05-10-2000 ARC Packet1�.e �-�'
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIOIVS COMMISSIOIV AGENDA
May 10, 2000 Large Conference Room
1. Cali to Order - 7 p.m.
2. Roli Call
3. Approval of April 12, 2000 Minutes.
4. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Discussion of Minneapolis Resolution on Multi-Family Insulation
b. Update on Part 150 Study
1) Runway 17/35
2) Land Use
5. Updates
a. � Part 150 Public Hearings
6. Acknowledge Receipt af Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. MASAC Meeting Agenda fior April 25t'' and March 28th Minutes
b. March Technical Adviser's Report
c. March Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis �
d. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for May 15t and April 14tn
Minutes
e. Airport Noise Report — April 14t'', April 215t, April 28th and May 5`n
editions
f. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Agenda for May gtn
g. Articles from Flight International
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.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 12, 2000
�` ,'.' � :;
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Relations Commission was held on Wednesday,
April 12, 2000 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Cha.ir Beaty
called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The following members were present: Commissioners
Beaty, Fitzer, Leuman, Roszak and Stein. Also present was Administrator Batchelder.
Commissioner May was excused and Commissioner Petschel was absent.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 15, 2000 MINUTES
Commissioner Rosza.k moved approval of the February 9, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted.
Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
MINNEAPOLIS RESOLUTION ON PART 150 INSULATION
;-- , City Administrator Batchelder stated that the City of Minneapolis had submitted a resolution to
� ) the Metropolitan Airports Commission that states Minneapolis' priorities for the Sound
Insulation Program, including the existing sound insulation program based on the 1996 contours.
The City of Minneapolis desires MAC to sound insulate multi-fami�y residential structures
within the 1996 DNL65 and greater noise contour prior to cornplefing any sound insulation for
single family homes in the new 2005 DNL65 and greater noise contours.
Administrator Batchelder stated that the Metropolitan Airports Commission had requested that
each community provide MAC with our city specific sound insulation priority recorninendations.
According to the MAC's geographic information system database, the City of Mendota Heights
does not have any multi-family parcels in the 2005 DNL65 contour. The Commission discussed
the Minneapolis resolution 99R-406 that outlines their specific priority recommendations as
follows:
2
3
G�
Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 1996 DNL65 and greater DNL noise contours;
Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996
DNL65 and greater noise contours;
Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 2005 DNL65 and greater DNL noise contours;
Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential stri.ictures within the 2005
DNL65 and greater DNL noise contours;
� �� J
5. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 2005 DNL60 — DNL64 noise contours;
6. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 �
DNL60-DNL64 noise contours.
Administrator Batchelder stated that Minneapolis and Bloomington, and to some extent
Richfield, have a significant number of multi-family dwellings within the existing Sound
Insulation Program. Administrator Batchelder stated other cornmunities such as Eagan,
may desire to have the Part 150 Program proceed directly to the 2005 single-family
homes at the same time the multi-family construction begins under the e�sting
program. The Commission discussed continuing with the single-family home insulation
at the same time the multi-family insulation occurs. The Commission wanted a
clarification from the Metropolitan Airports Commission on how the current Part 150
Sound Implementation strategy is different from the priorities proposed by the City of
Minneapolis.
The Comtnission directed Administrator Batchelder to write a letter requesting this clarification:
�TPDATE ON THE PART 150 STUDY
Administrator Batchelder provided the Commission with an update of the runway_ use discussion
that had occurred at the March 24, 2000 meeting of the MASAC Operations Cornrnittee.
Administrator Batchelder reviewed the existing runway use system and the five alternatives that
HNTB had used in analyzing n.ulway use alternatives that might provide noise abatement.
Administrator Batchelder stated each of these nulway use alternatives was reviewed to create .(
noise contours that could then be examined on whether they add population and households to
the total noise contour when compared to the 2005 base case contour. Administrator Batchelder
stated that the recommendation made by MA.C's consultant was that the analysis indicates that
the base case (the unmitigated 2005 contot�r), which is based on the assumptions of the Dual
Track FEIS, provides the most benefit to communities as a preferred runway system to any of the
alternatives that were analyzed.
In other words, the consultant is recommending that the best runway use system is that which is
based on the runway use percentages contained in the environmental impact statement for the
2010 NSP Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission discussed the different alternatives that had been analyzed by the Metropolitan
Airport Commission and their consultant. The Commission directed that alternatives No. 2, 4
and 5, in that order, are preferred by our Airport Relations Commission. Those alternatives are
as follows:
Alternative 2
• Maximize use of Runway 17 for departure and Runways 30L/30R for Arrivals
o Second priority — depart Runway 12L/12R, arrive Runway 35
• Head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible
s Third priority — balanced use of Runway 4/22 ,
• Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways 12L and 12R, at-ali other times. �'-
�
,
�' � Nt ;,,,
L � ''�'�. '. c.
Alternative 4
• Maximize use of Runway 17 for departure, and Runway 35 for arrivals
• Second priority — depart Runways 12L/12R, arrive Runways 30L/30R
• Head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible
• Third priority — balanced use of Runway 4/22
• Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways 12L and 12R, at all other times
Alternative 5
• Maximize balance/equal priority use of Runways 12L/12R/17 for departure, and
Runways 30L/30R/35 for arrivals
• Head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible
o Second priority — balanced use of Runway 4/22
• Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways 12L and 12R, at all other times
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION BROCHU7�2E
The Airport Relations reviewed the final draft of their brochure and provided staff with some
minor corrections on wording. The Commission felt that a cream or buffed colored paper stock
would work best. The Commission changed the brochure's title to "The Mendota Heights Air
Noise Flyer".
UPDATE ON NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROFILES
Administrator Batchelder reviewed the Part 150's discussion on Noise Abatement Departure
-� Profiles and informed the Commission that Mr. Roy Fuhrman, Technical Advisor for MAC, had
�_.' visited with the Mayor and Administrator Batchelder to review in detail the information that had
�een provided by MAC Consultants regarding Noise Abatement Departure Profiles.
Administrator Batchelder stated that the information provided by 1VIAC demonstrated that while
Close-In departures were significant in getting airplanes at higher altitudes, under a Close-In
departure procedure an airplane such as a DC9 or 727 is moving at a much slower air speed and
therefore creating more noise on the ground below it. Administrator Batchelder stated that the
information provided by MAC demonstrated that-the area of benefit for Close-In departure
procedures would essentially be over the river bottoms, in other words just on the other side of
the fence from the airport. Administrator Batchelder stated that the benefit area for the Distant
deparlure procedure began at about four miles from brake release and this is the area where you
start to get into Mendota Heights' residential neighborhoods.
The Airport Commission stated that their desire all along on Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
was to do a test of Close-In procedures for a six-month period in order to discover if it indeed is
quieter than the Distant departure procedures. The ANOMS noise measuring system would
provide actl.ial data for this type of a six-month test, as opposed to modeled contours.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VA.RIOUS REPORTS/COI�;RESPONDENCE
The Commission reviewed the Technical Advisors Report for the month of February. The
Commission discussed the ten loudest noise events and their desire to see a comparison of the ten
loudest noise events in the year 2000 to five years worth of data on the ten loudest noise events
� � from previous Technical Advisors Reports. The Commission felt that July of each year would be
the best month to look at this information.
� j� �� �� ,
Administrator Batchelder stated that he will be submitting a request form to MASAC regarding
several complaints he's received from people living North of the Eagan/Mendota Heights (
corridor about a perceived increase in noise in their neighborhood. Administrator Batchelder \�
stated the MA.SAC request form was designed to allow communities to submit these types of
requests so that MAC staff can analyze the specific issue and respond with a report.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin Batchelder
City Administrator
�
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
�
May 9, 2000
To: Airport Relations Commission
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator
Subject: Unfinished and New Business
DISCUSSION
On Wednesday evening, May 10, 2000, I will be out of town at the Minnesota City
Managers Association's annual conference. This memo will attempt to provide all the direction
the Commission will need to discuss current iterns and issues.
1. Minneapolis Resolution on Part 150 Prioritization — At last month's meeting, the
Commission reviewed and discussed a resolution by the City of Minneapolis that
requested a certain priority in the implementation of residential sound insulation. This
resolution provided the City of Minneapolis' position on how the 1996 program should
�' '� be wrapped up and how the 2005 prograrn should begin. MAC had asked each airport
-- community to respond in kind with their position on prioritization for sound insulation.
(Please see attached MAC letter March 29, 2000 that includes the provisions of the
Minneapolis resolution.)
At our April meeting, the Commission inquired if the Minneapolis resolution was
consistent with the current program's prioritization. The Commission also inquired if
other cities had gone on record with their positions. At the April MASAC meeting, I
inquired about the current program's prioritization and was informed the following:
a. The Minneapolis resolution is consistent with the current prioritization; the
new wrinkie is that the new program is coming on before the 1996 program is
finished.
b. The MAC would like the single-family program to continue seamlessly from
the 1996 program to the 2005 program. They have a large number of
contractors in the current prograxn that who would have to be put on hold
while multi-family is completed and then they would have to re-mobilize the
single-family program. The cLurent single-family program is a huae
undertaking and it would be highly inefficient to stop it to switch Qears to
multi-family insulation. � y
c. MAC suggested that multi-family could be done simultaneously, in one year,
while the single-family program continues from 1996 to 2005.
_.
�
C
3. Part 1�0 Study U.pdate— At the April 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meefing,
HNTB presented a SIMMOD Overview, the 2005 No Build Runway 17-35�Contour
Analysis, Runway 17 Departure Flight Track Analysis, and Noise Abatement Departure
Analysis, all related to the Part 150 Study Update. (Please see attached Handout
MASAC O�erations Committee date 4-14-2000.)
The following points are important:
a. Runway 17-35 is needed to meet future capacity and to reduce unacceptable
aircraft delays.
b. Runway 17-35 will handle 51 departures per hour or 40 arrivals.
c. If Runway 17-35 were not built, 22,280 people would be added to the
projected noise contours. �
d. In other words, the FEIS alternative for 2010 reduces the number of people in
the noise contours by 22,280 people by adding the new runway.
e. Please see attached No Build contour.
f. MAC has been discussing which Departure Track Alternatives that th� . �
communities south of the river may desire to be implemented•.
g. The communities cannot agree. Apple Va11ey and Burnsville are fighting to
keep the 150-degree fan. Bloomington wants to eliminate track G that turns
west over residential neighborhoods before the Minnesota River. MAC seems
i� -� willing to do this. Eagan is stuck with choosing between a narrow 60-degree
�- corridor, which concentrates noise in some residential neighborhoods, or a
fan, which affects a larger area. .
h. The communities must report at the May 12, 2000 MASAC Operations
Committee meeting as to which Depart�ure Track Alternative they desire.
Lacking consensus, MAC will move forward with the consultant's �
recommendation so that contours will be available at the Part 150 Public Open
Houses on May 23-25. (See Updates Section of Agenda for Open House dates
and places.)
HNTB's recommendation for Runway 17 is to eliminate Track G over
Bloomington and use a 150-degree fan.
Mayor Mertensotto and myself have been advocating for a fan and warning
members that the creation of "no-fly zones" has created problems amonbst
communities and that MAC ought not to limit any future options for the use of
Runway 17. We have taken the position that Runway 17's capacity should
not be hindered in any way.
4. lYlore Part 150 Upciate — Mr. Chauncy Case provided the MA.SAC Operations
Committee an overview of the 2000 Aviation Policy Plan Update on May l, 2000.
(Please see May 1, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee Agenda in Ackno�vledgements
Section.) �
(
�
C��
The following items should be noted:
a. The Metropolitan Council will convene a task force to draft issue papers on
sound attenuation and a builders guide for new construction. This task force
.wili update the noise zones to be consistent with the 2005 Part 150 contours.
b. The recommendations for land use measures are outlined in the attached
MASAC Operations Meeting MSP Park 150 Study — Land Use Measures May
l, 2000. (Please see attached.)
c. Land Use Measures 1 through 8 in this attacliment are in the existing program.
Land Use Measures 9-14 are new measures for the 2005 program.
5. Fleet Mix and Runway 17 Track Alternatives — At the May 1, 2000 meeting of tlie
MA.SAC Operations Corrunittee meeting, Ms. Kim Hughes, of HNTB, provided an
analysis that showed eliminating hush-kitted aircraft by 2005 would reduce the noise
contours around MSP by 31,810 people. Eliminating hush-kitted aircraft during the
nighttime hours would reduce the population within the noise contours by 21,390 people.
(Please see attached May 1, 2000 MSP Part 150 Study Update.) ' '�
The following points are important:
a. Northwest Airlines carmot eliminate hush-kitted aircraft by 2005. They will
have phased out 727s by that date; however, the phase out of DC-9s does not
even begin unti12009.
b. Northwest Airlines is negotiating a voluntary agreement with MAC regarding
a no hush-kit rule at nighttime after 2005.
c. This will be addressed in Part 150.
Low-Demand Flight Tracks were examined by HNTB and the recommendation for Part
150 is the continued use of the Crossing in the Corridor Procedure. The proposed runway
use system intends to minimize head-to-head operations and use runway 35 as the arrival
priority. (Please see Page 6 of May l, 2000 MASAC Operations handout.)
Finally, the MASAC Operations Committee recommended that each runway use the
distant departure procedure. This decision means that Minneapolis, which receives
depari:ures from 30L and 30R, would go back to the distant dep�rttire procedure.
ACTION REQUIRED
There is no action required on the Part 150 Study Update items. Mayor Niertensotto and
myself continue to represent Mendota Heights at each meeting. Our scopin� letter and Airport
Plan of Action continue to guide us in each of these issues. The Comnnission should note the
dates, times and places of the Part 150 Public Open Houses on May 23-2�, 2000 as listed in the
Update section af the a�enda.
,-.
i The cities of Inver.Grove Heights, Bloomington and Eagan have provided letters to MAC
thafi states their positions on prioritization of Part 150 Sound Insulation. (Please see
attached letters.)
Eagan is concemed that allocation of Part 150 money to multi-family will delay the
single-family insulation that will occur in their community with the new 2005 program.
Eagan suggests that the Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee decide this issue.
Bloomington is suggesting that some homes (off of 4/22) fihat were deferred in the 1996
program be cornpleted first and that all single-family and duplex homes be completed
prior to multi-family. Inver Grove Heights has suggested equal priority.
According to the preliminary maps for 2005 eligibiliiy, it appears that Mendota Heights
will not have any additional single-family or multi-family homes eligible with'in the new
contours. I would suggest that the Commission consider endorsing the existing
prioritization system that is in place for the 1996 program, with the provision that the
single-family insulation will continue un�bated from the 1996 program to the 2005
program.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Commission so desizes, they should provide direction to the Ciiy Council
and staff on Mendota Heights' position for prioritization of Part 150 Sound Insulation.
2. Ground Run up Enclosure — The MASAC Operations Committee, after much
contentious debate, voted to deny the MAC staff recommendation to build Option 2b for
the Ground Run Up Enclosure. (Please see April 14"' MASAC Operations Committee
minutes in the Acknowledgement Section of the Agenda.)
Option 2b was the construction of a west wall for the price of $1 million. Northwest
Airlines vehemently opposed this option, and any other option that included
improvements to the existing facility. Eagan voted with the industry side of the table at
MASAC Operations Committee and that is why the vote failed. At the re�ular MASAC
meeting, before any discussion could occur regarding this failed recommendation from
MASAC Operations Committee, Eagan moved to deny any improvements and Nort�iwest
Airlines seconded the motion. However, community representatives were strong enough
to outvote Eagan, NWA and the other industry representatives that were present.
Northwest Airlines is crying foul on parliamentary rules/procedures and all the other
communities were left wondering what is Eagan's reason for not siding with the other
communities. MAC staff had demonstrated that the noise wall constniction would
provide quantifiable relief to Bloomington, Richfield and Minneapolis.
At MASAC Operations Comrnittee, I had moved to spend $5 million to build a new
Ground Run-Up Enclosure, but could not get a second for my motion. I then supported
�_� % MAC staff's recommendation for Option 2b, to build a west wail. I don't understand
why Eagan and Northwest Airlines were so adamantly opposed to this item.
,.
4
i1%�TRO�fl�I'�'.�1`�1 A�O�.TS C�i'✓�.Y�SS��N
opl'�5 $'qI
?�'� t ~To
� t ��
� �
� z
� m � O
a � ' u�
p �
v
Q' q t � GOr<
h 4�RapRS�
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Niinneapolis, lYiN ��450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (61?) 726-�296
Mr. Kevin Batchelder
City Manager
City of Mendota Heights
110o Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 5�118
Dear Mr. Baicheider.
March 29, 2000
The Metropoiitan Airports Commission (MAC) is in the final stages of a Federal Aviatian
Regulations (FAR} Part 150 Study update for the Minneapolis Saint Paui Internationai Airport
(MSP). The general purpose of an FAR Pa�t 1�0 Study is to pravide rer.,nmmendations
concarning operationai proc�dures for nois� abatement strategies, land use determinations and
to develop consisient implementafion guidelines.
As parf o'F the 1991 MAC MSP Part 150 update proc�ss, the cammuniiies endors�d an
impfemeniation sirategy to sound insulate single family residential properties within the 1996 DNL
65 noise contour ficst and then conc�ntrate on mutti-family residentiat properties. MAC expecis to
complete sound insulation of the single-family residential homes wiihin the 1996 DNL 65 contour
by eariy 2402. �
�" � With the 1996 legisfative decision to kesp the airport at its current location, the N1AC and the
�,__. legislature agreed t� provide sound insulation out to fhe DNL 60 contour area. As a result of ihis
decision, we are now trying to gather sound insulation priority recommendations from affected
communities wiih respect to single family and mu(ti-family residenc�s wiihin the 1 Q96 DNL 65,
2005 DNL 65 and the 2005 DNL 60 con#ours.
In November of 1999, fhe City of Minneapotis passed Resolution 99R-406 (attached) that outlines
their specific griority recommendations. Their proposed priariiy is as follows:
1. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single famiiy and duplex homes that fali wiihin
the '1998 DNL 65 and greater DNL noisz contours;
2. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures wiihin the 1996 DNL
65 and greater noise contours;
3. Complete the sound insulation of efigible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DN� noise contours;
4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-famiJy residential siruciures within the 2005 DNL
65 and greater DNL noise contours;
5. Complete the sound insulaiion of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours; and
6. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family resider�tial structures within the 2005 DNL
60 to QNL 64 noisz cantours.
The MAC has since presanted the attached resolution and proposzd priority options to the
Meiropolitan Aircr-aft Sound Abatement Cauncil (MASAC) Operations_ Commit�ee for
consideration. The Operations Committee and MAC are specifically requesting the City of
Ntendota Heights to provide MAC wiih your city specific sound insul�tion priority
recommendaii�ns.
I have included a m�p of the area for consideration� within the City of Mendota Heights with a
preliminary 20Q5 noise contour. The final 2005 noise contflur will be developed from communiiy,
cansultant and �r1AC recommendations and available early this summer.
The L[ztropoliian Airports Commission is an afiirmative action employer. "
tivwcv.mspairport.com
P.zliecer.4ir.or:;: .ai3t�.� • A\OK�COL'\TY/BLA[NE • CP�'ST:�L • FLl'I\G CLOUD • LAKE ELV[O • S.�IV�' P.z�t CO��\-I"O�`i\
C
C
According to the MAC's geographic information system database, ihe City of Mendota Heights
does not have any muiti-iamily parcels wiihin the 2005 DNL 65 contour. Piease verify that this
information is correct. If there are muiti-famiiy structures within the 2005 DN� 65 contour, please
provide N1AC wiih the addresses of these parceis and property identification numbers.
Please consider the priority sequence that the City of Mendota Heights would like ta endorse with
respect to the 2005 DNL 60 contour and forwarcl any resolution or City Council aciian to MAC
staff no later than May 1, 2000.
If you have any questions conceming this request, please contaci me at 612-725-6326. Thank
you for your caoperat3on in expediting this request.
Sincerefy,
.� �L�� --_'_
Roy rmann •
Mana er, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
�
,05/.03/00,_ �VED 13.:_�4 Fa•i" 612 i.256310 ,
CITY OF EAGAN b516814612
May 2, 2AQ0
�. .
Roy Fulvmnann, M'sa�.g�c�r
A.VlitO]1 NOLSC B�Cj. �8?�ll.12eS Plagt�l.5
Me�opoIi�an. Airpvrts Commission
SU4U 28�' Av� South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
�- ■•�t_•e
.Enyironment and Noise
45/03 '00 14:23 NO.b69 02/02
. ._. .
Posi-it� Fax Note 7671 oates
To . . _ From •
CoJDept.
Phone n
Fax r /� _ f _.(
W
�
r.� � �
' �.•.UI�L.•�h
� �.. ,
;��������,,
,y� �I „
�. �: • .
� ,� .
_ ; ,�
, � ,i.
.. _ �., :�..�.
. PAUL 8AK1�N
S�A BLOM6NJb?
P:GGr A CRP_L_�JN '
� SANDRR A Ma9N
councl Msr.�f;
7HOMaS t-�DC-�S
etiy aci�r�cRcrcr
� F.1. vs�rv ov�B�KE
Ciry C�6rk
At its meering on Apak 18, 200f}, rhr F.��,a.n City Crnmcil. spproved a• posirion scatcmeat
regardirlg the iarlusion of xx��zzulti-family t�;i�eaiial stzt3.cte�es in the gri.ori.ti�axion of the Part I50
m�idsatial sounci i.nst�Iati�n prograni.
ihe Ci�ty of Ea�a.a r�comm�n.ds tbat in�ii�+idual wmmwvxies may allocat� Metxopolitan Aazpozts
Commission Part 150 seuud i.�sulation ftuzds �o in.sulate mulri �n.i.ly dweiiings as Iong as th.e
mvlte-fam�ly w�.ts are aot cflunted w�,ex�, agportioninb.rc�idezitial souud in.s�.iation S�ds to esch
comrazua.ity_ � . .
This allocation recor.t�.ra.endation may be au iss�ze thaz is more appropriately addressed ar. the Part
15ti Pclicy Advisory Committee. For ti� pu�rposes of rhe Parc 150 updat� cczn-�a.tiy being
conducted, the Ciiy Of F2gaa fa.vors pnariti2a�i.on otsin,g).e-fsnu7.y zesidential units i.a the sound
insulati.on prog�am to 60 I�NL ut�iess mul�i f�mily i.nsvlati.on c�.t�. be canducted t�ithotx� advezsely
impacung the ff�zzn.diag or timely participarion. of siz�.g��family homes. .
Sincsrely,
��%��/ _,
James D. Vezbiugg�
. Assist�nt City .Acimi.nistratnr '
Copy: ThoFn.as H.edges, City Ad.rn.inistratQr .
Steve Vece.hi„ M�po3ita�. Air�sorts Cams'tusston,
�
� ��,�uN�ar,at c�N�
383Q Ptt07 KI�08 ROa�?
EAGAN, tvsfNNESpTa :5122.1fl�•
CFlONE. �A51) G8T-�d7J
Fc�C:(6�1) 581-a412 '
TDD: CGG7) 4:�--&535 '
Ti-1E COI�:E O.�K TI?L-E
?HE SYM6�t OF STRFN�� �D Gi?OWTi-i 1(V QUR CQNiMUNITY
Equo1 Op;xNvn"rty EmptoYer
MR1N?P1VAIVC� fACMY
3E07 GOACHMaRt GQINT
EAc�1N. Nw�SOTq 55��
PHOrtE: t��) ��-�'�
r�: CCSI� �1-�rS�
T"JD:lbbl�[Sd e e
G
.� ) cifiy of
� bloomington, minnesofia
; ; 2215 West Oid Shakopee Road ■ Bloomington MN 55431-3096 ■(612) 948-8920 ■ FAX: 948-8949 • TDD: 948-8740
April 1 S, 2000
Roy Fuhrmann ,.
Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Comrnission
6040 28`'' Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann,
This letter responds to your March 291etter requesting the City of Bloomington's
recommendation on sound insulation priority.
Tfie Bloomington City Council recommends the following priority:
1. Complete the sound insulation of 75 uninsulated sin�le-familyhouses in Bloomington within
the 1996 DNL 65 noise contour (also referred to as the Deferred Area).
2. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes within the 2005 DNL 6�
and greater contour.
3. Complete insulation of single-family and duplex homes �vithin the 2005 DNL 60 contour for
runway 17-35 prior to opening of the 17-35 runway.
4. Complete insulation of multi-family homes within the 2005 DNL 60 and greater noise
contour. -
For any que
� c.iene W Instead
Mayor
cc: John Nelson
Larry Lee
dation, please contact Larry Lee at 952/948-8947.
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities Employer
April 13, 2000
c; ty o� ._
INVER �...�ROVE i�EiGNTS
MASAC Operations Committee
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear MASAC Committee M�mbers,
During our April 12u' inver Grove Heights Airport Noise Abatement Commission
(ANAC) meeting, the ANAC reviewed the agenda items for the Aprii 14`h and 25`h
meeting. They wanted the following comments to be considered regarding the following
items
a Departure Destination Gate Analysis & Ffight Track Alternatives — The ANAC
�thought that this analysis was a policy and management decision and may affect the
runway usage distribution of Finai EIS far the Dual Track legislation. The distribution
should not limit the realistic potential usage for the current and new runways,
especiaily the new reliever runway (Runway 17/35).
r � • Potential Sound Insulation Option Beyond DNL 6� — The ANAC briefly addressed
�- this issue in their February 11, 2000 letter to this committee. The ANAC mostly
agrees wi#h City of Minneapolis priorities. However, they felt that muiti-family
dwel(ings should get a higher priority, since mufti-family dwellings often are aiready
subjected to other types of noise and the cost per person to insulate these dweilings
is probably less. They suggested equal priority. !n addition, the ANAC suggested
that homes within the 64-60 DNL range and under the primary fiight paths should
have higher priority than homes within the 64-60 DNL range and along the primary
fiight paths.
• Review of Noise Mitigation Program and Technical Advisor's Report Revision —
The ANAC recognized the expense of preparing the Technical Advisor's Report.
Considering the effective Adobe Acrobat attachrnents to distribute the MHStiC ana
MASAC Operations Committee packets by Melissa Scovronski, the ANAC suggested
further utilization of the web and emaii to reduce the cost of copying and distributing
the report.
Sincerely, '
� �'�
1
Steve Hughes, Chairperson of Airport Noise Abatement Commission
8150 BARBARA AVENUE • INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077-3412
TE�EPHONE (651) 450-2500 • CITY OFFICE FAX (651) 450-2502 • POLICE FAX (651) 450-2543
\.a
C
;
_ _ . - _-:. ..�.._.. ::...... _ _...��. _ . I
• • . ,, , ,
� . . 1 r�. �',
�� '� l.11'
� "+,
r �
s � �'� ti=1
.+�.�
•-.�
- •�igencia
� SIMMOD Overview ^yy-��`�^-_
1 2005 No-Build Runway 17-35
Contour Analysis
� Runway 17 Departure Flight
Track Analysis
1 Noise Abatement Departure
Procedure (NADP) Analysis
'"""' 1 Recommendations
�� f-�
. � .
:�.
'•� , �„� � �ii.�a--
.,,�
S�MMOD Ov�'0'!/BeUv
6 SIMMOD is the FA,4's mode) fnr determining
airport capacity and delay
0 SIMMOD is a fast-time, event-step modei
that simulates the movement of individual
aircraft through airspace and airports
� SIMMOD was used to mode! operations on �
Runway 17-35 and quantify its impact on
the total capacity of MSP
� "+,
. �
�+
' a �"�s a r-1
V i ��
I��
i���
� ���
r� �� ���
�
1
F�unwray_ 17 7'ra�c�An�lysis
0 Dua! Track FEIS '
1 ROD for Dua) Track FEIS requires the
reconsideration of departure tracks for .
Runway 17
i Consider elimination of jets on west most
track
1 Consider FAA's abiliiy to use a smaller
dispersion fan than detailed in tfie FEI5 to
J,,�-..+� reduce population impacts
`� �
:+
�y ���r ��.�.�'T►_L�L-
- • 12unway 17 7'rack /�►nalysis
1 Departure Track Use A(ternatives
1 150° fan - 4 cases considered
1 60° fan - 5 cases considered
1 75� fan - 2 cases considered
;�,.+,..
=+ +�
,w � �,�, (�'■ � - I
•..,,
Runv�ray 1 i 'tr�ck Aeaa6ysis
1 Assumptions
t Propeller track use is the same for aii
altematives; only jet track use changes
1 New flight traci6 are used in some
aitematives to allow for divergence and a
track aligning the river was considered
�� ,.+,�
;��,� -"ea=
�
�
_
ffaurawraay 1? 7'racl�Analys6s
1 Assumptions
i Aircraft are assigned to flight tracks based
primarily upon destination "
1 Divergence requirements and interactions
with other aircraft, including arrivals on
Runway 30L and 30R; were considered in
determining potential.filighf track use
.�..
� t,
� ��+
4 �•s s�_
� ���.
I�urawray '17 Depariure
'frack Analyses
� iso� ran
i Eliminates jet use of FEIS irack G by shifting
this traffic onto other nearby flight tracks that
are just to the south of G, but still west of
runway centeriine
i Maintains the clasest flight track layout and
use to the Duai Track FEIS
w�.
+i t'�+
+ �
•` �..;�`� �,'r', e �-1
�tunv►ray 17 Depae-�ure
��°i�C�S �191:�0�59S
..._ ,,.. ._ ..,._ _...:._;::e..�_.-G.,�._ .... .
� 150° fan - Case D ._.,_...�_,�,>._�.,�.a..�_ ..
i Eliminate jet use of h-ack G; traffic shifted b�
track F, traffic an track B shifted to track I to
better simulate divergence requirements
except day river visuaf DP used to replace
traffic on Track G and F; day IFR traffic that
cannot use river DP assigned ta track F
,.,�
� f,
. �
� ��;�, � •. L 9 R -
�"'�'"�" ^ N O '�'2 G�t/�cIL b C1 �-/
c;� U Gc l� a- �,o � �rz 'C' �`�-�
,M� x v�s��.. l d���-��5 �`'�
6- � �-✓"" �'""� � � �'��--e. ,.re�, v cv-�wc�^-�3
.�� (S� .
C
C
12unwray 1? Departure I
Trac9c Analysis _
8 150° fan
t Populat9on impact as comparecf to the 2005
Unmitigated DNL Contour
I ONL 70 dBA contour = approxmately 220 people defeted
I ONl 65 dBA wntnur - approximately 140 people added
I DNL 60 dBA contaur - approximately 920 people deleted
t Total change - app[o�omately 1,000 people deleted
�
�'dunwi�y 1i Depariure
'Trac� /�na�lysis .
� 60° fan
1 FAA indicates that a minimum of 60° of
flight track divergence is needed to
maintain adequate runway capacity
i Concentrates traffic from far-east (track A)
artd far-west (tracks F and G) flight tracks
onto southerly tracks
( Five departure h-acks, dverging in i5°
incremenis from straight-out departure
� + � track, plus river DP
:� I���P I � � : "�' � l
I�une�a�r '� 7 Depar�ure
'i'rack �4aa�lysi�
.-. s_._,.:.....,.,.-:,:.:-�._..�_.�:
1 60° fan - Case D
1 Base 60° fan with 2 divergent iracks on either
side of straight-out departure, but with
FMS/IFR river departure used both day and
night - this reduces traffic on iracks D and E
1 Popula4on impact as compared to the 2005
Unmitigated DNL Contour
1 DNL 70 dBA contour - approximately 300 people deleted
I DNL 65 dBA contour - approwmately 290 peopie added
,+°'"" f�, l DNL 60 dBA mntnur - approximately 1,180 people deleted
`�. .�i I Total change - approximately 1,190 people deleted
�` �..;,�a'' '��7
� �- -�,,� �-�,,�,._�., ��..1�
1 `� �'S �' �" � V� (, S.�C u�. � {- ��,¢L k� o v�
. -�
��`-' '�-"`' 6� 1`� l tr� r �p � I.v�v w L� 2 i
-E-.�. �-�- � �'(�.e. �r- � t.cs ,n�.w--e� -k-� � L..
-}-� �`^�Y (,g ,r /1,��--5..� C G � S .
G, �. �� G..,,.,�.�e. -- ( �j � ,�-,,-- ,,,,..�.� �-.5
( e..s 4 ,r^.. c s..a.. 5 �(, o w� t� v� � k-�'
� tQ-=-S �' l t.�w.-E' �o �n.
C1�� o�-G t,�' `-(_ G�• Vv-Q- �V` �� e .
�5 �' ��. �� 5
C� �
N�rise /4�atement
Departure Procedures
� Original FAA Adviso Circular (AC) 91-
53 was adopted in 1�78 and identified
a single noise abatement departure
profile for all situation (effectively a �
distant procedure)�
1 AC 91-53A (revised 1992) - sets
criteria for safe NADPs to be used by
subsonic turbo-Jet�powered aircraft
J�,.,,+ over 75,000 pounds
'� �=�
g� d .i. .° �Tr � -3
.,.... t<'
i�oise �lbateenen#
- � Depariure Proceclures
.._ ._....� � y�,..__:__`� `". �w---.�.,r�_::.. _
B AC provides two NADPs to consider:
i Ciose-in NADP
1 Distant NADP
� Ciose-in NADP typically reduces noise
levels for areas tn the �mmediate
vicinity of runway end
t Distant NADP typicaily reduces noise
�,w.., levels for areas beyond 31R miles from
� +�start of takeof�
�� �.;��� .�
Noise A�atem�nt
Depa�ure Procedures
� C(ose-in versus Distant NADPs�
considered in 1996 study for parallel
runways at the DNL 65+ contours
1 Analysis of NADPs has improved since
1996:
I INM improvement� to takeoff profifes
1 Increased kriowledge of NADPs and ti�eir
impact on aircraft performance and noise
�*'� I ANOMS data to support analysis
'� �..;�^F �.'�'i' a�--
%
Ftunway 'i 7 D�parture
7'rac�C Analysis _ �
_._.._.. _.�.._.._..._..�.�..:..^,.�...�,�y
, ..... �.�w_. ��..�...�:.�-t.._�..
1 75° fan
1 Similar to 60° fan altematives, but adds 215°
track track 1� to relieve potential overuse of
track � in the 60° fan cases
i Population impact-as compared � the 2005
Unmitigated DNL Co�tour
1 ON� 70 dBA contour,- appro�mately 190 people deleted
t DN� 65 dBA contour - appro�omately 260 people added
�,,,,,,, I DNL 60 dBA contnur- appro�omately 420 people deleted
��� t'-�I Total change - approximately 450 people deleted
=+
s � � f� : ��r--1
s,d r
�...
Runvvay 17 Departure
- �'Track - Corrsiderations
_ _ - -, . �- �n �....�r.;M:.��-.:.; . -
� Population analysis indicates that a 60° fan �
witfi a visual river track impacts the least
amount of peopie within the DNL 60+ contour
0 60° fan concentrates tracks more so tt�an EI5
fan, however development of a visuai river
track wouid help to reduce concentration over
southem communities
B 150° fan with river visual departure (Case D)
reduces tfie popu�ation witf�in the 60+ contour
�,,,,«,,,,, to within appro�omately 190 people and does
,� *' not significantiy concentrate overflights for
=+ �`southem communibes �...�
'� , �„f
,,,,,,
Rur�dv�y '�'7 De�a�ure
'Track - Conseclerations
. . _ _ __.. ......,._,_..,._....�.,.��:..�,��,
1 Communities south of Runway•17-35 wiIIJ�� .
consider the detailed analysis and provide the
MASAC Operations Committee with a
recommendation between the 60° and 150�
fan altematives for the May 1, Z000 meeting.
�� ,.+,
. �y
=�
.� + �� - +, � +_
'��...
u
Noase Abatemen�
Departure Proc�s�res
� Common misconception that Close-in
NADP is better for all urban runways
1 Close-in NADP does increase altitude of
aircraft, but it a{so� reduces airspeed -
thereby increasing singie event noise
duration and exposure
;�,,,,.,. },
� .;'
:�
x ��
, + -�.�-
.,,,,
NoBse Aba�erv�ent
- � Departure Procedures
B NADP Contour and Population Analysis
i Runway 4
1 Runway 22
1 Runway 30� and 30R
j� ,. },�
� �
�+
s`•�..;�^� �.s.l�
�OIS1� ��c'i$GiYi�19'�
Depae�ure Procedures
1 Runway 4 . _,u � �.._ ... _.__._._....
1 Unmitigated contour uses the Distant NAGP tor
Runway 4
1 Population changes when adopting Ciose-In NADP
over Distant NADP:
i DC9Q SEl 40 dBA wntours - up to 5,030 peop�e added
i DNL 7CJ dBA contour - na change
I DNL 65 dBA contour - no change
i DNL 60 dBA contour - no change
r�,,,.-•� }� i Total change - none
+� (�
'" ...;C'y� _ i ■ M�
•
C
Ploise Aba#erv�ent
taeparture Proced.ures
I Runway 4 - Conctusion~ ' ~��...~^.y�.�l.
i Close-in NADP does not change ti�e
population within tt�e DNL contour
! Close-in NADP does inaease population
exposure to single aircraft events
t� �.+h
+ �:
�� � ��, C�: r�
.,,,,,
�065e �ba$@17'9�.'11$
- � Departure Proceciures
B Runway 22 , �.��....._...__�...__��_._..
i Unmitigated contour uses the Distant NADP for
Runway ?2
i Population changes when adopting Ciose-In NADP
over D�s#ant NADP:
I DC9Q SEL 9D dBA contours - up to 2,870 people added
1 DNL 70 dBA contour - no change
I DNl 65 d8A contour - no d�ange
I DNL 60 dBA contour - no change
,,K«�. ,, I Total change - none
r�1. +e
4r �
s + Ts' ��.LYJLLJ
��n.. C
�OISG' d�B���ei'Y1Pt'1$
Dep�rtaare Procedue�es
� Runway 22 - Conc(usionT.~..y� ..'�~_,_.._........
i Close-in NADP does not d�ange the
population within the DNL contour
t Ciose-in NADP does increase population
exposure to single aircraft events
�� „+,�
t �
=+
.`•'...;,�� �r, ��
Noise Abatera�ent
Depa�ure Proceei�rres
0 Runway 30L and 30R y.�._��.L�.+.,,..�M�.y�__..
1 Unmitigated contour uses the Ciose-in NADP for
Runways 30! and 30R
1 Population changes when adopting Distant NADP over
Close-In NADP: - •
i DC9q SEL 40 dBA mntours - up to 5,290 people subhacted
1 DNL 70 dBA contour - approximately 950 people added
I DNL 65 dBa contour-appro�timately 200 people added
I ONl 60 dBA corttour - approwmately 10,460 people
ja,,•�•ty SUbtraGted
r� � i Total change - approximately 9,800 people subtracted
°� I��J,,�r � - �
�
Pi015� %�071s�te99'iL'!'1'�
- • Depariure Procedures
H Runway 30L and 30R - Conclusion ��
1 Distant NAPD reduces the overall
population within the DNL 60+ dBA contour
(reducbon of 9,800 people)
1 C(ose-in NADP reduces noise to the most
severely impacted communities, within the
DNL 65+ dBA (addition of 660 people)
i Communities must determine priority in
.�""'"+�
noise mitigation
� � f�..: l
�' �:.;��
����
IS�co�rarn�n�8a�ia�nsl�Aotion
� Maintain Distant NADP for Runway 422
0 Adopt Distant NADP for Runways 30L and
30R
�.,.
.� t-..
. �
� �,� � „��, �,s s—T—�
•,.b.
10
C'
C
_ C
C
C
C
Nfay 'i IV6�etircg �1g�reda
6 Fieet Ma Aiternatives �
A Preferred departure tracks for Iow
, demand periads � �
/ RUS combined wiih Runway 17 departure
track analysis
1 Land Use Atternatives- �
�,.
�. f�
� �
:+
,,i�� o
.,,,,
�..
- �- - _ ..,,-�_�...�_.�.:___._�._.__ i
Good bye
O
Q
11
/�1�, (�-� � ��' ��S'
`�
���e � � �N � r�
MASAC Operations Meeting
l�1SP Par� 150 Update Study
l.and Use Measures
May 1, 2000
r.� + Y �� ,�
� �e;��:
Agenda
�......_ ....:,.,.:.:...___.,-.,:.-�_,,,3.,....._.
1 Disposition of Current Part 150 Land Use
Measures
e Changes in FAA Part 150 Land Use Policy
since the Previous MSP Part 150 Update
in 1992
1 Recommended Part 150 Update Land
, Use Measures
,� ,,,, t..=
} �o,�o.� G:! ► i.��--
Current Part �150 Land Use Measures
Background
.. ....._,... __..__ ,..,.,._,::>,:,,,..::�:,:.,-_.
_..._.:.:,, ..� .�� �,:.,_,....
1 Existing Noise Compatibility Program (NCP)
consists oF
i Fourteen (14) Noise Abatement Measures '
I Eight (8) Land Use Measures '
I Noise Exposure Nap (NEM) affected: '
I Bloomington
i Ea9an
I hiendota Heiqhrs
I htinneaFolis ,
t�e t�"; I Richrield
o+ .a��° � ��
�
Current Part 't50 Land Use Measures
8ackground
_ . _ ._._.
9 Eight (3) l.and Use Measures may be further
defined as P�eventive or Corrective
i Preventive measures are designed to restrick new
development not compatible �vith aircrait noise (5
measures)
i Co�rective measures are intended to alleviate
and/or eliminate incompatible land uses in existing
deveioped areas (3 measures)
�,
Current Part 150 Land Use Measures
Background
_ .. ........ ... � , .....__.......;_..�...�
I Preventive Measures (LU-1 through LU �5) �M^��
i LU-1 Amend Local Land Use Pians To Bring Them
Into Conforznance With Metropolitan Council's Noise
Compatibility Guidelines
' i LU-2 Zone For Compatible Development
, i LU-3 Appiy Zoning Performance Standards
� i LU-4 Establish A Public Information Program
1 LU-5 Revise Building Code
�, o,.}`.
r"� •
_� , �:
. +a-�,; C�'r � =1
Current Part 150 Land Use Measures
Bac6cground
_ . ....... .............__..._._:.._
A Corrective Measures (LU-6 through LU-8)
i LU- 6 Acquire Developed Property In Incompatible
Use
1 LU-7 Property Purchase Guarantee
l LU-8 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
i Acoustical treatments for:
• Residential Pro�rty
4�+,��+ . • Schools
.�;. • O[he� Public 3uildings
+o„�`'�°' �
f-i2S 1..� � w�.�. �....� cs �- f L-�-S e c...-2«^�
7 ..
cic. �v c,. �� y �..� v—e -' � A��
V
7
_
Current Parincampatiblee Measures
Implementation Status
...... ....
i �U-1 Amend Local Land Use Plans To Bring
Them Into Conrormance �Vith Metropolitan
Councii's Noise Compatibility Guidelines
1 In 1994, Land Planning Ac was amended to require
all communities update their comprehensive pians
at least every LO years
i� II Metropolitan System Guide chapters were updated
Cecember, 1996
• Under SCatuCe, upcaced Ic�i plans were required to be �
5ubmittzd for Ccuncl rewe•.v oy December, 1998
;�o��.} .
v+ r„� ��' �f 1�
Current Part 150 Land Use Measares
Implementation Staius
�..., �. �. : .. _._.. .._�.. �.,. .��-..-,:� _—
_ . _ :_ ____ ,...�......,_., �
. . .. -
.�.._�::...•T,...,�:.,�.�-:-.-:._.._._._..,_:...:: -.
LU-1 Amend Locai Land Use Pians,
continued j
• Communities affected under MSP Noise
Policy Area:
- Bloomington -Mendora HaghCs
- 8urnsvil�e -Minneapolis
- Eagan -RiChtield
- Edina -S[. Paul
- Inver Grove -Sunfish t�ke
j,w=��.,, Height5 -WestSCPauI �
i.� { � - Lilydale
=+ � - Mendota
ro �°" ��
Q
, Current Part 150 L.and Use Measures
' Implementation Status
Status of Comprehensive Plan Update for each, as of
August 30, 1999:
- Blcomington TIME EXTENSION -Mendota Heights TIME DCfENSION
- 6urn5viile COMPLEfE -Minneapolis INCOMPLETE
- Eagan TIME EXTENSION -Richfizid COMPLETE
- Edina 1TME EXl'ENSION -St. Paui INGOMPLEfE
- Inver Grove HeighCs COMPIETE -Sunfish Lake COMPLElE
- Lilytlale COMPIETE -Wes[ St Paul COMPLEfE
- htenooca TIME EXTENSION
_ .1,,=
. v��f�" Us.��
1
J
Current S�art 150 Land Use Measures
Impiementation Status
1 LU-2 Zone For Compatible De�ielopment
i Under the updated Ntetropolitan Land Planning
Act, commurnry zoning must be consistent with
the land us2 designation esta6lished in the
community's comprehensive plan
I Communibes in the fioise Policy Area have ro re-
evaluate the adequacy and effec[iveness oF land use
designations and zoning ordinances
Ap ie5 pnmaniy to undevelo�ed or major
� r�zve'opmen[ procercies in cagan, Mendota Heights,
Inver Gmve Heights and Bloommg[on
• PotenUally impacts Ri[hfield depentlent upon the scope
t�'� Of fE'd2'121opment plans
S� .
_: }a�oY
�
Current Part 150 Land Use Measures
Implementation Status
�� :�.->,��....,.....�v�.... ,
1 LU-3 Apply Zoning Performance Standards
1 Metropolitan Area Aircraft Noise Attenuation Act
i Establish aircraft overlay zoning for communides
I Ailows municipaiides to adop[ codes and ordinances to
regulate buiiding me[hods and materials to attenuate
aircreft noise in residential structures
• Allows Ccmmunities m adop[ 5[riaer buiidiog code5
• Coes no[ appty ro remoeeling, rehabilitaong, or
adCitions ro exisung Cuildings
� Model Ordinance adopted by Mendota Heights ��
FWa and Sunfish Lake
=�1 '�, • Other communiGes indipte existing controLs are
_'!; y i; suita6le
' � ro�°�� �
Current Part 150 Land Use Measures
Implementation Status
�.....,._._.�,.....,�._�,_..�..w_ _ __�.,.:_ :. _
1. LU-4 Establish A Public Information
Program
1 Measure proposes to develop and distribute
informatiom m�cerning aircraft noise and Noise
Compatibility Program elements
I Metropolitan Council prepared. a Builder"s Guide in
1989 to Provide iand deveiopment professionals with
iniormatlon [o assist in implementing compatibility
guidelines ,
� • The Guioe has �zzn used by szveral mmmunipzs ' '���.......
, • Mec C�unal is in the prass of updacing [he Guide ��,
,',, � � u. � � 4 `. d
t"1� '
, �;
' +�,��= ��
��-4-- � 4-, �-W I�t �c,
�i"'�Et..�S
(, SGC/
�
C
� � � � (i -�l, lG7 -(^C. r"�'C— �
� � .
�
�
C�rrent Part 150 Land Use Measures
Implementation Status
_._ _....
f LU-5 Revise Buiiding Codes
1 Supports the effor �o modity the state and local
6widing Codes to require specined interior noise
level reduction for construction in the aircreft
noise zones at MSP.
�
Current Part 150 Land Use Measures
tmpiementation Status
_....:_�..:.-...::•..._,-r_.:...._.. ___._.,.: ..
A LU- 6 Acquire Developed Property In
Incompatible Use
i At the initiative o� the jurisdiction in which the '
incompakible land us2s lie, the MAC would
acquire property developed in incompatible use
1 clear the property and either.
