon reaching that point the
aircraft would turn to a heading of either 185° or 200°. T'he second turn to either a 245° or 285° heading
would occur at the poiirf which depar[ure control would issue an on course heading which' would be
approximately 3000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). � -
The above proposal was reviewed at the June 9, 2000 MASAC Operations' Committee meetin� at which
time FAA air traffic raised some concerns about the runway 17 departure track proposal's second turn
language. As a result, it was determined that additional work was .needed to reach a reasonable solution �
from the perspective of the FAA. Additional analyses are currently being conducied to evaluate
alternatives to the initial proposal. It is anticipated that the final runway 17 departure track proposal
will be consisYent with the intent of the initial proposal but may differ in the operational methods
and means of achieving the desireti goals. The final proposal will be brought before the Council at the
July 25; 2000 MASAC meeting. ' ,:
'If you have any questions, please contacr me at 612-725-6326.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED
Informational item only, no action is requested
<.
j
. . ��
D:�cicq ve�masac,ju nQO. (m
:'
%":i
•...::.�!-..cv'..`-YL-'wtc..{�1J...�� � � �Sj , 1w.Cv:1�a.Ja+^v� l�.0 ....:.�i.1 � i..:��:,. ' .. . . . . .....,_ _ ,. - .. ,. . -
, .�. . ::. . .
.
�--�,.q_1s'r� � � rt � -'r�q' �_ �;a . � �v�'" ....��_ , ..�y,�., ,�... .� ... � ...� i"� L�. `1�d 7 1;.� ��� ' . ,
o f- `(
�,�k,�,�, �J " y� '� � 1�9�?� c.� ���S�Y,����k- �� � � 3 �r a � x
� `a � � t+s..� H . r ' ` k�. �3,�,< <f� ,.. �3
t r 3 r �� � �*r � �
�`�S.i9�' ,T � �� �y:�"�` ' Iry ,._,. � . �.,� ��` ��J 1`'��� u �:.�j� I ��t.. � � j ;� - ,
zz,�����'.,, .. .�� �-e� • � � ��Y �j'- � _J � r � , , . : .,
� ` . s.. - :-�-' c, _ ' � r n . '" ,. � s � -., { /� . ' ,
� y �• st � ° � G i h� . i'6? t -1-.� �il � �'�' ' t.�aP'� y .a .
�N.Y4 5 � '> . �� �''4~ ��1 �e2L � " i"'� y.eq s � � ,� � .I i i � � � .
�"�T q�y, � 'n"'J'` ('�!� F � �` '}'�� '�'�.--�-'a �� l } ;,'l �
r,. -tr.a+ a `'1 .r.,,� t .,���}n .2�' *r- I �.r�+ ^"` ��+� � �� .,,p �� r � } � �
�"�' .� M1r,w `'�TS'y"ty,.. `� t � •S � � 1�.' ' �. � +ri "''��1 \� � �� . r .. � F a� `ti
a"i5 ' �~• �� a�„;�� �� � E���7r. � Zt�,S' '�`�. '�s��,,�,�- { .''y. � a.�l: r � �� -� '• .
y� ' � 7�7 `u% �.��;�/;.� i � �^�.v.t "1�..,q �c i �
�u 3 t� � 4 ri�7�,`S�{ �, S
;i`,r�-�• ^ ~•,�, �.,�.'• 3^' •, � .i � ,��� 4 �t 1�' 4'�' tl �.4fl � � `�� � f � �i � : e� � �I: `T � . .
T ;� . . . . ,( i F
d r � � . �! �• •�,�� ya.. .* � � +� .� r 4 . -;�
''... t '-��1�: ,`�.cN r�?;. , ����v_e"f � �.u: . iu �� �, ... y d ' L < < � n - x
" t� ya � sst�ay's.btc� k C. 1 � s� Sx �, .:
ti � .;1 �' -�� .��j �,� �r� ,��,a, + � ; F ��� �'� ,� f 4 +e.
�J e i � ���: ' +�� aa �y�t'i. � r ��(, i 't :� �-.��� �� � � � 's 7 ��$ �`r�� �i � ,� .
i? y�' 9 '�r � -g� •�' :.,��J4- i�� i : 5,' P l,� y`" t y y �.r ri .y�-�` x�l
.� :` � �'� ': �...�i .L �y_ '�,.q�ts Q,�' p, �' 1'� ,� t•n.�.� r}� -r �f sJ 4 �.+� � � �.y.
� �^ � �0� 'r,.o,�.• �'�av�`� �M° Y,-. ,. ,� �.� . . . �..�"�7� � . f ��.., . _ '. ..,�_ �. �' .
•R _ . . � .e M� . _ _1W,x1�� t. �`-,ni� _ K'�:`7.
"4';i.s-'P'.�:;%��y.':j'=;1:�t.�,r':?S� _ ��
1'
',1 �' � �~�' ~71 ylt
'.:�3.i�...y�"'?� �.,�r �� _
�;..;<��;..��:i,=�; ,`-;;�=�`.
�--�c, � {[- t .i ;
u���,r1 ��t �„y' ; � '
"""La �k���j J� � .
n
v � L-_ -a ,j ti
i ' �'��"�; �f �
, Z .�;�q, �'�� ,w :
s L - 4
� i� �,`��
.lj �r� aty4� il_
�� ti �
' Y'd � V
.., ' � .. , ;,
� �
✓'I•,
_ - ..�N
+Y" � x'�" � F
. �" �..: .' � ��
' - " �, �.
,�.i .l -
d�- �
•.,'...�.;'��.'+{.1'....=.� .
"� .� r 3 w q� '.i � a Y t� �^�. ✓. 54 r .��_.� .r� ai .� : a } . y . .. ,
.,a'- �' v �J- r .��-�-+ x ^ �yy}�.,e� sz ,� �Y 11 i
'�t C'L�S�i.-ei.-__���� >� r r n Y� � ��.+> �'4 �37 i a.. -7� . t �,@ . r d i 7 � t'{ Fti'U .
'�'�� r � v '�t n..r" �^� . x � 7 � � � s1 r�ti � ,s,,i}r a „li '�,a. ',. ir }ti "'"� ..- F !�. �.
� � '_ _` 3 .: �..,. fy S a�t . �.�' _ , .
y � , , _-_ ' ;..
i
� . , �., � , .._ . . ,_ .
_ � .,
' 4i' J,�.. ��� : ,.. '�. . .��. . .�. . ��. . . ' '
,��� �- .....�. �
1
�rc
� i ���., r � � ;;;� '. . ., - . . .. _ .... . . . .. .. . . .. .
, :�� �.. '. . . '", .. ' ...... .. ..�.. :.�_�.,. . �.
'�taa� �t � • �.::. �..: . .. .: �.�,.. ._;: .. . ...:� .'. ._ . . , _ . . . . , . .._ .. .
� ! ��t �' � c� �.�
" f ` �t � 'E�` � .a t• r
�� •
g'��M:
S�J�JE��':
�A'I'E:
. a `
!!:i!'1_ll�l�
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Proposed Part I50 Update Noise Mitigation 1Vleasure - Low Demand Fliaht
Tracks
June 13, 2000
In an effort to reduce noise impacts during low-demand periods the MASAC Operations Committee
endorsed preferred departure tracks for runways 30L/30R, 12L/12R, 04, 22 and 17. The intent of this
initiati�e is to determine flight track priorities and procedures for use by ATC, which would minimize the
impacted population, for use in low-demand periods.
In order to establish the best low-demand flight tracks for each runway, HNTB used I2C9 hushkit, 90 dBA
SEL contours to measure impact. The 1VqASAC Operations Committee proposal does not severely detour
aircraft from their destination and is intended to give ATC guidance on selection of appropriate flight
tracks during low-demand periods producing the least amount of noise impact on residents. This does not
negate deviation from these tracks for the purposes of safety, aircraft performance, pilot compliance,
weather and traffic conflicts. Below are the MASAC Operations Committee proposed recommendations.
by runway.
Runway 0�
� When practical, ATC wall assign headings that roughly overfly the river basin (approximately
355°true/353° mab etic). Yet, precise navigation of this route is not possible without external naviga-
tion to aid the pilot. Therefore a departure procedure (DP) that overflies the river basin for use by non-
heavy and hi�h-performance aircraft should be developed and implemented.
Runr.vay 22
• Develop and implement two departure procedures, a west DP and a south DP.
4 Wesc DP - Fli�ht track over the I494 Highway Corridor for use by west-bound and northbound tra�c.
� South DP - Flight track with a turn prior to Cedar Avenue and then another turn to the southwest over
the river for use by west-bound and south-bound traffic.
T�u�aro+�ay i2L and 12R
p Continue use of the Crossing in the Corridor procedure.
� Investigate use of future technology to optimize flight track location and further minimize the
impacied population.
Runway 3�L and 30R �
a Continue the existing procedure of dispersing departure tr�c away from the runway centerline flight
track to avoid concentrating both arrival and departure tra�c on the same flight track.
^ Investigate a DP that overflies Trunk Highway 62.
Runway I7
• Disperse departure tr�c away from the centerline flight track to avoid concentrating arrival and
departure traffic.
.
° East-bound departures use a 095° heading - -
� South-bound departures use a 160° heading
• West-bound departures use a 185° heading
• Investigate use of a river DP for use by west-bound departures
Development of some of the above DPs will require the use of precision navigation technologies such as
FMS/GPS. In an effort to implernent the above procedures, coordination with the FAA will be paramount
in determining the feasibility and implementation options with respect to the proposed DP per runway. The
evaluation of new technologies is currently being conducted as part of a GPS Needs. Assessment. 'This
Assessment will consider the integration of GPS related applications and technologies at MSP for
inclusion as an element of the Part 150 Update Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) recommendations.
At the May, l, 2000 MASAC Operations Comrriittee meeting the above Low-Demand Flight Tracks were
reviewed. The proposal was approved and is being forwarded to MASAC with a recommendation for
aPProval.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6326.
COUI�ICIL ACTION REOUE�TED
MASAC endorse the proposed Part 150 Update Low-Demand Flight Tracks noise mitigation measures `
D:�cleq ve�masac_ju n00. fm
C '
0
\ �� ^ �. � �y S �� .� _. ..._; ..-.., . .. _. � _ ___- . . .. .
� �Fh _ _ _ ..�...,.. - .
'�.yYyo-jj � . . . . ' ... .. . . . .
,�" t`�-�, '��:a`,�x,ci',�i q� �.�..
� ��#=�,� � x�. �2 `�o v"e5»�T'� .:�,��",'
�``„�.�,� ' i i 'o �� �%. .
����ti� ' �
� 4 ;�-._
�� � �:�
�;~'�- ° Y � ..; ���a'� : �
��' x � � y.y . z�.
F�-�v� ��� , ��T rz�
�+f�� ���� L � � � 9 � v'9 K , �Lt�
,�r r s ^ta-,� � �t'� �' �� ? � ta
I�"��;?�� 1 �Y�'��,� k :
txa� ,�.T='Y�,3 °u" z" r ,� �2
i :� "a..;v ��'a;r �-�'r� ti - �.5;
f � a-..rS� �-�, �,�? 4 :i >�, t � .0
: ��� � �� ��� �. � s !
�f" j,y�.. � rc�z�. .,k
:� �Y�=��, '�'j,, -'``,a xt �xi.;�� _.�
t s'T C � "'� �.F ,�`:..
?h � T�'a�c��r:%��'`.� . _
�c�� � � r�r.9`�3��rfi'� 7�;x�+� : �-i
I ��� �tAa'�y,��' ts y.� `
r ��� �
'h�,�4,�e'' � � Y��f '�
�.'. '"da '`�� �:�3��'1�'h''i"�MCti ' .:
�� J.�r3���p'e�'t� . -�` F
+'•-$.� � � �.��Y'3l7 l�y+[� . �.i
�F pl ;
4 tilrF. � ��t ,
..�'W,>�.L���e ,''3". . � '1
f�� �"';?��� k � � -�`��Ay �.
��n.= 21 kd. �, � -
n
�tr�5:i��..��'� -
q��-.» c� a' u��;�� "' ".7�-c��
�� �..a."j,t_rd�.�,`���z�ti�v
������1���� �����
7�,�s C�n. �,Y � ���� dF A�-
�i'�9�e�r�.+�fi�.�'C�Jf?�'.lYTj S}y.
n� • C�' �,� �'���,1,� F �r -
�,.�'�' �-�!'��__
;iY.. �j�4 $
Ji..i{Ftr.�''
1CtCll)t!S)4�.� �� ���15' /6 �
_ ....,_r.�.� . _ ' �
C _,
... � R�, � ae4^ .f�$ _ `t f
r q �,T �: �. ,'+
`Tf):
Fl$Ol�:
S�T�JEC�':
DATE:
k ' ` . � r
�
IvIASAC � � �
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Proposed Part 1S0 Update Land Use Measures
June 13, 2000
As a result of the Part 150 Update, a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Prob am (NCP) is being
developed. The noise compatibility program, in addition to operational Noise Mitigation Measures,
includes a multitude of Land Use (LU) Measures (the portion of the NCP which addresses sound
insulation). NCP measures focused on land use initiatives usually include measures associated with:
�
0
Preventutive Land Use ltqeasures (e,fforts to prevent the introduction of
incompatible land uses around the airport) ,
Corrective Land Use ld�easures (efforts to correct existing incompatible
land uses around the airport)
( ._.__ � " _ ...
� The MASAC Operations Committee Reviewed 14 total land use measures for consideration. Eight of the
14 were existing Part 150 land use measures modified slightly for incorporation into the Part 150 Update
proposal. The Council endorsed the original eight land use measures with slight modifications at the May
l, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting.
The remaining land use measures (LU9-LU14) were evaluated at the June 9, 2000 MASAC Operations
Committee meetinD, resulting in the endorsement of one additional land use rneasure (LU 14 - Creation of
sound buffers/barriers). The land use measures which were analyzed, reviewed and forwarded to MASAC
with a recommendation for approval from the MASAC Operations Committee are as follows:
� LU 1: Bring lacal land use plans into compliance with Metropolitan Council Noise Compatibility
Guidelines: Metropolitan Council, MAC and MASAC have developed language which designates the
DNL 60 as the land use planning standard for the application of preventative and corrective land use
.. measures
� LU2: Zone for compatible development: based on the new Metropolitan Council land use planning
language, communities should adopt zoning classificataons and ordinances that prevent future incom-
patible land use
� LU3: Apply zoning performance standards: develop new model ordinances for home construction con-
sistent with the FAA land use policies aircraft noise attenuation
� LU4: Establish a public information program: continue to provade information utilizinc new technolo-
gies and multimedia capabilities
0 LUS: Revise building code: support revision of state and local building codes to ensure interior noise
level reduction as a result of new building techniques
p LU6: Acquire developed property in incompatible use: review the possible practical application of this
( i '
M
�
:.��.:.��,-�. ...M -_
�.__�.�„-.�..., _..L---•,.4:�.�.s�c--��-.c�:�n�c-s.�,:a.3',�.;,;-._+--a;
�3:.�-'Li�? � '>
' ���; . � l:
� �
: ���."� 41 � { �.
M1��L,Ly�
�
A �7
� t�i.
�?3�s
��w:.:�� � , ;
.�,� ,'.:;°.
9 �
�'`�' 4� . � '.
1�� i ..
.� .-��. .�TJ.
.��2
4•x �'<; *�'� .
,�+� t
�l.h �5'_:.a ':
%����_�:. ':'i
�L��' k`:�f .
�. 1r��'7
k� ;
��':i:�. _-
��:-��';
:�a.�;;, `
; �`sr���yy��
�.ry� .��..�.
�t��"M .
r. _. ,::
; ��. �,.
, ,
=�:� �`�+�
'r.;:;� ,-�?�.s::
_ .�;; :�,;.'_ -
��'�j/.t��':€t� urfiy�``r =�1�j.�' r ' ; �"�"''�ri�,^` � �' '.,r.� h�n�
� � t ''�' 'i4, `" �� � '�4F � � � ��,� � ', �� �
�, %c'T,3 r;� !t'� �'�i 1�1 ,7 'C� 7�1 § � f y f s "a,l '9 � ? ,cJ �i E'} � �:� i '�.; �
� f ,�'�.�. . � + �. � y � r' � :. (�`,,. "��x � �a i * �� 1. 'T� : � � ,
Sl? `,yL. 1rr y�m .�'�,.��x�.� �; � Tt ,�' � '� �� �'' 3 -tf';.� �; � � � , � �.
c.i,:.7�a �r�� 4'� .�G. tiit � b�..-„"'�" . j?�.� � � ����-'� ,r. `� ry� .
�. . jy � c, .R.� 41 f�y ��,'"+ i'' � Y � � �. �'.a� i �� .y � I � r. r� . S 'J � �, i%a � � i'r. �
��� y �s 7��`. ,�� a: '� ; ..� r;�_ y-----'— ,�. . . a. '„ti�x � l. � .- �,�?�°k}� � zr."'> y4 :: t t
}%' �.
' o y�"'r'��`� ��a s i�(T{1@t�,��-Pa�,� y?'4i'~+-• � a o � -0,`" �' � 3 ..� � �i
. p���t � ��,.'''. y�.�'"t "�.� . . � ,y. � _ .. f �fl� -�.��s'�� � � c. _..a � � -�
�,;C� D-,T .� f u.^i +v'�'ti r4� y- � -1 D ; +fc, r' } . �`� y r��I
.�i � � rJ � � ait; r+;.��„ f ,a ��~ . � �^ . , ,l�iY�i � *j �a„� � � �'i >' $i
P7- r tU.)��',...�ji '' -iy f �'t� � �y � � ,. _CG."1 1� , � �: � . . `r �
"^z j4; i ,ru7 ft �''' �, ,. 2 . �. ,� Jry-�.,,. �`t�. � � L -
.�.�- :Y �'-�� 4.,.1 Ss`��," IX .'.- . �-ll. � �'� t� . . "��� • , �i
�'�i.,,l� !� �tCqL ✓+' `C M ': s� . . 1
^ �y � k i t t � ' c�. �.'S., v-ti �. '� t a3
4 ± � � I �..1. -..+5 . �..� ��e � }Y. .,� ' . � ^s4 � Z,� � �. ..C-. � ; ��� ` l'. . . � `\ - '�� �..�
1 ' 1- Y G �
4 ;_ . �, Ky �F � z�' } 1 r � � k �'� x �
` i w �m � � �e+ '* S ;'' ` l � v3 s :
, �— N c.. . i � t t � 7 e .; y � . - ��. � .. .� � � _� i ; `3 v r S-' j ti -:.
� : f�l i �:«��� 'T 1'Y � r .:..-3{�. �C� . -� � ,� L S�u. rF � y,f �"t � �._ } i
t. 4 , t" � _ . o _ � ` � +...__ -M�° F "-�-"'� . 7r� - .
�,ntr .���,,, � y,,,, � . ' � i �. . . . . t .. �i
�� S ( �
,� 'I`y I, ��� H-� G t i._ * �� v i�i�� y �' ��1 v { �
�. � � JL'S � v _ f � ��,L 1� .r � .,�.�r,,,�s'��ti .ct" \ .{ �
' � 7� '�":��;'{� i= ,2 _ '' , r,,,a_: � r., �"i�'�1qo��frK �+c,. ,b. �'�,�' ,
f � �( 'i�Y � ' � � �'�> , \ 4'`i y ,1 . � 1 ,�, i
f � 1 1 i M� !
-''1{ t w�,���Ci .-s ..� � � � ty a� � �� c-+�,r�'��t•,�� - � �
...,,' < � L� ..'� �� r �� , � - . L .
m.�` � ,� , 7. �.
."'� d� Y •'19 w� ,i„r Q 7. . . S � � . .
�, � � , t �r o+' Y� , c � . ��,g;�qo� '���.�5.."4��,�� �
..,,., r �.� . h ". �a ` ! ." .
. ��.0 �>>. c t. ` F" �t-� ` n ..� ^rv�''�. .�,,.r'� � . .
� r + 'S. 41 "� �} - ,'��L .3�- rsa• !�, .�:tF.i �' x � '� � .
�'y,µ'i,y� � � .'i fi � .. � � �S "'' e,�.c '� } t� � � �'' � i �, . . � - . i
r ,.: a � � r 1l �`l-"$. , .� y i i � � � � i � ' . .i
'^� a � .K .7 � �c � �� 7
� � �:,�� fj � d� , � :� , r L r .
,r 1 � , -s fita t . � v. � r jS�� 4 �. , . -i
�. . � � �. i- j
�: 4ry�� �,,, ?,�. �.J! � ��i � f..�,(iC �� � . 5 . ��� �� ;
. .� �Mc � � � c. �7' _ - t ,� r �„� r t^� .
rr'" t � i a i� . � ' �� �� �4 + � " � �� � ,���. � : t �!
.-r , i-�' :'� � r "�t � �
1;{�A � Y s��y�t�,��� :� �D r � Y �r tx '� ..
,;� d f?�t � u� �� � �. ' K;�� 1 L '. � , Y �cy _
-r` rx v :� �.� ,f' ^. � .
;A'� � r � T � I 1 s� � �"t t.�.___. t �
'� - ...�€. .+�;.�_ _ n. . .
Cit�' Ot
BURNSVILLE
100 Civic Center Park��a� • Burns�ille. .�linnesota »33�-381- !b1'� 89�-�=00
7une 7, 2000
MASAC Secretary
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
60�0 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN ��450
RE: City of Burnsvill.e's Appointments to IvIASAC
Please consider this notice that at their June 5�' meeting the City Council appointed the
following person as the alternate representative for the City of Burnsville:
Kathryn (Kay) Hatlestad
11117 Zebulon Pike Avenue
Burnsville, MN 55337
Home: (952) 894-7996
Business: (651) 220-1138
If you have any questions, please call me at (952) 89�-4491. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/ n � ' .J
-�%���✓ � ` ��-�.�=-�
Susan P. Olesen
City Clerk
Hennepin Goun4y Medical Ce�+ter
Leve� i T�s�aaa�a�s C�e�r
�� �
Peter a. Scmesinger. �.1.C., =..�.C.?,'
Duec:o�
Tromas 1. Bioss. tiL�.'-
�av�a l. Rnuae. tit.D.'
tit.Thomas SUnman. M.D.. F.A.C.P."
June S, 2000
Department of Medicine
Division of Rheumatology
Nlr. Charles Mertensotto, Chairman
Ivletropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
6040 — 2�`h Avenue South
Minneapolis, I�Si�t ��450
Dear Chairman Mertensotto:
701 Park Avenue
MinneaPolis. MN 55-:' �-��='Q
612. 347-2704
FAX: 612; 904-4299
www.HCY1C.org
I would like to express my concern about the �'owing problem of airport nolse.
Obviouslv as the Chairman of the Sound Abatement Council, you are very much aGt�are
of this problem, but I think a personal note is important.
I have been a resident of southwest Minneapolis for some fifteen years. Obviously this is
one of the premier neighborhoods in the entire Twin Cities. Since I have lived there, the
reality of the airport and the accompanying noise has been tolerable for me, as it is
primarily a problem during the daytime hours. Since the fall of 1999, the airport noise in
our neighborhood has become simply unbearable. Clearly the tracks of the flights as well
as the number and the hours of the flights have undergone a remarkable inerease and
change, the bottom line being that sleep is becoming a very difficult commodity. Flights
arrivina and leavin� the Minneapolis-St. Paul Lnternational Airport at midnight, 1:00 am,
3:00 am. �:00 am, and 6:00 am on a regular basis have made sleep in our neighborhood
extremely difficult and at times, impossible.
I recently attended a public open house for the "FAR Part 150 Program". I found this
r���eting te �e ga.rticu:ur?y '�:�:elpfial, other than that notirg that when the new north���T.::'.:
runway is completed in approximately t��o years, it may shift a small amaunt of the noise
away from our neighborhood, but overall will not si,�nificantly impact the noise levels
that ti�e are suffering with. In particular, a�ain I draw your attention to the flights after
10:00 p.m. and prior to 7:00 am. �vhich have made sleep at standard hours difficult.
NIy fe�r is that as this airport continues to eYpand, not only in space but in number of
flights, this airport will evolve in a 24 hour around the clock facility such that there �vill
be flights all day and all niQht and the neighborhood surrounding the airport will simply
be unlivable. This is such that I am in the process of contemplating moving from
southtivest Minneapolis and I am sure that many others have similar feelin�s. I�vould
(� )
• Fellow. Amencan Colle�= of Rheum�t^iog9: ooaro c=rtiiied Intemai '�lecicine!Rheumatology
• Direc[or. Untl=rgraduate Metl�cai Educ�[ion
- Director of Pnmary Cara Outreacn
An equal opportunity employer
Mr. Charles Ivlertensotto, Chairman
Paae 2
hate to think that the neighborhoods of the Twin Cities are �oing to be sacrificed for the
sake of the airline industry as well as the convenience of airline travelers, manv of them
who are not be�inning nor ending their travel in this region.
�
Thanl: you very much for your attention. I wish you luck in attempting to solve this
difficult issue. Unfortunately, I think that the alternative is to have severely depressed
neighborhoods throughout much of the Twin Cities, including my �vonderfui area of
southwest Minneapolis.
Sincerely,
avid J. Rhude, MD
24 Forestdale Road
Minneapolis, MIv 5�41�-2�46
(612) 9?7-7601
cc: Sharon Sayles-Belton
Mayor, City of Minneapolis
Room 331 City Hall
3�0 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Barret Lane
City Council, City of Minneapolis
Room 307 City Hall
350 Sou±h Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 5�41�
DJRJj cl
C
� � :, T �., �}
! j ; :.,, � � t � '' ��'.` 3
►�
�
I�ZETROPOLITA?� AIRCRAIFT SO�TND ABATEIV�EN7[' COi1NCIL
GE`1ER.AL MEETING
Ma�• 23, 2000
8:00 p.m.
6040 28`h Avenue S.
._ Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order. Roll Call
The meetinQ �;�as called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 8:00 p.m. The followin� members
were in attendance:
Charles Mertensotto
MarSr Loeffelholz
Jennifer Sayre
Brian Bates
Brian Simonson
Roy Fuhrmann
Bob lohnson
Petrona Lee
Steve Bianchi
Jamie VerbruaQe
Lance Staricha
Kevin Batchelder
Will Eainton
Neil Clark
Dean Lindberj
Dick Saunders
Leo Kurtz
Barret Lane
Joe Lee
Cynthia Putz-Yang
Steven Wolfe
John Halla
Jeff BerQom
Pam Dmytrenko
Krist3l Stokes
Advisors
Cindy Greene
Glenn Orcutt
Chad Leqve
lason Giesen
Shane VanderVoort
Joe Harris
Mark Kill
Mendota Heiahts
Northwest Airlines
Northwest Airlines
Airborne
DHL
MAC
MBAA
Bloomington
Bloominaton
EaQan
Eagan
Mendota Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Sunfish Lake
St. Louis Park
St. Paul
Burnsville
Richfield
Richf eld
FAA
FAA
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
The use of DME turn points for west fli�ht tracks would aIso provide positive guidance of aircrafr
using ehistinQ technology.
�
East Flight Tracks
• Applies to fli�ht tracks east of runwati� centerline
• Allows for immediate turns off runway end (rather than using turn points)
• Maintains dispersion of aircraft over Eagan (does not concentrate in any one area of
Eagan) =_
2. West Flight Tracks
m Applies to flight tracks that are west of runway centerline
• Eliminate use of EIS tracks F and G for jet aircraft
o Use turn points to Quide aircraft onto EIS fliQht tracks and avoid populated areas
• Turboprop aircraft assigned to two tracks west and outside of jet fan
A flight track diagram was presented that illustrated the percentage of jet and turboprop aircraft
expected to use each track in the fan.
Mr. Fuhrmann noted that althou�h these tracks were used for analysis purposes, dispersion on
either side of each track will occur and aircraft will be dispersed throujhout the entire fan.
Application of this mitigation measure removes approximately 990 people from the 2005
unmitiQated 60+ DNL contour.
Reconzrnendation
The MASAC Operations Committee has recommended a 105° fan for runway 17 from 095° to
200° (EIS tracks A to E) because it reduces the impacted population, avoids increased overflights �
of other communities and uses turn points for westerly destination headin�s in order to turn
aircraft at higher altitudes and avoid populated areas.
Fleet M�r Alternatives
Mr. Fuhrmann reported that aithough the Operations Committee has not yet considered fleet
mix alternatives, it is apparent that changes affecting the fleet mix will necessarily be
implemented through a voluntary program. If there were mandatory fleet mix restrictions, a Part
161 would have to be completed, which would delay implementation of any recommendations.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reported that staff and the primary carrier have been discussing possible
scenarios for a viable hushkitlnighttime voluntary program. He said coordination with the
primary carrier is important to ensure that the recommended program reflects achievable
reductions in hushkit and/or nighttime operations. The analysis will also include how different
levels of compliance with the voluntary projram would affect the noise environment.
NIr. Fuhrmann then presented two contours that illustrated what the 2005 unmitigated contour
�vould look like if (1) there were no hushkitted aircraft in 2005, and (2) there were no hushkitted
aircraft in 2005 during the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The contours were developed in response to
comments made in the Part 150 Update scoping documents, but can not be implemented due to
the financial costs to the airlines and the time and resources that would be needed by aireraft
manufacturers to produce new aircraft.
The no-hushl:it aircraft in 200� contour showed that approYimatel�� 31,810 people �;'ould be
removed from the current 200� unmitiQated contour. The no-hushkit aircraft at niQht in ?00�
contour showed that approximately 21,390 people would be removed from the current 300�
unmitisated contour.
N1r. Fuhrmann noted that the fleet mi� alternatives beinQ anal}�zed will ultimatel�� consider
incentives or disbenefits for complying or not complyinQ with the proposed voluntar�� proaram.
Lorv Demand Fligltt Tracks
Mr. Fuhrman�,then presented information resardin� recommended flight tracks for periods of
low demand. He said the goal was to determine flight track priorities and procedures for use b}�
ATC that would minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the impacted population durin� lo��.'
demand periods (typically at night),
The methodology for the analysis included the followin� considerations: �
.._
e Fliaht tracks should be chosen, by runway end, that impact the fewest people
• DC9 hushkit 90 dBA SEL contours were used for the analysis
0 Flight track priorities cannot severely detour aircraft from their destination
o The recommendations are intended to give ATC �uidance on selection of appropriate flight
tracks durina low-demand periods that will impact the fewest people
p Deviations from these recommended fli�ht tracks are expected due to safet}�, aircraft
performance, pilot compliance, weather and traffic conflicts
Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the recommended low demand fliQht tracks for each runway end.
Rzrnlvay 4: When practical, ATC will assign headin�s that rou�hly overfly the river
basin (approximately 355° true/353° ma�netic). Precise navigation of
• this route is not possible without external navi�ation to aid the pilot,
therefore a departure procedure should be developed and implemented
that directs aircraft over the river basin for use by non-heaw and high-
performance aircraft.
RZli11VQy 22: Develop and implement two departure procedures, one for west bound
aircraft and one for south bound aircraft. The west departure procedure
would place aircraft over the I-494 corridor for use by west bound and
north bound aircraft. The south bound departure procedure would turn
aircraft prior to Cedar Avenue and then turn an aircraft again to fly over
the river on a southtivest headin�. This departure procedure could be
used by west and south bound traffic.
Rcuzwav 12L/12R: Continue usin� the crossin� in the corridor procedure, which impacts the
� fe�,vest number of people. Investigate the use of future technology to
optimize flight track location and further minimize the impacted
population.
Rarfnvay 30L/30R: Due to population density in this area designation of specific, preferred
flight tracks does not provide substantial benefit and would concentrate
flijhts on select tracks and thus would impact the same people
disproportionately. The existing procedure for dispersin� departure
traffic away from the runway centerline fliaht track should be continued.
A departure procedure that overflies Hi�hway 62 should also be
� J investigated.
Rzrmval� 1%: Disperse depanure traffic away from centerline b�• assi�nin� the
followina headinas - 09�° for east bound departures, 160°�for south
bound departures and 18�° for west bound departures. Investisate the
use of a river departure procedure b}� west bound departures. � �
Sau�nnan�
• The development of some of the low-demand departure procedures will require the use of
FMS/GPS te�chnology.
m Coordination with FAA will be required to deterinine feasibility and implementation.
o Ne�� technoloQy analysis cunently underway will consider inteQration of these technoloaies
at MSP for inclusion within the Part 150 recommendations. y y
Runway I7-3� No Btrild Contour
Mr. Fuhrmann then presented a contour that illustrated how the 2005 unmitigated contour
would look if the new 17-3� runway were not built and noted the areas that will benefit from the
addition of runway 17-35. He noted that there would be an increase of approximately ??,000
people within the 200� unmitiaated contour if the runway were not built.
Preli�ninary Recor�une�ided Noise Abatemeni Program
1��Ir. Fuhrmann then reviewed the Preliminary Recommended Noise Abatement Pro�ram for the -
Part 150 Update.
hnplenzent
• The Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profiles for all runways
• The Preferred Runway Use System (RUS)
• The Runway 17, 105° departure fan
• The Low Demand Flight Tracks
A�'ditional Recornnlendations to Con1e
• Fleet Mix Alternatives
0 GPS/fiuture TechnoloQy
A map was presented that showed both the 2005 unmitigated and the preliminary mitigated
contour. The total population change between the two was a reduction of approximately 10,720
people from the 2005 60+ contour.
Chairman Mertensotto asked Mr. Fuhrmann to brief the Council on the status of the land use
measures. Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the Operations Committee had approved land use items
� one through eight for inclusion in the Part 150 Update, which were included in the last Part 150
update. He noted that the remainder of the land use measures under consideration will be
discussed at the June 9, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. He noted that there was a list of
these Iand use measures on pages two and three of the Operations Committee meeting minutes.
Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked if he could get a copy of the presentation. Chad Leqve,
Technical Advisor, said it would be posted on the Internet, but that Mr. Clark could call him for a
copy.
Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, asked why the runway 17 capacity would be decreased slightly with the
use of the 10�° fan. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the expected capacity reduction would be due
. to the use of turn points for the west bound fli�ht tracks, not the width of the fan itself. He said
�
C
because aircraft would maintain runway headinQ from the start of take off roll for 1.7 miles.
rather than turnin� on course immediately after lift off; air traffic control would have to «�ait until
the aircraft has made its initial turn before departina another aircraft in the same direction.
�'Vill Eginton, Inver Grove HeiQhts, clarified that the runway 17 fan «�as for departures and not
for arrivals.
Laace Staricha, Eagan, noted that, except for Eagan, almost all of the other communities ���ill
benefit from the proposed noise abatement pro�ram. He said MASAC should take this into
consideration when deliberating EaQan's request to eliminate the 09�° track. _
Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, asked how the operations that were initially assiQned to EIS tracks F
and G were dispersed after they were eliminated. Roy Fuhrmann, I��tAC, said operations
oriainally assianed to F and G were placed on the closest track available and ���ere not dispersed
throuahout the fan. Mr. Bergom asked Mx. Fuhrmann if he could Qive any assurances that the
reassianinQ operations would not place more aircraft over the city of Burnsville. Mr. Fuhrmann
said he could not assure that Burnsville would not experience some additional fliQhts due to the
shift in fliQht tracks. Mr. Bergom said this is .the Ciry's concern - that nanowing the departure
tracks from the original fan will increase fli�hts over Burnsville. Mr. Fuhrmann said that any
impact would be minimal and that a sample point analysis showed that the expected chanae in
noise levels in Burnsville with this shift in flight tracks would be 0.2 or 0.3 DNL, which is
statistically insignificant. He said the fliaht track shift being proposed represents a compromise
between the city of Bloomington's and the city of Burnsville's preferences.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heiahts, noted that, although the total population is reduced with the
proposed noise abatement program, it does increase slightly the population within the 6S=
contour area.
( ) Chairman Mertensotto noted that no action was being requested regarding this aQenda item.
��� Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said action on these items would be taken at the June 2000 MASAC
meetina.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eaaan, asked that the staff and the consultants prepare a reanalysis of a 60°
fan (140° to 200°). 4
Chairman Mertensotto expressed his concern with limiting the departure fan for a runway that
is not yet operational. He said it is not in the Airports Commission's interest to ]imit how a
runway is operated before it becomes operational. He said he supports the �videst fan possible.
Re ort of the Mav 1 and Mav 12. 2000 O erations Committee Meetinas
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that, besides the recommended noise abatement pro�ram
for the Part 150 Update, the Operations Committee also recommended that MASAC approve the
Metropolitan Council's proposed changes to its Aviation Guide Chapter.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if a one-mile buffer zone would be included in the
Aviation Guide Chapter. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said it would be included but that it is strictly
used on a voluntary basis. Mr. Fuhrmann said that it would be made clear that the one-mile
buffer zone is recommended as a voluntary program only. Chairman lYIertensotto said if there
were no objections, he would direct staff to send a letter to Chauncey Case of the Metropolitan
Council supportinQ the recommended changes (contained in the memo) to the Aviation Guide
, •. Chapter including language that the one-mile buffer zone is a voluntary program for applying
( �
land use compatibilin� Quidelines. Chairman Mertensotto said the letter should aiso clarifi
"corrective land use measu�.�s." There were no objections to the recommendation.
6. Report of the Anril 13 �000 Communications Advisorv Board MeetinQ �
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the Council on the April I2, 2000 Communications
Advisory Board meetina. He reported that the �roup had determined the topics for the 3`d Quarter
A2ASAC News newsletter and that the content would be revie�ved at the next meetina on June 14,
2000 at 3:30 p.r�__
Report of the MAC Commission Meetina
Chairman Mertensotto reported on the May 15, 2000 MAC Commission meetina. The
followin� items were mentioned: `
United Airlines has withdrawn its request to lease Gate 43 at the Lindbergh Terminal. The
gate will become a common use gate for use by the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
MAC has successfully sold its bond issue. 'I'he successful bidder was Goldman Sachs. The
bonds have an AA rating and an interest rate of 6.02%.
A legislative update was presented. It was noted that the Minnesota Leaislature has
appropriated $5 million for a redevelopment grant for the city of Richfield. The funds are
desiQnated for a strictly defined area west of Cedar Avenue in Richfield.
Technical Advisor's Report
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the April 2000 Technical Advisor's Report and noted
the followinQ:
y l.
1
� The top three cities for complaints in April were Minneapolis, Inver Grove Hei�hts and St.
Louis Park.
• 200 complaints were received via the Internet in April.
� The three most common aircraft operating at MSP in April were the DC-9 hushed, the 727
hushed and the A320.
9. Persons WishinQ to Address the Council
There �vere no persons wishing to address the Council.
10. Items Not on the Asenda
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, thanked Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, for hosting both the Part 150 Public
Workshop and the MASAC meeting for the evenin�.
�Vill Eginton, Inver .Grove Heights, ask�d if any of the proceeds of the increase in passen�er
facility charges, newly approved by the federa] government, would be used for noise abatement at
MSP. Chairman Mertensotto said that althou�h MSP will be increasing the passenger facility
charges from $3.00 to $4.50, most of the increase will be funneled back to the federal Qovernment
for projects at smaller airports. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, also noted that MAC and the airlines had
anticipated an increase to �5.00 in the passenger facility charaes and that the airline lease
agreements were made based on this �iount. He said noise abatement proj.ects had already been
scheduled into the lease a�-eements and that no additional funds would be available from the
increase in the charaes.
IVeil Clark, Minneapolis, asked if there was a polic}�, either through MAC or MASAC, reaardin�
i distributin� aircraft operations evenh� over highly populated areas. Chad Leqve, Technical
Advisor, said there is no written polic}', but that the Part 1�0 Update process is ho�;' these
decisions are made.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about the status of the Low Frequenc�� Noise Policy
Committee's regort. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said due to the disagreement beriveen the
consultants and some of the committee members the. report has gone through sev.eral revisions.
He said he did not l;.now the status of the report at this time. Pam Dymtrenko, Richfield, said the
city of Richfield sent its final version of the report to the MAC and that the delay is due more to
Commissioner Himle's departure. iV1r. Fuhrmann noted that Commissioner Gasper had taken
Himle's place on the Committee and will most likely need some time to familiarize himself �vith
the issues. Ms. Dymtrenko said the majority report of the expert panel has also been submitted
to both the MAC and the FAA.
] l. Adjournment
Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
�a
j .n .
�
�. x�, ��> ,� :�_ �� . ..
, � ,
:�> '` ' :�. =�� '
:,
--
�
f )
V 1,La������ 1�Y d�T ��� �l
MASA.� CiPEl2A.TI01`ZS COI���"��E
June 9, 2000
The meetin� u'as held in the Larae Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
called to order at 9:10 a.m.
Chairn�an Nelson called `r�ie meetin� to order and the roll was tal:en. The followina members ��ere in
attendance:
I�Iembers:
John Nelson, Interim Chair
Dick Saunders
Bob Johnsan
Jamie Verbruage
Rov Fuhrmann
Advison':
Chad Leqve
Jason Giesen
Shane VanderVoort
Mark Ryan
Joe Harris
Cindv Greene
Glenn Orcutt
Visitors•
Kim Hu�hes
Pete Rothfuss
Tom Lawell
Will E�inton
Tom Hansen
Jan DelCalzo
Marv Teske
Bloomington
Minneapolis
MBAA
Eaaan
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
FAA
FAA
HNTB
HNTB
Apple Valley
Inver Grove Hei�hts
Burnsville
City of Minneapolis
Resirient of Eagan
l�����A.'
Receipt: of Communications
Chainnan Nelson acicnowledged receipt of the following correspondence:
0 A letter from U.S. Ainvays was received.dated May 9, 2000 acknowled�in� receipt of the letter sent
by the Operations Committee, dated Apri126, ?000, reQarding the use of the run up pad at MSP. The
Nlav 9`�' letter stated that U.S. Airways fully understands and accepts the provisions of the MSP
Aircraft En�ine Run-Up Procedures Field Rule and that the airline will do everything possible to
comply.
�
A letter was received via fah dated June 8. 2000 from the Inver Grove HeiQhts Airport Noise
Abatement Commission. Several comments «�ere included reQardina the runwav 17 cieparture fan,
panicularlv the 60° fan re-evaluation, as well as comments on the proposed ne«� land use measures. �
A letter was received from the business manaaer for the Bumsville - EaQan - SavaQe Independent
School District reQardina a resolution that �vas passed by the School Board penainin� to runwa�� 17-
3�'s flight rrack dispersion. The resolution stated that the school board supports the widest possible
dispersion (or fan) and asked that the district's schools be sound attenuated should the noise from
aircraft overfliQhts b�come obtrusive.
Approval of Minutes �
The minutes of the May 1?, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed with the addition of Glenn
Orcutt, FAA, to the attendee list.
Run���ay 17, 60° Departure Fan Reevaluation �
Kim Hughes, HNTB, reviewed the Qoals for the runway 17 deparrure fliaht track anal}�sis and aave a
brief overview of the 105° departure fan analysis, which was recommended for inclusion in tlie Part 150
Update.
l�Zs. Hughes illustrated how west-bound aireraft in this case �vould be abie to use a departure procedure
that used turn points and altitude requirements to keep aircraft on fliaht tracks that most closely represent
the EIS fliaht tracks.
Cindy Greene, FA.A, said she was concerned about the altitude requirement of 3,000 feet before aircraft
could be turned to their ultimate destination heading. She said once an aircraft reaches the Distance
Measurina Equipment (DME) point and turns onto its departure heading (185° or 200°), it could be a
matter of seconds before it is then cleared to turn onto its ultimate destination heading. She said at this
point, aircraft could be at varyin� altitudes and that the air traffic controllers would not hold an aircraft at ��
the departure headina until it reaches 3,000 feet before turnin� it onto its final destination headinQ.
Some discussion took place regardinj the content of a meeting that MAC staff, Part 150 consultants and
FAA staff had conducted regarding this issue. The parties involved indicated that there had been a
miscommunication as to what had been agreed to at that meeting. �
Chairman Nelson asked for an explanation of how DME works. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the DME
is normally co-located with other equipment, such as a VOR. He said the DME sends a signal to the
aircraft that indicates ho�v far the aircraft is from the DME by one-tenths of a mile. Chairman Nelson
noted that since the length of the runway is over a mile ]ona, aircraft reachin� the 1 J mile DME point
tivould not be far from the end of the rum�ay after turnin� onto its departure headin�.
Ms. Hughes then presented a reevaluation of the 60° hybrid fan, which is defined by EIS tracks H
throu�h E(140° on the east to 200° on the west). The following points were made:
The 60 DNL contour for the 60° fan is similar to the 105° fan.
The 60° fan impaets 40 more people than the 105° fan.
Although the 60° fan eliminates the 095° heading (track A), overflights of central EaQan �vould
continue as aircraft turn and fly toward their departure gates and destinations. Implementation of a
60° fan would not reduce overfli�hts over central Eagan.
(.
2
I1Is. Huahes said because the 60° fan would not offer any benefits over the 105° fan, the
i recommendation of a 10�° fan stands.
Cindy Greene, FAA, anreed that eliminatina track A would not eliminate overflights over central Eaaan.
She also noted that the smaller the fan the longer aircraft stay on their departure headings. And the
lon�er aircraft stav on their departure headings, the more likely it becomes that there will be a need for a
lon�er separation time. She said that although the capacity of the runway overall would not be affected
problem, a smaller fan adds more complexity to an air traffic control environment and to ATC's job. She
said althouah MSP ATC wants to be flexible, a smaller fan is not in the best interest of ATC, particularl�-
tivhen the benefits are negligible.
Jamie Verbrugge, EaQan, asked why 20 people were added to the� contour in Minneapolis �vith the
chanae to a 60° fan. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said she did not have a specific answer. Cindy Greene,
FAA, said, althouQh she did not know if the INN1 program would take this into consideration, it could be
that because of the complexity associated with a smaller fan, aircraft that would normally�be assigned
rum�a�� 17-3� would be diverted to the parallels. •
The 60° dispersion fan and the 10�° dispersion fan were then compared. The dispersion of aircraft was
virtuallv the same for both.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he did not want to reduce the operational ability of the air traffic controllers
to use the new rumvay.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how often runway 17 could not be used for departures because of
-., operations on the parallel rumvays to the southeast. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said she did not have an
� ) answer. � �
� I��Ir. Verbrugge reported that he has been receiving a number of phone calls from Eajan residents asking
about �vhat level of noise they can expect when the runway becomes operational. He asked how best to
respond to these inquiries. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, suggested having them use the website to locate an
area off the end of one of the parallel rumvays that is the same distance and angle from their home from
the end of runway 17. The resident could then find the closest RMT to that area and find out what the
averaQe noise level at that RMT is for any number of aircraft types. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor,
said altitude information is also available. Chairman Nelson said Mr. Verbrugge cou]d convey to the
residents that this resource is available and that if they need help applying the information the MAC staff
is available to help.
�Vill Eginton, Inver Grove Hei�hts, asked if the contours could be expected to remain symmetrical
further out from the 60 DNL contour so that some assumptions could be made regarding the noise levels
beyond that contour. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the Integrated Noise Model (INM) was designed to be
most accurate at the 6� DNL level. She said the further one goes away from the 65 DNL level, the less
accuracy there is. She said once beyond the 60 DNL ]evel, the contour becomes intimately reliant on the
departure tracks. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Committee had a 54
DNL contour dra�vn and that Mr. Eginton could take a look at that contour to see how it chan�es further
out:
Chairman Nelson asked whether the contour would change in liaht of Cindy Greene's comments
re;ardina not beinQ able to use the 3,000-foot altitude requirement for departures to the west. I{im
Hughes, HNTB, said she wouid assume that the contour would chanQe to some de;ree. �
Chairman Nelson noted that the Operations Committee has recommended that the 10�° fan be
implemented and that a fundamental chanQe in this assumption has been made (i.e. the 3,000-foot altirude
requirement for the second turn}. He asked whether or not a resolution could be found before the next
MASAC meetin� on June 27, 2000. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said she did not l:now if a resolution could be
found but that if a meetinQ is set up she would attend. Chairman Nelson said he felt the matter needed
to be settled by the date of the MASAC meeting and encouraQed the parties involved to keep the
Committee abreast of any alternatives that may be viable. � He said it is be possible that the Committee
may be asked to meet aQain before the MA.SAC meetinQ.
Cindy Greene, FA.A, asked if the purpose of the 3,000-foot requirement was to place aircraft more
closely in line with the EIS tracks or to reduce the impacted population. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the
requirement was used for both reasons. Ms. Greene said this was the first time she remembered bein;
told of the 3,000-foot altitude requirement.
Glenn Orcutt, FAA, said he also did not remember discussing the 3,000-foot requirement. But he did
remember discussina a second DME point bein� used during low-demand periods. .
Chairman Nelson asked whether or not a river depariure procedure could be developed for this Part 150
submittal. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said a river deparlure procedure cannot be developed today but that one
could be developed using future and existing technoloaies for use in the future when the technology
becomes more widelv used. V
Jamie Verbrugge, Easan, asked about the river departure procedure used at the Washinaton National (
Airport. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the Washin�on National river depariure procedure is a visual
procedure that requires 3-mile in trail separation.
Chairman Netson asked the FA.A representatives if a second DME point could be used during periods of
low demand. Cindy Greene, FAA, a procedure usin� DME points that would mimic a river departure
during periods of lo�v-demand is already being considered.
Jamie Verbrugge, EaQan, asked staff if it would be possible to get a map that has both the departure fans
for 12R and I2L alon� with the departure fan for runway 17.
Land Use I1�Ieasures
Pete Rothfuss, HNTB, briefed the counci] on the eight approved and the six possible land use measures
beinQ considered for the Part 150 update.
Mr. Rothiuss first revie�ved-the eiQht approved land use measures with general information as to how
each measure �vould be implemented.
NIr. Rothfuss then reviewed each of the six proposed land use measures with a recommendation for
either inclusion or exclusion into the Part 150 update.
4 ('
Land Use ItenT 9- Dedication ofAvigatio» Easemerits
( For the followina reasons the recommendation was r�ot to cam� this item fon�ard for inclusion in the Part
1 �0 update.
�
a
0
MAC already obtains an avi�ational release from propem owners to prevent further aircraft noise
claims after completion of sound insulation
Obtainin� more restrictive avigation easements from properties between the 60 and 65 DNL while
not requiring them for previously insulated properties within the 65 DNL would not be equitab�le
Implementation of LU-1 and LU-2 should protect communities against new noncompatible
development (amendinQ loca] land use plans and zonin� for compatible development)
Lafzd Use Ite�n 10 - Fair- Propertv Disclosure Policv
The Fair Propertv Disclosure Policy would incorporate aircraft noise information in sales documents for
e�istina and new residential development. It requires the disclosure of ai�craft noi�e'T�'vels by propert}
o«ners and their aQents.
Mr. Rothfuss, at the request of the Committee, presented current research on this type of policy's affect
on property values, as well as provided examples of the policies.
NIr. Rothfuss suQgested
compatibility benefits by
professionals.
that, to a lesser degree, public information prog:rams could provide
providin� real estate disclosure information to buyers and real estate
This item was recommended for inclusion in the Part 150 update for the following reasons.
a Potential buyers are allowed an informed decision regarding airport-related impacts.
o Affected communities and properiy owners have LU-7 (Properly Purchase Guarantee) for
community stabilization and property value assurance.
Chairman Nelson asked if there was a recommendation as to which political subdivision would be
responsible for implementin� the policy. Mr. Rothfuss sa'rd he did not have a recommendation at this
point.
Lnnd Use Iten� l 1- Land Banking �
For the following reasons the recommendation was not to carry this item forward for inclusion in the Part
150 update.
m Impiementation of LU-1 and LU-2 should protect communities against new noncompatible
development. ' �
o Stronv urban/suburban character of the region surrounding MSP and relatively few large tracts of
undeveloped land remaining means there is little opportunity for large tract acquisition.
m The administration and acquisition costs outweijh the potential benefits of this item.
Land Use Iterfr 12 - Tf-ansfer of Developrnent Rig{zts
For the followinQ reasons the recommendation was not to carry this item forward for inclusion in the Part
150 update.
0
s Implementation of Lli-1 and LU-? should protect communities aQainst ne�� non-compatible
de� elopment. `
• This item represents a ver}� compler le�al and administrative process for local and merropolitan ('
Qo�-ernment.
o Administration and acquisition costs outweigh potential benefit of this application.
Land Use Item 13 - Purc�iase of Development Rights
For the followina reasons the recommendation was not to carry this item forward for inciusion in t1�e Part
I50 update.
• Implementation of LU-1 and LU-2 should protect communities aQainst netiv non-compatible
development.
o This item represents a very complex legal and administrative process for local and metropolitan
government:
• Administration and acquisition costs outweiah potential benefit of this application.
Land Use Item 14 - Creation of Soarnd Barffers/Barriers
The measure consists of the combined use of sound barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscaping to
reduce noise from aircraft. It only assists communities immediately adjacent to MSP.
This item �vas recommended for inclusion in the Part 150 update.
o This measure would benefit those closest to the airport when aireraft are on the ground.
• The recommendation is to incorporate large barrier walls and/or berms as appropriate in areas
adjacent to the north and west of the airport boundary.
• A barrier desio-n and detailed acoustical analysis would be required to determine the costs and �
benefits.
� Larae-scale redevelopment or capital projects would be the trigaer mechanism for consideration of
the measure.
Discussion atid Actio�zs on Items 9 throzrgh 14
BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND ROY FURHMANN, MAC, SECONDED TO
RECOMMEND TO THE FULL MASAC BODY THAT LAND USE MEASURE NUMBER NINE
(LU-9) - DEDICATION OF AVIGATON EASEMENTS - NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF
THE PART 150 UPDATE'S LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. THE MOTION
CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Discirssiojl ofltef�i LU-10 �
Jamie Verbru�ge, Eaaan, moved and Bob Johnson, MBAA, seconded to recommend to the full MASAC
body that land use measure number ten (LU-10) - Fair Properiy Disclosure Policy - be included as part of
the Part I50 update's land use compatibility pro;ram. Furthermore, that the Fair Property Disclosure
Policy only be implemented after the Property Purchase Guarantee pro�ram is in place. After further
discussion, Mr. Johnson withdrew his second. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Sianificant discussion took place regarding LU-10. Some concerns were raised, including:
�:i
o There is no clear research that proves propem� values would not be afFected by this polic}�.
• Implementation of a Propem' Purchase Guarantee program is very completi and ma�� not Qive
residents proper protection from loss in property values associated with the Fair Property Disclosure
Polic}°.
e It is not clear which govemina body would be responsible for implementinQ the policy.
• Other groups, such as realtors and city o�cials, should be involved in the decision to implement
such a policy. ._ -
BOB JOHNSON, NIBAA., MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO
RECOMMEND TO THE FiJLL Mr�SAC BODY THAT LAND USE MEASURE NUMBER TEN
(L RT 150 UPD TOE S AND USE COOMPAT BILITY PROGRAM. LTHE MOTIOI�J CAORRIED
PA
ON A VOICE VOTE �VITH ONE NAY.
JANIIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND BOB. JOHNSON, IVIBAA, SECONDED TO
RECOMMEND TO THE FULL MASAC BODY THAT LAND USE MEASURE NUMBER
ELEVEN (LU-11) - LAND BANKING - NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PART 1S0
UPDATE'S LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. THE MOTION CARRIED ON A
VOICE VOTE.
BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED A1�dD JAIYIIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, SECON�ED TO
RECOMMEND TO THE FULL MASAC BODY T�IAT LAND USE MEASURE NUMBER
TWELVE (LU-12) - TRANSFER OF DEVEL!OPMENT RIGHTS - NOT BE INCLUDED AS
PART OF THE PART` 150 UPDAiE'S LAND USE COMPATIBILXTY PROGRA.M. THE
iV10TION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE.
BOB �JOHNSON, MBAA., MOVED AND DICK SAUNI)ERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO
RECOMMEND TO THE FULL MASAC BODY THAT LAl`�D USE MEASURE NUMBER
THIRTEEN (LU-13) - PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGH'�S.- NOT BE INCLUDED AS
PART OF THE PART 150 UPDATE'S LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. THE
NIOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Discussion of Item 14 '
Chairman Netson asked whether or not the Low Frequency Noise Study would b.e available for
incorporation into the Part 150 update. He said he wanted to be sure, before supporting this measure, that
this type of barrier would abate low frequency noise, ground noise or �round run up noise. Roy
Fuhrmann, MAC, said he expects that the study would be available for inclusion in the Part 150 update.
Both Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, and Pam Dymtrenko, Richfield, expressed a desire to carry
this measure for�vard for further discussion at the Cauncil level.
It was noted that bamers and/or berms would not affect the contour.
DTCK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPi�L�S, MOVED ANI) ��B JO�-INSOi�i, MBAA, S�CO1�t��D, T�O
RECOl���NiEND TO THE FLTI�L MASAC BODY 'TI-�AT LAi'+1� i.TSE IVI�ASiT� NUMBER
FOURTEEl�t (LU-14) - CR�A'iION OF SOUND �U�FERSBA�ERS - BE IN�LUDEI3 AS
�
7
PART OF THE PART 150 UPDATE'S LAND USE COI��IPATIBILITY PROGRAM. THE
NIOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Other Items Not on the Agenda
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, outlined the upcoming Part 150 update calendar:
Jarne 1LfASAC Meeting - Action on the recommended NADPs, RUS, Runway 17 departure fan, low
demand flight tracks, land-use measures . -
r1�lASAC Operations Committee meetzng - Upcomin� Items - GPS/FMS projects update, Fleet Mix
Alternatives, Sound Insulation Package, Contour Boundaries, Multi-family insulation priorities
Par-t 1 SD Update Public Hearing - Expected to be held in late AuQust or September
Jan DelCalzo, Ciry of Minneapolis, asked if there were any other land use measures that other airports
are usin� or considering that have not been brought up for this ParE 150 update. : Kim Hughes, HNTB,
and Pete Rothfuss, HNTB, said they were not aware of anything other than the 14 measures presented to
the Committee.
Rov Fuhrmann, -I�IAC, reported that Steve Vecchi, MAC's Part 150 Pro�ram Manager, had resigned
from the MAC as of June 16, 2000. He noted. that Joe Shomeed, Part 150 Construction Mana�er, would
continue in his role with the construction and that the noise program office will help out until Mr.
Vecchi's posifion could be filled.
Roi- Fuhrmann, MAC, also introduced a new rimember of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite
Programs, Joseph Harris.
The meetin� was adjoumed at 11:15 a.m. The next MASAC Operations Comrnittee meeting will be held
on Friday, July 14, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Lar�e Construction Trailer of the MAC General O�ces.
Respectfully Submitted, `
MeIissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
C
8 � � �
IYI IJTES OF T�E � 14, 2000 SAC
CO- IC�TIC�N� �ORY �O
ET G _
�_ - - -
� i
,
. r_ i
�,
,
- �
�
�
- ;
- ;
. _ � _.
�
�
,
�
C�
�
1V3[INLTTES
I�� %�SAC COlVIII�I[UN�CA�'I��15 A.D�S�R�' BO�RIJ
June 14, 2000
The meetinQ ��;�as held at the Metropolitan Airports Comrnission Small Conference Trailer and
called to order at 3:30 p.m.
The followina members were in attendance:
1��lembers:
Dick Saunders
Dean Lindbera
Mike Cramer
Advisorv:
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
�
Chad Leqve MAC . '
Amy von Walter MAC .
". ti Cs � I�1 I� .A. .
Anproval of tlie Minirtes '
The minutes of the April L2, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. � � _�.
Revie�v 3r� Orrarter Ne�vsletter Content �
�� � :
�� Members reviewed the 3`d quarter newsletter content. The followinj comments �vere made: � :�: :.
0
The level of technical langua�e should be reduced and replaced with simpler terms; i.e. the ,
word ��path" for "tracks.�� ; _
� Replace headlines �vith shorter ones if needed to fit the newsletter layout.
a In place of the phrase, "distant NADP procedure off all runways at MSP that reduce noise
impacts for approximately 9,800 people within the 60+ DNL contour," the phrase ". .. that
recluces the number of people by approximately 9,800 within the 60+ DNL contour" sliould
� be used.
o When referring to preventative land use measures the phrase should include the caveat that..
� _ these measures are only applied where the existing land use allows. ..
There was also a len�thy discussion reaarding how the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
( will have an impact on the noise environment.
,�
The next meeting of the Communications Advisory Board will be held July 12, 2000 at 3:�0 p.m:
The meeting was adjourned at �:00 p.m.
� Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski, Secretary
,, ) .
� ---
I��A�AC I�TI�ISE Il�C�I°�I'I'O�II�1G �1�t� II�T�O�.A.T'�O1�T �Q�JES'I'
FO��I
PLEASE COIIPLETE THI5 FORitiI AS ACCUR4TELY AND THO�OUGI�LY AS
PC�SSIBLE A.�'D ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL �2ESOLUTIONS. '
Date: On tivhose behalf are you requesting`':
Name: Yourself _
Address: r City Council ;
Mayor I
Citizen :,.... :
Or�anization . I
Phone: j
Other
i
,
;
Is this a one-time request? Yes or No i
�eginning Ending i
If no, what is the expeeted time frame for this request? tO ',
h� :
�
�Vhich of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Cir.cle all that apply) '
Ground Noise : O�erflights Run-Ups Contours I'art 1�0 Other
;�: ,
PLEASE «'RITE OUT YOUR REQUEST �3[E12E AND/OR ATTA�i� Al�t'Y LE'I"�'EYZS t�R �
F0�1AL RESOLUTIONS.
- over -
I
IVI�.SAC I�C�ISE 11%iC)IVITOI-�I1�tG ANI) I1�T�'(�I�.TVI�T'I�N I2..EQUEST
FO�
(
Please send yflur request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55450 o_r, fax it to: (612) 725-6310.
, (. ,
. . _
; ' �
,. _ _
_ (
1l�YASAC i�1E�'SILE'I"I'ER Il�tPL1T' F'O� ,
On �i�bose behalf are you requesting:' (please ;
check one and e�cplain "�here necessarti•):
Date:
Name: �.'ourself � ,
Address: City Council � i
`�= Mayo.r � � I
Citizen ❑ Name: i
Phone: Organization ❑ Name: I
E-h�IaiL• Other ❑ Name: I
: I
�
I
Proposed article topic: I
Circle the desired publication date: 2°d Qrt. Z000 3�d Qrt. 2000 4th Qrt. 2000 15` Qrt. 2001 !
_ j
, �
Reason for request: `
. .
< - , ,
Please provide a description of th'e article's focus and content: �
<��
; __�
� )
�
�
m
Please send your request via mau to: ivl����- ���_ ��u=„ �� . �---- --
, �
1Vlinneapolis,ll�IN 5�4�0 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310.
� i
J �i
� _ y �,
.r� „� G-�
V �
n� �q � j :'"
� � �
I�� � C �
� C �
^-�� ..D r-
� o �. �_ �
QL U � .~.
r � � �
C/� � � �- v
� � o �
� �,
� r�
�'" � �
� � � Z
� p � �
� M :� Q
� �n �- W
�, o
Q ° =
L,' °
� � �
� p �, .�.� �
� o - o �
�, c� �, o O
N � V �
� � � •�' �
... . �e . V �r �
� >' t_; �
Q r � r
� �
` � O . �
I � � �� � i
_ � = . .
. rp� � Q � O ..'J VJ . �r
Z � � � �.
.� r � U
,�, o ��.,/.