• keep the iand vacan[ as a 6uffer
• szll it tor redevelopmen[ in a specified mmpadble use
� or usz it for airport purposes.
�
Current Part 150 �and Use Measures
implementation Status
. _...._.........._..._. ._...__._:.......
I LU-7 Property Purchase Guarantee ,
i Implemented after the property owner has ,
made a bona fide eifort to seii the property at I
fair market value
I Acquired properry would be:
• convettr� co ccmpanGie use or
• insulat� ano rzmrne.7 to usz co residzntiai usz with
approCnB[E _052m2nC5.
�
�
Current Part 150 Land Use Measures
implementation Status
1 LU-$ Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
i Aileviate the impact of aircraft noise by
providing indoor env�ronments where normai
activities can be enjoyed without interruption
i Program Funds the soundproofing of exisdng private
homes, schoois and/or pubiic use facilitles
� Current prcc,ram will be compieted before
commenang with a new program based on the Part
150 Update
0
Changes in FAA Land Use Policy
Introduction
_...�:�:,..,. .�-...._...,_.i._.:.._w._.._ ...::..::....
H Since the previous MSP Part 150 Update,
two (2) major land use policy changes have
been identified
I MAC/Community Commitment to apply
mitigation measures below the DNL 65 dBA level
i FAA wili not approve remedial noise mitigation
measures for new incompatible development
that occurs in the vicinity of airports
0
Changes in FAA Land Use Policy
Part 150 Mitigation Measures below the 65 DNL
. . �__.,,.�..:_� .�. _.u___�.. ._.
1 Three (3) Criteria must he met for the FAA to
consider mit�gation below DNL 65 dBA
I Airport Oczrator adoptr a NCP designadon of
incompatibiliry differen[ from the tahle in FAR Part 150
(local land usz deviation described in Table i oF the
regula6ons)
I The i�EM contours and NEM/NCP narrative identlfy the
areas under DNL '05 d6A as incompatible and propose
mitigaeicn
i The miti9ation proposai meets the FAR Part 150 standard
to reduce or prevent incompatible land uses
�
C
/I �`a + 'e lC � C �� �,r `30u�Y �'
//
� v..5� l«�-�'tovT a,-- 6�1.-e.. r-
'� �a. r �" (�O �i �.."�. S
o,v � �,b �, �.s-� � � .�,v� �s
6
Changes in FAA Land Use Policy
New Incompatible Land Use
_.� .......... ....
1 Prior to October 1, 1998, new incompatibie
land uses AND existing incompatible land
uses could be included in a Part 150 NCP
i Corrective mitigation measures could be appiied
to both existing and Future incompatible parcels
i Usually either property acquisition or sound
insulation was mitigation method chosen
,�a y� ��
.,,;��.
Changes in FAA Land Use Policy
New incompatibie Land Use
1 After October 1, 1998, the�FAA�wiii ONLY approve
measures under Part 150 that:
i are corrective mitlgation fo� EXISRNG incompabble
development, or
t are prevendve mitigadon in areas of POTENTIAL NEW
incompabble deveiopmenc
I Potendal new inmmpadble land uses muid indude
• Are�s cunently undergoing residentiai or ocher
incompatible construcnon
� • Areas zoned for residentiai or ather (ncampatibie use
���. where cartstruction has not begun; a�d
'�. • Areas currently compadble but in dangcr af 6eing
'�, �„re� develaped i�xompanbly within the dmc freme aovered
.., � }'', by the aupa�s NCP
0'1' �
�l n,�°�. GT�
Changes in FAl� Land Use Policy
New Incompatible Land Use
_.... ..._.....� .. .. .. �.._.__--:.:._,,,,,:..:::.-,.•-_=�.,-...�:r:�,,,,,,,-s_.,:.,: •...,
1 New policy is not retroactive -~existing Part 150
approvals are not aifected
i Purpose of distinguishing between existing and
potential neev incompatible development
i airport owners wiil have to restrict their mitigation
packages
i Corrzcrve �te;sur�s must aNy faus on existing
incompanble use5• CORRECRVE MEASURES fOR NEW
MCOMPATtBt.c D'cVELOPMEiVT'PIILL NOT BE
APPROV.D/FUNOcD BY FAA
I PrevenCive hteasures mus[ �ccus on potenUal new
iocompaUble developmen[
''�'°q7o' � _ �'' �' 3 �
.o��°.
7
Changes in FAA Land Use Policy
New Incompatible Land Use
__........, ..
1 Airport operators must provide adequate
justi�cation in the Part 150 submittal for
exceptions to these policy guidelines
i Exampie: Minor deveiopment on vacant iots in
existing residential neighborhood
I Not extensive new incompatible development
• How will the infill iots be considered?
�+�.,,�.
r �
= � te�e i: ��'L3
Changes in FAA Land Use Policy
Impiications of policy changes for MSP Part 150 Update
.:..:.,_ : .-:,y..,-�..._.<...... �_____..,..
9 For FAA consideration of incompatible
land uses out to the DNL 60 dBA
i Met Councii and the affected communities
adopt language in their comprehensive plans
and land use controls which define residenkiai
land use as incompadble within the DNL 60
dBA
I FAA wiil not approve corrective mitigation
measures for new incompatible development
which occurs after approval of the NCP.
' .�"°"' �.,, • Fundin4 issues may arise if communitles choose to
r�. : mainta�n incompatihle development pa[tems
at , �
` te�°'. '�..�T9'L�
�
Changes in F,AA Land Use Policy
Imptications of policy changes for MSP Part 150 Update
. . . ...�.:..:..:�_._.,,.._:.:.-..:.... � � _:...._...:.:...
i Major mixed-use or other redevelopment
pro�ects with a residentiai component which
may occur within the approved NCP may nok be
eligible For corrective mitigation because it
wouid be new incompatible development
1 Previousiy excluded preventive measures should
be reconsidered in this Part 150 Update,
• based on the desire to consider incompaable
tlavZopmen[ out Co the CNL 60 dBA
� � F.4A esc3blished guidzlinPs for such Patt 150 approval
diccace Chac ore�ientive measures be examind in more
de �ii
}��o� � � � ♦ 7 e
1 •o�°.
C�
O
Recommended Land Use Measures
for the Part 'f 50 Update
1 Based on the local objectives�and FAA land
use policy changes, a fourteen (14) point
land use mitigation program is
recommended
i Continuation of existing eight (8) point program
with some modificatlons as noted
i Addition of six (6 measures - four (4)
preventive, one (�l) preventive/corredive and
one (i) corrective measure
; -}` ., , +.� i r =
.e�,b�••
Recommended Land Use Measures
for the Part '150 Update
1 LU-1 Amend Locai Land Use� Pians To
Bring Them Into Conformance With
Metro�olitan Council's Noise Compatibility
Guidelines (Preventive)
i Met Councii should adopt language which designates the
DNL 60 d8A as the land use planning siandard for ali
corrective and/or preventive measures
I Preventive measures are recommended for indusion
• Bztter oppottunity (w FAA approval of N� and potenUal
funtling
i Affzc[ed communities should then adopt the DNL 60 dBA as
[he noise compatibility standard in their respecUve
:+`"' . comprehensive p�ans
_� j ,�
. +e�°'� �s�J..l.'�L--
Recommended Land Use iVfeasures
for the Part 150 Update
.., ,. . ....... _......
_.._ ._...........�....,..---..._�,:,.,. .
1 LU-2 Zone For Compatible Developrnent
(Preventive)
1 Based on changes brought about through the
comprehensive planning process in LU-1, local
commurnties should adopt zornng classifications
and ordinanczs tivhich prevent future incompatible
Iand use
I Utiii<e Model Ordinance (or Aircraft Noise Attenuation
I Airport Noise Overiay Zoning measures
` �'_ �
.,��°.
9
Recammended Land Use Measures
for the Part 150 Update
_ :.. . ........ . . . ............._.:_...... .
1 LU-3 Appl Zoning Performance Standards
(PrevenCive�
1 Revisit Modei Ordinance for Aircraft Noise Attenuadon for
effectiveness in light of new FAA land use poiicies
I Update language as nec�sary
i LU-4 Establish A Public Information
Program (Preventive)
i Continue program and make use of state-of-the-
ar[ technology and o[her muitimedia resources
S�o„4,� ��
o �,i
Recommended Land Use Measures
for the Part 150 Update
�... <_ :�,....� .,. �-.H. �..._._.._,_.,.,:: :.: ..
1 LU-5 Revise Building Code
(Preventive)
I Support efforts for revision oP local and state
bwiding codes as needed, to ensure interior
noise reduction based on advanced buiiding
kechnique
B LU-6 Acquire Developed Pro erty I�
Incompatible Use (Corrective�
,,.�_��� i. 1 Continue program in coordinadon with other
;� : mitigation measures
:+ . �;
� �o;�;^� G•,°�t
Recommended Land Use Measures
for the Part 150 Update
_ .._.... . _ _._ __.,__.. _ .
1 LU-7 Property Purchase Guarantee
(Corrective)
1 Continue program in coordination with
other mitigation measures
I LU-8 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
(Correckive}
i Continue pro�ram in coordination with
other mitigation measures
,,. •l'+,�. ,�, � � t 9
,,��,,',, . a L�"�
C
C
10
Recomrnended Land Use Measures
for the Part 150 Update
. ...._ . _..,.. ... ...._._.__._._...._..
1 LU-9 Dedication of Avigation
Easements (Both)
i P'reventive and Corrective Interpretations
i Preventive: require the dedication oF
avigation easements as a condition for
obtaining buiiding permits for incompatibie
development in noise impacted areas
I Corrective: purchase avigation easement
outright from existing incompatibie properties
FUV7'B
Recommended Land Use Measures
for the Part 150 Update
1 LU-10 Fair PropertylDisclosure Policy
(Preventive)
i Incorporates aircraft noise information in
sales documents for existing and new
residential development.
i Requires the disclosure of aircraFt noise
levels by property owners and their
agents.
0
Recommended Land Use PVfeasures
for the Pa�-E �f50 Update
_ ...._,. . ._ �.,,...,.,,,:..,.,.�.:.::,.e-__:-.��:::.,--.�,u..r,:. ..
_...��:.._�..,,...,.,-��.��.__�_�_..,,.:.�.,..::<.:
� LU-il Land Banking (Preventive)
i Involves the fee-simple purchase of
privately-owned, vacant land by a local
Public agency to prevent non-compatibie
and use development
i hold such properly for later public use not
necessarily related to aviation but compatible
with NCP guidelines.
0
1(�� �� c��d�,�.s �u �,
�-'7 t� �..z c. ��..� �.H.�,�?u IC�.-5
�2�.�c�.c,
1S at/�• �I'G l C.Jti� Z�C �' �.d �M(j,.L .�-yG..'�qH CM.vs T
��r
� �,� ��.� � r-- sF�y �-�.
�'�""` �5 c�7�—S .
11
Fleet Mix Alternatives
.
.. .......... , _....__......__.......
t Coordination with primary carrier still
underway to determine viable hush-
kit/night time operational reductions
t Coordination is impo�tant to ensure that the
recommended program reflects achievable
reductions to hushkit or night-time
operations
i Analysis will inciude different levels of
compliance with the voluntary program
�4 ��. }..
. roTe i: . �a�1�1.7=7
c
Fleet Mix Alternatives
____:-,�.��.�,,,..:-�_�;��:�:.� -�::.:��..-,:
1 For benchmarking purposes and in response to
community scoping comments, DNL contours
were developed considering:
1 No hush-kit aircraft in 2005
1 No hush-kit aircraft during the night time
hours (10 pm to 7 am) in 2005
I Substitutions include:
• DC4 hushkits replaced by A320s
• 8727 hushkits replaced by 8757s
S� a '; • 8737 hushkiLS replaced by newer B737s
=* 'e • DC3 hushkiLs replaced by re-engined DC9s
. +e�°.• �►_L7—�
F'leet Mix Alternatives
.. .. ... . :. :...._......___.. _..
1 No hush-kit aircraft in 2005
A Population impact as compared to the i
2005 Unmitigated DNL Contour
I DNL 70 d8A contour - approximately 2,040 peopie deleted '
I DNL 65 dBA contour - approximately 7,150 people deleted ,
1 DNL 60 d9A contour - approximately 22,570 people
deleted
I Total chanqe - approximately 31,810 peopie deleted from
6D' DNL cenrour
� a � �� ���
•„�°.
C�
i
C�
C
�leet M ix Aiternatives
___..� ..,_...,_,._�:._._�_...,....
1 No hush-kit aircraft during the night time
hours (10 pm to 7 am) in 2005
1 Population impact as compared to the
2005 Unmitigated DNL Contour
i DNL 70 d8A conrour - appro�amately 1,430 people deleted
i ONL 65 dBA con[our • approximateiy 3,550 peopie deleted
i DtvL 60 deA contour - appro�mately 16,410 people
dele[ed
I Total change - approximately 21,390 people deleted from
•���� �� �'s 60� DNL conrour
i.� :
�t • i;
. p�}.o�. I��
t
Fleet Mix Afternatives
- _.......__•�..��._:,.�.��,.�........�,_::_:..
1 Fleet Mix alternatives will uitimately
consider incentives/disbenefits for
complying or not complying to the
proposed voluntary program
6 Actual Fleet Mix alternatives wiii not be
part of the recommended program for
the public meetings in May
e � a, �.� �
.o,���'
Low-Demand Flight Tracks
1 Goal
I Determine flight track priorities and
procedu�es for use by ATC that minimize
impacted population, for.use in low-
demand periods (typicaily at night)
..'�. +�'� �
o'�,.
�
n
J
Low-Derr�and Flight Tracks
� Methodology
i Determine flight tracks, by runway end,
that impact the fewest people
i DC9 hushkit 90 dBA SEL contours used
for this analysis
1 Flight track priorities cannot severely
detour aircraPt from their destination
�,..a,,,�; i e.g:, a northbound departure cannot be
;� , assigned to a south6ound flight track
e� �=
p: �^' �
Lowr-Demand Flight Tracks
. __ . .....__�.�:W..:..�.:; s�.; �:-.,,:.�:-�
� Additional Considerations
i These recommendations are intended to
give ATC guidance on selection of
appropriate flight tracks during low-
demand periods that will impact the
fewest peopie
I There wili be deviations from these
recommended fiight tracks due to safety,
aircraft performance, pilot compliance,
�`"°"'t•. weather, and traffic conFlicts
#� �,,� G•ITti=�
Low-Demand �light Tracks
! Runway 4
I Use of Runway 4 by departures will be
minimal in 2005
i Flight tracks that over-fly the river basin
impact the fewest people
o �, o, y � �'; .�
.,,;��.
�
Low-Demand Flight Trac�Cs
.. �...�,..�. .. ...._...___..�_�:....._
9 Runway 4
i Recommendation
I When practical, ATC wili assign headings that
roughly over-Fl� the river basin (approximately
355° CrueJ353 magnetic)
I Precise navigation of this route is not possibie
, without external navigation to aid the pilot;
therefore, develop and implement a Departure
' Procedure (DP) that overFlies the river basin
for use by non-heavy and high-performance
�°"'t•.: aircraft
:
e+ �''
. +. �,'• � ►_L1=
Low-Demand Flight Tracks
_,..._.._,_. -_��._-:�,.�r_.-�..�� �,:�,��.,,..,
d Runway 22 . _..., . .._W_r, "'-_.,_,.-,,.., ._
i Use of Runway 22 by departures will be
minimai in 2005
1 Heavy, international flights that require
' greater takeofF distance are the most
frequent users of Runway 22
� ,�„ k,^
� E
e} '1r
'" ,.e'�4 �
Law-Demand Flight Tracks
_ .. . ,::...
_.__ ......... ......�.�::::-::,::��,,:.......
1 Runway 22
l Recommendation
i Develop and impiement two DPs:
i West DP - flight track over the I-494 Highway
Corridor, for use by west-bound and north-
bound traffic
I 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
;� r' �
e �^.
w
5
Low-Demand Flight Tracks
H Runway 12L and 12R
1 Use of the existing Crossing in the
Corridor Procedure impacts the fewest
number of people
I Departures from 12L use the 118° heading
(runway heading)
I Departures from 12R use the 10S° heading
l i1NTB
Low-Demand Flight Tracks
1 Runway 12L and 12R
i Recommendation
Continue use of the Crossing in the CoRidor
Procedure
I Investigate use of Future Technology
(GPS/FMS) to optimize fli4ht track location ,
and fu�ther mirnmize the impacted population
�s� C a v�-S l �- •'' � �it.. �'p,,." ,r� ,
t �^- �u � +�
� � 1�� 5 s {�� � � � � ��- %�� ` (-�
` �
1�,� �c��,�.5
Low-Dernand Flight Trac6cs
o Runway 30L and 30R
i Due to the population density in this area,
designation of specific, preferred flight
tracks does not provide substantial benefit
I Designation of specific flight tracks for use
during low-demand periods would
concentrate flights on select tracks, and
would disproportionately impact the same
. �+,,, ,�,,.
people
� :
;+ , �
+,,;�°' , , , � l
� �T"G �e.s n `¢- 1 ��e
� . �� Koi'_
�zs c�y� �-e�r. a - {z� —
/t.� Gz S ScL..'�./
1
�..�,. �- c 2 C..� � 2. �� s d�,��-�E-v �
�s—�o�r'�-�y c�rrcu�.� (��o�'",�'
c S 3� --
i�
�
Low-Demand Flight Tracks
,...,.. _: ,._.__..__..__._......
A Runway 30L arid 30R
I Recommendation
I Continue the existing procedure of
dispersing departure traific away from the
runway centeriine flight track, to avoid
concentrating both arrival and departure
traffic on the same flight track
i Investigate a DP that overiies Trunk
Highway 62
�,,,},� G�� ■�
.e��:
Low-Demand Flight Tracks
_ ..�_ .. _..._.V,,..._:_, __.w,�..n.. �,,,�.�.- �--:�s.�..��;.:...�_,.._ . .
� Runway 17
t River DP impacts the fewest people, but
this route may not be viable in the short-
term
1 The existing flight tracks that mosEly
avoid Bloomington and Eagan impact the
fewest people, and will be available when
Runway 17 opens
}�,,.�,� _�. �.J
.a ;��•'
Low Demand �light Tracks
..._._.�y.,...., .r__.�__.....
B Runway 17
t Recommendations
I Disperse departure tra�c away.from cenCeriine
Flight track, to avoid concentrating arrival and
departure traffic
• East-bound departures - use Track A(heading 095°)
• South-bound departures - use Track e(heading 160°)
• West-bound departures - use Track 0(heading 185°)
I Investigate use of River DP for use by west-
�°"'�•., bound departures
e :
:+ . � �
+e�,. "T '
7
Low Demand Flight Trac6cs
..... _.�...,,....
._.
.,.�._..,.....u_.:.w_.__._........_._�.. .
1 Summary
! The development of some of the departure
procedures wili require the use FMS/GPS '
technology
i Coordination with FAA wili be required to
determine feasibility and implementation
i New technology analysis currently undervvay
will consider integration of these
technologies at MSP for inclusion within the
''�����+'•• Part 150 recommendations
�:� :
_+ . �: �-�—��
. 4e�o. 1a�.1�1.iJ
I�US Analysis 1.)pdate
H Runway 17 Departure Track analysis has�
slowed the work to combine the RUS with
the preferred track alternative
I Coordination with ATC continues to find
the best track layout that maintains
runway capacity needs and reduces
impacted population
! \/-�'$ �- G�-r-e-
� �� (�, f - -i"c �
� /�d (- �r e � �.u��C,.��e � v� c��. w�rr-,c�,(
�i.�•C�? •
� M M� i,-{- C,t. v1.,a. � v--z., �--- ,�3 •
I��T"� a� �.�. �� Y
i-r--,�_r �' �'°`� (�
W/ ✓l.c t�7,..t.. Gt.`�R--\`-L`-^4.t....T-/f Ufi1 u�cc- F
C�S.%G' .
Co t..�.t "" ��-w�
a. -�y s �.,�,, �( � �- � �
�
��� ��
� �z,� �«.-1
T-�� �S � �os �(�
�-� ,
�
PpL15 SqI
�P -f �'t
?� t 9L
� �
�
3 Z
1 y t, o
9 j t N
O N
U Y
O( � sr
"'' GO
9� 41RPORty
�' :� ,, � ,,' ' . . ' � � , ;r , � '� �; �
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
lY1EDIA ADVISORY
Contact:
Amy Von Walter
612-726-8172
Roy Fuhrmann
612-725-6326
MAC WILL HOLD PUBLIC OPEN HOUSES ON
NISP AIRPORT'S PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGR.AM
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is in the process of updating the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport's (MSP) noise exposure map and noise
compatibility program under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150. Two public
workshops for the Part 150 update were held in late September and early December. This
meeting is the third in a series of three public workshops. The update study began in April
�1999 and is eYpected to be concluded in the late summer to early fall of 2000.
The Part 150 siudy is a process for airport operators to identify potential noise
impacts and mitigation measures to address those impacts. MAC's Part 150 program
provides sound insulation for homes and schools and includes other efforts to mitigate noise
such as operational procedures and land use planning. Under the current Part 150 program,
the MA.0 has provided sound insulation to 5,345 homes at a total cost of $127.6 million
since 1992.
The MAC and community representatives have been. eonsidering various noise
abatement and land use measures to potentially minimize future noise impacts for
communities sunounding MSP. The public meeting will be conducted in a workshop
format. The recommended noise compatibility program will be presented and include the
followin� information:
�Vhat:
Who
'4Vhen:
Recommended 2005 Day Night Level (DNL) Contours
Proposed Noise abatement �neasccres for tlze recommended Part ISO Update
Proposed Land ccse measccres for the recotn�nended Part 1 SO Update
`Vorkshop open houses for the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150
study updaie.
For community residents interested in the Part 150 update process and
recommended noise compatibility programs.
�:00-8:00 p.m., May 22-25, 2000.
Where: �Ionday, lY1ay 22
Pearl Park Community Center
414 East Diamond Lake Road
Nlinneapolis, IVIN 55419
For Residents Living East of Portland Avenue
(more)
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmaHve acHon employer.
www.mspairport.com
Reliever Airports: AIRL�.KE • ANOKA COUNIY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO � SAINT PAUL DObVNTOWN
r
C
�.
C
�
C
TO:
FROM:
SIIBJEC�[':
D1�TE:
,, � �- ,; . .
MASAC
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Sound Insulation Packages Beyond 65 DNL
April 17, 2000
At the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting, Mr. Steve Vecchi, MAC Part 150 Mana�er, will provide
information on sound insulation beyond the DNL 65 contour. Mr. Vecchi will brief pertinent FAA issues
and Part 150 Program acoustical modifications that may be considered as part of our current Part 150
Study Update.
At the April 25, 2000 meeting, Mr. Vecchi will brief MASAC on some of the following issues:
• The most effective acoustical aspects of the current program are windows and
doors that will help achieve a S decibel reduction.
-• Window and door STC ratings necessary to achieve a 5 decibel reduction.
• Indoor air quality testing.
• Any required IAQ insulation and ventilation modifications.
These topics are areas of concern for FAA and depending on MAC's approach and recommendations, are
areas that FAA may find reasons for rejecting portions of our Part 150 Update.
These above topics will be discussed in more detail at the April 2�, 2000 MASAC meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6326.
C�
<�
� [ -
- , s� �. ''` `
'I'O: MASAC
F+'R�IVI: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
SUBJECT: Part 150 Update Review of Progress and Associated Items
Dt�TE: Aprii 17, 2000
Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs)
. . :_
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 of the close-in departure procedure for runways 30L and 30R and the distant
procedure for runways 12L, 12R, 04 and 22.
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.
The bene�ts associated with the close-in procedure is greatest when used by stage 2 aircraft. At the time of
the evaluation, MSP aircraft operations included approximately 51% stage 2 aircraft operations and only
49�10 manufactured stage 3 aircraft operations. As the national aircraft fleet transitions to an all
manufactured stage 3 fleet, the benefits of the close-in departure profile also diminishes.
At the April 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting, HNTB presented an impact analysis of the 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 MASAC
Operations Committee and Runway 17/35 City meetings. Based on the previous analysis, noise for the
communities was minimized by using the distant departure profile. As a result, at the April 14, 2000
meetin� the NTASAC Operations Committee it was moved and aparoved that the distant orocedure
be implemented for deaartures off runwavs 30L, 30R, 04 and 22.
A complete review of the NADP impact analysis will be presented at the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting
based on impacts within the 2005 DI�iL 60 noise contour. Since the MAC and communities are seeking
FAA approval for sound insulation of homes and mitigation measures within the forecasted DNL 60 noise
contour, the impact analysis was based on these noise levels as well.
Runway Use System (RUS)
At the March 24, 2000, special MASAC Operations Committee meeting, proposed modifications to the \
existing Runway Use System (RUS) to include Runway 17/35 were presented. Upon significant review by
the membership a motion was made and approved. The Oaerations Committee accepted the consuitants
(HNTB) findin�s that the best runwav use system alternative is the one that uses the EIS
assumations (2005 Unmitigated Contour). It was further dec9ded that if in the course of further
studv the consultants (HNTBI are able to derive noise imaact reductions from an alternative RUS
scheme that thev bring that inFormation forward for further discussion.
The process of runway use selection is basically a function of air tra�c volume and wind conditions,
which limit options to significantly change runway use - even with the new runway. Capacity requirements
drive runway use during daytime hours; RUS alternatives are viable only during low-demand hours and
when weather conditions allow. Detailed weather, capacity and demand analyses were completed and the
results were used to formulate several RUS alternatives.
An outline of the topics and associated issues to be presented at the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting
follows:
• Overview of existing RUS.
• Review and discussion of the weather, capacity, and demand analyses,
including the limitations of RUS implementation and use.
� Presentation of RUS alternatives, including:
• Potential runway use combinations and priority
• DNL contours
• Population counts <
�
• Discussion of the consultants (HNTB) recornmendation and the MASAC
Operations Committee's determination.
A complete review of the RUS information and the MASAC Operations Committee's determination will
be presented at the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting.
Preview of May 1, 2000 Special MASAC Operations Committee Meeting and Associated Information
At the April 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting it was determined that a special meeting of
the MASAC Operations Committee would be conducted on May 1, 2000. The purpose of the meeting is to
cover the following:
• F1eet mix alternatives
• Nighttime flight vack analysis
• Metropolitan Council Land Use Policy review
• Land use alternatives
At the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting a brief preview will be provided by HNTB on these upcoming Part
150 Update topics.
If you have any ques[ions, please contact me at 612-725-6326
D:�nasac�4•35-t)(nrr�asac_apr00. fm
�O:
F120M:
SU�JEC'I':
�DE�TE:
MAS'A C
ML�sf�C
MASAC
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Final Ground Run-Up Enclosure Feasibility Report
April 17, 2000 �
The process of investigating modifications to, or enhancement of, the Ground Run-up Pad (GRP) at
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) began in 1998 with the 1998 MSP Ground Noise Study.
Simultaneously, in 1998 extensions were added to the south and east walls of the GRF'. The blast deflector
extensions were added at the request of some of the heaviest users of the pad in an effort to accommodate
the number 2 engine on aircraft such as the DC 10 (according to MAC records DC 10 run-ups occurred 275
times in 1998 and 337 times in 1999). As a result of the 1998 MSP Ground Noise Study, in 1999 MASAC
members directed MAC staff to investigate possible alternatives relative to enhancing the noise attenuating
characteristics of the GRP located at MSP.
MAC staff began the process of investigating possible GRP alternatives by interviewing airlines that
conduct maintenance run-ups within the GRP. The airlines interviewed included Northwest Airlines,
Mesaba and Sun Country. As a result of those interviews it was determined that there was a strong desire
on behalf af the operators to have the ability to run-up in the pad in all wind conditions and loosen the
nighttime hours to allow run-ups between 2230-0000 and 0500-0600. In addition the MASAC Operations
Committee endorsed a preliminary MSP run-up pad monitoring study to establish a baseline for the
purpose of evaluating a new Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE). As a result, in April 1999 MAC staff
conducted the noise monitoring. Two ofF airport site were selected and one adjacent to the GRP. The
monitoring was conducted for two days in the early morning hours. Consistent with MASAC's wishes and
with input from the heaviest users of the GRP, MAC commissioned a Ground Run-Up Feasibility Study to
investigate the possibility of developing a GRE at MSP for the purpose of reducing ground noise resulting
from aircraft enaine run-ups at MSP.
As part of the Ground Run-Up Feasibility Study, additional airline interviews were conducted and status/
input meetings were held with airlines operating at MSP throughout the feasibility study timeframe.
Through coordination with Northwest Airlines, a DC9-50 was used for the monitoring conducted as part of
the Ground Run-Up Feasibility Study.
The MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the Draft Ground Run-Up Feasibility Study in 1999 and
received input from airlines. Following an economic feasibility assessment, Northwest Airlines determined
that they could not endorse the expenditure needed to suppnrt any of the proposals outlined in the Draft
Ground Run-Up Feasibility Study, and committed to being able to operate within the existing MSP Run-up
Field Rule parameters.
At the April 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting members reviewed the final Ground Run-
Up Feasibility Report. After significant review and a vote, the NIASAC Oaerations Committee moved �
that the Reaort be forwarded to MASAC with a recommendation of denial relative to anv Ground
Run-up Pad (GRP) modifications and Ground Run-ua Enclosure (GRE1 oations as contained in the
Report•
The enclosed pie chart and table distributes the run-ups conducted during January l, 1999, through
December 31, 1999 according to the identified timeframes. A total of 2037 run-ups occurred during 1999.
Since 225 of these operations spanned more than one time period, they were counted as multiple
operations and placed into both time categories. This addition equals a total of 2270 operations for analysis
purposes of which, 1951 (86%) occurred during the regular daytime hours (0600-2230) and 319 (14°Io)
occurred during the nighttime/shoulder hours (2230-0600) as identified in the MSP Run-up Field Rule.
A Ground-Run-up Pad Enhancement Feasibility Report matrix is enclosed that lists each alternative, cost,
monitoring location and the noise level that would be expected at each of the locations if a DC-9
Hushkitted aircraft were to be run-up at full power. The enclosed tables show these comparisons.
Please keep in mind that the noise levels included in the table are the expected decibel rise over either the
day or nighttime ambient noise levels at each location. These values aze A-weighted decibels and aze NOT
a DNL expected value.
All communities, except for Richfield, recorded daytime ambient levels that are within 1.9 dB of the
maximum full thrust run-up noise levels for a DC-9-30 series hushkitted aircraft. During the nighttime
period, only Richfield and Bloomington recorded noise levels greater than 4.2 dB above the nighttime
ambient levels. The human ear is often described as being unable to distinguish noise level changes less �
than 3 dB. �
The following table compares four of the eight scenarios contained within the Final consultant report for a
Ground Run-up Pad Enhancement.
SCBI24il'ZO Costs Noise Reduction
2b. West Walls • $1 M or 6 dB reduction in Richfield, Bloomington
$50,035 Existing Conditions in Minneapolis, St. Paui,
per dB Mendota Heights or Eagan
2d. West Wall & Noise Panels 52.5 M or 8 dB ceduction in Richfield, 6 dB reduction in Bloomington
$82,781 Reduce to ambient levels in Eagan & Mendota Heights
per dB Existing conditions in Minneapotis & St. Paul
4. Build GRE �5 M or Noise reduction in all communities to ambient
$113,378 levels except Bloomington
per dB
$8 M or Noise reduction in ail communities to ambient levels
3. Convert GRP $156.862
per dB except Bloomington
Based `on the above analysis, scenario 2b. provides a halving of the noise in both Richfield and
Bloomington and is the most cost effective noise reduction option. The addition ofnoise panels in Scenario
2d to this option provides an additional 2 dB of noise reduction for fhe residents in Richfield. This
incremental reduction may not be noticeable. ,
/,
\
D: UttawcHl-? 5-(H)�ma.tiac_apr00.fm
The construction of a new Ground-Run-up facility or the conversion of the existing pad doubles and triples
i the cost of noise reduction per decibel. Most communities would be able to reduce the noise level to
ambient levels during both day and nighttime periods except for the city of Bloomington. The noise level
reduction in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mendota Heights and Eagan may or may not be noticeable given the
existing monitored run-up levels. Richfield would receive approximately a 12 to 15 dB noise level
reduction.
At the April 2S, 2000 MASAC meeting the findings of the final Ground Run-Up Enclosure Feasibility
Report will be presented.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326.
D:�masacW-35-Ot�masac apr00.tm
C
�-
zz� - s�
o.��
10:30P16y - l2�
2.2 % �
101'IdI - I0:30�'16�
5.6% �
_ r� � r. � � :;� , �-�.
. : �
.
�
-��-- -Ww
��C w:Y
�� U�'Ti. .•
Y�? Hi
Time Period Count % Average Count per Day _
12AM—SAM 12 O.�r 0.0
SAM — 6AM 257 11.3i 0.7
6� _ �� 306 13.5i 0.9
7AM — 7PM 1146 50.5i 3.2
7PM— lOPM. 3'71 16.3�i 1.0
l OPM —10:30PM 128 5.6ni 0.4
10:30P1V1-12AM 50 22i 0.1
Total 2270 100.{�i, 6.4
niote: Of 2037 totai operations for 9999, 225 operaSons spanned mo�e than one trme period and were
counted as muldple operabons. The actual average count pe� day equals 5.6 tofal operations.
O
'i
�
C
a�
U
�
a
�
R
�
O
w
t0
t�
0
J
�
.sZ
�
�
>
a�
•J
�
�
a�
-ci
�
�t
p+-� mmmmmmm
r.+ ._ "p 'Q 'a 'C7 'Q 'a 'O
�Z t����C�6?C�
'� a0 a0 CV CV CV M o0
O
O
m '
00 '�p'�p�1C�f�m-mp
� ���� �
�� cs,rn000c�� o
e— r �'—
fli Y
c
�
+� fS1�m " `' �
,,,� -a 'p -p �1 m �] m �
� � M th M 'L7 'a 'a 'i3 �
�+Z �T�oaoo �?
w .n
� �
� �
� v
�' mWm�lmmm �
� �-���-�-�� o
N � O O Q O Q O O � j
�
�
�
vi ` ; > a�
�� 'mmm . t/�
.c 'vv-a�00�tno0 0
_ ._ ;_ �n ua u� -a -a � -a �
,� Z c*i cYi c�. o 0 0 0
o -
�
_
m
� ���mmmm
� �a��
c°� '.n`a•'r'•0000
a� r- �-- �
tA
� � � � � � � �
ol000�.n�noo �
V����cveoui o
N sn � c� c�r c�r � �
� �
y
�
+-' W
G�i c> m �
� � � — C � �
cCf � c � � �- W �
4 �.�-�� �N,�� i�
0 0 �, �, + � � �
t�n � cU � o� c— �
o<t�zNUm Q
. cu � ci -o
r— N N N N M�!' �L>
�
C
O
:�
�
0
�
�
` ,' � �" '1 `• :
�ASE�C
'TO: MASAC
F120M: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor
SU�JECT: Technical Advisor's Report Revision Moved to 4th Quarter 2000
D1�Z'E: April 17, 2000
Due to the significant involvement of MASAC in the Part 150 Update process and staff's commitment to
the timely comptetion of the Part 150 Update, the Technical Advisor's Report Review has beer� moved to
4th quarter 2000. MASAC's uninterivpted involvement in the Part 150 Update is critical to the timely
completion. of the update. To ensure adequate time is spent on both the Part 150 Update and the Technical
Advisor's Report Review, it is imperative that the two initiatives be separated to allow for proper time
commitment on behalf of the Council. As a result, the MASAC Operations Committee and MAC staff
concurred and advise that all Technical Advisor's Report Review agenda�items should be moved to fourth
quarter 2000. The Technical Advisor's Report Review process and all associated briefings will begin at the
October 24, 2000 MASAC meeting.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6328.
� � � t :
�
,
�. �•�
c; ty of
II�IVER �iRC�VE EIC.�HTS
Mr. Charles Nichols, MAC Chairperson
c/o MAC Secretary
6040 28`h Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Mr. Charles Mertensotto, MASAC Chairperson
c/o MASAC Secretary
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Nichols and Mr. Mertensotto:
Please find enclosed for your attention a City Council Resolution Requesting the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council to Use the Final
Environmental Impact Statement Assumptions to Establish the Percentage of Runway Use for
the New North/South Runway 17/35, as adopted on March 27. 2000.
The City understands the Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and its subcommittees
have had several discussions recently to limit air traffic on the new runway, which is expected to be
finished in eariy 2003, through usage controls and takeoff/landing corridors. The City Council of Inver
Grove Heights is cancerned about these discussions to limit air traffic on the new runway 17/35 since
aircraft traffic and its associated uses create noise, air, and other types pollution.
The City requests that the assumptions of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FElS) for the
�� Runway 17135 usage be utilized when the runway is finished. Examination of the Dual Track Legislation
�__. and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Airport indicates that the FEIS has already quantified the runway usage levels based on the most efficient
distribution of air traffic for the expanded airport. Specifically, the new runway would handle
approximately 26% of the airport's overall annual traffic, approximately 36 % of the airport's departures,
and approximately 16 % of airport's arrivals The runway usaae distribution of the FEIS is a primary
assumption for the proposed mitigation measures for the airport expansion impacts. The flight paths and
number of flights directly affects the amounts of these poliution sources and constitute a major mitigation
measure of FEIS. Consequently. the City Council is concerned that some discussions debate the FEIS
assumptions.
� �
The City of Inver Grove Heights requests the inciusion of this resolution in future discussions and
decisions regarding the usage of the new northlsouth runway 17/35. We appreciate your consideration of
this issue. Please contact me. if either of you have any questions.
Sincerely,
� �� _
eph Atkins, Mayor of Inver Grove Heights
Enclosure
C. Tom Pugh, State House of Representative
Robert Milbert. State House of Representative
James Metzen, State Senator
City Council of Inver Grove Neights
Airport Noise Abatement Commission
8150 BARBARA AVENUE • INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077-3412
TELEPHONE (651) 450-2500 � CIIY OFFICE FAX (651) 450-2502 � POLICE FAX (651) 450-2543
C
C�
��
CIT�' �� I�YER �ROVE �-I�EIG�ITS
AAKOTA COUNTY, iVIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION� NO. 2000-025
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE lY1ETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION AND METROPOLITAN AIRPORT SOUND ABATEMENT
COiJNCIL TO USE 'Y'gIE FINAL ENIVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ASSUMPTIONS TO ESTABI.�ISH TI�E PERCENTAGE OF RUNW�,Y USE
FOR THE NEW NORTH/SOUTH RUNWr�.Y 17/35.
WHEREAS, State legislature required the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement for the expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport on April 12,
1996 (Section 473.614, Subd. 2a);
WHEREAS, Metropolitan Airports Commission undertook seven years of
planning studies to develop a comprehensive pian for. the airport and subsequently
prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the resulting plan in May 1998;
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Statement determined the most
efficient distribution of air tra�c on the existing runways and the single proposed
north/south runway (17/35);
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental lmpact Statement assumed the new
runway would handle approximately 36 % of the departures and approximately 16 % of
the arrivals;
Resolution No. 2000-025
Page 2
WHEREAS, the _ Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan
Airport Sound Abatement Council are discussing the issue and considering
options ta limit this a.ir traffic distribution, such as the phasing in the air traffic
use of the new runway and establishing flight path corridors;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS hereby requests the Metropolitan Airports Commission
and Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council to follow the assumptions
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement when establishing the percentage
of air traffic for the new nox-th/south runway 17/35 or any other runway use
policies affect7ng thi.s percentage:
Passed this 27T� day of MARGH �;2000.
AYES: 5
NAYS: �
Jos tkins, Mayor �
ATT ST:
Catherine Iago, Depu lerk
2
I��I'l�l'�PC�LI'I'.�T �C�OI�TS CC�I�l�SSIOI�
�,,t,s Sq,ti Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
? t � 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55�50-2799
� �z Phone (612J 726-5100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
,� o
n � * m
O y
9
O
�� t � G�^
9h 4IRP�pt�
Office of Executive Director
Mr. Joseph Atkins
Mayor
City of Inver Grove Heights
8150 Barbara Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077-3412
Dear Mayor Atkins:
Thank yo� for your letter of April 3, 2000 expressing the City Council's concems
regarding the new north/south runway, Runway 17/35. We appreciate receiving
your comments and the opportunity to respond to your concerns as to the
potential impact on your community.
I have forwarded a copy of Resolution No. 2000-025 to Roy Fuhrmann, Manager
of Environment, to insure that the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
considers this information in future deliberations concerning Runway 17/35
useage.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding this
issue in the future. -
Sincerely,
�`.�� 4-��.
�-
Charles Nichols, Sr.
Chairman �
c: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager - Environment
HAMIEL: Inver Grove Heights letter re rwy.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AiRL.�KE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD � LAKE ELMO • SAINT PRUL D0�'1NT04VN
April 13, 2000
Citv of
J
INVER �ROVE �EIGNTS
MASAC Operations Committee
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear MASAC Committee Members,
During our April 12"' Inver Grove Heights Airport Noise Abatement Commission
(ANAC) meeting, the ANAC reviewed the agenda items for the April 14`h and 25`h
meeting. They wanted the following comments to be considered regarding the following
items:
• Depa�ture Destination Gate Analysis & Flight Track Alternatives — The ANAC
thought that this analysis was a policy and management decision and may affect the
runway usage distribution of Final EIS for the Dual Track legislation. The distribution
should not limit the realistic potential usage for the current and new runways,
especialiy the new reliever runway (Runway 17I35).
• Potentiai Sound Insulation Option Beyond DNL 65 — The ANAC briefly addressed
this issue in their February 11, 2000 letter to this committee. The ANAC mostly
�' � agrees with City of Minneapolis priorities. However, they felt that muiti-family
`- dwellings should get a higher priority, since muiti-family dwellings often are already
subjected to other types of noise and the cost per person to insulate these dwellings
is probably less. They suggested equal priority. In addition, the ANAC suggested
that homes within the 64-60 DNL range and under the primary flight paths shouid
have higher priority than homes within the 64-60 DNL range and along the primary
flight paths.
• Review of Noise Mitigation Program and Technical Advisor's Report Revision —
The ANAC recognized the expense of preparing the Technical Advisor's Report.
Considering the effective Adobe Acrobat attachments to distribute the MHSHC and
MASAC Operations Committee packets by Melissa Scovronski, the ANAC suggested
further utilization of the web and email to reduce the cost of copying and distributing
the report.
Sincerely, '
� 1 .�
� �.
�
Steve Hughes, Chairperson of Airport Noise Abatement Commission
8150 BARBARA AVENUE • INVER GROVE NEIGHTS, MN 55077-3412
TELEPHONE (651) 450-2500 • CITI' OFFICE FAX (651) 450-2502 � POLICE FAX (651) 450-2543
C
C
9 city of
� bloomington, minnesota
l
2215 West Old Shakopee Road ■ Bloomington MN 55431-3096 •(612) 948-8930 ■ FAX: 948-8949 ■ TDD: 948-8740
Apri17, 2000
Mr. Roy Fuhrrnann, Manager
Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, NIN 5�450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann:
Thank you for your appearance Monday before the City Council to present the initial elements of
the 2005 Part 150 update. You did an excellent job of summarizing information the City Council
needs to review and comment on the Part 150 proposals.
This letter is to confirm the City of Bloomin�ton's preference for including the Distant Departure
procedure in the Part 150 submission for runway 17/35. Analysis of the "Distant" procedure as
� � presented to us, indicates that under the Distant procedure fewer Bloomington residents are
��.__ impacted by airport noise.
In keeping �.vith our mutual objective to minimize the noise impacts of Runway 17/35 on
residents around the airport, the City urges MAC to reexamine the departure procedures
associated tivith flight tracks E and F, and to eliminate flight track G as an option. It appears that
by briefly delaying turns off the runway, aircraft flights can be directed over unpopulated river
bottom areas, significantly reducin� noise impacts and the total costs of noise mitigation for
MAC and the FAA.
If you have any further questions, please contact Larry Lee, Community Development Director
at (952) 943,8�47.
Sincerel , �
,, /,/.l.r ��
�ene Winstead
Mayor
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities Employer
C � ,
C�
,. �PQOLIS S4�^,T
� Y 4
? t 9G
�' f
�/ � m O
pt � t N
O y
� �
O � t � GQ�
9N41RPORSy
` � , R , ♦. • � �i� � , .� ' , ;, ' ': ; , .
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. MN 5�4�0-?799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
April 12, 2000
Mr. Neil Clark
5917 Grass Lake Terrace
Minneapolis, MN 55419 ...
Dear Mr. Clark:
I am responding to your request dated March 29, 2000. I understand your inquisitive approach to the
accuracy of the noise contours and the subsequent accurate representation of noise impact distribution on
the b ound. In prior conversations, we have discussed how Integrated Noise Model (INM) flight tracks are
developed throu�h the use of ANOMS flight track data as acquired from the FAA via the ASR9 radar at
MSP. Your resultant request regarding the accuracy of the FAA's ASR9 radar at MSP was forwarded to
Cindy Greene, FAA Minneapolis Air Tr�c Support Manager. Mrs. Greene requested input from George
Ina aham, FAA Minneapolis Facility Manager relative to the ASR9 radar accuracy. Enclosed is Mr.
Ingraham's response, I hope you �nd this information helpful.
Thank you for your thought and inquiry.
; _. �
� � Sincerel � ,
__ � -
Chad eqve
OMS Coordinator.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affi.rmative action employer.
w ww.mspairport.com
Retiever Airports: �IRL�F.'E • ANOKA COUMY/BLAI�IE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • L�KE ELMO • SAL1'T P.4UL CO�M;\TOWiv
;.:� r, , � . � `
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federai Aviation
Adrninistrvtion -
Subject: Information: Minneapolis ASR-9 Accuracy Date: April 11, 2000
From: Gregory M. Ingraham.
Minneapolis Faciliiy Manager, DMS SMO
To: Cindy Greene
Minneapolis Air Traffic Support Manager
Reply
To:
As specified in the Federai Aviation Technica( Instruction Manual (TI 6310.24), the Minneapolis Airpo�t
Surveillance Radar (MSP A5R) provides a range accuracy of 1/32 Nautica( Miles and the azimuth
accuracy is within .088 degrees. If you have any further questions on this matter, piease contact Cu�t
Wynkoop at (612)713-4113. .
/� ` . �
�
Gregory M. Ingraham
. .. �' �. ��, , . � /�, � � � � ,
I
� � • •
, . � '11�i
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND TFIOROUGHLY AS
POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORIVIAL RESOLUTIONS.
Date: 3 Z � O4
Name: �(/ p.r`I G a-►'i
Address: R) � G rass L ak� I�r,
/1�( i ti h e� p olrr �i� �(
����
Phone: !�l , �'6 f'' S6t�-
Is this a one-time request? es r No
On whose behalf are you requesting?:
Yourself y c s
City Council
Mayor
Citizen
Organization /�,C �'�,ucap v li,r
Other
Beginning
If no, what is the expected time frame for this request?
to
Ending
Which of the followirig best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply)
. �
Ground Noise Overflights �. Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other
PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR
FORMAL RESOLUTIONS.
� � ) - over -
II►/ i M-• � • ;� • • � � � � �' ; ; � '1 1' �
.. Q���S 54/
�P 1- 1'T
4
�� t 9G
.,. ... � a � Z
� o
�t t
a A N
O y
C
O'' �:
'F � G�
9~ 4iRPORSy
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
April 12, 2000
Mr. Lance Staricha
3895 Newtown Court
Eagan, MN 55123 � .