" at� �: � J�. V. r• I� I
��.d � , �
' � " --'
� .v O O
� > '_'
�� � � �
. . Vl . 0.,� � . .
� �.�.,-+ .~...1
� �-. rri
..� �, c ,�
�., � ^ ca
� � U ,�i �'
� � � �
� s... v
� � �
v� r
� r � �
� � �
, � U �
� ¢ ^ 2:U
� �, �
% .—, . ❑
� O r' n a.��+
tn p � N . �
�
� N O "'' O
i �' v" '-� � � :�'
eC `y � r
-= � `� �
� r
� � � h �
� r
� � � Q ' c= : �a
'C
�. �-' N C �
� � � �
I � ¢ � � v�
�
N N O
M ^f' M�
t/)
u
L
4 I
�, -
C I
�•^.• ,-� p � . ,7 ' , I
CO � > i
.: � i�
� I
:�
0
U y �a� �
�000ac�-o��o i
� Q O� O O �n O O O
-' xv�..� M crl � oo O.•-� �n
Op d' C'� � G1 M� M J �
tf'i �i C1 N(y :-. .-. (�l cri M d' I
Gfl N r' ,�/ � b9 69 bS b4 64 b9 b4 b4 6�} �
*-, � . � , ,
� Q -�. ;,.._ �
- � ' �
. rn _
` ' � � ; _;
� o _ � � .
� � o O c����N����o�,
^ � � �.. � CO_ �- O O v1 v'1 �r1 �
N N N N �—
� �' � �} �, 6�3 64 bt} b�} ({} �
. ,..� � • ` I
rh . . ,
�- a cn v� �n cn rn cn cn cn �n �
C�' + � N N N �J OJ.: N � � � �
�„� � � . � � � � � � � F �
'�T' O � tn p O O O O O-0 O O O �
� •-' ����w������
H G1 M Q� M N t'� N. co C,1 �t'
� � M d' G'� 'rt O d' � u'� ao M
Q ,.d .-a (V � 00 O 00 .C'1i l� M t'�
C=a r �
. . : v �.� . . � � .
� �
� � � ..� . � . .., �.
�`? .�. r., ` Q
� %-� N M d' v1 \J C� CA CT C� F"
� G'� G1 "CT Gl G, C1i U1 G1 O
�� 01 C1i Q� Q� tT .CT 01. (T O�
.-� � .--, .-+ .-, N E '�
t/� ' �w v
� � - i-
'.F:+ �
� v �
�
..a ^ p
"'" -�+ �
� � r
G�7 p y :
c+ C� �
W ^ `�
� ,^
�. �
� •e� c�
� � �
O O
U � '�
t_
�
�-
■
;;
� ;':
`'�
ry"` * 'hi
'� '''.-
�. yti L. � ,.,. _
{' .'l�1. Sf�.'� �=;7 _
. �� w.-„ __?`- �\ .
I's `.. j wL ..; ��.
�� n�r r..'
CY '� `
1 u ,
-r.r �tir --� ., ...._.
��f� ���.. , �
*'
3t 1 �t`i� 1,^".'' '
i i�
, '
a
-£ ..�� J '��
S 4C i �
r G
, h � : . ; i
� t � z
4— F ... �
.r' a x
� 4 �-3
: �% � �^'�" -
_ �.
� � ` �'
.:�
� •
i :��
__ � ;
� � -:�;
_ ;� �
� , �� `, �� -
• .,`a'� , ,c
� y .
, " � � � �� '� 5.
� -.. .._ ..,. , .. � n �'��'�.
. ._ � . �" �''',-�N'�.
o � �� ;
• � _ �,,,, ,; ��
� � ,; ,
� h1.
�tit �
_ � T.
� � `
� „
. .
z` '�' I�£'s
...__. � xi '� i
�
,�� �,..._..� aG
� ;_;
� : O ' �ti
, �..
� ,�t�
:
� :� � � ,,- - � ;"i''.,i',�-;�i
._ _ . --��� � � .
� � � ! a , ,
--- I
� • v- . ,
r • -�
.. �,.
_ , i „�� ,a,.
� `
v _. —"rs��
� � �c�� � ���
� � � _ � �'��'�. �r � � i
� ,. .. � ��i'�U.k fYy, r£' b� ■ �.
._......... . '
�tt � � =
� ' :�`��� t��'` �+
. , #���
��, 4 � ��.
_ _ � � F u'�^���� � '
.. .. � ._ a ���=^,�,
' .
� . _ � .. ..-- e: _: �,��;r''�;
��,�.
.y_ ..�.
.�
�)
�
�
a
�
—
C�
�
� �
C.� �
� � � C� � _
=� o �, _ e -
O � - � -�
�� �.
, � � � � c� �,
�
� � � � : � �
� � � � � �
�. � �
� � � :�r �
.°� � � � c� �
� � -� �., _ �
,� � .�, ��� ;� ; _
�a .� •�i
�� �� ��.:���
:�
��, �� : Y-���
� . � .� � � � _
� o � ° �' � � �
� o �� � � �
� � �
� � � � � � �
c� � . � .� �� � �
� � � � � � � �
.� � � � � � � �
� °� °' ���
� � �; � � �
��� �°�, � �� � �
� � � �� � � �� � �
e � �
� � �`'� � � � �
� � � � e� �
� `� c� � �, . � � �
� � �+ � .� � � � �;
� � � � �
��� � � � �.�� �,.
��� � �, � � �. �-�
�:�� � c� ; � � �.
� � �`�°
11
I
��
■
�
� �
� � �
� • �+ � ,� 4-�
� � ��
� ~�. . � . �� . � �
. �.. . . . ' . � �� � �� � � • • . .
� � � � �
C`� ,
� � 4�
� � ��' � ��.,
,�, � � � �
.�
� � O � ° ,� �'
� � �.� .�
� � - ..� � �, � .�
�� � � �,� ��
0
� .� � �
a� �.�� �
� � ��� �
� � �.� � �
� � � �, � � � p
Q� d� • �+ � �,• � � c� .
� � .� � � � ��, --
� � c� � � �
� �n e�
c� •�+
� "� � '� ,� ` c.� '�'
� � • �' �
�
� � � ` � �
� � � �." � � �
� � � �� �
� .� � � � �
a � -�:� � �
� o � •� ��
o � � � � �, �
�.� � � .�- �, �� -� �
� � � � �� ��
� a� :� � . � � -� � �
� �� � �' ��
� • �' �' • � �' c� �
� � � �� � � � .� �
`QtJ` NO�S4i�,�oJ , ��� �. � � � � � �.� .
f
+ o
e -{. `
, :a ,. � � � � � �
� ��
N a ..
o-�. �.� � � �
� ,�
~N�� IaETA�4�` .. � .. � . .
��
�
■I
�
� ' �,
J r �
U � r �
,�r cn :�
� � Q� � '�..� C
CJ� � Cv O C' C r�, r, G::
� e� �n 2 i � a� � �,
� G'" � � iu o � o �s
,� - ow---' �c�.� �� �
� o � � ¢ o a �
� - M ccs 3 � -
� �
�i'�= d � to �
C*M � . -�C `
� t. �
. ,..., �
r--+ �'
,---� �-
-+-� �
�...
• � � �. � �
� 3 .� O
�
Q� � - ._. a � �
�g� � O � � ' a�o
`� � C7 U � �
� � Q O c,.. -
e ' `a-� w:. ti?
i� � � � � ..-^.
� �. .y� U
� � � ���
� o =� �
� � o - �; � H
c� . b� a� � � � �
� � � �
� � � - �..� �
� � �� � �
_ 4� �, � � �
� � � � a ';, ,
� �' �' �' � � -
�1 � c� � ' �
� � r
� � w�
�, ,� --� � �
� . : ,; � �
,—, � `� � t�.
� � .� �
,�.
� � �. o
. � O ,.� : ,, o �
r'`'� N U �..
� � � � , . _ M
� � � �
_ � 4-� �i � `
O O � � �_ �
� � � '.�
� � � �
I � i � y,.—���� M :` , � 5
` +� c3
� f� � Q� �.
. Q*,` na�s�nKo �. A�� � � � � � ..� � � , . '. . . . '�i ,
' � . � .�—�i � � �. � . � ',S� .. . i-+y .
�- s � � � � �
' / G . . . ' �f .
._{.y O
O� . ^ �,,,<' . ' .�� . � .
L..f� 2 . . . , ' . �
9 - . .1�, � �, . . . . .
. H,y '{' . O�'� 3. � . � .
� ' W METF�4� . . . . � .
■
,I
�
�
y � � a�
,_ r
U � r �
� � E- � a? o `� �
r� � � N �„n., � r ..r. � r, �
� • (� L � � � � � O � � .
� . �"� � . � .... N U O Cv L. � .
� u l , �
._. � ^' U N . ^ �"' �
� � .. � . � � � .� � . � . � .
M r� � 3 ° o �
'-� , '
`� Q�' `.°° a�.,
�- �
�. .,
� �
, � �.., �,
N : � �
a� � : .. a., .� .
C/� v �
� � c� C/�
� � 4 �
_.
Q. � 'C7 c3
� : 'Q r; �
e � O � � � v
�9 O (� ` `W p �
� � � o � H
�
� � � � � � �
� � . T..,, t-, , : o �,
C�' � � v � �
�-.�
, ,.� �
�1 -� � � . W
•� � � M � 3
� � � � �
4� � ; � , w_ �
� � � �� o 0
� O ow
o ° _
CC3 4�-�i � � - o . �
U ^; oo � :
'� � � � , � �
� � `� 4� M
,.. _..,.... .
�� � � � -
� O '� �"
��' �' �
..� � �
� � ���� �
� � � `� �
. Q*`�� N015SI^.ry.O � , � � . . �
. ? _(+�. � T ,V � �� o . '. Ti � � VJ . � " .
� -�w� � �:, � �' �
�
of ? _
` .
L �? � �
� 4T
'�,y�/Y' ��., 4��� . . . ��. . , . �..�...
. .� A1ETfl0 .. .. . . . . . . .
;�
,
■
�
�
� �
� . �q � � s
� �- � � � �
� � � � - � � --
� � �' " '-� �
� � � � � �
� .:�' � � �
� � � O �
� � � ��:
� �
� � � � �
� : � . � c°� _ e'� � �
� �
� � � a =� c _
.
� : � �� .� � � � �
� �
_�
� � � � � ��
. _
4� � � .
���
� � � � � � ��
� � � � � � � � :.,
� ������ �� � � � �� ����� ���� � � � �' �� � � � � � �
�� �� �� � �� � � ����� � � �� �� � � � � �� �
op. � � � � �,�
� � � � �
c�
�,
� � � � � � ��`
e � � c� � � �
� � �� � ��
� � � � � ��� �
�� -��:,� ���+��
� �,� . � � .�, -� � _
.�
� �� �� � o� �
- � � � m� � � �
,N�iSs,� `� � �.�. : v�� _ �... P�"+ �. .
. 4*° � �- ry'`o F�' . � � ��� � . � , � ��{
u A
� � � ��¢ �
'" a
� «_ � � � �
� _
of . �,� `
> r -
+ F
� i
`
.. hN�n AIETPOp� . ... . . .. . '
'
is
�
� - --
.� _ - : .
�
��:
� �
4� ��
� �
e� ��
�
� �
'��-
�; •�
� � �� �
�`
� � - � c.,a
� � � �
�
� � • �' �
' �, � � �
� o �
� ` F:7: ��.., �
)
� � � �
� � � � �
`� ; ` '� � � '� � `
..
.� � � � � � .�
� � �, t--�
�.�n � � � � � �
i r�.+ t.� �-i: r� ''� C" �
�;�' � � � � �
� �' � � � +-� ' �—'
�
�'� � � � •� � � : �
�� � � � :� � � �
�
� . � : ,�, ,�, � � ,�, ,,�,, .�
�. . .. . .� i \ .
�
�
,-� �
� � .�
� �� �
•� � � _
�s� , � � � _ � �, -
� � . � `� � � � _
�� �� �
� �
�
� �� �
.
� � �� a�
� �� � � � � �
� �� �� °
� �� �
. � � .� � ��
� �
�► � � -� °� �' �
�� �
� �� � � �� ����� �� ��• �� � � � ���� �� �� � � . �
� � � � � � ..
� � � � � �; �.. -_
� .
�
� -� := � � � � .�'
n
� � � � � � �
� °� � � � `` �
� � �� � �
� q� � ;�-, o � � � � -
�'1 , � 4> � � � �
° �+ ,� • � `,> � � . _ � '
� � � � � O � �+
� � �� a�� � �
_� � �
� � a� =ao o-.� �� ,�+
c� � _ � � �;� ; � �
� � �,� �_�i' � � .
�� �� ��� �� ;
� � ,�. : � c� � � �
�� �� ��
� � : �.�
___, ._ ._ .. _. _.
���
.
-
�'
�I
_. � �
�
� �
.. �
� � �
o � •�
� �
.z_
- '� � ;- � � - __
� � � � � �
� � � � � :� �
O : � � , �. � � �
� �� � � � � �
� ��
� �� � � �
. �, � ., �, � �
� � �' -,� � .�,
�.
4� . : ..� a.� �, �: � - �
. � ,� .� � �: � � .
�� � � � ' � a� � -
a.� � � .� r„ �, :�
� ` _ �� � � � � � � .
� �� � : � � ���
�.� c� � c.� �.. -+-�
c� � ` �' '-� � � �
�� '� . � � ��
� � � � � � � �
� °�, � � � �� :
.� � c� �
�
c� '� � �
� � ,O � •� , � �.
� .N � � ,� .� � ^
� ':�� � � � � ��
, a�a e � -� - � �_ -�: � �' � �?
�+ � � p � . �-, � c� �, :
Qr,,: N�O�S/',�p �' � ��� � � � � � � .' � �, • � .� � �:� . �
r �-. : . ,N � � `�' ' � . .. � . ,'T-1 . . � � ��. � _ . .
.� ., ' , ��c � , ...
y o _
i{ t_ e
o. � -C' � .. . �.. .
_ � � :. � � . ��. � .� �.�.. �
�J 4r
♦
' M���I'. yETROp�y . :. . �'.
-�--
� � � �
� ';', � �
Cd � Q� 4.� �
, _ � � Q� '� '� �
�_ � __� � � _ -
� �
� ' � � ��
� � � � �-'
�
� �, � � �
� � c, � � _
_ � � � � �
N �-+
� � 6�.� Q�..)� � � .
O �' � � � �
c� � � �
� � -� � ;, .:� � � �-
d- ,---� � � � � �C `r-'
c� ,; � � O C� �,
� � � �, � �, .�
C� N �, � �` � �
N � � � � �
� . � � _ � � � , �
•�
� � � � � � �
� � � � � �
: C6]
,—? ,�—' �
� � � � � �- �
� r , � � _ _� ca e.� `�
� •� `�' .� � � � � � �
, o .-� � � � � � � �
� �., � .�o � ��
. ,�, �.-� � � � � �
� � � � � C�- � � � �
� � � � � a� a � � � ►°�
� � � �� � � � ��
� � .,� �+� � � � .�'�
� � � � � � �� �° .
� � �
� � �
�
v
�
, �
.� �
. � � 4� �
� U
cll � �--' .� � � _ -
� ,.� � � _ `�
4� �.--+ �. � �-�+ �� �
C,� � � . '. ; � � �
� U � � � �,
O � � � � �
44.� � r,,, � ��.p �
_ � V� �+ -� .� ,� _�
;�, ' c�3 � � �
� N ✓�`� � p � �+
�a � �+ c� ;-�
�
�-. � � .� � � �
� -�' � c�3 .� c�.� c�
� � � � � � O
� � � � �
� '� � � � �
:a.� � - v� �+ c'� v�
� � � � � � � � �
't-+�� � � U � •� � '�
� � .� � '� .,� � e�
-a.-� .'n � 4� U � � . �
� � � � � � � �
�� � � � � � � �
� � � � � •� ��
� :� � � � � � �
� � �� � � � � �
� � � � � � � �
� �
c� �, � . �
� � � � � � � -�
�, •� � �+ �
.� :-� � � � � � � .
� C� � � .� � �, �
� �
� � � � � � � �
� �
(,
�
�
� � � �
� . �, ,� �
� � �:C� • P-+
�_ � � Q �'` -
C� � - _ � � . _
C� � � �� �
� � � r� �
�� � � � �
� � E� �'
� �, � � �
� � ~ � °
� .� •,�
a� ' � � ' �
: � ' � � �� : , � �
-�.� p � � . �
�n '`
. � � � -�' � �-'
-,� ;:� +-�'� � � j �
•_�, . �, � � �+ � �
r� � � •� � �
.� �. �,,.. � � �, c�i
c� � � �� � � �
� � �- 4.) �. �._, � ,
:� � � � _ 4,� � �.
: � M � • .-�+� '� �
� � � *� � � O_
� � � , �
' � � � %� •
C-� : � , � e� � `� �+ � ,
� � .� �,a�< �.�
4� • �' � ,� 4.� � � ,� `
U
� � � � •� � � �
, ,� o . � � w. � o � . �,
� � � � � �� '� � .
� � � � � �� �"�
�° � � � � � :�
�..:��. � . . . . . . . � � .
. ��.�. � . � � . ��,
� . . � . .. ' � . . . I
�■
r■
.
�
. . � . . , . . . . -...\ .
I'
w
�
�;;. B
-
' �
�
� �
•� � � : � �
r � � � � � � � 4=
__ �j 4.� - �' 4, 4J
� � - � �
� � . ., � _ � � �
. ..� e.� � : � � �—��,
'-. � � �. 4.J
� � � � � � �
� � � � .� � �
� .� � e� � �
. � • �+ �,, � � 4� �
� ' � � � � � 4�
Q�J O � � � � ,�: ��
� � � � � � a.� �
� � .� „ � � � �
+� ` � �—' � � � � � � _ .
r�+ � � � C� � � � �
� � � � �
� � �
•� � � �-� � •� � � �
� .� � � ,� .� � � �
c-°� � �. C�l �+ � C� � � C�.;_ � `
� � � � ,� � �� .� ��
-a-� : • � �,; o � , . . � � ,� �
� . � e.� `� � . � � � � �
� � O C:� �+ -� *� � � ' P'
� G-�� �-, �+ � CL� . � , � � . �
�
� C'�� � c.� C.� �. , � � � � �
-a--� � -� � � � � c� .� �a' �'
� • P—, � b1J a� .� �+ � �
� � � � � '..�
.� � � .f�� � e � � .� �
� T . 1 . � � F� -d�
t�°i � �
U� e-�i � � . � � • � �
�
� ' � �
�
�_
■
■
�
�
4� �'
+-� �
� � • � c�°�3 � .�
�_ � � 4� � :� � , -_
�
� � � ,� .
� �
♦•
� `� U .a� � �, -
� � � � .�� � .
� c� .�, ��., v� : • �
O � �� � �
. P, � .,� �
c�t3' • � ' �+ t�3 G--a U :
� �. �� � � �:�
� � �: � �
� : � ,� � .� �:
.� '� � �.�� . � . � ` �
'� � � � r,�� � � ,�
� � � � � � U � `�'
�•� ��.,� �� � �
; N � �, c�_ �
� `� O,: �
.•r--,
�. �� � � ��
� � c.� � ,� ` ' � '" ` � � � _ .
. � � �,, � . $� ' .�' � 4� . � �
� � � � �j • U � ,� � �
���-+ � � � �. � �� � �
� � � �i � t� �, � � 4 � �
� • �+ � '-� � , c.� � � va
,�—+ - c� P-' s�--+ ' -�' �., '.,� ; � � � �
b.Q � '� � `-�-� �
� . ` �-�+ ' � � ` � ` � °� , �' � .�'�.,
� � (� �' � �+ � < � *,� . .� �
-�-�, � � � � � ; � U - � v
� � �+ � � ce� � -a� � -�
� � � � �
�
�
,I
'''
,:�'
�
�
�
d� �
:� •�
� � �
� � �
� � � �
4� U '� "�
`�.`_ � . - . .. .. . � . .
� �.
.. � � 1'� i � � . � "P�1. � _ �. ^ , . , -
� � � U � � .
� � �..,
� � c� �� � � j
� �
4-� ,; -, � C,� � �
C� c� �,, .�, , r--, O .�
� � � � ,p � �
c� � � � , 4.� � , � _ .
� � � � � � �
� 4-� �. cc3 '� �' o
O .. v � � � �
� � . ; � ct� c�i •'�' � 4�
-'� � � ''��'' �+ 4� 4�.7... �4
_ � .� O � � :'� c�'�3 � �
� '°"' O � � �q ' � �
� ' � ' � -� -� � � -�—' `+-�' �
� � � � � � � � �
� �
� U c.�
,� � � � ,� � � � ,� �
;�' � � � � � ' � �� � •�
,-.� . � e.) . �, �
� � O � � � . � �� p �
�-a r� �a�—+ ' � � � � � � � �
� . 4� � .�.� .�, • ,.� • ,.� � � O �
� � � ' � �' �+ � N � � -�
. r,
� �' �' � • �' .� � � � � �
� � � �' � �' °
� �
G�, � � � .� � � � ° :
�
� �.
c�
�
�
� � .
�
�
'i�
�
�
�
�m�
���
0
�. :-��.«...... .
C
0
,_
� � �
� *� • o
� �- �.
� � �
Q,,) �--+ N
� � �
� � �
� �
.
.� � �
fl.� � '-,
. ,._,
� � �
a.� �
� � �
." � � � _ '-�
� � a�
� �
� � �
a.a �, . �
v � O
� � o �.-,
� � � �
�
� � � o
.� � o �
� �� �
�� � �
� •� �
� � -i-�
� c� ; , o
� U
� � p �
�� � �
� o
O � '-� �'
� c� . � -f.�
U
4a � �,,, ��-,
b�IJ� � �
� o ; `� �
� �� .
:� � : � .,
�J -� .
�
C!� �
._,
r-I C� �j
�
�
•� � o
. *-�
� �,. C�
�
� � � �-,
�-a O
.� � � �
� �._��
� � ��
� � � �
�+ �, a� : ,�
� � � �
� � � �
� O -� o
�� � � �
� ��
_ 4.�,i ..� ._ N �
�
• � -,� � ,�
�
� � � °
c� • � a� �
�
� �
� .� o
��
� S� U
� � � -� �
_�
�� ��
t'� � , � , r--I
. � � .� �
� � � �,
� �� '� U
. �-, � �
a� �'
� � ��
�.� ��
o � � �
� � �„
��
� .
d
�
�
b1J �''
� O
. ,..{
,. _ �., �
`� �= O � - -
v . � _ -
c� �
-� � .,�
•� O �
� . � � c� �
�' Q�j , � M �
O '�3 -�-� r,,, *Z�
O ,� � � �
O � . ,�
a� c� . � O , � � , �
- � '� � M � � °�
�� � � � � � '
� � � � � � '� �
.� � O .� .. � � � "�
4, U
U U
� � � � � � � � �
cc3 c� , � � ;� ¢� �+
� � N N �
� � � � U s-, � � x.�.,
o � � � .� � .� � �
�'-� ��—+ � '��°' � � , � �
O
� o . CCj . CC3 � , � � � � �
�Q U � � � '� '� - �i �i �
�' • P-+ •'-� C� � Q1 t'�' t'�' pp
,� `��'�7 ' �' � N -.�' � � � �J
!-I
H (
�Q � n,� � �: � � �
�.U; ,� ,; � r-. � � � � �
c.� �-+ � �
� a� O O c�3 - �
� � � ��
o p '� �
(� c�
�
1
_
�
'r Q
*-�� ''� ''c � V
N -+-�� .+-�' ,� r
� � � � O
_ . � *� � - � 4�
. � 4� 4� ` � �
� o 0 0 �
� �
� �u a� z� ;
� �� � �
0 o r- a,
O O '�-' C�j �
� N C'� N �
� ?' .�r�'
� -� -N -N �
.� c� � ct3 co _
� . � , � _ � .--a
� p O O. ,:,
�4.�-+ � � � �
� � c�3 c� c�3 �
� . i i � ,�—,
� � � � � �
C'� O . O � ,p � �
•�, � � � O �
� � O O U c'3
� � � � � ��
� �, � � � � °
� � � � o � � °v
.�, . �-' � C`'
• ,�, � .� � � � � �
� •� o � � Q
� �� � �
� � � � � �
� �� .
o ��
� ��
� �
—
—
-
�
o �-
.� ,.� � � '� o
� � �
� � �
� � � °� u � -.
_ o
� � � � � �+ - --
� •� ,a� .a� �., � �
a�
�, � o o cu , �?
� � � �
o- � , �' ¢' o �
c-i � � r--a a.�
� � � � d- �
N "
� c� r—' � �
M � `�-
. � � , �,, � �, Q..�
� � � � �
� � � � � �
�
.� O � � � N
N � � � s.�.a ?'
� �.., S� � �, �,
cc3 c�-+ c�-+ c� c�
� � � i � ,�
�
.� � � � � �
� o . � � � �
� � - � - U o o �
� � � �
� v � � -� �, �
`�' � � � � �'° �
�� � �: o � o � o
.,..� � • .--, � c� � � c� c.�
� � � � � � � � � .
� O O:
�N '� p � � p�
�, �1 � � E-a �
� , `� �
� � � � � �
� ,..., �, �
P--.{ � � .
��'-�' �� ': -
� � .,
� � ���
� � _ __
.
C
._
�
�
4�
�
�
O
�
� �
� .-�., -
.,• . r..� � � _ -
r� r--i �
� � . �'
� � �
� � � �
C� r� �i
CCC� '
�
'� � � �
O � � �
�� ��
�
� �, o . � :
��
��� ��
��' ���
.�, � � �,
�o� �� _
� ��
=� `� � •�, �
°� � � �
��� ��
��� ��
.�,�,�' ��
��� �� ...
� � ��
��� �� .
��� ��
�� �: ��
.��� ��
� � � � � -
���� � � �
��o ��
� � � �
�.�,� ��
� �
.�.
�1
�
■
—
� �, ��--+ - �
�; o � O �
Q, �'+-' • '-' p � �
� � � � � � � � o
'—' • � c.� -+-� :.� U
c�i� � N c�
4� • o � 4� � � � � � '
-_ v] °-� ''CS O cn ,
r � Q,,� � • � ' � � • � � �-�..
i--� � � � �Q ,�., ` ,� �
Q '�-' ,� 4� ,' � c� .b
� v �
� � � � �
� � � � � � � . ..�.,
� -� c�
N � � � � O � � � �
-+-' � • ...� .�
''� `� v c-�� � � _ �� � 4
0 0 � � � �.Jo ��
;� r.-� . � . �' �, a� E-+ ' �,
�-,, �; � ,� ' � ' � '�1; � � �
r-, • •-a ;-�
'.� : >: � � �
� � *�`` `� 4 � .� � � �
� +.� +-� ,S, b.Q cc3 � • �
a � �d ' � ,-d o o � � �
; � `° ; � �' � . � '� °� o
� � �
� � � � � � � � �
U�
'O O � p � � � � � p.
�' � � � � � �p .,�, . r..,
• ,--� � �
eUc! � � O � � ��-+ � O �
S� � t� s� c�
-r--� O � W � ,,.d _�: ch � � � � : .
,� ,.� ,� �' � ''� , p v �
. b� N � "Q,,' � �' �, � •�, �
-+-' �..; , � :�, . � cci .� c� �
cU � r� � � p � � ,� � N
. � 5...�-�' ,,,,�r�' bA Q�1 ' �, '� 4� b!J ,,,� �,
� •�.� �, � '� �-' � ��,�, ,� �
� �
+� , N -� o � � � � ,� � c �N � . �
� ""'' � r—� • r+ � �-.i U 4� • � �-.�., c�
�1, � � �
^ o , � -F-� � C� Q-{ -F--� ^
�
� • �, � � � � �+ c1� - �' � � � 4� �
� �~ U o � .:� � � � � � � 4�
, ',,,�.
ct3 � • � � Q � �, � E-+ c�_ c.°� [-1 v
c.�—t
�,r;-� �;�_� `� �
� � U �
� �
�
,'
d
_�,,
� �N ^�-'
P--y �'' ,�.
O� '—' c�i �
�-+ � � � �
.,�._, � � � o _ -
� - O � �� �. -
C�G" � � � . : � �. �
4-� ,.-.� ,...� c-+ tc3
N � _ �U: �,��
•� � p•q�,) '�''� N
3-+
CC3 U � � � CC3 • �
��� � � �� � � �
. � Q-+ ., � � � , :� d �r',
, r., . � � C!� � Cl� � -�-� .
bA ° � c� -�''
a� . � .^� � ,:.. � � . � �
� " '� M � �' c� ,, - .
� cc� � � o � ._�-,�
� � ,�� �Q��
� � �o �•��0..�
a� �–+ +� �
�-' � .�`� ��� �
M p -� .� �
� `��-' � �;.,- � +; �^. �
� � . ,-, � . � p � 4-a
� � � �--� � � � ;
� �, ` � -� �,�--' �,
� � �•� o��,�
� o �o �.�,,�,�
�� ���.�,��.�
c� � '.� v � � � � �
� � � � � �
� v � �.� � � � � .
�- � � � �..,� �'���
y-.� �, � -� � . � � � � �
c� � �b.p � �; u � ' � s�'+ � ,
�� �, ` P-' � � c�3 4: 0
�� � � ��� � �� �
� ,� � � � �::
�
,�' � : ' �
I
,
�
�
� � ��
� � � �
N � ��'-' O
�
� � � �
�
.� p ct3 �
� � -
� ��—+ - � d j -
:.� .,
O � O � �
N ,� '�J N �.
� � �� � �
''�" �``'�-+ O
: � = � � � �.�.,
' � -� c� � �
, N
,� � � �
. ;-� � ' r� �
� � -� � . o. �
_ � � � �.�
� .�-, N •o �
'"' : �-, +�
,—� � N . � v s-.r �
�
�r � � � �- � � ` �
N +-� � � ~ � � � �
� �
-� .� � � '� � O
� r� �-+ . Q s-a � ' *� a�.)
�' '� O � � O � �
4� .
� � � � �� � � �
� '=a � �i C� -� � ' � � ,
�
N '� � � � � � N +�`'-�
� �o � � �, �'� ��,p� �
.' GC3 � � ' � • � . �Q � . .-i �,O �
� :� � � � �'� �`��
� y � , � � ` �' � � � �-+ -:.� .�.
N� �� eu s� o��, �
� �, o � O � ,� � o
� o � � a.� -�=� ' � � v�
+� �
� � � � :� � � � O�
� � �`-� `� � �� v���
�.
� . � � . � � � -�
� ��
I'
4
I
. � HOISsi�, �
TJ -�" h
Q v
L -{• m
t.G
�" O
o-{-. ...(., �
4 :� _
,, �r
~��'��ueTAaQ�y` .
-
�
�
,--�'. • �
� �
-+-�-� N
N
• ,--� ��'
� � � �
�- � � � -: •�'..�
� � cll _ �* �
. r-,
N � � ` o �
� � � � �
U � U � '�
O � , � ,�
s� �.., : � U
�-+ � o � �
o �io ap � � �
� � � •� .�
�
•� � � o � a.,:
� � � � a� � �.J � �
p--.{ � : ` t�
a� o o � o , �
� � �Q .� �.� ...-
.�, � �.�
� � �
.� � � � �
� � � � �, � �, ;
-o�,' � � � ��
� �' o � � � �
cN � �, . `.� � �
�+ �y� N N _ �
� bA� �.., ,.� �� � . O �
'`� •� � � � s� o � �
�• � .� �+"'�-' 4� � - � ''"' , �
p� �„r-�,� va C� � � � -s--'
C� ,� � i-�-� � � � � U
,-�-� a-� ,� � Q) ,. � b!J � .
4-� -�-� -� �, � � '.� �
4-
r�l � � c� c� •+� � � .
� � � ��-+ ��-+ � � � U� ;
� �� � � � � � �
� � � �' � `�' `�'`
� , � . � . . . . . ; .. ., ,' .
. . _ � � .. . .' .
� � ..� � � ... � .
�
�
�
_ R3 �
�
�
4� *�,, cct ,� �
.�
� � d � �
�� � o _ � � -_
~= 4—, ta..,, •-�� � , - -+-� ,,,_, . _ _
O N � � �
O � �� � �
. •+, '� T-' � '$.-+ w-' �
cc! � �� �� �
' bA � ' � c� � '� . ;' �O
. � � � � ��� �
� �
� bq �
'� � -, � �, ,: . .—+ � . �,
�� ��a� �o:� �
�- �' � � �-+ � +' a.� � >
�
��'��a.��� .��� �;
;� '� cr, � �' '� ct3 � :�
O � y� � N
-'� �..,0 v � � p .,�,. �, , �'
� � � �
• � .� . � � v � �b.A � C�
�� �
r'�'..,' � ,-�—`�i L � P..��., � � � �
• � � � .�, q) � U , .-.,
N � q,� -� V '—� �
Q.)
� O � � � O � � �
` �� v� �� � . �.
F�-� � � Z+'�—+ � � b,p � " �`—' O
O � ' ^''
M . � v UN c,� � �—+ ' �,' 4.) � :�'
c� � � � � '' ' v .� -i—�
'Z� � � cr� � � � ' � � � �
� �p� fl� � '.�, � �' �
�. b1J . � � � � a� � �3 �
�� �i p , O '+, ''� � � *� N
� T.3 +� .
M '�' Q� . . tC3 � � � � N ' c�3 p
r� p �, �� Q � ..� -� � ..�
Q� • � C:7 �-+ �+ -+-� �
� a.� � `r� . �' � �+' O O � � �
� � �,-+ . � . tll • � �'i
�i � �-i � �'� � � 4� C�! ►�
.: � ,,�, � ,�, ` . 4.� .. ,�, ,�
� �
� �
-
es
� � .� � -
.� cc3 O
. � bA C�. �
� � � �
w O �
� 'Z3 c� � �
� � � � �.
' o � � - '� - ,�
�_ v �
��' �
�'-+ � �j - � n �: �
� o p� -�' . ' ° o �, , �,
cc� ap � � � � ao, �
�- . ,-+ 4� bJJ � b1J � ,.�
� . �� � � � � �
� o � � . .� � � �
� � N ,r-,' � N � O
-� � � � � � � �
� � � � �t� `� � Q �
rti' N � C�.� v
� � ' � v � � 3�-+ - �.�`.., �
�
•, -+.-> i-, E-+ �,
� � ,� [--� � . 6�
r"-+ � �--+ O � � 4,) �
O o � � � � � �
4� �+ � _� � � ' � �
� � ,,� � c� ' � � �O
� � c�3 c�3 � �—, �' �
� � �� � :� �
� �� , � � :� � � �,,-:
c.F.., v �, 4�—+ � � � �-+ � , a�.
� � � � � � � � .�
� �
� '¢"' �' s.�.., . � � � � 4--�
U �' , � �N � � � ,,S�o p O
tCi �' � ,� � � � � � � �
� � � �-+ � � � � n �
, . �� �� � N . � �n � a,>
'� �; � '.,� .� .i.� cc3 p �
� p '� � � � � W V.� � �
�: � � `� +-� � � � I , I I • �
�. $.-i � N U v� c-�-i N N v�
r�,,,� N �+ _ � � -��+ ,��'' � V 4�
� ,�� ��� � ;�o �
� � .� � .� � o � � �
� � � � � �
� �
� '�
-;.:.,
■
-
�
c—�
4� �
�
. ,_., � �
� �
�'' .�' ,�'"'"'
4) � �+
�-+ ,� �-,
,. �-+ i.-�
; � � � ,��-�+,'_-,' _
- .� � .r-, -
� . � � � .
� �
s-.� � � �
� '''"' v � v�
� � �
_ U � � v `
� � . c� � �-+
N ` � � c.H .
�
� � '� �!1
cCi . � �
�.-�., � � �
�
� v ��
� ��
;4,.: � � � . 4�
4-i ��
� , ; � �
N Q �� v o �
� � „� '�,� :�
o � � � � � -
�
,
�� w . �, ��
� c�3 cn a.)
�� � � �� �
� � � ��
�� o �
�� o'� O o :°
�� .� � . � o �
� � � � �.�Q
C,� *� � � � -�-' s-� �—�
�� � o � � ��i
�
� � � •� �..� �
�,-Q*,` HoissiyKo,. . . � .. .. . . .
� �1�� � � � �
�
_ � r
—C' ° ,
o'{" � "' . . � ' �. , � . ,
a
� c
�i ,. h' . _:. . .
H�h�METRop� `....... . ... . . . . .. . . . .
�
�
�
�r
•
.
.,
•
�
.
•
0
.
�.
�
.
.
•
.
�
•
.
::
�
..
.
�
�
�
•
.
.
•
iir
a.
•
�
�
�
.
.
•
.
�r
•
.;
..
-
�
�
�S`.
C
. ' . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . � .
�
!. �.�. � � ,:4 ..': �• ,.., `, '.,
_ � �_._.%� � �� � � . . .
�,� ,r^ ,,..,.w.,. � � �
R ��r _ -. .^^r.
T3�"� ��a_,,,,�!n1`_' .. ,
.�i=� 6�`�-�
� ��
r3
_ - .,� _ -�
s� \ �''�
� \ ,, �'� � ��� �� ��
��� �� Mehropolitan Au�crafr Sound
� '� Abatement Council
� • i;
a._ { ;� ,, � � � �� ��' :
� ',��� ��`
�
� �
MASAC Members
Chairman:
Ci�arles Mertensotto
(Mendata Heig6ts)
First Vice Chairman:
Joi�n NeLson (Bloomingcon)
MASAC Operations Commirtee Chairman
and Second Vice Chairman:"�
john NeLson Bloomington)
Airbnme Ezpress:
$rian Bates
ALPA:
Ron Johnsou
Ciry of Bloomington:
Petronu Lee
Vern Wilcoz •
Citv of Burnsville: ,
Charles Van Guilder
Citv ojEagan:
Jamie Verbrugge
Iance Staricha
Cirv of Inver Grove Neights:
Charles Egintoo
Cirv oJMendata Hetghts:
Jill Smith
Kevin Batchelder
Ciry ojMinneapolis:
aarme tane
Dean Lindberg
7ce Lee
c.�e� sc�a
s�a,� c�►� xor
Mike Crr�mer
City of Richfield
Kristal Stokes
Da..v weitz�l
Ciry of St. Lnuis Parl•
Robert Andrews
Citv of St. Paut:
Jo� �
crry ofsu»f�h �xe:
Cynthis Putz-Yang
Delta Airlines Inc.:
1-arry Goehrw8
DHL Airways:
s� s�a�o
Federa! E.rpress:
John Sc6ussler
MAC Sraff.•
Roy Fuhrmann
MBAA:
Robert P. Johnson
Mesa ba Nn rth wesr Airl ink:
Phil Burke .
Nnrrh west Airlines:
J ennifer Sayre
Mary Loeffelholz
Steve Holme
Nancy Stoudt
$t. Paul ChamberajCnmmerce:
Rolf Middleton
Sun Cnunm•Airlines:
Gordon Graves
Unired Airlines lnc.:
Kevin Black
Unired Parce! Srrvice:
Michxel Geyer
U.S. Airw�vs lnr.:
Lairy Yandle
MASAC Advisors
Merropolitan Airports Commissinn:
Chsd t,eqve
Metrnpnlirun Airports Cummission:
Commissioner Alton Casper
Fedrral Aviarinn Admrnisrrofion:
Ron Glaub
Cindy Gmene
AirTransportation Assoriation:
Paul McGrsw
MNAirNarional Guard:
Major Roy J. Shetka
U.S. Air Fnrce Rrsen�e:
. Captain David J. GerScen
Secreforv:
Mclissa Scon-onslo
Metropolitan Airports Commission
IDeclaration of Purpose
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, converuence,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transpor[ation, international, 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 this 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 area land use, a�d 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 tlie problems created by the sound of aircraft using the
augort; through study and eval'uation 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 regulations,
consistent with the safe operation of the airporf and of aircraft using the same; 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 Aireraft 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 of their status as airport
users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be
called User R�presentatives 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 Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator and Shane
VanderVoort. ANOMS Technician questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC Aviation Noise and Sateliite Programs
Minneapotis/St. Paui International Airpart
6040 28�' Avenue South
Minneapolis MN, 55450
Tel: (6l2) 725-6328. Fax: (612) 725-6310
MAC Environment Department Home Page: www•macavsat.org
The Airport 24-hour Noise Hodine is 726-941 I. Cornplaints to the hotline do not resUlt in
changes in airpon activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport information oudet.
"Il�e hotline is stafFed during 6usiness hours. Mondati� — Frida�•.
.�
-y:. ,. . ._
:1
:�
r>"
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Table of C��.��nts fo� I�Iay 2000
1
Complaint Summary
Noise Complaint Map
FA.A Available Time for Runway Usage 3
MSP All OperationsRunway Usage 4
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage � I�
i
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage g
0 15_ Ni httime erator's by Type 9 i
MSP T p g 4p !
(� ) _. � � �
_ �
�� MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix �� i
i
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks l 1-14 �
I
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map " 15 -
i
Canier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events_
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
16
17
�`' MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 1g-2�
Analysis of Daily and Monthly AircraftNoise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 2�-29
p Prcduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOivIS Program
' +Ci�y
i
' Bli�t�rrtinsu�n
i Bums�•ille
C'hasl:a '
Circle Pine�
' Ih:�pha��ett
: �.1 � 117
; E:dcn I':airi�
f F'�tI13
i Im•er Cirove H�i��ts
L:ike 1-1rn��
Maole (ir�n•e
`jh'tarinc c�n S�. Crc�b
; Mend��ta I Ici�his
� � � ! Ntinneap�ilis
' h�linneiimlul
;
� oro�i,
Yly rrx� u th
( )� j Richtield �
, Itose��Illc ( _ ,
Stiulh St. l':tul U �... 1 ,� 1 1 � 0 O.I�/c
_, �� � ? _. , 1.7�%c
5t. I.ouis l'ark ''-� � ` I
St. P��ul 13 11 �i 5 7-� -�U I ) ;�•�r�
5untish �:�il:L U �> 1 0 i 1 0 0_l�/•
�'�' �tit �t k'�iul : , 25 ;l 7 � L�)9�
�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
I1�ISP Com.pl�ln�S by City
I�ay 2000
- Num1�r of Nuar►ber of °Ic csf Total
�.rrival Tleparture Complaints Cc.f�plainants Compl2�ints
0 1', , p �� .l, � U 1.�}�-
�; -=
� O . i � • f� � � 1 (1.ir.
0 0.: l t) � 1 i., 0 . U.1 �
O � i 0 1 1 I. t) 0.1 �'�
� Q 0. t 1 I U O. l c�
i� 1 �; � -��i �-� f. . �.O�;;
0 . 1. _ U -1. � � ' : 0 O.�c;,.
;
� �' ; U ; i U O.�c.�
. 0 I ly ( i��. �� � 1 y��'a
i� —
7 U o U y `t ,0 O.ir.
O , �� ? . _ � {) ?.O�%�
,l � � li ,
.� � U :p � l f p_ U 1�r
— � —, a � � ;.6 ,�
-} U_. ;(i zlb iS _ � I
> 1�5: �c)-� ' ;1Q� ` 107� �'O � . . 26 66.;�'�
� t � _ —� l Q6�i�
�, 1. 0 p �� (
1 0 0. ;:o � t � �.U� o.���
1 � U. 1 i i l O.ti°k
i
,Q:;.�. _jy. � i . � �7 I � 1 . �!.7CC
� � � ;0 0.1�ic
) O. � � �
�. . . .
Tt�tal 1=�7
'� ature of � I SP Complaints
Colaaplaint � 'JCi�tal
I•.�:rssi�•r ti�iisc c)�)h ( ?JS
1 •:irlv/] �itr � y� I 4S
I.u�c l�h in<< ;� I lb
.�tru�tur,il I )��t. O ��
l(cli��,�,trr O 0
(ir��un�l ti��isc: � I 2
f•:n�_inc: itun-iiF� 1 '�
f�r�c�ucn�� (t1 =��
� �7{}� j
-�--�-- Tin� of I�a�
'I'ime � '�"o t��l
(XXX) - O���I I �'-�
OE�tX) - (X»�� '-�
O7(X) - 11 iy ?i7
� 1�IX)- 1;,�) � l�)-}
lF,(X)- 1��;�) ;O;;
�(XX) -'_ 1 ��1 '-`�--' I.�
??C�) - `_'�;�) i 17-t I
617 4�{! �t Q(}.0 "o
Complaints b�� Air��ort
Airpt�rt � Ti)tal
=1�� h�iSP ' ,1E�9;
19 t'�irlal:c� i 0
�2 :�n�,k:t ?�
2� ,
Cr<<tilal. -
6b }lcin� Cluud� �
7� 1 Zk� t:lrrx� : I i
3$ . 5i. {'�tul �
_ i �.
�, �
(.)thcr (l i ��t(X)-'_;i�) : C�O �(? 4tisc.
'I'atal ' l�iy3 �'t�t�l ( Iii�3 Toiat j 1728
Noce: Siackd Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the In[ernet
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
0
,� � � o� Metropolitan Arrcraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC? Technical Advisors Report
� � � o c�a sra b,.
O a,A "�'"' O 4— � � d �
�" r� � �, e >
, � °� � � � � r c��! �?
��' �-+ � � � �j �rm, s /, .�wa� 'n
`� I i ��' ��!
� � . '
2 A Produet of the iblet�opolitan Airports Commission ANOiYIS Program
Metropolitan Aircr'aft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Available Time for IZunway �1se IVIay 2000
(F'� �2unway LTse I.,ogs)
{;
, : - �- � `_'-.� i
. 4�10 { �� �.--��� �
— _. �. —.-_�=.`. - �
��, 59� — �� — � i J '
( ;
— v � Nighttime Hours � ,
— _ ____�.; �. ;=— 10:30 ��.m. tu fi:t)p u.m. , ��: �
. . .. � . . . , � /`- r-i .j . . .
� .. . �..�:���..� , � . - �. � ... . .
_ 11�l�� ?l1!)U F.�:�, :�ir�xlrt �1'r��tiic Recurd Cvunts
' 19�'9 Uailv Counts � 2i100 Lla61y �:ounts
:� ir C'arrier �it )y 7�'—
C'uitunutrr � ; � �; ; i.}? _ ,
� . Cx.nc:r<tl:��•iatii,n ?;, -�`�I
.� I�'t ilit an, y 11
'1'otal � 13{7 ( 1�1fi .
A Prcx�uct of the Metropalitan Airports Commission ANONIS Pro�ram 3
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
�l �perati��
Rundvay LTse I2eport li�ay 2000
(
I : : � I i �l.tr��o " .� ,� .� � � I . -, ,-.��; ; �
i.�l!�ii ,i �, , � :
,. �
� 'i. �:
' ' ' � 27.0% .,:��:. � �c-�-._.. �'
• i--/ � i ., .:
`
. : _ i � � � �
� . �
Y-�-� • � , . F
,� :
; ; ii�;jii�i .,, � � ;,y� �
� �
i �, Iiiii� � 5( 55
i i' � ��, �' �� y -
Il�li�� li�( � � � / � ,
.
;Ill;llilll'II - • . : ,. .
�r�i:ii!ii. I�!77 .-'.�,, 21.8% 1
- �i'il,il�l� � .I �
I� I �II�
I � , . � .', ( � , � �/ / 27.�% ;
;I :lil� '-� -
- ji� �i.i:; I71 �I '
�„� iiilit�i �i ¢ ` 21.8%a ���
� I�I �j �i���' 1.4% .� / � '
I J� I i I j 1 �; *,�,.M �___�-"'" 28.7% u
. � �
. �. � _ "i
i ��j 1.3°!0 ^� � � i
�-,- r 4 . � � I � �
;;
�� � � I n /
/ �I�i��� l��l
I�I'�Ilj�i�Ii��o i i UsePerce� — �agram
_ ; .;
• �I,��.Si Yeal' .: 3..aSt'
, ArriF�ai/ ' � �oun� � : Couni ; �'eac ,
� : : ,; ;
, R�'YY De ui� l�ve zfli ht Area p ' �
� ratio'ns Penc�nf !3 erat�ans Percenf
-� f�1i-r °.� Sc>. Richtizki/Bkxmvn�_=ttm �9' 1.49�. �i;j 1.1�I�
l�I: i ,'1rr So. Minnea �lis/Nu. IZichlicki 5701 ' 27.59� 6(?04 ( 30.fi�'l�
1?Iz ,Ar�- ' .Sc�. Minnca �lis/Nc�. Ilirhiieki � .5597 `?7.O�I� �1? ?�.4`%r
'-' � '' f�rr St. PauUI-ii�hliinci Park i lOR Ui9� 1�5
` _ 0.79c .
�OI. :�rr �E?a�an/'vlencicxa H�i�_hts ` i �53:-� ?1.8�� : .3�.9�; 17:79'�
� �1)f� �1rr `' F.:aaan/Mcnduta H�i�=hts _ �-
'-5-. � �533 2l.RCI� .>03y _�.SC%
;: Total r�rri�=als ` 2{)761 2(1O.i}�'Ic 1�715 11}0.{irI'c `
;' -� 1)c St: I'auUHi��hlanci Park � 1'—� 0.6CI� 1i� ` 0.89� � _
1?I. `1)c I:a��anlMcnc.i�ata H�i��.h�s ; 56iy ?Z.7�7 61?.ti 31:89�
` ( �IZ,. `I )c [:a�Tari/Mencic�ta E-Ici�Tl�ts � i�71 ��' �. '
I._h:7 lr ` 36y 1 19,19c
_ ,
`� ,� l)c'� �u. ili�htiekl/Bkx�minUtun ?f�i 1.3%� ?-1-K�; ? , ,
, -- � 1 _.99•
�. ;OI.: '1)� S�>; 1,�linnen �liti/N�i. lZicht�irk.l j �?97 ?1.O�ii� �39� I 1?.�}C/� .
;Oh .I)� Si�. �•1inn�apc�liti/Nu. Itichtiekl � �?t�i �U.7i'r '1--1--�fi . ` �3.00/c
� Tc�tal I)e artur�s 2{)�3a ' ltl.ti.11°'r 132�y .�{}[?.{i ic /
!. _
`i'otal f�perations �]2Ul} 3301� , \
� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram �
�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemen[ Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
������� ��i o�e��.i���
I�unvvay I7�e R�port I�ay 2000
: . ' Co�aiii :
; ArrivaU ,, ;
�ttiirY �e arture �F erf�i;;ht E4 a�a '�' rataons ]Pe r�e nt +O
� �' `�
��. �, �n i S��. Richli�k�/Bkx�liiinQton _�- . 1.5,��
I 1?I, i AtT ! Sc�. Minnea lis/Nu. 1Zichticki 40?9 26.5`�.
1 �:��i ?�.1 �/�
�?R �: ��rr Su. Minnea �lis/l�i«. 1Zi�hlicki �
` �-
�; �?. Arr St. YauUHivhl�nci Park I 7> 0.� I�
. .3UI: ,1i�r . �a�_an/Menci«ta H�i<?ht5
� 3�ti7 �� ��.
if)IZ ' F�i-r E:a�?an/Ivlc:nci�>ta Hci�_=hts ( ��-� ?1.-�C1��
..t, _ Tut�l!�r�t;vals 1�2t}� �.(}1).{tt%
,, :-� 1)e 5t. Paul/Hi��hl,inci Park � 87 � 6��
� �7.=�c;�.
l?I. � I)r }:a�7anlMencic�ta H�i�_=hts i �131 �-
� ?9.3C/r
l'?IZ l)� k:a�Tsn/Mc'nd��ta H�i�=htti �. 4-=�31 �
�i �� U� So. Ric>hf��ki/Bkx�nun��ti>n ; 1�fi Q:�)cj
;OI.. Ue St�. Minnca �lis/?�1c�, Richl7ckl i 3�1? �� �`%c�
3()IZ ' I)� So. I�4inn�a �li�/;v�>. Kic:hti�kl i ?9(J;� 1y:2�1r
: ( l�;�t)i) 1()1}.{irle
� 'Tot�l �� • S
� I 31) �(?g y
'1'0 �1 C}�pe ratio e�s
A Procluct of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission ANONIS Proaram
_ �
I
�
. ;
-II
�. .: .
�
�..
L�st �ear Last>
;
Count . ; Ye,a?' .
er.atiores Percent
171 1.?9c
4fiR7 " 34.79c
?g�? � 20.49�
il� 0.�9�
1 y�i-1 ( 1 �.19c�
�S? � 2i;.fi9�
1 �IiS9 1(){},{} ��;
llfi 0.�9c�
>09-� ;�6.E�9c�
�t���; 14.8�7�
17i9 - 1?.7�/c•
l?y�i � 9.39c
35f; l � 2�.8%
'1.394)� ' 1{}(),I'� °i'o
�7993 _ � ,
5
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
IVi�y 2000 IVI�P ��.rrier Jet F'leei Cornposiiion
E4R Part 36 Take
T UCE Noise Lev�1 �lI'CC� �l@SCCi 174[1 s � �:011[It ( p'�TCtRt �.
, B7-��' i 10.(� B��cin� 7�?-'_IX1 ; l�� 0.-�r
i B7-�l I 1(ly_� i But`in� 7-17-1(X)
' =' � Q.1 �"r
LX8 _ � lU�.� I ti�f�DonnellDouRlas DCb-i(X)/6(X) � ' ( 0 0Ocr
B%-�3 IU�.� I i(leiR� %�% _� � � �� �.�'rr t
IX'10 I03.0 I�ZcD��nnell Uauelas DC'10 � 3 110;,� ;.F�:� I
B;''-7 10`?.� Boeine 727-?IX) ( � Q QO�;,. -
B7-�-� 101,6 �, Bc�eino 747-�(X7 � ; ''; ! O.1 i ;
I:X.'i(,) 100 i �I�IcDannell Uou�las DC'8 (Modi2ied Sc�; 3)j 3 ''?ti I 0.7<<• i
I.101 99., � Locl�eed L-1011 ( 3 0„ � O.Oc� ' I
1X�S> y�.l ` j I�1cl�onnellI?ouslas D('�l � ? 0 1 `Q.Oc� . I
B? �-' y7.7 Boein� 737-?(X7 � ' 0 ; r �
_ 0.0.�� i
� . BA11 97.0 : ( $ritish Aeros ace (BAC) I-11 � � 0 � �.Or'�
. a� 96.2 Airbus Industries A340 ( 3' � j: �p�;�
NiUll 9;.h : � McDonnelll���u�las MD11 ; � ; O.Occ �
r,�; 'B763 9i;i Boeine 767-200/300 i t8 ( O.IC`c
IX'K7 9-}.� �, ?�1cUonnell Dc�u�ias UCY-700 � 3 3y I 0.19�. j
` $7�Q 9-�.� � $ueine 7'_7 (Nloditied StQ. 3) i :i .• i-l�i i l l.��/c �- : . �
877� 9�. ;" I Boeins 777 3 0 � O.O�I�
: i1 �O6 9-�.0 Airbus Indus�ries r'1300B�-600 ; �� � 0?�� �
A;lO y� y' � :Airbus Industries A310 � 3 ' � I.,.0:09r .
B73Q 9'.1 � Boeinv 737 (Iv�oditied St�. 3) � 3 lIX)9 �• ,?.3re '
i�iD�'�) 91.� � McDonneli Douelas MD-80 � 3 1043 � _3.4�c
B7i? (" 91.-� � Boeina 7i7-2(7U 3 2786 � 9.29e �
I�C9Q 91.0 ' �McDonnell Douelas DC:9 (Modified 5t�. 3) 3 10330 �. 34.1�7r ` �=
B?;-� 88.c) Boeine 737-'100 ...
� 3 1=�;. � O.i�l�
A3?0 87.� � Airbus Industries A320 � 3 =�7��} ( 1>.79c ,
B7�� b7.7 � Boeine 737-$00 ( 3 '_' � O�O�Ic �
B7��i 87.7 ' � Boeins 737-i00 � 3' 419
_ ' � l.��lc ! '
B%j% �17 � " BOCIIlE ��%-��
I `,� � � O.O�Ic , •
g7�; h7.� ' '' B��ein�� 7,7-� �. �7i ; 1:gC�
�131�� �7.� � Airbus Industries A319 ( � (95 ; ; �.3C•
_ BA�F ,8-�.9 Bri�iSh flerc�s ace 1=1£ � 3 �114 � 7.09•
� B712 ti�.O ' I Boein�� 717-2(x) f ; �� ; �.,�Cc : I
I�I(X) yf.5 ` I. F�c�(:l:er 1(X) ( 3 ���� � �.Q9� `'�
. 1<l-�� � 51.ti ". i I?rril�raer 1�� I ; ��.� :' � 0.8�7r
1=7O � 5U.1 i" I�ol:l:er 7U � ;' `� 0.0%
�`�' C'1Z.1 I ` 7�).� � C'anadair Re�ic�nal Jet i 3 �j-� �
t>9c
Tatals ' �3030� l0U.13 �'� :
Count Current � L.ast'I'ears
� S[3�C II M �. (1 O.0 r� i 1�_� �-�
Sts�e III I 1���7C), 49.3�/r ' 36:6�?r '
, _ _ _. ..
- 5ca�e tII :�4anufscturrcl � 1�3;5 i0.7�� � .�7:�r.
.: TotalS�a�,elI[ � 3q3t)S I 1Q0.1)Cr i ;i-�.-lc� j
Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III mteria as outlined in Federnl Aviation RegulaGon (FAR) Par[36. This
Iocludes hushkit en�ines, e�sine re[rofits or aircraft operauonal flight configuraeions.
•Thz Pro�•ided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 aze the loudest levels documented per airerafr type during take-off measured in EPNL dBA (Effective (
Perceived Noise Le��zl). �
•EP\`L is the lavel of [he ume inteeral of the antilogarichm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A- '
weishted decibels.
6 A Prcxiuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Projram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
�ighitirne �11 ��eratior� 10.3� p.m t� 6e�� a.m.
Runw�.v LTs� �eport 1l�ay Z000
� � � � � � � ( I I I I I I I I I 1 I � I I ' �' � , �� � �' 4`�.; , � � x '�I� ., 25.7% ' � � � � � � � � ;
� I1 II�I I I I. 77 ,�, � �, �� ��,� � � ...�: � � �
Iliiii: ..il � + �,. ,�
' .r � 31.0% :
I I I I �. , �
I Ili� ,� j'� � � �
�Ii';�'il jl � : a - i
�;
� � � 1�! I I:I� ��� ' � I ; ` - 28.7% j }-` � �
�����i��i.I�,) � �r �
Illil.liil i`'' 10.2.% 26.1%
L� W � � ' -`�' � '
, � ,
' ,✓ �f LL , � ��
� 5.$% - ti��
� � � -
_ � .�I ( � y
� � �� ) �� �� � � �
I( i I� i i I I I�( Use Perce��a�am
- I���IiII IIi �lo� � _
, , , Ilast ��ea�: L�:st
;�rrivaU Count ,' Count' Ye�.r.�'
i2tii�T De arture O�erfli�htArea � erations: Pecrent O ratians Percent'
j �. � �n ! So. Richlieki/Bkxmun�t�m 118 10.?9c I�� I?.9"I�
4._
� 1?I.. i Arr � So.:Ivlinnea �tis/No. Rirhtieki 177 1i.4C!• ?;? ?�9�
' i j.�l� � �'1rr Su. Minnea >li.s/i�iu. Rich(icki � 1811 1j.f�C%r 1C� 10.19c
� I i 1 4.4�Ic� 57 5.5CI�
�? i �1n� St. 1.'aul/I-ii�ihl�nci 1 ark � 71 6.R�/r `
, I:a��an/Mcnciuta H�i��hts � ;31 � ?�i.7`/�
,OI. ; ,�1iY �
, 1 ?y7 ?i.7�/ 41 y 4C).4cic
`-,-..' `, �Ult I f1n- ; F:a��an/�tcnduta H�i�hts � 1{lU.{)`7c
Tt�tal �.rris�als 11;� 14)1}.{i �c 1t).37
, , ; : � I ti(1 S.O�/r �? 2.4�Ic -
.� ; I)c S[. PauUHi�hlanci I ark ! ��..59r
I � 31.O`''r �C3
. , l�I. . � I)e F.a�_=an/Mendexa Hei�Thts , ?� �
� �fi� ?6.19� �3f . 17.6�I•
l?1Z '', 1)� I;a�an/Mcndc�ta Hci�lhts , - - `
. �,� � Sy >.K�/c l �? ` 11.4�Ic
1)� Su. Kichtiek�/Bkx�ilunvt�>n ,
�OI llc ' Si�. Ivlinnca �lis/Nu. [hichlickl j l;i; 15.fi`���
1 �7 � I G.2�/�
! ' c� � ?i.y�%
!�UIZ ' 1)r� Sc�. Minnea li5/i�iu. I:ichiicki I i f�7 16.5 ic 3_ 1
� i '�'t�i�tl De artt��-es iQ11. 1(liD.{!r'c 13=�1. 1{f().�}G�r.'
. . +� Y'.�' {, . i.;70 �. �'� e 1
� ) � 'i'ot� 4 Qrations :lfi_ '
-- i
_ 7
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Coinmission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
- , . �, . . ,. �, . . �, � �; � � i 1 � �` ..
��.
. . . � � 1 1 ' ,, ,'''.:'
' ( I I i i ...�, - � .i i , i ,y �.
� , �, �'
I I . ;.+ � i �~ 16.3% �� ,�.� �'� y' .
�iili� �/ '
' '���';;; � _ 5 � 55
I �"� i, � � _ � �// `:�, �`��
�i� i�ll Ili�i � r
I �IItiII I �ji?7 : %
� �� � � �� , f 1$.4%
��i;; `� '�`. i
!II f�ii I�Y 17.3% ' -
! � � �';i ll,(I'll ' -
'�_.,' � ,_. � � ,, `
i i , , �; , , ,r ; ;� - so.s% I�� i
���� !(t� '' � � �
� ' 2.5% "' � l �
`I� illi) �;
. �'�' � 27.4%. �
; � , i `:- ' �-----<_
! i � 2.z%( � �ni � I- _ ; , .:.. .
��� . , �
t`� ' � ~
( � , �--j
- I i ,___� � � I i J__�__ � � .
;i;��ii�i<,i j .;` 1
, � ��II . .� . ...
I���cil�.,ii j„�o�i � UsePerce�_ '�am ' „.
�� �..
' Last Year Last ` ;.
�, �rrivall CQunt ' ' Count . ': Year :��
� RZi�' I?e arture - C)r�ertliaht Ar�ea' : �-"rationis ' Percent.. O rations Pe��nt
�- Arr� Su. RichliekiBkx>mui�tun 94 : 10.1"/� lOfi 13?9r
1�I- �' nn- ' � Su. Ivlinnea �li.ti�v. Richticki 1i3 16..59. �''� �7.79c
I�I: /\i-�• '� 5��. Minnc:a �liti/Nu. Rirhtickl � i i� . 1C�.49� 50 6.?9c -
,, ' <�n- St. I'auUHi��hl�nci Park _ � 3�. 3:79� , 47 ` >.9"I�
; : ;(11: :��rr f:a`�an/Mcnci��ta Hci��hts : � �E�t) 2$.lC/c ?� � 7`%
�'S;; '�i)}Z Arr � f:aUan%Mcn�ic�ta H�i�hts I ;'�� ��.�% 3�6 4�.�i9�
; Total .�r�i�-als y26 1(}I}.t} �'/� ' Stl=�- lti(}.i} fir=
-� l)c St. Paul/Hi�zhlanci I'ark � ?y 4.fir� 15 1.7�/� :
i-'I: U� ` ' 1>a�Tan/M�nc1��t,.t Hc;i�*hts � 1�i�i 'y.7% 349 .3�i.59�
I?}Z I)e t:a�zan/Mcniiixa Hci��hts ! If�3 - �`'9.O�I• l�Z< I.S.ICI�
'-' I)� Su: Richticki/13kxniun�tc>n I. '?R �,�9� 97 10.7�%'
;O[. ` `Ur � S�r: I�-linnca >!is/N��. IZichlieki � l:�O 19.O9� 73 B.UC/�
3(_lIZ . 1)c S��. Minnc;a ,liti/tic�. I�irhlic.ki ; $� 1�.�i�I� ?�6 � �f�.0i�� .
, :. ' ` Ttstt�l Depat~tures . ` I �'3� 1{}#):�}�/c �U7 ��}{}.i}"'c
� 1'otalO erat�ons 15�+R 1711` , �
� A Product of [he Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Techzucal Advisor's Report
IViay 2000 Top 15 Ac��l I�1ig�ttime Jet �pe�to� by '�yPe
10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.rn.
A�ir�ine IT3 S� e T; C��unt '
i Arr�rican I AAL � � � Fl(X) � 30 ,
American AAt. � ? MD$O '7 i,
( Airhome ABX � 3 DC'.gQ 17 i
. � Auhorne ( ABX ? I DC'UQ �� ,
I
I'AmtricaWest A�l'E 3 .'1�19 1 �i
� An�rica West AWE ; � A,'_0 l�> I
. � ; (1�a�ion CCP ; B?? �y _ i
� Corr�Air COI�1 � � � � t �`� I
�
Uelta DAL 3 B7?Q 1 ,
17e1�a DAL ; � B7;3 ;1 fi
L�k:l�a � DAL ; ( i��iDBO � �
� FedEx FDk 3 .4306 lK
` FedF�c FDX ' ; A310 _ , .
Total Nighttime Jet Fed�� F`DX _3 B7?Q - 3
O rations I�€oa�r' FedEx FDX � DC10 46
Houi= ,. Counf Fe�1Ex FDX . ; MI�11 1 �
I ��-�p � .�;g � , Mesaba MES 3 BA46 41
I �3(� 1 �},�; � Nonhwest NWA 3 A319 10 �
�,__ �:}OO i `'t)7 I � Nonhwest NWA 3 A;20 2j4
�,) �--=---
�_ � 1(X) � -��� � � Nonhwes[ NWA 3 B72Q 36
; �(X)- ,Q i' � Nonhwest NWA ^ 3 I B7�1 -� -.
� 3(x) , 1� i Ivqnhwest � N1�r'A 3 B7�2 3
' �' Nonh wes t NW A 3 B7-l=k - 1
i �(X) . ! +lUl
I i(X) . -,j, i � Nonhwcst NWA ; B7>2 199
,i I N��nhwcst I��VA � ; IX'10 7
� T�T_�L � 1 �.. 8 I �
��
Nc�nh�.•est ( I��'A � IX'9Q 1 }�
;I Kti'��n K�i� i B72 8t�
_ ` Sun C�,un�n� � SC'X 3 B72Q l'-�
3 IX'10 �?
' Sun (��,untn• � 5C� .
�
; 'f'r:in� ti4'�,ri�i 'tl�;'A 3 [X'9Q :�
`_`. _ ; ,�il?�0 E� '
1 "t�rans �i,'�irl�i 'Iti�'r'�
, ' � B-,r� 3�3
_ i �initccl j [1,'1I. Q
�. tinitc�i 11AL � � B733 1 _
(initcil l'�'1L. � ; i373� �
' '' t�ni[c�f i ('AI. � 3 � B73 I��
; j;l>� � I tl�ti .I , � $��� ( F
aw .,. . ( �>> � [ � l�� ' D('bQ �-� "
Van «u,ud � uC1) ; i B.7.3Q � :i;
, 'i, . Tiatral 1�73
� �
`l Noter The top 15 ni�httime operators represent 94.5�/n of the total ni�ttime operations. .
, 9
i
, A Frcxiuct of the Metrop�litan Airpor[s Commission ANOMS ProQram
:�� „
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
May 2000 Ni ghtti me FI eet Stage Mi x for Top 15 Ai rl i nes
10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m
_ t
� ;. � -
c 600 _ _ .� __ ..
o ;., - . :- _.-: .; .� - . .. _
.„
,
L 500 . :
�
. , .;.;.;
� . .:;.
w 400 _ ..:
0
,''.' '
� 300
�
:;::, _ .
z 200
100 — ..-- ,,; ,__..
; .;;;
; :. ..:
0
E� _::<;
F�"�'� Q-4'� -�.�'`�' GG4 GO� �p�''' ��O'�' .�'S �� ��' �Q' �P.v �4`' ���
.�. � �
Airline �
� Stage 2 ❑ Stage 3 C� Manufactured Stage 3
�,
IVIay 2000 Nighttirr� Fleet Stage 1VIix for Top 15 Air�ir�es (
10:30 m. to 6:00 a.m.
, _ .,. ..
� IVlanufac4ure�d
:�iriine S` e 2 S e 3 S e 3 .. Total ;:
;:�- A�1I. 0 j 0. i, ,� 57
_ �� B X 0 � 4y (} :�y -
A�VE:' 0 j (j i �� �0 ,.
CCP ( p I .,y ;
D ( ?y
COM � � U �y 49
`U,AI. (1 l �> . �fi.
� `S.
l�llX � O. � i ; ; �� 7�.
'�il:ti ` (1 ' U �l 41 ,
� �' A � O � � �(1 �77 7U7
� h�"� ( ` f) ! �';y �� Ry
' SCX : 0 i l?O �� � 1��
� � � '11�'t�. O �� � � :317
L':� L O � 5 ; ; �. , S�
C'PS � . �) , >� � ,
� � 6(j �
�'Crl� {) _ 3i � 0 � �5
Tbtal . _t} 6�37 � '785 1�7� _
�
10 A Prociuct of the Metro olitan
p Airports Corrunission ANOMS Proaram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
���. � f� , � � �
. : ; � . ,� • :1 ., /; ;
,
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
~ _ - '''�� !.�_�'---�_� i:
��^ �-:" -
:I .�.�� r" . -
��� �. - _
_ ��f^�: : -.
--` i-*-i �r� � —
_-..!"' , . '� , . � . . �_
�, '
^-�? `--���--�
_ � � i -_.._ ,�., -
4 � _'_ --
- ���•:� 6 ----------:�__
--___�..c'�j ����.
�. . , � � �
� _�`` - -� _
`��� y� _-_
.. ._____-�� _ _
'�"�� ` `,
— __ ;:;. - �, ::-_'�r "'., �.....,:'+^.:
. -•� �:. - �':,^'�..;.
� , __`�
---�i-ji _-____
���
li.,- . ,_
= �`-~� �� — : a -
_ _____
. . ._ .
_. . _
_ _ . _
•- - - �- -
�
-- �` -
�r '
�
==��_�'_� �,�J ' � � - (
_�_-� „- . � , . ..�, _�:; ,
_ � `V /� - - .=44.� ti ;• '_,
�/ /f (�� � - -= t') �" -
�--y' � �3 _ - _ �•- _
_�-�A���• y% ,� —Y- - -S%, -
� � / ��d�Q�i� _--' - _ ,�--
..-"� _ . — _ _ = �
I � _ ; ` � - 111�----"C- � �S� ,
� _ . ��K � •�� ``2 :� � -� �✓``..� J -��R•T>C,y
� � �-
�.-.,� _.. � L =—H W - �J( '-`�n �/'E'(,\ ; .�.�� .,LJ`...�. —� c.. � ',.
' ! \.�1 � . ,a• �ij- . ::���� ! � .
�ic�i�ti�- - _ �... :_� � �.-�--_�` ': o- �—_`"-, �
� ) �_a '�.�_ — --- � .: ,i'� � ` ` j_-,� ,_p:.-�.G;. - • _ .� ,-
,: '"" ,� � ,
� ;J � � s , � �L � �-� a-"`' - � GJ_ � , {
,Y_ �= -�._ _ _—_- _ _�� _ --�� .`�r'� '/ ��- -.�:�,- 'v ' , �..., '' ���' -
- - _�'� .-- � - _ - , S '`, `� � T'" i ��9 �- � '�._
� - - — - - - _ f t%i = -�^'� / "`,�,, ` y r-.�' . . . � -
= ` �,�. _ _ - - ---�---� . .= ' ~ :..., �fr 'r n' � _ ' �....-=c-�4 � �� -
�' "` - -- — ` '
`v � - - _" -- = i.-...�t ( :, _ ., 1 _., �-�. - . ti
- ' " ' " - ` _. ti: /,.' - �� � -
_ _� c:.O�fl���.t��fl�- �� �fl _ _��"� �-- —=`�: ��G _ .:
-- - -- ---- ' �� � - - _ ,; _ - �' — -� __.r�, �
"-- - -�._ " --- — 77 - ,� � - -.� =- ��G� � ,
` _---:- � - - --- _ .'^ �`:-i'� � � ' `� i.3'� - - _ - J � '`•--•- � . �
- -= -� -- _ �� - - - t----:_ ;���.�Il_ = - U��-,
- -- _- _ ----- -- - `, - _=,-, i - � _ - ,,. _ �
- - - - � - : ' _� ,r' , '� , - � ..�✓-" _ - a �J _
_' � '� .. )' 'q° ' � '. — ..�., _ ' �
" . _' .� - .,.,_, f. . . _ �^-. _ . ' - " .. - ' '�, ^
_"'_ _' - - �.^i"` I . . - _ � f : ... ' � .` . _ _ .J r' __ -
.. ._ - . .-_ _---'- -' , . - � - - -- - — �---- ' -
..• -.
, .� . _ _._� -
..------
-�--....__._. .. i� : ,_--` .� . ._ .. �. -._--,.--r--- : _ -r., - - -_ � � -
_ � . <' _- Y .. '= L' - , . _ � -- _- `��.. .-�= ".`�_-____ _ -"_ � .-_—
, ' __- --- . � � � - .�� - - .
. i ' " ' ` - :_ _ � - -
.=-� ' i - ' r . . ` - .� i - `i . � .. � _
�--= i-� � . -�- -` - - -- - - .. . '-.i.�_- . _ _-- .. � - - �. _..__.._. -
- � �. . � i _ - � _ - _,'y- �- _ ."_ �'.JI 'li . r J 4 . -. .. - _
, , " ' � . ,' __ -' " _ ..a� . -.v:a..'. _ 't `1} - . _ - __ __
� J.,.--y`" ' . �J� _ _' _ . ' "�` ' _ '— — , '
� �
��_- - -.
r' �
.�..; Le�end
Remote Monitoring Tower
A Prociuc� of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Projram
15
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Regort
�arrier Jet Arrival Rel-�:ted. I�oise Evenis
1�Iay 2000 �
Arrival ArrivaI �rrival Arris-al
RMT �vents ." Events . : . E�ents �vents'
� Citv ' : Address ' � >GSdB : >80dB , >9QdB >104dB .
�. t ?vlinneaPolis I Xer.ces Ave. 8: 41st St. � 688� � 55 1 �
i '- I, Minnea olis '; Fremont Ave. &�3rd St. 56�1 � 391 � p
�. -� Minnea olis � VJest Elmwood St. &: Belm7nt Ave. 5819 �' 'i l8 13 � 0
� � . Minneapolis � - Oai:land Ati•e. &. �9th St: ��i;
i � i I 13 _?. 0
.S - Minnea olis j. 12th Ave. & 58th S�. " 6093 I.. =�1� ;F7 p
, 6. Minnea• olis � 2.5th Ave. & 57th St. ' 6?y0 � �8� �-a-�' . I
Z Richtield ,,: � Wentwonh Ave. 8:6�th St. �l �: 11, , 1. p
8 Minnea olis < � '_ L.onafell�wAve.c�,43rdSt: 189 � 5 p : p
I _
I " St. Paui � . Saraio�a Sc 8�. Hartforcl Ave. 109 (: -�i ; ; p �
' � , 7S 1,
10 St. Paui ! Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin Sc. 113 ' r` p '
11 St. Paul ; ` Finn St. �: Schefter Ave. '. 19 � 3< � . �
i _
� 1'- St: Paul i Ai�on St. & Rockwood Ave. ' 10. �; 1 Q �
i l; Ivtenc�uia Hei;hts � Southeast end of Nlohican Coun 84 ' 2 1. 0 `�
l�l E:aaan � lst St. & Mckee St. i671 �' S0 ? 1 p .
I l� �iendi�ea I-ieiehts 1 Cullon St. & Lexing�on A1�e. 242 ; 1 � (-
_ � A�•alon Ave. & V'�las Lane 4jy4 , 1732 . I
i 16 f:aoan ,
7 �
17 Blc�c�minstc�n 8�th S[: c� 4th A��e. i�7 I 131 ; t ` p
� I�. ( Richt�ield 7ith St. & 17th Ave 310 .,�
� 68 0 0
� 1�) Blucimin;ton ; 16th A��e. & K4ch St. 108.
� � � 3 Q p ` '
_ .,
'(? Rii:hticld 7ith SC & 3rd A��e. =�O ' � i p �
; ? .`_ Barbara A��e. & 67ch S�. (�g. � i p '_ O
1 In�•�rC's����� H�i��ht�
�' In�•erCir�,�°eI[ci�*hts AnntIvlaric"I'rail ��)3:a
� . 11 , p p
'-� � hicn���t�d Elci�� ;
- ht� Fnd c�fKenncinn r1�•e. 1992 I ��.: 0 0
�� I f��*� : ,
' - C`ha c( In. & Wrcn In: 5i38 1 ' li� 1r O
,� . lii,�:in ' � iti9����nshinc Park l ;?l Jurdv ftc1. , I �i7 ; .} p �
--
�`,.: �f� _� [nr�r(,ri��•� I[c.i�,hts Fi7�)6ArE:3n5,�ti.,A��c. W.: I(XX) i �5 3 �
�7 �. ;�tintie:i���lis .Anth��ny Schoiil �7�7 In•in<� :����. S. i �lS � � �
+
'�' i Ki�hticl�i -- E�� lf�th A�•cnuc: S I 67� ' 37 ` `O ._ �
'`� j hlinnea ��lis fiirssi�n F1ent Schucil �t31� :;1st .A�•e. S. ( li i 1 �, �
` T��tal �,rri4-�.1 Naise Events 611�5 ( 1i373: �i5fi. ` :1 ,
\
16
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commissian ANOiY1S Pro�ram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Cour►cil (MASAC) Technical Advisor`s Report
Carri�r ,�et �epart�re �e�.�i�d �oi�� Evenis
� 1VI�.y 2�00
I9e arture�De ure i;e aaa� De rtw�e
P i� P� P� j
R11rI`� ,. . Events : Even�s Exren�,s Events
,.. ,._
1� �c�ty . �aa�ss >�sa� >so� >goa� >TaoaB
Xer.ses Ave. 8: 41st St. 76� � 135 0 � '
1 Minnea olis � I
� Minneapolis I Fremont t�ve. &�3rd St. - 1(Xr I ?37 -� � I
- i '
; I�linnea alis ; �'Jes1F.�nw�od 5�. Bc.:Belzrx�n� A�•e. ?1?0 � _3��J _'b U
� Minnea olis ' Oal:land A��e. &��)th Sc. '68"_' � 6?6 -�� 0
i I�4innea ulis i 1?th Ave. 8�. �Sth St. 4�?I I 1�1?1 4O� 5
I
� ?5th Ave. cX: �7th St. - 6;� � 231 �,.. 917 I 9b �
6 _ Minnea oGs � �
7 IZichField i_ Wen[wcirth Ave. & 64th St. 31�� 1(k� 7? 0 i
� Nlinnea olis ; Lon�fellow A��e. & 43rd St. 21_il 616 37 0 ;
9 St. I'au1 ' SaratoQa St. �. Hartford Ave: 1_'4 ; 19 �' � I
I
10 St. Yaul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin 5t. ( 1�+8 � �6 �� 6
11 St. Paul ' Finn St. 8r. Schefrer Ave: I 106 i �� b �
i'_ ' Si.,Yaul i Alton St. & Rockwoc�d Ave. 129 . ( 14 1 0
13 Mendota Hei�h�s ! Sou�heasi end oFMohican Caun 373-i �00 l� 0 ,
1=� Ea:an � lsc St. & Nickee St:
ij3i . I 1�1 1(}� _ �
-- 15 Mendota Heishcs i Cullon St: & Lexinaton Ave. �1=�93 � 696 21 0
\ `) - - i ;j02 � ?094 �6 0 .. ..
� 16 Eao� , Avalon A�•e. & V'ilas L3ne
— 17 Bloomin�tan : 84th St. & 4th Ave. _ 199 � 47 . 2� 0 `•
.. lx Richfield 7�th St. & 17[h Ave �j ( 113 il b
ly ' Bluc�Trnnst��n 16th Ati�e. & 84th St, ��p , I 73 11 . 0
� ; 7jth St. &. 3rd A��e. _ �7 � �; p p _
_O Kichtield `-
�l Irt��er�'s����e Fleiehts Barbata A�•c. �: 67th St. 15C�'i j li5 O �
�� In��er Cffo��e I Ieivhts : Anne Marie Trail I 15-30 1 88 0 0
I �3 Mendt�ta �ici��hts Inil c�t Kennd��n Q�•c. 5�9? � ?14�} 787 1
i �:� f�i2a�1 � C'ha cl In. ��: Vr'ren In. � -�2y; � f�Fi� 9 0
� �� l�i«Sn Nti,i�nshine Yark 13'_I Jurdv Rd. 2415 i �l. ! I 0
i �F In�•erCir���•� Il�iehts 67yt5;�rl:<�nstts Are. �'. ' 2-��)I ? 211 1 0
:_S. �i I�linnc,t ��lis .Mthiin�' Sch�i�il �7>7 [n'in�� !�t�e. �: � 1�76 i . �35 1; 0
i�y Rich�,icld fifi�� lbth �1��enuc S. I -�(k�� ' _ 2E�(T 6 I 0
�'�y IV1irinc:apuGs . F�ru:ssun E1em. Sch��sil -�31i ils� A��c. .5. 1-��� ��� 3 �
'�€�ta1 I)� ariair2 Noise E�rents 74166� 1C�51? ?��7 i21.
( )
_
A Prcx�uct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission AN0�1S Program 17
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba[ement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repart
Top Ten L,oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Nr��--��o
_ (RMT Site#1 j
Xerxes Ave. & 41S` S�, M�neapofis
Date/Tur�e Flight Nurr�er Aircraft Type AmvaU Runway Iarrax(dB)
_ De anure
5/10/0011:36 NWA1270 B72 '�A ` 12R 925 :
5/12/0016:2 `. DAL1624 B'72 D` 30L ' 88S
5/1/0015:09 NWA19 ` B742 D 30L '; 881 ' R
5/ 13/00 20:� 1 NW A1273 „ B72Q , D 30R ` " 87
5/2Fa/0015:09 NWA�80 A320 A 12R` ` 86.8
5/12/0011;49 NWA619 B72 D ' 30L ' g6
, 5/13/00729 CCP60'7'� B72 D 30L ` 86. ,
5/10/0013:�9 CCP102 B72 -' �'A .. 12R 85.8 . : :.
',5/22/0012:09 NWA129�` B72 <D 30R $�.8 '
5/12/0020:13 DAL1683 B72 D. : 30L... 85.7 ,
(RMT Site#2)
Premont Ave.' & 43rd St:, Minneapolis '' ` ``
Date/Tirr�e > Flight Number Aircraft Type : ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB).
. De arture , .. �
5/28/00 920 SCX715 B72 D.` ' 30R 94.8 '
5/11/0013:02 '� Ilnimown Unlmown A 12L 93.3 /
:,. ... .
' ` �/21/00 1�:59 DAL1624 B72Q _ ` D 30R `93` ` � .
;5/11/00 16:49_ NWA1735 DC9Q A , 12L, ,915 . :: � .
` 5/ 15/00 11:34 NW A 1271 B72 . D 30R '; 91.4 -�' ..
5/23/0012:1b NWA673: B72 D : 30R ' 91:
5/1/0015:09 - NWA19'. B742 'D ' 30L 89.8
5/21/00 20:53 NW A 1273 . B72 D ' ' 30R : 89:3
S/3/00 11:36 `- NWA619 ' B72 D 30R 89.1.�.
5/23/0019:�3 DA�.1683: B72Q D 30R 89.1
. ...
(RMT S�e#3)
- ' West Flmwood St & Belmont Av.e., Minneapolis `
Da[e/Tirr� Flight Nurr�er Aircraft Type ` ArrivaU Runway Lrnax(dB)
1` .�. . .. �� . � ': . :.. .
, ` L7e arture `
5/1/001�:08 NWA19 B742 D 30L ' 96.7 ' ``
' • 5/4/00 1�:4� SCX748 B72 , D 30L ' ' 9�9:
5/31/0011:31 MES3640 BA46 'A 12L 9�.8
.., �/13/00 7:2& CCP60'7 B72Q D 30L 95? .
SI8/00 6:14.. ` CCP� 12 `` B72Q D 30L 94.4 ,
5/9/00 li � i ` CCP609 B72Q , D 30L 94 :
° 5/8/�0 15�6_ �'.` DA�.1624 .` B72 , D 30L 93.3
�/ZO/00 ??:13 SCX744 : B72 A '' 12R 93:3
5/19/00 11:52 . `USA230 B734 A 12L '` _932
�/4/00 15:17 UAL1103 B72 ' D ' 30R ` 93.1
r, _
�
1� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Couimission ANOMS Pro�ram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report I
'I'op Ten I,oudest r�.ircraft No�se Events �or i�1SP
n�t���-oo
; -
(RMT S ite#4) '
Oakland Ave. & 49`h St, Min�neapolis �,
Date/'Tir� Flight Nurr�er Aircraft Type P.rrival� RunwaY LmaX�dB� '.
De arture I;
5/12/00 8:19 CCP101 B72Q � D 30R 97.I �i
5/3/0012:12 NWA673 B72 D 30R 969 I
5/22/0015:59 DAL1624 B72 D 30R 96.7
5/28/00 9:20 SCX715 B72 D 30R ' 95.8 i
5/21/0015:59 DAL1624 B72 D 30R 95.4 �
5/21/0021:44 NWA56 B742 D 30L 9�2 i
5/12J00 8:12 SCX325 B72Q D. 30R 93.8 ;
5/22/00 721 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 93.8 j
5/8/0010:02 UAL1519 B72 D 30R 93.8 ;
5/21/00 21:15 NWA615N B72 D 30R 93.7 �
: (
,° _ -
�
(RMT S�e#5) ,
- 12`h Ave: & 58`h St, Minneapolis _
Date/Tin�e Flight Number Au�craft Type ArrivaU � Runway ' Lmax (dB) . I
De arture i
5/22J00 9S6 SGX407 _ B72Q D 30L 102
� 5/22/00 922 SCX715 B72Q D 30L 101.8 . �
� � 5/9/00 859 SCX791 B72 D 30L 101.4 .
5/4/00175Q DAISO� B72 D 30L _ 1009 .
,::, .
5/8/00 9:06 SCX791. B72 - D 30L 100J,
5/12/0019:51 NWA614 B72 D 30L 100.7
5%9/001550 CCP609 B72 D 30L ,. 1002 .
5/4/001624 CCP607 B72Q D 30L 100.1
5/26/0017:47 NWA614 B72Q A 12R 99.6 �
5123/0011:40 I�'WA619 B72 D 30L 99.2
(RMT S�e#6j �
25`h Ave. & 57`h S�, Mmneapohs �
Date/Tirne Flight Nur�er Aircraf� Type ArrivaU Runway Lanax(dB)
De arcure
�,,. __
5/12100 9:41 SCX407 B72 D 30R 107.4 .: ,.
S/M00 8:03 SCX325 B72 D 30R 106.8
5/21/0019:39 NWA628 B72 D 30R 105.8
5/12I00 8:11 SCx325 B72 D 30R 105.6
5/12J00 8:19 CCP101 B72Q D 30R 10�.5
5/12/001�:4� SCX743 B72Q D 30R 10�.5
5/22/0012:23 N1VA722 B72 D 30R 10�.1
5/22/0018:�3 NWA628 B72 D "30R 105
5/3/0011:34 NWA619 B72 D :30R . 104.9
- 5%21/0015:16 DAL1731 B72 D 30R 10�.9
� �
A Praiuct of [he Nietropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 19
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten I.oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSI'
Ntav-00 j
�
(RMT Site#7j
Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St,l2ichfield
Date/Tur�e Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway ' Lanax(dB}
De arture
�/13/00 9�7 SCX409 B72Q -D 30L 97.3
5/7/0010:09 CCP406 B72 D 30L 96.2
5/8/0016:11 , SCX403 B72 . , D �L , �.n. _:. 96
5J8/0017:41 SCX85 B72 D' 30L � '95.8 `
5/20/00 16:04 AAL1347 ; F100 A 12R' 95.7 .
' S/7/00 9:01 DAL1702 B72 D. , 30L 949
5/9/00 9:11 CCP101 B72 D ' 30L ' 94.8 ;
5/22/00 828 SCX22'7 B72Q D 30L 94.8
5/9/0015:06 SCX74$ B72Q D ' 30L 94.6 . �
S/25J00 6:16 . SCX463 B72 D 30L 94:6 _...
(RMT Srte#8)
LongfeIlow Ave. & 43rd 5�., Minneapolis
� , Date/Time Fliglit Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway ' Lmax (dB)
De arture :
5/4/OO S:Q4 SCX325' , B72 D 30R 97.1 _..
5/12/00 15:45 - SCX743 B72 D 30R � 969 ("
5/1/0015:27 SCX743 B72 D 30R 95:7 \,
�/24/00 822 _ SCX710 B72 D 30R '94.2
5/21/001�:17 DAL1731 B72 ' D 30R 93.9
5/M00 7:15 SCX710 _. B72Q D 30L 93.7
5/21/001939 NWAb28 B72Q . D ,. 30R 93.3'
5/22/001538 �CX741 < B92Q D "30R 92.8
, 5/23/00 13:2� �:. NW A 1296 B72 ' D 30R 92.7
5/23/00 9:49. _ Rl'N323 � B72 D 30R ' 92.6
(RMT Srte#9)
Saratoga St & Harttord Ave.; St. Paul
bate/Time Flight Number Au�craftType � ArrivaU Runway I_anax(dB)
�;, De arture
�/9/00 1534 NWA 19 B742 " D , 4 98S
'. 5/2M00 21:�9 PJWA56 B741 D 4 ' 95.2
, 5/28/00 15:3� NWA 19 B744 , D 4 ` 95.1 ...
5/2C'a/00'1�33 _ NWA83 B742 D 4 ' 92.7
5/27/00 15:16 ` NWA19 B742 D 4 90.8
- 5/7/0019:01 NWA44 DC10 D 4 89.7'
5/�/00 4:21 ~ RYN610 B72 A 22 89.4
5/27/00 21:1� NWA56 _ B742 D 4 89.3
5/31/00 1�:31 NWA 19 B742 b 4 ' 88.8
_ 5/18/0015:36 NWA19 B744 _ D 4 88.1 %, .
\ �
�� A Product of the Metro olitan
p Airports Couunission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'Top 'Ten I..�oudest Aircra�t Noise Events for Ni�P'
Ntar�-U0
(RMT Site#10)
Tt��,.a e.,P RT Rnwrinm St_ St Paul
(RMT Site#1 1)
�;,,,, �r Rt �c.heffer Ave.. St Paul
:�
� �. �
- ��� � �
A Product of the Ivietropqlita.n Airports Commission ANON15 Pro�ram
(RMT Si�e#12)
etr�„ cr ,� Rn�kw��d Ave., S�. Paul
21
_ Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest A.ircraft Noise Events for 1V1SP
:�iav-00
(RMT S�e#13)
� Southeast End Of Moh�an Court, Mendota Heights
Dateli'iarn Flight Number `Aixrraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Ue .arhire
523,0010:12 _ Unknown ` Unknown " -.A 30R ' 924
: 5/10� 7:12 SOC710 B72 D ;.: 12L , 91.8
52A017:01 NWA1589 B72 D 12L - ,_ 91.5
5/17,0011:34 .NWA1271 B7Z D 12L , 91.4
5/11;00 7:41 SQC710 B72 D : 12L 91.3
;. , 5��0015:03 SIX793 B72 ' D 1� . 90.9 -'
5/15�0015:20 ' SOC743 B72 D ' 12L 40.9
5/31,0011:52 ! NWA1271 B72 D ': 12L : 90.8 '
5/�9�0019:Q5 NWA628 B72 D 12L .' . 90.7 ..
` ' S26A� 11:36 ' NWA619 B72 D ' 12L ' 90.7
(l2MT Si�e#14) i
lst St & Mckee_St, Eagan�:
. Datelfure Flight Number Aimraft Type Airival/ Runway Lxrt�x (dB)
: De axtz.t� ,
: 5/3�0 8:13 SOC227 < B72 � 12R _ 97.5
5/17,0018:58 NWA1589 B72 ; D 12R .-=97.3 ;, ;
; 520A0 9:04 `SIX409', _ B72 D l� 97.1 : � -`
520A0 9:00 SQC791 B72 D ' 12R 96.6
5/30,0011:59 ` NWA619 B72 D 12ft 96'
,..
5fi0014:59 ' SIX748 , . B7Z D ` < 12R 96 , ' ;: _
5/1.9,0018:07 ' SCOC403 B7Z D 12R 95.4
5I1A� 16:24 ` UAL1103. � ` B72 , D ;: 12L ' 95:4 -
' S/2.1,00 8:58 ' DAL1702' B?Z D 12L 95'.4
5/30A� 1243 ` CCI'1.01 B72 ; , . D < 12R 95:4
(RMT S ite# 15) '
= Cul�n St & Le�igton Ave., Mendota Heights
Date/Ture - Flight Number ?�i�rait Type Arrival/ Runway Lrrax (d$)
, , j� ��
5/10A011:49 N4VA1543` B72 D 12L 95.9
' 5IIA0 20:10 NWA628 B72 D ' 12L 94.7
5/30A0.7:19 SOC710 B72 D 12L 94.1
524,0019:21 NWA969 A 30R ;. 93.4
� 5/3r00 7:�4 ' N(NA738 D "12L 92.6
520,0011:45 NWA1841 B72 ` D 12L 92.5
5/15�0015:� ` SIX743' ' B72 _ D. 12L 92.5'
',5/11,D014:21 LJ5Ai678 B733' D 12L ' 92.3
5�5,0018:33 N4VA194 B72 D 12L 922
5/3,00 7:59 SOC325 B72 U 12L 921 ,
\
�� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Date/Time
sil�ioo lo:�o
5/18/00 9:45
5/1EJ00 Z1:15
5/11/00 6:11
5/30/00 12:43
5/17/00 925
5/16/00 9:25
5/18/00 9:33
5/28/00 7:11
� Date/Tur�e
5/1210016:13
5/6/00 15:26
5/10/00 15:12
5/5/00 15:30
5/7/001528
5/ 18/00 2:14
5/20/00 15:42
5/12/00 15:4�
5/29/00 15:13
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'Top 1'en �.oudest Aircraft 1Voise Events for 1l�SF°
NIa��-UO
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & V�as L�ar�e, Eagan
Flight Nurs�er Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway
De arture
NWA1270 B72 -D 12R
SCX791 B72 D 12R
SC.X'791 B72 D . 12R
NWA56 B"742 D 12R
CCP101 B72Q D 12R
CCP101 B72Q D 12R
gCX�tp7 B72 D 12R
SCX791 B72 D 12R
S(;X407 B72 D 12R
CCP124 B72 D 12R
(RMT S�e#17)
84th St. & 4th Ave., Bloomington
Flight Number Aircraft.Type ArrivaU Runway
De arture
NWA19 B742 D 22 4
NWA83 B742 D 22 �
NWA83 B742 D 22 �
NWA19 B742 D 22
NWA83 B742 D 22
NWA 19 B742 D 22
UAL1144 B72 A 4 '
NWA83 B742 D 22
NWA 19 B742 D 22
NWA19 B742 D � 22
(RMT Site#18)
�5rh �r �r 1'7th Ave_ Rich�teld
Da[e/Tur�e F[ight Nurr�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Ltr�ax (dB)
De arture
5/6/00152� NWA83 B742 D 22 102.6
5/5/0015:29 NWA83 B742 D 22 101.6
S/29/00 15:12 NW A 19 B742 D 22 101.2
5/15/0015:04 NWA79 B742 D 22 100.9
5/20/0015:42 NWA83 B742 D 22 . 100.4
5/3/001�26 NWA19 B742 D 22 1003
5/7/001�:28 NWA19 B742 D 22 100.1
5/4/00 15:24 NWA 19 B742 D 22 1001
SJ1J0016:13 NWA83 B742 D 22 99.8
5/19/001�:49 NWA83 � B742 D 22 99.8
A Frcxluct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS ProQram
23
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IVIS1'
Nr���-oo
(RMT Site#19 j
16th Ave. & 84th St, Bloommgton
Date/Time Flight Number Aireraft Type ArrivaU Runway Larrax(dB)
De arture
5/6/0016:15 SCX743 B72 -D _. 22 _ 95.9
5/20/00 15:26 NWA 19 B742 D 22. ', 93.9
5/7/00 8:18: RYN323 B72 D ': 22 935
_ 5/12I00 6:46 BM746 BE80 D 22 ' _ 93:4 �
', Sh4/00 6:13 CCP406 B72Q D 22 .; 932
5/14/00 6:16 SCX537 B72Q ' D 22 : , 92.4
`_ 5J31001526 . NWA 19 B742 D 22 ` 92
5/15/00 15:04: NWA19 B742 ' D 22 ' 90.6
'~ 5/20/00 521 . _ SC'X625. B72 D _. 22 : 90.4
5/14/00 6:14 SCX463 B72 D�.; 22 90.4
,,.... (RMT S�e#20) -
�Sth St & 3rd Ave., Richfeld
Date/Time Flight Nurnber Aircraft TYPe ArrivaU `' Runway . Lmax (dB)
De arture
5/14/00 823 CCI399 �'.B72 _ D 30L 89.6 ' .-
5/8/0015:25 NWA686 DC9Q- �__ D 22 .., 89S .
5/21/0019:24 NWA1046 DC4Q D 22 ` 88.8 (;: `
5/23/0018:43 : NWA.1252 , DC9Q D 30L 86:6 .
. .
5/21/00 17:21 NW A 1269 D 22. gq.S :.
5/ 13/0018:57 NW A 1028 � B72 D 30L 83.6
5/21/0017:23 ' NWA406 ' DC D :` 22 ' �$35
5/23/001231 :NWA353 DC10 _ D 30L' 83.3 , ,
:..: . 5/9/0013:41 MFS3125 SF34 D 30L 82.6
` ` 5/22/0017:20 NW A 140 DC9Q D 30L 82.1
. (RMT Site#21)
� ' Barbara Ave. & 67th St�, Inver Grove Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU`.` Runway Lmax(dB)
�. }, , De arture _ .
5/3/00 15:04 ' _ SCX743 _ B72 D 12L 86.7
' S/ 19%00 15:29 SCX743 B72 D 12L 86S
5/2?J00 14:�9 NWA623 DC , A ` 30L _ 86.2
, 5/5/00 9:04 SCX715 Unlmown _ D 12R 85.7
5/19/009:40 ' SCX715 . B72Q ` D 12L . 84.8
, 5/ 15/00 21:44 NW A 1273 B72Q ,D ' 12R 84J
5/15/00 2137 NWA56 B742 D 12R 84.
5/18/00 Z:25 .• SCX621 B72 D 12L 83.8 _
5/�/007:16: ' � SCX710 Unlmown D 12R 83.8
_S/10/00_7:11 _ SCX623 B72 , D 12L _ 83_6 _ _ _
_ �
�4 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS'Pro�ram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemeni Council (MASAC) Technical Advisar's Report
Top '�en �udest Aircraft I�oise Evenis for M�P
�����•uo
(RMT S�e#22)
Anne Marie Tra.�, Inver Grove Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU RunWaY LmaX�dB� I
De arture
5/30/00 9:23 NW A782 DC -D 12R 89.6 �i
5/27/00 7•?2 SCX227 B72 D
12R 89.4 i
�/25/0010:15. NWA1259 DC A 30R $$S
5/25/0010:14 NWA1259 DC9Q A 30R .. � 88.3 �
5/25/0010:13 NWA318 DC9Q A 30L ' 87.8
5/2�/0010:13 NWA318 . DC9Q A 30L 875 _
5/20/00 9:01 SCX791 B72 D 12R 85.6 '�
5/ 10/0� 17:15 UAL1103 B72 D 12R 85'3 t
5/29/001523 SCX748 B72 D 12R 851 j
5/3/00 21:19 NWA56 B742 D 12"�"� �S i
I
�
(RMT Site#23) . l
End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota He'�hts"
Date/Tur� Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
De arture _
5/3/0015:02 SCX743 B72 D 12L 100.7
5/5/00 �4a8 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 99.8
(._,) 5/11/00 7:40 SCX710 B72Q D 12L 99.4
5/19/00 9:38 SCX715 B72Q D 12L 99.4 _ .
5/27/0011:59 I�tW A 1841 B72 D 12L. 99.2
5/ 19/00 2Q:56 NW A 1273 B72 D 12L 99
5/29/00 7:26 SCX710 B72 D 12L 98.8
5/3l0018:45 NWA628 B72 D 12L 98.3
5/30/QO 12:2� NW A 1295 B72 D 12L 982
5/10l007:12 SCX710 B72Q D 12L . 98.1
(RMT S �e#24)
Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Ea�zn
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type AirivaU Runway Lzr�ax(dB)
De arture
`�,•. D 12L 92.6
5/7/0016•.2� UAL1103 B72
5/11/00 6:1� SCX537 B72 D 12R 92.5
5/20/00 9:(34 SCX409 B72 D 12R 92.2
�/ 10/00 9:48 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 91.5
5/1fa/0014:54 NWA564 A320 D 12R � 91 _
� 5/20J00 9:00 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 90.8
5/2J00 20:04 NW A377 B752 A 30R � 9fl.7
5/31/0018:39 SCX78� B72 D 12R 90.4
� 5/10/0021:29 NWA56 B742 D 12R �.3
I5!7/0014:47 SCX748 B72 D 12R 90.3
�
� )
I __ .
I� A Prcxluct of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
25
i
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'T'op Ten �.,oudest Aircraft Noise Events for li�iSP
N�Y-oo
(RMT Srte#25)
Moonshu�e Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Ea.gan
Date/Ture •Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lrnx(dB)
De
arture
� 5/17/0014:44 SCX571 B72 •D 12R 9p.5
5/17/0015:35 NWA523 Unlmown D � 12R 89.1
5/ 18J00 6:14 SCX4b3 B72 D : 12R ` 88.1
: 5/ 1'7/00 1333 NW A 1270 B72Q b 12R 87:7
5/ 17/00 20:43 SCX792 B72Q _ D 12R ' ` 85.8
_ 5/18/006:38 BMJ46 BF..80 D 12R - g5`,7 .. ,
5/16/00 7:43 UAL1217 B72 D 12R 85 '
5/17/00 15:2b _ SCX748 B72 D 12R ' 84J .
5/ 1/00 22:37 CTl'709 B72 D � 12R '. 845
` 5/27I00 9S3 UAL1519 B72 D 12R ' 84.4
(RMT S i�e#26)
6796 Arkansas Aye. W., Inver Grove Heights � .
Date/Tur� Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
" De arture
- - '
5/22/00 14:4b NW A 1241 A< 30R 935
5/24/d012:06 MES2948 SF34 A 30R 909
5/ 12J00 15:44 NW A 12b9 DC`9Q A' 30R 90.9 (.�
5/5/00 11:35 NWA 1271 B72Q D. 12L 9p.1 .,>
5/24/00 8:00 . NWA719 • B752 _ A 30L ' 89.7'
5/2J0015:35 ; HI:M664 B743 ' D ', 12R 89S
5/20/00 17:16.. SCX743 B72 .,; ;. D 12R 88S
57�8/00;15:55 DAL1624 B72 D 12R 88_4
S/ 19/00 12:14 NW A619 B72 D 12R '. . 88.1
5/21/00 9:53 UAL1519 ; B72Q D ' 12L : 879
(RMT Site#27) '
�� � Anthony Midd� School, 5757 Irving Ave: S., Minneapolis
Date/Titr�e Fligfit Nurnber Air�raft Type AmvaU Runway ` Lmax(dB),
,.,,c, De arture
5/23/00 9: i Z SCX715 B72 D 30L ' 9� 4
5/ I S/00 930 : SCX40'1 . B72 D :30L 96.1,
5/12I00 9:42 SCX407 B72 D _ 30R 95.3
5/ 13/00 1"7:19 SCX785 �, _ B72Q ; D 3pL gq, '_
5/23/00 10:02 UAL1519 B72Q D ' 30R 9'?9
: 5/12/0014:51 : DAL1731 B72Q � 30L 92.4
5/28/00 9:05 SCX409 : B72 D . 30L 92.4 `
5/9/00 9:00 SCX791 B72 D 30L ; 92:3
5/30/00 18:35 SGX785 B72 .: D 30L , 91,7
5/ 14/00 9:09 SCX4a9 _ B72 _ p _ 3pL _. 91.6 / _
\
�6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
i
Top �'en Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IVgSP
��v-oo
(I2M7' Si�e#28)
6645 16th Avenue S., Richfield ,
DateTr�' Flight Nurrber Aizcraft Type Anival/ Runway t�ax (dB)
De art�ue �
B� .p 3pL � 94
5H� 7:06 B `� 93.8 �
5J14,00 8:22 CQ399 B72 D 30L I
5/13A� 10:20 SIX902 B72 D 30L _ 93.3 I
524� 17;29 NWA1175 D 30L 909 �
5i9i00 7:02 B 56 BF.80 D 30L 90.8 I
D 3pL 90.5 �,
5,�A015:08 NtNA874 D �L 89.3 j
5i8A� 9:48 KHA49 L 25
D 12R 88.4
5/17i00 21:18 NWA819 � U�own 88.4
5/L4A� 656 B 4b BE.80 �
5/14A� 13:04 DAL1721 MD80 D 30L 87S ,
'�
(l2MT Site#29) �
- Fricsson Elerr�ntary School, 4315 31st Ave. S., M�neapolis _
I?atelr� Flight NuB-ber Aitcraft Type Amval/ Runway I.�nax (dB)
I� astum
� B� D ' 30R 91.6
5/?5A� 9:10 RYNi23 D �R - 90:9 ��
5/L4,C0 9:14 RYi�B23 B�
,_ 5/Z4A� 15:48 SOC741 B72 D 30R 90.7
� ) p � 3pR 89.6 � �
- 5lL4A� 9:4�3 NWA648 89.6
5/30,0018:54 SOC792 B72 D 30R
5�8A�7:27 SIX710 B72 D 30R 88.5
5/14A011:15 UAL576 B D 30R 88.4
523� 15:04 NWA414 D 30R �
5/13,0014:16 UAL1868 B D 30R 87.9
5/12,flp 22:pg NWA618 D 30R 87.6
May 2000 Remote Blfonitoring Tower Top Ten Surrimary
I The top #en noise e�nts and the e�nt ranges at each RMT for May 2000 were comprised of 91.4%
departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the Boeing 727 Hushed with 61.0%
� of the highest Lmax events. iVoie: Unknown flelds are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track
. , data. .
May 2000 Technical Advi�r Report Plotes
Moie: Missing FAA radar data foro.� days during the month of May 2000.
�
�
A Procluc[ of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS ProQram
. 27
. _�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repor[
Ana��sis of Aircraft �Toise Events - A.ircraft Lcin �l�A.
IViay 2000 (
Remote Monitoring Towers
Daie _,,: #1 #2 #3 #� #5 : #6 , . #7- #8 , :� #9 . : #10 ,#11 . #12 ;.#.13 � #14 #� �
I i9.4 6'J 6?.8 6�.� 70.� 93.6 66.4 ( 63.� 41.7 n!a ;i.2 37.8 I i6.7 j 66 59.5
' 6?.l 6?.1 6�.8 6�J 69 71.9 �3.i I 50.9 .3b.3 �b. i>3.S i0.� ! Er1J j 6�).; 6�.7
; �5.� 6?.9 65 I 6�.-� 6SJ 7?? 53.9 I j3.9 �8.6 6Z1 ij? �.6 E*�.1 i 68.-� 66.6
4 �7 �9.6 67.1 I Es�1�.7 7�? 7�.? 6Y9 6� 61.6 64.7 41.? =}fi.6) 60:3 ( 66.1 63.3
� i8.� 61 J 6�? I 6i.6 65.? 69.� ��J I 40.7 6�. i 68 n/a �:9 I 6L�) � 67.-� ; 6�
6 i8.� ;9.$ I E*�.; I 6i.� 6b.2 68.j n/a 39.8 595 6?.3 41.8 �k3.1 � 61.4 ( 67.3 63.5
7 i8.7 6?.9 6�.3 I 6�.3 7Q.2 70.8 60.9 Si.4 �O.i �2.� 36.b 4$ 61.? � 68.9 Cr�.B
4 61.? 63 66.9 I 66.8 7;:? 76J 67.8 67.4 � 4b.7 47.6 3�.� 37 39.3 I 6?.9 .�>.;
�
c) i�).2 60: i I C�.i I 67_l 73.6 76 70.1 67.8 j6.4 �8.8 4; 39.4 ( 38.9 I Cr4.8 4�
1O 6L9 62.8 67.5 I(r�.6 71.6. 7I 48.8 : i0 I 38.1 45.9 n/a 47.6 6�.9 ( 69.1 67.8
�
I1 61.6 E�.-� 67.8 I 66.8 73.3 7i.i 60.9 � 623 4j.7 i�.l 3y.9 4�:1 I 61.8 : 68 6,.9
I? 5�.-� 60.6 C�.9 67 7�.=� 76.6 70 67.2 50.2 41.8 4b.7 3i I 42.4 6i.� =�6.5
I 1; 56.9 SB.i 62 i 6�.� 72.7 73S 65.1 ( 6>.8 37.8 37.7 49J n/a 37.3 I 63.9 42.6
1-� 57.-� i9.i 61.9I 6�.9 69.9 73 E�6.2 6�3 31.1 n/a 38.7 n/a 47.2I6�.7 41.7
1; �y.b 63 E}1? 6i.? 72 73.1 63.2I61.2 40.8 4i3 41.7 37.8I60.9I6i:2 63.9
1 F� ; 9.9 6?.6 66 � 6�.7 71.2 69.4 43.9 37 49.4 47.3 47.4 41.2 I 63 68.9 6�1.9
I 17 6? 6�.� 67.4 I 6�.4 71.8 70.9 i?.3 42.? 46.1 i6.3 �1.� �3.6 63? (- 68.4 64
lti 6?.8 6�.1 67.1 � 65.4 70.8 70.6 �3 i 63.3 �3.6 6�.� 60? �3.9 61.3 69.� 62J
i [�) F�O.-� C�2.; 6i.8 I 6;.9 70:1 6�).7 j7.y �1.9 41:9 50 i 47.2 36.I 63.2 ( 68.9 64?
,
( �O ?S.fi i9.1 66.4I 6�.1 6�).l E�8.2 >2.S 39.1 ,7.1 �6.1 3=�.9 41 61.3I67.2 63.8
�
( � 1 ��.6 �i?? 6�.3 I 67.� 72.fi 76 C*�.-� 6i 3�.7 =t�.7 3i.1 37.5 �7.3 I 63.6 i7.i
�
�'- F�O.� 61.5 fr�.�) � 67.? 73._�. 77? Cx'i.7 ( F7.� i?.3 61 i?.1 �=}.6 I�0.1 I 68.; i2.1
! -'' -�7.;i �U.� 6_'.6 � fifi.! '?_�.�) 7�.�i ( Ck�i.I �ii.9 I 4�) ( i�.� �I.�) � I 46.4 � 6�.� 47.7
�-� �7.� (�1•9 I 6?.5 ': 6ti.1 7�.3 7�.7 6�� I fi6 >2.-� ( 59.-1 _�?.y _36.i I 47.1 � f*�.2 >i.5
�
. -'� ���.? I fil.? Fi6.-� � 67.� 7E�.1 I 7fi.� 7U.� I 67.i ! 5U? 6�.fi >�.E� 35.7 I 47.2 i 6�.> 4�).i
�'� I 61.� ( 6?.7 67.� i fi-�. i 7? 7O =16: � � i0.�i I �'_.�) I 60.� 5?? I 48 � 63.3 i 69? (}I.�
', ,� ��' I fi;.l ( 67.1 , f�� 7().ti fi�.� -��).�) ;7:1 ��?.3 61 I 56.2 �?.l � 5b.8 ' 6H.1 I E�.7
-':i �i.fi E�() C�-�.7 Fil.7 6�).? fi7.� i7.6 l i1.9 53.j i6.-� I-��.8 39? I 60.-� � 66.6 6?.6
�� ' ;
i.. `) �u I E�().F ( 6i.1 : 6?.3 68.7 6�. I a-6.6 I 34.� �Q.'? i?.6 ��)'.7 ��.=� ( 63 ; 65.7 6�?
� .�) f�(.� � fi.;.7 66.� '. 67.7 7� i�.3 Fh5.3 j 6-l.h �-�.6 6?.3 5-�.6 �4.3 � i6.� ! E*�.l >9.i
i �
il C�1.� (�?.l �(,�).(� 63.1 71.7 fi8.7 j_�,i; i4.; ( 51.8 6?.6 �-�.6 4fi.6 � 63.7 � 6�) I 6�.�
Ii��ic�.I.dn 6(}.l} ti2.1 �iS.� I61.3 73.ti Z3.� ti�.$ 62.7 ��;$ �9,7 �.1..?, �6.8 5�:fi�G7.:� 62:7
'� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro;ram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC> Technicai Advisor's Report
Analy�is of t�ircrai� Nc���e Events p�rcrafi Ld.n d�A
� � ,
Ii�ay 2000
Remote Monitoring Towers
�ate #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #�5 #�26 #27 #28 #29
� �
• 1 b9.� �?.-� 61.b � E�C?.� �F �Fi �S.? I 67.� ( Er�.? i9.7 �7.3 6i).-� � 61.�) �6.�
i
I 2 69.ti 60 �6J I��' 37.-� 61.� I�U.3 i 73. � 6�.� fi3.1 E�.7 �t).�) � f�i n/a �'
;
F8.7 >U.? i8.� �l �� ( =�5.-� �;�.� 60 I 73.6 6�J �9.? 6?.i ��,i I �y.i -�.5
i � 67.E� E�.�) 6�.-� �y �i.!i 5?.� 5�.6 � 70.F i 6i.ti �-�.3 �5.7 i E� ��:i;...-� �6.1 '
i E9? �7.1 6S.Y 61 41.6 ��u'.l �7.? I 7�._' E�.3 i9.6 E�.2 n/a (-K).9 i?
6 65.h �8.8 63.� 57? 4;.7 �9.1 i9 7?.? 63.7 �3.9 6?.6 3S3I46.-� n/a
7 70.6 �6.2 i82 ��.8 �1i.3 ji,? �7.8 I 7? 63.'3 �7.4 60.6 I 51.9 ( i6. i� 1?
� 8 68.i i7.1 �7.� i3 i,.6 39.7 �9.� !>-�.� � 6� �i.3 5;.6 61.6 Er1�.3 6i.�
i 9 68.�i .-'�.y I i I. i�6.7 . 45.1 -�7.-� �7.�3 j��? � 6� c) �7.7 �-�.7 6-�2 I 6�.6 E�.6
10 69. � EO.=t � 6�.� �7.9 36.9 .60.6 61 � 7-�.-� 66 ; I 62.3 63.8 50.4 ��.�L �5.1
� 11 7i.1 I i-�.l ��7.7 ji.�> �.7 �7.� ( 60.9 I 70J 6�.9 ( 63.6 ?8.9 I i6.9 I 61.6 �-�J
� t� 70.1 �y j9.� 60.� � 1.9 ��3.? 61. ���$.9 I 6�.8 �`�.2 Cr4.� 66.7 C�}.S Crl.�
� l� 6y ji.8 jj.6 ( 46.1 �6.3 3i.3 60.6 ��7.] I 63.�3 �}0.6 J2.6 6�.1 C�.b 63.?
. 1-� 68.h I h1.8 69.� 67.� �� �29 5�.7 i2.9 61.7 49 >3.7 �- 61.E� 63.7 61.3
__ � I l� 6�.1 ��fi.� I;t; 49 �.8 �8.? �9.� � 70.3 � C}t �8.i _58.6 I 6?.� 60.8 ��.7
� 1C� 71.-� �7.1 -�7.6 , 39.j i1.6 61.6 �9.6 + 7?.6 I 66.? 61.� 6'_.? 31.4 C�().l n/a
i 17 70.5 �7.6 �3.i 36.h n/.� �9.3 ;9.6 � 73.� C�.7 6>> 63 49 62.6 ��.�
I �
1� 7�.�1 6S 6�.-� >�.� �0.7 i9.? i9.� I nla 6�.6 6�.6 6i.1 �1.� 62.b �?.7
I�J 71.1 �;; { i9. t I-��i �) -� � 61 I fi 1.�1 ' 7-�.1 � 6�.8 ��).1 63.9 45.9 i�.-� n/a
' �() fi�).� Fi� 66.� I C�-�.1 ��) iS.� �7.7 ; 71.� � 6i.6 �6.9 6?.7 �?.3 i3.9 n/�
� � l Fi�) I�7.-� � 63.� ��3.�i 5?, t i:i. � ��).fi � fib.1 � 6j.� �9.h 61.3 I fi4.? ��� ?6.�
�, fiti.�! I�O.:1 ��i;,; i��.i -��.�J �`'.�J ifi.l 1; C�l.fi ! Cr�.3 i i ii.4 6�.i I 61.9 60.8
?� ;().� � �;,f, � i;.5 j -�fi.�l �-�:� � -I-�.? ���.-1 , fi3.1 j 6�.1 ��) i� ( 6i,i 63 6?.-}
'-� � fiti.l 6�.�1 I C�().l i i;.4 I�_'.� -tb.�) fil.fi ', 6�.� ' 6i.7 -�9.3 �?.1 6� 6�.� C�.9
.,-. _
�� I fi7.l j i�.5 � E?-� I jU.�) -���.1 I-1�1.� (�t).S ' S7.y : 6?.�1 �.� I�?.4 � 66.�) I fi-�.fi 61.�
� � , � -, � I51.�) i9.? nla
?� I 7?.� �?.? � 6�.�� �-� �.;, nLa � N).-t E� 1. � 7_.f� , 6�.7 63.6 F,-�.1
� i ( 7(). s I f�.� i(� X: S I- a- t � 7.�) I i;..} ii.? : 6�) i 63.7 i S5 iK.'_ .�=1.4 I f�().�> I n/s
I
�;i i 7U.; fi;.l ':, i�1.? � 35 ;h.7 ( i� ii.(i : 71.-} � 6i.3 5.:�,? i9 i3.�) � i7.1 �?.7
��� j(,��.-1 I nl.;i � fil.� j-'.fi.l �ti.(� I�5.� i� � 7� i'i 6�.3 �i.5 fil.? I n/a I i-�.�) 3�.F�
, i
.�() fi5.� � n�.h; E�().� ���.7 I 5'_.-� !-��1.� I�7.1 ' E�}i '. 61.i 5i.i i?.7 � 61.5 { 6?.fi I?6.7
�
il j?� �!-fi,; � 63.�� � il,� -��),l �(�O.� ��).fi 7-1.? ' 6�.9 ( t6l fil !=1�.� I Fil.? I��.5
( ���I�►. Iltln �7i1.1 Gt).� 62.5 �'7.l �t).8 37.3 ��1.3�7Q.:i �i�:6 5�.3 6O.6 fi�1.� 6i.2 :+$.l
i
A Prc�uct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram �9
� � n
� r � ;
� j r�� ��� � ,,
,i; y .f k�r �
1ti-., ' -� �. �} �1�'- ::/.� i 't �: �1 � . t:.. ��„ i a �_ e�,' c' �r ��� ,��
s �, r "��� �,
�
F �` .y,! �� �.. it nt
-:'-a�T-
�
I
C
tVIetropoti[an t-lirports Commission
�� ��a��/�) ��.a����v ���, ��� �.�i� ���°�r��r ��e;t �c����t���°�e ����°������ �v��°�
i����� �� ��i� ���� ���°�°n�i��° �����.��y ��ru�� I��� 2���
.� z � -�' / -
, �
,4 ���'
:, i__. ., �. � _ , :
A Y I I
.. �." �; . '.j . . . �, � � :i� �' .i�.
` � c
_ : ,; , ,a .;` .. �
;� .. . ;
_ , ....:,., - - � .. orridon:, , ¢0..4. .4�p q o'� `
. � . .
� � %� � . ` �1
. . .. � - � .. - ` �� t�-' � i �i ' . G-Q � � � . ka. i �
� - . _ . _ i .7 �-�
. �. 'P' r :�� � � � . � 4
_ ,. �
i �t . -;
� . � i � ;.;- � - ��, �. __,� � .. t.
. . .. 7� ! �}'� ':, t � ' � �. � � �.
�
� ���• ' � �� . � � I _ . . � G
-- � : a 1° �°
o; a
- .- d ,
-�n - �
; � � _.
: , ;, ' ,y�, 4 �� q _:
e : o
. / . � �v 4 �o . --- , � �
a , .�_
-- �Q Z� �:
z rn,t�e p
��
Page 2
�
� � � —
.. �
. , ... i:_o ����„ � _o , . ._.
PUlia�neapolss—S�. P�anal
Per�etratooe� Ga�� Plot fi�r Ga�e tdorth_Cmrcadar
tD5/0�/�a00 OO:OO:i10 — O6/0�/200� 00:9�m:00
C9 �'��c�� ��ms��� ����: Le� = 20 (29.0%), �ig6�� = 49 (73.t3%)
� f0��
a� • • .
� ' • •
� SS��� ................ : ............... : ................ : ................
o . • •
� 41��1� ....... . ... : ......... ... ; ................ .. . ........:. I
°� • ' ' I
� 30�0 ..... .. . .....................�.... �.............. i
o ; I
� 25��� , . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . Q �� �� � � . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,� � �� � �O
> � i��� . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . �:C:-'. .:u � j�!�� . ��� `:`:'. . . . , . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,�° • : : ' �
� p
—� —�1 � � �
(Runway End} �!e�aa�omt� IF�rs�7� c��,�$�� m� ���� (;�,��ga�al u°l�a92��omdor �nd) �
�a
� �1Prov�a �� �D���Pi�a�� � �v�r��9g�3 �
Nlonthly Eagan iNtendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Metropotitan Airports Commission
5�. (Oe���) Ru�w�y 12I, �n�. ��� ��r�°�e�° J�� De�a��ure Ope�atio�� w��°� -
�� Soa��� �f the �orrf��r (5� Sout� of 3�I, I.oc�.lfl�er)1)urin� I�I�y 2000 �
Pa�e 4
r.
r
(»'�" .
G%;�\.
.��
R � ; ��
:,
i � � `�
•. ._ � ,i
/ ` %Lar� c .
��: �'����� \ ,,,,,,, �
�'- � '�t.�i` •� � . �: ' �
�fi�=:�t. ► • � I
.��!'�k;�t `i
.1.. :«. ,
. ���� .; �\
•I ��-�t� �
,�%1 �\..
�/I���j� �'\\��.
� �,'j 1,��'�i�� i� 1`t :��
� I /`�l/� �'j1►��; !� �'' ' �� -
�� �%��);} �.�`
�° �/!� � � � --
.
.--=--� �;,� d�►' ��� �
;r/� ./ - �,� it. �-� , _ � �/
�
�
� �����%� / ��� "� � �•{. :: . �, ��
�/�Cl/!=., J� � � '^'s� � L 'S �
; -� :� �
� I � �,
I � .` A,\� v; �
�'�
,
��
r:�
, ._
l
`�;.)
IUiinneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gat� South_Corridor_5deg
05/01 /2000 OO:OO:pO - 06/01 /2000 OO:OO:OU
5'f Tracks Crossed Ga#e: Left - 23 (45.'t°/4), Righi - 28 (.s4.9%)
� 6000
a�
� V 5000 . ............. : .... .. ... : . ...... .......... .
o : : . :
c4000 ................ : .... ....,.. ........... . : ..... ........
� • •
a� .
W3000 .... .............................:............. . ............. .
o � : O O � :
°- 2000 ..............�,.� ....... .G ... ; .......... .,........ ...
a � �o :�,�: o
> 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r: , .� 5�c� . . . . . . . . . . .
� p �
� p
-2 —1 0 1 2
(Corridor End) p�yiat�ora Fet��'a C��t�¢' 07� ���� (�lautical Mi���Y Mid-Point)i
-F- A�rivai � �9ep�rtuP� ❑ _ Ove�elig6�i
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
�
1Yletropolitan Airports Commission
,; � ��; :�; ,�;
�� ° � � _, . ��. ��'� ,� • :�: ,� . �. • r,�;i y� '. I � ' �. i ! � e�4 I � .�! �,
: `�` '�� �: ���..
Monthly Eagan/Nlendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Page 5
o°
,.�... �'�1' �,�
� �
��
� .,� /
i�lefiro�c��i$a� Aircra� 5��nd Abater���� uncil (�ASAC)
6040 28th Avenue South @ Minneapoiis, Minnesota 55450 �(612) 726-8141
I. )
Chairman: Mayor Charles Me�tensotto
Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990
• Jan Del Caizo, 1979-1982
Staniey W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor: Chad Leqve
�lIEETING NOiICE
�ASAC OPERATIONS COIi�IVi1Ti'EE
The Operations Committee will meet Friday, Mav "12, 2000 — 10:30 a.m, in the Large
Canstruction Trailer, 6040 28t" Avenue South.
If you are unable to attend, piease notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name
of your designated alternate.
, i�; i.
i �
1. Roll caii
2. Approval of the May 1, 2000 Minutes
Old Business
Potentiai Land Use Measures
Recommended NADPs
Review Fiight Track Alternatives
Lunch
Review Runway Use System Alternatives
Other items Not on the Agenda
Adjournment ,
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION �
Chairman John Nelson
Bob Johnson, MBAA
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Brian Bates, Airborne
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Neights
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
10:30
10:35
10:50
11:15
11:30
12:15
12:45
1:45
2:00
Advisorv:
Chad l.eqve, MAC
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
Keith Thompson, FAA
Jason Giesen, MAC
Shane VanderVoort, MAC
Glenn Orcutt, FAA
Steve Vecchi, MAC
Mark Ryan, MAC
cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield
Tom Lawell, Apple Valiey
Tom Hansen, Burnsville
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis
, ` � ,, �; � �; ,, , '.
� t , ,� �' ''r
��s1��
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Potential Part 150 Land Use Measures
May 5, 2000
At the last Operations Committee meeting, the members requested additional information concerning
some of the proposed land use measures that were briefed. HNTB will provide samples of these land use
measures, and briefly describe for the committee the specific details for review. These items will be carried
forward to the June Operations Committee meeting for further discussion.