Dear Mr. Staricha:
I am responding to your request received on March 21, 2000. Your request focused on information
associated with the Skyline Court area in Eagan. Specifically, you requested Skyline Court overflight
information from 1999 and an approximation of aircraft overflight impact resulting in a 65 dB noise event
at that location. Additionally, you requested a determination of whether or not the Skyline Court area
experiences noise impact from aircraft overflights which would be equivalent to areas within the 65 DNL
contour. Thirdly you requested information relative to the future increase or decrease of overflight impact
at.the Skyline Court area:
I have enclosed information which I hope you will find helpful in answering your questions. Below is a
summary of the information provided.
• An overflight impact comparison of an existing Remote Monitoring Tower
����� � (RMT 3) which had a monthly aircraft DNL value of 65.4 dBA in February
- 2000 to the Skyline Court area.
r �
Average Point of Closet Approach (PCA) slant range distance from runway
12R departure overflights to the Skyline Court area and the average PCA slant
range distance to RMT 16 from any runway 12R departure operation which
generated a noise event at that site, as well as a separate average PCA slant
range distance for runway 12R departure operations which generated noise
events between 65 and 66 dBA at RMT site 16.
The above information provides insight rela[ive to the current overflight impact received by the Skyline
Court area relative to known areas of impact around the airpor[. When assessing the overflight impact of
Skyline Court in February 2000 relative to RMT 13 which had a monthly aircraft DNL value of 65.4 dBA,
it is evident that the degree of overflight impact is substantiaily less at Skyline Court as compared to RMT
13. In addition the average PCA slant distance from runway 12R departure operation to Skyline Court is
77.4% greater than the PCA slant range distance from RMT 16 to runway 12R departure operations which
generated a noise event at site 16; and 6.3% greater than runway 12R departure operations which generated
a noise event between 6� - 66 dBA at site 16. The overall findings are such that the Skyline Court area
currendy receives less over flight impact than areas known to be experiencing 65 DNL aircraft noise
The Metropolitan Airports Comm�ssion is an affinnaHve acrion employer.
www.mspairport.com
Relie�•er Airports: AIRLAIG= • ANOK.4 COUi�TY/BLAL�IE • CRYSTr1t � FLYING CLOUD • LAICE ELMO � SAIlVT PALTL DObVNCOWN
impacts. In addition, aircraft departure operations are on average outside the range at which noise events �
are generated relative to information from known RMT locations.
It is anticipated that the level of impact received by the Skyline Court area will remain similaz to present
impac[s and eventually decrease due to newer aircraft introductions and MSP runway configurations. With
continued use of the Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor, and FAA's commitment to maintaining
corridor edge compliance, the Skyline Court area will continue to receive minimal direct MSP jet
overflights.
If I can be of further assistance please contact me at 612-725-6328.
Sincerel ,
�/
�.-.--------
, ad E. ve
ANOMS Coordinator,
Metropolitan Airports Commission
page 2
C �;
Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
��S S.t�ti
r �� � �
S
C
=+ °
� +.;
��, ;
.� y � �o
k��� 'wTv
February 2000 Runway 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations Average Slant
- Range Distance to Skyline Court
Slani
� Distance (ft)
4684
' )
Aprii 12, 2000 1 of 1
�J4�1 SA�M1J
Cf� ` •
Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs� � R�e
9 '�'n
� i
4n
.. . ,'���i��.ONf� ���
February 2000 Runway 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations Average Slant
Range Distance to RMi 16 for Operations Which Generated a Noise Event at That
Site
� -�- Slant
Distance (ft)
2641
C
Aprii 12, 2000 � 1 of 1
t
i j
. •]VS 5��1,
�i '�' k e
' x
Aviation Noise and Sateiliie Programs �+ ��
0
}
-�, '
n'y,rni.�N(G
��
February 2000 Runway 12R Carrier Jet Departure Average Siant Distance for
Aircraft Noise Events at RMT 16 with Lmax Between 65 dBA and 66 dBA
� slant
� Distance (ft)
4405
*NOTE: Oniy 6 of the 2911 aircraft generated Lmax levels
were between fi5 - 66 dBA at RMT 16.
April 12, 2000 1 ofi 1
� - , ,` ; ;, c:, � � � .' �' = . •
� _, . '
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GENER.A.L MEETING
March 28, 2000
7:30 p.m.
6040 28`h Avenue S.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
l. Call to Order, Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 7:30 p.m. The followin� members
were in attendance:
Mary Loeffelholz
Jennifer Sayre
Brian Simonson
Brian Bates
T.J. Horsaaer
Bob Johnson
Petrona Lee
John Nelson
Jamie Verbrugje
Lance Staricha
Jill Smith
Kevin Batchelder
Charles Mertensotto
Rue Shibata
Neil Clark
Dean Lindberg
Sandra Colvin Roy
Mike Cramer
Cynthia Putz-Yang
Pam Dmytrenko
Kristal Stokes
Roy Fuhrmann
Stephen Wolfe
Advisors
Cindy Greene
Chad Leqve
Mike Pedro
Jason Giesen
Shane VanderVoort
Mark Kill
Visitors
� � Jeff Hamiel
Northwest Airlines
Northwest Airlines
DHL Airways
Airborne
Sun Country Airlines
MBAA
Bloomington
Bloomin�ton
Eagan .
Eagan
Mendota Heights.
Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Sunfish Lake
Richfield
Richfield
MAC
St. Louis Park
FAA
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, responding to the Commission's reaffirmation of the comdor as an
effective noise abatement tool, asked Mr. Hamiel if the Commission had confirmed the future
distribution of aircraft off each runway. Mr. Hamiel said the Commission has not "confirmed"
the distribution but that the Commission expects that the new north/south runway will handle (
approximately 25°/a of the tra�c at MSP and that a redistribution of aircraft overfli�hts will occur
once the runway is operational, according to the FEIS.
Ms. Smith also asked what the expected growth in air tra�c will be over the next several years.
Mr. Hamiel said it is estimated that by the year 2020 there will be approximately 640,000
annually at MSP.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if the $410 million for noise abatement prob ams .in the airline
lease included funds for low frequency noise mitigation. Mr. Hamiel said it did not, but there is a
contingency element in the lease, which allows some flexibility in making changes to the budjet.
However, both the MAC and the airlines must agree to these changes.
Mr. Verbrugge also asked whether ACI-NA was involved in the legislation that increased the
funding for the aviation trust fund. Mr. Hamiel said ACI-NA aggressively lobbied for the
increase, but was disappointed with the level of PFC funding that was authorized. He said the
increase in funds expected at MSP is already committed as part of the 2�10 plan but with some
flexibility for other projects in the future. He explained that, as part of the aviation trust fund
legislation, larger airports, in exchange for the ability to charge higher PFC's, will be giving back
up to 75% of the AIP funds they are eligible for. Those funds, in turn, will be allotted to smaller
airports that depend completely on AIP funding for improvements.
Chairman Mertensotto commented that he is concerned with the pace of home insulation, even
with the increase in funding. He encouraged Mr. Hamiel to continue to work toward accelerating
the pace at. which homes are insulated. Mr. Hamiel commented that the problem with �
accelerating the program does not necessarily lie with the funding or with MAC but with the
availability of contractors for the program. He said the economy also has an impact on how many
contractors are willing to participate in the program.
Chairman Mertensotto asked how Mr. Hamiel felt about the State of Minnesota finaneially
supporting noise programs at MSP. Mr. Hamiel said, at this point, the Minnesota Legislature is
not sympathetic towards supporting noise mitigation programs at the airport. Tax Increment
Financing districts were a(so discussed. �
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Mr. Hamiel how he felt about capturing sales taxes from sales
at the airport to be used for noise mitigation programs at the airport. Mr. Hamiel said the MAC
supports the use of sates tax revenues, but that it is ultimately the State's money. He said MAC is
in support of the bill that is currently making its way through the Legislature, but does not believe
it will be successful. -
Rue Shibata, Inver Grove Hei�hts, expressed his concerns with the use of the corridor and how it
impacts residents in Inver Grove Hei�hts. Mr. Hamiel said he sympathizes with Mr. Shibata's
position and understands that there are people who are impacted as a result of the decision to
develop the corridor, but that he continues to believe that the corridor is an effeetive noise
abatement measure for MSP.
Dean Lindberj, Minneapolis, shared his concern with the plans for a reduced noise insulation
package for residents living within the 65 to 60 DNL contour and asked if the MAC and the MSP
Noise MitiQation Committee had discussed this type of plan. Mr. Hamiel said a reduced package �
was discussed and considered during the process. He said he believes a reduced package beyond
the 65 DNL level is fair and equitable.
5. Nominations for Second Vice Chair
Chairman Mertensotto nominated Jennifer Sayre, NWA, for Second Vice Chair.
There were no other nominations.
BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND JAMIE VERSRUGGE, EAGAN, SECONDED,
TO APPOINT JENNIFER SAYRE, NWA, AS MASAC'S SECOND VICE CHAIR. THE
VOTE WAS UNAIVIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED.
6. Part 150 Update Briefins Topics
Kim Hujhes, HNTB, briefed the Council on the status of the Part 150 Update.
Past Studies
e Information on the past MSP Part 150 mitigation measures, whether they were approved or
disapproved, and whether they have been carried forward for consideration in the latest
update is included in the January 25, 2000 MSP Part 150 Update package.
• The first Part 150 program was submitted in 1987, which included 14 noise abatement
measures. Four of thern were approved as voluntary or as a concept. Two were approved
outriQht - the run up areas and the monitoring and enforcement. The remaining were
disapproved - mainly due to the restrictive nature of the measures and safety issues. Eight
land use measures were also submitted, all of wliich were approved. The FAA typically
approves land use measures because it is not responsible for their enforcement or
implementation.
e The first update to the original Part 150 program was submitted in 1991, which included 14
noise abatement measures. Four of them were approved as voluntary and five were approved
outriaht. The eight land use measures from the original Part 150 were included and
approved, as well.
Work Effort to Date
• The following past noise abatement measures have been identified for inclusion in the 2000
Part 150 Update with no revisions:
n Continuation of MASAC
� Voluntary nighttime limits on flights and powerbacks
Five past noise abatement measures will not be carried forward, as was discussed and
approved by the MASAC Operations Committee.
• The following noise abatement measures have been identified for study as part of the 2000
Part 150 Update:
D Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridvr:
� Standarc! Departure Procedirre for Rirntivay 22: Because this runway will be used
infrequently in the future, there exists the possibility for a specific departure procedure to
be studied and implemented.
� Niodify the Rarn-up Policy: Depends upon the outcome of discussions regarding a new
Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE).
�- Implementation of a New Rasntivay Use Svstem (RUS): Needed for when Runway 17/35
�. _ � � becomes operational.
� Voluntary Nighttime Restrictians: Possible change in nighttime hours.
The following land use measures have been identified for study as part of the 2000 Part 150
Update:
D Extending the sound insulation program to the 60 DNL
� Land use planning and conformance with the Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility
Guidelines
�- Noise compatibility zoning
� Zoning performance standards
� Maintaining and improving the public involvement program
�- Building codes
� Land use acquisition
D Purchase agreements
�- Low frequency noise mitigation measures
A New technology measures - use of GPS, FMS - as it becomes available
• The 1999 Validation Map has been finalized with a full year of ANOMS data, which was
used to develop the fleet mix, the operational level, the runway use, the track definition and
the track usage. ANOMS data for the summer of 1997 was used in place of the summer 1999
data so that the map better reflects normal (non-construction) operations at the airport.
•- The final 1999 Validation Map also reflects a shift in track usage to the north ofF runway
30R. T'he full year of ANOMS data allowed for better track determination.
• There were approximately 510,000 aircraft operations in 1999, with 12.3% of the operations
occurrin� during the nighttime hours.
• INM version 6.0 was used for the final map (version 5.2 .was used for the initial map).
Version 6.0 adds the ability to measure how humidity affects noise absorption. The higher
the humidity, the larger the contour.
• 172 modeled tracks were used to generate the 1999 Validation Map contour. �
• The 1999 validation contour is within one to two dB of the noise levels monitored at the
remote monitorin� sites.
e 2000 Base Case Map -
> Track development for the 2000 base case map was taken from the 1999 ANOMS data
used to develop the 1999 validation map.
a The fleet mix is based on the 1999 validation map and discussions with Northwest
Airlines regarding its expected fleet mix for 2000.
�- The map assumes there will be 522,800 operations in 2000, with 12.3% of those
occurring during the nighttime hours.
2005 Unmitigated Map
�- This contour is being used as the base map to which possible mitigation measures will be
compared to determine their benefits. The goa] is to reduce the impacted population or
shrink the size of the contour within non-compatible areas. Mitigation measures that
accomplish this would be considered beneficial.
�- The map uses the Dual Track EIS high forecast of 575,000 operations for 2005, of which
approximately 133% are projected to occur during the nighttime hours. The slight
increase in projected nighttime operations is due to the projected increase in cargo
operations at MSP.
D INM version 6.0 was used to generate the contour.
� The projected fleet mix was developed through discussions with and documentation
throuah the major carriers and cargo carriers serving MSP. The initial 2005 unmitigated �
contour did not include specific information about the cargo carriers' fleet mi�:.
• Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
D The elimination of or any change to the corridor would increase the population within the
contour.
D- The distant noise abatement departure procedure is best for departures off runways 12L
and 12R.
Runway Use
D Runway use is tied to the weather, wind speed and direction, and capacity requirements at
the airport.
� Implementation of an RUS will be most effective during low demand periods,
particularly during the nighttime hours.
D Six alternative runway use systems were considered.
D The findings are incomplete. None of the alternatives showed a benefit over the RUS
used for the 2005 unmitigated contour, which was based on the EIS assumptions.
�- The EIS RUS assumes that operations currently using runway 4/22 at night will be
shifted to runway 17/35 during high wind conditions and other traffic is concentrated on
the south parallel runway, with departures off runway 12R and arrivals on runway 30L.
Noise Abatement Departure Pro�les (NADP)
D The initial NADP analysis in 1996 was based on the 65 DNL contour at that time.
�- The most recent analysis is based on the 60 DNL contour.
�- The distant procedure iypically reduces noise in communities beyond 3 to 3.5 miles after
takeoff.
� The close-in procedure benefts communities within 3 to 3.5 miles after takeoff.
D The close-in procedure is currently used on runways 30L and 30R. The distant procedure
is used for all other runways.
�- Using the 60 DNL contour as the base from which to compare, the analysis shows that
the distant NADP is best for runway 17, 12L and 12R.
What's Next
e Alternatives Yet to be Considered
D NADPs for the remaining runways (30L/R and 4/22)
D Changes in fleet mix: voluntary hushkit reductions
� Voluntary nighttime curfew
� Possible changes in flight tracks: runway 17 depariures, nighttime tracks, preferred low
demand tracks
D Land use measures
D New technotogy possibilities
Discussion
Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked how the Met Council's land use guidelines would mesh with
the Part 150 update. Chairman Mertensotto noted that a representative from the Met Council had
spoken to the Operations Committee in January and had made a commitment to develop a
uniform statement for all of the cities surroundin� the airport using the airport-generated noise
contours.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked what the reasons were for the FAA to disapprove mitigation
measures in past Part 150 submittals. Ms. Hujhes said the measures were disapproved due to
safety issues, the possibility of reducing capacity at the airport, and whether or not a measure
restricted operations at the airport. Mr. Verbru�ge said the purpose of his question was to
emphasize the point that MASAC is restricted in its ability to make wholesale changes to the
operating environment at MSP.
Rue Shibata, Inver Grove Heights, expressed his concern that the ciiy of Inver Grove Heights has �
not been included in the Part 150 update discussions. Chairman Mertensotto noted that Will
Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, has been participating fully in the discussions and has brought
forward many questions and concerns.
7. 2000 Airport Noise and Air Quality Svmposia
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, presented a summary of the 2000 Airport Noise and Air Quality
Symposium, as was requested at the February MASAC meeting. The symposium was held
February 14-17, 2000.
Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) .
This portion of the symposia focused on what has been accomplished and what remains to be
done through ANCA. Three presentations were given focusing on (1) airport noise management
beyond Stage 3, (2) the relevance and application of FA.R. Part 161, and (3) consideration for
aircraft under 75,000 pounds.
• The Toronto-Pearson International airport in Canada has several noise abatement
programs. For instance, between 12:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., Stage 3 aircraft over
approximately 75,000 pounds are resh-icted. Because the majority of aircraft operating
within this timeframe are under the weight limit, the restriction has had a relatively small
impact on operations and noise levels. The airport also conducts pilot briefings with new
carriers to familiarize them with the noise abatement programs at the airport.
• Part 161 is a set of federal guidelines for assessing the feasibility of airport access
restrictions. The presentation at the symposium focused on Part 161 after the year 2000
phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft, the relationship of Part 161 with the Part 150 process, the �
divergence of noise from one area to another, and encouraging creative applications of
the Part 161.
o Information was provided as to the low number of Stage 2 jets under 75,000 pounds
operating in the United States.
• The National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) reported that it would like to see all
StaQe 1 aircraft gone by 2005.
Economic Aspects of Noise
Three presentations were given on this subject. Issues included:
l. Noise economics: A history and prospects
• AIP and PFC funding and the need for creative financing
2. A panel discussion regardin� costs related to a particular action and who should pay
• New aircraft meeting any Sta�e 4 standards or retrofitting (cost to airlines) -
• The costs associated with future noise rnitigation and who should pay for it
• Land use planning tools
3. International issues
• The number of hushkitted aircraft operating in Europe has been frozen at 200
• The FAA's dissatisfaction with the European ban on hushkitted aircraft
New Technology and Emerging Issues
Four topics were covered: '
l. Jet engine development - NASA's noise reduction goals ' �
2. Development of larger aircraft - The Boeing 747X model is 170,000 pounds heavier than
the current 747-400 but provides a 6-decibel noise reduction relatively to the current
model.
3. Flight paths to and from airports
4. Overflights of wilderness areas
Noise Impact Evaluation
The following issues were discussed:
• Emphasized that metrics should be meaningful and easily interpreted by the intended
audience
• Emphasized providing information that people most want
o Consideration should be given to aircraft movement information, sensitive times and aircraft
noise-specific information
Changes in Noise Regulations and Policy
• A recent survey conducted on Part 150 programs around the country showed MSP among the
top for the scope of its Part 150 program.
• Nighttime operations - The relationship between the intrusive nature of nighttime operations
and the operational necessity of certain types of operators to conduct nighttime operations
(mainly cargo) was discusssed. 'The issue of nighttime operations continues to be one of the
major noise topics at airports around the world. Representatives of the various cargo
operators expressed a very sincere concern about the noise impacts that result from their
nighttime operations.
Land Use Compatibility Regulatory and Process Issues .
l. Airport growth vs. land use decisions
• Possible land use tools to promote compatibility include Part 77, Part 150, state airport
i�� � zoning controls, 1oca1 land use controls
__...
a Local land use controls could include: zoning, mandatory planning, airport overlay
zones, disclosure, etc.
• Essential components of effective cooperation include: sharing of responsibility,
recognition of respective authorities, willingr►ess to accept certainty and long-term land
acquisition and usage plan
2. Defininj criteria for noise impacts in land use planning
Air Ozrality Symposium
1. Airport landside pollution sources are among the largest contributors to pollution problems at
airports (passenger and employee vehicles, other land-based vehicles)
2. Airlines meeting the challenge of aircraft emissions goals
3. Technologicai developments - reducing emissions and increasing efficiency with new engines
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked where MSP ranked in terms of doliars spent on a Part 150
program. Mr. Leqve said MSP is tied with Seattle at the top.
Report of the March 10 and March 24 2000 Operations Committee Meetinas
John Nelson, Bloomington, said since Kim Hughes, HNTB, had summarized the previous two
Operations Committee meetinos so well, he felt there was no need to make additional comments.
Report of the March 8 2000 Communications Advisorv Board Meetin� — Chad Leqve
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, reported that the Communications Advisory Board met on
March 8, 2000 to finalize the content of the second quarter MASAC News newsletter. He said the
newsletter was scheduled for distribution on Tuesday, April 4, 2000.
The next meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. at which the members will `
determine the topics for the third quarter issue.
10. Re�ort of the MAC Commission MeetinQ
Chairman Mertensotto reported on the March 17, 2000 MAC Commission meeting. He noted
that it was a very short meeting and that it was Commissioner John Himle's last commission
meetin�.
11. Technical Advisor's Report
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that a summary of the complaints received via the Internet
was available. He said 14 noise complaints were received in February via the Internet.
12. Persons Wishina to Address the Council
David Ayres of 2121 Theresa Street in Mendota Heights asked to address the Council.
Mr. Ayres said he represented a subdivision of Mendota Heights that is surrounded by I35E,
Lexin�ton Avenue and Highway 110.
He expressed his concern and frustration over the increase in depariures over his neighborhood,
the altitude of the aircraft, aircraft not flying within the Corridor and that his neighborhood is not
projected to be included in either the 2005 60 or 65DNL contour. He also expressed his opinion %
that the contours should have natural boundaries rather than block boundaries. He then submitted ��
a petition.
Chairman Mertensotto told Mr. Ayres that he would refer his comments and petition to the
Operations Committee and asked Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, if a staff inember could meet with the
neiahborhood group, as well. Mr. Fuhrmann said staff would be happy to do so.
13. Items Not on the AQenda
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, reported that he had received a complaindquestion regarding
an increase in traffic along the 090° heading. Cindy Greene, FAA, said the tower has not
changed its procedures but that any increase in overflights is most likely due to the overall
increase in operations at the airport. Chairman Mertensotto asked Mr. Batchelder to write his
request on a Monitoring and Information Request Form and submit it to the Operations
Committee.
14. Adjournment
Chairman ivtertensotto adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
[I!7
�"
� � � •�� �ii , ,
��. . � ,� :�.,;�..�
� �
,
� .
,
_ ,
. . ;
: � : �
� : � . i
. . ,
�
_ ,
� ;
. _ �
. �
l
,.. ,. : - .:.; _ . . ,
. .,
-
.. . ' . . . . � " . . 1 �. ..F � � /':
. . . .. � . ' . . � � . . . . ' � . . . � _ � _
MINUT'ES
� . . � � . � • � • � ; � � ' 1
April 12, 2000
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Large Conference Trailer and
calied to order at 3:30 p.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members •
Dick Saunders
Dean Lindberg
Mike Cramer
Advisorv•
Chad Leqve
Amy von Walter
Shane VanderVoort
Approval of the Minutes
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
MAC
MAC
MAC
AGENDA
The minutes of the March 8, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed.
Establish 3rd Ozrarter Newsletter Topics
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, prefaced the discussion with a report on the budget for the
newsletter. He noted that, although it was good to have a six-page newsletter for the first two
editions, subsequent newsletters would need to be limited to four pages to keep within the
budget. This translates to approximately 1,500 words per issue.
Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, mentioned that he had received a community information booklet
from the Orlando International Airport regarding noise issues which he felt was very well done
and easy to understand. He said he would forward a copy to staff.
Committee members and staff reviewed a list of possible topics for the 3rd quarter newsletter.
The foliowing comments were made:
• This issue should focus on the Part 150 update proposed mitigation measures and a
discussion of the implementation of those measures.
• Explaining the mitigation measures of a Part 150 will illustrate to residents that there are
other means to reduce noise impacts around an airport other than the sound insulation
program.
�,� • Enumerating the mitigation measures included in MSP's Part 150 update will help residents
understand the scope and depth of study required to develop a Part 150 program.
• When discussing implementation of the mitigation measures, it should be emphasized that
implementation for each of them is conditional on the FAA's approval.
• Although it is possible that the final report of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee
will not be completed for inclusion in the 3rd quarter issue, it should be mentioned as part of
the mitigation measures article that any recommendations from this committee will be
included as part of the Part 150 update.
• GPS/FMS and how it fits into the Part 150 update should be included as part of the
mitigation rneasures article, but a full discussion of what GPS is and the specifics of how it
will be used in the future should be left for a future article.