Action Rec�uested
Information item only, no action requested.
�
�
o�
�
L I : ,,' � � � .' ,,' ;
�
C- '-` �`
S�.T�.TECT':
,' ::• �" �''� r
���� .: ., . -
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fu:hrniann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Recommended Part 150 Pro�am Measures
D.c�'I'E: May 5, 2000
I�toise Abatement Departure Profiles
One of the noise abatement measures of the MSP Part 150 Update is the selection of a noise abatement
departure profile for each runway end. As many will recall, in 1994 and 1995, MASAC recommended to
MAC the implementation ofNoise Abatement Departure Profiles at MSP.
The evaluation analyzed the population impacts within the DNL 65 noise contour. Since the close-in noise
- abatement departure profile typically benefits residents in close proximity to the airport and the distant
�. ,� noise abatement departure profile benefits residents living further from the airport, MASAC recommended
the close-in profile for runways 30L and 30R, and the distant profile for runways 12L, 12R, 04 and 22.
At the April 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting, HNTB presented impact analyses ofthe close-in and
distant departure procedures for runways 30L, 30R, 04 and 22. This same type of analysis had already been
completed as part of the Part 150 Update for runways 12L, 12R and 17 at previous Operations Committee
and Runway 17/35 City meetings. Based on the analyses, noise impacts for all communities are
minimized by using the distant departure profile. Because MAC and communities are seeking FAA
approval for sound insulation of homes and mitigation measures within the forecasted DNL 60 noise
contour, the analyses were based on impacts within the 2005 DNL 60 noise contour.
As a result of these NADP analyses, the MASAC Operations Committee and MASAC recommended the
use of the Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile for all runway ends at MSP. This recommendation
will be carried forward to the Public Meetings.
Fliaht Track Alternatives
Communities afFected by aircraft operat'rons from runway 17/35 have been meeting to discuss various
flight track alternatives associated with the new runway. The Final Environmental Impact Statement
identified seven departure tracks and one arrival track for runway 17/35. These tracks were defned by
FAA during the EIS process to develop modeling scenarios for impact analysis.
Although the FEIS modeled specific flight tracks, the departure procedures and methodology consisted of
a complete fanning of the departure operations. Since the existing land use south of the airport is
'_� comprised of residential, commercial and natural open areas, there may be opporiunities to make zninor
adjustments to the flight tracks that will help to minimize noise impacts associated with these departure
operations by taking advantage of less pooulated areas.
The communities affected by these operations have met several times to discuss potential modifications to
the EIS tracks. All communities are working to minimize the impacts of aircraft overflights for their
communities. HNTB is finalizing the simplified flight track alternatives for these operations and will
present the consultants recommendation at the May12, 2000, Operations Committee meeting.
As a result of these track analyses, the consultant will present the recommended combination of flight track
alternatives. This recommendation will be carried forward to the Public Meetings
Runwav Use
Runway use selection is basically a function of air traffic volume and wind conditions, which may reduce
opportunities to significantly change runway use - even with the new runway. Capacity requirements drive
runway use during daytime hours. RUS alternatives are less viable during high demand times with
increased options during mid to low demand hours, when weather conditions allow.
The EIS runway use assumptions were used during the high capacity demand time periods. Additional
fifteen minute� intervaI analysis was conducted to determine runway configurations that minimize noise
impacts. The EIS assumed the following priorities for departure operations: Runways 12L, 12R, 17,
balanced use of Runway 4/22, and Runway 30L, 30R. Arrival Qperations were placed in the following
priority; Runway 30L, 30R, 35, balanced use of Runway 4/22 and then Runways 12L, 12R.
Additional analysis durin� mid to low capacity demand was considered during the 11:00 P.M. to midnight
and 6:00 to 7:00 A.M. time periods, weekends and nighttime hours. _ During these time frames,
opportunities exist to shifi operations to runways that minimize the noise impacts for the most highly
populated areas.
HNTB is finalizing the Runway Use Altematives and will present the recommended combination of
runway priorities that minimize noise impacts and are consistent with the FEIS assumptions. These
recommendations will be presented at the May 12, 2000, Operations Committee meeting and carried
forward to the Public Meetings.
I:\topgunlhame\Yt ASAC\OpsCommittee\may 12-00-ops.&n
i'
� • ; s ti �
May 2, 2000
Roy Fuhrrnann, Manager
Aviation Noise and Satellites Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28`�' Avenue South
Misineapolis, MN 55450 "J
PATRICIA E. AWADA
Mayor
PAULBAKKEN
BEA BLOMQUIST
PEGGY A. CARLSON
SANDRA A. MASIN
Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Administrator
E. J. VAN OVERBEKE
City Cierk
At its meeting on April 18, 2000, the Eagan City Council approved a position statement
regarding the inclusion of multi-family r�sidential structures in the prioritization of the Part 150
residential sound insulation program.
The City of Eagan recommends that individual communities may allocate Metropolitan Airports
Commission Part 150 sound insulation funds to insulate multi-family dwellings as long as the
mu�ti-faznily units are not counted when apportioning residential sound insulation funds to each
community.
This allocation recommendation may be an issue that is more appropriately addressed at the Part
150 Policy Advisory Committee. For the purposes of the Part 150 update currently being
conducted, the Ciiy of Eagan favors prioritization of single-family residential units in the sound
insulation program to 60 DNL unless multi-family insulation can be conducted without adversely
impacting the funding or timely participation of single-family homes.
Sincerely,
_ .�---- a�%}-�''�—' <-7 y-----.
�ames D. Verbrugge
Assistant City Administrator
Copy: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator
Steve Vecchi, Metropolitan Airports Commission
MUNICIPAL CEN?ER
3830 PILOT KI�10B ROAD
EAGAN, MI(�1NE50TA 55122-1897
PHONE: (651) 681-4600
FAX: (651) 681-4612
mD�(6511a5d-8535
THE LO(�lE OAK TREE
THE SYMBOI OF STREfJGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUf�IITY
Equal Opporfunity Employer
MAINTENANCE FACILlTY
3�01 COACHMAN POINT
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE: (657) 681-4300
FAX: (657 ) 681-4360
TDD: (b51) 454-8535
cifiy of
bloomington, minnesota
2215 West Oid Shakopee Road • Bioomington MN 55431-309b • 612-948-8780 • FP,X: 612-948-8754 • TIY: 612-948-8740
Gene L. Winstead
Mayor
1VIay 3, 2000
Roy Ft�lirmann
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, NIN 55450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann,
Mark Bernhardson
City lvianager
This letter reports the Bloomington City Council's preferences related to the Part 150
Revision alternatives presented to the Council on Monday; Nlay 1. Thank you for
attendin� this meetin� and answering our questions.
ISSUE• UsinQ A Separate Fli�ht Track for Turbo Prop Aircraft.
( � FAA Tower has suggested usin� a departure track "outside the fan" for turbo prop
- comnzercial aircraft and propeller driven general aviation traffic. Based on initial
analysis by IVIAC, it appears that tlus procedure would have minimal noise impact on
Bloomin�ton residents providinc that, as described in the EIS, less than 20% of all i�.irbo
prop departures from the airport utilize this track. The City Council understands that this
procedure tivould improve the operation of the resulting departure fan and also would
improve the abiliiy to implement a Minnesota River departure procedure. If a separate
turbo prop departure track will facilitate jet aircraft operational measures which reduce
noise impacts on Bloomington residents, the City of Bloomin�ton can support departl.ires
of turbo prop and general aviation prop traffic which t�irn over the City of Blooming-ton.
ISSUE• Runw�v 17 Departi.ire Tracks
��"� Pending receipt of final noise impact analysis, the City of Bloomin;ton supports the
altei�zative described as "eliminate Tracks G and F and add a 230 or 21 � deQree headin�
track." This is consistent with the City's tivritten comments on the EIS and �vitl7 ol�r stated
�oal of minimizinQ the nl�mber of homes and residents within the DNL 60 contour.
ISSU�• River Departure Procedure
The City of Bloomington supports developin� a river depai-�ure procedure bec�.use it
minimizes noise impacts on residential areas and is a point of agreement among cities
i j affected by runway 17 departtires.
An A�rrnotive -ActioNEquoi Opportunities Employer
Roy Fuhrmann
May 3, 2000
Page 2
ISStTE: F1eet Mix
The noise exposure maps SIlOW1Il� the benefit of eliminating or restricting hush-kit
aircraft illustrate the dramatic benefits which could be achieved by restrictions or phasing
the hush-kit aircraft out of the fleet miY. The City of Bloomington supports and
encourages efforts by MAC's Board and EYecutive Director to find ways to implement a
fleet mix solution. However, the City of Bloominb on's position for Part 150 is that there
must be a demonstrated ability to achieve any voluntary fleet mix program before it is
incorporated in the Part 150 contours.
Thanlc you for your consideration in clearly presenting these alternatives and their
impacts. Any questions can be directed to Larry Lee, Director of Community
Developm.ent at 952/948-8947. .
Mayor �
/c
cc: Coral Houle, MAC Commissioner
Jeff Hamiel, NIAC
l
UN�.PP�Z.OVEDIVYINI7TES
1VIASAC OPE�.ZATIONS CONINII'I'T'EE
1VIay l, 2Q00
The rrieeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Cominission and
called to order at 10:30 a.m.
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. `I'he following members were in
attendance:
Members•
7ohn Nelson, Interim Chair
Dick Saunders
Bob Johnson
Nlary Loeffelholz
Kevin Batchelder
Jarnie Verbrugge
Roy Fuhrmann
Advisorv•
Chad Leqve
Jason Giesen
Mark Ryan
Mark Kill
Cindy Greene
Visitors•
Mike Mahoney
Kim Hughes
Pete
Tom Lawell
Andy Peterson
Will Eginton
Jennifer Sayre
Pam Dymtrenko
Jan DelCalzo
Bloomington
Minneapolis
MBAA
NWA
Mendota Hei�hts
Eagan
N1AC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
FAA
NWA
HNTB
HTtTB
Apple Valley
Apple Valley
Inver Grove Heights
NWA
Richfield
City of Minneapolis
AGEI�II)A
Receipt of Communications
Chairman Nelson aclrnowledged receipt of three letters: -
� A letter from Nlayor Gene Winstead of Bloominb on regardin� the city's recommendations for
sound insulation priorities. �
A letter from Mayor Elizabeth Kautz of Bumsville expressing the city's position regarding nuiway
17/35's departure fan area.
A letter from Steve Hughes, Chairperson of the Airport Noise Abatement Commission of Inver
Grove Heights, regarding its position on the runway 17/35 departure fan area, the sound insulation
priorities and the distribution of the Technical Advisor's Report.
Approval of Nlinutes
The minutes of the April 14, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed with the following changes:
• Jennifer Sayre, NWA, was present at the April 14, 2000 meeting.
• The minutes should have been distributed as unapproved rather than approved.
• On page 8, para�aph 7, Roy Fuhrmann should be designated as from MAC rather than from NWA.
• On page 10, Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, abstained from the vote on the first motion on that page. The
second to the last line should read, "The vote was carried on a voice vote with Mary Loeffelholz,
N WA, abstaining." . . _
Arrival Impacts for Runway 35
Shane VanderVoort, MAC Advisor, briefed the members on the Runway 35 Arrival Impacts analysis.
Impacts were assessed for the cities of Bloomington, Apple Valley, Burnsville and Eagan using existing
arrival operations on runway 12R.
Bloomington
North, south and east gates were constructed to simulate Bloomington's boundaries. These gates were �<
placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the new north/south runway.
The east boundary showed that an aircraft would be at an average arrival altitude of 500 feet above
ground level as an aircraft completes its final approach to zunway 35.
Bur�asville
North, south, east and west gates were constructed to simulate Burnsville's boundaries. These gates
were placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the netiv north/south runway.
The arrivals on runtivay 35 will affect the extreme northeast corner of Burnsville where altitudes �vill be
approximately 1,000 feet above ground level.
Depending on how the parallel runways are being used for arrivals, Burnsville will experience some
downwind arrival traffic. This traffic would be from either the east or west of the city:
Traffic entering the south boundary would be beginning to line up for final approach and tivould be at an
altitude of 4,000 to 6,000 feet above ground level.
Apple Valley
A north and south �ate were constructed to simulate Apple Valley's north and south boundaries. The
gates were placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the ne�v nortll/south
runway.
C
�a
The analysis shows �that arriving aircraft will enter the city's south boundary to the east of its centerline at
an average altitude of approximately 2000 to 4000 feet AGL. The average altitude of these aircraft at the
northern boundary will be appro�ma.tely 2000 feet.
Eagan
West, northwest and south gates were constructed to simulate Eagan's boundaries. The gates were
placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the ne�v north/south nuiway.
The average altitude of arriving aircraft entering Eagan's south boundary would be approximately 2000
feet AGL.
The analysis shows that arriving aircraft will enter Eagan's south boundary to the west of its centerline
and proceed along the westem edge of the city. Arriving aircraft will then depart the city's northwest
boundary at an altitude of approximately 1000 feet AGL.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if a similar analysis had been done for departures off runway
17. Shane Vandervoort, MAC Advisor, said a departure analysis for runway 17 using one of the other
run�vays would not yield credible results. He said an arrival analysis can be considered credible because
arrivals always use a straight in approach.
Fleet iVIix Alternatives
Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the members on the possible fleet mix alternatives for the Part 150 Update.
__.
� � • Changes to the fleet mix will necessarily be implemented through a voluntary pro�am. A voluntary
pro�am is best since mandatory requirements would r-equire application of a Part 161 Study, which
would slow the Part 150 process, and would allow immediate implementation.
• A voluntary prograrn also necessitates thorough coordination with the primary carrier at MSP. Staff
and consultants have been worldng with the priznary carrier to determine viable hushlcit/nighttime
operational reductions. .
e Coordination tivith the primary carrier is important so that the recommended program reflects
achievable reductions in hushlat and/or nighttime operations.
m The fleet mi� voluntary program analysis will include different levels of compliance in order to
determine how these levels of compliance would affect the Part 150 contours.
For benchmar�n� purposes and in response to community scoping comments, DNL contours have been
developed for:
l. No hushlat aircraft in 2005
2. No hushkit aircraft operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. in 2005
The no hushkit aircraft in 2005 contour shows a reduction of approximately 32,000 people from the
200� unmitigated contour. The no hushkit aircraft operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. contour shows
a reduction of approximately 21,000 people from the 2005 unmitigated contour.
Ms. Hughes noted, hotivever, that neither of these alternatives is viable given the level of hushkit
�C3
operations and aircraft in the fleet mix at MSP.
Ms. Hughes went on to say that the fleet mix alternatives will ultimately consider incentives/disbenefits
for complying or not complying with the proposed voluntary program, and that these alternatives will not
be part of the recommended program presented to the public at the May workshops.
Chairman Nelson asked if the consultants were working with the primary nighttime carriers. Ms.
Hughes said they have not yet engaged these carriers in a dialogue but that they would soon.
Mike Mahoney, NWA, then briefed the members on how Northwest Airlines views changes to the fleet
mix. He said deteimining what can be done to reduce the number of hush kit operations at night is a
three-phased process for Northwest .Airlines:
1. Detennine what impact a change in nighttime hushkit operations would have on the noise contour.
2. Determ�ine the cost of implementing the proposed changes.
3. Deterniine whether the airline could operationally implement the changes.
Mr. Mahoney said that Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, is worldng closely with HNTB on deterr„in;ng tlze
impacts and noted that for fiscal and manufacturing reasons there would be no way for Northwest
Airlines to elimulate all of their hushldt aircraft by 2005.
Mr. Mahoney then explained why it would be difficult for Northwest Airlines to eliminate hushlat
aircraft from the 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. timeframe. He said many passengers rely on connections out of MSP
_to the east coast before 7 a.m. Northwest is, however, looking at individual flights to determine whether
a change from a 100-seat DC9 aircraft to another larger or smaller aircraft (non-hushldt) would make (
sense. He said realistically between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Northwest will have to operate some
hushkit aircraft.
Mr. Mahoney said he believes there is more opportunity for success in this area during the evening
hours. He said Northwest is looking at compressing its schedule in order to have most, but not all, of its
hushkit aircraft depart before 10:00 p.m. He said the company will be relying on the increased capacity
of the airfield afforded by the new runway.
Ivlr. Mahoney said Jennifer Sayre, NWA, is currently working on detei�nining how Northwest could
change its scheduling while he is working to determine how it might work operationally.
Mr. Mahoney said it is very important that NWA presents to MA.SAC a realistic expectation as to what
can be accomplished in this regard.
Mr. Mahoney also addressed some of the hidden costs associated with malang these types of changes.
He said there is the potential with some of these alternatives for an increase in labor costs (if the
schedule were to be compressed) and the loss of passenger revenue (if the size of aircraft were to
change).
Mr. Mahoney summed up his comments saying that Northwest A.irlines' top management tivants to make
this happen, that he believes the airline can offer quality improvements in the morning and substantive
changes in the evening, and that the airline will continue to work both internally and with IVL�,.0 on
; developing a voluntary program that will work.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if Northwest Airlines was suggesting that the nighttime hours be
changed from 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Mike Mahoney, NWA, said that he was not suggesting this
change but was working witivn the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. timeframe because that is what the Integrated
Noise Model (JNM) uses as nighttime hours.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he was glad to hear that Northwest Airlines is willing to work
with MASAC on the fleet mix issue but said he did not have much sympathy for the airline's concerns
since the airline had adamantly supported having the airport stay at its present site.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he was glad that Northwest Airlines has shown a willuigness
to work with MA.SAC on this issue because it is very important to the communities. He also asked Mr.
Mahoney to clarify how changing the the number of seats available for early moming flights would
benefit the communities. Mr. Mahoney explained that a larger aircraft (150 seats) such as the A320 or a
smaller aircraft (69 seats) such as the RJ85, both non-hushed aircraft, could possibly be substituted for
the DC-9 hushed (100 seats) aircrai�.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if the DC-9 hushed aircraft Mr. Mahoney referred to were for
arrivals rather than departures. Mr. Mahoney said this was correct.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked Mr. Mahoney whether a compression of the schedule or a change in the
aircraft type being scheduled was easier for the airline. Mr. Mahoney �said the compression of the
- schedule would pose less problems and would be more cost effective for the airline.
( ) Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if the agreements Northwest Airlines had with its pilots influenced the
type of aircraft that could be flown in the morning. Mr. Mahoney said the pilot agxeements would not
influence this decision. '
Dick Saunders, Ivlinneapolis, asked Kim Hughes, HN'TB, if the fleet mix being used for the Part 150
Update accounted for new carrier entries. Ms. Hughes said the fleet mix for Northwest Airlines is now
set. Roy Fulirrnann, MAC, said that there is some consideration for new service incorporated into the
fleet mix being used for the Part 150 Update, hotivever modeling of exact infozination for new entrants is
not possible.
Low-Demand Flight Track Alternatives
Kim Hughes, HNTB, presented the members with information about preferred low-demand (either night
�,..., or day) flighi tracks. She noted that the goal of the analysis was to deternune the flight track priorities
and procedures for use by ATC, which would minimize the impacted population, for use in low-deman
periods.
Ms. Hughes said in order to deterniine the best low-deznand flight tracks for each run�vay the consultants
used DC9 hushkit 90 dBA SEL contours to measure impact. She also noted that the analysis took into
consideration that flight track priorities cannot severely detour aircraft from their destination (a
northbound departuze cannot be assigned to a southbound flight track). .
Ms. Hu�hes also noted that the recommended flight tracks are intended to give ATC b idance on
� j
0
selection of appropriate flight tracks during low demand periods that will impact the fewest people. �
However, there will be deviations from these recommended flight tracks due to safety, aircraft
performance, pilot compliance, weather and traffic conflicts.
Ms. Hughes then presented the recommended flight tracks for each runway end.
Racnway 04
• Use of runway 04 for deparlures will be minimal in 2005.
• A departure track of 355° was recommended in order to keep aircraft over the river basin as much as
possible.
Recommendation:
• When practical, ATC will assign headings that roughly overfly the river basin (appro�mately 355°
true/353° magnetic). Yet, precise navigation of this route is not possible without external navigation
to aid the pilot. Therefore a deparlure procedure (DP) that overflies the river basin for use by non-
heavy and high-performance aircra$ should be developed and implemented.
Runway 22
•�Use of nuiway 22 for departures will be minimal in 2005.
a Heavy, international flights that require greater takeoff distance are the most frequent users of
runway 22.
Recommendation:
s Develop and implement two departure procedures, a west DP and a south DP.
• West DP - Flight track over the I494 Highway Corridor for use by west-bound and northbound
traffic.
• South DP - Flight track with a tiun prior to Cedar Avenue and then another turn to the southwest i�
over the river for use by west-bound and south-bound traffic.
Rzcnway 12L and 12R
• Use of the existing Crossing in the Corridor Procedure impacts the fewest people.
Recommendation:
• Confiinue use of the Crossing in the Corridor procedure.
o Investigate use of future technology to optimize flight track location and further minimize fhe
impacted population.
Rzcnway 30L and 30R
• Due to the heavy population density in this area, designation of specific, preferred fli�ht tracks does
not provide substantial benefits.
• Designation of specific flight tracks for use during low-demand periods would concentrate flights on
seleet tracks and would thus disproportionately impact the same people.
Recommendafiion:
o Continue the esisting procedure of dispersing departure traffic away from the runway centerline
flight track to avoid concentrating both amval and departure traffic on the same flight track.
• Investigate a DP that overflies Trunlc Highway 62.
Rz�nyvay 17 �
� A river deparh�re impacts the fewest people, but this route may not be viable in the short-term.
� The existing flight tracks that mostly avoid Bloomington and Eagan impact the fewest people and
�vill be available when runway 17 opens. .
Recommendation:
0
• Disperse departui'e traffic away from centerline flight track to avoid concentrating arrival and
departure traffic. .
• East-bound de artures use a 095° heading
P
• South-bound departures use a 160° heading
e West-bound departures use a 185° heading
+ Investigate use of a river DP for use by west-bound departures
Summary
• Development of some of the DPs will require the use of FMS/GPS technology.
• Coordination with the FA.A will be required to determine feasibility and implementation. .
e New technology analysis currently underway will consider integration of these technologies at MSP
for inclusion within the Part 150 Update recommendations.
Ms. Hughes also gave an update on the status of the Runway Use System analysis. She said that the
analysis has-been slowed due to the lack of a consensus on the runway 17 departure track alternatives,
but that coordination with ATC regarding the RUS continues.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how many flights per day would be affected by the "prefened" departure
procedures. Kim Hughes, HNIB, said it would be impossible to determine and thus will not be included
in the Part 150 Update as a mitigation measure
Roy Fuhrnzann, MAC, asked Mike Mahoney, NWA, if he lrnew the status of GPS avionics equipment
implementation for the airline's fleet. Mr. Mahoney said he did not lrnow whether or not the newly
purchased aircraft would be equipped with GPS equipment, but that he could find that information out.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, expressed a preference for using the crossing in the corridor
procedure in the Corridor versus the use of a head to head procedure.
KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS,
NIINI�tEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOlYIlVIENDATION FOR THE
PREFERRED LOW-DEMAl�tD DEPARTITRE FLIGHT TRACK�S FOR RUNWAYS 30L130R,
12L/12R, 04, � 22 AND TO FORWAR.D THIS RECOMN�NDATION TO THE F'[TLL
NIA.SAC BODY FOR ITS CONSENT. THE VOTE CA.RRIED Ol�t A VOICE VOTE.
Action was defened on the runway 17 preferred low-demand departure tracks until the May 12, 2000
meeting.
Part 150 Land Use Measures
Pete Rothfuss, HNI'B, reviewed the current Part 150 Land Use Measures and recommended the ad it�on
of several more. Mr. Rothfuss also reviewed some of the changes that have taken place since 1992
affecting the land use measures.
0 The existinj noise compatibility program (NCP) consists of 14 noise abatement measures and 8 land
use measures.
e The Noise Exposure Map affects the following cities: Bloominb on, Eagan, Mendota Heights,
Minneapolis and Richfield.
0 The land use measures can be categorized as preventive or corrective measures. A preventive
7
measure is designed to restrict new development not compatible with aircraft noise (currently 5 �
measures). A conective measure is intended to alleviate andJor eliminate incompatible land uses in
e:cisting developed areas (currently 3 measures).
Mr. Rothfuss then reviewed the exisfiing eight land use measures and their status, noting that one through
five are preventive and six through eight are corrective. The eight existing land use measures are as
follows:
Existing Land Zlse A�feasures
LU1 -Amend local land use plans to bring them into conformance with Metropolitan Council's Noise
Compatibility Guidelines.
LU2 - Zone for compatible development.
LU3 - Apply zoning performance standards.
LU4 - Establish a public information program. �
LUS - Revise building codes.
LU6 - Acquire developed property in incompatible use.
LU7 - Property purchase guarantee.
LU8 - Part 150 Sound Insulation Program.
Changes in Land Use Polzcies
l. MA.C/Community commitrnent to apply mitigation measures below the DNL 651eve1.
2. FAA's policy not to approve remedial noise mitigation measures for new incompatible development
that occurs in the vicinity of airports.
In order for the FAA to approve mitigation below the 65 DNL level three criteria must be met:
l. The airport operator must adopt an NCP designation of incompatibility different from Table 1 in
FAR. Part 150.
2. The NEM contours and NEMINCP narrative must identify the area below the 65DNL level as
incompatible and propose mitigation.
3. The mitigafiion proposal must meet the FAR Part 150 standard to reduce or prevent incompatible
land uses.
The new FAA policy states that after October 1, 1998, the FA.A will ONLY approve measures under the
Part 1 � 0 that:
1. are corrective mitiQation for existing incompatible development _
2. are preventive miti�ation in areas of potential new incompatible development. This could include
areas currently underQoing residential or other incompatible construction, areas zoned for residential ,
l
0
or other incompatible use where construction has not begun, oz areas currently compatible but in
danger of being developed incompatibly within the time frame covered by the airport's NCP.
The new FAA policy is not retroactive and does not affect existing Part 150 approvals. Under this new
policy airport operators may only apply conective measures to existing incompatible uses. Corrective
measures for new incompatible development will not be approved/funded by the FAA. Preventive
measures must focus on potential new incompatible development.
Implications o, f Policy Changes for ttifSP Part 1 SO Update
For the FAA to consider land uses out to the 60 DNL as incompatible the Metropolitan Council and the
affected communities need to adopt language in their comprehensive plans and land use controls that
define residential land use as incornpatible within the 60 DNL area. The F.AA will not approve
conective mitigation measures for new incompatible development that occurs after approval of the NCP.
If communities choose to maintain incompatible development patterns, funding issues may arise.
Major mixed-use or other redevelopment projects with a residential component that may occur within
the approved NCP may not be eligible for corrective mitigation because it would be new incompatible
development.
Based on the desire to consider development out to the 64 DNL as incompatible and the newly
established land use guidelines from the FAA, previously excluded preventive measures should be
reconsidered in this Part 150 Update. .
Recommended Land Use Measures for fhe Part 1 SO Update
�� .._. � A fourteen point land use mitigation program is recommended that includes the e�sting eight measures
along with the addition of six new measures, of which four are preventive, one is preventive/corrective
and one is purely corrective. ,
Mr. Rothfuss then reviewed the existing land use measures and the recommended changes or
modifications to them.
LUl - The Metropolitan Council should adopt language that designates the DNL 60 as the land use
planning standard for all corrective and/or prevenrive measures. Affected communities should then
adopt the DNL 60 areas as the noise compatibility standard in their respective comprehensive plans.
LU2 - Local communities should adopt zoning classifications and ordinances, based on the changes in
their comprehensive plans, that prevent future incompatible land use.
LU3 - Revisit model ordinance for aircraft noise attenuation for effectiveness in light of new FAA land
use policies. �
LU4 - Continue a public infomiation program and make use of new technology and other multimedia
resources.
LUS - Support efforts for revision of local and state building codes as needed to ensure interior noise
reduction based on advanced building techniques.
LU6 - Continue the acquisition progxam in coordination with other mitigation measures. �
LU7 - Continue the property purchase guaran.tee program in coordination with other mitigation
measures.
LU8 - Continue the sound insulation program in coordination with other rnitigation measures.
Newly Recommended Measures
LU9 - Dedication of Avigation Easements (preventive and corrective)
o Require the dedication of avigation easements as a condition for obtaining building permits
for incompatible development in noise impacted areas.
• Purchase avigation easement outright from. exisiing incompatible properties.
LU10 - Fair Property Disclosure Policy (preventive)
• Incorporates aircra$ noise information in sales documents for existing and new residential
development.
o Requires the disclosure of aircraft noise levels by property owners and their agents.
LU11- Land Banking (preventive)
o Involves the fee-simple purchase of privately-owned, vacant land by a local public agency to
prevent non-compatible land use development. Th.e land would be held for later public use
not necessarily related to aviation but compatible with NCP guidelines.
LU12 - Transfer of Development Rights (preventive) �
• Purchase the interest in privately-owned land which permits the MAC to prohibit any and all �
uses of the land that could be adversely impacted by aircraft noise. Development potential
would be transferred from properties within aircraft noise zones to designated receiving
areas outside of the noise zones.
LU13 - Purchase of Development Rights (preventive)
o Voluntary legal agreements that allow land owners meeting certain criteria to sell the right
to develop their property to local govemment agencies, state government or to a nonprofit
organization. An avigation/conservation easement would be placed on the land and an
agreement would be recorded on the title to permanently limit future development.
LUl4 - Creation of Sound BuffersBarriers (corrective)
``�•, • Consists of the combined use of sound barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscaping to
reduce noise. This measure would only assist communities immediately surrounding MSP.
Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, expressed concern with LU10. She said current property owners
�vould be very concerned with the effect thi.s `measure wo�ld have on their property values. Pete
Rothfuss, IINT�3, said the disclosure measure is meant to protect future o�vners. He also said that in
other places that have instituted such measures property values were not affected. Jamie Verbrugge,
Ea�an, asked Mr. Rothfuss if he would provide the group with documentation regarding the effect of
such measures on property values. �
�
; j
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said the use of sound buffers/barriers was not new to MSP and wasn't sure the
measure would be beneficial. He askd Mr. Rothfuss if a specific location had been identified. Mr.
Rothfuss said additional exploration was necessary and that a specific location had not been identified.
Chairman Nelson asked that Mr. Rothfuss provide the group, as an attachment to the meeting record, any
research or information he has or could locate regarding the additional recommended land use measures.
Metropolitan Council Land Use Policy Review
Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council, reviewed the informafiion contained in the meeting package. He
noted that the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise have been revised, in draft format,
to reflect several new issues, including:
1. The deletion/replacement of dated or inaccurate text material.
2. Incorporation of 1999 amendment recommendations from the public hearing document.
3. Incorporation of up-to-date noise policy contours for all system airports (currently coordinating with
�� MA.0 to develop and provide to the communities the noise contours in a GIS format).
4. Assessmendincorporation of low-frequency noise information (an issues paper is being prepared as
part of the aviation b ide update with recommendations in a public hearing document).
5. AssessmentJrevision of the MSP Noise Policy Area to reflect the 2005 Part 150 Update NEM.
Future Planning
The following proposed changes to the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Policy Plan were reviewed:
d That the MSP 2005 Part 150 noise exposure map (NEM) submitted to the FAA include a DNL 60
noise contour as a recognized land use planning/implementation standard for the regional airport
system;
• That the recommended 2005 NEM, with a DNL 60 contour and one-mile buffer zone, be
incorporated in the Aviation Policy Plan as part of the land use compatibility guidelines, and;
• That the DNL 60 becomes the contour at which communities apply the compatibility b idelines in
their local plans for "corrective" land use measures in noise mitigation programs.
The changes above would be part of the public hearing process for update and adoption of a revised
Aviation Policy Plan by mid 200L
JA.t� VERBRUGGE, EAGA�'`t, MOVED A.ND BOB JOH'�i TSON, MBA.A, SECONDED TO
RECOiVLIi'IEND TO THE FULL lY1A.SAC BODY FOR CONSENT THAT LAND USE
MEASCTI2ES ONE THROUGH EIGHT BE INCLUDED .�i T THE PART 150 UPDATE. THE
1VIOTION CAlE2ItIED ON A VOICE VOTE.
After a brief discussion regarding land use measures nine through fourteen, the follo�ving motion �vas
made. �
DICK SAUNDERS, �IIii'vNEAI'OZIS, MOVED Al'�D BOB JtJH'�Ii SON, l'IBAA., SECO�iDED, TO
T�KE ACTION, FOLLOWIl`tG DISCUSSION, ON RECOiY 1+ NDED L��1D USE
iVIEASURES NTivE TI�OUGH FOUR.TEEN AT THE REGULAI2I�Y SCHEDULED JiTiYE
OPERATIONS COlYTiVIITTEE MEETI'�i TG. THE VIOTION CARR.IED ON A VOICE VOTE.
11
�
DICK SAUNDERS, N�]NEAPOLIS, MOVED Al�TD MARY LOEFFELHOLZ, NWA,
SECONDED TO CONVEY IN WRITIl�tG TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL NIASAC'S
SUPPORT OF THE COUNCII.'S PROPOSED FUTURE PLANNIlVG CHANGES FOR THE
AVIATION POLICY PLAN. THE NIOTION CA.RRIED ON A VOICE VOTE.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. The next MASAC Operations Committee meeting will be held
on Friday, May 12, 2000 at 1030 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the MAC General O�ces.
Respectfully .Submitted,
Melissa Scovronsld, Committee Secretary
12
�
C
L M'
N
w C
� O
fY1 N
� ..��o Gl >
�. �. z , z o
o � [] � � a
O �
« C/)
U
� .� "� � f- �
�
�xM�� � a
a� W
� �
I N
� o � o C> >
� �Nz�, o °
� o� � a
Q
. �,� + o 0
z z
'-''p� O O
y�� * :
�y.., 4+ i'..+.. �
� N�' '
.. �- y +'. t .
, � �
a�s
�r� �o. � ,p
4
�,�"'...��x�C � (.� .�r,,�, �. . ��,.��•:�: �:.�..��n.� �: �:. :
... .y � . } � 3.:
N' � i�
..a ��' '��' O � �
M Z Q �. Cr�3 4;, `O� '
Ci �� C._... ,.n, .
a+ 3 0 : .
= a� :u ,.j �.�,,,, ,rp ? , :,
z�Nz .: � o
�.
U ..`... �. A r`= ... ..��". ...'._`. qa" ..
d
�
�
�
G
O
�
�
�
O
Sat•
�
�
�
c
0
N
� C
(�j U C.z.) G�» U U U U o
0
�
�i � r'7 �' > > � � u
�H � �
Vn.�., a a�.. .n�.a a�.. C� U �E
�
�
0
0 i > > r� i � � ti
z 2 =
V a o�'".. a a�.. a U t� �.
m
E o
:3 c
z o z z °z z����
o� o 0 0 o z z��
U a U U U U U U �+p
c u
, ' '.::}:'s N w
.
. ; ,-
�.. .. � '��. �� .. . ' ' " '' " ..:
V �
. .... .� .: . .' : � ' ..... ��. .:: ._
ij' �
�. ' - ,.+ ; � 'Q
�uG ��»
r 5 �f ��z F" G
� f yy ,� � �
J �
A - .�
L
1 �/� �/� �/� .�}�
'y 1�ti%i �c' �� Y.' O �� v�jJ VJ. VJr 'fYJ C Li
'V }:-��' a Yx �."47 � � �� *' J t� . � . . �� � .�O
?:� � +
-�:. a � s �,-�-� � =s � �
�µ� " .� l + V
�'�f � x4�`� .�', ra.., cf. � - . F . _ ..�
.y- �. :xi �.-`�' � �' �' �i rJ , -` r�f . � `4"� u �
[�, r
Y (;� � .� . � � � .~ L—' � �� � C
y
� JS q i ' �f� . �� 6f 03
`Q^ . �a _ . a � a , a°"., �„� -� � _
CU: ; i��_ t��'.< � Y >' -;r,.5i o 0
y�'.::.y � � ' , Y h�t : { 4. t� t O F
Q , ; > `� r7' ` �'�,, " ✓'� � � E-' � H. o. �
` O O �' �2 a
O ir� ;�'� � u� � � '� °'
U �., F a c� a -, .�a1. ,�C? --t� .� �
'b}.�.J.r ..'h[c x �J'..:. .ry w. �-.. '�7J" � , c~7 O
L I � ` � : � 1 .'��Z �' ,w;! �
a}T�'7 .�y�w4 �' �rr.� � ,.rl .. r-r }� � �� � • � „`�
�^`� ,��-�.`�'r � � � 4i� Pr7' . ..��; a o
t r�rr �'- u � t �._ ,��'1 � laJ,�-�., ,i�O ,.,�.C/�. p �'
�O. '� � MO. '�t.�' P1 "�� ) ;Y�}�yy lO '.t�.iy.7 O .; ��� . �?rZ;; � f0
. Fti ■ i. t
E'✓ �t.' J �� r� � idi� yJ q.il
G� ' U� ,,,� C� . , �.?+ V >
�,Y �A�Y e. E� '' �;ytt �,�
.t. �
� � �
N
� �
� �
• �i 4�
V C U
� � G
w :=. b N
�
. �R3 c ¢ o
on
a � o L � i �
.. �� v y •a� 6� � V X
a� ��=
°' ��„ on a`�i ..� � � .c N 'u'
� r�
ty ��.. �bA µ^ N VI •= �(,L v N
•� � ' �O p V � V � � 6� � u
� � .,., y�j � . � O a � p .�o
� � Co � � �
w. � • N G'i. Cn � F.. y o ,tC'
Q U y i�N" 'N �� � W�L'� 6i �' H
v �
� t�,� ' V � ' � � 'C� � t�r� U
� O�F F, W ��� e
Table ,
Land Use Compatibilit�� Guidelines for Aircraft Noise
Land Use Category Noise Reduction Leve!
Type of Development New Development or Infi(( — Reconstruction or
Major Redevelopment Additions to Existing Structures
Noise etposure Zones 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
DNL DNL. DNL DNL DNL. DNL DNL DNL
75+ 75-70 70-65 65-60 75+ 7�-70 70-6� 6�-60
Residential
Sin�le/Multiplex with Individua( INCO (NCO INCO 20dba 30+dba 30dba 2�dba 20dba
Entrance
Multiplex/Apartment with Sharzd iNCO 30dba 2�dba 20dba 30+dba 30dba ?�dba 20dba
Entrance
Mobile Home INCO INCO INCO 20dba 30+dba 30dba 25dba 20dba
Educational, Medical, Schoo(s,
Churches, Hospitals, Nursin� Homes INCO INCO INCO 20dba 30+dba 30dba 25dba 20dba
Cu(tural/EntertainmendRecreational �-��,
Indoor 25+dba 25dba 2Qd� �db� 25+dba 2�dba 20dba 1Sdba
Outdoor 25+dba 25d6a,�. �•��'?Ddb� CNST 25+dba 25dba 20dba CNST
� � '� � ��
`.'`,, �
Office/Commercial/Retail 25+dba 25dba 20dba CNST 25+dba 25dba 20dba CNST ,
Services
Transportation-Passenger Facilities 25+dba 25dba 20dba CNST 25+dba 25dba 20dba CNST
Transient Lodging INCO 25dba 20dba ISdba 25+dba 25dba 20dba ISdba
Other medicai, Health & 25+dba 25dba 20dba CNST 25+dba 25dba 20dba CNST
Educational Services
Other Services 2j+dba 2Sdba 20dba CNST 25+dba 2�dba 20dba CNST
Industrial/CommunicationNtilit�� ISdba CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST
Agriculture Land/Water
Areas/Resource E;ctraction CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST
�
�
W
W
�
w
�
0
�
�
�
W
a
w
�
�
H
H
�
�.-,-�
W �
a�
¢�
�, U
W
C/�
Q
�
a
w
�
O
�
P-�
�
U
�
�
«�
�
0 0 � +
O
� � � �
J -, `� �
0 � Z A
O ~ �
� o a� �
C � � � N � .
N r N � a ..:�
a� �.] a� .� v�i ..� .
Q
z ° z ° �
� � � � ; �
�. �
� , �
0 o N o a �
N
a� ►a a� ►] v�i �l
z � z Q �IQ..
M O M "".'.��"O .. �
y r„ y C,� �. ?''.�Li;,.:s.�'. . .
tp`n O �1 � .:..�„ . . .
� N `o
a� .a a> ►] �
� p � Q 2. A
Z Z ��..-. .:. :...'.. .� .
�- �, �
�,
�
o � N �
N
a� .a a� .a
z ° z °
��
= ��¢ -
� � � � ,. ;. ,..
.� cC��
o. oa� ; 1;
� L �0 1
c�: " � ..N�.�
�. �" :--� �
� � o
Ca � R.' �-'
� �
�. ":: �
c� ::�
� N
�i .Cy .".O ,
� O ti�-' v7 � `� '�
a +� � . � ��' � � y } ��
�c � D �
aci <t � ' a�
Z E � `� � > "C � C4/�+ 'c�
Q y � '.F � � �i /�i� ��+
,�, � L., .� � ��, O
C Q N� tC3 �� ia t�.J.�;C� ...
G d t� i�.• '_' :rl ..-� ►..1 � � i �..
c .�' o a> '�� SO 1�k'� y.•
N a -d o '� °� 'o .� '+� °�,' f .
� C7.�w � A:� w a�� ;
� �.�, a, �„ � � Q. ����{,).-„ �
y•O p'q � � U ' ` ^ ��j'�Y. ►�M� i^ Yh:
Gr ...Il�,ca'.r�t."...;-•.:�t:.�.c. ,
a�
O
c
cn
C
.R
�
�
>
N
C
't.7
a�
�
�
�
�
>
��
��
� �.
=o o.
� �
a *-
p o
�
�_
� �'
�
�o
��
>
'[7 �
C �
'N O
� O
-� N .
� O
'� Q
N �
..a �
��
o '�
�
��
+�
C
�a
a� �
H�
,-:
��
��
>
��
��
a �
Q �
�
o �
a> y�
.� �
� '�
� U
a�
� o
n. �
E �.
o w
� N
� v�•i
� O
•� 'O
�D �
N ai
tr s.
� �
� �
Q �
w �
0
�» •�
* �E
� � �
cu � .?'
�.+ -a � �
.� � o c
� � Q- E
�.�� o
�o
O U
�
•.N �
cn c V,
•� o �
X ��' ��
W � �'
p �o �
�.. �
� .� d o ,
O rai� U
� �
.�
'� .
I � �
d
I � � � � � h
' O � � �Fw f. �
� W � c°. �t c� �L
0
. � � � ^� c a�i '° w
� � � � � � � �
� o
O W � � � w �'
v � .� a o.�
�i o Q x" � � '� ° '.o
� U� •� I bD G C�S =n
.—r
� � � CC L L y�,� cC
� a d,� a, c» a U 3
o a a o
c i X�
o .�
� o �
.�, � �" E c�
� i Q �
� O v �
a
0
� �
> o �
Q) . �
'd �'-' . �
�c � �
�' � �
.� �.�U
��
�
*' � � a�
a�i � � � v a � v
� � G" � ,�'' � � 3 � o a�i o
� � � � �°' �„ 6 ai � � �' *, � >
'�Q ''�— a �.c, c o � a
j"� °.;; .'�,,°� z�. .� an c°> a� o � on o .n
cu � W � .� '3 r a, -o s°. � � 3 ^o � > �
Q � � c,, �' '� � an � c. ,� ;� .� 4. °' cw 4»
� W ec a� � � �° . p � � .� � > ,..; -�' o "� � o
3G �n �..;����c'���0��;?.�� ��o :��
� C � ^o °A � � .� '� N � � i .c � °�° o o ° � � e�c � ^
a� %� 6� c�..
ts, �l � •� � � w r.`�, ?� .� .c � .� ?� Ts � R. � � � p ,� � •� �'
� � � � ;C � C. C ,�at,, '� � � .� • u�
�
Q p� •.l C'r ,� y� �+�r � V� RS p�� L�+ b� �� �
,� Q' +� v an �Q; Q' v, W� P� �. G a� Gz, c+ A a� H'r: �..1 ``b, a
�
O O O O ❑ O p p
' O T
� �1.+ "� •
V1 � 1.� "D t�
� y � O -�p �
� c� a ��y� i �� i� w
L ` ,y a' d.A i�+ G�
a �o�� x �.�y�
; v� ❑ N „� � Z � � � � � �
W � •o � � � � c .� -�v � �
� . c�t W
> Z � C� � o � � � a�i
� �C F, � � � ��Z
W d .� � E o.�°
>
�
U
� �.
0 oz
U N �
� � �n
� •C c`
E-� �
>W �
. c� t7
a � N
Wa a� J
Q � O Q
� �, � N �
� � � I
. � a¢„ •O o
W
�
- ¢ Ex-�
`` ) a �
_
aA
~ M
w � G Z
� � [� o
�¢ � �
� Q "o 0
Oa �
w a-
�n ¢
W�
Wd
rp'
a � �
w cz
���,, � o Q
o N�
2 � �'
�
� � i
o 'o 0
�W �
H
�
l� d' I �"1
w
�
� �IN
,
w � �'
o �
z � H ° •� �
. � � Q W p � O
E-� � N U
''_ .__.., � Q� � O �j � �N .0
�O � �i .,,,
O � :� � U ~iZ" � �
� � i
r� w "" O
. �+ � C/�
L
�
~ •�
� 4d
C
� � �
a� �'n�o
�a`� a�i_
x � -rs � c�
p o � N �
c�
a�
� � � a..�
a�3.� �
�p O I �r'�
o��
N O d'
� oI�
�}' C.�� I C�'1
M QIO
�
�
C�
MINUTES
RLT��VAY 17/35 CITY S7CA.�]E NLCETING
April 26, 2000
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Cominission Chambers, and called to
order at 10:15 a.m.
'The following persons were in attendance: �
�
Citv Staff:
Tom Lawell
Andy Pederson
Mark Bernhardson
Larry Lee
John Nelson
Jeff Bergom
Jamie Verbrugge
MA.0 and Consultant:
Roy Fuhrmann
Chad Leqve
Shane VanderVoort
Kim Hughes
AQencv Representatives:
Cindy Greene
Glenn O�-�.cutt
City of Apple Valley
City of Apple Valley
City of Bloomington
City of Bloomington
City of Bloomington
Burnsville MASAC Rep.
City of Eagan
+MAC
MAC
MAC
�Il�I'TB -
FAA-MSP-ATC
FAA
. r .
Approval of minutes of the Apri113, 2000 meeting
The minutes of the April 13, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed with the follorving corrections:
• Reference to amvals on nulway 17 on page two should be changed to runway 35.
o The sixth bulleted item on page two should be changed to reflect that 25'miles is an avef-czge rather
than a maximum length for arrival paths.
• The last bulleted item on page two should be changed to indicate that five miles is the minimum for
turning onto final, not that most will tum onto final beriveen five and ten miles.
1
The second bulleted item on page two should read, "This....outer marker of the glide scope ...." �
Arrival Track Analysis and Airframe Noise
Shane VanderVoort, MA.C, using gate analyses, briefed the members on the impacts associated with the
projected arrivals on Runway 35 for the cities of Bloomina on, Burnsville and Eagan. Projected impacts
for the city of Apple Valley were briefed at the previous meetin�.
Mr. VanderVoort noted that, as with the analysis for the city of Apple Valley, staff used arrival
operations data on runway 12R to simulate the impacts that could be expected on runway 35.
Mr. Vandervoort also noted that, although the analyses showed� a number of downwind arrivals
associated with runway 12R, downwind arrivals for nu�way 35 would be much different than that of
12R.
Bloomington
North, south and east gates were coristructed to simulate Blooinington's boundaries. These gates were
placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the new north/south runway.
The east boundary showed an average arri�al altitude of 500 feet above �ound level as aircraft complete ��
their final approach to runway 35.
Burnsville
North, south, east and west gates were constructed to simulate Burnsville's�boundaries. These gates
were placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the new north/south runtivay. (
. `
The arrivals on runway 35 will affect the extreme northeast corner of Burnsville where altitudes will be
approximately 1,000 feet above ground level. �
Depending on how the parallel runrvays are being used for arrivals, Burnsville will experience some
down�vind amval traffic. This traffic would be from either the east or west of the city. �
Traffic entering the south boundary would be b bairining to line up for final approach and wou��d be at an
altitude of 4,000 to 6,000 feet above ground leveL
Eagan
West, northtivest and south gates were constructed to simulate Eagan's boundaries. The gates �vere
. ,.
placed at the same distance and angle the city will be from the end of the new north/south runway.
Cindy Greene, FA.A, explained how aircraft entering the airspace from the east STAR �vould be funneled
into the runway 35 arrival stream. She said when aircraft are landing on both runway 35 and on runways
12L/12R, approximately 10 aircraft per hour from the east STAR would be turned to the south for arrival
on runway 35 rather than sent north for arrival on one of the 12's.
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, asked Cindy Greene, FAA, if the majority of arrivals using run�vay 35 would
originate from the south STAR. Ms. Greene said runways are usually fed arrivals from the ST�1R. most
direct to a particular runway. Therefore, the south STAR, which is the second busiest arrival STAR,
2
would be the most direct for runway 35. However, a proposal is being reviewed now that would have
the current south STAR moved five to six miles either east or west of where it currently lies. Yet, the
decision has not been made at this point.
Roy Fuhr.rnann, MAC, explained the information contained in the meeting package regarding airframe
noise and the research being done to reduce this type of noise.
Larry Lee, Bloomington, asked what the likelihood is that future aircraft will include design measures to
reduce air&ame noise. Mr. Fuhrmann noted that there are some designs that reduce airframe noise, such
as the addition of a fairing to the airframe in order to reduce airflow burbling. He also noted that NASA,
through the Air21 bill, has been granted funding for this type of research. I3owever, this type of research
is not the primary focus for reducing aircraft noise.
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, asked if existing aircraf� have been modified to reduce airframe noise. Mr.
Fuhrmann said most do not include modifications to the airframe and that more research needs to take
place for it to become a widespread measure.
Arrival SEL Contours .
Kim Hughes, HNI'B, presented SEL 90 arrival and departure contours for runway 35 for both a DC9
hushldt and A320 aircraft. She noted that the arrival irnpact is small compared with the deparhue
impacts and that arrival impacts are concentrated on one track, while departure.impacts are dispersed
over several tracks. She also noted that the arrival impacts of both aircraft were virtually the same.
- Ms. Hughes said the 90 SEL contour was used for comparison because that is the level at which normal
( ) speech would be interrupted.
Ms. Hughes also presented an SEL 90 departure contour for runway 35, track G, for two turboprop
aircraft. She noted that these contours did not extend past the airport property limits.
Runti�vay 17 Departure Track A.nalysis
Kim Hughes, HN'�B, presented information on release points, or the point at which departing aircraft are
stivitched from ATC control to TRACON control. _
She noted the following:
• The tower assi�s initial deparhzre headings to place aircraft on specific flight tracks in order to
ali� them with ATC gates.
�`��-. • TRACON assigns new headings after ATC hands the aircraft over. This handoff takes place as soon
as ATC feels the aircraft has successfully departed and it is safe to speak with the pilot, usually
between 300 and 500 feet in altitude (almost instantaneously).
Ms. Hughes then presented information related to the departure track analysis. She said the analysis
assumes:
m Aircraft are assi�ed to flight tracks based primarily on tlieir destination �
o Traffic removed from an eliminated track would be assigned to the next closest track
3
• No additional changes to the track use are used (other than that above)
• A River Track was not included in this analysis
Elimination of Track G (285 °Headin�
• Traffic on track G shifts to track F(245°)
• It maintains the closest flight track layout and use as depicted in the Dual Track EIS
• It responds to the Record of Decision (ROD)
• It provides a 150° fau
• Approxima.tely 490 people are subtra.cted from the 2005 Uninitigated Contour
e It does not affect the southem communities since the contour is extended solely within the river area
Elimination of TrackA and G(095 °and 285 �
• Traffic from track A is shifted to track B(160°) _
•` Traffic on track G shif�s to track F
• Provides 85° fan .:
� Respoi�ds to the city of Eagan's request �
_
•• Approximately 170 people are added to the 2005 Unmitigated Contour
• The majority of population increase occurs in Eagan :
Ms. Hughes said she continues to coordinafe with ATC to ensure aircraft are able to follow tracks similar
to those depicted in the FEIS: In order for this to happen, departing aircraft will likely need to reach a
specified altitude before starting their turn to the assigned heading. ��_-
�.�` < �
_ _ ...
_ .. .
Recommendations ; - .
1. Continue to coordinate wi.th A.TC to determine potential altitude for aircra$ turns while avoiding
_ excessive impact on nuiway capacity. .
� 2. Consider options that would eliminate Tracics G and F and add a 230° or 215° heading in oider to '
concentrate as many flights over the river "and thus eliminate as many people as possible from the '
contour. Traffic from tracks G and F would b.e placed on this new heading but it would not affect :
track E. In this scenario, the fan would be reduced to either 120° or 135°`. . '
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, noted that some aircraft placed on a 230° heading would still�overfly parts of
Bloominb on because they are akeady turning on heading before the end of the runway. Ms. Hughes '
said this was correct and that the EIS modeled the tracks using a 1.7-mile marker as the point at which'''
aircraft would tturi onto heading. However; newer aircraft are able to climb faster and turri sooner than
those modeled in the EIS. She said this is the reason for continuing coordination with ATC outlined in
recommendation number one..
River Departure Track
IVIs. Hughes said a River Track would be considered as a separate measure so that runway l7 departure
track recommendations are not dependent upon a river track for implementation. . '
Ms. Hughes noted that, currently; there are two ways in which a River Track could be developed and
_ _ _. . ,
,
� _;
implemented.
l. Visual procedures (such as is used at Washington National}
2. IFR procedures using RNAV/FMS waypoints (such as is used at Boston-Logan Airport)
Ms. Hughes then presented two graphics that depicted how each of these may work.
RUS in Combination with Runway 17 Dispersion '
Ms. Hughes noted that the runway 17 departure track analysis has slowed the work to combine the RUS
with the preferred track alternatives. - �
�
- She said a recommendation-by the group as to whether the runway 17 departure fan should mainta.in the
widest fan possible or be reduced by elirninating either or both tracks A and/or G would provide the '
necessary input for continued analysis of the runway use system (RUS). i
I
Fleet Mix Alternatives Preview ` I
Ms. Hughes presented information regarding possible changes to the fleet, mix for 2005. She no�ed the i
following: .. ` - ;
'.' Any changes to the fleet mi�c will necessarily be implemented through a,voluritary program because
�
any mandatory restrictions would require a Part 161 Study, which would hold up approval of the
Part 150 Update. A voluntary program, on the other hand, could be implemented as soon as the Part
150 Update was approved.
f e Sta.ff and consultants continue to coordinate with the primary carrier at MSP to determine viable
`._ � hushkitlnighfitime operational reductions. 'This coordination is essential to ensure ,that the
recommended program reflects achievable reductions. The analysis will also include different levels
of compliance rvith the voluntary program and the effects these levels may liave on the contour.
1VIs. Hughes then presented, for benchmarking purPoses and in response to scoping comments, DNL .
contours that reflected no hushkit aircraft in 2005 and a contour that reflected no hushldt aircraft during
the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m in2005.
For these contour analyses, similar-in-size non-hushldt aircraft were substituted for hushkit aircraft.
The impacts to the population for each are as follows: '
�. o. No hushldt aircraft in 200.�: approximately 31,810 people are sacbtracted from the 2005 Unmitigated
Contour �
�'� No hushkit aircraft between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 am. in 2005: approximately 21,390 people
o are subtracted from the 2005 Unmitigated Contozrr
Discir.ssion ;
Larry Lee, Bloornington, asked NIs.,Hughes to further explain the difficulties associated with performing
a Part 161 study. NSs. Hughes said Part 161 requires the airport operator to prove that there is no
disbenefit to any air carrier, not only at MSP but throughout the United Sta.tes. Roy Fuhrmann,`T'IAC,
said that the closest Part 161 study was in California where the airlines v6luntarily agreed to move ttivo
aircraft operations out of the nighttime period. Mr. F.uhrmann said a Part 161 also cannot be
(� t
,
5
discriminatory, arbitrary or interfere with interstate commerce. He said staff and consultants are working (
with the primary carrier to develop some alternatives for moving hushldt operations. `
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said his community is interested in implementing disincentives or
incentives to encourage airlines to reduce their use of hushlcit aircraft. He said he felt a reduction in
hushkit aircraft would be the most effective way to reduce noise impacts in the communities.
Mark Bemhardson, Bloomington, asked if there was a projection as'to wheri the primary carrier would
na longer operate hushldt aircraft. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said Northwest Airlines has indicated that it _
would replace its 727 hushldt aircraft by 2005 and that it would begin replacing its DC9 hushkit aircraft ''
betwe�n 2007 and 2009. He said he thought it might take up to ten years to replace all of their DC9
aircraft.
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, asked if there were any federal regulations associated with phasing out
hushkit aircraft. Roy Fuhrrnann, MAC, said tliat there are currently no regulations for` phasing out
hushkit aircraft but that Jeff Hasniel, MA.0 Executive Director, along with his staff, is worlang with the :
. -: ,
Airports Council International to develop incentives for airlines to phase out the loudest hushkit aircraft. ,
He noted that there are also concerns with the ability of the manufacturers to produce enough aircraft for ,
an accelerated phase out.
�, : ,:.�- _
� � Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said he is aoncerned about how a voluntary agreement with the carriers would �
affect the Part 150 ITpdate FAA. approval, specifically if there is a large shrinlcage in the 60 DNL
contour. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the intention is 'to present the FAA. with the most "reality-based°
contour as possible. She said this is'why several percentage-of-compliance scenarios will be considered . r`
in the analysis for this mitigation measure. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said staff anid consultants are working
closely with the primary carrier in order to ascertain the most feasible expectation for compliance. , .
Jeff Bergom,. Burnsville, asked how Northwest Airlines compares with other major `cazriers in its fleet
percentage of hushkit aircraft: Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said Northwest Airlines has the highest percentage
of hushlcit aircraft compared with the ma.jor passeriger carriers. He said of Northwest's 430 aircraft, 26
are 727's and l72 are DC9 hushed. '
Keviri Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the MAC continued to have a"no backsliding" agreement
. with Northwest Airlines: Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the "no backsliding" agreement referred only to
Stage 2 aircraft; and since there are no longer any Stage 2 aircraft, the agreement is no longer valid.
John Nelson, BloominD on, said he is concerned about u�cluding a voluntary program in the Part 150
��"� Update submittal. He encouraged the staff and the communities:to be cautious in this regard. '
A discussion of the flight track alternatives then ensued. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, stated that a decision
regarding whether the flight lrack fan for runway 17 should be.maintained as wide as possible or reduced :
` to some extent tivould be helpful.
.
Tom Lawell; Apple Valley, said he thought there was need` for additional information before a
recommendation could be made.
Larry Lee, Bloomin�tton, said he thought it would be best to use the river as much as possible. He said ,
. _ ( :
6
�4\
he believes that the alternative to move traffic from tracks G and F to a new track closer to the river
would be best for eliminating as many people from the contour as possible. He also endorsed having the
consultants and sta.ff continue to work with ATC in developing a way to keep aircraft as close to the EIS
modeled tracks as possible.
There was some discussion about what the ROD had directed the airport to consider regarding track G.
Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, said the ROD allows the airport to consider alternatives for track G that could
lessen the impact on the communities.
Tom Lawell, A.pple Valley, noted that the F track was not mentioned in the ROD and that, since it was I
part of the EIS, it should not be eliminated from the fan. ,
I
Kim Hughes, �II�ITB, said the reason a 230° or 215° track is being considered to replace the F and G
tracks is that both tracic� significantly influence the population counts. She said a 230° or 215° track �,
would keep operations more_over the riyer and, based on a sample point analysis, that this shift would ,
not significantly impact the other communities. .�. .
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, noted that his community prefers track A to be eliminated. He said even I
though the analysis shows that there would be an increase in the niunber of people affected in Eagan, i
hi h he acknowledged is counter to what the Part 150 Update is attempting to accomplish, he suppo ls
w c ,
the elimination of track A. He noted, that the reason for supporting this is the 6 DNL re uct�on a samp e
point R17_Q in Eagan, which is located in an area that would not be included in the 60 DNL cont�ur:
;
Tom Lawell; Apple Valley, said his community would be against eliminating tracics for the same reason ;
� (i.e. Apple Valley is in an area that would not be eligible for any sound insulation mitigation). 7eff �
Bergom, Burnsville, said the City of Burnsville feels the same. Mr. Lawell said, however, that �ie
supported the development and use of a River Track. � :
Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, said it would also be helpful. to see'how a 230° or 215° track would affect the
contour. . i
John Nelson, Blooinington, said he would support the eliinination of track G because it fulfills the
requirement of the EIS ROD, it wouldn't affect the other communities, it takes a significant number of
people out of the higher DNL contours and it places moie traffic over the river. .
It was noted that the EIS projected that track G would be used for 13% of the jet departures
(approximately 38 per day) and 10% of the propeller departures on that ivnway. It was noted that the
analysis completed for the elimination of tracks A and G assurned that no traffic, including propeller
aircraft, �vould be placed on these tracks. '"
John Nelson, Bloomington and MASAC Operations Committee Chair, expressed concern about the
MASAC Operations Committee's ability to make a recommendation regarding the runway 17%35
departure flight tracks without a consensus from the southern communities. He said he wanted those
communities most affected by operations on the new runway to have the most influence on how it is
operated.
7
Roy Fuhrmaiul, MAC, encouraged those present who are not already members of the Operations (
Comrriittee to participate in the May l, 2000 meeting. He also explained that at the May 12, 2000
Operations Cornmittee meeting members would be presented with the recommendations that have been
made and for which there is consensus.
Cindy Greene, FAA, reminded those present that the traffic that would shift froin tracks F and G onto a
ne�v 230° or 215° track would be destined for a westerly destination and would not affect Burnsville or
Apple Valley because it would be turned before reaching those cities.
� Tom Lawell; Apple Valley, said he would support explozing track G as a propeller-only track with the '
rest of the fan being used for both jet and propeller traffic. He said, other than this, App1e Valley could :
not support furth.er restriction of the departure fan.
Cindy Greene, FA.A, reiterated that traffic taldng a 230° or 215° heading would not affect the cities of
Apple Valley or Burnsville due to the ultimate destination (to the. west) of that traffic: '�
Mark Bernhardson, Bloomington, agreed that placing the F and G track traffic on a new, closer to the `
� river; irack would be beneficial to Bloomington- without adversely affecting` Apple Valley and
Buriisville.
• Tom Lawell; Apple Valley, asked whether traffic on the proposed new track might have to be diverted to
track E if the capacity of the new track were to become maximized. Cindy Greene, FAA, said it is true .:... ,
that if two aircraft, one behind the other, were to both need a specific tracic, that the aircraft behind the - �
first would not be able to depart on that particular track and would have to depart on a heading with a. ` ���
15° divergence. (For example,'in this scenario if the first aircra$ were to take a 230° heading the second f' �
:_ : :;': .
would have to take a 215° heading. Once the second aircraft was departed, �he 230° heading would �.: _-
become available again.) However, Ms. Greene said, ATC takes great pains to sequence aircraft on the ; • ��
groun.d so that two aircraft needing the same heading are not behind one another. She said it is rare for `
two aircraft to need the same heading one right after each other. .
Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, said Burnsville continues to be conceined that a smaller fan area �would result
` in more air traffic over the southern communities.
A discussion ensued regarding what steps need to be taken next in order for �:recommeza,d�.tion from the
group to be made and forwarded to fhe MASAC Operations Committee by May 12, 2000.
��:L,, Larry Lee, Bloomington, and other members noted that this is a.very big decision for their city councils
and that the more information they have the better.
- John Nelson, Bloomington; said that if a consensus cannot be reached,.the C}perations Committee; in its
deliberations, will have to. give less emphasis �to the wishes of the ciiies affected and-more to the
consultants and staff recommendations. ' -
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said he thought the Operations Committee should not be in the position of
approving or denying the 17/35 cities recommendations, but that the committee.,should only be pres.ented
with each position. He said he thought the 17/35 city group should have the ultimate decision as to hotiv
_ ` _ _ �
�
8 ,
� the nuzway should operate.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that if the group cannot reach a consensus after all the information has been
presented, the staff and the consultants could recommend an alternative that minimizes the population
within the contour. '
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, said it would be helpful, absent a contour that zeaches his community, to '
have a"yardstick" by which the impacts of an alternative could be measured. He said it �would be ;
important, for� his community that this .information be presented at the May public workshops. Roy ,�
Fuhrmann, MAC; s'�id the Sample Point Analysis wa§ produced in order to answer this question. He
said the changes in DNL at all but one of the points would be impossible for a person to detect.
There was also a discussion regarding what information would be available to�the public at the May 22-
25 workshops.
i
&oy Fuhrmann, MAC,. said he would be in touch with each representative regarding the. next step. I
- i
i
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p:in.
'i
_.,: I
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Scovronski �
_
Recording Secretary - , �
�" )
t
0
�� MASAC Ope�atioras I►�eeting
' P�SP Part 150 Update Study
N9ay 12, 2000
;�"'+,
. ti'�� } . . Iw \'l� .
�
�
' �����a :
Runway 17 Flight Tracks
Runway Use System
Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
Recommended Naise Abatement
Program
Additionai Recommendations
� +'+�'
'° w.;��'' ��
-- _
�3un�r�y 17 t�lighi '1'�acXs
Goal- .�-._.__, .___.__....._.__..
Reduce noise (mpact within the DNL 60 contour
Avoid increased overflights of otfier communities
Maintain runway capacity
Feasible implementation by FAA/ATC
Provide positive guidance to aircraft to
reasonably follow desired flight tracks
Ailows for possible firture transition to FM5/GPS
lty1b },� navigation
� A_��.{,r� . . .. . . �. e� .
•� f
� . � . li � � ��'i
� �.. � . � � . . .. �
�
�
_ �
_ I
;
�
�
i
i
i
(
�
i
. .;� ..�;�.
C
C.
.�S`..
I iiueroway 17 Fiegh� 'tr��ks
.._.._._____._�,. _.�.__..
- ....�..�_...
EI5 assumes that noise abatement
measures wou{d be imple ented for
Runway 17 to avoid popu�ated areas
Flight tracks and procedures must
provide sufficient gu�dance to ensure
that aircraft of varying performance
capabilities avoid, as much as possibie,
populated areas enroute to their
destinations
�� ,.}�
, �
� �, _�.�-.=t
�,t-�
..,�,
� Rueaway 17 �light 'iracks
: Hybrid Fans V Y.r�.
Provide positive guidance of ai�craft, using
existing technology
Future use of GPS/FMS should be considered
as the technology evolves
Operationally feasible
;� �� 4
f1
o+l �:
�` �.�'�, �`�
�Zundrray '�7 �aigh�t �'racks
Hybrid Fans
East Ffight 7racks
Applies to flight tracks that are east of runway
centerline
Ailow for immediate tums off ruriway end
Maintains dispersion of aircraft over Eagan
� � +� �.w'e=1
b;��'
2
C
;
c
�
� )
1�unwiay 1i �iight 'Trac9ss
_... ---_ __. .... �..._. -.�._,
a.__....�._..._;�...���_ . ...
', i Hybrid Fans
West flight Tracks
', Applies to fligfit tracks ifiat are west of runway
'I centerline
I Eiiminatc use of tracks F and G for jet aircraft
I Use turrm points to guide afrcrafi onto EIS flight
iracks and avofd populated areas
Turboprop aircraft assigned to two tracks west
��+,� and outside of jet fan
� �
�" .+�.'y,�,.� , + ■ r =
d�
� i�aanvvay '� 7' �teght 'Tracks
; Hybrid Fans . _-•- - �.� .. _ _.... .
West Flight Tracks = Tum Point
ist - Airaaft maintain runway heading untii
reaching designated point, and then turn to
initial assigned heading of 185° or 2D0°
2nd - As aircraft reach 3000' MSL, IRACON
tums aircraft again to headings toward
deparluro gates
� •{ � ��
-.,..;�
--_ _
Ruraway 17 �li�h# i'racks
Hybrid Fans ..._.,_.. :_���..__.,__...._...�.t....... ..
West Flight Tracks - Tum Points
Dfstance Measuring EGuipmeot (DME� can be
used to deflne turn points
DME measures the distance from a VOR
station to the aircrafr in tenths of a nauticai
mile
Altitude requirements can also be used to
define tum points,. but are less precise than
ji� „}� DME due to.varying.aircraft pertormance �
e'` w�;C��` w t\ il �
�
[;
E
. ;
I
3
�
_ �
C
C
@Zunway �� �ligh$ Trac�Cs
_ ..._._..___.._.___�...__ .
Hybrid Fans
W�st Fiight Tracks - Tum Points
Tum points can be dPsignated as part of a
Departure Procedure (pP) for a speciflc
' heading, and as part of an FAA order for use i
by ATC
, - Use of tum point5 may result in a sfight li
' decrease in runway capacity in order to �
��, insure adequate aircraft separation '
� ,.}�
� � '
vy I��� -� ..
I – � �—�
Runvvay �i? �9�ght "Trac#cs
Hy6rid Fans
Two fans considered
iZO� fan - from 095° to Z15° /
105° fan - from 095° to 200° �
� "+>
, �
Y t�+�y+� . ' LY"- .
,r•
6��an�ay '� 7 �lac�h� �'s�ac3�s
, Hybrid Tums .,_.,.---.,_ . ,..._..._ � _
120° fan - adds Z15° heading west of Track E
', (from 095� to 215°)
� Poputakion impact as compared to the 2005
', Unmitigated DNL Contour
�I i DNL 70 d8A contour - app�oximately 170 peopie deleted
I DN� 65 dBA contour - approximately 260 people added
i DNL 60 deA cnntour - approximately SO people added
i Total change - approximately 100 people added to 60' ONL '�
contour �
y,�Mi��, � . .
�y� ewya�
t
�i
C�
C�
laurawra;v '97 �iight l'rac�s
: .__....:..._.__..,..___�.._:�_...:
Hybrid Turns
105° fan - from Track A to Track E(frnm 095°
to 200°)
Population impact as compared to the 2005
', Unmi#igated aNL Contour
I ONL 70 dBA contnur - apprwdmately 190 people deleted
t DNL 65 dBA rnntour - approximaGely 230 people added
1 �NL 60 deA wntour - appro�dmately 1030 people deleted
I Total change - appro�dmately 990 people deleted from 60'
� •{4 DNL contnur
: �
^�" 3
4� �� �
� i2unway �1? F9egih$ 'rracks
Hybrid Fans
' Recommendation
� Implement 105° Hybrid Fan
� Redu�es impacted population within the DNL
60 contour and avoids increased overflights of
other communities
Maintains aircreft dispersion over Eagan
�
F��n��� t9s� �ac�z�rs
: Runway use is determined by
multipie, inter-linked, faetors:
Weather and wind conditlons
Capacity and flow requirements
Trafficdemand
Aircraft separation
I Pflot compliance and safety considerations
�,. ,
ATC
�„• *�' Safety
, �
'�r
g� :.,b•' u �"r1
r
�
�
P �,�7� � �
V
� �
�
�� �� � • �Y
`�
u
�
��_
. V
�
,. . _ �
� i
�� �
�
• .�' n.�
� ��
�
n�
i
1�
�/
�
5
C
I
F�aanway C3se �acfors
Runway use is determined primarily by wind
and capacity requiremenis
These requirements Iimit optlons to signficantiy
change runway use, even rnth the new runway
Capacity requirements drive runway use
dunng day-time hours
Runway use aitematives have more impact
during night-time hours
� +'
, �,
�, �,�„r= �'.,s=1
�S
�
� laun�vay i.i5e S�s$�em
New Methadology
Develop Average Annual Week for 2005,
using Z999 ANOMS data
', Divide week into 15-minute segmenis
Count arrivals and departures during time
segments
Group segments by number of operations,
�„*� and count the proportion of operapons
that occu� during low, mid, and high
�. �; demand periods
•, ��,,,._' �`�
�!!9'1AN�� �95� ��"�S$E9'�'�
Low-Demand
Less than 14 operabons per hour, or 3.5
operations per 15-minute segment
Allows for head-to-head operations in
Eagan/Mendata Heights corridor or on
runway 17/35
Runway selection during low-demand
period usPs same methodology as in
..+�"+,, previous RUS altematives (3-Z4-00)
� �
. +n�a•'�, , �
C
C`
��
�
�ua�vvay Use s�/s��m
.,_. ,.,.._....�......._......_.
Mid-Demand
Less than 60 operations an hour, or 15
operations per 15-minute segment
Allows for efficient selection of runways
based on noise considerations, given
requirements for runway crossings,
capacity, etc.
Shifls runway priorities during
''"���+'� estabiished operational modes, without
� 1 F� changing runway configurations �
,y a�Cc '
' �19i1!/�/c'�� �5� '.�9�/S$�iH'1
High-Demand
Greater than 60 operations per hour
UtilizPs base EI5 runway use, which is
optimized for high-demand, peak-hour
operations
�
��nvva� i�9se ��s$e�a ',
---._.. _. . ....._._:..�: .�._:<_...___,. ;
.. ..._...._..._ . .. .. ._ . ...... ......
Preferred RUS I
Maximfze use of Eagan/Mendota Heights '
Corridor. depart Runways iZL/12R, arrive I
30L/30R
Second priority - depart Runway 17, arrive ,
Runway 35 '
Nead to head operations when needed and
operationally feasible ',
Third priority - balanced use of Runway 4/22 '
,,���� • Oepa�t Runways 30L/30R, and arrive Runways '
,'`�. +� 12L/12R, at ali other times
�" :.;�'' , �.'�
�
,�'�, ��
� � � ���
�G. �'�� ��
��' �� �
�
. �'
�
: i
� � �i
;
. ;
i
�
'
�
C
r� ��
ffZa�nwr�y 11s� System
Apply runway use prio�ities to low and
mid demand periods
° Resultant runway use is aiso shown on
chart
�� .. },�
� �
w �.�;�` Ce'�'�3
' ��859�iV� f �SL ��S$L'B9'1
........ �._ �r_:._�.-- ._._ . .
� Preferred RUS
Departure priority 12s, arrival priority 30s
Populatlon impact as compared to the 20D5
llnmitigated ONL Contour
� DNl 70 dBA contnur - approximately 30 people deleted
1 DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 200 people deleted
1 DNL 60 dBA contour - apprmtimately 310 people deleted
I Total change - approximately 540 people deleted from
��, 60* DN� contour
. t � '�+ � m�l.L�
I ��
�OHS� �E�c'i$L'99'1�P6'�
D�.'�ia�8.8PL Pro'�9@S
' AC provides two NADPs to consider �
Close-in NADP
Distant NADP
Close-in NADP typicallX reduces noise
levels for areas in the immediate vicinity ,
of runway end
i Distant NADP typicaily reduces noise
;r�~";:-.Jevels for areas beyond 31�z miies from
�, �tart of takeoff
'` �,.:�f' �ii�--
i:
i
I
� �I
I
I
. I
�
�
C
�
�
� o 0 0� N N o 0 0
•- O
�� ti N Q� c*) itS C�D, O O
� O O N T T O p p p
� �
�
z C4 o p a o � o 0 0 0
� t� (7� tf5 �� I`: O�.f) O
Q� Q C7 T T r' r' T O O O
Q1
C
CSf �
� `
U � \ \ \�o 0 0 0 \ \
� O O d' Q M O e" O O
� O O M T d. t`: �- C7 O
� Cj Q T O O O O O O
C'0 �
�� o� o �� o 0 0� o
�c= O O f� r r 61 O� O
�
Q O O �� C1 C7 O Q O
��� o 0 0 0 0 o O
� N O N��CJ u d�'. CT� p O
O O�t' O c7 O O
c 0��� N.- N cri �
�
0
Z c6 �� o � o 0 0 � O
]� � CO CA (� (`� r- C`'� O
'` O� N ti7 O N p r�
Q � � tD c� N d' �� �
��-- C'� N r' r-
�
W � o 0 0 ��� N o O
� N O r~- �-? N T' N 0 O
ca �n ri r �
� O O �0 T T N M��
� Q T
� (� Q p O^ O O O � O �
� T� N tt') t0 N r� O
�� O V o0 h- O� � d d: �
,Q r- ri O d' i�
O O N s- N N a r Q
��� o 0 0 0 0 o O
r G� N d' �
� M� �.c') � N 6) � � O
N CO M O) 'd' O O
.�C � O O r� e- � e- r- C+� r
�
0
z CCS \\ o a o 0 0 o Q
0 o r. C7 N<- s- � O
� •� �� h- O N O 0(i7
d.' <( c� N t�- N d' CO p M p
'O
�-- r N N �- T
N
� �� � o o� o 0 0
� 'C O t�s� � � � � � N C7
Q- N N O u7 tn '�' N 1'�- � O
� O O(37 r- .- N C7 O O.
� Q T
�
. � (� \ \ O �O O O 0 O �
> � � � M N � � � �" Q
•� C% � r' ifl T Ci" Q L±± O
4 � � `_ �. `_ `n Q �° a
N r N N �- �
a
�
C _I Q..' J � �
�
� N N N O O 1`- � �
Q' d' N c- �c- c'� CrJ r M �-'
m
f--
z
_
C.
RJc�ise /�ba4emen�
Depae�ture Pro�iies
MASAC Op�rations Committee .�^.__...._.
; Recommendat�on
Adopt Distant NADP for Runways 30L, 30R,
and Runway 17
' Distant NADP retluces the overall
population within the DNL. 60+ dBA
COt1t0UC (Totai change - appro�mately 9,800
people subtracted)
l,� '� «�Maintain Distant NADP for Runway
;� 4}/22, 12L and 12R
;t�, ��
•..�
`S
r �
P��gim6naey Re�oerae�er�d�d
� 6�c�is� Abateen�nt Pr�gram
: __.._ ��;�__ .
Implement
Distant NADP for aii runways
Preferred RUS
Runway 17, 105° Hybrid Fan
i�ow-Demand Right Tracks discussed at
May 1, 2000 meebng
Y� � ��p '
�� � ��. . . . . .
,�,,,"�':� �
P�-�laminary Recoa�amended
�e+6s� �,bat�maen� Progr��va
Population impact as compared to the 2005
Unmitigated DNL Contour
1 DNL 70 dBA contour - approximately 260 people added
t DNL 65 d8A contour - approximatefy 320 people added
i DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately 11,300 people deleted
i Total change - approximately 10,7Z0 people, and
4,290 dwellings, cleleted from 60+ DNL contour
�` +/ s �
��+.
9
l:
�
,
�
�
j
�
;
�
i
(
C.
�
�
MSP Part 150
Draft Population and Housing impacts
Aitematives Analysis
.fT►i�i7
5/11/00
3:04 PM
pop_counts.xls
MSP Part 150
Draft Population and Housing Impacts
Alternatives Analysis
Please Note:
1. Population and Housing data are composed of field-verified information as well as unedited materials
gathered from affected cities. The field verification of all residential and noise-sensitive locations around MSP
is still on going, and as such, these tables should be used only for reference. When the field data collection is
complete, these figures will be updated accordingly with the most accurate information available.
2. Both population and dwelling unit counts are rounded to the nearest ten (10).
Case zuu� �rac�
� � Cify � DNL 75+
-_. -- Population
Bioomington �i 0
Eagan �
Inver Grove Neights �
Mendota Heights �
Minneapolis �
Mendota �
Edina �
Richfieid �
Totai �
Chan e from 2005 Base Q
Case � 2005 track_
c;tv DNL 75+
Eagan �
-ti.. Inver Grove Neights �
Mendota Heights �
Minneapolis �
Mendota �
Edina �
Richfieid �
Totai �
Chanoe from 2005 Base �
id Fan lzotl Totai
DNL 70-74 DNL 65-69 - DNL 6D-64
Population Dwellin s Po ulation Dweliin s Po ulation Dweliin s Po ulaGon Dwellin s
0 570 320 1530 780 4060 1940 6�60 3040
� p 0 230 70 233� 860 2560 930
Q � p p 0 120 40 120 40
Q Q p 10 0 530 280 54D Z8�
0 1670, 800 10010 4040 32430 13560 44110� 18400�
0 a � � �. � �
0 � p p � 0 0 0 0
p p 0 1040 450 8240 3710 9280 4160
� p2qp. 1120 12820 5340 47710 20390 62770 26850
p _�7p -100 260 160 10 -20 100 4C
id fan 1
DNL7
Popula
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tion Dweliin s Nopuiauon uwe�w� � ��N���•���� ��.�••.•• - --
550 310 1490 760 3010 1520 5050 . 2590
p 0 230 70 2330 860 2560 930
0 p p 0 120 40 120 40
� p ip 0 530 280 540 28�
1670 B00 10010 d040 32430 13560 44110� 184�0�
p p 0 0 � �
p p 0 0 � � � �
p 0 1050 450 8250 372Q 9300 417D
222p 1110 12790 5320 46670 19°80 61680 26410
-190 .. -110 230 140 -1030 -430 -990 -400
5/11/0a
3:04 PM
pop_counts.xis
HNTB
PreHerninary i�ecoenenencled
A�caise ABaa�erne�fi Prograen
Additional Recommendations
Ffeet Mix Aitematives
GPS/Future Technology
,� "+�.
: �
� _��_'7
'y I�� .F .lt�..a f - t
r
S:, .�1 . .�.
�no� L+�•c
O
���+�
t.�. �
i �� �iM�
1�
C
(
V� �
�,�A �'.� C �.,�ERA TIONS �' C�_t1�1��1I �'TE..�`
; / :� `` �;
TO:
I'�2011iI:
STJJBJT CT:
DA'I'E:
MASAC Operations Committee
1VIASAC
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
part 150 Land Use Measures
7une l, 2000
At the May l, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the members reviewed fourteen different
potential land use measures presented bY� to the� May publ c wvorkshops, whilOe mpeasures ni erthrough
measures were endorsed to carry forwar
fourteen would be considered in more detail at the June 9, 2000 meeting.
Land use measures one through eight will be reviewed again to� ref�a airn rAddit onally, theeOperations
measures that have been carried forward from the eYisting Part 15 p g�'
Committee requested information concerning LU-10, Fair�Pr �os e�Statem nt and iLoudoun County,
documents; State of North Carolina Residential Property
Virginia, 1993 Zoning Ordinance, are available for your review prior to the meeting.
The remaining land use measures listed below will also be discusseci and evaluated for potential
application to this Part 150 Update.
LU-9 Dedication of Avigation Easements
LU-11 Land Banking
LU-12 Transfer of Development Rights
LU-13 Purchase of Development Rights
LU-14 Creation of Sound BuffersBarriers
In addition to the land use measures listed above, staff has forwarded a letter to Mr. Chauncy Case,
Metropolitan Council concerning the action taken at the May 23, 2000 MASAC meetin�. This letter
outlines MASAC's support for comprehensive land use planning and review langua�e as part of an
updated aviation guide chapter for the Metropolitan Council. This type of approach ensures consistency
between communities and is consistent with the charge of the Metropolitan Council.
Action Rec�uestetl
i ) That the MASAC Operations Committee endorse HNTBs recommendation to include LU-9 Dedication of
� Avigation Easements, LU-10 Fair Property Disclosure Poticy, and LU-14, Creation of sound Buffers/
Barriers as land use measures for the Part 150 Update and forward these recommendations to the full body
of MASAC for endorsement.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
RESIUENTIAL PROPERTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Instrucrions to Property Owners
North Chrou chasers a l roperty ciisctosurelstat ment This fortnns the only onte approved for hhs purpose. A disclosure� statemen� must be furnished
to Fumis p P y p�g
in connection with the sale, exchange, ophon and sale under a lease with option to purchase (unless the tenant is alread occu or inten to
inh bit d and transaction of residential property made pulrs an to a ease withtoption tolpu chaseewhere the (ess e occ�up s or nt nds to occupy
the dwelling. For a comptete list of exernptions, see N.C.G.S. 47E 2.
You must check I� one of the boxes for each of the 20 questions on the reverse side of this form.
a.....if you check"Yes" for any question, you must describe the proble�m °Cill not be liable for� ny nac urate or incomplete mformationcontained
other expert or public a�ency descnbing it If you attach a report, y
in it so long as you were not grossty negligent ui obtaining or transmitting the information.
b. ...If you check "No", you are stahng that you have no actual knowledge of any problem. If you check "No" and you know there is a problem,
you may be liable for makino an intentional misstatement.
c.....If you check "No Representation", you have no duty to disclose the conditions or characterisrics of the property, even if you should have known
of them.
*....If you check "Yes" or "No" and something happens to the properiy to make your Statement incorrect or inaccurate (for example, the roof
begins to leak), you must promptly give the purchaser a conected Statement or correct the problem.
If you are assisted in the sale of your ihe broker or salesmanrmust disc ose any material facts about your p operty,which�heyl know orreasonably
the Statement to the purchasers; and
should know, regardless of your responses on the Statement.
You must give the completed Statement to the purchaser no later than the time the purchaser makes an offer to purchase your property. If you do
not, the pur�haser can, under certain condirions, cancel any resulting contract (See "Note to Purchasers" below). You should ti ve the purchaser
a copy of the Statement containing your sib ature and keep a copy signed by the purchaser for your records. I
Note to Purchasers
If the ocondirions can el any es uting conitract and beDntitled to a etfund of ny d pos tymon skyou may have�paid. To cancel�he ontract you ust
certam
personally deliver or mail written notice of your dec�sion to cancei to the owner or the owner's agent within three calendar davs following your recerpt
of the cancet a contract after sett ement of,theltransacton or ( nethenc se of a sale orr xch nge) aRer you have oce p ed he property,cwh chever oeeurs
you to
first.
in the space belo�v, type or print in ink the address of the property (sufficient to identify it) and your name. Then sign and date.
Property Address:
Owner's Name(s):
Otivner(s) acknowledge /raving eramined
Owner Signature:
t/ris Statement before signing and that al! injormation is tn�e and correct as of t/te date si,;ned.
Date
Owner Signature:
Date
Purchas�Q��antv bvvoevner or o��ner s a� nt thaft i�is n`otta subst'tute for any inspectionsahey mav �es� �o obta n,• and tlrat the�eprtesentationsrs
is not a , ,
are made by the owner and not the owner's agent(s) or sr�bagent(s). Purchaser(s) are encouraged to obtain their owrs inspection from a license
Itome inspector or other pro(essional.
Purchaser Signature:
Purchaser Signature:
Date
Date
PA(if I OF?
� �
Rec a.zzF
R F V. I Oi9R
rroperry Raaress�llescnpnon:
[Note: !n thisform, "property" refers onlv to dwelling unit(s) and not sheds, detached garages or other buildings.J
Regarding the property identified above, do you know of any probiem (maifunction or defect) with any
of the following:
FOUNDATION, SLAB, FIREPLACES/CHIMNEYS, FLOORS, WTNDOWS ([NCLUDCNG STORM Yes* No
WINDOWS AND SCREENS), DOORS, CEILINGS, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WALLS, ATTACHED
GARAGE, PATIO, DECK OR OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS including any modificarions
tothem? ............................................. .. .
• • • • . ................................................••.....................................................................................CJ ❑
a. Siding is Cl Masonry � Wood � Composition/Hardboard � Viny( p Synthetic Stueco p Other
b. Approximate age of structure? •�••••�••-•••••••••••••--•�•••••••-
No
Representation
❑
❑
❑
2. ROOF (leakage or other probiem)? ....................................
a. Approximate age of roofcovering? ................................................................ .....................❑ ❑ ❑
............
...............................................................:... . .......... ❑
. ........................................ .
.. ........
3. WATER SEEPAGE, LEAKAGE, DAMPNESS OR STANDING WATER in the basement, craw( space or slab? ..................❑ ❑ ❑
4 ELECTRICAL S -
• YSTEM (out(ets, wiru�g, panel, swttches, fixtures, ete.)? ............... �� �
.............................................
5. PLUMBING SYSTEM (pipes, Fixtures, water heater, etc.)? ................
......................................................................................... ❑ ❑ ❑
6. HEATING AND/OR AIR CONDTTIONING? ............... .. .
a. Heat Source is: O Furnace � Heat Pump � Baseboard � Other ............................................................................................❑ ❑ ❑
b. CooGng Source is: 0 Cen�ai Forced Air 0 Wall/Window Unit(s) O Other ����������'�'�"""""""""""""'"""" �
c. Fuel Source is: 0 Elechicity p Naturai Gas � Propane C� Oil O Other ��������� �� �����"��""""'"""""""""" �
.................................................. ❑
7. WATER SUPPLY (including water quality, quantity and water pressure)? ..................
a. Water suppty is; p City/County 0 Community System CI Private Well 0 Oiher ������� ����� ��������� ������ � �
b. Water pipes are: � Copper Ct Galvanized 0 Plastic � Other ❑ Unknown ��������� ���������������������'�����"" �
........••••-•• .................................... ❑
8. SEWER AND/OR SEPTIC SYSTEM? ............ .
a. .Sewage disposai system is: 0 Septic Tank � Septic Tank with Pump 0 Community System� Connected ��
to City/County System ❑ City/County System available (� Other
...........................................
9. BUTLT-IN APPL[ANCES (RANGE/OVEN, ATTACHED MICROWAVE, HOOD/FAN, D[SHWASHER,
D[SPOSAL, etc)? ..............................................................................................
............................................................................... ❑ ❑
10. OTHER 3YSTEIviS AND FiXTURES: CENTRAL VACUUM, POOL, HOT TUB, SPA, ATTIC FAN,
EXHAUST FAN, CEII..ING FAN, SUMP PUMP, II2RIGATION SYSTEM, TV CABLE WIRING
OR SATELLITE DISH, OR OTHER SYSTEMS? ...............
......................................................................................................0 ❑
❑
...... ❑
❑
❑
1 t. DRAINAGE, GRAD(NG OR SOII. STABII.ITY OF LOT? ...................
.................................................................................... ❑ ❑ ❑
12. PRESENT INFESTATION, OR D,AMAGE FRObf PAST INFESTATION OF WOOD DESTROYING
INSECTS OR ORGANISMS whieh has not been repaired? ........................................................................
................................ ❑ CI
A1so regarding the property identified above, do you know of any:
13. ROOM ADD[TIONS OR OTHER STRUCTURAL CHANGES ? ..................................................
.......................................... ❑ ❑
l4. ENVIRONIviENTAL HAZARDS (substances, materials or products) including asbestos, formaldehyde, radon
?as, methane gas, lead-based paint, underjround storage tank, or other hazardous or toxic material (whether
buried or covered), contaminated soil or water, or other environmental contamination? ............................................................� �
15. COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL NUISANCES (noise, odor, smoke, etc.) affecting the properry? .................
..................... ❑ ❑
16. VIOLATIONS OF BUII.D[NG CODES, ZONING ORDINANCES, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
``' OR OTHER LAND-USE RESTRICTIONS ? .............. ..................................❑ ❑
..............................................................................
17. UTILITY OR OTHER EASEMENTS, SHARED DRIVEWAYS, PARTY WALLS OR ENCROACHNIENTS
FROM OR ON t1D1ACENT PROPERTY? .............................................................
................................................................... ❑
18. LAWSUITS, FORECLOSURES, BANKRUPTCY, TENANCIES,IUDGMENi'S, TAX LIENS,
PROPOSED ASSESSNIENTS, MECHANICS LIENS, MATERIALMEN'S LIENS OR NOTICE FROtvI
ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY that could affect title to the property? .............................................................................�
19. OWNERS' ASSOCIt�TION OR "COMIviON AREA" EXPENSES OR ASSESSMENTS? ..............................................
..... ❑
n
�
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
20. FLOOD Hr1ZARD or that the property is in a FEDERALLY-DESiGNATED FLOOD PLAIN? ..........................
.................... ❑ ❑ ❑
* If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, piease expiain (Attach additional sheets, if necessary):
C
Chapter 47E.
Residential Property Disclosure Act.
§ 47E-1. Applicability-
This Chapter applies to the following transfers of
residential real property consisting of not less than one nor
more than four dwelling units, whether or not the transaction is
with the assistance of a licensed real estate broker or salesman:
� �. ) Sale or exchange,
(2) Installment land sales contract,
�3) Option, or
�4) Lease with option todp6resas1� 1997p472s s. 5.)
provided in G.S. 47E-2(10). (1995, c.
§ 47E-2. Exemptions.
The following transfers are exempt from the provisions of
this Chapter:
�1) Transfers pursuant to court order, including
transfers ordered by a court in administration of an estate,
transfers pursuant to a writ ofae��usteenintba;id�rurtcby' transfers
p Y�
foreclosure sale, transfers by from a decree for
_ by eminent domain, and transfers resulting
� specific performance.
__ �?) Transfers to a beneficiary from the grantor or
his successor in interest in a deed of trust, or to a mortgagee
from the mortgagor or his successor in interest in a mortgage, if
the indebtedness is in default; transiers by a trustee under a
deed of trust or a mortgagee under a mortgage, if the
indebtedness is in default; transfers by a trustee under a deed
of trust or a mortgagee under a mortgage pursuant to a
foreclosure sale, or transfers by a beneficiary under a deed of
trust, who has acquired the real property at a sale conducted
pursuant to a foreclosure sale under a deedlnftheucourse of the
�3) Transfers by a fiduciary
administration of a decedent's estate, guardianship,
conservatorship, or trust.
�a) Transfers from one or more co-owners solely to
one or more other co-owners.
��- �5) Transfers made solely to a spouse or a person
or persons in the lineal line of consanguinity of one or more
transferors.
�6) Transfers between spouses resulting from a
decree of divorce or a distribution pursuant to Chapter 50 of the
General Statutes or comparable provision of another state.
��) Transfers made by virtue of the record owner's
failure to pay anyT�adsfers toaor�ipom1thelStatesor any political
(8)
subdivision of the State.
�g) Transfers involving the first sale of a
i ) dwellinq never inhabited.
--� (10) Lease with option to purchase contracts where
the lessee occupies or intends to occupy the dwelling.
(Il) Transfers between parties when both parties �
agree not to complete a residential property disclosure
statement. (1995, c. 476, s. l.)
� 47E-3. Definitions.
When used in this Chapter, unless the context requires
otherwise, the term:
(1) "Owner" means each person having a recorded
present or future interest in real estate that is identified in a
real estate contract subject to this Chapter; but shall not mean
or include the trustee in a deed of trust, or the owner or holder
of a mortgage, deed of trust, mechanic's or materialman's lien,
or other lien or security interest in the real property, or the
owner of any easement or license encumbering the real property.
(2) "Purchaser" means each person or entity named
as "buyer" or "purchaser" in a real estate contract subject to
this Chapter.
(3) "Real estate contract" means a contract for the
transfer of ownersh�p of real property by the means described in
G.S. 47E-1.
(a) "Rea1 property" means the lot or parcel, and
th'e dwelling unit(s) thereon, described in a real estate contract
subject to this Chapter. (1995, c. 476, s. 1.)
� 47E-4. Required disclosures.
(a) With regard to transfers described in G.S. 47E-1, the
owner of the real property shall furnish to a purchaser a �
residential property disclosure statement. The disclosure
statement shall:
{1) Disclose those items which are required to be
disclosed relative to the characteristics and condition of the
property and of which the owner has actual knowledge; or
(2) State that the owner makes no representations
as to the characteristics and conditi.on of the real property or
any improvements to the real property except as otherwise
provided in the real estate contract.
(b) The North Carolina Real Estate Commission shall develop
and require the use of a standard disclosure statement to comply
with the requirements of this section. The disclosure statement
shall specify that certain transfers of residential property are
excluded from this requirement by G.S. 47E-2, including transfers
of residential property made pursuant to a lease with an option
to purchase wher2 the lessee occupies or intends to occupy the
dwelling, and si?all include at least the following
characteristics Gnd conditions of the property:
(1) The water supply and sanitary sewage disposal
system;
(2) The roof, chimneys, floors, foundation,
basement, and otner s�ructural components and any modifications
of these structu=al components;
(3) The plumbing, electrical, heating, cooling, and
other mechanical s_ysLems;
(a) Present infestation of wood-destroying insects �
or organisms or past iniestation the damage for which has not
been repaired;
(5) The zoning laws, restrictive covenants,
�\ building codes, and other land-use restrictions affecting the
r e a l p r o p e r t y, a n y encroachment of the real Po ernme n t a lm a g e n c y
adjacent real property, and notice from any q
affecting this real property; and
�6j Presence of lead-based paint, asbestos, radon
gas, methane gas, underground storage tank, hazardous material or
toxic material (whether buried or covered), and other
environmental contamination.
The disclosure statement shall provide the owner with the"
option to indicate whether the owner has actual knowledge of the
specified characteristics or conditions, or the owner is making
no representations as to any characteristic or condition.
(c) The rights of the parties to a real estate contract as
to conditions of the property of which the owner had no actual
knowledge are not affected by this Article unless the residential
disclosure statement states that the owner makes no
representations as to those canditions. If the statement states
that an owner makes no representations as;-to the conditions of
the property, then the owner has no duty to disclose those
conditions, whether or not the owner should have known of them.
(1995, c. 476, s. l.; 1997-4�2, s. 1.)
�
� )
§ 47E-5. Time far disclosure; cancellation of -
contract. •
(a) The owner of real property subject to this Chapter
shall deliver to the purchaser the disclosure statement required
by this Chapter no later than the time the purchaser o�kexercises
offer to purchase, exchange, or option the property,
the option to purchase the property pursuant disclosure statement
option to purchase. The residential property
may be included in the real estate contract, in an addendum, or
in a separate document.
(b) If the disclosure statement required by this Chapter is
not delivered to the purchaser prior to or at the time the
purchaser makes an offer, the purchaser may cancel any resulting
real estate contract. The purchaser's right to cancel shall
expire if not exercised prior to the following, whichever occurs
first:
�l) The end of the third calendar day following t e
purchaser's receipt of the disclosure statement;
(2) The end of the third calendar day following the
date the contract was made;
�3) Settlement or occupancy by the purchaser in the
case of a sale or exchange; or
�aj Settlement in the case of a purchase pursuant
to a lease with option bo purchase.
Any right of the purchaser to cancel the contract provided
by this subsection is waived conclusi.vely if not exercised in the
manner required by this subsection.
In order to cancel a real estate contract when permitted by
this section, the purchaser shall, within the time required
above, give written notice to the owner or the owner's agent
either by hand delivery or by depositing into the United 5tates
mail, postage prepaid, and properly addressed to the owner or the
owner's agent. If the purchaser cancels a real estate contract in
compliance with this subsect?on, the cancellation shall be
without penalty to the purchaser, and the purchaser sha11 be
entitled to a refund of any deposit the purchaser may have paid.
Any rights of the purchaser to cancel or terminate the contract
for reasons other than those set forth in this subsection are not
affected by this subsection. (1995, c. 476, s. 1; 1997-472, s,
2.)
� 4'lE-6. Owner liability for disclosure oi
information provided by others.
The owner may discharge the duty to disclose imposed by this
Chapter by providing a written report attached to the residential
property disclosure statement by a public agency or by an
engineer, land surveyor, geologist, pest control operator,
contractor, home inspector or other expert, dealing with matters
within the scope of the public agency's functions or the expert's
license or expertise. The owner shall not be liable for any
error, inaccuracy, or omission of any information delivered
pursuant to this section if the error, inaccuracy, or omission
was made in reasonable reliance upon the information provided by
the public agency or expert and the owner was not grossly
negligent in obtaining the information or transmitting it. (1gg5,
c. 476, s. l; 1997-472, s. 3.)
� 47E-7. Change in circumstances.
� If, subsequent to the owner's delivery of a residential r
property disclosure statement to a purchaser, the owner discovers `
a material inaccuracy in the disclosure statement, or the
disclosure statement is rendered inaccurate in a material way by
the occurrence of some event or circumstance, the owner shall
promptly correct the inaccuracy by delivering a corrected
disclosure statement to the purchaser. Failure to deliver the
corrected disclosure statement or to make the repairs made
necessary by the event or circumstance shall result in such
rernedies for the buyer as are provided for by law in the event
the sale agreement requires the property to be in substantially
the same condition at closinq as,on the date of the offer to �
purchase, reasonable wear and tear excepted. (1995, c. 476, s.
l.)
� 47E-8. Agent's duty.
A real estate broker or salesman acting as an agent in a
residential real estate transaction has the duty to inform each
of the clients of the real estate broker or'salesman of the
client's rights and obligations under this Chapter. Provided the
owner's real estate broker or salesman has performed this duty,
the broker or salesman shall not be responsible for the owner's
wi11fu1 refusal to provide a prospective purchaser with a
residential property disclosure statement. Nothing in this
Chapter shall be construed to conflict with, or alter, the broker
or salesman`s duties under Chapter 93A of the General Statutes.
(1995, c. 476, s. 1; 1997-472, s. 4.) 'i
\
� 47E-9. Rights and duties under Chapter 42,
' landlord and tenant, siot affected during lease.
This Chapter shall not affect the landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties to a lease with option to
purchase contract during the term of the lease, and the rights
and duties of landlords and tenants under Chapter 42 of the
General Statutes shall rem�onthe purchasertl(1995nscer476� s. l.)
ownership of the property
$ 47E-10. Authorization to prepare forms:
fees. re are, or
The North Carolina Real Estate Commission may p P
cause to be prepared, forms for use pursuan� to this Chapter. The
Commission maytheacosts ofepostage.e(199�5,tcen476flse lejts (25�?
per form plus
S`.
,
c
���
�' �' �'` , � ' �,� '�. . ; ::
��,, i � ,�`. , ,� • ,��; � .�, ;
AI30�TED BY'� ]�OA,RD OF SUPE�tV�S�JL2S
JUNE 16,1993
Il�TCO1tPORATING AlVtEI�DMEi�T7CS AIDOlPTEIi
OCTO�ER 6,1993 -
+ + BR�[TARY 2,1994
A I'�.2IL 6,1994
JUNE 16,1994
DEG']CMBEI� 21,1994
1�A,gC� 1,1995
SEPT'ElVIBER 6, � 1995
O�T'OBER 4,.1995
DE�NNY�SER. 6,1995
��L,17,1996
NOVElVIBCIt 20,1996
1VIARC`� 5,1997
1V1C�,Y 21,1997
JYTI�TE 1�,1997
A�''27[tIL 15,1998
��TNE 17,1998
��U�� 21,1999
�'J[�L 21,1999
1L.1C�.Y 5,1999
i�CTOBEIt 6,1999
g,�E�11�BEI21,1999
Section 4-1400
AR.TICLE 1V
DIVISION C: ENVIl20NMCENTAL IlVIPACT DISTRICTS
AI-Airport Impact Overlay District
4-1401 Purpose. This district is established to acknowledge the unique land use
impacts of airports, regiilate the siting of noise sensitive uses, ensure tha.t the
heights of structures are compatible with airport operations, and complement
Federal Aviation Admini�tration regulations regarding noise and height.
4-1402 District Boundaries.
(A) The Airport Impact (AI) Overla.y District boundaries sha11 be based
on the 60 and 65 Ldn noise contours and an area tha.t extends one (1)
mile beyond the 60 Ldn contours. The Board shall use as a basis for
delineating the Ldn noise contour the following sources:
�• • � � . �� � � .
.r
1 ►� �uo. � � ' •� .�� a. � �• •r �
� 'r�. •r. • ���r • . y •a �
� • � � . • • • i.:.�:��iii�iiiMur��=�.tiYiYwur-si.��
�"��11 � •�: �i
(B) For the purpose of admini.�tering these regulations the Airport
Impact Overlay District shall ha.ve three (3) components:
Ldn - 65 or higher.
Ldn 60 - Ldn 65.
Within the A-I overlay district, but outside the Ldn 60
contour.
4-1403 Overlay District Established. The Airport Impact (AI) Overlay District is
hereby established as an overlay district, meaning that it is a district overlaid
upon other districts. Land within the Airport Impact (AI) Overlay District may
be used as permitted in the underlying district, subject to the additional
r bQulations of this district.
4-1404 Use Limitations. In addition to the use limitations and regulations for the
zoning district over which an Airport Impact (AI) Overlay District is located,
the following use limitations shall apply:
��.
�
(A,) For areas outside of, but within one (1) mile of the Ldn 60.
(1) FnIl I)isclosure Statement. For all residential dwelling
units to be const�ucted outside of, but within one (1) mile of
the Ldn 60. The applicant shall disclose in writing to all
prospective purchasers that they are located within a.n ai'ea
that will be impacted by aircraft overflights and aircraft
noise. Such notification will be accomplished by inclusion
of this inforsnation in all sales contracts, brochures and
promotional documents, including the Illustrative Site
Plan(s) on display within anY sa�es related office(s), as well
as in Homeowner Association Documents, and by inclusion
on all subdivision and site plans, and within al1 Deeds of
Corrveyance.
(B) For areas between the Ldn 60-6� aircraft noise contours:
(�) Full Disclosure Statement. For all residential dwelling
units to be constructed between the Ldn 60-65 aircraf� noise
contours, the applicant shall disclose in writing to all
prospective purchasers that they are located within an area
that will �be impacted by aircraft overIlights and aircraf�
noise. Such notification will be accomplished by inclusion
of this inforn�a.tion in all sales contracts, brochures and
promotional documents, including the Illustrative Site
Plan(s) on display within anY sales related office(s), as well
as in Homeowner Association Documents, and by inclusion
on a11 subdivision and site plans, and within all Deeds of
Corrveyance.
(2) Acoustical Treatment. For all residential units located
between the Ldn 60-65 aircraft noise contours, the applicant
shall incorporate acoustical treatment into all dwelling units
to insure that interior noise levels within living sPaces (not
including gara�;es, sunx'ooms, or porches) do not exceed [an
average sound level of 45 db(A) Ldn. Compliance with this
standard shall be based upon a certification from an
acoustical engineer licensed in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, submitted at the time of zoning permit issuance,
that the design and construction methods and materials to
be used in the construction of the dwelling are such that the
foregoing standard will be met, asstuning exterior noise
levels between 60-65 Ldn].
(3) Avigation Easements. For all residential dwelling units to (
be constructed between the Ldn 60-65 aircraf� noise
contours. Prior to the approval of a Record Plat creating
residential lots or for eYisting lots of record, prior to the
issuance of a zoning permit, the owner(s) of such parcel or
parcels si�all dedicate an avigation easement to the
Metropolitan Washinbton Airports Authority, indicating the
right of flight to pass over the property, as a means to
securing the long-term economic viability of Washina on
Dulles Interna.tional Airport.
(C) In Airport Noise Impact azeas of Ldn 65 or higher, residential
dwellings sha11 not be pernutted. However, new dwelling units and
additions to existing dwellings ma.y be perniitted, provided that:
(1) The lot was recorded or had record plat approval prior to
the effective date of adoption of this Ordinance.
(2) The new dwelling unit or addition complies with .the
acoustical treatment requirements for residential districts set
.:�...
forth in the [Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code].
- : S.. � .. . . � . .
) No building or other structure sha11 be located in a manner or liiult to
a height which constitutes a hazard to aerial nauigatio� Where a
structure is proposed in a location or to be built to a height which
may be hazardous to air traffic such structure sha11 not be erected
without certification from the Federal Aviation Ad;mini.�tration that it
will not constitute a l�azard to air traffic.
4-1405 Disclosure. A disclosure statement shall be placed on all subdivision plats, site
plans, and deeds to any parcel or development �vithin the AI District, clearly
identifying any lot which is located within the AI District and identifying the
component ofthe AI District (i.e., Section 4-1402(B)(1),
4-1402(B)(2), or 4-1402(B)(3)) in which the lot is located.
[4-1406 Definitions. Unless otherwise specially provided, or unless clearly required by
the conte�, the words and phrases defined in this subsection shall have the
following. meanings when used in Section 4-1400.
(A) Ldn: The symbol for "yearly day-night average sound level", which
means the 365-day avera�e, in decibels, for the period from midnight
to midnight, obtained after the addition of ten decbels to sound leveLs
for the periods between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m, local time.
, , (B) 45 db(A) Ldn: The symbol for the required level of noise attenuation
in residential structures constructed within the ax'ea bet�'een ai�P°rt
noise contour 60 and airport noise contour 6 f 4 decibels or less ]ed
yearly interior day-night average sound level o
Me#r� oll��r� Aircr��ft Sound Aba��r��nfi �un�il (�ASA��
� 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolls, Minnesota 55450 •(b92) 726-8141
Chairman: Mayor Charfes Mertensotto
Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990
Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982
Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor: Chad Leqve May 24, 2000
Metropolitan Council
Attn: Mr. Chauncey Case .
Mears Park Center
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Case:
The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (1VIASAC) is an organization comprised of equal
community, airline and airport representation. MASAC continually strives to find new and innovative ways
to address airport noise issues around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (IvSSP). Through
cooperative decision making an�d �heta cltines playedian active ole.s a long list of noise reducing success in
which both the communities an
In addition to the efforts of MASAC, the MASAC Operations Committee serves as an advisory Committee
to the full MASAC. The dealings ofthis group are more in-depth and technical than those ofMASAC and
concentrate heavily on the overall operational initiatives of the Council's charter. At the May 12, 2000
MASAC Operations Committee meeting you reviewed draft revisions to the Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines for Aircraft Noise. The following revisions were proposed:
o The deletion/replacement of dated or inaccurate text material
. Incorporation of 1999 amendment recommendations from the public hearing document
• Incorporation of up-to-date noise policy contours for all system airports (currently bein�
coordinated with NIAC to develop and provide to the communities noise contours in a GIS format)
o Assessment/incorporation of low-frequency noise information for MSP (an issue paper is beinj
��' prepared as part of the aviation guide update with recommendations in a public hearing document)
� Assessment/revision of the MSP Noise Policy Area to reflect the 2005 Part 150 Update NEvi
Additional chan?es to the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Policy Plan were reviewed. The proposed
changes were as follows:
• That the i�ISP 2005 Part 150 Noise Exposure N1ap (NEM) submitted to the FAA include a DNL
60 noise contour as recognized land use planning/implementation standards for the regional airport
system;
s That the recommended 2005 NEM, with a DNL 60 contour and a voluntary one- uidel nesrand;e
be incorporated in the Aviation Policy Plan as part of the land use compatibility ,
�� � e That the 2005 DNL 60 becomes the contour at which communities apply the compatibility
guidelines in their local plans for MSP Part 150 "corrective" land use measures in noise miti�ation
programs.
As a result ofyour presentation, the MASAC Operations Committee endorsed the amendments and (
forwarded the information to NIASAC for review and endorsement. At the May 23, 2000 MASAC meeting \
the Council reviewed the proposed amendments.
Realizing the importance of maintaining (and use planning consistency between communities and with the
Part 150 provision as outlined in the Part I50 Update, MASAC supports the amendments outlined in this
1 etter.
Consistent with the Council's expressed support, I would like to extend this written correspondence, on
behalf ofMASAC, encouraging the Metropolitan Council to make the mentioned changes to the Aviation
Policy Plan and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.
Sincerety,
Charles Mertensotto
Chairman
Metropo(itan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
tTi�1 A PPROVED NI I N U'T E S
� NNXAASAC OPERATIONS C�l��Il�IIT'I'EE
May 12, 2000
The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
called to order at 10:30 a.m.
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members were in
attendance:
Members•
John Nelson, Interim Chair
Dick Saunders
Bob Johnson
Mary Loeffelholz
Charles Mertensotto
Jamie VerbrugDe
Roy Fuhzmann
Advisorv•
Chad Leqve
Jason Giesen
Mark Ryan
Mark Kill
Cindy Greene
Visitors•
Kim Hughes
Kent Duffey
Tom Lawell
Will Eginton
Jennifer Sayre
Larry Lee
Jan DelCalzo
Bloominb on
Minneapolis
MBAA
NWA
Nlendota Heights
Eagan
MAC
MAC
MA.0
MA.0
MA.0
FAA
HNTB
HNTB
Apple Valley
Inver Grove Heights
NWA
Bloomin�on
City of Minneapolis
AGENDA
Administrative Change
Chairman Nelson announced that, beginnin� with the June 9, 2000 meeting, all Operations Committee
meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. .
Receipt of Communications
Chairman Nelson acl:no�vledged receipt of five pieces of correspondence:
• A letter was received from the City of Eagan regarding its position on the Part 150 Sound Insulation
Program's prioritization.
• A letter was received from the City of Bloomington regarding runway 17 departure flight tracks, the
use of a turbo prop only flijht track for runway 17, a potential river track departtue procedure for
runway 17 and the 2005 fleet mix.
• A letter was received from the City of Eagan regarding its preferences for the runway 17 departure
track alternatives.
• A letter was received from Carter Christy, business manager for the Burnsville/Ea�an/Savage ISD
191, regarding concerns the school district and others livin� in the area have regarding operations on
nzntivay 17/35.
• A letter was received from Mrs. Mary Teske, a resident of Eagan representing the Coalition for
Responsible Aircraft Dispersion, regarding concerns they and others in their nei�hborhood have
regarding d"ecisions being made about how runway I7/35 will be operated in the future. The letter
included signatures of others living in the same area. �
Approval of Nlinutes
The minutes of the lU1ay 1, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed.
Potential Land Use Nleasures
Kim Hughes, I�NTB, briefly presented additional information and e:camples
proposed Part 150 land use measures, including land use measures nine through
the following information:
1. A description of the measure;
2. The area to which it would be applied;
3. The responsible government agency;
4. A listing of the compatibility benefits;
5. How it would be implemented;
6. The possible costs involved; and
7. A description of the reference material provided.
regarding the newly
14. Each measure had
LU-9 - Dedication ofAvigation Easements
There are two ways for this to work. One is corrective and the other is preventive. One can either
purchase an avigation easement outri�ht from existing incompatible properties or one cari require the
dedication of avi�ation easements as a condition for obtaining buildin� permits for new or substantialy
reconstructed structures.
A sample avigation easement was presented from the city of Liverznore, Cal'rfornia.
LU-10 - Fair Property Discloszrre Policy
This measure incorporates aircraft noise information in real property sales for new and existing parcels
and requires the disclosure of aircraft noise levels by property owners and their a�ents.
Examples of langua�e regardin� disclosure of aircraft noise levels were presented.
L U-11 - Land Banking
This measure involves the fee-simple purchase of privately-owned, vacant land by a local public
C
2
C
� agency to prevent non-compatible land use development. The land would be held for later public use
not necessarily related to aViation but compatible with NCP b idelines.
This measure does not refer to banking land for a future airport site. MAC is restricted in banking land
for this purpose without Legislative direction.
L U-12 - Transfer of Development Rights
This measure involves the purchase of an interest in privately-owned land which permits the MAC to
prohibit any and all uses of the land which could be adversely impacted by aircra$ nozse. Development
potential would be transferred fronn properties within aircraft noise zones to designated receiving
areas outside the noise zones.
An example of a transfer of development ri;hts in regards to wetlands was included.
L U-13 - Purchase of Development Rights
This measure involves the voluntary legal agreements that allow landowners, meeting certain criteria, to
sell the right to develop their property to local government agencies, state government or to a
nonprofit organization. An avigation/conservation easement would be placed on the land and an
a�eement would be recorded on the title to permanently limit fizture development.
LU-14 - Creation of Sound Buf,�ers/Barriers
T`his measure consists of the combined use of sound barrier walls andlor berms and natural landscaping to
reduce aircraft-related noise for communities immediately surrounding MSP:
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked whether the sample agreements were examples or if they represented
required langua�e. Ms. Hughes said the cities, MAC and any other party involved could draft their own
agreements.
Chairman Nelson noted that land use measures nine �e an �add tional support ng informat on regardi ng
2000 meeting. He asked that the consultants distnbu y
these measures, specifically the disclosure p nli��y theirh es emv er commun ty b�ro ps/ ouncips before that
asked that each member brina the mformatio P
date.
Review Runway 17 Departure Flight Track Alternatives
Kent Duffey, HNTB, reviewed a new analysis of the rumvay 17 departure nack alternatives.
Goals for Determining Best Runway 17 Departure Track Alternative
`''� l. Reduce the noise impact within the 60 DNL contour.
2. Avoid increased overflights of other communities.
3. Maintain runway capacity.
4. Feasible implementation by FAA/ATC.
5. Provide positive guidance to aircraft to reasonably follow desired flight tracks.
6. Allows for possible future transition to FMS/GPS navigation.
. The EIS assumes that noise abatement measures could be implemented for runway 17 to avoid
populated areas. (i.e. analyze possible noise abatement measures for departures ofFrunway 17)
3
• FIight tracks and procedures must provide sufficient guidance to ensure that aircraft of varying
performance capabilities avoid, as much as possible, populated areas enroute to their destinations.
Two "hybrid" fans were presented that give positive guidance to aircraft usin� existing technology and
that are operationally feasible. Future use of GPS/FNS will be considered as the technology evolves.
The followin� information was used to develop the two fans.
East FI zght ?'racks
� East flight txacks are those east of runway centerline.
• Aircra$ would be tumed immediately off runway end
• Maintains dispersion of aircraft over Ea�an.
yYest Flight Tracks
� West flight tracks are those west of runway centerline.
• Elimination of flight tracks F and G for jet aircraft
• Use of DME and altitude turn points to b ide aircraft onto EIS flight tracks to avoid populated areas
• Turboprop aircra$ assi�ed to two tracks west and outside of jet fan (215° and 23�° headings)
yYest Flight Tracks - Turn Points
In order to avoid populated areas and to guide aircraft onto the EIS flight tracks, the use of turn points
should be used.
s An aircraft with a westerly heading would maintain runway heading until reaching a designated (
point. The aircraft would then turn to the initial assigned heading of 185° or 200°. `
• As the aircraft reaches 3000' MSL, TRACON would take over and turn the aircraft again to a
heading consistent with its departure gate.
How Ti�rn Points Are Established
• In order to perform this procedure, Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) can be used to define tum
points.
• DME measures the distance from a VOR station to the aircraft in tenths of a nautical mile.
• Altitude requirements can also be used to define turn points, but are less precise than Div1E due
varying aircraft performance.
� Turn points can be designated as part of a Departure Procedure (DP) for a specific heading (i.e. 185°
and/or 200°) and as part of an FAA order for use by ATC.
• Use of turn points may result in a slight decrease in runway capacity in order to insure adequate
aircraft separation.
The two hybrid fans are:
1. 120° fan of 09�° to 215°
�
2. 105° fan of 095° to 200°
120 °Fan (adds a 21 S°heading west of EIS track E)
A population analysis shows that �70 eocle from�ther70 dBA contoura adds 60tpeoplOe�to the165 dBA
to the 60 DNL contour. It deletes p p
contour and adds 10 people to the 60 dBA contour.
105 °Fan (encompasses EIS tracks A through E)
A population analysis shows that the total change for this fan option is approximately 990 people deleted
from the 60 DNL contour. It deleteselfrom the 60 dBA con o� Most of the delet d population s6in
dBA contour and deletes 1030 peopl
Bloomington.
A contour map showin� each fan alternative was presented, as well. Neither fan negatively impacted any
other community. �
Consultant Recommendation
Implement the 10�° hybrid fan - it reduces impacted population within the 60 DNL contour while
avoiding increased overflights of other communities. It would also maintain aircraft dispersion over
Ea?an.
Revierv Runway Use System Alternatives
Kent Duffey, HNTB, reviewed runway use factors.
New Methodolo�y
A new methodology for determining when an RUS could be implemented was employed by:
• Developing an Average Annual Week for 2005 using 1999 ANOMS data.
• Dividing the week into 15-minute segments.
o Counting the amvals and departures during these time segments.
• Grouping the segments by number of operations and counting the proportion of operations that occur
during low, mid and high demand periods.
Lotiv Demand Time Periods
• Low demand time periods are defned as less than 14 operations in one hour or 3.5 operations per 15-
minute se;ment.
a A low demand time period allows for head-to-head operations in the Eagan/Mendota Heights
corridor or on rumvay 17/35.
o Runway selection during low-demand periods uses the same methodology as in the previous RUS
alternatives.
1tilicl Demand Time Periods
• Mid demand time periods are defined as less than 60 operations per hour or 15 operations within a
15-minute time seQment.
e A mid demand time period allows for efficient selection of runways based on noise considerations
given the requirements of runway crossin�s, capacity, etc.
a A mid demand time period also allows for shifts in ninway priorities during established operational
5
modes without chan�ing runway confijurations.
High Demand Time Periods
• High dernand time periods are defined as 60+ operations per hour.
• This type of period utilizes the base EIS runway use, which is optimized for high demand, peak-hour
operations.
The Preferred R US
1. Maximize use of the Ea�an�Mendota Heights corridor; depart runways 12L/12R and arrive 30L/30R.
2. Second priority - depart runway 17, arrive runway 35.
3. Head-to-head operations when needed and operatianally feasible.
4. Third priority - balanced use of runway 4/22.
5. Depart runways 30L/30R, and arrive runways 12L/12R at all other times.
The Preferred RUS would be applied during low and mid demand periods. The impact on the population
would be approximately 540 people deleted from the 2005 unmitigated 60+ DNL contour. A contour
map comparing the 2005 unmitigated contour with the contour that results from applying the Preferred
RUS was presented. _
The estimated runway use percenta�es for the Preferred RUS were compared to that of the EIS or 2005
unmiti�ated RUS. This chart showed the changes in runway use that could be expected with
implementation of the Preferred RUS. The larjest chan�es were an increase of 3.76% in nighttime
arrivals on runway 4 and a decrease of 7.8'7% in nighttime arrivals on runway 30L largely due to the
addition of the third priority of a balanced use of runway 4/22.
Recommended NADPs . `.
Kent Duffey, HNTB, reviewed the Operations Committee's recommendation for Noise Abatement
Departure Profiles (NADPs) for each nulway end. The Committee has recommended that the Distant
NADP be implemented off all runway ends. A population analysis shows that approximately 9,800 -
people are deleted from the 2005 60+ DNL, unmitigated contour when this recommendation is applied.
Preliminary Recommended Noise Abatement Program for the Part 150 Update
The preliminary recommended noise abatement pro�am for MSP's Part 150 Update is to implement:
• The Distant NA.DP for all runways
• The recommended preferred RUS
� The recommended runti�ay 17, 105° departure fan
��`�� � The low-demand fli�ht tracks discussed and a�-eed upon at the May 1, 2000 meeting
A population analysis shows that the preliminary recommended noise abatement proD am �vould delete
appro:cimately 10,720 people from the 2005 unmitigated 60+ DNL contour, which translates into
approximately 4,290 dwellin�s. (This includes an additional 260 people added to the 70 dBA contour,
320 people added to the 65 dBA contour and 11,300 people deleted from the 60 dBA contour.)
A contour map comparing the 2005 unmitigated contour with the 2005 preliminary mitigated contour
was presented.
C
; `� Additional altematives that will be included in the document will be a fleet mix alternative and the use of
GPS and future technology.
Mr. Duffey said a grid point analysis showed no si�ificant noise Ievel changes associated with the
recoznmended noise abatement program compared with the 2005 unmitigated contour.
Ms. Hughes noted the people added to the 2005 preliminary mitigated contour have either already
received sound insulation or are in the current program•
R US Discussion
Jan DelCalzo of the City of Minneapolis asked if the operational mode of arriving on runways 30L 3
and departing on nu�r"iaY 17 had been included in the RUS. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said this operational
configuration was one of the 14 modes possible at the airport. He said the ability to use this operational
mode depends on the wind and weather. He said the RUS calls for the use of runway 17 for departures
whenever possible (during low and mid demand time periods). .
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked how the runways would be used during high demand periods.
Mr. Duffey said during times of high demand the EIS asrsump�tierati nal configuration. eHe noted thatt
these times, capacity and wind conditions dnve the run y p
although the modes of operation are the same as the high demand time periods, during mid demand
periods th:ere is enough room to make decisions based on the RUS.
Mr. Eginton asked how many mid-demand hours there were in a 24-hour tirneframe. Mr. Duffey said
mid-dernand conditions exist during 9.8% of the daytime hours and 21 % of the nighttime hours.
C�--- j Mr. Eginton said he is concerned that the R e� to hel ureliev s ome of the no seimpacts to�the soutlieast
He said the north/south runway was suppos P
of the airport by using it to its full potential as soon as it was operational.
Mr. Duffey explained that the runways as part of the proposed RUS are in order of preference. The
actual use of runways is still predicated on the mentioned factors. Use of runway 17/35 will be consistent
with the initial EIS pianned use of the runway.
JOHN NELSON, BLOOiVIINGTON, IVIOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED TO
ACCEPT THE CONSULTANT RECOIYIMENDATION FOR THE PR.EFERRED RiJNtiVAY
USE SYSTEIVI:
1. MAXIM[LZE USE OF THE EAG E 30L 30R.�A ��GHTS CORRIDOR; DEPA.RT
RUNWAYS 12L/12R AND A.RRN
2. SECOND PRI�RITO ERATIONSR� NEEDED AND OPER-ATIONALLY FEASIBLE.
3. HEAD TO HEAD
4. THIRD PRIORITY - BALANCED USE OF RUNWAY 4/22•
5. DEPART RUNWAYS 30L/30R, AND AILRIVE RIJN�'A`YS 12L/12R AT ALL OTHER
TIMES.
AND THAT THE PREFERRED Ri.T�t ED NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM AND NOISE
PRELIIYIINARY 200� RECONIM�ND
�1
EXPOSUR.E IVIA,p, MOTION CAIZRTED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Disczrssion on the �Llotion
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the recommended RUS was consistent with the
percentages of operations for each runway depicted in the EIS. Kim Hughes, HNTB, referred
Mr. Eginton to the MSP Part 150 Prefened RUS Runway Use chart that compares the EIS and
the preferred RUS percenta�es of daytime and nighttime arrivals and departures for each runway
end. She noted that the biggest change from the EIS projections is an increase in rughttime
operations on runway 04/22, which is a result of including balanced use of runway 4/22 as the
third priority.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, asked why a recommended RUS was necessary at this
point. Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, said making a recornmendation for a preferred RUS provides the'
public with the opporiunity to comment on the recomrnendation.
Chairman Nelson asked Cindy Greene, FAA, if the prefened RUS, as stated, would provide her
with the information necessary to make decisions on runway use. Ms. Greene said the RUS
recommendation would provide her with the inforniation she needs to develop RUS language.
Kent Duffey, HNTB, said has been working on prepariz�g a matrix of options for ATC based on
the preferred RUS recommendation.
Will E�inton, Inver Grove Heights, asked how the first priority of maximizing the use of the
Eagan/Nlendota Heights Corridor correlated with the operational percentages listed in' the ta.bie.
Kent Duffey, HI�tTB, said that when the RUS says to maximize use of the Corridor, that does not
mean a majority of the operations would occur in the corridor. He said wind direction and speed (
dictates the percentage of time that operations will occur in the corridor. The RUS dictates the
priority runway when there is an option to choose one.
Flight Track Discarssion
Tom Lativell, Apple Valley, asked for clarification regarding the use of a river track and how fli;ht track
use �vould change with the elimination of EIS tracks F and G. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said jet traffic that
would have been normaliy assi�ed to tracks F and G would now be reassigned to tracks D and E(185°
and 200° headings). He also explained that the technology needed to place aircraft directly over the river
is not yet in place and that a river track will be considered as a separate mitigation measure independent
of the runway 17 departure fan. Mr. Duffey then e,cplained how aircraft would be dispersed west of
runway 17 centerline in conjunction with the 105° fan.
�,j, Mr. Lawell asked if the traffic that was moved to tracks D and E would impact Burnsville. Mr.Duffey
said a large majority of the aircraft using these tracks will have turned west toward their departure gates
before crossing the Bumsville border. Ms. Hughes said they would develop a graphic that would better
depict this procedure.
Glenn Orcutt, FAA, asked where the added population is located with implementation of the 105° fan.
Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the population is added in Bloomington. These homes, however, would be
included in the nest sound insulation program regardless. -
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, noted that aircraft do not fly a ground track and that there is
E:3
dispersion off any given track. Kent Duffey, I�tTB, said that the integrated noise model does account for
dispersion rates, which were developed using ANOMS �ate analyses.
Mr. Nlertensotto said he was also concerned that the contours based on these tracks would not accurately
reflect the reality on the �'ound. He said people believe that if they are not included in sound insulation
program that they won't be impacted, which he said is not true. He said the changes being proposed to
shrink the contour, as far as he is concerned, will not change the impacts for those people bein5 deleted
from the unmiti�ated contour. He noted that he is not necessarily impressed with any reductions to the
unmitigated contour for these reasons.
Chairman Nelson asked that a representative from each of the affected cities (Burnsville, Apple Valley,
Eagan and Bloominb on) to briefly summarize their position on the issue of the runway 17 departi.u'e
track fan. He said he would also take comments from anyone in the audience regarding the issue, as well.
Because there was no Burnsville representative present, he noted that the city of Burnsville, in a letter,
had e:cpressed a preference for a 190° fan for runway 17 deparlures. _
Apple Yalley
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, spoke first and gave several reasons for his city's preference for the
widest possible departure fan for runway 17. He noted that the Apple Valley City Council had
convened the evening before and had come to a consensus on the issue. The following reasons
for its preference weze given: -
1. The 60 DNL contour is a description but not a boundary for noise.
2. Apple Valley has never experienced this level of aircraft noise before.
3. All arrivals on runway 35 will be over Apple Valley.
4. The EIS assumptions for runway 17/35 are considered an equitable distribution of aircraft
operations for that runway
5. Apple Valley does not have compatible areas that could be used to develop a corridor.
6. Eliminatin� tracks artificially constrains ATC.
7. Apple Valley is not convinced that concentrating aircrafi on fewer flight tracks will not
unduly impact the city with additional overflights.
He noted that Apple Valley was very interested in the development of a river track because he
felt this was something all of the communities could ab ee on.
Bloomington
``��� Larry Lee, Bloomin�ton, presented Bloominb on's position regarding the runtivay 17 departure
track fan. He noted that the recommended 105° deparh.�re fan alternative is consistent with the
City of Bloomin�on's preferences.
Mr. Lee encouraged the members to place more emphasis on the preferences of those
communities closest to the airport when making recommendations.
Mr. Lee said the City of Bloominb on also encourages the development of a river track
procedure.
�;
Eagan �
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, presented the city's position on the runway 17 departure fli;ht tracks
and made the following points:
1. He estimates that Eagan will experience a majority of the overflights from both amvals and
departures at the airport once the new runway is operational.
2. None of the options, including the 60° fan, restricts capacity at the airport.
3. Elimination of flight track A would not impact any other community, only a different part of
Eagan.
4. The city feels it should be allowed to make decisions that affect its residents as long as the
decision does not affect other communities.
5. The sensiti�iiy point analysis showed a substantial increase in noise levels at point Q 17,
which is the area that would be affected by track A operations.
6. During high-demand periods when traffic is arrivina from the east and departing runway 17,
track A will not be an option. He said this flight track would only be used during low-
demand periods.
7. It is possible, through legislation, that the State will provide funding for noise mitigation for
those areas not eligible for federal funds.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, asked Cindy Greene, FA.A, if she a�eed that the elimination of track A
on its own would not restrict capacity for the ninway. Ms. Greene a�eed.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he could not a�ee with the statement that Eajan wouid
be the most impacted community with the addition of the new runway. He noted that the (
Corridor has exempted, per comments made by Ea�an's former mayor, 95% of Eagan's
population from aircra$ noise impacts. He said including departures off runway 12L and 12R in
his impact analysis is misleading. Mr. Verbrugge noted that the impacts he was refemng to are
in the newly impacted areas of Eagan that will be included in the 60 DNL contour. `
Coalition for Responsible Azrcraft Dispersion (C.RAD) _
Ms. Mary Teske, representing CRA.D, presented her group's concerns regardin� departure
dispersions ofF runway 17. She noted her neighborhood's location on a map, which is in both
Eajan and Burnsville. She noted that there are five schools in the area with approximately 3,000
students. She said she is concerned that her area has not been included in any popuiation
analyses and that she has attempted to count the residential units on lier own. Ms. Teske said she
is also concemed with the safety of the people living in this area given the proximity of the
-,S, neighborhood to the end of the runway and about the noise levels that will be experienced by the
students in the schools. She noted, too, that Eagan has developed residential areas to the south of
the city because indusirial areas were developed for the Comdor.
Ms. Teske said CRAD supports a full 190° fan for departures off runway 17 in order to disperse
tra�c ov�r the widest possible area.
Chairman Nelson said it �vas important that the Committee give direction to the staff and consultants
regarding the dispersion of tracks for depariures off runway 17 so that they are able to prepare the
documents for the public tivorkshops the week of May 22°a
JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND BUB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED TO
ACCEPT THE CONSULTANT REC�I��� T� THE S�TUTH �FF�R 1,CTNWAYOM�D TO
200°, BE IlYIPLEMENTED FOR DEPARTURE
THAT T�IIS RECOlVIN1ENDED DEPARTURE O�AT�.��TY PR�G�T AND NOISE
PRELIMINARY 2005 RECOMD'�NDED N
EXPOSURE MfAP• T�E VOTE CARRIED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 5 TO 2.
Discussion on the Motion
Jarnie Verbrujge, Eagan, said he believes a 60° fan (140° to 200°) that eliminates tracks A and G
better serves the Council's objectives.
Cindy Greene, FA.A, noted that anytime a fan is narrowed it increases the interplay between
aircraft within the fan. She said if turn points are used to keep aircra$ on the EIS simulated
flight tracks and a smaller fan is adopted, there will be a de1rri �i��� be takensoutof the
She estimated that approximately three to four aircraf� p
runway's capacity.
Ms. Greene also said that if the runway 17 departiu' �an��"� ��� y 1 �� �e ava 1 ble departure
aircra$ were amvin g o n r u n w a y s 3 0 L 1 3 0 R an d p g
fan would be limited to 155° to 200°, which is only a 45° fan.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said to reduce the available�departure fan would unduly
restrict the airport operator and ATC. He sai no a tual bo erat onal datal a a lableeforltherneu'
fan available, particularly because there is P
ninway. . ,
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, a�'eed that the motion should be defeated but for different reasons. He
, Q o erational procedures does not have a.
disa�eed with Mr. Mertensotto s belief that changinb p
sib ificant effect on noise impacts ex educecthe noi eimpacts in�theirl olinmuni pesrt Hefs id he
officials to do whatever is possible to r
would support either a 60° fan or an 85° fan because it is feasible, it has akeady been modeled in
the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor, and the 60° fan provides the greate�t reduction in the
number of people in the noise exposure area.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reiterated that there will be dispersion off each departure track for runway
17 and the tracks are not absolute. He also noted that different aircraft vary in operational ability
and would have different turn points.
Jamie Verbrugae, Eagan, said the city of Eagan recogni� and f st line where a rcr�aft would not
each track and would not expect that there would be a har
fly.
Chairman Nelson presented his reasons for making the motion, including. the fact that the city of
Bloomin�ton will be the only ��� a� he consult�ants and staff have ome to� he on lu on
associated with the new runway and th
that the 105° dispersion fan is best.
Chairman Nelson, following the vote on the motion and a lunch bre `
ak, asked Cindy Greene, FA.A, to
clarify her comments on the capaciiy issues for runway 17 since there had been some confusion as to
what fan alternative her earlier comments were in regard to.
Ms. Greene said that the reduction in capacity for runway 17 she referred to was more a function of the
requirement for delayed turns for westbound aircraft than the size of the fan. She said narrowing ninway
17/35's departure fan coupled with the requirement of delayed turns results in a decrease in the runway's
full capacity of approximately three to four operations per hour. However, runway 17/35 would still be
able to operate at the levels determined necessary in the EIS.
Chairman Nelson asked if anyone voting in favor of the motion wanted to open the vote up for
reconsideration. There being none, the motion stands.
NADP Discusszon
Chauman Nelson noted that the Committee had already made a decision regazding the NADPs for each
runway and did not intend on asking for another recommendation. However, he did allow for discussion
of the topic.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, noted several reasons for rnaking the distani NA.DP universal at
MSP, including:
1. The distant procedure prolongs the life of aircraft engines. �
2. Once there are all manufactured stage 3 aircraft in the fleet, the differences will become insi�iificant. �
3. T"he consultant team has shown that the distant procedure is the most beneficiaL '
4. The Committee has come to a consensus on this issue. �.
Other Items Not on the Agenda .
Dick Sauriders, Minneapolis, referring to the story in the Star Tribune regarding nighttime noise issues
published May 1, 2000, asked whether the annual operations level given in the story was correct. The
story said there were 495,000 operations in 1999 and MAC has published that there were 510,421
operations. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the 510,000 figure was correct. Mr. Saunders also asked Jennifer
Sayre, NWA, to explain what was meant by "maintenance related flights." Ms. Sayre said she did not
know what these referred to, but did say that Northwest Airlines does not fly empry aircraft into MSP for
maii�'tEnance purposes only. She said, however, that Northwest Airlines does schedule specific aircra$ to
fly into MSP for maintenance on its regular schedule and that may be what the story refers to.
, Ms. Sayre also clarified the reason for the reported discrepancy between ANOMS data and Northwest
AirIine's scheduling data. She said most of the discrepancies are during the 5:00 a.m. hour and e�plained
that many times aircraft scheduled to arrive at 6:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter arrive earlier than expected
due to favorable wind conditions. She said the same happens with nighttime departure flights scheduled
for 10:25 p.m. that are not able to depart until 10:40 p.m.
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, reiterated his support of developing a River Departure Procedure for
inclusion in the Part I50 update.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. The ne;ct MASAC Operations Committee meeting will be held
�
12
on Friday, June 9, 2000 at 9:00 a.rn. in the Large Construction Trailer of the NLAC General O�ces.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
13
.� � -
� �. '
� '
;i .� t:
� . ,
< :s �t; s ;
�'; a "�
�l ,�;
Once rhe Parc 1S0 contours are devel- -
oped, boundazies ourlinin� rhe �enc of
che insularion area must be derermined
bzEore federal approval can be aranced.
Parcels wholly contained within rhe
_
�,� �roved conLour aze eli� ble for soun
'��.�ularion. But, parcels chat aze dissecced
by or just missed by the line need co be
evaluaced for inclusion with input from
the communiues, the M.t�C and rhe
F�
Throujh input from surrounding
communities and approval by the F�,
che �Sr1C has implemented a concour
boundary definition scheme chac assesses
sound insulauon eligibility on a block>
rarher rhan a parcel, level. The currenc
pro�ram insulates all homes on a�iven
b1ock chac aze concaineii wirhin or are
. touched by �he 6� DNL con�our_
� i�oise Conmur Boundarits conunued on pagn 7
*� �� ; 1 f i� .� � 'r i��� � � ��
f ` a � . �s �5 + x �,;t
ig
@ ,. �:.,
�, tri �_ � "�� .:�t `��;: � s_ -
�,�;`� - � t; �^x :�:. a.
�
he Mecropolican Airpons ammission .
HNTB Corporarion, along with the Meuopolitan Aircrafr Sound
.Abacemen� Council (i�IASAC) is progiessing steadily `�rith c1�e Pa.rt 150
update process at Minneapolis-Sc_ Paul Incernational Airport (�fSP).
1�1ASAC conria�es to review and provide inpuc on che Following
Pazt 150 copics:
• Validarion of the noise concour modeling sofcwaze and methodology used to
forecast funue noise impaccs
• tlirporc and aircrafc noise mitiga.rion measures and policies
• Boundaries defining insulauon eli� �ry
• Exisung and proposed land use measures and insulauon packa�es
• Insulacion prioriries for s'in;le-fa.mily, mulu-family, schools
and day-care faciliries
f1s part oE the Part 150 updace process> the MAC is reevaluacing the noise impacu
wi�hin the communiues co accounc for increased traffic operauons at tiiSP. As a result of
rhis evaluauon, rhe MAC is addin5 homes to the current Part 150 eli� biliry area and
ancicipaces beginnin� insularion of chese homes bec�veen 2002 and 2004_
iY1AC and MASt1C conunue co conduct public workshops to inform the �eneral
public of che progress and process oF rhe Part 150 uRdace. The firsc tzvo series of work-
shops - focusin� on che Par� 15� proa am back�round, iu history ac MSP and possible
mici�ation meas�'� e� for �fa d2 b23, 2! and 27. These1workshops wi 1 hi�hl htblic
�a
�vorkshops is schedul Y
IvLrISAC's involvemen� in the Parc 150 process and miub tion scrategies recommended
by tifASAC, the communiry and MAC for che Part 1�0 update (including the sound
insulation program)•
Due co Ivfr�SAC's unique composiuon of communicy and airline representaLives,
accessibiliry and coordination of crirical daca sets has been enhanced. Informa�i °em2n
as forecasted aircraFe councs and fleet composicions from airlines, airspace mana�
informacion from che Ft1.� and e:cisung land use and planning informacion from
: communiry representacives, has been a cremendous asse� to che uodate process.
1yIt1SAC and che Mt`.SAC Opera�ions Commictee earlier held brieFings on che
� hiscory oF che Federal Avia�ion Regu-lation Part 1�0 pro�ram, che his�ory of Parc 1�0
; programs a� y�SP �e P used7Tlzis�review of Parto�0 specifilc�copi by �Sr'.Sr'.0 has
: modzlin� mz�hodolo�y
: con�ributed co insighcful inpuc in�o rhe Part 1�0 update.
. i�IAS?,C's involvemznt in �hz Part 17O UpdaCz IS CT1LiC�I CD 2PSLTz proper public
inpuc occurs throughou� che encire process.
�.�^ '� " 2 0 0 0
MASAC N e w s Votume 1, 2nd Quarter�����-`s
Part 150 continued on page 2
A Neuislette
Part 150 from page 1
rom The Meiropolisan"Aircraft.Sound Abafement :Gounczl� �
WHAT !S DNL? AND HOW IS IT USED TO
QUAN7IFY IMPACT UNDER PAR7 150?
Since ics creacion in 1984, Part I j0 has
provided a means oEestablishing a
nacionally uni£orm ayscem for quantifvin�
aircrafr noise esposure chrough the use
oEa srandardized noise mecric. The
Federal Avia�ion Administradon (F�1)
uses �he In�e�ra�ed Noise tilodel (INtif} �o
assess �he noise impact of aircra.Et opera-
�ions. INiVt is a computer modeI used to
develop Noise Exposure �Iaps (�1E�Ss),
rypically reFerred co as concours, to
derermine noise impacr azeas. INtiI uses
runway use, aircrafr operacions, flight
track use, aircraFc performance and terrain.
inFormarion ro generate a noise exposure
map. The compu�er model �enerares
concours rhat depict areas of noise impact
: based on a noise me�ric called Day-Nig
: Level (DNL). The DNL con�ours
: genera�ed are �he focal poinc of any
: noise mici�acion measure proposed in a
= Part 150 program.
The DNL mecric is calculated by
= adding aIl che sound esposure during th
; dayume plus a 10-decibel penalty durin
: rhe nighcume_ The nighc sound e.cpo-
: sures are increased by 10 decibels becaus
: nigh�time noise is more intrusive_
1�Iost federal a�encies dealing wirh
� noise e.eposure, including che Federal
� Aviacion Administrauon, Departmen� of
� Defense and the Deparcmen� oFHousin
; and Urban Developmen�, have formally
; adopred DNL as che meuic foc measur-
: ing noise impact.
The 10-deci6el nois2 penalty aoolies lo nightfime aircrafit nois2 events when
caiculating �NL contours for fhe sound insulation program.
WHO DETEI?MINEa�'
SOUND INSULATION
ELIGIB�L!?Y IN A
PART 150 pRpGRqM
Upon complecion
oEche ParL 1�0
document and
public hearing, rhe
Pan 150 documen�
is submir�ed co rhe
Ft1�1 for approval.
lifter decermining
its adequary, rhe
` Ft1.4 has 180 davs
co approve or disap-
prove che
documenc The
' FrIA can approve or
disapprove each oE
che miriga�ion mea-
sures proposed in
�he documen�. In
mos� larQe-scale
Parc 1�0 programs,
sound insularion is
included as one of
�he mi�iQarion
mzasures. Ar a�fJP,
sound insu(acion is
a significant porrion
oE che Parr 1 �0
program.
ht MSP's Part 1�0 updace �vi1I provide �
: a currenr assessmen� oF todav's noise ��
: environmen� and a more accurace
: projecuon of the impact For 2005. The
= documenc wiIl concain all rhe dara and
� information supporring �he noise
e � mici;auon cecommendauons incIuding
� ; che follo�ving:
• Noise Eeposur�t�rlaps (�iE:Vfs)
e wi•ch noise, airport layout, aircraE�
operations and estensive land
use data
• A noise compaubiliry program
decailing noise abaremen�
� measures
' Land use measures to ensure
funue noise comparibilicy �
• Resulrs of a public hearinj and
escensive technical review '
• .Commenu and responses
relauve to the draft.Part 150
documenz �
The I�ISP noise compaubilicy
; pro�rarn goes beyond rypicaj Ftl� noise
; insulauoa p;oQra..rns. This p;an recom- �,.
: mends insulacin� sin�Ie-family homes
:(eligi6iliry for mulu-family homes is also
: bein� evaluated) locared tivichin the 60
:�DNL concour. Tradirionally, �he Ft1�', has
= recognized the 6� DNI, concour as the
� area of eligibiliry For noise insulacion.
� tiYlich chis updare, �i��C is requescing
� sound insulacion out co rhe 60 DNL
; con�our. If the F.�:� aoproves che Part
; I�O 11pd3L2, �L•�C can apply For avia�ion
: Qenerated func�s (federal aviarion dollars
: and locallv �enerated PassenQer Faciliry
: CharQes) for financin� che sound
: insulation program.
The prioritiza�ion for sinale-family
� and mu(ci-family residences, schoo(s and
� dav-care facili�ies is derzrmined'on a
; local levef tivirh significan� inpur Erom
; surroundin� communiries. The overall
: prioricy oEhomes �sichin �he approved
: Par� 1�0 NEi�I con�our is based on
: arrual impacr da�a a�•ailable chrough
� ��L�C's <�irport �Tois� an�i Opera�ion
= �[onicorinj S�•srem. Homes impacced �'
� che mos� receiti•e firs� priorirc,- for
; insulation.
Volume 1, 2�d Quar4er �.«r ��,. 2 0 0 0
'`'�`� �v kl:1S::C N e w s
: 'A Nezasl
- : , :.;. .: - --
.; _ . - .... : —�.
5e �M`etropol2tan Asr`craft�Sound:AbatemeYnt Council :�
�`i ' ti. � _� �.' � ,__4 t - i,. �:. �,�� � F�. ,a. _
.�
'.. «�.. �� �� `" 'i ��t! r � i _ Y
t+
� . � E`t, F
In 2000 itiSti.SAC will conunue wirh
acr.iviues and initiauves consistenc with
rhe o�aanizauons charter. tiItLSP.0 will
concencra�e heavily on four areas
throughout the year. Work on rhe Parc
1�0 updace will consume the majoricy oE
the first and second quarcers in 2000.
Also Mt1SAC will undercake several
studies, evaluauons and invesugauons of.
new abatemenc technolo�ies. In addirion,
throughout che year informadonal and
orientauon inivauves will occur, as well
as conunued communicacion enhancin�
efforrs.
The areas oF concentrarion and asso-
ciated specinc copics for ?000 aze out-
lined below
��-.-ART 150 UPflATB � .
' �`z•,.
( �
l�ftiStlC �vill review the final
con�our developmenc including
the 1999 Validacion Concour,
2000 Base Case Concour, 200�
Unmitigaced Concour and rhe
200� tiSiti�a�ed Contour.
� tifr�SAC will concribu�e to che
developmenL oF mici�a�ion
measures by revie�ti•ing rhe
Eagan/tiiendoca Hei�ncs �
Depazcure Corridor, the Run�va;�
Use System (RUS), land use
measurzs, mici�ation priority and
insulacion packages b�}•ond che
6� DNL concour.
� The chird series oE public
�vorkshops �vill be conducted on
May 22-2� highli;hcin� rhe
concours, recommended `°L-�C
and communiry micigacion
measures and �L�S.�C's
im•olvemenc in rhe Par 1�0 upda�e.
• I� is an�icipa�zd cha� che dra� Parc
1�0 documzn< <rill be re�: ie•.ved
bti' �'L-�SAC in june �000.
: 5TUDIES, EYALllAT10N5 AND NE'N
: TE�}1NOLOGIES
• year 2000 S�age 2 Operauons
Repor� - confirming rhe phase
ouc oEStage 2 operadons a� i'�fSP.
• Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE)
Feasibility Study - eva-luacin� rhe
impacrs associated wirh the
current run-up pad ac MSP and
possible opuons for a n�v run-up
facilicy in rhe fucure.
• Evaluaaon of a GPS
Requiremenrs r'lssessment -
assessing rhe possible
implementauon oF GPS
capabiliries in the furure as parc
of the Par� la0 update co help
address noise impaes Lhrougn
netiv merhods oF inanaging .. . .. -
aircraft flighc parhs.
• Assessmen� of �1r1C Aviacion
Noise Pro�ram reporun�
capabiliries to enhance monrhly
IV1SP operacions reporu reviewed
by ti�s 3C.
• Stage 3 r'�cnviry Reporc -
evaluation of Sca�e 3 fleec
composiuons a� yISP and arounc�
�he world.
• Evaluauon oEPar� 1�0 mi�igation
recommendacions for
implemencacion - chis s�ud,v �vill
review the propos�d Parc 1�0
mici�ation measures from �he
perspective oF implemen�ation.
: 1NFORMA7lONAL AND
� ORlEyiAT]flN IN171ATiYES
• An informacional r�vietiv oE �he
Governor's Tas�c Force on tiirporc
Noise Nlici�a�ion Funding Repor•c
Volume 1, 2nd Quar4er �° �^. � 2 0 O 0
p.ir1S::C �7 e w s ��y ~'1:�•
providing informauon on possible
new ways co provide monies for
un-funded noise miugauon
inivauves around ySSP.
• vfAC E.Yecuuve Director - Jeffrey
Hamiel will jive a presencauon to
NIASAC providin? inFormacion
on current noise issues around
MSP and the ivIAC's perspecuve.
• An update on construcuon
associated with I�ISP's ?O10 plan
will be"provided.
• A briefing on Eurure airline Stage
3 fleet composiuons will be
conduaed. �
• Lochard - the tlirpor� Noise and
Operauons yfonitorin� Syscem
(.At�tOyiS) provider - will give a
presenracion on their nlans for
sysrem developmenc and whac
orhec airporrs aze doin�.
• tl revie�v of rhe �ISP Global
Positioning System (GPS) �round
stacion and rhe up�rade co �he
Local tlrea Au�mencacion System
(LAAS) archicecture. This will
provide insi�hc relacive �o che
scatus oE che GPS technology and
che effeas the program could
have in che fucure relacive co
noise imoacts.
• Federal Aviacion Re�ulacion Pazt
161 tivill be r.�rie�ved providing
inFormacion on �ne Federal
Aviation ,�.dministracion's (Fr1.�s)
process Eor ii12 �valuacion of
airpoc� access r�scrictions.
• Guzs� speal:er frora �he F.-�tl
providinQ inFormacion on the
Fr�.�'s pz:specti��e on airport noise
issues.
� Goals and Accomplisnnanis continued on page s
'A. Newsleiter
o�m .'The Metropolitan "Aircrafi;�Sound A6aiement�:Counc_I�;;�a
6oals and Accompiishments ►rom page 3
CaMMUM1Ca710N ENHANC7NG E:i-ORTS
• yltlSrlC wi11 revie�v rhe monrhly
, Technical Advisor's Report and
Ea,,�an/i�fendoca Hei�hcs
Deparrure Corridor Analysis
formau co ensure �he daca is
communica�ed in rhe most
efficienc and effecuve manner
possible.
• Followirig implementauon of che
aircraft noise complain� input
form applicarion on the Incernet,
1�LASAC will conunue to
evaluate rlie use anci
effec�iveness of rhis applica.cion.
Alchough 2000 will be a very busy
year for Mt�St1C, 1999 was equally bus,v,
. and resulted in significanz achievements
for che Council. Six areas of concenrra-
uon defined the efforts of �SAC
rhro�ghout 1999:
• Efforts co imp(ement new
technology
• InForma�ional and educauonal
briefin�s
• New and enhanced aba�emeni
procedures
� Noise monitoring s�udies
• Increased communicacion et`�orts
• Part 1�0 updace
The above areas oFconcencration repre-
sen�ed a very busy and productive sched-
ule chrou�houc a11 of 1999. The 1999
l�1'r1S:�C Year in Revie�v documen� is
'::•_}�vailable on the Interne� a� •
��v�,v�v.macavsat. org/tit11SAC/99_}-ear_in_
revie�vpdf. This documen� proti•ides a
comprehensive look a� VL�S.�C's
acrivicies and accomplishmencs in 1999.
����������
�������
�,Y/'elcome nztiv tifi�,SAC represen�acivzs,
iVlarp Loef elho(z, Norch��•zs� .�rlines
(reolscing �Isrk Snlmen) an� Pam
Dmy-cr.nl�o, Ciry of Rich!-ield
(replacing Llark Hinds).
�
� � ' �
: i�finneapolis-Sc. Paul Incernacional Airpon (1�SSP) consisrs of rhree runways - cwo paral-
= lel and one crossurind. Runway use is decermined by variabies such as weather, capaciry;
: airporc layou�, a.ircraft performance and aircraft densicy in the surrounding airspace. The
� prevailing wind pacterns in the i1�linneapolis azea are nonhwesterly in the winter and
: southeasterly in rhe summer. Because aircrafz musr operare in�a the wind when the wind
; speed is greacer chan approximacely 10 miles per hour, wind direcuon plays a significant
; role in de�ermining which runways are used on any given day.
Because of �he way the airpon is configured and the rypical prevailing winds, the
; highesc degree oFcapaciry is realized when rhe pazallel runways (12L/30R and
� 12R/�OL) are being used: Because the crosswind runway (4/22) dissects both parallel
: runtivays, operauons on the parallel runways must be temporarily delayed when an air-
= craEt uses the crosswind runway. This delay affecrs airpon capacinr, and as a result, has
; limited rhe use of the crosswind runway.. Ajthou�n rhe crosswind runway does nor �e�
� used as much as the parallel runways, it is rhe longest runway on rhe airport and is oF�en
; used for the deparrure and arrival of lar�e, heavy incernauonal flighcs which need �he
: added runway Ien� h. When managinj the air•space around MSP, the Fr1A someumes
; has to diccace runway use based on arrival and departure streams inco, and out of, rlie
��SSP area. When wind condiuons. allow, tra.f�c densiry and arrivaI/deparrure.aueams !�
; decermine the runway use ac rhe airpore co ensure the mose espediuous and saFe flo�v of
� air �ra.Ffic.
� i41SP's rumvays are named relative to arrivaf and departure operations. The run:vay num6er designation? �
; ara determined relalive to the campass heading (wiih the last digit truncateo) of ihe rum,vay. The L antl R
: repres2nl lhe left ar right side designaiion of a Parafl2l runsvay caniiguraiion.
_L�.,,.,.,_...,. a �_� �..__s.. .. „ .. _
__ _
;, A Neiusl�
om
The �Meirojioli.tan Asrc�i'afr Sound Abaie�izeni_-Council �::'
_
. ......�,�.- _�:.:._-- ._..
,.... .. �-.:::_,�.�.. -
ise Contour Boundaries from page 9
The Part 1�0 uodate will once again address rhe issue of con�our boundary defini-
cion relative to �he new contour. Because che Part 1�0 upda�e proposes chac homes
beyond che Ft1P.-recognized 6� Di�tL be insulaced; �fASAC, the tit�1C and surrounding
communiues aze working to�echer co develop a concour boundary plan accepcable �o ehe
F�ti. If the 1�f.AC and communicies propose conrour boundaries rhac aze �oo aggressive,
the FAA may disapprove che Part 1�0 Noise Exposure Map - pocencially delaying or
even halting che I�fACs abilicy co insula�e homes becween che 2005 60 DNL to 6>
DNL con�ours. Wirh rha� in mind, the ivirlC plans �o use che block inclusion method
�vich pocenual na�ural boundary (rivers, parks, ecc.) consideracions> as well.
1�IAC's proposed boundary area submission to the FAA is only preliminary. The
abilicy for l�fAC co determine any �iven home's participa�ion stacus cannoc be fully
determined uncil
aE�er the Ft�A
approves chis Part
1�0 updace.
Ho�vever, MAC
plans to develop a
procedure for
homeowners co
decermine if they
Eall wichin che
proposed 6� or 60
DNI. concour
boundary by
en�ering rheir
address on �C's
website afrer Lhe
FAA's approval of
che Parr 1�0
updace documenc.
Neigh6orhond hlocks are selected for sound insulation, relative to me surrG���
Pari 150 program 65 DNL contour. if the contour line touches a hiock the entire
61ocic is insulaied_
������ ������s ��� :A.����as
Communiry involvemenc in airport noise issues is cri�ical co ensuring proQrams and
policies are eFfeccive and e�cienc. The Par� 170 updace process and VtAS:�C meecings
are good examplzs of oppor�unicizs for communicv involvemen�.
The l;uc serizs oFpublic tivorkshops for the Part 1�0 upda�e will be held on
•-;:tilay 22 - 2j, 2000. Addi�ionallv, a public hearing on �he draEc documenc �vill be held in
�summer 200Q A posccard providinQ informa�ion on chese meecin�s will be mailed co
residencs who have accended p:v< «-orkshops or hsve requested to be on ch� mailin� lisc.
The Parc 1�0 updace meecing time, daces and. locacions �vill also be availablz on the
�vebsice ac wtiv�v.macavsat.org/P?.RT_1�0_liPD�TE and publishzd in man�:
local ne�vspapers.
�[onchfy �,tAS��C me�cings pro�•ide sn oppor�uniry for public involvemen� in
on�oinv airport noise iniciaci�•zs. i�L-�S.�C mzecs che fourth Tuesday oEzv�rv monch a�
7:�0 P.�,�I. ac th� l�Ietropolitan �'.irpores Commission General OfE�ices, 60i0 ?8ch Avenue
�,ch, in V[inneapolis. For more in�orma�ion on VIr1S��C meecin� daces and �imes, or
i �
_-�� includ�d on the Put 1�0 uoda�e mailinQ list, please contact VIe(issa Scovronski>
tiIAS.'�C SZC[CC;lry :lC C>I �-; ?6-Slz'' 1, or ti•isic che y(��S�1C homzpu�Z 3C
���v��•. mscavsa �. o rQ/ i� L�S.�C.
D•IdSAC N e�v s Volume 1, 2nd Quarter ��:
'' 2000
, ,�, OI��'
: � ���1�'I� �1��
= �����' �����
: �����'i'i� �l°i�
: ��"i���°'��� ���� �
; ��3�i'9�,�1�'I� �O�"�
: itiSAC's noise complaint and informauon
� hodine (612-726-9411) enables residencs
= co registe.r cheir aircrafc noise complainrs.
; The phone line is sLaffed from 8:30 a.m.
; to 5:00 p.m. After hours, residents
: can leave a complainc on the recording
: system. The line also provides options for
: callers to receive inFormarion on current
:�veacher ac rhe airpor� and construcuon
� information.
In addition co rhe hotline, a noise
� complainc may be filed on rhe Incernec
; .ltiLt;SAC endorsed rhe developmenc of
:�he aircrak noise comolaint form to pro-
: vide a convenient and user-friendly �vay
: for residenrs co log aircraft noise com- .
: plain�s via the Internec. The aircraf� noise
�: compla.in� focm is a��ailable at
= w�,vrv.macavsat.org/itil�-�SAC/complainc_f
= o�m.h�ml.
The aircraiz noise complaincs are
; mapped and repor�ed to �'L�S:�.0 at each
: mon�hly meeting.
, —�7
Ees
��?
�(innc�poli.tS� P�u! Internition�i .airport
>irxnR _l'aG? Comnlyu�c inrm
.._,.u�,,.f_- ,—�:�, =�
ih...�......tx..�.. � � � J i-�
-:z• ..�--„ >..-� _
� .; ::•.---�
� Th2 aircrait naise comoiaint form is available on
; the +utiv:v.masa�isaf.org wv�site.
. _.. ,_
v_
A Newsletter Fro»i Tbe Metropolitan Asrcraft Sound Abatement �Council .:
���° ��� � Airp��t
o���i���#�o�
r�lchough consLrucuon rhroughout che airport conunues rhis
summer, runway closures will bz at a minimum compared to che
last cwo summers when the souch pazallel runway was under
consrrucuon. Specific projects in rhe i�SSP 2010 plan under way
' • s:immer include:
•. 900-Fooc temporary exctension to no�rhwesr end of
'� runway 30U12R - pendin? FAA approval of rhe
Environmental Assessmenc of che 2001 runway
4/22 e.erension
. • On�oing work on rhe new runway 17/35
• Inbound/outbound roadway construction
• New parkirig and rental car faciliues open
• Green concourse b re ezpansion
• `Green/Gold conneccor (skyway corinecun� rhe . '
iwo concousses)
• Replacemen� Humphrey Ternunal
- Runway 12R de-icing/hoizling pad
• Airpor� Mail Center consrrucrion
• Ligh� Rail Transir (LR1� developmenc
Ongoing updates on the above consrrucrion projecu will be
available in fucure addirions of che �IASAC News, as well as on
. . che In�ernet_ .._. . . - . _... �--
Metro.politan Azrcrccft Sound Abatement C
6040 28th Avenue SouLh
tvlinneapolis, MN 5�4�0
A����nes P��se +�u� �
1�der ��r�e�
Northwest Airlines is a�a essively purchasin� new Scage 3 a.ircrafc
wirh firm orders totaling over $6.� billion �hrough 2006.
Currendy, these orders include an additional 25 Boeing 7�%s, 70
Airbus 319s or Airbus 320s and 16 Eiirbus 330s. As chese new
aircrafc are added to the flee�, gradual reurerrienc of the DC9
and Boein� 727 aircraFt fleeu wi11 occur. Norrhwesc Airlines will
redre all 38 of iu Boeing 727 aircrafz becween 2002 and 2004.
In addition, currenz plans call for reriring 37 DC9s over che ne.�cc
eighc years. _
Sun Counuy Airlin�as ordered si-c Boeing 737-800s for .
delivery in 2001 as part oE`a Ileet expansion and rransiuon `
program. The airline also has opdons to acquire rwo more oF
the a.ircrafc, which would be received in early 2002. The new
Boeing 7�7-800 aircraCt will be an addiuon to the airline's
curren� fleec, as well as conuibute to irs phase out of the Boeing
727-?00 aircrafc. The airline plans co replace rhe enure Boeing
727-200 fleet with the new Boeing 737-300 aircrafc by 200�. ('
\
� - ..
ouncil , .
l ^ .�"�'.�� _� .,,�„"_�,.._._.,,_..,....._�_..--�---�.____
i �';, J��,�� ..�.._-- .::.... �_
=, �-/ _ —
��i i � � ,�,v. �,. '`„ „`."Ts�:: —�- ���
' T G -•� �;,,_._:,�-�.... . t _,..---+-.4 .
i�-. .^�- � �. n . _ �-..�,,_ �...- '�^-.-�_
. � ` `�; �^', �'' 4` it ��. '•' , . � .
x� �� � '-.a._'
G�v'� �. . .: �
-_ `� .�_._-- =:...�_:---•-' ,Y.:.�..,..�__
1, :'.=_'�'I}t —
hevin Batchelder
Citv of Nlendota Hei�hts
1101 Victoria Curve
tl�Yendota Heights, l�Pl i ��118
�$ f
4'�
� yI
� '. r `. �...:-._� � —
° s �
4 r �� J' �"�..
trv � �.
. L• h
. .r �.,....-_ _,�' .. ..,f
�c f :
. ,;
,.,,v� £ ,. ., :,
f
1
� �.h M1� �
.''
1�e�ct �'a�-t I SO .,�ublic �or°ks�iops Dr. Bronzaft to. Speak at
�'/ .� '�: �
Residents wzll get a chance to review and comment
on the Metropolitan A.irports Commission's proposals
for noise abatement and land use measures at MSP at
the last in a series of three public workshops May
22-2�.
T�vo of the meetings vvill be at Pearl Pask Center,
414 E. Diamond Lake Raad, in Minnea.polis frorn 5 to 8
p.m. Monday, May 22 and Wednesday, May 24. Those
living ea.st of Portland Ave. are invited May 22, those
west of Portland Ave_ May 24. You do not need to
attend both.
The other t�vo meetings will be Tuesday, May 23 at
Eagan City Hall, 3830 Pilot Knob Road, and Thursday
at Royal Cliff Conference Center, 2280 Cliff Road,
Eagan. Both are also from 5-8 p.m.
Topics to be covere�i at each of the meetings include
the MA.C's final 60 DNL (day-night level) contours for
200� after the ne�v north-south rum�vay opens, and any
proposed noise abatement andlor land use measures to
potcntially minimize future noise impacts for communi-
ties surrounding the airport.
A formal public hearing will be held this summer on
thc final Part 1�0 recommendations before submittal
this fall to the FAA for approval or disapproval in
20Q 1. Niore than 62,000 residents are believed to live in
the 7�-60 DNL contour areas.
� � ;......
•�' �� , '�
_ ;..�;� 'ty,�,,
`��i',��*`,`. ��:�:�'il
. ��.;;::.::�:..
2�'
�'YF;J<�:;r �,,:.:'�;� �
SI�K,A.A� Spring Meetin.g
Dr. Arline L. Bronzaf�, a New York City psy-
chologist who has led many noise control movements,
will be the guest speaker at SMAAC's 16th annual
meeting at 7 p.m. Thursda.y, May 18 at Mayflower
Congregational Church, I-35W and E. Diamond
Lake Road.
She will speak on studies on health effects from
noise exposure and on implications of the new
$50-billion FAA and airport funding bill passed by
Congress in March.
In addition to having authored scores of articles
on the adverse health impacts of noise pollution,
Bronzaft is credited �vith providing the health and
academic performance research which convinced the
FAA to fund school noise insulation programs_
She has participated in several successful noise
reduction efforts, has supported bills to return federal
noise management programs from the FA.A. to the
EPA, and lobbied to include noise manajement
methodology reviews in the new FAA funding bill.
Bronzaft has won numerous academic and
professional honors, and has been a noise abatement
consultant to the Ne�v York Ciiy Transit Authority,
and an eYpert witness and consultant on environmen-
tal psychology issues.
Bronzaft currently serves on New� York City's
Council on the Environment, is an adviser to the
League for the Hard of Hearing, and advises US-
Aviation Watch and Noise Pollution Cleasringhouse.
w
FAA OKs Crosswind Extension; Camp Coldwater Historic Site Purchase Closex
By Dean Lindberg
The FAA has approved the
extension of the crosswind runway
I,000 feet to the northeast, (as
shown on Today's Map) and the
temporary extension of the south
parallel runway 900 feet northwest
towards South Minneapolis. The
decision clea.rs the way to accom-
modate MSP/Hong Kong flights.
The flights, however, have been
indefinitely discontinued due to lack
of tickefi sales.
The decision also moves the
MAC one step closer to purchasing
the Bureau of Mines (BOM)
property, a 24-acre campus
northeast of the crosswind runway.
The BOM campus occupies much
of a pioneer settlement that was
known as Ca.mp Coldwater in the
I820's through the late 18�0's (see
Historical Map and area in dashed
lines on Today's Map).
At times during its e:cistence, .
more than 150 early settlers resided
in Camp Coldwater. Settlers were
drawn to the site because of the
' � � fE %{i �N r'A A,-, � �-=�c� ��:. � �,
'�,' '-�!�'. �rt ii. � ,,'�
Pa;e 2
natural spring which has been
flowing since the glacial reireat,
and its lacation nea.rby Fort
Snelling.
MAC planners cite the need to
purchase the BOM/Coldwa,ter site
to prevent future development that
might cause safety hazards for
crosswind runway operations. As
part of their purchase proposal,
airport officials ha.ve pledged to
demolish the BOM buildings and
keep the area open to the public.
Hawever, historians are con-
cernecl about a clause in the
purchase agreement which reserves
the right to construct a parking lot
for up to 850 MAC employee
vehicles.
Although the parking lot
provision was approved by the
Minnea.polis� City Council, students
of Minnesota's early history view
use of the azea for MAC parlang as
inappi-opriate and a threat to future
arcfiaeological exploration, preser-
vation or reconstruction of the
I� �� . ,.' )' �` �
�1�� • l
e �'
. ,�� �
� ,, �-
�� �� ' �� ( � ; �0�,
�' �� �[� �;� - - o
_��� �� � 1 __'...... .. .. �
�' , ��J��
���.
I/ �:,� O O��iA
�' ���!�� �� �
Camp Coldwater community
The recent FAA decision
downplays the cuItural and historic
significance of BOM/Coldwater
by sighting a report done for
Minnesota. Department of Trans-
portation (MiV-Do'I') ty}uch con-
cluded no significant artifacts of
Camp Coldwater remain in the
azea..
The MNDoT report was
severely criticized recently by Dr.
Bruce White, an anthropologist .
.and historicai researcher. White's
report caused MNDoT to under-
take new azcbaeologicai excava- '
tions which uncovered artifacts
supporting White's assessment of
the azea as Iustorically significant.
(A copy of Dr. White's report may
be viewed over the Intemet at
(�'r�'w.tc.uinn.edu/ white067.�
Interestingly, the recently uncov-
ered artifa.cts were unearthed only
days before the F.A.A issued its �
decision. `
(contd. page 3)
� `•�, Historicai Niap �rom 1838
`.�� � �. �r,..�yarn:ar..�e.,r.,,�.�aso�.Y .
�'�.
��� ,�, ,�ti
��_ �."� �, t �cr,eu,eas��
,�
- r.ea�ys
�4�� f 4� ' � :Y'��
�. � ;:, - rtr. � � �':
.�•• �:.:,
� ��
'r;� , -� .
}'
1 l�� •� ' � . . �E
, i 1ll BhWrnCt� �'-♦•.•I�•
i �'1 .}3Cl.1b�5u; ..•� � �'. �L ;� �.
y � �,,... , rC�P �
i �i• � �aidwate�:
�^� �.r����
8"�-,; . -•v.. ��'ty . � :��:' �
�.. y za �m ,.
r � `'�ikels`� t ,"� •. ., . .
;� ♦a ♦ �' \
: ��'���_ \ .
� . 'j.
,�rK � 1�: �� � ,
� � . "ttSinldn`- .
�, ., � -
� �
� - � � �_ �ti'
S�fA.\C Newslettzr, Sprin� 2000
� a
!
I-+'lights i2.ise 5.7 %,
Operations at MSP increased �.7
percentto a record
� 10,421 in 1999
from a strike
-depressed
�83,013 flights in
1998, according to
MAC figures.
The two-week
NQrthwest Airlines
pilots' strike and
associated Mesaba
Airiines feeder
shutdown cost
NiSP about 20,000
' flights in Septem-
ber 1998, MAC
officials estimated.
�"assengers �.Jp 14.4%
Passengers in 1999 rose to an
all-time high of 34.7 million, a 14.4
percent jump from 30.3 million a
vear easlier.
The MAC is projecting 522,000
takeoffs and landings in 2000, a 23
percent gain.
NWA maintained its dominance
as the No. 1 airline here in 1999,
carrying 80.8 percent of the passen-
�er traffic. United ti�as second �i�th
3.93 percent, follo�ved by American
(2.8 percent), Delta. (2.6� percent),
Sun Country (1.8� percent), TWA
(1.�� percent), Continental (1.46
percent), Vanguard (1.28 percent),
US Ainyaz�s (1.21 percent), KLM
(.91 percent), America West (.8�
percent), Frontier (.33 percent),
Icclandair (23 percent) and Air
Canada (.19 percent).
Sun Countr}' began scheduled
�ervice in mid-1999 after }�ears as a
charter airline. It has jumped into
the No. 2 spot behind North«�est
{ ) aftzr the first t��•o months of Z000,
���ith �.9� percent of the market.
Freight handled at MSP in 1999
rose 3.4 percent to 248,924 tons
from 240,817 tons a year earlier.
Mail decreased 6.4 p�ercent to
117,540 fons from 125,529 tons in
the previous year.
Cross�nd Extensio� And
Camp Coidwater
(contd. from page 2)
The MAC is still negotiating
terms of a conservation easement
to be incorporated into the final
BC)M purchase agreement.
The discussion includes the
Minnesota State Histaric Preserva-
tion O�ces (SHPO). White and
other historians charge SHPO has
Iost objectivity due to pressure by
MNDoT and the Met Councii to
overlook any historic or cultural
significance which may impinge
on construction of light rail and the
Hiawatha. Ave. re-routing. The
SHPO acquiescence to MNDoT
and the Met Council by declaring
the BOM/Coldwaier area as
lacking archaeologicai significance
may also work to the MAC's
advantage by minimizing any
preservation or conservation
commitments attached to the
BOM purchase and use agree-
ment.
HIl�1I,E l�Si�1�S FR�l� 1V��
John Him1e, a MAC commissioner since 1991, resigned in Masch. His.
replacement is former Bloomington mayor Coral Houle, appointed by Gov.
Ventura.
Hirnle's district included BloominD on, Richfield and a portion of west
1Vlinneapolis. Probably the MAC's best Irnown spokesman, he frequently
led the opposition to noise mitigation policies propose.d by citizens, even
those in his own district.
Rojer Hale; an appointee of Muuieapolis mayor Sharon Sayles Belton,
has been selected by MAC Chair Charles Nichols to take Himle's post as
chair of the important MAC Planning and Environment Comrriittee.
South Minneapolis
I can't hear anything
but airplanesi !
S�t<WC News�ctter, Spring 2600
MAC
What you hear is progress!
Page 3
C I�ints At C�tbacks in 60 DNL I-�orr�e Insulation �.'ackage
Followers of the MAC home insulation program
believe the MAC may be preparirzg to backtra.ck on
what citizens believed was a corrunitment to fully
insulate homes falling within the new 60 DNL noise
contour line developed as part of the 1996 state law
to expand the present airport rather than building a
new one.
The language drafted by an eight-city mayors'
advisory committee and approved by the MAC in
November 1996 ca.11ed for the 1996 DNL.65
contour neighborhoods to "be completed on the
currently approved schedule (of 2000)," and then
"e:�tended to incorporate the 2005 DNL 60
(contour)." SMAAC and city of Minneapolis
observers present at the negotiations interpreted this
to mean a full five-decibel reduction package, .
consisting of rooflwindow/door acoustic treatments
and air conditioning.
"If residents and city officials wanted a partial
insulation program in the 60 contour, they would
have lobbied for it," noted one observer" Partial
insulation would be unfair, especially to those living
ne:ct to 65 contour homes." -
Jeff Hamiel, airport executive director, stated after
a MASAC meeting March 28 that Mi.nnea.polis c'rty
officials always understood noise attenuation stan-
dards would be reducerl for the 60 DNL area. tiVhen
pressed for names, however, HamieI couldn't recall
any, and cited the passage of iime since negotiations
occurred.
Undoubtedly, cost is the largest factor concerning
the MAC. .The current MA.0 estimate to fully
insulate 16,083 homes in the 60-64 DNL at the
cunent average cost of �40,400 per home works out
to $6�0 million. That «�ould take until 2020 to
complete at the current budget ceiling of $36.5
miIlion per year. In addition, 3�0 homes in an
eypanded 6� DNL area �vill need to be treated
(estimate: $14 million) as well as 2,469 apartment
units (estimate: $29-31.� million).
Add in the 1,9>51�omes in the orijinal 6� DNL
waiting to be campleted (by early 2002) at $79
million, and the �128 million spent from 1992
thraugh 1999, and the total tab reaches �900 million
over 28 ti•ears.
The MAC has developeci seven options for DNL 60
insulation packages; one of them excludes air condi-
tioning; another caps air conditioning; a third offers a
choice �of either air conditioning or window trea.trnents;
the others propose lower standards for window aad
door treatments. These ma,y be discussed with the
public at meetings from 5-8 p.m. 1VIa.q 22 and 24 at
Pea.rl Park in Minneapolis before submission of final
recommendations to the FA.A, this fali,
SMAAC also will review the aptions in more detail
at the annual meeting May 18 at Mayflower Church.
Please plan to attend.
O Guidelines on l�Toise
(from 4/2 U00 Airport Noise Report) -
The World Health Organir.�tion (WHO), based in
Geneva, has issued for the first time Guidelines for
Environmental Noise_ They were developed by a panel
of predominantIy European experts and, in addition to
guide line values, address the topics of environrnental
noise assessment. and management.
According to the guidelines, moderate annoyance
dur-ing tlie daytime arid eveni ng �will occur in outdoor
living areas if the noise level exceeds 50 dBA over 16
hours. "Serious" aniioyance will occur during daytime
and Evening in outdoor living areas if the noise level
exceeds 55 dBA over 16 hours.
To avoid speech intelligibility problems and moder-
ate annoyance indaors, the noise level should not
exceed 35 dBA over 16 hours, according to the guide-
lines. To avoid night time sleep disturbance in bed-
rooms, the noise Ievel should not exceed 30 dBA over
eight hours. �,
. :� r . ! ` ' .'. �... .,. '.� _• • �,
Mark Gleason announced in November 1999 that
he plans to appeal a Hennepin Counfiy District Court
ruling that found that the MAC has submitted an
acceptable environmental impact statement (EIS) to the
FAA covering noise impacts from the new north-south
rumvay.
Gleason, a state representative from Richfield filing
as a private citizen, claimed the EIS did not suffi-
ciently portray the effzcts of Iow-frequency noise from
aircraft operations on the netiv rum�ay. STi1A.AC has �
donaterl funds to support Gleason's appeal.
r a�c �t
S4i�1,4C Newsletter, Spring 2000
S�ag� 3 I�u�h�.its :
U. S_ airlines met their deadline to convert all of
their fleets to Stage 3 compliance either with hushkits
on Stage 2 aircraft or removals from service by Dec.
31, 1999.
�Th�.�'� i��xt�?
However, the number of hushkitted aircrai� (1,500)
remaining in the air far exceeds the levels e�ected by
Congress and airports when the 1990 Stage 3 conver-
sion law was passed. As a result, projected noise
benefits haven't materialized and contour lines haven't
shrunk as much as expected, if at all.
At MSP, 36 percent of the fleet and 49 percent of
the flights were hushkitted Douglas DC-9s, Boeing
727s, Boeing 737s or pouglas DCBs as of March 31,
2000. As a result, overall noise levels shrunk only
about 1 percent while opera.tions grew 5.7 percent
between 1998 and 1999, according to a SMAAC study
of MSP noise microphone monitoring data.
SMAAC, the city of Minneapolis, the MAC and
other airports have agreed to press for federal legisla-
tion that would establish phaseout dates for the
madified Stage 3 aircraf�. Such a proposal is also
being studied by MAC as part of the current Part
85
80
z 75
� 70
�
Q 65
� 60
�
>
� 55
50
45
150 noise abatement recommendations to the FA.A
for 2005.
Meanwhile, the pure Stage 3 situation at MSP is
expected to improve slowly on its own.
Northwest has announced plans to phase out all
38 of its remaining B727 hushkits between 2002 and
2004, and 37 of its 173 DC-9 hushlats in the next
eight years. Sun Country Airlines has ordered eight
B737-800s by 2002 as part of its fleet expausion
and transition prograrn. TWA has begun flying one
Stage 3 Bceing 717 hete, and AirTran, a new
entrant this summer, is proposing to use 717s on its
MSP-Chicago Midway-Atlanta. route. Without new
legislation, the hushkit problern is likely to continue
until I'dorthwest's remaining 146 hushlats are retired,
SMAAC believes. .
NOISE A.NAI.,YSIS G12A.PH
The MSP I'�toise Analysis shown below is the
monthly average at each of 24 monitoring sta.tions.
There are 241evels shown for each month_ The
levels are quite scattered, but the regression li.ne
(weighted average) shows the noise was fairly
constant for the year. The line has a very slight
negative slope, but for a different measuze of noise
disturbance, see Page 6 Traffic Up Noise Up.
MSp '� 999 1Voise Analysis
Avg. Monthly DNL at 24 Remote Monitors
�►tT�
S�IA.�C Nesvslett�r, Spring 2000
I.
Pa�e 5
' ' �' � �
By Dean Lindberg
In November 1999, the
Noise Pollution Clearinghouse
(NPC) sponsored an a�rport
noise retreat. Members of noise
'reduction advocacy �oups,
noise pollution researchers and
airport noise consultants frorn
across the U.S participated_
Dick Saunders and Dean
Lindberg attended as representa-
tives .of SMAAC.
The intention of the,gather- .
ing was to help �the NPC Execu-
tive Director and sta.ff develop
recommendatioris; consensus
and implementation strategies
for a nation-uride airport noise
reduction campasgn. NpC sta�
antici�ates completing finai -.
matenals within the next few
weeks. �
During the retreat, attendants
discussed research into the
impacts of airport noise, air and
water pollutian; �ioiential legal
strategies for noise reduction
and recounted hi�hlights of
successfuI campaigns. Some
presenters were: Dr. Arline
Bronzaft, chair of the New York
City Councii for the Environ-
ment, Dr. Gary Evans, psy-
chologist and Professar of
Environmental Science at
Cornell University, Henry
Young, professional site planner
with special emphasis on
airport noise and compatibility
planning, and Debi Waaner and
Steve Debreceny, founctin�
officers of United States Crti-
zens Aviation Watch (US-
CAW).
Dr. Bronzaft,summarized her
extensive research into the
negative impacts on the cogni-
tive development of young
children. Her findings revealed .
that the development readin�
and speech skills fell up to one
grade level behind in noisy
schoo(s. Bronzaft's research has
confirmed the important role
that home, school and commu-
nity quiet plays in creatina a
healthy environment for c�iil-
dren. Bronzaft's research
�� �
conclusions convinced the FAA
to insulate schools, anci her
recent lobbying iri Washington
D.C. has caused the U.S. Senate
to include requirements for
health studies m airport funding
legislation.
Dr. Evans summarized his
discovery of elevated resting
blood pressure levels; dirrun-
ished cognitive development,
negative quality of life impacts
in German children attending
schools near major airports.
Evans also noted that the Ldn
metrics used by airports in �
reportin� noise, "has absolutely
no bas�s m science as a health
impact indicator." Evans founci
that noise information provided
by airpoi-ts is inconsrstent and
unrehable which complicates the
task of assessing the unpacts on
children liying and attending
schools near airports, and that
abuse of scholarly research is
rampant in the auport mariage=
ment coriimunrty.
Young has discovered fre-
quent enors in computer mod-
eled noise impact contours, and
observed that computer pro-
grams are "only as good as the
techniclan wha runs the pro-
�ram," Young remarked that
the practice of burying commu-
nities with uruntelligrble data,
and then propagatmg the mes-
sage that only arrport officials
are capable of understanding
noise assessment and manage-
ment, is common amang U. S.
airport operators. He encour-
aged participants with the
reminder that "victories° at one
airport frequently have positive
repercussrons at many azrports.
Wagner, former executive
director of Seattle's Regionai
Commission on Airport Affairs
(RCAA.) cited the increasing
concerns in her communrty over
airport air pollution levels
caused by increases in both
aircraft op�erations and surface
level tra�c. WaDner reported
on the higher-than-expected
occurrences of glioblastoma
� 4` v v S�fAAC Newslettzr, Spring 2000
(a rare form of brain cancer) in
communities around SeaTac
airport. Discovery of the cluster
occurred by happenstance, as
residents sharing neighborhood
news and information became
aware of the frequ�ent gliobias-
toma cases. Findings of the King
County Health Department
glioblastoma study are expected
to be released Iate this year or
early in 2001.
Debreceny discussed airport
water pollution and a lawsuit
over the Baltimore Washington
airport's violation of de-icing and
anti-icing disposai regulations.
Airp ort neighbors observed
pollutants in the streams draining
the airport, and persuaded water
pollution experts to investigate.
The pollution was found to be
airport anti-icing and de-icing
fluids. Subsequent analysis
found it would take the airport's
treatment system about three
years to pro�erly treat one yeaz's
�worth of anti-ic�ng and de-icing
fluids. US-CAW and the National
Resources Defense Council
initiated a lawsuit since resolved.
Recent estimates on costs to
ciea.n up contaminaiion to the
aquifer under the airport range
from $2 to $7 billion Before the
lawsuit, Baltimore-Washington
officials claimed to have a
"premier"anti-icing disposal
system.
��a.��iC Uj3 —
�+DiS� jJ� .
By 1Veil Clark
MSP traffic rose last year, and
along with it the noise. How
much it's gone up can be mea-
sured. The effect on residents
around the airport is purely
subjective.
In their wisdom, those tivho
conceived the A.irport Noise and
Operations Monitoring System
-{ANOMS) decided to try and
distinguish aircraft noise fram
ordinary noise around the
(contd. on pa�e 7)
�
�.
�I'raffic LTp - I�to�se Up!
(contd. frorn page 5)
monitoring stations such as trucks, kids playing,
motorcycles, etc. The way it's done is to assume
that aircraft noise is louder and lasts longer than
ordinary neighborhood noise. So, if noise is
measured above 65dbA intensity for at least 8
seconds, it is assumed ta be an aircraft. Each one
measured is called an event. These events are
published every month in the Technical Advisors
Report for a11 the Remote Monitoring Stations
(RMT).
Because of their loud, transient nature, events
are especially disturbing. So, it can be assumed
that events around each RMT are a measure of the
number of times the neighborhood has been
disturbed. For example, at RMT 5(12th Ave. &
58th St.) there were 8,269 events in October
1997, 7,848 events in 1998 and 9,906 in 1999 (this
includes arrivals and departures). For these three
� years, this averages about 8,600 events per year or
� 24 events per day. That's a tot of disturbing!
The trend is disturbing too. In 1998 the trend
was 23 events more each month through the
whole year for all RMTs, and in 1999 it was 70
; � events per month more:=This is a 9% increase in
.- 1998 and a 24% increase in 1999.
1
]LOW-�']EtEQUENCY NCDISE
DECISION� DELAYED
The final report of the MAC Low-Frequency Noise
Policy Committee has been delayed until final lanb age
interpreting the recommendations of a three-person
technical panel is submitted to committee members and'
the MAC for review.
The findings and recommendations are eYpected to
be sent to the FAA later this year as part of the MAC's
proposed Part 150 noise abatement program for 200�.
The recommendations identify lo�v-frequenc_y noise
impacts in parts of Richfield, Bloomington and south
Minneapolis from aircraft that �vill use the new north-
south runway opening in 2004.
Legisl�t€�rs Joi� in I'a�� F'or�a�
Four state legislators joined in a discussion of noise
miti�ation issues at SNIAA.C's fall membership meet-
ing. Our thanks to Sen. Jane Ranum and Reps. Jean
Wagenius, Wes Skoglund and N�ark Gleason for their
participation.
� �'1
� ��... CONTOUR LI��TES
By Neil Clark
�/ The noise contour
lines of 65 DNL and 60
��-,_.��--..� NL drawn on maps
--._._ ---� hich show your home
are not accurate to the
extent MA.0 and the FAA would like you to
believe. Literally hundreds oicomprarruses and
assumptians are made in the rocess of setting up
the Integrated Noise Model �7N�2) computer
program which will affect the position accuracy of
a line on the ground depicting any specific DNL
noise level by as much as 120 ft.
It all starts with a determination of the noise
power emitted by each aircraft and transmitted to
the ground. The FAA measures the noise power
emitted by each aircraft type under vasious condi-
tions of load, throitle posrtion, clirnb rate, etc.
which is plugged into the computer program.
Then the posrt�on of the aircraft is measured by
radar af limited accuracy. From there, the distance
of the aircraft to a ground location where a 65dbA
noise level is calculated. Attenuation of the noise
from the aircraft�to the ground is primarily the
effect of spreading, but such factors as tempera-
ture, atmospheric pressure, moisture content and
other things also attenuate the sound. Variations
in atmospheric density can actually act as a lens
and focus the sound at certain locairons. As the
aircraft travels along, the naise gradually de-
creases to insi�ificance, and other aircraft are
heard on other radar tracks.
There are =-- --
about 400,000 S�,AC Newsletter
tracks a year for
the INM Carn- Published intermittently by the South
PUteI t0 Irite- Metro Airport Action Council.
grate. This is too s�ac
much for the 5116 Columbus Ave. S.
COITI uter to �nneapolis, MN 5�417
handle so a few (612) 822-8118
� FAX (6I2} 861-1061
"tj�]G3I" tracks e-mail dsndrs@gateway.net
are selected, Board of Airectors:
making another Dick Saunders: President
GOITIpiOITllSe. Neil Clark: Vice President
Eileen Seully: Tressurer
The probable Dean Lindberg
error of contour G�eg Bastien
line locations on C.B. Mamer
the ground is Meg Parsons
conveniently not Russet Schroed(
given by the FAA ----c�ea;ts----
when they aive Dick Saunders: Editor
j�OU a ileW IT13p. Reporter. Dean Lindberg
Afterall it would Eileen Scul(y: Distribution
only confuse you. Lay�ut: Nz;t c�3rk
S�i.WC i�tewsletter, Spring Z000
Page 7
�� :
SOUTH METRO AIRPORT ACTION COUNCIL
SMAAC
5116 Columbus Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55417
(612)822-8118
Dr. Bronzaft Coming
For Annual Meeting
May 18, Z000
Don't �ss It!
(Details Inside)
' �� ,
Bulk Rate
U. S. Postage Paid
Minneapolis, MN � ,
Perm.it No. 20245
Kevin Batchelder g g ;.