• A list of important numbers/email addresses should be included, including:
1. MASAC secretary for MASAC related questions
2. CEE-Mary Raasch for information about eligibility in the current sound insulation
program
3. Noise Complaint and Information Hotline
4. www.macavsat.or� address for online noise complaints, MASAC information, etc.
The following topics were a�eed upon for the 3rd quarter issue:
l. What are Part 150 mitigation measures, and what are the proposed mitigation measures
for MSP under the Part 150 update?
2. Imp�ementation of the Part 150 mitigation measures and MASAC's role in that
implementation.
3. MAC-FAA. inter-governmental cooperation award (jiven for the a�eement between
MAC and the FAA on using FAA's ARTS data for MAC's ANOMS system)
4. Boeing 717-200: Newer and Quieter Technology Aircraft Begin Operating at MSP
5. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles: What are they and whom do they affect? j
�.
Topics for consideration in later issues include:
• An interview with Jeff Hamiel regardin� his work with the Airports Council International-
North America (ACI-NA) regarding the phase-out of hushkitted aircraft around the country
and the development of Stage 4 aircraft criteria.
An article on research initiatives being conducted to help reduce aircraft engine noise
emissions.
The next meeting of the Communications Advisory Board will be held June 14, 2000 at 3:30
p_m.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski, Secretary
�
_ _ , _ .. .
:. ,. ... .
, ::':
> .. _
.;; �.
. . . . . .. � : � � � . . -.. . � h
.
' � ' . . ' . .� .. � ,.r .`
' .� . . . . .� ;.
� � � . . ... ' � . � � _ '� _
: .. � .' ..� ' � .
_'. . . . .. , . . � - '
. . . ; - . :. . . . ..�. '' ,�� 5
� � �
��
. ...' . .. ..,. ' . '
� `.
�. . . � ,�.� . . . .. . . . . , �.. . . `..
�.
�
.
. .� . _ . . .- ... .,�. ..''
. , '. - ... . �. : . . . . . � .... � . . ._ .. ._ � _. .. �.. , f '
F
. . �. . .. �. _ . . . � ..�. , - . . �_ . . . ,.J;
_ �
.. ' ' . . . � . . . ' . . . . . . . . . q�'�
�.
APPROVED IO�I I N U T E S
! ; IYIA.SAC OPERA.TIONS CONIlVYYTTEE
March 24, 2000
The rneeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
called to order at 10:30 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members•
John Nelson, Interim Chair
Dick Saunders
Bob Johnson
Mary Loeffelholz
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
Jamie Verbrugge
Roy Fuhrmann
Advisorv•
Jason Giesen
Mark Ryan
Steve Vecchi
Cindy Greene
Ron Glaub
Visitors•
Kent Duffey
Kim Hughes
Tom Lawell
Kevin Batchelder
Will Eginton
Glenn Strand
Pam Dmytrenko
Jan DelCalzo
Bloomington
Minneapolis
MBA_A
NWA
Mendota Heights
Eagan
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
FAA
FAA
HNTB
HNTB
Apple Valley
Mendota Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Minneapolis
Richfield
City of Minneapolis
AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
Chairman Nelson asked if there were any additions or corrections to the March 10, 2000 minutes. Bob
Johnson, MBA.A, noted two changes on page 8 of the minutes. He noted that the word "pounds" had
been omitted after "75,000." He also noted that under bullet point number one, the north parallel runway
should be designated as runway 30R rather than 30L. With these changes, the minutes were approved as
distributed. .
0
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked that the population counts included in the minutes for both the
"Fan" and "Symmetry" alternatives be verified. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the staff would verify that
the numbers are correct.
Chairman Nelson also asked if there were any additional topics to the agenda. Dick Saunders,
Minneapolis, asked for an update on the status of the multi-family dwelling counts.
Runrvay Use Alternatives Discussion
Kim Hughes, HNTB, in�oduced Kent Duffey, HNrIB, and gave a brief explanation of Mr. Duffey's
qualifications. Ms. Hughes said Mr. Duffey graduated at the top of his class from MIT and was recruited
personally by Evan Futterman. Mr. Duffey is also a certified instrument pilot and an instructor. He
interned with American Airlines before coming to I3NZ':B and has simulated on a 757 aircraft.
Ms. Hughes explained that both she and Kent would be giving portions of the presentation.
Kent Duffey, HNZZB, then reviewed the agenda.
Runway Use Factors
The following factors influence runway use and are interrelated.
• Weather and wind conditions
• Capacity and flow requirements
• Traffic demand
• Aircraft separation
• Pilot compliance and safety considerations
• ATC
• Safety
C
• Runway use is determined primarily by wind and capacity requirements. These requirements limit
options to sig-nificantly change runway use, even with the addition of a new runway.
• Capacity requirements drive runway use during the daytime hours, so runway use alternatives are
primarily viable only during nighttime hours when there is low traffic demand.
Chairman Nelson asked that a table be produced showing the maximum capacity of each runway in a
given hour of time.
E.xisti�tg Rttmvav Use Percentages
A diagram of the 1999 day and night existing runway use depicting the percentages of arrivals and
deparlures for each run�vay end was distributed. ANOMS data from January, February, March, October,
November and December 1999 was used in conjunction with data from April, May, June, July, August
and September 1997 to deternune an estimated annualized runway use.
Mr. Duffey noted that the rum�ay use percentages for rumvay 4/22 increase during the nighttime hours,
which represents the "balanced use of 4/22" noted in the RUS. He said this increase in operations is
possible due to the low traffic demand during the nighttime hours.
C�
�
It was also noted that "nighttime" is defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Exzsting Runway Use Svstem
The existing priorities for runway use at MSP are:
l. Maximize the use of the EaganlMendota Heights Corridor with aircraft departing runways 12L and
12R and arriving runways 30L and 30R.
2. Head to head operations should be used when operationally feasible.
3. Balanced use of runway 4/22 when possible.
4. At all other times, depart runways 30L and 30R and arrive runways 12L and 12R.
Mr. Duffey noted that the "balanced use of runway 4/22" means that the runways aze used with equal
priority but does not guarantee that equal numbers of operations will occur at each runway end.
2005 Projected (EIS) Runway Use Percentages
2005 annual night and annual day runway use diagrams were also distributed. Mr. Duffey noted fihat
these runway use percentages were taken directly from the Dual Track EIS and were used for developing
the Unmitigated 2005 Contour.
The methodology used in the EIS to forecast night runway use for 2005 was to shift existing nighttime
4/22 operations to runway 17/35 (except during high wind conditions) and concentrate the remaining
traffic on the southern parallel runway (departures using 12R and arrivals using 30L).
RUSAlternatives Methodology
Assumptions for analyzing RUS alternarives:
1. RUS implementation is most effective during periods of low traffic demand.
2. The RUS must recognize weather and wind limitations.
3. The RUS must be operationally feasible and safe for use by air traffic control.
Chairman Nelson said he felt a fourth criteria for deternzining RUS alternatives is whether they reduce
the noise impacts in the surrounding communities. Mr. Duffey agreed that reducing the noise impacts is
the ultimate goal in analyzing RUS alternatives but that the three assumptions noted were used for
modeling the possible RUS alternatives.
Traff c Demand: Jn order to determine periods of low traffic demand, a traffic demand 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 information was then used to forecast the average hourly
operations for 2005. Discussions �;�ere also held with Cindy Greene of Air Traffic Control in which
she indicated that the RUS is best implemented when there are no more than seven (7) operations iri
a 30-minute period or 14 operations in an hour. This is the criteria used to deternzine when an RUS
could be implemented.
The demand analysis showed that in 2005 the best time for an RUS to be implemented is between 12
midnight and 5:00 a.m. during which time a ma;cimum of 13.2 operations 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 be implemented at all times during this timeframe. The interactions
3
between aircraft would still be a detern�ining factor.
Mr. Duffey noted, however, that the RUS could also be implemented during the middle of the day
during periods of low demand, but for modeling purposes the 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. timeframe was
analyzed.
Cindy Greene, FA.A, noted that the 11:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. timeframe is also a"low demand" time
and an RUS would most likely be able to be implemented during this time.
Ms. Greene also questioned the number of arrivals for the 6:00 p.m. hour. She said 34 airivals at
that time seemed very low. Mr. Duffey said the counts were generated from ANOMS data. Ms.
Greene suggested that Mr. Duffey compare his operations counts with the FAA's hourly tra�c
counts.
Chauman Nelson asked Cindy Greene, FAA, whether the criteria for determining the ability to
implement the RUS of 7 operarions in one-half hour and 14 operations in an hour held true for when
the new runway becomes operational. Ms. Greene said she could not give a definitive answer
without lrnowing how the runways will be used at night. Chairman Nelson noted that the next hour
to have the smallest numbers of operations beyond 14 is the 11:00 p.m. hour with 24 operations;
which Ms. Greene noted normally occur within the first one-half hour - 11:00-11:30. The other
hours have four to six times more operations than the 14 per hour criteria. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said
in his research he found that 60 to 65% of the operations occur during the first 1/2 hour of 11:00 to
1130 p.m.
Mr. Duffey noted that the analysis was not done with the assumption that the RUS could only be
implemented during the 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. time period, only that the ability to model an RUS could be �+
done using this timeframe. Chairman Nelson said this is an important distinction and should be
included in the final document.
The demand analysis shows that the potential exists to reassign night nznway 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 2.51 % of the total daily operations at the airport.) The
analysis is purposely conservative.
Mr. Duffey once again reiterated that 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. He said, however,
that any changes to the RUS modeled for the nighttime hours would have benefits for daytime
implementation, as well. (Mr. Duffey noted that changes to the nuiway use at night have a bigger
impact than changes made to the runway use during the day because of the 10 decibel penaliy
applied to nighttime operations.)
b�ind and Weather 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 lrnot crosswind andlor a 7
lrnot tailwind. It is also assumed that aircraft are capable of landing on a runway with up to a 20
lrnot crosswind and a zero lrnot tailwind. Winds beyond these limits would require aircraft to use
another runway. These limits represent FAA guidelines for most jet aircraft and are used throughout
4
the system. However, .pilots are able to choose the runway they prefer based on the aircraft type and
; wind direction and speed. The FA.A "advertises" nuiways based on wind speed and direction and
` other factors, which pilots can accept or decline.
Mr. Duffey then presented and explained a nighttime wind rose chart for MSP. He said the wind
rose chart illustrates the percentage of time any one runway would be available for use.
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:
• There will be zero interactions between aircraft during the low-demand period and that any
runway can be chosen independent of traffic conflict and flow considerations.
• Head-to-head operations can occur on runways 12L /12R and 30L/30R, and on runway 17/35
when deemed operationally feasible by ATC.
• An exclusion of the EIS modifications to the nighttime runway use.
• The projected percentage of nighttime operations either of the north and south parallel runways
was deternzined by ANOMS data. The data shows that a higher percentage 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).
o 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 percentages.
In addition, the runway use percentages used in the FEIS and the forecasted percentages noted in the
�` � RUS altematives are operational goals. However, variation from these percentage forecasts will
occur due to safety issues, ATC, weather conditions and temporary runway closures.
Runway use altematives were developed by:
l. Determining a runway priority order. (ie, the highest priority runway to the lowest priority
runway)
2. Assigning maximum use to the priority runway up to the wind coverage limitations.
3. Continuing to assign maximum use to each runway, as prioritized, up to its wind coverage
limitations.
4. This continues for each runway until wind coverage equals 100%.
RUSAlternatives
Kim Hughes, HNTB, presented the six runway use alternatives.
1. Existing RUS
o The e;cisting RUS maximizes the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor by departing on the 12's
and arriving on the 30'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 arrive on 12's. �
When applied to 2005, use of runway 17/35 is minimized during low-demand periods.
C
A runway use diagram was presented along with the 2005 unmitigated contour compared to the
contour generated when this alternative is applied. (Roy...Explain what the runway use
diagrams depict.)
(Ms. Hughes noted that for each alternative, the runway use diagram for deparlures off runway
17 designates departures as Al7 that should be D17.)
The overall change is an addition of 1400 (changed from 1800 on the handouts) people to the
2005 unmifiigated contour (up to 60 DNL) when this alternative is applied. (Ms. Hughes noted
that total parcel and population counts are still being verified.)
2. Alternative 1
• Maximize use of 12's (to the southeast) for departures and nu�way 35 (from the south) for
arrivals.
• Secondly - depart 17 (to the south) and arrive 30's (from the southeast).
• Use head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible in the comdor or on
17/35.
• Third priority - balance use of 4/22
o As last option, depart 30's (to northwest) and arrive on 12's (from northwest).
A runway use diagram was presented for this alternative along with the 2005 unmitigated
contour compared to the contour generated when this alternative is applied. (-�
�
'The overall change is an addition of 1430 people to the 2005 unmitigated contour (up to 60
DNL) when this altemative is applied.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if a weighting factor was considered for the
population included in the higher DNL contours (75 to 65 DNL). Ms. Hughes said
consideration for those people in the higher DNL contours has been an issue. She noted,
however, that if the 60 DNL contour is to be used as the definition of an incompatible land use
area, then everyone within that contour should be weighted equally. That is not to say, however,
that the communities wouldn't be able to change those assumptions and give a higher weighting
to people within the 65 and higher DNL contours. Mr. Batchelder said given that it is unknown
whether the FAA will approve a 60 DNL contour and that people at the higher DNL levels have
greater impacts, a weighting factor should be applied to each contour and the population
affected in each.
Alternative 2
• Maximize use of runway 17 for departures (to the south) and the 30:s for arrivals (from the
southeast).
• Second priority - depart 12's (to the southeast) and arrive on 35 (from the south).
• Use head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible.
• Third priority - balanced use of 4/22.
0
• As last option, depart 30's and arrive on 12's.
A runway use diagram was presented for this alternative along with the 2005 unmitigated
contour compared to the contour generated when this alternative is applied.
The overall change is an addition of 1310 people to the 2005 unmitigated contour (up to 60
DNL) when this alternative is applied. This alternative adds people to each of the contours.
Chairman Nelson asked which communities are impacted within the 70 DNL contour. Ms.
Hughes said in this alternative an additional 100 people in Bloomington, 10 people in
Minneapolis and 50 people in Richfield are added to the 70 DNL contour.
4. Alternative 3
s Maximize use of the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor by departing on the 12's and arriving
on the 30's.
• 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.
A runway use diagram was presented for this alternative along with the 2005 unmitigated
contour compared to the contour generated when this alternative is applied.
Chairman Nelson asked why there is heavier use of the south parallel runway compared to the
- north parallel nuiway. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said although wind coverage data would allow
�,_ � equal use of either runway, there is currently a preference for using the south parallel runway
during the nighttime hours (about 65% of the operations use the south parallel runway). Cindy
Greene, FA.A, said the south parallel runway is closer to where the aircraft are parked.
The ovezall change is an addition of 1060 people to the 2005 unmitigated contour (up to 60
DNZ) when this alternative is applied.
5. Alternative 4:
• Maximize use of runway 17 for departures and 35 for arrivals.
o Second priority - depart 12's and arrive on the 30's.
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.
A runway use diagram was presented for this alternative along with the 2005 unmitigated
contour compared to the contour generated when this alternative is applied.
The overall change is an addition of 1850 people to the 2005 unmitigated contour (up to 60
DNL) when this alternative is applied.
6. Alternative 5- A combination of all of the other alternatives.
7
• Maximized balanced use and equa.l priority given to 12's and runway 17 for deparn�res and
30's and runway 35 for arrivals.
• Use of head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible.
o Second priority - balanced use of runway 4/22.
• As last option, depart 30's and arrive on 12's.
A runway use diagram was presented for this alternative along with the 2005 unnutigated
contour compared to the contour generated when this alternative is applied.
'The overall change is an addition of 1480 people to the 2005 uninitigated contour_ (up to 60
DNL) when this alternative is applied.
The initial analysis indicates that the 2005 unr�utigated contour, which uses the EIS assumptions,
provides the most benefit to the communities.
Kim Hughes, HNTB, said, however, that she would like to complete a further analysis and integrate
the RUS alternatives with flight track analyses to determine whether there is an opportunity to
benefit more people with a nighttime RUS. �
Discz�ssion .
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, asked what percentage of hushldtted aircraft are expected to be
in the fleet mix in 200�. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the percentage is approximately 32%.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, noted that the proportion of people that would be affected by the
implementation of a nighttime RUS would be very small compared with the total nurnber of people in
the 60 DNL. He said because the analysis is so tightly focused and projection-dependent, the �,
information presented is statistically insignificant and making a decision between the alternatives
becomes a mute point. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said that although the arguments Mr. S�and makes are
valid, a decision still must be made because the FAA demands that the Part 150 process be followed. He
said even if the benefits are small, MA.SAC is obligated to go through the process and do what's best for
the communities.
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis City Council, asked for clarification on the assumptions that were used in the
EIS for nighttime rum�vay use. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said, in simple terms, the operations that would
normally occur on nulway 4/22 have been shifted to runway 17/35.
Chairman Nelson clarified that the 2005 unmitigated contour uses the EIS assumptions for nighttime use.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked that a runway use system chart be generated for the EIS
assumptions for the hours between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, made the following comments and requests:
1. A breakdown of the fleet mix projected for the hours between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.
2. A destination analysis for this time period.
3. Asked if it was possible to control which tracks are used off a particular runway at night.
4. Low frequency noise levels should be considered when discussing use of the north/south runway.
He said the cities of Richfield, Minneapolis and Bloomington will experience a significant impact
from low frequency noise if heavier aircraft are using that runway.
Chairman Nelson noted that the 2005 Annual Night Runway Use graphic depicts the overall (1- p.m. to 7
a.m.) nighttime runway use recommendation from the consultants and that the only missing information
is the nighttime runway use percentages for the analyzed timeframe. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked that
this information be provided at the next meeting.
Chairman Nelson also encouraged the members to carefully read and study the FAA's MSP tower order
chapter 8, "Runway Use, Noise Abatement and Midnight Operations." He encouraged members "get
into the details" of the order and to use it as a basis for making recommendations for changes.
Chairman Nelson noted that the discussions regarding the RUS alterriatives should focus on the post-
2003 timeframe when the new nulway will be operational. He said changes to the existing RUS would
not be considered.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, suggested holding off on a decision on a particular RUS alternative in order to
give the members of the committee time to review the information presented and for the consultants to
bring back the information that has been requested.
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis, asked why the north parallel runway has a higher percentage of use than the
south parallel in 2005. Kent Duffey; HNTB, and Cindy Greene, FAA, said the change is due to the
introduction of the north/south runway and its effects on how aircraft move and interact on the ground.
Ms. Greene said all of the arrivals on runway 35 must cross the south parallel runway, which reduces the
time that runway 30L can be used for arrivals. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said it would be helpful to have
a SIMMOD demonstrations depicting the expected ground movements with the addition of the new
run�vay.
Chairman Nelson asked for clarification on what the consultants proposed to do for further analysis. Kim
Hughes, HNTB, said the analysis would focus on determining whether specific nighttime flight tracks
would be of any benefit. She said all of the RUS alternatives would be analyzed.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked that a sensitivity analysis be completed using the fleet mix as the
variable input. Chairman Nelson noted that one of the possible noise mitigation measures is to eliminate
hushkitted aircraft from flying during the nighttime hours and suggested that the consultants perform an
RUS analysis based on this possibility instead.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the FAA would accept having a weighting factor applied to
the contours in order to give consideration to those residents that live in the higher DNL areas. Glenn
Orcutt, FAA, said a"time above analysis" might be possible. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, asked if Mr. Orcuft
Irne�v of any Part 150 program that had used a�veighting factor for analyzing noise impacts. Mr. Orcutt
said he did not lrnow of any and that it would be difficult to justify.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, moved and Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, seconded to have �[N'IB continue
their analysis �vith the existing RUS assumptions and that the committee formalize a decision on the
RUS at the April 2000 meeting. MOTION WTTHDRAWN
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he does not believe additional analyses would help the
cominittee make a decision.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said his purpose of his motion was to give members the .opportunity to study
the proposal and for the consultants to bring back the information that has been requested.
Roy Fuhrrriarui, MAC, said the noise mitigation measures scheduled for discussion at the April 14�'
meeting have the potential to have much more far reaching impacts than any of the RUS alternatives (ie.
fleet mix alternatives, NADPS for runways 30L and 30R, flight tracks, etc.). He suggested that the
consultants spend their time focusing on the measures that will have the greatest impact rather than
attempting to prove or change the model. Mr. Fuhrmann suggested that the consultants be directed to
continue with their analysis using the existing data and information, with the understanding that the
consultants will bring their findings to the group as is necessary.
Cindy Greene, FAA, said she had concerns with having information for only a nighttime RUS. She said
she considers the RUS to be a 24-hour per day issue and would like to lrnow what the preferred runways
are for the daytime, as well. Chairman Nelson agreed that a daytime RUS would be helpful.
Glenn Orcutt, FAA, said he supported the consultants proposal and felt it has a lot of inerit.
JAMIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, 1VIINIVEAPOLIS,
SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE CONSULTANTS FINDING THAT THE BEST RUNWAY USE
SYSTEM ALTERNATTVE IS THE ONE THAT USES THE EIS ASSUMPTIONS (2005
ITNIVIITIGATED CONTOUR). AND, I�' IN THE COLTRSE OF FURTHER STUDY THE
CONSULTANTS ARE ABLE TO DERIVE REDUCTIONS IN NOISE IlVIPACTS FOR THE
COMMUIVITY THAT THEY BRING THE INFORMATION FORWARD FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION. FURTAERMORE, A RUNWAY USE SYSTEM SHOULD BE DEVELOPED
THAT CONSIDERS A FULL 24HOUR PERIOD. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION
APPROVED.
Nlulti-family Parcel Counts
Steve Vecchi, MAC Part 150 Manager, distributed updated information
counts and the estimated minimum cost range for insulating those structures
are final for the 2005 65DNL contour.
A discussion of how to best proceed followed.
on the multi-family parcel
. He said the parcel counts
CHARLES MERTENSOTTO, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS,
MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO HAVE STAFF SEND A LETTER TO THE MAYORS AND
CITY MANAGERS OF MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL, BLOOlVIINGTON, RICHFIELD,
MENDOTA I3EIGHTS AND EAGAN REQUESTING THEIl2 COMIVIENTS REGARDING
SOi.TND INSULATION PRIORITIES, I�'CLUDING WI�ETFIER AND WHEN NIULTI-
FAIVIILY STRUCTURES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR INSULATION, WITH A COPY
OF THE CITY OF MINIVEAPOLIS RESOLUTION 99R-406. FURTHERMORE, A DEADLT�Ii E
OF MAY 1, 2000 SHOULD BE SET WITH COMMENTS BEING RECEIVED BY NIAC STAFF.
THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION APPROVED.
Mr. Vecchi said he believed that if it were decided that multi-family structures should be insulated, it
would be a separate project.
Chairman Nelson noted that the Part 150 update will have to be approved by the Commission and any
recommendations made by MASAC are subject to their approval or disapproval.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, and Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, made the argument that proposing to
provide a reduced insulation package to residents in the 60 DNL contour backs up the idea that there
should be a weighting factor applied to residents located in the higher DNL areas.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. The next MASAC Opera.tions Committee meeting will be held
on April 14, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the MAC General Offices.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
11
. . , � �. '. � � ,, � , � � �
� �
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY AS
POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RESOLUTIONS.
Date:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Is this a one-time request? Yes or No
On whose behalf are you requesting?:
Yourself
City Council
Mayor
Citizen
Organization
Other
Beginning Ending
If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? to
Which of the followin� best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply)
Ground Noise Overflights
Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other
PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATTACII ANY LETTERS OR
FORMAL R.ESOLUTIONS.
�� �� - over -
. . � � �� . � •� . e � •
a�
Additional Space if Re uired:
Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310.