... . City Administrator �- � ;
- 1101 Victoria Curve �
. Mendota Heights, MN 55118
:�s � � �— a,�:oa� i� I�1�1►�I�tt��,llt,�{li��l���<<l��►I11{,���11t,lf�s,t��!l1�,1,i
__ - , - _ .: _.. . .. .. _ _ � = .
�siai�Eui �odire uo �rtqnd �aua� aql ptre `d?ussaquaur ��y�S ac� `��auruiano�
ui ssapaai pa��aia uuo3uc ol spur� a� saptnoid sanp sno� �jg1c,� si uonsd►�i�Ed sno,� pus dnoi� �suazili� .caalunion
E s? �y�y�s •�uazm�;ou�c n�auai assata •dn{ssaq�uatu prEd�o ssa� asai aqi sa�e�Tpuz iaqej ��ijiEcu sno,s uo saq�.unu at�Z
'aa��iunuo� ��L�IS � uo an.ias o� �uTllitn u.t� I
ssaspp�e jr�eui-3
:diz :a��e�S :��i�
. :ssasPP�
:auoua :au�eN
�OS�} Au��nqu�uo� �SZ�) �ui�addns iSI�) I�laua�
_ __ _ L I bSS I�IY1I `s�Iod�auury� '� .
S'any snqcun�o� 9I I S
�tfbWS :o� puaS
u�o� ��n�aua����zauillo�zu� �`��I�1IS
,
�' �
CHRIS JASPER/LONDON
F'I'HE WOP.I,D airport sector was domi-
nated by an Asia-led decline in 1998, 1999
marked a return to form for theindusuy—and
Asia showed the way. Not only have key East
Asianairports recovered the groundlostin 1998
in the wake of the re�ion's financial shock, but
leading tenninals enjoyed passenger and cargo
flows hijher than those of 1997, which had been
a previous high-water marlc
Asia's performuice sug�esrs that the region
has not merely recaptured the business lost
because of its financial crisis, but is set fair on
the up�vard curve encisa�ed before that crisis set
in. The distinction is important, in that many
tlsian cities have either builc or are committed
to buildinj brand-ne�c or massively e.Ypanded
airports to accommodate the expected boom.
tllthough the ti,sian miracle may not e:cacdy be
backon track, the co.ntinent's newairports seem
nnlikely to prove white elephants.
Results published by Airports Council
Internaaonal (ACn, which has a membership
covering more than 1,400 airports in 16Z coun-
a-ies, show thatmostworld regions faredwell or
verywell in 1999, and across all parameters. The
survey of 600 major airports highlights just one
negaave trend, with Latin America suffering a
slight decline (0.9%) in passenger numbers.
The same condnent also produced only slu;-
gish a owth in car�o volumes.
Passenger numbers worldwide rose almost
5%, cargo tonnage by more than 6%, and air-
craft movements by 3.5%. ACI says the resulrs
testify to "healthy growth characterised by a
strong comeback oF the Asia-Pacific re;ion".
Asia's comeback was most manifest in its air
cargo market, which suffered most during the
decline, but where tonnage rose by 13.% in
,•, � • •�•�� ,x �,
. Total passengers Ye change Total cargo ' % change .Total aircraft Yo change
v 1997 (metnc tonnes) v 1997 . movemertts
:..._ _.
..�.... ..
5'Afnca '' . . 74,694,998 � ' 11.3 ' '848,692 . 0.9 > "1.323,629 , 4.3
Asia-Pacific 455,847,628 5.0 15,356,896 12.9 4,365,203 0.0
Eutnpe .. : 912,004,487 5.8 11,901,630 4.9 15,447,759 .. 5.1
Latin America/Cari6bean 112,695,651 (0.9) 1,578,325 0.3 2,301,432 3.0
- Middle East " 62,007,517 ' 6.4 2,396,680 .:. 3.9 '.. ` 700,222 "' 4.4
North America 1,386,253,001 3.9 28,668,821 4.0 33,902,273 3.2
Totai 3,003,503,282 4.7 60,751,044 6.2 58,040,518 3,5
34
1999. Hong Kon� posted the most spectacular
improvement amon� major cargo gateways,
with a ZO%-plus rise in volurues malang it the
second lar�est frei�ht airportin the world (after
FedExhublVlemphis) as the new ChekLap Kok
Airport enjoyed its first full year of operarions.
EAST ASiAN SUCCESS STORiES
Asia's other bi� car�o achievers were Tokyo's
Narita and Haneda airporrs, Seoul, Taipei,
Osaka and Bangkok, all recording double-dib t
year-on-year gro�r-th, and all postin� tonnage
figures well in escess of pre-decline highs
attained in 1997 on the back of an earlier dou-
ble-di�it grow-th spurt. Shanghai was a case
apart, with freighC up 36% and further growth
likely with the city's Pudon� Airport open.
Nlajor airport projects are also under way in
Taipei, Inchon (servin� Seoul) and Bangkok.
Asian passen�er gauis mirrored car� o growth,
but lagged some �vay behind. Seoul reported a
rise of more than 13 % in passengers carried, to
more than i3 million, buc has not yet matched
1997's total of nearly 37 million. Regionally,
Asian passen�er performance �vas outshone by
Africa (up 11°6) and the i��Iiddle East and
Europe, where espandin� Paris Charles de
Gaulle sa�c gro«-rh of 13 %(cargo having risen
by Z? %). Gro«zh ac CDG conrrasted markedly
tiv�th slot-cons�ained London Heathrow, �vhich
F�IGHT INTERNATIONAL 9- 15 May 2000
C ,
�ectacular
;ateways,
ing it the
�rld (after
:LapI�ok
�erations.
:5
e Tokyo's
(, Taipei,
ible-di�it
T tonnage
ne hi�hs
rlie r. dou-
�as a case
�r � o�vth
orc open.
er way in
Bangkok.
;o gro�vth,
•eported a
�arried, to
� matched
egionally,
cshone by
East and
:harle� '�
V� j
rnarke�iy
•o�v, �vhich
vt ay 2000
�
'�4 ,` Hong Kong posted sPetiacular improvente�tt among cargo gateways after Cbek Lap Kok's first fullYear
a , �
� _ _, .T „ �
�..' � �.� : ,• i � � i � � -�.> >
�" i ' Raok r,'.'°�f, `- -y-� _
a Rank. ., i s�„ �=i �,
Y� , , Pax' '�- % ��
,.99 '98 NrPort T000es' Xc6ange � � �=a��
,-, _. �_,.,,�„ .__�.. • �L"'�AUazRa(pTE)� '=�r�'kZ.93�83 ���
��"�,r�M"emPhis(MQN�:<�,�-2,4]29��`��.��.5�,�; � � ��;��rt���prn 7?_568.076 0.1
tvlei;s Feld 133,605 (12.5)
Los Angeles 70 454,566 - 4 1
rLos Ang>I s Intl ��'• 63 876,501 4.3'
`� Ontario In�l 6,578,005 ° 2��
Paris 68,946 �13 $•4
Charles de Gaulie 43,596,943 12•9
Orly 25,349,270 1.6
ACI deimes a mWtiairFcrt system as an airportope2tor/authoriry
managing mor= (han one airport within Ne same metropol'ttan area.
it o��ercook in terms oFmovements. t1s a"sys-
tem", London's three B�l.l-ow�ned airports -
Heathro«-, Garirick and Stansted -�'ew colleo-
a��ely Eu f•.is�er than Hearhrow alone, w-ith
Sunste�l's boomin� lo�c-cost business the biggzst
dri�'er. At Italy's "ne�r-" l�Sil:ui tilalpensa, passen-
gers incresszd bti� 1 SO°'o and cargo by-�7 %, while
do«`n�raded Linate ss«- Falls oF� 2�o and -}7% as
trafEc sticched airporrs.
FiJGHT INT��•�.qTION;�� 9- 15 May 2000
London tstizs�yiy 4.0 - -.. _ ,.._ :
. 13 8�:�.8ostori (BOS) _ . ::-:494.816 . `�?(2.5j �=
Heathrow 458,270 1.5
Gatwick 255,569 ` 1.7 14 15 Denver(DEN) , 487,876 5.2
Stansted 155,080 22,5 15'>.20.:.'CincirineU (CVG) .��•r'''482;987 �•.. �8.6: '�
Las Vegas . s c S44 $38 6 8 16 14 Philadeiphia (PHL) 480,276 2.3
:- ' ; 17 .23: `;Paris (CDG) . .; �;u475.731 .'10.7: i%
McCarran = . 542133 . 15 2
North Las Vegas ? 229 529�� (10 0} 1$ 25 Santa Ma (SNA) 471,676 12.9
�HendersonExecutive <.,:73,176. ;. �'124, ,� 1g`�29'H'ashington((AD) -: "469074 _c�22:7 �.•
20 19 Houston (IAH) 463,148 3.5
21 "17 �` London (lHR) ' % � :=,. 458,270 "2:5 -='':
22 16 Newark (EWR) 457,000 0.6
In the mature North timencan market, pas- ,; �23 ""26 ' Frankfurt (FRA) `�' 439,093 :=== 5.5 `'
sengers and cargo increased at a modest 4%, 24 22 san Francisco (sFo) 43s,s85 1.5
with Atlanta Hartsfield handlin� almost 78 mil- •"25:`18 : Pittsburgh (PI� ::=;437.ss7 �'�fi(3.o>
lion people and remaining the world's busiest 26. 2� seatue (SEn) 434,425 s.s
passenger airport, ahead of Chicago O'Hare, 2$ `24 Toronto (YYZ� . 427,315 ,.� t1.0,
which it overtook last year. The Delta Air Lines 29 28 qmsterdam (�Ms) >_' 410,034 :��^ ; 4.4
hub has also edged ahead oF0'Hare in terms of 30 34 Memphis (�1EM) 374,s17 2•s
aircraEt movements, recording a world high oF +�andingandtakeoFfofanaircraft
more than 900,000 passengers. ❑
t�i' �K° �t �' j' �� p. �, . �,,',3�tl�'e� . .- � .. � k '�}�"
��� .� t s.c �,� ��,y .r.�, �h^` 1 A � ���` � ��� *� � a t �'t� �' d�,.c� ��t� ,a Tae%
4 ,�t, $� �,-, ��.., ie., )
..ts. ,; 3. m. 'r�" ,.4:ii
A weekly update on ]itigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volame 12, Number 16
San �'rancisco Int'Z
AIRi,INES BLA�T S�A.N FRANCIS��'S PLAPd
TO REQUIRE U�E OF LAJ�.G�R AIRCRA�T
The Air Transport Association came out swinging at San Francisco International
Airport's plan [o pe[ition the Federal Avia[ion Administration for a rulemakinQ
under its Part 161 rules to require the airlines to use larger aircraft at SFO as an
interim solution to [he airport's serious delay problem.
"This plan violates federal law; would drastically reduce service [o smaller -
cities, and would damage small communities as well as the entire Bay Area
economy," said ATA President and CEO CaroI Hallett, echoinQ comments mad�z
earlier by United Airlines, [he dominant carrier at SFO and the carrier that would
be most affected by [he rulemakin�. .
"San Francisco airportis a key economic en�ine for the rejion and any move [o
cu[ fliQhts will have a dramatic impact on business and jobs," Hallett contended.
SFO recently announced its inten[ion to file a petition with the FAA to prohibi[
use of aireraft w ith less than 50 seats to specific cities such as Los Angeles,
Sacramen[o, and Fresno, arguing [hat such action will reduce airpor[ delays.
But Hallett asserted that the way to reduce delays at San Francisco "is to updatz
their antiquated runway layout because i[ restricts operations in bad weather. The
San Francisco Airport needs to stop trying to dis[ract passenaers with unrealistic
(Corrti�tirecl ori p. 6�)
Hacshkzts
EU1�0�'EAN UI�dIO�t BAI'�1 ON A�DI�CI��d
OF JE�U�I�KITTED AIRCI�A.FT �A.I��� E�'FEC7C
The European Union's rule barrin� the addi[ion of hushkitted aircraft in Europe,
tivhich h1s been the subject of a long and acrimonious dispute 6et���een the EU and
United Statzs and is no�v before the International Civil Aviation Organization to
resolve, took zFFect on hiay 4.
The UE did nut mark the occasion. The U.S. AirTransport Association did,
issuin� a press relzase assertina that the ban violates in[ernational aviation
s[andards. "Clearly this is a policy designed to give the EU a competitive advan-
taRe over U.S. Firn�s.'' said Carol Hallett, preside.nt and CEO of the air]ine trade
aruup. "It's untortunate that the European Union is ignorin� international
standards. Even more alarming is the fact that they are willing to risk continuin�
proRress on importar[ encironmental is5ues by this politically mo!ivated reeula-
[1011.'�
F\TA said that the EU re�ulation ��'ill discriminate aeainst and effectively ban
aircra1t zquipped ��: i�h U.S. —develope�l hushkit technolo�?y. `The EU reeulation i�
unacceptable to the U.S. because thzrz is no scizntilic basis for ic and it Fails to
promote en��iroiimental intzrests in aiiy �vay," ATA said.
'`The EU claims [hat the rzason for this reeulation is noise." Hallztt said. `It the�,
(C.nr�tiiiue�l cn p. 66)
�
l�iay �, 2000
In -�'h�s .Issue. . .
San Francisco Int'Z ... The
Air Transport Association
strongly opposes SFO's plan
to petition the FAA for a
rulemakin; to require the use .
of lar�er aircraft at SFO on �
certain routes to reduce delay
problems. Such action violates
the Airline Deregulation Act,
ATA asserts - p. 64
Hzcshkits ...:" The European �
Uniori �. controversial rule
- barrin� the addition of
huslikitted aircraft in Europe
took effect on May 4- p. 64 �
Legislatio�a ... Bill introduced
in California Le�islature would
provide a ta.x credit of ��00 for
homeowners in the 6� dB DNL
or ;reater contours - p. 66
I�oinestead AFB ... T�vo key
' chairnzan of House, Senate
committees overseein� restora-
tion of Ever�lades I�Tational
Park tell President Clinton that
conversion of Homestead to a
commercial aiiport may be
incompatible �vith park - p• 66
Netiv Briefs ... County blocks
residential de�-elopment near
aizport; San Jose l�layor anary
at not beinR in��olved in air
route chan�e� to SFO - p. 67
A\R �ti�ill not publish the ti�•eek of
lIa�• S. The next issue, �'ol. 12, No.
17, «•il] be published on \Iay� 19.
Ma.y 5, 2000 6�
talk of flight restrictions and concentratz on updating their
runways,"-Hallet[ said.
SFO officials say they only tivant to limi[ the size of
aircraft to reduce delay as a stopgap measure for about five
years untiI they reconfigure their runtivays to solve the delay
problem. �
Hallet[ con[ended that SFO's proposal violates federal
law. Under the Airline DereQulation Act of 1978, any eFfor[s
by an airport, city, state, or other enti[y to se[ prices,
determine routes, or mandate types of aircraf[ used are
specifically prohibited, the ATA chief said. ThaCsec.tion of
law was enacted to ensure free and open competition by
airlines without Qovermmental interference, she add•ed. The
result oE deregulation is that airline prices have dropped by
36 percent in real dollars since 1978 and the number of
people flying annaally has �rown from 278 million 22
years ago to 640 million in 1999.
SFO Releases Report
Meanwhile, SFO officials held�a press conference May 5 to
release a consultants' report which concludes that requiring
larger aircraf[ on certain routes is the best option the airpoct
has for addressin� its serious delay problem.
The report said that, in the absence of any realistic chance
of getting the airlines to voluntarily reduce operations on
bad weather days, San Francisco Interna[iona] Airport is left
with no choice but to try [o impose "aircraf[ upgau�ing" —.,
the use of lar�er aircraf[ on routes wi[h hiQh-frequency
service — by some form of rulemaking. y
Aircraft up�au�ing wilI reduce fli�h[ frequency but
should not reduce the number of seats offered in any of [he
markets examined (Los Anseles, Sacramento, Monterey,
Fresno, and Eureka), accordinQ to the report, which was
preparedby Charles River Associates and The John F.
Brotivn Company.
Noting that rulemakin� op[ions are limited, the report said
the most promisinQ opCion is to ini[ia[e a"No[ice and
Comment" rulemaking and seek approval from [he Federal
Aviation Administration [o adopt a local congestion delay
rule under the a�ency's Part 161 regulations on Notice and
Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions.
The airport plans to fake such ac[ion bu[ has not formally
submitted a rulemakinQ petition to the FAA yet.
Aircraf[ "upalUQllIQ" tivill not eliminate weather-related
delays at the airport. the. report concluded, but added, "it
does have the potential to reduce it sianificantly, to reduce
the disproportionate burden borne b}� the bVest Region
created by existinQ delay `manaaement' procedures, and to
reduce the cos[s and the stress i[ creates for passengers."
The airport asled the consultants to identify approaches it
❑Ilaht pursue to pro�•idz interim relief oF its delay problem,
which is caused b}� havine paral(z1 runu•�ys spaced too
closely to �llo��� simul[anzous landines in bad �veather. A
run�vay confi�uration project, under ���hich the airport
hopes to extend run�ti�a}'s into Sa=n Francisco Bay and allo�v
simultaneous landinns in poor �t eather, is not expected to
be completed for five years, and currently is in the environ-
mental revietiv process.
The consultants could only consider options [hat are able
to operate within the airpor['s current runtivay confiQurat�
and to take into account SFO's current lease and use
a;reements tivith the airlines. These aQreements run until the
year 201 1 and severely limit the airport's ability to use
measures such as peak load pricinj to allocate runtvay
capacity, accordinj to the report.
To prepare their report, [he consultan[s analyzed [he
frequency of various weather conditions at SFO and how
they impacted air traffic and developed simulation models
to help estimate how changes in traffic Teveis,'weather
characteristics, and the airpoit's arrival acceptance rate
impac[ed delay and cancellations. They also conducted
four focus groups made up primarily of frequent SF0 users
and surveyed passengers in a departure ]oun�e reflecting a
s[atistically valid cross-section of [he airport's customers.
The consultants met wi[h officials of United Airlines, the
primary carrier at SFO, with the�manage�enf''of the FAA's '
�Systems Command Center at Herndon; VA and othec FAA
facilities, and with members of the Weather Sensin� Group
a[ NfIT Lincoin Labs in Lexin�ton, NIA.' ";
They found [ha[ many airports, especially those in the
Northeast and Ivlidwest, face delays due to constraints on
the capacity of the en rou[e air traffic conErol system: This -
means more aircraft tvant [o land and take off froni [hese
airpoits, especially at peak travel times, than can be safely
accommodate.
Problem Is Weather � ` '
SFO's delay problem, however, is due primarily co bad
�veather, they said. Fo� is frequent in [he mornings, espe-
cially in the summer, and rains tivi[h gusty winds occur in
the winter.
The airport has two pairs of intersectine parallel runways.
tiVhen wea[her conditions are ideal, one pair of runways can
be used for landin�s and the other pair for takeoffs. tiV hen in
this confiQuration, SFO can handle up to 60 landinQs and
60 takeoffs per hour. Demand exceeds this levei only for
brief periods each day and then not by much.
But the para11e1 run�vays are only 7�0 feet apart, too close
for parallel landinj approaches in bad weather. This forces
aircraFt to arrive follo�ving one another to a single runsvay.
Operating in-trail cuts the airport's abiliry to accept arrivin,;
traFfic by one half.
On a typical day �vhen weather tivas bad all day, only
abou[ half the fliQhts arrived on time (within 14 minutes oF
schedule), thz report noted. It said the incidznce of delays
and cancellations affect mainly flidhts in the �ti est due to
t�vo Factors: the F�,�'s procedurzs for manaQing air traffic
contro] dela}'s related to SFO �+•eather: and decisions by the
airlines concerning ���hi�:h oFtheir SFO in-bound flishts tivill
be delayed or canceled and �vhich ��•i11 operate on or clos=
to schedule. ��
Airport\oi�eReport
5, 2000
I�zaslzkits, frorn p. 64
are really interested in reducing aircraft noise, they should
have finished their adoption of an all-StaQe 3 fleetjust as
the U.S. has done."
Actually, the Uniced Siates decided to speed up the Sta�e
2 aircraft phaseout schedule recommended by ICAO, �vhich
is what [he Europeans are followinQ. The EU ar�ues that it
was the United S[a[es' acceleration of [he phaseout sched-
ule [ha[ caused so many airlines to have to resort [o
hushkits as a means oFcomplyinQ with 5tage 3 noise
requirements.
Hallet[ asserted [ha[ aircraft with hushkits meet StaQe 3
noise standards and have a safety record iden[ical to new
aircraft. The EU regulation, she said, would prohibit the
rejistration of hushki[-equipped aircraf[ in the EU and ban
[he operation of such non-EU re�istered aircraft within
European airspace within [�vo years. The EU policy would,
ho�vever, permit EU-registered aircraft with hushkits to
continue to operate wi[hin European airspace after2002.
On March 14, the United States filed a formal complaint
with ICAO protes[ing the EU hushkic regulation. The
Europeans' response to that complaint, called a memorial, is
due in early July and may be preparzd by France, tivhich
may be signiFican[. Observers note that France, Germany,
and Grea[ Bri[ain are [he EU members most eaQer to find a
resolution to the EU hushkit reQulation dispu[e.
Califorjzia
BI�L WOULD PROVIDE
TA� Cl2EDIT WITHIN 65 ]DNL
A tax credit of 5�00 would be given to homeowners
located in the 6? dB or greater CNEL (Community Noise
Equivalent Level) noise contour of a"noise problem"
airport under IeQislation introduced in the Ca]ifornia
Assembly in February an sliahtly amznded on April 24.
Assembly biil i�o. 206� �vas introduced by Democratic
Assemblyman Gzorge Nakano of the �3�`' Assembly District,
which includes ci[ies in the sou[hern coastal reQion of Los
Angeles Count�;� near Los �nQeles Internationa( Airport.
No hearings ha�•e yet bzzn held on the bill, tivhich �vas
referredto the Assembl}� Committee on Revenue and
Taxation. "
The bill tia•ould pro��ide the tas credit until Dec. l, 2006,
and would require the Franchise Tax Board to report
annually [o the Le�*islature on the number oF taxpayers
claiminR [he crzdit.
On April 2—'.. the bill ��; a� amendzd to clarify �vho would
qualit�y For the ta.� credic. They mu_t be a'`qualified
resident." meanin�� theti are locaied ��: ithin the 65 dB C'VEL
contour of a �oi�� Problem �irp��rt as deFined by Section
�OO l ot state la��, .
I�'omestead AFB
COi�IP�iTIBILyTY �F AIR�'�I2T,
EVE�GI�r�.DES �UESTIONED
Two Ohio Rzpublicans who chair House and Senate i
committees tha� will play a major role in the upcoming
debate on the restoration of fundin� for [he South Florida �,
Ever�lades National Park wrote President Clin[on in april '
expressinQ concern that efforts to turn the former Home- �i
stead Air Force Base into a commercial airport may not be i
compatible with the park. �
"I am very concerned that the noise; air quality impacts,
tivater quality impacts, and developmental pressures of '
commercial airport operations may not be compatible tivi[h
the adjacent National Parks and (Florida Keys National
D�IarineJ Sanctuary," Sen. Geor�e Voinovich and Rep.
Ralph Regula told Clinton. ;
They said it would "be irrzsponsible for [he federal �
i
government [o approve an investment of billions of dollars i
in restorakion of the South Florida ecosystem at the same '
time it was approving a reuse plan for Homestead Air Force '
Base that is incompatible with the res[oration objectives." �
Sen. Voinovich is chairman of [he Senate Subcommittee
on Transportation and Infrastructure which has oversight of
the Army Corps of En�ineers, one of two major piayers in ,
the restoration of.the park. Rep. Regula chairs [hz House
Appropriations Subcommittee's Subcommiuee on [he
Interior, which oversees the budQet oF the Departmen[ of
Interior, the other major restoration player.
The Clinton Administration has suppor[ed the redevelop-
ment of Homestead, tivhich «<as closed after beinQ hit by
Hurricane Andre��� in 1992. But efforts to turn the base in[o
a commercial airport stalled in the face oF concerns by �
environmental graups over the impact of the airpor[ on [he i
Everglades. They� contend that aircraft noisz �a'ill shatter the
[ranquillity of Bisca�ne and Everalades national parks.,
�vhich are located nearby, and that [he impact of air and
�vaterpoilution from a commercial airport �v�ul� be
sionificant.
An Air Forcz contractur recently issued a draft environ-
mental impact report concludinR tha� a cummercial airport �
at Hoiuestead could bz compatible v: ith the parks pro� ided I
that noise impacts are addressed. Bu[ f�deral and state �
1aZ(1Cles, includinR the Dzpar[ment of In�erior and the
En��ironmzntai. Protzction Agency. ha��e challznRed this
fittdins.
Interior Secretary Bruce Eaboi[t and :e�•eral conserti�ation
�roups are endor.ing a proposal �o red��zlop the basz «ith
resort hotels. Rolt courses, and a maji�r �c�uarium. Sen.
Voino��ich an� P.�p. ReRula e.�pre�;e�i support far this plan
in their letter to Przsident Clinton.
:\irport\oi�ch�puri
Nlay 5, 2000 _ 67 ',;
ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Steven R. Alverson
Manager,Sacramento0ffice
HarrisMillerbtiller& Hanson
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegei& McDiarmid
Washinoton, DC
James D. Erickson
- Director,OfficeofEnvironmentandEnerey
Federa]AviationAdministration y
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Direcfor, Charles l�i: SalterAssociates
San Francisco
�Iichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke,Dillon&Ballance _ .
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq:
Catler& Stanfieid :
Denver
Suzanne C:'14cLean "
ChiefDevelopmentOfficer
TucsonAirportrluthority . _
John 1�1. l�Ieenan
SeniorVicePresidentforindus[ryPolicy
AirTransport Association
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President,l4festre Greve Associates
NewportBeach,CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
NicDermott, W ill �C Emery
Chica�o "
Karen L. Robertson
b�tana�er, Noise Compatibili[y Office
Dallas/Fort Worthinternational?,irport
1�Iary L. Vigilante
President, Synerey Consultants
Seatde
Lisa Lyle tiVaters
i�t anaeer, Nuise A batement Proeram
Palm Beach CowityDepartmen[oFAirpores
In Brief ...
County Blocks Home Development
On April 20, the commissioners oFlohnson County, Kansas, blocked a
proposed residential development on 160 acres near 7ohnson County
Executive Airport. The commissioners are required to approve develop-
ment wi[hin one mile of the airport.
County staff determined that the si[e near the airport was not appropri-
ate for new residential-development for reasons of safety and noise
impact and did no[ comply with the coun[y's master plan.
San Jose 1VIayor Angry Over Route Change
San Jose, CA, Mayor Ron Goniales is angry that the Federal Aviation .
Adminisfration did not involye mayors of communities, in the soutfi San
`Fiancisco Bay area or the area's congressional delegation in discussions
that led ro the rerouting af fraffic from San'Francisco International
. , .,
Airport over ttieir heads. - . , ,
The FAA�implemenfed the chan�e in order'to reduce weafher-related
delays a[ San Francisco International Airport. '
- Improving service at 5F0 canno[ be done at the expense of residents of
San Jose and Silicon Valley, the mayor said.
A spokesman foi FAA's re�ional office said that the a�enCy did notify
the San 7ose plannin� department about the proposed air route chan�es
which will affect airccaft a6'ove 6�,000 feet. Under federal environmental
law, the FAA can assume tha[ air route changes above an aiti[ude oF
3,000 feet have no si�nificant impact. Such changes can be made �� -
adm inistratively.
FAA computer modeling indicated that the air rou[e chan�es wouid
increase noise by only 0.01 dB�.
The FAA had only planned.to hold only one public hearinj on [he
rerouting but, after meeting with Maybr Gonzales, decided to hold
ano[her day of hearinas and to extend the public commen[ period by two
weeks. `
FAA R&D Advisory Committee
The FAA announced May 5 that its Aviation Rulemakine Advisory
Committee will mee[ on iv1ay 18 to discuss aircraft noise certification
issues. The commi[tee will vote on a Notice oF Proposecl RulemakinQ
(NP�2l�i) re�ardin� the harmonization oFU.S. and European airplane
noise certiFication standards.
The meetinQ is open to the public. For further information, contact i�Is.
Angela 0. Anderson; tel: (202) 267-968L
Al1iPORT NDISE REPORT
Anne H. Iiohut, Pubfisher
Charles F. Price, ContributinQ Edi[or
Published =46 times a��ear at.43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn; Va. ?01 �7; Phone: (70 �) 729-4567; F�X: (703) 729-��2S.
e-mail: editor a airportnoisereport.com; Price $��t9.
Autllorization to phatocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is �ranted by Airport Noise Report, provided tl�at the base fee of US� 1.03 per paJe per cop}�
is paid directl�� to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rose�vood Dri��e, Danvers, 1IA O l 923. USA.
L� / ��J F
f f •� .3� �, . y 1- F �w .. ��:n.
�`� � � . r �� � . :,�,� ,�,,..., �+�¢ �� {�a ` y, �� ,� �,��I: �w �,5 �,�!A �r ��� � �,
� ���� 49�d� ,�� �' '� t�,�`'�� VL�o, e� ,.��'i�. �'._ �e �t . <u✓
. t�:, -.,�"dr, �, _ ��,n: �q'r :
:2:.
A weekly update on Iitigation, regulations, and technological d�evelopments
Volume 12, Number 17
Air �Zoutes
NEW �EIZ�EY WA.I�t'I'S'�V]H[AT 1VVYIAIVII GOT:
OK TO TE�T O�Et�N 12O�.JTII�G PROC]EDURE
"If ocean routing is good for Florida, why isn't it good for New Jersey," fiye
mem6ers of New Jersey's congressional delegation asked Federal Aviation
Administrator Jane Garvey after learnin� that the agency has approved a six-
. month test of an ocean routing procedure at Miami International Airporfdesigned
to mitigate noise impact on the community but will not allow a similar test of an
ocea�r-oa�ting procedure at Newark Internationa] Airport. -.
For the pas[ several years, despite growing support by Ne�v Jersey federal and
state lawmakers, the FAA has refused to allow a live test of an ocean routing
procedure desijned to route aircraft departin; Newark International out over the
Atlantic Ocean to gain altitu.de beFore turnin� back over land. The plan was.
developed For the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise (NJCAAN) by a
re[ired FAA air traffic specialis[, but the FAA contends it would not work because
of the complex air space over New 7ersey. Continenta] Airlines, a dominant carrier
at the Newark, is strongly opposed to it.
('� "Excessive-�``oise from planes depar[inj Newark International Airport has
___ � pla�ued our state for too long," NJ Reps. Rush Holt (D), IvSarge Roukema (R}, Bob
Franks (R), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R), and Steven Rothman (D), told Garvey.
They noted that the governor, state officials, communi[y groups, and citizens have
(Co�ttin�tecf o�i p. 69)
( �i
Seattle-Tacorna I�zt'Z
POI�T ��'A�F �PP�SE� PLAN TO ��RE�D
N�ISE ���IPA,�CT 'I'+� OT�-IE14 COI�TN�UI�1I'I'IE�
The Port of Seattle s[aff has come out in opposition of a plan advocated by a
eroup called Citizens for Airplane t�'oise Equity under �vhich some east and
southbound flights takinQ off from thz north end of Seattle-Tacoma Internatiunal
Airport �vould be dispersed o��er Sou[heast Seatt(e and �lercer Island in order [o
give rzlief [o communities that had fliaht paths moved over them several years .
a�o whzn [he Federai Aviation Administration rearran�ed air routes in the Seattlz,
area.
A citizen advisor}' �roup recommended in April that the so-called "split east
turn" be studied by the Port commissioners but only in conjunction tivith an
increased use of the Du�vamish/Elliott Bay flight corridor tivhich would route
airplanzs «�es[ o��er �vater and off the coast before headin� south.
"AlthouRh the concept of dispersal or sharing [noise] has a theoretical appeaL
analysis indica[es the actual result �vould be an increase in noise for a larae
number oF people ai�d a decrease in noiie For a small number of people," the Port
staff �vrote in their anal� sis of the fli` h� path pruposal.
A spokesman For the Port of Sea[tl� said that a scatter plan �.vas tried in 19SS in
an eF(ort to more equitaol�� distribute aireraFt noise impact over the commuqity
,
(Cnrttii�ued oit p. %OJ
Nlay 19, 2000
I� �'�is. �s��ce...
New Jersey . .. � NJ con�res-
sional delegation asks FAA to .
explain why it allo�ved test of
ocean routing at Miami.but
won't at Newark = p. `68 :
Sea-Tac ..: Port staff opposes
proposal to disperse flight paths
to spread noise impact - p. 68 `
Stage 2 Waivers-... Aeroflot
petitions FAA under amend- _
ment to ANCA to allow it to
continue operating Stage 2
airplanes in U.S. - p. 69
Albtiqzierqace :.. City puts -
purchase of noise monitorin� �
system on fast track; plans to �
soon issue rfp - p. 70
Lambert-St. Loicis ... Resi-
dential sound insulation pilot
program underway - p. 70 �
De�zver ... Hushkitted aircraft
causing airport to exceed noise
limits in intergovernmental
agreement; airport wants
hushkitted planes to fly same
track Sta�e 2 planes d:c': - p. 70
Netiv Briefs .,. FAA approves
Gateway Airport noise maps ...
Mid���ay seeks to impose PFCs
to r�ise $20 million to fund
sound insulation ... Former
DOT ofiicial jo'ins ti�'ashinaton,
DC, la�v fizzn ... Tucson Aii�ort!,
ALlCIlOI7i}r board approves �''
purchase of 1� 1 acres to create.
noise buffer zone - p. 71
19, 2000
repea[edly asked the FAA to conduct a live test of�the ocean
routin? procedure developed forNJCAAN but that "[ime
after time, [he FAA has resisted attempts to protect the -
ciuzens of the Garden State."
"In light of the pendin� decision forMiami International,
we respectful]y request that the FAA approve live testing of
ocean routin� for Runway 22 at Newark Interna[ional
Airport," they wrote.
The FAA has oniy approved a 180-day test of a new
nighttime departure procedure at Miami International
desi�ned to reduce noise impact on the communities east of
the airport. Airplanes departin� to the east between the
hours of 10 p.m: and b a.tn. will fly five miles off the coast
before turning noirh or south.
The airport current]y is in the process of preparing an
environmental assessment (EA) on the ocean routing
procedure that will be tested. Final approval of the proce-
dure depends on the outcome of Che test and FAA's review
of the EA.
Airspace Redesign Funding . _
In a related development, the House Appropriations
Commi[tee IVfay�16 approved �5.8 miilion to help fund the
FAA`s efforts to redesign the airspace over New Jersey and
New York and reduce [he impact of aircraft noise, which has
been a problem since 1987 when the FAA shifted air routes
over [he state under its Expanded East Coas[ Plan withou[ ,
conducting an environmental assessment and set off a
delu�e of noise com�laints �vhich have continued for over a
decade.
The fundin� was included in an amendment, introduced
by Rep. Frelin�huysen, to tha FAA's fiscal 2001 appropria-
tions bill.
"It's about [ime the FAA gets the job done and starts
eliminatinj the aircraft noise problem in northern New
7ersey," said FrelinQhuysen, who said he has secured more
than 515 million over the last three years for [he F�1A's
pro�ram to redesiQn air routes over New Jersey.
FAA's efforts to redesiQn [he airspace over Ne�v York and
Ne�v Jersey is the first step in a redesi�n of the national
airspace beins undertaken by the FAA. The NJ/NY project
lvill focus on a 60-mile radius of New York City and is
expected to cost S40 million.'
The FAA is focusinR on the Ne�v York/New Jersey area
First because it is the most congested airspace in the country
with air trafPic on the rise.
In 1993, NJ Gov. Christie Whitman commissioned the
Ne�v Jersey Institute oFTechnology'to study NJCAAN's
ocean routin� plan. \1IT endorsed the plan and recom-
mended that it be used to provide interim relief during the
FAA's redesian of the metropolitan air space.
l�-Iilestone Reached
The FQ� announced \Iay lb that a signifieant milestone
has been reached in its efforts to modernize the nationai
airspace system. The a�ency r�czntly completed the final
installa[ion and acceptance of innovative air surveillance
radar technoloay that will enhance air safety [hrou�h
improved position information and weather detection.
Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR-4) replaces obsole�
radar with all-solid-state; long-range, three-dimensional
radar providing aircraft position information to the FAA,
Air Force, Navy, and Customs Service.
Stage 3 Waivers
AEROFLOT FILES PETITION
TO FLY 3 STAGE 2 AIRPLANES
AerofloERuss.ian International Airlines filed a petition
with [he Federal Aviation Administration to operate three
S[a�e 2 airplanes in the United States'pendinJ replacement
of thnse aircraft with planes meetingmore stringent 5tage 3
noise certification sequiremenEs, the FAA announced May
10.
Aeroflot seeks to operate two Stage 2 IL-62 planes and
one Stage 2 IL-76(F) aircraft for an unspecified period of
tim e.
Legisla[ion reauthorizing the projrams of the FAA (the
W endell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Ac[ for
the 2151Century; informa]lyknown as AIR 21) included
]an�ua�e amendin� the Airport Noise and C'apacity Act of
1990 (ANCA) to allow foreign air carriers to apply for.
waivers from the reguiremen[ that all aircraft operatin� in
the United Sta�es comply with S[a�e 3 noise standards as of
Jan. l, 2000. ANCA only provided the opportunity for U.�
Stage 2 airplane operators to apply for waiveis to-operate �'
their aircraft beyond the phaseout date. " • --
Foreign airlines had until Apri] 20 to file applica[ions for
�vaivers. Aeroflot was the only forei�n carrier that souQht to
continue operatin� Stage 2 aircraft in the United States. .
The FAA invited the public to submit commen[s on
Aeroflot's pe[itio�n. They must be received by Ir1ay 25 and
be sent in triplicate to FAA, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attn: Rule Docket (AGC-200), Petition Docket No. 28680,
800Independe.nce Ave., SW, Washin�ron, DC, 20591.
For further information, contact AnQela Anderson in the �
FAA Office of Rulemakin�; tel: (202) 267- 9681.
�'AA Notice
On lY1ay 1 I, the FAA issued a notice in the Federal
Register notina [hat the AIR 21 had amended ANCA to
allo�v foreien carriers to apply For svai��ers and that the
1eQislation also re=enacted amendments to ANC,� made at
the end of'1999 t6"at permit certain non-revenue fliQhts by
Sta�e 2 aircraft to be conducted. y
The FAA said that it plans to amend its Part 91 re�ulations
to address the amendment regarding non-rzvenue fliQhts.
Airport Noise Report
i )
1�
19, 2000
Albuqacerque Int'Z
AIRPORT IPLANS TO ISSUE
RFP F01� MONITORIi`dG SYSTEIVI
W ithin the next fe�v weeks, Albuquerque International
Airport pians [o issue a request For proposals seeking a
company to provide a noise moni[orinQ system for the
airport.
Dissatisfied with a recommendation in a draft Part 150
Airport Noise Compatibility study that the-airport onl�
conduct seasonal noise monirorina, the Airport Nei�hbors
�lliance (ANA), whicti represen[s residen[s near the airport,
hired an San Francisco attorney Celm Shute to assemble a
team of aviation experts to devise a noise abatement
program for the airport.
Albuquerque Mayor Jim $aca supports the position of the
airport neijhbors that a permanent noise monitoring system
needs to be installed at the airpo.rt and has made purch�ase oF
the system a priority. It will be installed outside the _
airport's stalled Part 1�0 proQram and thz city wiil pay for
the system out oF its own funds, said l�iaagie Santiago,
spokeswoman For the airport.
The airport ivants the noise monitorinc system.to include
nine moni[orinQ sites and [o have the capability to iden[ify
the airlines causinQ noise problems, she said.
Parties interestins in [he RFP should coniact Sandra
Vescovi in the Ciry of Albuquerque's purchasing division;
tel: (�OS) 763-334�.
The data from the noise monitorin� ci[es could be used by
[he city to encourage airlines to use quieter aircraf[ or [o
change their fliQh[ pa[hs: Jay Czar, the city's aviation
manaaer, told the Albuquerque Journal. He said the
monitoring system is expected to cost ��00,000. The
airport hopes to ha��z [he system up and runnin� by next
April.
The mayor has s�uQht a change in dzparture procedures at
[he airport to turn aircraft depsrtinQ to the east to the south
[o avoid flying oti•er morz populated areas but the FAA has
said [he chanae cannot be madz.
Lci�3rbert-St. Loz�is Irzt'Z
�0�1� �t�UidD Ii'dS�.JLAT���
�����' ��+�ir�L��'� U11����i'�I�,�
A pilot resitlential sound insulation proaram has just
beaun at Lambzr[-St. Louis International Airport where
more than =4,?00 are located in the airport's 6� dB DNL
noi�e contour and are eliUible For soundorooFing.
The appro�imae�l�� 5l million pilot program �vill be�in by
testing acoustiril ins�ilation mea�ures on lb homes and
then ��•ill be widened to include SO homes.
Homeo�vners in [h� E�� dB DNL noice contour a(so are
eligible for sales as�is[ance aild thz purchase of �vi�ation
easem znts.
1�'Itile some reside�lts complained that it has taken the
�o
airpor[ [hree years to �et the sound insulation proQram
underway, airport officials explained there are reasons for
the delay. The airport put its initial emphasis on buyout out
homeowners in the most noise-impacted areas, they said.
Lambzrt oFficals aiso wanted to wait until the Federal
,�viation Adminiscration decided tivhethzr �o study a
proposzd alternative takeoff route �vhich would have
shif[ed the noise impact. The airpor[ decided not Co alter the
departure route af[er i[ Qo� F�?, approval to construct a new
parallel runway.
Hornes purchased after Jan. 10, 1997, and those consid-
ered not structurally sound are not eliQible for the sound
insulation pro�ram. �
Seattle, frvm p. 68
and it was a disaster. It had to be s[opped within a week.
The Por[ staff said, hotivever, that they were committed [o
working with the FAA and the public [o study �vhether [he
DuwamishlElliott Bay corridor could be use more fre-
quently. The corridor is tou�h to manage from an air [raffic
perspective because oFSea-Tac's proximi[y to other airports
in the Seattle area, the Port's spokesman explained. Also, he
added, once the airplanes have been directed west over the
ocean and are headinQ south, the FAA mus[ decide where to
bring them back over land.
Air route chanQes at Sea-Tac arz bzinQ considered by the' �'
Port as part of an update [o its Part 1�0 Airport Noise
Compatibility ProQram. Ho�vev-zr the air route chanjes��vill
be considered separately from the rzst of the Part I �0
updated and submit[ed to the FAA for consideration before
the rzst of the update in order to give thz aQency time to
complete the computer modelina necessary to evaluate�
them.
Deriver :T�at.'Z
I�USI�I�.ITTE� �.I��RAFT
CAUSE �OI�E ViOL��'IOi�S
Hushkitted aircraft flyina out of Denver International
Airport appear ro have cansed a cluster of six viofations of
noise limiis set in an intergoti•ernmenta] agreement bet���ee.n
the Citv of Den��er and Adams County, CO3 that cleared the
tivay for the construction of DIA.
Prior to the phaseout of Stagz 2 airplanes, DI,� required
Stage 2 aircraft to fly far to thz north beiore turnin�* �a�est in
order to avoid overflyinR the communities north of the
airport. Bu[ thi� requirement entle�i ��: h:n �he all-Staae �
fleet camz into efiect on Jan. l. \u�� aircratt hush;iiied to
mzet Stage � noisz standard� do not ha� e to fiy the re-
stricted ruute.
If not correc�ed. each noise lim i: � io!::tion ��• ill cost tne
City of Den��er. pruprietor ol'DT�.. S�0'�.�00. The airport
�i ants hushkitted aircraft to Jo back to fl� in � the route
requirzd For StaQe ? aircraft bu� lini�ed :-�irlines. ��� hich has
99 hushlitied aircra�t in its l�lez[ oi �9S airplanzs and hubs
Airport�oiseFeoort
19, 2000
ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Steven R. Alverson
blana�er,Sacramento0ffice
HarrisMilleri�f iller& Hanson
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
W ashin�ton, DC
James D. Erickson
Director, OfficeofEnvironmentand Enecey
FederalAuiationAdministration �
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charies M. Sal[er Associates
San Francisco
liichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutler& Stanfield
- _ Denver
Suzanne C. l�IcLean
ChiefDevelopmen[Officer
Tucson AirportAut6ority
,Tohn M. Meenan
Senior V ice President forIndustry Policy
A irTransport Association
Vincent E. �festre, P.E.
President, blestre Greve Associates
NewportBeach,CA
Steven F. Pfiaum, Esq.
hlcDermott, St'ill R Emzry
Chicaeo
Iiaren L. Robertson
A4anaoer, Noise Compatibili[y Office
Dallas/Fort�V or[h International A irport
1•far�� L. �'igilante
President,Synerey Consultants
Seatde
Lisa Lyle tiF'aters
i�fanaaer,Noise AbatementProaram
Palm Beach Cuune�� Dzpartmentof Airpor[s
�
_�l
at DIA, opposes such ac�ion. I[ �vants to test International Civil Aviation
Or�anization noise abatement departure procedures to determine if they.
can get aircraft hi�her faster to reduce noise impact. The airport recentl� �
formed a[echnical workina group to address the matter.
I7z $rief ...
Gateway Noise 1VIaps Approved
The FAA announced on.�lay 15 that noise exposure maps submitted by,.
the Williams Gateway Airport Authority fo'r�the Williams Gateway
Airport, Mesa, AZ, meet federal requiremen[s. �
For further informa[ion, contact Brian Armstrong, an airport planner in
the FAA's Western-Pacific Rejion; tel: (310) 725-3614.
PFC for Midway Sound Insulation
The public has until June 9 co comment on an application filed by the
City of Chicago to impose a$3 Passenger Facility Fee (P.FC) caise �20
• million to fund the sound insulation of approximately 600 homes.near
Chica�o Midway Airport.
Comments on the application, published in the May 10 Federai.
Register, must be sent in triplicate to the FAA, Chicago Airports Discrict
Office, 2300 East Devon Ave., Room 320, Des Plaines, IL 60013.
_ Forfurther information, contactPhilip IVI. Smithmeyer, manaQ•er of the
FAA's district office at tel: (847) 294=7335.
Shane Joins Hogan & I�artson
The Washington, DC-based internationai law firm Hogan & Hartson,'`•.
L.L. P announced May 16 that 7eFfrey N. Shane has joined the firm as,a
partner in its Aviation Group, Prior to entering private practice, he had a
long career in government service. Shane served as Assis[ant Secre[ary
for Policy and In[ernational Affairs at the Depar[ment of Transporta[ion
from 1989 to 1993 and �vas Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Transportation Affairs from 195� to 1989.
Tucson Land Buffer
At their meetin� on Nlay 2, the Tucson Airport Au[hority board of
directors approved t6e purchnse of 181 acres southeast of Tucson
International Airport as part of its effort to create a noise buffer around
the airpor[.
The property falls �vithin the 6� dB DNL noise contours for the airport.
Acquistion of [he lantl wiil be finances wi[h monies eannarked in the
airport's 1997 applica[ion [o impose Passengzr Facility Charges.
AIR.FORTNOISER�PORT
Anne H. Iiohut, Pub(isher
Charles F. Price, Contributins Editor
Published �6 times a year at �3975 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 7?9-'}367; FAX: (703) 729-=}�?S.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price S��9.
Auihorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or tlle internal or personal tise oFspecific clients; �
is �rantzd by Airport Noise Report, providzd that the base fee of US� I.0', per paQe per copy �
is paid directl�• to Copyri�ht Clearince Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, ��IA 019? �. USA.
..� �
F � �
.��.+ 'G � .r N .
=.:M� �q � ��*� ��4 q� ��
,� i:,.
�N '�
�, �� ary'
_� %..,+
f'olurn e Z?
, �Vu
fib�rX8
.Sfage � Stajzrz'rxr
d
ivg 7'
� {�
y J
i '�i � N �a i
� ��° � *�,� `� �.�
� � �.
t�_
� 'veekly �
u�d�te on litio
�ation� reQ -
aU�ations� and
�r.Rp�R �,S' technologi�al develoAme
.�3ETyyE�� ��R LI�ES ��
Itis:�,absolu �E 4 T���T B� T��
,p f a more str• telY irnAerativ �� �r �
�.D �,- �.�'
a ny discussion � e�� s���� � l e" that a br�, t,f . �.� �o � _��
_ � ir Transpor� A°f a Possible S��rnationat a rc ne be dra wq be �� �' ��z,5, .
A� e�ca (�CIN�°ciarion �ATA�ai'o fo�Ah� Infa�oise certificatien c�psideration Stnge,;�
� vxationAdm�nis >> and the CarQ ��e AirPorts ,�Ut the S�aQe - 4n srandard dIs St4
o�
th e matrer. �ratorJane Ga� ° Airline C0 �ocil Intei y 3 airp/ane fjeetntl .7V play OfUi2t
a� ir�r�tr�tor;°funity,..the �h �y �n an ef'foot to,;u,de d A� told��ae �°rth .�he F�> �� t11e C�
. � e.}r h� veiden� fel�aY 9letter �m��or U.S. aviati evelop�n�.:� S�o1ic b��ht11x�ejmpe'
�,.� Ce r-ri a tional Civ�� d three bToad aref���y tvord �n tr�de Qro ' y Cp�Si�j b� d1
S ta n d� rd-shoul� be `� v�arion D�Q �rea�.of �brze ed to a yo�d �SS UPs to/d the fi 5. �rBtlpn pf
r.�yar-d forth�p, deyeloped�`a°�ZatioRtlC me�t0nhow�ues�fdrsparijAA C�n�e�ItjCAO
�p `�'�, the �n �h� ho A�� air m�r� str. Y, ihat ..� �I'tif� 8
�--h � trade ;roUps �y United St P� �hat thi plane noise . �noenc a�oII Sta�Q
� vi� ti on En viconme ant to see se ates go�ernmz S might suoa �zrtification Ph�se of
out
_ A- ,Sta,� e 3 air ��al Prote� . parate consider n� at IarJe and est a useful ait'C1'a fr- t11e St
. out pf Planes.w tion(C,�EP �tionbyl�, ultiri�ate� Path .• fleet-.P %
a 1 rp 1 a r� e e m issions �o�slde ea 2� a`�ni f'nce anda� �tdep 4 Sta d�rd n� mir zz pn �' �� �,e� � 1Viry,s _,. A.ri�
�fliZ 1�Z��'�' 1ed approach. an£ds�y bnt`anY i�aoisz P��se- �p� olse e from �
�hternoise the bus�est cr l��tS ts
� �'� ',�' �, �.�'�rJ�i � �j (Co�rrr�rued o�r �, "en�ral av.
aXi1j��: ZIl
`� -�.�� p. � l, Insulatio �� �Oun�'. �
�. �-� � 9 t.� �J�' �'�,� ��-11�1 ��� �� �C)��� �guate � n IS fO�nd to b
p p 1'lI �y 1> alitornia j�� `� �I� (� -�'.�1�,�� a �1Se ttu
Cz ro v�n �v���S PartR�e -�'�'�� �' T�; ,row�nQ tigation
ti, � ri a n �'�� S,2 � 120ISe IX11
�viation airport in the o,i�0�t rnLosAnr ele r�nsport<�tionissuz �`� �tzle_ coj Pact-�
�� and �r,�dsn ort�tivr��offi . .Y to co ntinue opzra���t��� Q the busiea�a� t� ree-year 1�a staffs ��C�� Irtt'Z
The tr P cials ` n e,ece� � n��al �P °n of
ri�.z La ti- Jud Ue Samuel �. Rel st`d �� con�plisnce ��4C� ol'the stare_ Stlpn���� 11Pjocedure 15 �
a ir�rat[ opera tions st the air hich re'�� 14j(h � f�ilf)o T� 1-e, lenOed
fport souR }� ted all pose b �mi i�,p Sentj � Cp1j` by� °-
�es rejected pruposals ht b, pro ` y� �n A n: ojo
P e} om �on� nti-noise � r�stri �istr,�_ iljd a �zUilit'
n zlicvpter op�rations. to ph;�se m° y`r c° �n' cti on •er IS 1e �j
nit o mm �ns �- no' S
�„z � husines� jzt op�ratir�n� .�ut Si�Q� � b� �°Ps to impo$� �y o�oUPs. �'ztrj�t7lzl e relle�'_
S t. � tt � siness a ��rte ��t ' •• F P' 7`
e r i d o rsed [h� airport"s pla,i to r�� h2 �trport. T h` �ets, an� � o ��� °n Se��lstZt� I����ICh `� � 1 7 i� t'Q1
insula�ion prc.,�rarn et�en thou�h u`��oiseim ad��inistratit;, bar1�/�itio��� nPa� _ � b��
hns bezn nro �,•in� s;ead11 . he rec�`,ni�� pact throuah � ��ass�ju��`,` . 1'�II�t �Oty�e a• �
rl i ty } f�r th� ��hat nois` res����ti,2( `!nstea;� p�I11Q z d:Iil� ii2]
nd e1�-� I�tt� �it � �
n u m ber of residzntict1 ur�its �rithin �h` P�st I2 yzars. N�S ��i�pact on th4 S0u 1� �,11 r1�� �f 1�01
c reaszd fror,t 1%7 to I.Os� �'� d$ i re corlt efs. `�TV '
has��' ,� `�'���Re C!`FLnois� portnotedth,. mu- Col1�r, U ••1'��11Sso P'�`
economic data initic�.tin, that fhe airport �Ss��d the v�ri� co1�tourpf'tne7,t.th� f�r1ln1� S`��C �� jTil tllc'2
ind ire�t benefits t�� th� cmm�.�urritv, p�0y��e- �c� �t � •�rpor� S� II11t1Q• P��`' pF
: Srate taiv ' 5�.2 �illi �SJustifie� o1'�Zn�s drlp� C
allo �i•S a ort in clrrect an� y i1c ��• .. TjQ7-
�'ariance � `` -�?�'� �'1 �.jOtS ��r 0� .
� be o�ar'a�f 1 fjt �t1,5t1I]-8�.� �'.C'$ j�01j� n�ril'C'
lCr�i+�iiitrc�:/r,j: � i;) �111�' .�:pIi1S111�1��� � •.. .F''t.cl,�t Cl�i
nOISC Ij�j'��Tc)tin,.r�.l�`Z-c�
Q CI t.c
�.�
13'
to be phas0a _ ,..
e
ait�tafthaV Tesiden��0r �.
e �h�t a11 Sta�� 3 S Seniot vice N R. I� e said se `,
o�, � assun` � pCI-N A told A �ou� aatts �.
p a�acch , mental aEfaics, e�� phas of Sca°� 3
Zb, 2��� ed �based p° �hutopean' S �e�h ica� � S op a 5�enacio$e em� a�necate �ocies d d
�Si� bas a� eE co v� a S�aaz r� stan at
ce on th uld e° °
emainperfotman Weres��fotdiffeTe°�A o�hoW �onsidzced
datd to t e Yather th ae�ision Qzee
stan of che aicplan <«any � A and AZ �' aiso disae 3 fleet shoula`b�ons�dzced
emission es•
noisof enjinz bY-Pass ratio�• told Gat�e`J �hn S�anaatds aicQ��A ta� bet�� . �e
use Q emissions, thzy ertifica�io° co othet ACI" a5eout of �he S both issues � etino� Whl e
ReQatdin� e � �oach d the ph � A favots t•CAE'P nje; sidex��d'.,ther
Q a ptoPriate new °O �ohete°� app tha<<he thet �p AChe up�omin�2�� to be �0n at a
tz�ardin� p e1�eye e o $e�ara�ely • Sta,�a�rd �onsideCe
arcofaunifiedana web
tio�s� co1e With �ha the SepaTately a� �y the Sta ae 3��I�raft to bz
Qe�
mustb� p e�eader5h�p 1e an A,� A w�nts pQ CA�,p ae� .
en�ine emissions consideta tin�i4 �fs eoutof Scaa , �wa�tto See
�n? chis p h�s eel �ha�'S
� nited States musi assu e5`a �ish �na traae0 e ana a°� p. CA�y, CI� A�on . bu� they �
ember states in tbalances e�r� of th apd A °e
aate by � s .
IC A� m uS� ..' �atet aitlines ha$eout iss enan; A'� P�
sm �he1j.S thegtaQe3P.. . John�'�e : «-��fotcu_
corol1arY understandinQ �ha iss�on b p Sa�d• Qrezs.
noise and othet em aby a11:' , ; c�u�h��p in Marchi oli�y=a� d��.a
bettiveen ecepce �OSi#.i0ri �appenin�� fot indusccy P datdbel'inke ,, he 5aid-
and must bz '�
calculus ,�.c�, i11 Wh�t is _ _
ttw esident aeq stao alys�s,, e
j3e�7e�.Opiiig the P°S'tion ot vice pc 3� a Staa Q CAEP S an' dciv�n�-th
St�ted he�d tn Sen+ Siscen�e th betin� eau�e is e to
- ; Qovernm�nthas�°tyec a cha�w�llb,e; . `oEa nately in ,, oteatly en�um CA�p'S nh 'alip set�ic .:to .:
g:� meetln �.: e1 adop��on .�ane haseo�t is ° eenan Sa�a.' • o ha��- eazte � i11 continuz
'�he�' ` a CAE�' whet�i� ew a�tp P. oint,M � piv�no �.�,TA ,ana thg
to an upcomin� , to cons�de� aacd {0t ° cil.Tre Atthis P hey ate o� `1 told ANR•, etntnen�� e w�11
iake , �e55. e, S� ��
Niontreal in 1an. 20� �etcification stan e ICA� C��n P �0 . 4r0 �ss ons issu � hWith the ��'•�no� neeaea and w
. - Qent noise aza �� � otbups °f CAEyac�ous the em e shatPly haseout �s . ake•�ha� po�n �
mote strtn� men . , .
�:- desijns should be teco a.�oT work5 5 3�d.bz�efitst�e5e m�ke it`�e W ocld �haC �he � Cp,.EP„ to m: nviTo�`
31tin� � pffice of
�nited States is `N of th o. . Some of et. tescoE aacess��e�y E
e�
f1e bckye�y a`�y
]ete their analy.sis �ew standa�s�aae3 oap�rein w Sa�d:. oftheFAA 5 S�decia° a» a��.
comP -=�r o tions 4ot a ut o{ ch u ln.s'°� n wece �eenan So� �dicectot the� .S. is con Q thoSe `N.�th�en\.
sirinPency P �he phaS et�n�'dco F. atlo the esEc'��- Sai a� includino Step
�Y sce �0n51dec d th
options inc1ude e CA,. 5 u�det . edu�e �a�' d E°h� y b1e at this point$utivS eenan aclation; sa�d
Q of th 26 Pt�on w a�ed t0 T ul but 5 ment an �a ents, Sso
Wa t
�,t a meetin � Qin�� ° arouP � df S on uiTem �Ilin a S �
May , th�-bci� teetinQ � n to aha°. - za Wecz option eoutte9 Cacoo � e art��ul�te �to
early z. s co� etatio has
18 •�h 51a ata they need u1 be w i�hpQ� p tesiden� of � S a°� et�me�`
pared do�v n LO�ions undec be�ause d aata sho d an, P e c�
nuuib ec o f oP io�ap°te s<ibenefit S�overn- p,ltejmave not seen th �o a phase0u �
unable to do so at S ow e�e?'Sum c er � t� ont Se � cake co the cpo ih on i� o4P°Sieion
g n1 w i11
noC y et av ailablz• th os
�,�ai�ab�e by.the e°d �£ ve1oP � p
mznt is e.xpected �o ae
p�ase�ut
C A�P m ee�in° • �eT�ts ��Qr �e acoups
pjSaS�QQn S aviation tca O Should
thz�' entthatlCR
�ar�ey' aceem en�icon�c+enta11y
In tlzeiT leece,p°comP�ete �., aent, the Sta�e of
s�t�n � at
said tt�ey aCe es�abiishment0� Siscentwith �n�s�tatocton
f ocus on �he e�v standatds° � o1d �he f AA adn ise rna�� a
1 co
siQ ni-�ican� n „ They jza to �n
mode.ccl(e�hno1o°;osiopPottun�ce.anavn1ue.°�; �z5 T5, d
25S Y�i ��S thZ 51°PLf1C�i1 eT�iOIS,
"to do 1 fa�cuTzts, oP
v�,,ti N��ys, fr0r�i �• �2 �
o do 50� cold �heL•A•T
is in th� PUb,�c lof Shzcmap � boQu s� Shan,r the aon
ecald 5��� ec �� 5 acz d m�� �oss f° e Said
G e St�ty �o�5z latota` an �t ot4�' x
tha<<Q „jzp�z5ent5 a Eot tihe aicP wsu
victory a OC �llz `�,a
Cu1in � y e
�p0 p���en� ea1-the r��t�✓ `��z ha a sc�
a�
�0meo`rncoumch� pe ect hit eKa��tS.��oc°r�a ��
er�o rot e T =Zhe aizp t an �c
o�na 1. � p� �ha�aoesn �P �imes, ��ich n0
and m�C� a fot »>^n° ara Shatp to1� the a�tto a0 ''
Q� Stapaar at �hzje e5 on che e��,, S��vec Q they W
S ta �z... , o�yzvet, �� � airlin ot th do e�ecych'n� „he saia• �,�1t~nas�
� ��.1-i�. public: �ed•h OC�S andeh' otbe easily a roofin°� -
���1ed� Qetto �e fo�lo�4 a
,� h�y ac�no . bz�`t e�n �itQ tra� ��i11 � cs ha�e taken oC� of so��n P z� acia� en (1�'?�05
oCzemen�s �� �{�zet �too�arrie �Izz�„ Sh e �cant°f�a,if.Sen�`�°°�xSt,tuz°ti't�`�ti
d isa., of the s�Il� �nd chz � z scaoz 3 Zh C � con ee-y
= pha5e0�� ,,,,ed .. �,Z p. � a�you� o{ th �h �p5tlbene�l� or ceques<edb}'�om4�ain�sby eld sln�z ��ht ��
� th u� us���tced hzen aU��m�
._ qui��ly Czs° 1t no P�' co h onse to �d hertended
Q osition' �h` nl�nsttatz out �F <hz tz'p z h` °j'
S�coo., p 1� b���� a� ��cl: phase need t0 f°��� ti�Z n�iS� 155u111 19s9 `�pa on th� �
aed ot h` .�� •a��cs a q 5zes no as �rz oc�n�ed ��t»»>ented
-.. nee ACI-'� �.. aicpian��� �anes, 5°�h �,neC�c ��� `�en 11as not yec
,is ; ; aitP cos��b� ny
'an'�ly . .,Ilv Staaz r �cS�a�z - mo�z �E�
•`n�ac°in. , he q°iz" • un;uce unc�l S�,�oe 3 air�r` �ytD- variap�e'
eoc o� � i 67 . and ��� aboue �hose Such �s �he
� .. C2iiCZill �.. f.1ll� � . 11�0 S,
g�e'tnR 1� lb,y ���h'. �.,jz z��l�
ss1pQ
�rz 1vai1�. ,naz °� ° � �� RtP�r�
d�ca �hz n��d"C�" ,o<t;.oi-�
t•allino in
_�;�,a i;i_;��� `"`�
�
/
�
���� �8y ��, ����
Serzttle-Tacoma Int'Z
�
C0IVIIVIUNIT�' GR�UPS C:I2I'I'ICIZE
DE�'AI�TIU�E CI�ANGE ANALYSIS
The Port of Seattle staff's rejection of a change in depar-
ture procedure at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
desiQned to reduce nuise impact on certain communities to
[he north who have borne the brunt of ths noise was
strongly challenQed by t�vo groups rzpresenting those areas.
Eastside Citizens Asainst Aircraf[ Noise (ECAAN) and
Citizens for Airplane�Noise Equity (CANE) contended in a
�Iay 19 let[zr [o Port commissioners that the Port stafF's
analysis of the so-called "spli[ eas[ [urn" departure proce-
dure "represeats neither a complete nor an accurate analy-,.
sis" oF the proposal, which, [hey stressed, was sugaested by
the Federal Aviation Administration.
"Indeed, the [stafF] Repor[ is replete with evidence of the
Port s[aff's bias asains[ aqy chanje in north flow departure
procedures to the east," [he aroups wrote. They challenazd �_
the repor['s conclusion that the split east turn would result
in "an increase in noise for a larQe numbzr of people and a
decrease in noise for a small number oFpeople."
That conclusion "is clearly erroneous,`� ECAAN and
CANE asserted in a letter written by their atrorney, Gre�ory
S. i�lalden of the bVashinQton, DC, law firm Batton Boggs.
The split east turn, alonQ with an incrzased use of the _
Du�vamish/Ellio[t Bay noise abatementcorridor (�vhich
rou[es airplanes west of the airpor[ over water before turninQ
them south) "will benefit twice as many people as may be
adversely afFected by the split turn," tiValden assertzd. He
said the split east turn tivould achieve the FAA's primary
criterion for noise miti�ation: overall reduc[ion in commu-
nity noise. �
CallinQ the Port staff's anal}•sis oF the split east turn
"inc�mplete and selecti�•e,` �y'alden said it ignores much of
the noise impact data. expressed in four noise metrics,
compiled in a consul�ant's report to the Port. "As a rzsult,
the reader is kept i� norant of a trove of data shotivine the
overall beneFits of a split turn." he told thePort commis-
sioners.
Bias �gainst Any �h�nge
tiValden cuntended cha� the criteria developed by the Port
staFf to analyze thz sp1i� east turn "betray a bias a�ainst any
ch�nQe in dzparture proce�iures. by settinQ up a False
dichotomy, Becausz i: is possible and even likelr than any
alte�natile which imgr����e� thz overall noise environment
�vould also resul[ in incrzased nois� for some communities
these criteria �rould •�: the ou«�[ zft�cti��ely coom any
chanse in deparcur� p;�ic�dure5." Thus, he said: e��en tivhzre
a particular altzrnati� e. :uch a� the split eas[ turn, �vould
improve the o�: erall noi�e en��ironmen� or reduce the
hiRhe�t resitlenti; l comm uni[� n��ise le��els, the Port staff
�vould oppose i! it ani�:n�r communit�• a'ould be "advers�ly
alfe�ted.
%�
1�Ioreover, he said, [he stafFrepor� does no� explain �vhat
consiitutes adverse affect,'`sueQestin� perhaps than any
increase in a community noise, no ma[ter ho�v marginal,
would be enough ro defeat the split turn alternative."
Chanees in departure procedures are beinQ studied in
conjunction wi[h an update to 5ea-Tac's Part 1�0 �lirport
Noise Compatibili�y Pro�ram. The measures approved by
the Port commissioners will be incorporated into the
pro;ram.
Bzsrl�ank
GAR�EY �C�N�'�LEDGES
IIV�PORTAI`dCE 0�' C�.TRFEti�
Federal Aviation AdministratorJane Garvey has Finally
given the Ci[y of Burbank the stronQ statement of support it
has been seekinQ [hat a critical element of any new terminal
at Burbank Airgor[ will be the imposition of a ni�httime
curfew on operations, accordinQ to Burbank �Iayor Bill
tiyl�°1IlS. : . .
"Although it �vould have been improper for hzr ac[ually to
endorse a curfew [at a Nlay 19 meetin� with Burbank
officials], she did tell us that, based on review of prelimi-
nary data, her staff has concluded that a curfe�v has [he
potential to provide meaninQful.noise rzlief," i�Iayor
�Viggins said in a l�tay 23 statzment. He noted that the FAA
administrator, however, cau[ioned city officials that a
curfew also �vould present impacts on businesses that would
havz to be addressed in a Part 161 cos[/benzfit analysis;
which FAt1 would have to approve beFore restrictions could
be imposed on Staae 3 aircraFt opzrations a[ Burbank.
"Pzrhaps most importantly — and mos[ unusually — 1_41s.
Garvey personally committed to help expedite the required
study oF [he curfe�v," W iQQins said. '`This could mean that
the study �vill bz comp(eted in as li[tiz as 18 months instzad
of the three to four years predicted bti the [Airport]
Authority's consultants. We kno�v that it is very unusual for
the FA� to.aQree to help an airport expedite such a study
and to cooperate to male sure it is completed zFficientlti�,
efFectively, and leQally. This was a crucia] offer From the
F;�A that should break our »�onths-]ong lo� jam."
Statine that the FAA has done its p�rt, �ViR�ins said ii is
notv time %cdr,.the airport authority and tne ci[} to craf[ a
proposal "that includes a curFeu� and other p�;manznt noise
relief, f`inancial Quarantzes, aqd en�•ironmenial and trat,`'ic
mitigation that meets all oFFA� concerns.'�
BurbanL has insisted that beForz nn� ne�c ter!��inal is built
at the airport, the airport authc�rit}• �l�ust sha��: �hat it h.:s
implementzd a levally enforceable curtr�� . Eoth sides
recognized tha[ a curFe�,t• v: oul�l rzq�.:ir: a tech�iical stuci}�
and FAA appro� al. but the �iirpori authorit}' �� antz�l s��me
IIICIICI(l0il t�rom the F;�A that tne _tud�' v: ou(d rot oe a_
�V�SC� Oi IIITIZ.
.\ irpi�rt idoisc R �port
_ t
J
J .
May 26, 2000 ��
_ ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY B4ARD
Steven R. Alverson
bt S Off'
In Brief ...
Missaula PFC
,>��
,
anaaer, acramento ice
HarrisMillerMilier&Hanson The FAA issued a notice May 22 invitin� pubiic comment on an
application by Missoula County (MT) Airpor[ Authoricy to impose a
John J. Corbett, Esq. Passenger Facility Char�e �of 53 to collect a total revenue of S 1.� million
Spiegel& McDiarmid to acquire land for approach protection and for airport development and
WashingEon,DC
noise mi[i�ation.
_
James D. Erickson Comments must be received by June 21 and should be sent in triplicate
Director,OfEiceoEEn��ironmentandEnerey _ to David P. Gabbert, Mana;er, Helena Airports District Office, FAA, 2725
FederalAviationAdministration y Skyway Dr., Suite 2, Helena, NtT 5960�: ::
-
John C Freyfag, P.E. ' - For furthe� information, contact Mr. Gabbert ac tel: (=�06) 499-5271.
Director;CharlesM.SalterAssociates. ' `: - � �
San Francisco - �QZ' Cri'321tS SIOtS,dt � H:1T'E
'` On May 23, the D.epartmen[ of Transporta[ion announced tha[ i[ has
il�lichael Scott Gatzke, Esq. aranted exemptions frorri slot iestrictions at 0'Hare International Airport
Gatzke;Dillon & Ballance b •
. .. .
Carlsbad,CA �� -. ` to six.airlines seeking to serv"e the a'irport from around the`country.
=. _
. •.The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and-Reform Act, signed into
.Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. : jaw April 5; provides 30 new daily sTot exemptions to be allocated
Cutler& Stanfield -
Denver 'among majoc airlines, without service to 0'Hare or holdinQ fetiv:ei than 20.
slots and slot exemptions at the airport. -
' ' Suianne C.I�IcLean ` The six slot exemptions;�vere'Qranted to A-merica West Airlines, Legend •
ChiefDevelopmen:tOfFcer :, :_ Airlines, Mesa Airlines, Nationa] Airlines, Sun Country Airlines; and '
' TucsonAirportAuthority ,. � .
--- SpiritAirlines. �
John l�t. l�teenan ' ' AuSL121 I�OISe MapS.
Senior V ice President forindustry Policy ` � /
AirTranspor�Associa�ion The FAA announced May 25 that airpor[ noise e•xposure maps su�bmit�,
Vincent E.1•festre, P.E. ted by the Ci[y of Austin for Austin-Ber�strom In[ernational Airport meet '
President,htes�reGre�-eAssocia�es ' federal requiiements. The public can comment on th.e noise maps until
NewportBeach,CA 7uly 8. .
` ' The FAA aiso announced thaE it is reviewing the propbsed Parr 150
Ster•en F. Pflaum, Esq.
bicDermou,�Viil&Emery AirportNoise Compatibility ProQram submitted by [he airport will be
Chica�o completed by Nov: 8. ' .
For furthzr i�formation, contact Nan L. Tercy at FAA's Fort�4V or�h, TX, -�-,
Karen L. Robertson office; [el: (817) 222-5607: -
Di anaeer, Noise Comp�tibility 0 ffice
Dallas/Fortl,Vorthlnternatiunal �irport 1�.� (7TaIltS
tllarr• L. Viyilante
President,S��ner��}• Consulcants
Seatde
Lisa Lvle �Vaters
�tanneer, Noise �batementProgram
Palm Beach County Departmentof Airpurts
On ivlay 11 the FAA released a Qrant oFS3,6S7,i00 to the Cit}� of Ft.
Lauder�ale, FL,, to fund several projects, includinQ an update oF the Par[
1�0 ProQram forFt. Lauderdale International Airport.
On 14Iay 12, the FAA released a brant of S=},0�0,�-!2 to [he ReQional
Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson Countti� to fund several
projects includinQ residential relocation assistancz.
AI�PflRTN07SE�EPD�T
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Gharles F. Price, Contributing Editor
Publishzd =�6 times a year at ��978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn; Va. 2U 147; Phone: (703) 729-�567; F.��: (7U �) 729-=-��25.
e-maiL editoraairportnoisereport.com; Price 5��9.
Aiithorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or tfie internai or personal i�se of specific c(iznts,
is �rznted by .�irport �,roise Report, provided ttiat the base fee of USS 1.03 per pa��e per copy
is paid directly to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 222 Fose�vood Drive: Danvers; �IA 019?3. liS.�.
�
�� . . g
' �
�
�
� A weel.l u date on litiQation reaulations an
y p a � b , d technoIogical developments
Volume 12, Number 19
PFCs June 9, 2000
�
. $1.66 BILLI�N OF'I'OTAi, 1'�Cs APPI2C3VED�-�`
D�EVOTED TO NOISE M[yT�GATION PROJ�CTS �� .7'�is.�SSu�.e.
Some �1.66 billion (7 percent) of the total �25:=� billio� in Passen�erFacility PFCS ... This special issue
Charges (PFCs) that the Federal Aviation Administration has approved for Of A�P PrOV1deS data Ob-
collection by airports throuah the next 49 years is being desiQnated for noise -
. mitigation purposes, according to data provided by the aoency. �a111ed fIOI11 tlle Fed�Tal
The total PFC revenue bein� earmarked.for airport noise mitieation projects AVlatlOri Ad1T]iiliStratlOtl Or1
increased by approximately 522 miliion from that reported by the FAA in Au�us�. a.�P�rtS that at'e COIleCtiIl�
1999 (11, ANR, 9�), Hotivever, the'proportion of total PFC revenue being devotzd P?$SeII�erFaCility C�13I-�eS
to noise miti�ation remains the same (7 percent}:' - _
The FAA subdivides.noise mitijati.on projects inro the sis categories. FollowinQ tP�trS) t0 SllpPOrt t11etl' IlO1Se
is the total amount for each cate�o�y:as well as [he percentaQe th.at�caregor J �tr�at10I1 j�tOjeCtS.
represents of the total PFCs for noise bzino collected: - Y It S110WS t11at 65 ZII'pOI`tS.1t'e
- 5763.8 million (��.8 percent) for muiti-phase ptojects, which include ��vo or now imposing PFCs to reduee
more differen[ projects devoted to land acquisition, avi�ation easements, home
buyou[s, sales assistance, and soundproofing; _ n01Se linj�aCtS: LOS AIi�eles
_ --- � International remains far
� - S'�96.6 m illion (29.g percent) for soundproofing; �
_, -�374.2 million (2?.4 pzrcent) to purchase land; ` �ead Of Ot�lel' ali�prtS,
'�14•7 million (O.S pzicent) for "mis�ellaneous" piojects; P1��111�1ng to use $�.p ��lion
- 58.2 million (0.4 percent) for planning; and ln PFC IeVeritie t0 Suj�j�pl-t
- 57.1 million (0.4 percent) for noise monitorin;. . nO1Se iTilCigatiOn prOjeCtS.
PFCs Twenty airports plan to
��' ����'�RTS Ii�1PpSIi�d�. ��'�� �'(� collectso��er$l0millionin .
,��jJ��(,�� PFC revenue to funcl noise
�j���!' i�'I�TI�-A.TIO�d �R�,��C�'�' I�A�'A �HOti� initigationprojects.
r � ��.:. .
.•.A total of 6� air orts are now im osing Some $1.66 billion (7
�' p Passenaer Facilit�� Chargzs (PFCs) to
suppo�� airport noise mitiQation projectS, accordin� to data provided by the Perce�lt of the tot71 �2j.4
_ Federal Aviation Administration. That is just t�vo more than die numberreported billion) in approved PFCs is
by �he F�r� la's� ,augus�. , being earn��-ked for noise.
The top 10 airports taraeting PFC rer•enue Por noise mitiQation projects are Los
ArtQeles In[ernatiqnal �5�1 . s Table 1, S�lOWI]1a PFCs
( 0 million). Chicaeo 0 Hare"Intzrnational (S26?.1 beina collected for variolts
niillion), �-Iinneap���;_S�; paul International (S1;�=1.? millioia),, Seattle-Tacoma
International (S 1 1�.6 million). Las VeQas 1�IcCarran International (59I.1 million), CategOl'les Of 11o1Se prOjeCtS,
-' . Lambert-St. Louis Tnternational (SS.O.S millioa), Cle.veland Hopkins Intzrnati�nal beolriS OIl j�. `%%,
`
(S7S.4 niillion), �l���i �i��zz Iriterna[ional (567.6 million), San J:ose Inte;national Tablz �; S}101V1Il� pFCS
(5�T.9 million). ai�d Ci�icinnati/i\qrtheril Kentiic� i- �. Q
y ln�ernational (S�, �._ million). bein` collected by spzcific
Ten other�airport, plan to collect over 510 million in PFCs targe
�ed t�or ai�por� aiiports listed alphabetically
noise mitiaation' Chica�o �Iid�vati!$1�.? miUion), Indianap�lis International
(5 !� ! millionj. Louis� illz InternationaJ (S-'.0 �iiillion), Bosto.n Loean I�iterna- bY StZte, �e`�ins on p. �1:
_ t10n�1 (S�E� million). Po�i Coluriibus In�zrnational (S2� niillion). Ontario Tnte�na_ T�li�le 3, ShO�Vittg
a break-
,' � tional (S12 million). Detr��it 1�Ietrppolitan (511.� milli�n). Hunts�•ille Interna-
clotivn of all alzport pro�ects
,.� tional (S(O.S il�illion). Oaklanc! lnterr�aCional (SiO.i million),.an� �ti'zst`Palm j�pt�rted b' PFC
Peachlnt�rnation:; (510.? inillioti). bz1�° Su �
revenue; is on p. S5.
une 9, 2000
PROJEC7S (BY PROJECT TYPE AND WORK CODE )
(AS OF 6/9/00)
�
'71 �
,
�(
WORK -.
���-y STATE APPLiCAT10N WORK CODE AMOUNT PFC LEVEL 1MPOSE _ USE
HUB $6,796,960 $3.00-•' � 3/6/92 6/28/94
S Huntsville AL 94-03-C-00-HSV Land $920,000 $3.00 3/6/92 11/22/95
S Nunfsville AL 95-05-U-00-HSV Land ,3/6/92 - 5/28/97
$3,105, 000 $3.00 `
S Nunfsville AL 97-07-U-00-HSV Land $68,835 $3.OQ - 90/19/98' 10/19/98
98-08-G00-NSV Land - �
S. Hunfsuille AL ,.�, $2,096,000 �.40 ;` 11/19/97 99h9/97
hi Tucson AZ 97-01-C-00-TUS Land
�396,888 $3.00 . 91/99/97 : 19/99/97
M Tucson AZ 97-01-C-00-7US Land $90,756 $3.00 , 5/8/94 7/24/97
N Fori Smith AR 97-02-U-00-FSM Land : :
98-02-C-00-FLL Land $3,500,000 $3.00 4/30/98
N/ Fort Lauderdale FL $144,869 :$3.00 . 3/2/900:- 3/2/900
- N Gainesville FL 00-09-G00-�NV. Land 91/23I92 � 11/23/92
� - 92-09-C-00 PNS '. .Lancl '
$1,000,000 $3.00, ,
S . Pensacola , FL . ,
$365,000 ;$300 '. 91%23I92 �8H0/95
S Pensacola � . FL 95-02-U-00 PNS Land .. . 3/3/98 '� 3/3/98 .
$4,532,074 $3.00
_ S Tallahassee FL . 98-03-C-00-7LN Land �. 1/26/94. 8/29/96
_ $1,000,000 : $3.00 ,
M West Palm Beach FL 96-02-C-00-PB( Land - -
> 96-02-C-00-PBI Land . $2,302,300 $3.00. ' ?/26/94 8/29/96
" � �t�i Wesf Palm Beach FL , ; - �$374,616 . $3.00
`, 1/26/94 6/19/97 �
M West Palm Beach FL 97-03-U-00-PBI. Land �/�6/94 6/11/97.
' ,.. 387,5a8 $3.00
97-03-U-00-PBl . Lantl ��� . ,
M West Pa1m Beach F� Land $S,OOO,OOa $3.00 9%26/94 . 6(11/97
� West Palm Beach �L 97-03-U-00-PB! . � y�/97 �y5/97
$35,000 ' $3.00 .
N Btoomingfon IL = 97-02-C-00-BMI Land 9/29/94 9/29/9d �.
' . $335,915 $3.00
S Moline IL 94-01-C-00-MLI Land , ,. 3/9y98 3/12/98 '
$365,084 $3.00
S Moline IL 98-02-C-00-MLl Land 9/8/9� 9/8794
, Land_ $382,326 $3.00
/V Peoria lL ` 94-09-C-00-P1A �' $945,441 $3.00 2/3/100 2/3/100
- N Peoria _ 1L 00-02-C-QO-P1A Land -. $.�0,500 $3.00 . 3/27/92'` 4/28/93
N Springfield.:. IL 93-02-U-00-5P! Land 3/27I92 4/28/93
$99,958 $3.00
N SpringfieJd tL 93-02-U-00-SPI Land i 3/27/92. 4/28/93 `
$9,000 $3.00 � ,
N Springfietd IL 93-02-U-00-SPI Land ' 3/27/92-, 4/28/93
$7,000 $3.00 _
N Springfield . 'IL 93-02-U-00-SP! Land 3/27%92 � 4/28/93 ' �
93-02-U=00-SP1 Land ` $500 $3.00
N Springfieid (L : $88,967 $3.00 9�/24/93 3/1�197
N` Springfietd 1L 97-08-G00-SPI Land 6/28/93' 6l28/93
93-09-C-00-1ND Land $42,532,859 �$3.00 ,
M ; /ndianapolis �N ' 9/29/97 1/29/97
$90,000,000 �3.0.0
t�I>' Louisvitle KY 97-01•G00-SDF Land 5/13/94 5/13/94
'' $28,14&,000 $3.00
' L Minneapolis ' MN 94-02 C-00-MSP. Land �y2�/95 92/21/95 �
$9,880,000 . $3.00
M'" -Kansas City MO . 95-01-C=00-MCI � Land 9/30L92 9/30/92`
$32,861,850 $3.00
� St. Louis MO 92-01-C-00=STL � Land 1/3'1/96 1/8/98
L St. Louis MO 97-03-U-00-STL 'Land
��8,000,000 $3.00
793 000 $3:00 ?J24/92 3/15/95
94•04-C-00-LAS Land > v�1i, ,
L' Las Vegas N� $35,,000,000 : $3.00 2i2d192 7�2�192
L' Las Vegas NU ` 91-01-C-00-LAS Land .
$5,250,000 $3.00 2/24/92 6/7/93 . .
L Las Veg�s tJV 93-02-C-00-LAS Land '. y24/92 6/7/93
$26,250,000 $3,00
(: .: Las Veaas NV 93-02-C-00-LAS Land ' y24�92 ; 6/7/93
$&,300,000. $3.00. ,,
L Las Vegas NV 93=02-C-00-LAS Land ` 9 300 $3.00 1012'!l96 �0/21/96 f�
�� ,
S Akron ':: OH 96-02•C-00-CAK . Land _
. . Airport\oiszReport
I
� June 9, 20p0
�
S Akron �H
S 96-02-C-00-CAK Gand
" Akron �y � ��4,700 $3.00
96-02-G00-CAK Land >0/29/96 >0/29/.�
S Akron OH $5,300 $3.00
M 96-02-C-00-CAK Land 10/21/96 10/29/�
E Cleveland pN '�Z��oO� $3.00
` 94-D2-U-00-CLE Land >0/29/96 10/29/9
M Cleveland QH $7,937,600 $3.00
97-05-C-00-CLE Land 9�9/92 yy94
M CoJumbus �y $29,685,000 $3.00
' 95-0.¢-C-00-GMH Land 4/25/97 4/25/97
M Calumbus OH 95-04-C-00-CMH . Land ���9'600 �3•00
M Golumbus $379,070 7/��/92 3/27/96
�H 95-Od-C-00-CMH Land $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/96
S �ayton OH , $599,723 $3.00
' .. N 94 02-C 00-DAY Land 7H4/92 3/27/96
' Chattanooga rN - $33&,333 $3.00
N ; 97 02=�:QD:CHA Land 7/25/94 7/25/94
Chattanooga TN 97 02-G�0-CHA Land $Zra00,000 �3.00
S Harlingen $900, 000 4/25/97 . 4/25/97
L TX 98-09,G00-HRL. Land �$3.00 4/25/97
� �alt Lake City : UT � ` : � $96, S30 4/25/97
94-09-C-00-SLC Land 53:00 7/9/98 7/9/98
N Lynchburg VA 95 09-C-00-LYH Land $479,200 $3.00.
N . Bellingham: • : . : .
' WA
93 01-C-00-BLl
. . $193,000
N : Land . ,
94 10/�/94
$3.00 41%4/95 4/14/95
Bellingham �yA -• $966,000 _ $3,00 �
N > 94 02-G00-BLl . Land , 4/29/93 4/29%93 .
.Bellin5ham �,yq $732,000 $3.00 _
96 03 GDO-BU � Land 70/5/94 90/5/94,:
N AAAlefon ,; . ,:
W� 94-D�-C-aO-ATW Land :'�454,350 $3.00
M Milwaukee • 921�1/96 92/17/96 -
!N/ 95-09-C-00 MKE Land �94,502 $3.00
M Mi/wauke e . = $3, 813, 000 �� 4/25/94 4/25/94
w�; 95-01-C-DO-MKE Land $3.00 Z/24/95 2/24/95
M Oakland • $1,642,000...
- �A 00-09-G00-OAK Misc $3.00 2/24/95.
S Pensacola $4, 500, 000 2/2�l/95 .
FL �3.00 .,
95 02-U-00-PNS "'''
M Chica o , , Misc $200,000� �
3/97/> 00 � 94 76>, 367
- g - 1L ' 93-0'1-C-00-MDW $3.00 11I23/92
_ M Ch�cagb_ Mrsc �>9,493 8/>0/95
. lL 93-09-G00-MDW $3.00 6/28/93 � 6/28/93
" M Chicago Misc _ $297,707
lL 00-O7-G00-lY1DW $3.00 ' 6/28/93 6/28/93
� Chicago Misc $>,950,000 .
lL 93-09-C-00-0RD Misc $3:�0 2/22/700 ?J22/900 .
�- Chicago �� - �49,448 $3.00
_ M lndianapolis 9�-0$-G00-ORD Misc 6/28/93 6/28/93
_� - lN 96-02-C-00-lND �6,206,967 $3.00
L Defroit Misc $600,000 ` 6/2$/96 6/28/96
�� 92-09-C-00-DTW Misc ... �3:00 12/20/96 12/20/98
S Akron �H �192,000 $3.00
N1; ,_ _ Columbus 99-04-C-00-CAK Misc , 9/21/92 9/2�/92
�H 95-04-GDO-CMH Misc �700,000 �3.00
N Fort Smith 90/�18/99
AR 97-02-U-DO-FSM �6�,7�2
M Oakland Moniforing .` :�20,555 �3.00 - 7,'99/93 3/27/96
�A 92-0�-C-bO-OAK Monitoring $3d5 000 $3.00 5/8/94 7/24/97
1�i1 Sacramento CA .. $3.00
� M San Jose 96-05-C-00-StY1F lYToniioring j s�26�92 6/26/92
�A 92-D�-G-00-SJC �76>,000 $3.00 `
ilil San Jose Monitorrng $9¢0 000 `�i2&/96 4/26/96
CA 99-07-C-00-SJC Ailonitoring ' �3.00 8/91/92 &/i1/92
�p FortLauderdale , .�L �'100,000 �3.00
M � ; 98-02-C-00-FLL Monitoring ��✓24/99 9>/24/99:
�hicago lL $&5B4O00 .�3.00
93-01-C-00-MDYv rylonitoring ��/�/94 d/30/98
- L Chicago �� ' $325,000 �3.00 `
94-02-.U-00-ORd Moniiorin 6/28/93 6/28/93
� Co vington K y J $3, 000, 000 $3:00
94-D�-G00-C1/G tiJonitoring fi/28/93 9/16/94
L ` Minneapolis ' �'996,000
hl Co/umbus .' MN :94-02-C-OO,MSP Monitoring { 53.00 ` 3'30i94
�£2�8, 800 3/30/94
ON ' 93-03-U-00-C1Y1H �'�Ionitoring �3:00 5,'13/94 5/93/9�
� ' Dallas TX �96,509.
96-02-C-DO•D��y lyfoniforing ' �3.00 7/94/92 90/27/93
} � Dallas TX $697,853 �'3.G0 '
9o-02-G00-DF�/ Nlonitoring 5304 027 i ir/96 97/7/98
` , N/ P�fils�raukee .�3.00
�!l 95-09-C-00-IY1K6 Piloniforing , 19�/9b
S3 �8, 000 � �/7/96
�53.00 2�24/95
2/24/95
A irE;nrt \'oisr Report
79
$3.00 11I28/97
19/28/97 �
J u n e 9, 2 0 0 0 4/28/98 4/28/98
g7-04-Cy00-LAX Multi-phase $440,000,000 $3.00 _
�, Los Angeles �A Multi-phase. $12,000,000 6/�9/92 1/31/95 �
CA 97-03-G00-OAIT $��q�q 904 $3.00
M Ontario _ Mulfi-phase 6/29/92 12/�5/95�,,
FL 95-02-U-00-SRQ �5 �a0,000 $3.00
g Sarasota Mu�ti-phase 8128/93 6/28/93
F� 95-p3-C-00-SRQ ���000,000 $3.00
g Sarasota Multi-phase 3/30/94 , 3/30/94
IL 93-01-C-00-ORD 32,1g6,000 �3.00
� Chicago Mutti-phase $ $3.00 91/29/95 `,. 19/29/95
L Covington KY 94-01-C-00-CVG 202 000 4/21/95
95-02-C-00-CVG Mulfi-phase $14f ° $3.00 8/39/93
:� Covington KY Multi-phase $959,783 9/27/96
95-02-C-00-LEX $184,322 $3.00 8/39/93...
g Lexington KY Multi-phase 4/23/93
KY 96-03-U-00-LEX . $3.00 9/28/92 (
g Lexingfon ` ry}u(ti-phase $5,532,260, �'9/21/92 9/29/92
93-02-U,-00-BTR 11,350,000 $3.00
g Baton Rouge LA 5/93/94
92-01-C-00-D7W Muffi-phase $ $3.00 5/13/94 .
� Defroi.t 'Ml.� = ` Multi-phase $78,103,300 . �0/�3/92. 3/4/96
oHs ;'- �,:.MN 94-02-G00-MSP $1 �00,000 $3.00. 9/23/94
. L ' Minneap Muiti-ph,ase ' $3.00 9/23/94 . „
g Manchester NH 96-02-U-00-MHT $� 150,000 � 1/76/98
9�4 01-C-00-iSP , Mulfi-phase ' `$3 00 . 1/16/98 : . .
g � Islip : NY -� Muifi-phase . $1,500,000 4/27/100
pN 97-03-C-40-TOL ; $3 00 `: 4/27/100
. N Toledo Mu(fi-phase $4,�00,000 7/29/92, 7/21/92
pK _ - 00 04-C-00-TUL . , . $118,518 . $3.00
M�' Tulsa ' ,- Multi-phas.e � 90I&193 . 70/6/93
: .
92-01-C 00-ERI
� :PA �. $642,750 $3.00
. ._ • hase
N.:: . Erie Muiti-p $3.00, 8/13/92� 8/13/92
7N . 93-0'1-C-00-TYS . 14,939,111 -
�. g ` Knoxvilfe Multi-phase . � ,_._ - $3.�0 gy29/95_ 12/29/95
�yq 92-09-C-00-SEA � 3a14p0,000 ' '
L Seattfe Mutti-phase $. 6/24/98 '
WA . �: 95 O�=C-00-SEA 5p,000,000 $3:00. . , _:
�: Seatfle Multi-phase $ , .� 12/29/95 92/21/95
' , � WA 98-04-C-00-SEA 51 079,000 � $3.00
� � Seattle � .. Mulfi-phase $, 7/14/98 . 7/14/98
. g5-03-C-00-MKE $3.00 - .
� M M i f w a ukee -- w� P l a n nin g $�0,130 4/26/96
� 4/26/96. �.
.. CA 98-04-C-00-MRY �_ $3 00 _ .. .
N Monterey _ Planning $30,000 . ��; . 4/11/96 , _'
96-05-C-00-SMF $3:00 ` 4/11/96 .
M Sacramento � A -- Planning $21,500 . 8/31/92 8/31/9 2
C C0. `96-02-C-00-PUB , $932,Q00 $3.00
S Pueblo , �planning._ $3.00 9/9/97 9/9/97
FL 92-01 C-00-RSW ;� . $7�,000� � 8/28/95
� Fort Myers Pianning 8/28/95
FL 97-03 C OO,EYW $21,919 $3.00 3/3/98
N. Key Wesf Planning. $3.00 3/3/98
�FL 95-03-C-00-MCO $135,000 _ 6/�1/97
L:. Orlando Planning $3.9� 1/26/94
g Tallahassee � FL _ 98-03-C-00-7LH - $�gg,628 : ` 7/5/95
97-03-U-00-PBl Plann.ing - �� $3.00 7/5%95
��. Wesk Pafm Beach F�-: . Pianning $1,425,000 ' . s/28/96 . 6/28/96
1L. . 95=03-C-00-MDV�! $� 000,000 $3:00
M Chicago . Planning _ �2/20/96 12/20/96
. ��: 96-05-C-00-ORD �C75,000 $3,00
� Chicago ... Planning 3/30/94 3/30/94
.:olis IN 96-02-C-00-1ND �336,000 $3.00
jy� lndianap 3/31/98 3/3'!/98 '
KY � 94-01-C'-QO-Ct/� , ._Planning �340,000. $3.00
L Covingfon . Plannin9 , 7/1/94 7/1/94
KY - 93-03-C-00-CUG � ' $18,000 $3.00 _� .
� Govington C-00-ALH Planning v2�/92 y24/92
MN ' 9�#-09- $600,000 $3.00
, y Duluth` , Planning - 9/27/96 9/27/96
NV 91-0't-C-00-LAS $¢� 000 $3 00 . ;
� Las Vegas Planning .• i0/2'I/96 :"10/21/96
NY 96-03-C-00-AL8 ��,000 � $3 QO ,:-
g - Albany Planning ` �$3.Q0 '� 10%21/96. 10/21/96
py . 96-0.2-G00-CAK $3�,100 10/18/99
g Akron Planning 90/13/99. '
OH 96-02-G-00-GAK �C3,000... �3.00 '
, S Akron Plannin5 �/25/97 4/25/97
`�y � 99-04-G00-CAK $584,570 $3:00
S Akron- ` Planning 5/29/98 5129/98
py 97-05-C-00-CLE ��3,520 $3:00
ryj Cieveland PlaMing ` 5/2/97 5/2/97 ,
_ . �N g7-06-C-00-CMH $75,000 $3.00
• PA zColumbus 5(Z6/99 5/26/99
97-01-C-00-OKC Planning ` $3.Q0
� Oklahoma City OK $10,000 7/23/93 12/31/96
g9-02-C-00-UNV Planning �.15,�8& $3.00
N. Universify Park PA Planning
� X 96-Q2-U�00-LRD
� Laredo
Airport\oisei'.eport
June �, 2000 80
S Richmond VA 9i-02-G00-RlC • Planning $15,939 $3.00 7/3/97 7/3/97
L Phoenix AZ 95-03-C-00-PHX Soundproofing $4,000,000 $3.00 '1/26/96 9/26/96
S Fresno CA 96-09-G00-FAT Soundproo{ing $444,400 $3.00 9/18196 9/98/96
� N Monterey CA 94-02-U-00-MRY Soundproo{ing $824,329 $3.00 90/8/93 90/39/94
� M Oakland CA 97-07-C-00-OAK Soundproofing 5240,000 $3.00 4I30/97 4/30/97
F M Dakland CA 99-OS-C-00-OAK Soundprooiing �5,599,000 $3.00 6/98/99 6H8/99
E
L San Diego CA 95-01-C-00-SAN Soundproofing $2,498,000 $3.00 7/28/95 7/26/95
L 5an Diego CA 98-02-C-40-SAN Soundproo#ing $970,000 $3.00 . 7/24/98 7/24/98
M San Jose CA 92-01-C-00-SJC Soundproofing $47,979,000 $3.00 6/�9/92 6/99/92
M San Jose CA 99-07-C-00-SJC Soundproofing $7,500,000 $3.00 91/24/99 19/24/99
N. Key West FL 99-04-C-00-EYW Soundproofing $975,000 $3.00 . '�8/31/99 8/39/99
M Chicago 7L 93-01-C-00-MD4Y Soundproofing $4,900,000 $3.00 :6/28/93 6/28/93
M- Chicago !L - 95-03-C-00-MDW Soundproofing $1,140,000 $3.00 7/5/95 T/5/95
. ,, ,
M Chicago lL g6-05-G00-MDiN'� Soundproofing $8,000,000 $3.00 99l�5/9fi _ 91115/96
M Ghicago IL- 96-05-C-00-MDW Soundproofing $18,400,000 $3.00 . 97/15/96 91/95/96 .
M. Chicago lL', . 00-07-C-00-MDVY Soundpraofing $�0,000,000 $3.00 2/22/100 2I27J900 .
L Chicaga 1L ,93-01-C-00-0RD ' Soundprooting, $46,067,786 $3.D0 6/28/93 � 6/28/93
, ..
�. _ ..
,.
, . J . 3.00 6/28/96 6/28/96 -
' L Chicago /L 96-05-C-OQ-ORD Soundproofing $98,000 000 $
L Chicago. IL 96 05-C-00-ORD Soundproofing $67,812,009 $3.00 6/28/96 6/28/96 '
L - _ Chicago IL `98-07-G00-ORD.. Soundproofing $28,000,000 $3.00 3/16J98 ': . 3/96198 . , � '
L Chicago IL' 98-08=C-DO-ORD , Soundprooiing $10,000,000 '$3.00 ' 8/6/98 - 8/6/98 .
,... . _
N Peoria _. !L 94-09-C-00-PlA Soundprooiing v�639,013 $3.00 9/8/94 9/8/94
__.
L Bosfon ` MA 96-02-C-00-BOS Soundproofing $26,990,000 $3.00 8/24/93 - 1/27/97
' ) L Minneapolis MN 94-02-C-00-MSP. Soundproofing $90,000,000 $3.00 5/93/94 5H3/94
, _
-` L Minneapolis MN 94-OZ-C-00-MSP, Soundproofing $446,200 -- _$3.OD 5/93/94 5/93/94
L Minneapolis MN 98-04-C-00-MSP Soundproofing $27,300,000 $3.00 92/99/98 92/19I98.
M Reno NV 93-09-G-00-RN0 Soundproofing $'157,500 $3.00 90/29/93 �0%29/93
M - Cleveland OH 92-09-C-00-CLE Soundproofing $22,362,400 $3.00 9/9/92 9/1/92
M Cleveland OH 97-05-C-DO-CLE Soundproofing �8,675,OD0 ,�3.00 4/26/97 4/25/97
�il Cleveland OH. 99-O6-C-00-CLE Soundproofing, $90,000,000 $3.00 � 5/28/99 5/28/99
M Columbus., OH . 93-03-U-00-CMN Soundproofing $20,323 $3.00 7/14I92 �D127/93
M Golumbus ' OH 93-03-U-00-CMH Soundproofing $71,974 $3.00, ' 7/1a192 10/27/93
M Columbus ON 93-03-U-00-CMN Soundproofing $60,547 $3.00 7I1,4/92 �0/27/93 ' �
119 Columbus OH 95-04-C-00-CMH Soundproofing $269,8i0 $3.00 7/19/93 � 3/27/96 _
t%1 Columbus OH 97-O6-C-00-CMH Soundproofing $993,829 $3.00 5/29�98 ` 5/.29/98 ` i
L Seattle WA 93-02-C-00-SEA 5oundproofing Si6,13�,627 $3.00 'i0/25193 90/25/93
L ' Seattle WA 93-02-G00-SEA Soundproo;ing �953,292 ,�3.00 �0/25/93 'f0/25/93 .
M Milwaukee . Y�JI 95,03-G00-MKF Soundproofiny 58,3�9,000 $3r00 92/21I95 '12/29/95
PA Milwaukee Y1�1 95-03-GDO-lL1KE Soundprooring ..�2,5i6,000 ,�3.00 �2/'29/95
�'7,664,375,540 59,664,873;840
� ') _
AirporC�;ni_e F.ep���t i
June 9, 2000
PROJECTS (BY LOCATION) WITH AMDUNT OF TOTAL APPROVED PFC PROGRAM
(AS OF 6/1/00)
NOISE AS A %
NUB ClTY STATE APPLICATlON WORK CODE AMOUNT PFCLEVEL.
,{
IMPOSE USE
S Huntsville AC 94-03-C-00-HSV Land $6,796,9&0 $3.00 3/6/92 6/28/94
S Hunfsville AL 95-05-U-00-HSV Land $920,000 $3:00 3/6/92 11/22/95
S Huntsville AL 97-07-U-00-HSV Land $3,905,000 $3.00 3/6/92 5/28/97
5 Huntsville AL 98-OS-C-00-NSV Land $68,835' '� $3.00 90/1.9/98 90/19/98 ;
� L Phoenix AZ 95-03-C-00-PNX Soundproofing $4,000,000. $3.00 9/26/96 9/26/96
M Tucson AZ 97-09-C-00-7'US ' Land $2,016,000 :$3.00 99/19/97 91/19/97 .
M i'ucson AZ 97-09-C-00-TUS ' Land $39fi,888 . $3.00 '' 11/19/97 11H9/97
..
N Fori Smifh AR � 97-02-U-00-FSM Lancl $90,756 '. $3.00 5/8/94' 7/24/97
N�`�. Fort Smifh AR 97-02=U-00-FSM Monitoring . $20,555 $3.00 5/8/94: ' 7/24/97
. . _ ..�
` S Fresno CA 96-01-C-00-FAT Soundproofing $444,400 $3.00 9/98/96 9/98/96
L LosAngeles C� 97-04-C-00-LAX Mulfi-phase "$440,000,000 $3.00 99/2�%97 9�/28/97
N Monferey CA � 98-04-C-00-MRY Planning $50,930 $3.00 7%94/98 7/94/98 �
N Monferey CA 94-02-U-00-MRY Soundproofing $824,321 '' $3.00 ` 90/8/93 10/39/94 �
" M Oakland GA � 00-09-C-00-OAK Misc $4,5D0,000 $3.00 '` 3/17%100 $'10,396,000
M Oakland . CA 92-01-C-00-OAK ` Monitoring ; $345,000 �° ~ $3.00 6/26/92 6/2fi/92
M ":., Oakland GA . 97-07-C-00-OAK' Soundproofing $240,000 ' $3:00 .. ; ;�.4/30/97 4/30/97
. ; ..:., , , . _
": , M . ` Oakland CA . 99-08-C-00-OAK Soundproofing $5,511,000 $3.00 6%?�8/99 6/18/99 ' .
M. Onfario CA 97-03-G00-ONT Multi-phase $12,OOD,000 $3.00 4/28/98 4/28/98
,
M Sacra►nento CA 96-05-C-00-SMF Monitoring ` $769,000 $3.00 ` 4/Z6/96 4/26/96
M Sacramento CA 96-05-C-00-SMF Planning $30,000 $3.00 4/26/96 4/26/96 (
. ... ,
L San Diego CA 95-09-C-0o-SAN Soundproofing $2,498,000 $3.00 7/26/95 7/26/95' ;
L San Diego CA 98-02-C-00-SAN Sour+dproofing $970,000 . $3:00 7/24/98 7/24/98 �'�
M' San Jose CA 92-09-C-OO,SJC . Monitoring : $'140,000 .� $3.00 6/19/92 6/1 �/92
. M San Jose . CA 99 07 C=00-SJC Monitoring $900,000 $3.00 ' 99/24/99 99/24/99
" M San Jose CA 92-09-C-00-SJC ' Soundproofing .$47,171,000 $3.00 6/11/92 6/11/92
M; San Jose CA 99-07-C-00-SJC, Soundproofing $7,500,000 $3.00 91/24%99 91/24/99
, CS Pueblo CO 96-02-C-00-PUB Planning $29,500 $3.00 4/1'1/96 41'19/96.
M ForfLauderdale 'FL : 98-02-C-00-FLL- l.an,d- $3,500,000 $3.00 4I30/98 �4,158,000 `
M Fort L�auderdale �L 98-02-G00-FLL ; Moniforing $638,000 ` $3.00 19/1/94 4/30/98
M, Fort iLiyers FL 9,2=09-C-00-RSW ` Planning $132,000 �3.00 8/39/92 8/31/92
N GainesviUe FL 00-09-C-00-GNV Land $144,SS9 ` $3,00 ` 3/2/100 3/2/900
N Key l�Yesf FL •97-03-C-00-EYW Planning $75,000 . $3.00 9/9/97 9/9/97 .
N Key N1est FL 99-04-C-00-EYW Soundproofing $975,000 ` $3.00 8/31/99.. 8/31/99
L Orlando FL 95-03-C-DO-NICO Planning '$29,919 `$3.00 8/28/95 8%28/95
S Pensacola FL 92-01-C-00-PN9 Land $1,000,000 �3.00 91/23/92 11/23/92
� S Pensacola FL � 95-02-U-00-PNS Land $355,000 ' $3.00 11/23/9? 8/10/95
S Pensacola FL 95 02-U,00-PNS Pr]isc $200,000 < $3,00 19/23/92 8/90/95
S Sarasota EL 95-02-U-00-SRQ ` Multi-phase $9,474,90,4 .�:3.00 &/29/92 '1/31/95
S Sarasoia FL 95-03-C-00-SRQ ` Multi-phase �5,400,000 $3.00 6/29/92 'i2/15/95
_ ,..
S Tallahassee FL 98-03-C-00=TLH Land $4,532,074 �3.00. ' ` 3/3/98 3/3/9S ( �
S` Tailahassee FL 98-03-C-00-TLH • Planning �5135,000 �3.OD 3/3/98 - 3/3/98
�11 �vesf Palm Beach FL 9&-02-C-00-P81 Land �'9,000,000 �3,00 9/26/9� 8/29!9&
_ ,� irport � iuise F�purt
, Ju�e 9, 2000 g�
M West PaJm Beach FL 96-02-C-00-PB! Land $2,302,300 $3.00 9/26/9� 8/29/96
M WestPalmBeach FL 97-03-U-00-PBJ Land $374,696 $3.00 1/26/94 6/19/97
,
M Wesf Palm Beach FL 97-03-U-00-P81 Land $1,387,548 $3.00 1/26/9� 6/99/97
M West Palm Beach FL 97-03-U-00-PBI Land $5,000,000 ,�3.00 1/26/94 6/99/97
M West Palm Beach FL 97-03-U-00-PBI Planning .$768,628 $3.00 9/26/94 � 6/19/97 �,
N Bloomington !L , 97-02-C-00-SMl Land $35,000 $3.00 12/5/97 92/5/97
L Chicago IL 93-0�-G00-ORD Misc -$49,448 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
L: Chicago !L- 96-05-C-00-QRD Misc $6,206,967 $3.00 6/28/96 6/28/96
L Chicago /L . 94-02-U-00-ORD - Monitoring _ .$3,O�O,b00 $3.00 6/28/93 9/�6/94
L Chicag'o IL 93-01-G.00-ORD Mulfi-pl�ase $9,000,000 . $3.00 -.6/28/93 6/28/93
L Chicago 1L : 96-05-C-00-ORD Planning ,. $4,000,000 $3.00 6/ZS/96 6/28/96
L Chicago IL 93-0�-C-00-ORD Soundproofing- $46,067;786 $3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93.
L . � Chicago !L :. 96-05-C=00-0RD 5oundpraofing �98,000,000 $3.00 ' 6/28/96 6/28/96 �.
" L Chicago !L 96-05-C-00-ORD - Soundproofing ,.$67,892,009 $3.00 , 6/28/96 6/28196
_.:
, _
L Chicago lL : 98-07-G00-ORD Soundproofing ,$28,000,000 $3.00 3/1.6/98 3/�6/98 -.
L Chicago JL' 98-08 C-00-ORD_ Soundproofing $90,000,000 :_. $3.�0 ,' 8/6/98�. ' 8/6/98
M Chrcago �IL . 93-01 C-00-MDIN Misc . �11,493 .53.00 . 6%28/93 6/28/93
, . ,.,, _
� M Chicago lL 93-01 C-00-MDW Misc $297,707 :. ..$3.00 6/28/93 6/28/93
M Chicago . �o- 1L DO-07.C-00-MDW Misc : $7,950,000 $3.00 2/22/900 . 2/22/900
M Chicago IL.:; 93-01-C-00-MDW Monitoring .':: ' $325,000 $3.00 6%28/93.. 6/28/93
y�,
TM M Ghicago " 1L 95-03-C-00-MDY�J Planning -: $1,425,000, $3.00 7/5/95 7/5%95 � '
M Chicago lL 93-09-G00-MDW Soundproofing $4,900,000 $3.00 6128/93 6/28/93 ��
. _
M-' Chicago lL 95-03-G00-MDW Soundproofing $9,940,000 $3.00 ' 7/5/95 7/5/95 I
� M Chicago iL 96-05-G�0-MDW Soundproofing .$8,000,000 $3.00 .. 91/15/96 99/95/96 -
M Chicago lL; _ 96-05-C-00-MDlN Soundproofing .$18,400,000 $3.00 1i/�5/96 99I15/96
M Chicago 1L : 00-07-C-00-MDW Soundproofing $90,D00,000 .�3.OD 2/22/�00 2/22I100
_ _ , .
S Moline iL 94-09-C-DO-MLl : Land $335,995 $3.00 ':9/29/94 9/29/94 ;.
S Moline .. IL 98-02-C-00-MU Land ; �365,084 �3.00 " 3/92/98 3/97J98
N Peoria 1L 94-09-G00-PIA Land �382,326 $3.00 9/8/94 9/8/94
N Peoria lL 00-02-C-00-P1A Land _ ,�145,449 . $3.00 - 213/900 2/3/900
N Peoria lL 9�#-09-C-00-P1A Soundproofing �639;093 $3.00 9/8/94 9/8/94
N Springfreld IL 93-02-U-00-SPl Land '$10,500 $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93
N Springfield 1L 93-02-U-00-SP1 Land �19,958 - $3.00. 3%27/92 4/28/93
N Springfield !L 93-02-U-00-SPI Land $9,OOD $3.00 3/27/92 4/28/93 �
N Springfield ,IL:. 93-02-U-00-SPI Land $7,OD0 $3.00 3/27/92 4/23/93
N Springfield IL' 93-02-U-00-SPI Land ��00 �3.00' 3/27/92 4/28/93 ')
': N Springfield JL 97-08-G00-SPl C�and .�88,967 �3;00 1�/24/93 3/�1/97
� iYl lndianapolis IN 93-0�-C-00-lND Land �42,532 859 $3.00 ; 6/28/93 6/22/93
,_ _
Pif Indianapolis IN 96-02-C-DO-IND 1�lisc �SD0,000 - ,53.00 '12/20/96 12/20/96 �.(
�il ' Inclianapolis !N 9o-02-C-00-IPJD Planning �75,000 ; �3.00 'i2/20/96 .12/20/96
L Covinyton KY 94-Oi-C-DO-CVG Monitoring ��9fi,000 . ,�3.00 " 3130/9v 3/30/94
` L Covingfon KY 9�-01-G00-CVG Mulfi-phase $32,185,000 �3,00 ��3G;"v4 3,'30/9=�
L Co�ington KY 95=02-C-00-C,VG Mulfi-phase �14,202,000 $3.00 9�/29/95 ;1/29/95
; j L Covington KY 9�-01-GDO-C�/G Planning . �336,000 $3.00 3/30/9� 3/30/9=�
L. Covjngton KY 95-03-C-00-GVG Planning 5340,000 �3.00 3/3�/98 3/39/98 i
;I
r\irport\oiszRc;iert ,
t
June 9, 2000 83 �
S Lexingtan KY 95-02-G00-LEX Multi-phase $959,783 $3.00 8/31/93 4/29/95
S Lexingfon KY 96-03-U-00-LEX Multi-phase $984,322 $3.00 8/31/93 9/27/96
M Louisvilfe KY 97-01-C-00-SDF Land $40,0OO,OQO $3.00 9/29/97 1/29l97 ;�
S Bafon Rouge LA 93-OZ-U-00-BTR Multi-phase $8,532,260 $3.00 9/28/92 4l23/93 �
L Bosfon MA 96-02-G-00-BOS Soundproofing $26,990,000 $3.00 8/24/93 9/27/97
L Defroit Ml 92-09-C-00-DTW Misc $992,000 $3.00 9/21/92 9/21/92 �
L Defroit MI 92-01-C-00-DTW MuJti-phase $91,350,000 $3.00 9/29/92 •9/29/92
N Duluth MN 94-49-C-00-DLH Planning $18,000. $3.00 7/9/94 7/9/94 _
L Minneapolis MN 94-02-C-00-MSP Land $28,946,000 $3.00 5/13/94 5/13/94
' ' .L Minnespolis M�1 ,� = 9402-C-DO-MSP Moniforing $248,800 : ' . $3.00 � � 5/93/94 5H3/94
L: Minneapolis . MN : 94-02=G-00-MSP Mu/ti-phase- $78,703,30D $3.00 � '-� 5f13%94 5/�3/94.
L Minneapolis MN 94=02-C-00-MSP Soundproofing $90,000,000 $3.00 5/13/94 'S%13/94.
:.. L`' Minneapolis MN �. 94-0� C-00-MSP 3oundproofing $446,200: $3 00 5H3/94 5/93/94
. .. , . _ .
._. _ �; � .,:. .
`� L Minneapolis MN 98-O�f-G00 MSP ' Soundproofing $27,300,000 $3 00 `_ 92/19/98 92/'11/98 ,
` M � Kansas_ City, MO -: 95-41-C-00-MCI tand , ' : $9,880,000 . $3 00 '- 92/29/95 92/21/95 '
L • Sf. Lours � . MO � 92-09-C-00 STL ' : Land ' - $32,8&1,850 . $3 00 : =: 9/30/92 9/30/92
, ... . _, :
,., .,_:- - ,.
L St Louis MO � 97-03-U-00-STL �• Land $48,000,000 $3 00 � � 9/39/96 1/8%98
L � Las Vegas NV 94-Og-C-00-LAS Land $17,793,OD0 .=�$3.00 .2/24/92 3/15/95 -
:
L " Las Vegas NV . 99-01-C-00-LAS Land � $35,D00,000 : $3 00 . : = ' _. 2/24/92 2/24/92 :•
.
L Las Vegas ` NV 93-02-C-00=LAS. Land � $5,250,000 . $3 00 ., ;� 2/24/92 6/7/93
L. Las Vegas' l�lV 93-02-C-00-LAS Land $26,250,000 $3 00 �� 2/24/92 6IT/93 �
L-:' Las Vegas NV 93-02-C-00-LAS Land $&,300,000 $3.00 '= 2/24/92 6/7/93 .
L` Las Vegas NV 91-01-G00-LAS Planning $600,000 $3.00 2/24/92 2/24/92 - '
M - � Reno NV 93-09-C-00-RNO . Soundproofing $957,500 � $3.00 : - � ` 90/29/93 10/29/93..
S Manchesfer NH 96-02-U-DO-MN �
T Multi-phase $9,400,000 $3 00 >, 90/13%92 3/4/9& `..- ---
`S Albany NY 96-03-C-00-ALB Planning � $45,000 ' $3.00 ` :: .9/27/96 9/27/96 � :. :
,, ._ .. ,...
, .
`' S tslip' ` NY 94-01-G00-ISP . Mulfi-phase $1,950,000 $3.00 � ` 9/23/94 9/23/94
, ,
S. Akron OH 96-02-G00-CAK Land $99,300 '$3.00 ' 90/21/96 90/21/96 '.
. S Akron OH 9&-02-C-00-GAK Land $14,700 $3.00 - 90/29/96 10/29/96
S Akron - OH 96-02-G00-CAK Land ..._ $5,300 ' . $3.00 : ' 10/29/96 10/29/96 '
S Akron OH 96-02-C-00-CAK Land $29,000 ` $3.00' 90/29/96 90/21/9fi
S Akron - Y OH 99-04-C-00-GAK Misc $700,000 �3.OD ` 90/�&/99
- S Akron OH 96-02-C-00-CAK Planning ' $S,OQO " $3.00 90/29/96 90/29/96
S Akron OH 96-02-G-00-CAK Planning $31,900 $3.00 90/21/96 90/21/96 :
S Akron OH . 99-04-C-00-CAK Planning $3,000 $3.00 10/98/99 10/98/99
M'' Cleveland ° OH 94-02-U-00-CLE Land $7,937,600 $3.00 9/1/92 2l2/94
t�l� Cleveland OH 97-05-C-00-CLE Land $29,685,000 �'3,00 4/25/97 d/25/97. :; `
M ' C1eveland OH 97-05-C-00-CLE Plaraning .�584,570 '$3.00 4/25/97 4/25/97
M '. Cleveland OH 92-01-C-00-CLE Soundproofing '$22,362,4Q0 $3.00 9/1/92 9/1/92
' M Cleveland OH 97-05-G-00-CLE Soundproo{ing $8;675,000 .�3.00 �f125/97 4/25/97
M Clevetand -. QH 99-06-C-00-CLE Soundprooiing $90,000,000 $3.00 5/28/99 5/28/99
M Columbus '. OH 95-04-G00-CI�i1H Land $�99,600 $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/96
M Columbus OH 95-04-C-00-CMH Land $379,070 ' $3.00 7/14/92 3/27/9S
_ , •'
,
M Columbus OH 95-04-C-00-CiVIH Land $519,723 $3.00 7/i4/92 3/27/96� I
M Colurr�bus OH 95-04-G00=C�1H Misc -5&1,752 �$3.00 7/19/93 3/27/9&
149 Columbus OH 93-03-U-00-CMH �Aoniroring $16,509 �3.00 7/1A/92 10/2�/93
;lirport\o�:eRepurt
I
-- r
�
,� June 9, �000
i`
M Columbus OH 97-06-C-00-CMH Planning $13,520 $3.00 � 5/29/98 5/29/°8
M Columhus OH 93-03-U-00-CMH Soundproofing 520,323 $3.00 7/94/92 10/27/93
� , � M Columbus ON 93-03-U-00-CMH Soundprooiing $79,974 $3.00 . 7/14/92 10/27/93
M Columbus OH 93-03-U-00-CMH Soundproofing $60,547 $3.00 7/94/92 90/27/93
M Columbus OH 95-04-C-00-GMH Soundproofing .�269,890 $3.00 7/'19/93 3/27/96
M Columbus OH 97-O6-C-00-CMH Soundproofing $993,829 $3.00 5/29/98 5/29/98
S Dayfon OH 94-02-C-00-DAY Land $336,333 $3.00 7/25/94 7/25/94
N Toledo OH 97-03-C-00-TOL Mulfi-phase $9,500,000 _$3.00 9/i6/98 9/96/98
M Oklahoma City OK 97-t19-G00-OKC Planning $75,000 $3.00 , 5/2/97 5/2/97
M Tulsa OK 00-04-C-DO-TUL Muiti-phase $4,000,000 .$3.00 • 4/27/900 4/27/700
N Erie PA 92-09-G-00-ERI ` Mulfi-phase ` $�"18,5�8 $3.00 ' 7/29/92 7/27/92
N Universi'ry Park PA 99-02-C-00-UNV Planning $90,000 �$3.00 5/26/99 5/26/99
N Chattanooga TN .`- 97-02-C-00-CNA Land $2,000,000 $3.00 .'�' 4/25/97 4/25/97
N Chaftanooga T�! 97-02-C-DO-CNA Land $900,000 $3.D0 4/25/97 4/25/9Z
S ` Knoxville TN 93-09-C�00-TYS Multi-phaae
; �542,750_ $3.00 ` 90/6/93.. 10/6/93 _
L- Da1/as TX : 96-02-C-00-DFtN�'� Moniforit�g .$fi97,853 � $3.00 99/7/9S 91l7/96
,, ..,
� L Dallas TX ; 96-02-C-00-DFW Monitoring $384,027 $3.00 91/7/96 9'1/7/96
S Harlingen TX 98-D�-G-00-HRL Land $96,630 $3.00 7/9/98 7/9/98
_ N :' Laredo TX 96-02-U-00-LRD Pianning . $�5,786 $3.00 7/23/93 92/3'9/96
L Salt Lake City . UT 94-01-C-DO-SLC Land $479,200 $3.00 90/9/94 10/9/94
N Lynchburg VA 95-09-C-00-LYH Land $993,000 $3.00 4/14/95 4/14/95 .
S Richmond VA 97-02-C-DO-RIC Planning $95,93� � $3.00 7/3/97 7/3/97 -
- N _ Bellingham WA 93-09-C-00-BLl Land $966,000 .�3.00 4/29I93 4/29/93
f_. � N Bellingham WA 94-02-C-00-BU Land $732,OOD $3.00 90/5/94 90/5/94 • �
N Bellingham WA 9fi-03-G00-BLl Land $454,350 $3.00 , 92/11/96 12/99/96 -
L Seattie WA 92-01-C-00-SEA Mulfi-phase $14,939,9�1 $3.00 8/93/92 8/93/92
L Seatfle WA 95-03-C-00-SEA Multi-phase $34,400,000 $3.00 12/29/95 12/29/95
L Seattle tNA 98-04-C-00-SEA Mulfi-phase .�50,000,000 $3.00 6/24/98
L Seaffle WA 93-02-C-00-SEA Soundproofing $96,134,627 ,�3.00 10/25/93 90/25/93
L Seaftle WA 93-02-GOD-SEA Soundproofing �953,212 =- $3.00 90/25/93 10/25/93
N Appleton Wl 94-0�-G00-ATW Land �94,502 $3.00 4/25/94 4/25/94
M tifilwaukee WI 9�-01-C-00-MKE Land $3,813,000 $3:00. 2/24/95 2/24/95
M Mi(waukee LYI 95-09-C-00-MKE Land _ .$9,6�2,000 • �3.D0 ' 2�29I95 2/24/95
M t4filwaukee 4v1 95-09-C-00-�L1KE Monitoring . $396,000 $3.�0 2%24/9� 2/24/95 .
� M N1il�v�ukee W/ 95_-03-G00-MKE Multi-phase � $5i,079,0.00 $3.00 12/21/95 12/21/95
M. Milwaukee WI 95-03-C-00-MKE Soundproofing $8,319,000` �.�3.00 �2!21/95 12/21/95
M Milwaukee �iYl 95-03-C-00-MKE . Soundproofing '$2;516;000 $3.00.� '12/21/95
�$1,664,875,8�0 59,664,875,840 , '
��� �) � �
r\irpart\oiseFeport
June 9, 2000
,..-• •-� - • •- : � •-
. • . ���
, �. ..� . , � . .
AIRSIDE ,(19% w/o DIAj (17% w DIA) ..
RUNWAYS, $ 1,590,317,184 36.6
TAX!-WAYS $ 650,824,653 15.0
� APRONS' :: $ 735,254,421 16.9 ' . . _
� , LAND $ 327,728;192 ` 7.5 .
,_ ` EQUIPM,ENT .:::' ' '; $. 387,042.,0_01 : .;: 8.9
_, , _
:
' ; .....; ,::; . PLANNING " ; ; $ : 116,254,789 : 2.7 ,
, ,.
; ., =. � _
. . ` -. - LIGHTING ` ' $ 121,040,858 . 2.8
, : TH E R ` ;- - ' .: -$ 420.051,226 � ' `: �.7
,:- ;,,. TOTAL ;'� ,.. ,,.: � 4,348,513,324 :;° . . -1,00
� :,-- -� -
:. LANDSID� :(32% w/o DIA) (29%:w DIA) `- ': ; -
_ TEF3MINAL :"$ 6,726,399,574 91.2 . _
. : ; LAND �.: .. ,.: $ . 52�`f'`P�;249 7.1
. . ^ -
:; ` SECUFiITY - :� ' '` $ 126 495.377 '.1'_7 -
. ,_
. . _.
-
`_ . . ;.. .TOTAL `'=. _ . . � $ 7,377,070,200 "..100
- N IS E(7% _w/o D IA) (7°0` w D iA) - � -
LAND � � 374,253,754 . ' 22.5
- ,..
, , ` MU�TI-PHASE . `: �� 763,821,948 .: 45.:9 .. . ' � -
. _ - _. . . : - ; �
SOUNDRR,OOFING $ 496,682,943.: . . 29.8 : ` � `
MONITORING � � 7,128,744 - 0.4 r'
PLANNING . $ 8,227;084 . : 0.5 `.
, ,..
THEFi ; � 14.761.367 ;:.:. . Q 9 .
� TOTAL . ; � 1,664,875,840 ;100 _
ACCESS (12% w/o DIA�.(11%w DIA) -
ROAD�S ' $ 1;274,470,429 45.9.
RAIL S 1,452,051;492 � 52..3
: - LAND � 19,494,586- 0,7 � .
� PLANNING .� 30 072.50� 1._i
. . TOTAL: � 2,776,089,007 100
INTEREST (30io) (27% w/DIA) � 6,932,404,714
SUBTOTAL �23,098,953,085 , ' .
DENVER (9%) � 2 330 734 321
PFC TOTAL ' S25.429.687.406
SOUP.CE: FA.=\ (PI=C 6R\NCH)
; > _ /
i
\ i
t\irp�rt\oi;� F.eport