MASAC NEWSLETTER INPUT FORM
Date:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
E-Mail:
Proposed article topic:
On whose behalf are you requesting? (please
check one and explain where necessary):
Yourself ❑
City Council �
Mayor �'I
Citizen ❑ Name:
Organization �I Name:
Other ❑ Name:
Circle the desired publication date: 2"d Qrt. Z000 3rd Q1-t. 2000 4t6 Qrt. 2000 1St Qrt. 2001
Reason for request:
Please provide a description of the article's focus and content:
Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S.,
� � Minneapolis, MN �54�0 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310.
�
a�
:� a
� .� d
' bp �
c`��n'3 0
,� o
��
O ~ C/2
`' � H
u�, � �;
�� z
U �" W
� � �
• �, c
0
� �
�
� �
�� z
,..i C �
� O
N V ,�
� L-' � 1
� 0 !WI
� �
CCS �
O Ci
+J �
� '� �
O C o
o C� O
� L C�
U i�r
� y
'� .�"�'.~+
O y,r
� �
� �
� � N w
.� � � V
O �=' '� ^^-�
�
,� ? c3
T.7 � O
� � �
� '>, ��
�
� � �
� c 4. ai
� �
� � �
� � 3 �
O
O
cn � '�
«S �
� �
U � �
d � �� �
� N cJ +�+ ',
Q � � ��"�,,,,,,.
� � c� �,,
N � A C'
O
� •'~�' y�.i }d ,I,,.
� � �s ^
� � �
s ¢ ,N �
� c�"s ~
w � �
O � � �
O,
'Q --� c�i� C!� ,
� V� N
N tM+') N
vi
`D o �
�
O�0 M �
r-1
t�f) O O
�
O
� � O
�
M .-+ O
,� M N
C
0
� C u
� •O r
L
r.+ ++
o � N
r+. �
""" .`'� v
A �' �
E-� V c.
� C C
� •� •�
Q O O
� � x
�
�
0
U
a�
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000v�oo
M N�--� M M'-+ 00 O•--�
w C4 d' [`� t� CT M� M
� N N*-� ��+ N M M
69 69 6F3 GF3 b9 bF3 6�} b9�
CI
�
U°��������
i�t �n O� � O O v� v�
'-+ r..� N N N N
� ��6464b9 E!-JbR64
�
� � � � � � � �
r�-+ ►Ti r�i r�i �i rr-i r�i r�
Q1 M G1 M N l� N o0
M d' G1 d' O d' � t/1
� N v� oo O oo O� [�
�
M
�
N
�
6F3
v�
�
�" N M�t �n �O t� 00 G1 E-+
�� G1 C� Q� 01 cT G1 G1 0
Q1 G1 Q1 C�1 G1 G1 a1 G1
� .-� .� .� .--� .� .-� .-. � [�
C
;
_ �,
�, )
MASAC Members
chairn,an:
Charles Meriennotto
(Mendota Heig6ts)
Firsc �ce chai,man:
John Neison (Bloomington)
MAS(fC Operations Comr�uee Chairman
and Second �ce Chairman:
John Nelson (Bloomington)
Airborne F.zpresa:
s�a� sac�
RLPA:
Ron Johnson
c,tv afatoon,;ngto,,:
Petrona I.ee
Vern Wilcoi
City ofBurnsvilte:
Chnrles Van Guilder
c,ty afEaga,,:
Jamie Verbrugge
I.vnce Staricha
City ofl�rver Grove Heightr:
Charles Eginto�
City ofMendota Heights:
Till Smith
Iievin Bntchelder
City ofMinneapolis:
Barret I.ane
Dean Lindberg
Jce L,ee
Glenn Strand
Sandrr Colvin Roy
Mike Cramer
City ofRichfield
x,;�� sro�
Dawn VVeiizel
City afSt Louis Park
Robert Mdmws
Ciry oj Sc Pau1:
John Hnlla
City of5unfish Lake:
Cynthia Putz-Yang
Delta Airlines InF:
I.�m Goehring
DKL.4irwavs:
Brian Simonson
Federa! Fxpress:
John Schussler
A�fii C Staff.•
Roy Fuhrtnann
tifBa.�f :
Robert P. Johnson
Mesaba Nonhwest Airlrnk:
PhitBurkr
Narthwest Rirlines:
Jennifer Sayre
Mary I.oeffelholz
Steve Holme
Nancy Stovdt
St Pau1 Chamber ofCommerce:
Rolf hliddleton
Sun CountrvAirlines:
Gordon Graves
Um[ed Airlmes Ina:
Kevin Black
L'mted Parcel Sernce:
Michaei Geyer
L'.S. Airwavslnc:
Lam Yandle
MASAC Advisors
tiletrapoliran Arrporcr Cammission:
Chad Leqve
6fetropolitan Atrpo2r Commission:
Commissioner Alton Gasper
Federal.lvianon:l dm�ntstranon:
Ron Glaub
Cindy Greene
Air Transportation Assocrahon:
Paul McGnw
NlNdirNadonal Guard:
Major Roy J. Shetla
U.S. �1 ir Force Reserve:
CypLyin David.J. Grrken
Seeremrv:
Mcliss� Scovronsid
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Declarafion of Purpose
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interes�t, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigatian and transportation, internationaI. national,
state, and local; in and through this state; promote the effcient, safe, and
economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national
and international prograzns of air transportation; and to those ends to deve2op the
full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to
correlate tbat area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for
the most economical and e$'ective use of aemnautic facilities and services in that
area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum e�iranmental
impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise
abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental golicies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety �iazards around airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemeut Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the
communities adjoining Minneapolis-St Paul Intemational Airport - Wold-
Chamberiain Field, a public airport in the Couniy of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
through the alleviation of the pmblems created by the sound of aircraft using the
airport; through study and evaluatian c�n a continuing basis of the problem and of
suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through uritiation, coordination and
promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control� and regulations,
consistent with the safe ogeration of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and
through dissemination of information ta the affected communities, their affected
residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise
nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to
alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and govemmental bodies which by reason af 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 aisport. Such members will be
called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User
Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
'Iivs n-{�Crrt is prepareci and printed in house by Chad L,eqve, ANOMS Coordinator, Shane
Vander�'amt �NObiS Specialist and Jason Giesen, Noise Specialist, questions or comments
may be directed Io:MAC .4viation Noise and Satellite Programs
Minneapolis`St. Paul tnt�rnatiunal Aitport
6oao zsm .a�•�muc s�uu
Mumzapotis htti, 55450
Tel: (612)'725-6328. Fax: (612) 725-6310
MAC Envirimmcnt T)epartment Home Page: www.macavsatorg
The Airport 24hour Noise Holline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in
changes in aitpori activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport information otrtle[.
The hotline is statIed during bus�ness hours. �fonday — Fnday.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Table of Contents for �/Iarch 2000
Complaint Summary 1
Noise Complaint Map
FAA. Available Time for Runway Usage
MSP Ail Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier 7et Fleet Composition
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
MSP Camer Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type
(���� MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix
�
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks .� 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
MSP Top Ten A.ircraft Noise Events per RMT
15
16
17
18-27
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 2g-29
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
r'
�
�•
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
I�Sl' COmpiaints by C�ty
11� . 'r 1, ,1 1
Note: �aded Columns represent MSP complaints �led via the Internet
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Proa am
Menopolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (1�fASAC) Technical Advisors Report
L
% f
/
0
A Product of the; Meti•opolitan Airports Coinmission A��10MS Prob am
Metropolitan Aircraii Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Available Time for Run�vay Use IV�areh 2000 �
(FaA ���ay Use �gs)
_ m ''
�� � �
� �.::,•� t
� .:- �-.,��;.,' ,.
�=d � L.Y� �'Rr g .T:. ,('�,'
'-�� z'�` �, ar- , r � m
�� �1� .h,.
"'�.'iki,G' � `J� .6 . �i .:
� � r�+.i cat.- _�.�
: � � --"'c
m ^—� � �- � s ���.�.v ` .:
.'�-Yarr j 'u. ir..�.--�'i,,i^�-4-F�.+.
� 'rh. j\.:c^�"� a' '.Fw` t .t�...
�,�-"-�, t3s�n,CG'�'�:�,-_�.'�., �t
�` ti�-. J �, K-
� �-S ��,: ... �,�:
:�� �� ��;
��w �
-� ■ .
��� �
'�,� �-.�...;�;. �?. •
y��-���[ �
r�
�� !�� 4S4
� ��I . Ilr 1 �
Iil:
M ai�ch 2000 F.A.A Ai�pa�t Traffic Record Cotmts
__ ............._... _ .x . __.............>::�:<:::»:<::<::;<::::>:>;:<:>:................
�
� A ir Carri�:r 5.+-I I 7-�'
Conuuutcr ;" j , 3'8
C�:nersll�i�t�on '_I�'', ; ±��
M ilitan I l l l
,<.»:>: �;;;>::::::::;;;o;;>;:;.::.;;:<;.;:: >;;: <.;:;;;;>;;:.;>o-»:;;:::;:.,;�:.;i;:;.t::;:;::::;::;:::1 �::t::ti::::::;:::;:::;':::r;;;;:< :;:.;>:,:;.:;;o-:.;>;:>
Eisiiiiii!:iii:;i;i:i:i::: :; :.. �; � � i: � ii:iti;ii: i?ii:ii�; i::ii:::;6i:!;;i:?;:i: i: i�:: • . � . ii:i?::i'r,i:;i:;i:i:;i :i::: iii:ii::i:;: i:i::i:;i:;: E�: :; : <;iEi:iii:i?::Eii: i:<:ii:?i!
,;:<::.;:.:;.;;::::.'i"€��:.:;;:;::.;;:.>::.�:.>:;::.;:.;::;;�.;;:.:�:��.".;:::::.;:.:.;:.;;:;.::.>::.::.::::::.::.,;:.::����i;::;::::.::.:�:;:.::.:: � .
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 3
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (1�1ASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
t�.11 Op�rat�ons
Runway iJse 12eport IVl�rch 2000
=� .4rr
12L i Arr
� 12R I Arr
' ?? �
Arr
3UL i Arr
3t)R Arr
�;;i'':?:::;iE�`'E:i�:i:�:::::;!;:;� �?:'�;;>:?:i�;:;:;:::;:;:;:
� De�
1?L ; De�:
12R ; De�
� 32 � DeF
3UL ; DeE
� 3UR � DeC
So. Richfield�Bloorrun�non '
So. Minneapo(is�'tio. Richfield ';
So. Minneapolis:"vo. Richl'ield i
�
St. Patil.'Hi��}lland Park
Ea�an`!��iendotn Heii�hts
Ea��an/1�9endota Hei��hts
St. PauL�'HiJ�land Pzrl. �
Ea�an/Mendota Hei��hts
Ea<xan'l��tendota E-IeiJ�ts
So. Richfield'Bloomin;�tor� i
�
So. Minneapo(is,''`o. Rich�eld ;
So. Mmneapolis:?�o. Richfield j
102
�162
4376
3�
Gi80
�Oij
3��
�U� 1
-��U I
��7
61�4
SC�GB
o.s�ia Zos
19. 6°jo � 7�6
20.2°�0 >&39
0.?°io 2��}
31. U"/o 4U2�-1
28.5% 3682
U.2°ro
1 �). 3%
'J'?. 9°io
1.1°io
29.4°�0
27.1°0
62
��2J
6132
813
3���
3336
1. o�io
29.1 %
29.6%
1.2%
20.4%
18.7%
�.3%
28.4%
31.C°�o
�. 20�0
13.3%
17.2%
4 A Product of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Carrier .Tet Oper��ions
IZunway ITse l�epor� arch 2000
� � ; Arr ' So. Richf`ield/Bloomin��ton
1?L ; Arr ! So. Minneapolis(No. RichGeld
! I�R ; Arr � So. Mmneapolis/No. Richfield
� 22 � Arr i St. Paul.�'Hit.�hland Parl;
� 3()L : Arr � i Eagan/b9endota Hei�.zhts
; 3UR + Arr � Ea�,an/Mendota Hei<�hts
�x...,....�.-....
€<:>:::<>: :�::��:«<::::::«::<:>;:s::<>�:«';>::<::::":::':>�::>:;,<.: :
:>�>::>:..,_ .:::<��,;::><>::>::::»>:'::::::::>:>::>:::<:::>`':<:;<:<::>:<:::;`;`:::>:
<:;'��. �t>:�ii�r
� � � Dep i St. PauUHi�zhland Park
12L Dep i Eagan/l��iendota NeiJits
' 12R ' Dep ; Eagan/Mendota Hei��hts
`_'? � Dep So. Richt'ield�'Bloomin��ton
� 3UL � Dep ; So. Ma�neapolis/i�+`o. Rich(ield
� 3UR i Dep ; So. Muuleapolis/No. Richfield
� 6�
� 29C1
� 328�
�
�
� 2�
i �9U8
�2?G
•.;:..::;:;:i
>: � `:<>>::::�::�r'...�#�.:
��
; 16
2y30
36�1
; 177
; �g88
� 374)
0. �%
19.2%
21.?%
0.2%
31.7%
27.3%
::<':::;>.:;�i>
�1i�1��>�
0.1%
19.0%
23. 7%
1.2%
31.7°�0
24. 3%
16�
3921
4321
l Er�
2899
25�0
.. ,.'.,�
:�#��.
11
3 &'?0
�67�
377
2887
212�
1.2%
28.0%
30. 8%
l.l%
20. 7%
18.2%
:.;:....;:.::�:'
fl��.�::�
0.1%
27. 6%
33.6%
2. 7%
2U. 7%
1�.3%
A Product of the Metropolitan AirPorts Commission ANOMS Program �
Metropolitan Aircra$ Sound Abatement Council {Iv1ASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
- 1Vlarch 2000 li�ISP Carri�r Jet F'l�et �ompo�ition
L B7�? ;
�- B7=� 1 !
! ll�� i
B74� -I
..__DC I � -. �
B727 f
��� i
DC8Q �
L10I �
DC9 i
B732 �
BA 11 �
A3�I0 (
, MD 11 �
I B76i (
DC87 j
� B72Q
B772 !
A 3(K> I
� A:� 10 ;
f37;Q �
i MD�SO i
137;? I
I�C��(�) i
; I37 ;-1
� n;�ci
Ci73 �;
� L37 ;;
;--
; 137;7
110.0
109.=1
10�.�
1��.�
10 �.0
102.4
101.6
10�.�
94.3
9S.1
97.7
97.0
96?
9�.8
9�.7
,94. �
9�1. �
9=�.3
94.0
92.9
92. I
91.�
91.-�
91.0
3f�.9
s�.�
5;.7
b �.7
$7. �
t��;; 57.�
:1;1�) � �7.�
13:1-1t; �t. ��
};712 :3;.t i
� rlrx� R1.8
f:l-4� 81.8
1-'7(i k�l.l
I Bo�i�� �a��-2o0 � �
� Bocine 7�7-1CX) ;
; McDonnell Dc�u�las DC8-�00/600 � ?
� Boein� 7�i-_i00 ( 3
� McDonnell Douslas DC10 � 3
I BOelIla %�%-�� 2
j Boein 747-�0�0 3
McDannell Douslas DC8 (Modified Sta. 3) 3
� Locl:heed L-101 I �
I McDc�nnell Dou las DC9 2
BoeinQ 737-200 2
( British Aems ace (BAC) I-11 2
� Airbus Indu�tries A340 3
McDannell Dou las MD11 � 3
; Boein 767-2(�/30U 3
� IvtcDonnell Douelas DC3-7U0 3
Boeine 727 (Moditied Sta. �) �
� Boeine 777 3
� A'uhus Industries A300&�-600 � 3
� Airbu� Industries A310 3
� Bocing T7 ('Moditied Stg. 3} � 3
� McDonnell Doualas MD-� 3
� F3oc:in� 7�7-300 3
�McDc.innell Uausla. llC9 (Moditizd StQ. 3) �
I3ocin� 737-�t(X) � 3
j ��irhu, Industnes A3?0 3
; T3c�c:in � 7:7-8(Ki � �
� }3c�z'tn� ?37_�CX) ;
; � - f3c,�ina 737-7(� � 3
� F3uc:in� 7;7-3Cx� 1_ 3
�
:lirhu� industnc:s ,�31�) 3
__ _
� lintish Acru�; ac� 1=1Ci � 3
j }ic,�ina ?17-2�X) 3
Fc�}:l:�r 1(x.) � 3
I, tinl,rac:r l-li � ;
� i���kk�r?tl ( 3
C,nfL� 79.�t � Canu�air It���iunal J�t � 3
�
1?
0
Jb
1 �27
0
30
3(�
170
0
U
0
0
4
0
Jy
3631
0
�
0
978
9=i0
2811
1021�
23�
5074
�
374
3
�37
61�
16U�
�
771
���
U
�I(i7
0.3%
0.04%
0.0°�0
0.2%
�.0`;�u
O.U%
0.1 %
1.0°io
0.6°%
0.0"/0
0.(�/0
0. C7'io
0.0%,
0.(7%
0.(Pio
0.2%
l l.f�'io
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
3.2%0
3.0%
9.1%
�.i. l%
0.8%
16.���0
C�.CP/o
1.2%
0.0%
1.9%
2.0%
�.�°/n
0. I %
?. �%
0.7%
0.0%
l. �%
� Sta�<< il 0 0.0% � 21.9%
�ta�c II( l�l.il 49.1% �L�°io
I tita��c tIi ?�fanul'actur��i ( 1�7�t9 I �0.��'/o � �Ifi.6%
' 'fatu( Sta�c IIl 30880 100.0% ( 78.1%
Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III criteria as outlined in Fedzral Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This
Includes hushkit engines, engne retroFrts or aircraft operatianat Ylight c�gurations. '
•The Provided Noise levels from Ft1R Part 36 are the loudest levets documentzd per aircraft type during take-off measured in EPNL dBA (Effective
Perceived Noise Level).
� � •EPNL is ffie level of the time urte2ral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise tevel of an aircraft flyover measured in A-
__. weighted dec,bels.
6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircrait Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
l�tightiirne A.11 i�peraiions 10:30 p.�. �0 6:00 �.r�.
l�unv��y IJse Repoa-t 1Vlarch 2U00
� Arr So. Richfiel�i!Bloomin<�ton !
' 1?L '; Arr ' So. M�neapolis:''vo. Richfield ;
12R i Arr `; So. I��tinneapolis;'�o. Richlie(d �
32 Arr St. Paul�E-ti��hlznd Park
i 3UL ! .4rr Ea��an%'�tend��ta Hci��hts �
3UR Arr � Ea��an: !�9enduta Hei��hts
...:�...� ........
�`���:::::: :
::t���;:�i�
�::> ::'�`
::::.�::.:�.� :: ::..........:.;.. .:.: .
.....................................p ................................. ...__
-� ' De St. Paul.�Hi_hlznd_Par{.
1?L ; Dep Ea��arv'Mendot� Hzis�t�ts
1`'R Dep Ea��an,-l��izndota_He���hts
�? Dep ; So. RichlieldBlou«�in;�ton
' �UL 4 Dep So. Minneapolis."tio Richlield !
` 3t)R ': Dep i So. Mu�uleapol�s.`�o R�chfield j
C�
10�
23G
�
C�U?
2(.�
J.3%
8.7%
19.4%
U2°'o
�9. 6°�0
16.8%
2. �%
19.8%
33. 8%
2.6%
??. 6q�b
18. 8%,
83
132
2�8
j�
5Q$
2Q6
?.�
2�0
2C,6
69
97
6. 7%
1 U. 7%
20.2%
4.4%
�1.3%
16.7%
3.2%
32:7%
3�. 8°�0
9.0%
12.7%
7.6%
�. '
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �
8
Metropolitan Airciaft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
I�Tighttime Carrier Jei �perations 10:30 p.rn. to 6:00 a.m.
Runway ITse Report IYlar�h 2000
� � Arr � So. Richfield,/Bloomin��ton j
! 1?L ,�rr i So. Muinea olislNo. Richt'ield (
� 12R � Arr � So. MinneapolislNo. Richf'ield
22 Arr ! St. Paul/Hi�hlai�d Park �
� 3OL .�rr ' Ea�an/Mendota Hei�.zhts !
� 3t)R ! Arr Ea��an/Mendota Hei��hts `
-� ' De
12L De
� 12R : De
� ''? De
; 3t)L ; De
� 3t)R ; De
St. Paul/Hi��hland Park
�agan/Mendota Hei�.�h�
�aean/Mendota Hei��h�
So. Richl'ield/Bloonun��ton
So. Minneapolis(I�io. Richfield
So. M�neapolis/No. Richfield
39
99
?p?
1
`���%
1G7
5
110
26U
16
19�
79
3.9°:0
�. 9%
2U.1 %
0.1%
�9. =�%
16.6%
O. $°�o
16.�%
39.1%
2.=1�%
? ). 3%
11.9%
.G8
118
19�
39
J%1
1�9
1
123
191
;�
CC
?p
7.2%
1?.4%
?0.4%
�.1 %
39.1%
16. 8°�0
�►��'�
0.?%
27. U%
�2. 0%
11.9%
1�.5%
�.4%
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
IVlar�h 2000 Z'op 15 Actual Nighttira�:e �et C)pe�Yators by Type
10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m. �
-::;:::>�<:: �t::>:::>;;::»::;::::: ->:>; ::>::::;::::;:<:::>:<:>:<::: :>:«::;<::::.:::::<:::::::;:::>::::<; :::«;:>>:��>:<;:>:::<::::;�:::;;:; ::>;::>>.::�:<:::>::<::::<:::::;::>:
�
:<.:;.:�:..
�::>::::::::::»:<::: ;. : : �::>:;:;:::<::> >���'t���>:>:::
;:;::::::'>;:z��t�i�:::<:::::�:::::«:;::::>:::��:<:>::::�:>: <;�:::.��.. .. -� ............ :..
!;
:::... :.:.::... . ... :::::.. :. :..
( i Arr�rican � AAL � 3 F100 3�
' American � AAL i 3 MD80 27 `
Airborne � ABX 3 DC8Q � 22
lAirtiome � ABX 3 DC9Q 3�
Arr�nca West AWE � 3 A319 2
I j Arr�rica West AWE 3 A320 � 31
� Cha ion CCP 3 B72Q 79
ComAir COM 3 CRJ1 �4
Delta � DAL 3 B72Q 3
I�Ita DAL � 3 B733 2� '
I3elta DAL ( 3 MD80 6
i FedE� FDX 3 A3� 19
FedE� FDX 3 B72Q 3
Totai Nightt�ime Jet FedE� ( FDX 3 DC10 �7
Operations by I�our i Mesaba � MES 3 BA46 27
E;::;:::i::::a:::; �:�:;;�:::::�:::`c'::::;:;;'�':::'':�::�:i:?:;:�::::;:;:;1
.. � :.::. . ....... , .
E:<:::::::::��'::;:<::<:�:<::<::z'G`t3�x�::::<;:i � Nc�rth�t�t�t NWA 3 A319 9
; 2'30 i �?8 j I North«�est ( NWA � ( A320 192
� �;Cx_l i 41-� i � Nunh����st ( NVJA 3 � B72Q 18
; ?-�tx.� i 19g ; Nurth���e,t ' NVv'A 3 I B74? 4
Itx:i �..� ; � Nunh«�c�t � NWA � 3 ( B7�4 1 ('
?�x� � 17 ' N�,nh����� � NW A i 3 � B7�2 2�7 �
;�x� 3.� i Nc,nh«�st ' NV�'A 3 ( d3C10 7
.�tx.t I17 i N«�th���est � N�h',� 3 ( DC9Q 19?
;tX) :,t)� chrmi Air ? UAF: 3 DC1� �3
;::"<"7::;;;;;:�;<; fz� an Rl'T: � A320 2$
::>:: ::<::: :�:.>::;::::::;:.:::>:.:>: ,
:�::�'!�T�i:i:::s:€»»:<s.�.�"i..#�....... ; � -
................................................. I
�% fZ� ctn IZY1�: � 3 B72Q 8-�
4 Izc an I2�N ( i B7i4 8
1�5
1 �un �'uuntn ; SC}; ; ; B7?Q 127
i '
tiun C'uuntn tiC'�i � 3 DC10 19
'', ----LL- .
'�` t`ni��� l!nl. i .� B72Q 1
'�, t:nit�� l i:11. � � B733 21
't t�ntt�� ( I:�I. � i � B7.i� �
: �
�, I'ni�c�i _ t�;�l. ; i B73Q 4
`' t �nu��i U.�1. � ; B7�? 2�
' ' ('f'� I�l'� , 3 � B7?Q �
'�, �
('I'� 1!f'ti � ; F37�2 7 I
,'�, ('l'� t?1'� I 3 � DC8Q � 5O
`� � Vane!uar�3 � VCiI� i. � � B7_3Q 31
`, ::.;;:.;;;;:. .. ..;: � ::: �:�;;:<.: >:;;. :.:.;;;:<:;::;:<:: �;:;>::>:<::::>::: �: � ;:i:::::;:::i;::::::<::;::>;::::::::::::::<:::>:::::::::::»: ;:::>;:r.,..:: �:! T� 7:;::<::::
:.. � .:l:i:;i:;i:::
�'':E:[:ii:;::::: ii � � � ::i::2^2!it [;tic;ii<:'ct:tt::itt#:::ti[;:ic:B:t:::;:::::ic:i:::i:?::t:it:6i?::'c:i:::�f:t:c:;ifii>[:i:i:c:t:::::;:i:??i ii:::[?::����..........
::.;:.:;:; �#7t�s'l�.; :. . :: . :::: :.::::::. . : ..: ::::::::::::::. �: :.: :.::::::::::::.:::::::::. :::::.: .::. :...................
1Vvte: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 92.0%of the total nighttime operations.
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
9
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
� IY�arch 200U Nighttime Fleet Stage 1V�ig for'I'op 15 Airlines
10:30p.mto6:00a.m
�v ��� �� �G� ��� ��v ��� ���� o� �� 5�� �� �4� ���
�ri�� .
� Stage 2 ❑ Sta�� 3 � Manufa.ctured Stage 3
March 2000 Nighttime Fleet 5tage Mia for Top 15 Aidines
10:30 a.m to 6:00 am.
A.A L !
ABX i
A`'���E
�
CCP ;
COM ;
� DAL ;
FD� �
I��iES I
N��'.A �
O.� E
R�-�i i
� SCX I
U.A L �
UPS I
V GD i
�
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
62
;7
��
��
79
5�
33
79
�,
650
;;
120
14C
5:�
�9
31
10 A Product of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Progr�un
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemeni Councii (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
� ., � . � � , , � . . �: . i
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
�
Legend �
Remote Monitoring Tower
�
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 15
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
: Carrie� Jet Arrival 1Z�lated I�oise Events
I�arch 2000
� 1 ( Minnea�olis
i_ Z � MinneaPoli�
r
j a � MinneupOlis
' � � Minneapolis
� 5 � Minneapolis
I 6 I Minnea�olis
I 7� Richfield
j 5 j Minneapolis
� 9 I St. Paul
� 10 � St. Paul
� I 1 � Si. Paul
I 13 � St. Paul
� 1� I Mendo[aHc:iahis
�r.� ; �Q�
i 1� Mendota Heiehts
! 16 � Eaaan
\ �i (
�� � � � si���,�Q��n
� ly ; Richli�ld
,
� 19 ' I31c>��min�ton
;
2(� ! Richh�ld
� ? 1 � In�•er Cira�•e F Iei��ht�
� �? j In�•erCiro�•e I Iei�hts
2� I Mendota I Iei�ht;
' 2-t � Fa�an
__- __
;
�; I:�aan
?E� i In�•zr Cin�t'c: I it'i;�hta
� � % �'�lIlIlcil�lU�1�
xer.�es aee. & 41st sc.
Fremont A��e. & 43n1 St.
West Elmtisood St. & &:imunt Ati�e.
Oakland A�•e. & 49ch St.
12th A��e. & �f3th St.
��th A��e. & �7th St.
Went«orth A��e. & 6�lth St.
Longfello�c A��e. & 43ni St.
Saratosa St. & Hartford A��e.
Itasca Ac•e. & Bo«-doin St.
Finn St. t�. 5chetTer A��e.
Alton St. &: Rocl.���oud A�'e.
Southeast end ol'Mohican Court
l,t St. 8. Mckee St.
Cullon St. cYc L�rin�ton /���e.
A�'alon �1��e. �Y. U�lus Lanc
�th �t. x �►ti, n���.
7�th tit. �X: I%th A��c
lE�th A�'�. �k. ;�-tth �l.
-;�h �t ��. ;�� n���.
�3arhara !1�•r. X. c;7th tit
.nnn� h•fari� 'I rail
L-n�i ul I�c:nn�i�,n A��.
Chai�cl Ln �� ��'rrn I.n
Mcwnshm� P�irl. 1��! lutzi� K�l
t;7�k",.nrl.:in�a> .�� c: 1���.
t� nthnn�' tirh�tcil � �� �f\ 111� !�\'ct. �.
,,,-,,.�_ �. ......�
;
?9 i Minnc:a c�li� i P.ncsson I�km tichu�,l -t.; I�; ,;1:� A�•�. S.
. ,. .... . ..............:2�:::'i3'u�if�ti�E::a3:�iHiii'i''r.ti,�:'�i'a:ic�Ya '�`/ if'AYl�Q . . . . ,........
4ss�
3203
3tS62
31Z4
39»
3�2
l41
120
34
37
l�
7
79
�Ir
i29
�� 1'�
�
9�
�3
i�
117
39=� I
2U38
6g�1
,��
��8
�
�4?9
�
;�
2�9
1639
812
326�
2879
9
1
10
22
6
U
1
�
6
23c�
z�
l�
6
0
1
14
?g
»�
�
6
i
19
1
�
0
19
0
482
691
U
0
0
4
0
0
�0
0
0
6
�
1
U _.
a
0
0
0
�
��
0
�
�
0
�
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
m
e
�
�
16 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograni
Metropolitan A.,ircraf't Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Carrier Jet I;eparture laelated 1�T+�ise Ev�nts
I�Iarch 2000
Minneapo:
Minneapo:
Minneapo':
Richfield
St. Paul
St. Paul
St. Paul
�t. Paul
Mendata H�ighls
Eaean
Mendc�ta I-I�i;ht,
Fa�an
F31c�omin�ton
I2ich 1it lci
�31c�onun�tc�n
Rich i i� ld
?1 ; In�•erC;rc�ti�c H�i��ht�
22 ; In�•�rCn•u��ei-leitihts
Xertes Ave. & �Ist St.
Fremont A��e. & �3rci St.
West Elirn�•ood St. & Belmont Ave.
Oal;land A��e. & ��?th St.
12th Ave. & �8th St.
2�th Ave. & �7th St.
�,jenrn-orth A��e. & 6�tth St.
Lonetella�ti� A��e. & �3rd St.
Saratosa St. & Hartford Ave.
Itasca A��e. & Bo���doin St.
Finn St. & Scheffer A��e.
Alton St. & Rock-�cood Ave.
Southeast end of Mohican Court
ist St. �c Mckee 5t.
Cullon St. & Lerington A��e.
A�'alun A�'c. & Vila� Lanc:
f�th St. & �lth A��c.
7�th St. �c 17th A�•�
I6th A��c. K �c-4th St.
?�th St. �: ,r�i A�•c.
B�irhar� Ati•�. & C�7th 5t.
Annc: I�tari� Triii
� ,
?� ; M�n�e�ta 1l�ight� I End ol�Itienn�ii��i A��e
2-1 j ��isan
i
2� � I��ean
?G ; (n�•�rC;ru�•c: }-I�iahts
27 i�4inn�a��c�li�
�i� � �ZIC'fltt��l�
�"� I�•tinrt�anc�lis
Chapel Ln. &: til�rtn I.n.
Moanshinz('cui:l;�l.(unl� Rd.
C?9ti Arkan,a, A� � V�'
Anthc�n�• >chu«1 �7;� 1« in� .A�•�. �
ht�-t� It�th .n�'�ntic: ti
�ricsson 1-�em tichu��l -1 � I�? I,t l����. �.
10b9
IJ2%
31�7
3�7�
6413
67a1
4291
2�52
21
18
22
7
2681
4329
28��
41 �()
1$3
277
1S7
6�S
13 �'3
1�87
=� 1 �7
323�
17 X�
19?4
2879
�%�.�
1 �71
1�9
3�4
�3�
817
3028
34=15
1630
7�2
8
13
�
i
327
11�
�9�
1623
J.i
124
�
36
141
131
1�9�
�
3�
19�3
. 671
,i�l �
298
1
9
?9
��
778
1380
141
38
2
8
�
0
-3
119
21
3�?
20
�l
16
1
0
0
�?;
17
0
1
38
�
6
0
0
0
0
33.
l7b
0
U
�
�
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
1
0
U
0
0
�
0
r,
�
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 17
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'I'op Ten I,oudest Aircrafi Noise Events for 1VISP
March 2040
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41� St., Minneapolis
Date/Time FlightNumber Aircra$ ArrivaU Runway Lmax(dB}
Type Departure
03/ 0'7/ 00 13:07:38 SCX748 B'72Q A 12R 98.0
03/ 07/ 00 13:17:30 NWA306 A�20 A 12L 93.8
03/ 08/ 00 8:06:18 NWA707 DC9Q A 12L 91.3
03/ 14/ 00 15:57:03 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 90.6
03/ 03/ 00 13:03:57 NWA19 B742 D 30L 89.0
03/ 25/ 00 9:17:34 SCX715 B72Q D 30L 89.0
03/ 11/ 00 10:32:38 SCX715 Unknown D 30L 87.1
03/ 10/ 00 17:44:57 SCX403 B'72Q D 30R 87.0
03/ 13/ 00 11:44:11 NWA627 B72Q D 30R 87.0
03/ 31/ 00 11:18:34 S�X715 B72Q D 30L 87.0
(RMT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 14I 00 9:41:5� SCX715 B72Q D 30R 93.5
03/ 22/ 00 16:0�:46 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 93.0
03/ 10/ 00 17:44:38 SCX4Q3 B72Q D 30R 91.8
03/ 31/ 00 9:51:53 UAL1133 B72Q D 30R 91.7
03/ 09/ 00 20:07:15 DAL1683 B72Q D 30R 91.6
03/ 3l/ 00 19:37:17 SCX403 B72Q D •� 30R 90.9
03/ 26/ 00 12:03:13 N WA 1259 B72Q D 30L 90.9
03/ 07/ 00 11:27:53 N WA 1271 B72Q D 30R 90.9
03/ 21/ 00 7:48:56 UAL1217 B72Q D 30R 90.9
03/ 07/ 00 1�:55:36 DAL196 B72Q A 12L 89.7
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belrnont Ave., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/.08/ 00 14:11:08 NWA564 B72Q A 12R 98.1
03/ 19/ 00 12:21:36 NWA624 B72Q A 12R 96.2
03/ 25/ 00 9:16:50 SCX715 B72Q D 30L 94.9
03/ 11/ 00 1�:08:13 NWA83 Unknown D 30L 94.8
03/ 03/ 00 13:0321 N WA 19 B742 D 30L 94.7
03/ 04/ 00 9:�4:37 UAL1133 B72Q D 30R 93.8
03/ 29/ 00 20:44:46 KLM664 B743 D 30L 93.7
03/ 22/ 00 11:36:32 N WA 1271 B72Q D 30L 93.3
03/ 17/ QO 21:2�:43 UAL572 B72Q A 12R 93.1
03/ 29/ 00 19:�623 DAL1683 B72Q D 30R 92.9
i g A Pmduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
7[`op 'Ten Loudest Ai�-craft Noise Events for IViSP
March 2000
(RMT S� e#4} ��
Oakland Ave. & 49 St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 25/ 00 7:�0:36 UAL1217 B'72Q . D 30R - 96.1
03/ 14/ 00 9:41:33 SCX715 B72Q D 30R 95.9
03/ 04/ 00 16:02:52 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 95.9
03/ 31/ 00 9:51:30 UAL1133 B72Q D 30R 95.7
03/ 09/ 00 20:06:50 DAL1683 B72Q D 30R 95_S
03/ 08/ 00 I9:18:16 UAL481 B72Q D 30R 95.4
03/ 26J 00 12:18:13 UAL1177 B72Q D 30R 94.6
03/ 10/ 00 1'7:44:15 SCX403 B72Q D 30R 94.2
03/ 28/ 00 11:�6:04 NWA1259 B72Q D 30R 94.2
03/ 16/ 00 20:1629 DAL1683 B72Q D 30R 93.9
(RMT Site#5)
12�' Ave. & 58�' St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight I'�umber Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Tvpe Departure
03/ 24/ 00 15:37:44 CCP320 B72Q D 30L , 104.8
03/ 1�/ 00 6_11:51 CCP101 B72Q D � 30L 103.3
03/ 02/ 00 8:13:23 CCP406 B72Q D 30L 103.1
03/ 04/ 00 8:43:29 CCP530 B72Q D 30L 102.9
03/ 10/ 00 13:01:54 TRZ7101 Unknown D 3aL 102.9
03/ 22/ 00 11:46:24 NWA627 B72Q D 30L 102.4
03/ 12/ 00 6:48:34 TRZ7121 B72Q D ` 30L 102.4
03/ 02/ 00 6:10:15 CCP201 B72Q D 30L 102.2
03/ 28/ 00 10:13:44 CCP�20 B72Q D 30L 102.1
03/ 09/ 00 1�:57:01 LN 197CF LR25 D 30L 102.0
(RMT Site#6)
25`�' Ave. & 57�' St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Tvpe Departure
03/ 14/ 00 11:32:05 N WA 1271 B72Q D 30R 107.0
03/ 24/ 00 15:13:50 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 106.9
03/ 07/ 00 11:26:48 N WA 1271 B72Q D 30R 106.�
03/ 11/ 00 132824 NWA1266 B72Q D 30R 106.4
03/ 21/ 00 17:14:01 NWA1266 Unknown D 30R 106.1
03/ 04/ 00 13:30:41 N WA 1266 B72Q D 30R 10�.6
03/ 04/ 00 14:50:53 N WA 1026 B72Q D 30R 105.4
03/ 22/ 00 18:12:47 UAL481 Unknown D 30R 10�.2
03/ 03/ 00 15:04:43 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 10�.1
03/ 26/ 00 12:32:14 NWA627 B72Q D 30R 105.1
C
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 19
Metropolitan Aircraf� Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top T�n I.oudest A.ircraft Noise Ever�ts for 1VgSP
March 2400
�, ; (R,MT Srte#7)
Wentworth Ave. & 64�' St., Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 28/ 00 9:10:38 SCX407 B72Q D 30L 98.4
03/ 27/ 00 1�:18:37 CCP270 B72Q D 30L 9'7.5
03/ 02/ 00 9:23:40 SCX407 B72Q D 30L 97.1
03/ 26/ 00 18:51:46 SCX581 B72Q D 30L 96.8
03/ 11/ 00 17:22:41 SCX785 B72Q D 30L 96.3
03/ 12/ 00 9:03:33 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 95.9
03/ 27/ 00 10:21:36 SCX�91 B72Q D 30L 95.8
03/ 21/ 00 9:34:21 SCX407 B72Q D 30L 95.7
03/ 15/ 00 9:50:30 SCX407 B�2Q D 30L 95.6
03/ 03/ 00 15:33:00 CCP320 B72Q D 30L 95.6
(RMT Site#8) - �
Longfellow Ave. & 43'� St., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure �
03/ 03/ 00 15:05:14 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 97.8
03/ 21/ 00 15:01:08 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 952
03/ 22/ 00 1�2029 SCX743 B72Q D 30L 94.5
03/ 14/ 00 13:29:30 NWA624 B72Q D 30R 94.1
03/ Ol/ 00 17:35:53 Unknown Unknown D 30L 94.0
03/ 12/ 00 7:22:21 SCX749 B'72Q D 30R 93.8
03/ 13/ 00 18:21:12 SCX408 B72Q D `. � 30L 93.6
03/ 11/ 00 16:21 _32 SCX743 B72Q D 30L 93.4
03/ 25/ 00 16:17:3'7 SCX743 B72Q D 30L 93.3
03/ 11/ 00 724:37 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 93.2
(R;MT Site#9)
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Tvne Denarture
03/ 27/ 00 13:14:50
03I 19/ 00 13:03:23
03/ 18/ 00 8:33:14
03/ OS/ 00 16:10:00
03/ 29/ 00 7:05:05
NWA19 B742 D
N WA 19 B744 D
FBF1710 DC8Q A
NWA845 B72Q A
Unknown BE18 D
04 95.7
04 92.9
22 89.1
22 87.7
12L 85.9
03/ O�I 00 18:25:13 SCX534 B72Q A 22 85.8
03/ 24/ 00 3:��:4'7 UPS�56 DC8Q A 22 85.6
03/ 26/ 00 8:31:50 NWA95 DC 10 A 22 84.5
03/ O1/ 00 13:11:02 N WA 19 B742 D 04 84.2
03/ 09/ 00 21:20:43 N WA44 DC 10 D 04 84.1
20 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 10�,SI'
March 2400
(RMT Site#10)
Itas�ca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ Ol/ 00 13:10:34 NWA19 B742 D 04 103.6
03/ 2'7/ 00 13:14:22 NWA19 B742 D 04 100.9
03/ 19/00 13:02:�4 N WA 19 B744 D 04 98.8
03/ 02/ 00 13:08:04 N WA 19 B�44 D 04 98.3
03/ 15/ 00 13:04:50 NWA19 B742 D 04 97.2
03/ 15/ 00 11:37:12 N WA 1271 B72Q D 04 96.5
03/ 16/ 00 22:53:41 NWA87 B744 D 04 96.2
03/ 04/ 00 17:43:38 Unknown Unknown A 22 95.3
03/ 16/ 00 12:�7:31 NWA19 B744 D 04 91.6
03/ 05I 00 16:10:37 NWA843 B72Q A 22 91.4
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure -
03/ 15/ 00 13:05:09 N WA 19 B742 D 04 95.0
031 16/ 00 12:57:49 N WA 19 B�44 D � 04 93.1
03/ 12/ 00 13:31:34 DAL18�9 B72Q A 30R 89.7
03/ Ol/ 00 13:10:56 N WA 19 B742 D 04 87.9
03/ 03/ 00 10:02:50 NWA1279 DC9Q A 30R 85.'7
03/ 10/ 00 7:20:46 Unknown BE18 D 12L 85.3
03/ 10/ 00 17:42:12 NWA461 DC9Q D �� 04 85.0
03l 1�/ QO 11:3�:35 N WA 1271 B72Q D 04 84.0
03/ 03/ 00 19:08:0� NWA969 DC9Q A 30R 832
03/ 26/ 00 12:17:48 NWA986 DC9Q A 30R 82.5
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul
Date/ Time Flight I�tumber Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB) �
03/ 30/ 00 7:31:45
03/ 08/ 00 23:52:18
03/ 09/ 00 0:47:�6
03/ 09/ 00 0:08:23
Unknow•n BE18
EWW123 Unknown
RYN?10 B72Q
KHA352 Unknown
Departure
D 12L 85.0
D 04 84.4
D 04 80.8
D 04 80.4
03/ 08/ 00 7:22:57 BMJ48 BE80 D 12L 78.6
03/ OS/ 00 21:33:�4 MES2931 SF34 D 12L 78.2
03/ 10/ 00 9:1�:48 MES287� SF34 D 12L 77.8
03/ 06/ 00 13:22:01 MES2737 SF34 D 12L 77.7
03/ 0$/ 00 1120:�8 MES3132 SF34 . D 12L 77.5
03/ 18/ 00 14:0�29 MES2843 SF34 D 12L 76.8
A Product of the Metrapolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 21
C
C
C
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten I..oudest Aircraft Noise Eve�ts %�-1l�ISP
March 2Q00
` (g,1VIT Site#13)
Southeast End Of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 23/00 9:�0:11 NWA547 B72Q D 12L 91.�
03/ 08/ 00 12:01:38 NWA1259 B72Q D 12L 90.8
03/ 23/ 00 7:42:49 SCX621 B72Q D 12L 90.4
03/ 06/ 00 8:01:53 SC�325 B72Q D 12R 89.8
03/ 22/ 00 8:02:25 SCX325 B72Q D 12L 89.6
03/ 06/ 00 20:00:50 DAL1683 B72Q D 12L 89.4
03/ 20/ 00 11:40:36 NWA1271 B72Q D 12L 89.4
03/ OS/ 00 7:41:31 SCX749 B72Q D 12L 89.3
03/ 19/ 00 14:23:24 NWA1266 B72Q D 12L g9-2
03/ 24/ 00 13:3�:18 NWA624 B72Q D 12L 83.4
(RMT Site#14)
l� St. & Mckee St., Eagan
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraf� Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure �
03/ 07/ 00 20:37:57 NWA5�7 B72Q D 12R 96.3
03/ 20/ 00 13:13:08 N WA 19 B742 D 12R 96.3
031 19/ 00 8:58:45 SCX791 B72Q � D 12R 95.�
03/ 11/00 5:34:4� CCP210 B72Q D 12L 95.5
03/ 05/ 00 14:�3:42 SCX748 B72Q D 12R 95.1
03/ 24/ 00 9:51:24 UAL1133 B72Q D 12L 95.0
03/ 30/ 00 8:16:14 SCX709 B72Q D � 12R 9�.0
03/ 12/ 00 16:4�:56 CCP450� B72Q D 12R 94.9
03I OS/ 00 8:24:44 SCX723 B72Q D 12R 94.8
03/ 22/ 00 9:0�:35 SCX407 B72Q D 12R � 94.7
(RMT Site#15)
Cullon St. & Le�ngton Ave., Mendota Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 241 00 11:48:10 N WA 1271 � B72Q D 12L 94.9
03/ 08/ 00 17:00:23 NWA580 B72Q D 12L 94.5
03/ 24/ 00 7:23:21 SCX710 _ B72Q D 12L 94.0
03/ 18/ 00 23:35:05 NWA�6Q DC9Q D 12L 93.1
03/ 06/ 00 7:� 1:18 N WA312 B'72Q D 12L 93.1
03/ 08/ 00 12:01:20 N WA 1259 B72Q D 12L 93.0
03/ OS/ 00 8:0�:24 SCX32� B72Q D 12L 92.1
03/ OS/ 00 22:22:57 I�tWA190 B72Q D 12L 9.1.8
03/ 06/ 00 21:43:11 N WA 1267 B72Q . D 12L 91.7
03/ 06/ 00 20:51:13 NWA787 DC9Q D 12L 91.5
22 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1V�SP
March 20(}0
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane, Eagan
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 20/ 00 10:47:33 CCP460 B72Q D 12R 100.7
03/ 24/ 00 14:22:51 SCX729 B72Q D 12R 99.9
03/ 18/ 00 7:47:�9 CCP151 B72Q D 12R 99.6
03/ 29/ 00 11:0627 CCP550 B72Q D 12R 99.5
03/ 24% 00 14:13:32 CCP270 B'72Q D 12R 99.4
03/ 20/ 00 8:12:42 SCX705 B'72Q D 12R � 993
03/ 23/ 00 16:47:56 CCP450 B72Q D 12R 98.9
03/ 20/ 00 13:12:53 NWA19 B742 D 12R 98.3
03/ 04/ 00 22:38:10 SCX937 B72Q D 12R 98.1
03/ 24/ 00 9:24:05 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 98.1
(RMT Site#17)
84�' St. & 4�' Ave., Bloomington
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
. Tvne Denarture
03/ 08/ 00 13:3�:43
03/ 04/ 00 12:42:07
03/ 22/ 00 13:1�:44
03/ 2�/ 00 13:33:09
N WA 19 B742 D
N WA 83 B742 D
N WA 19 B742 D
N WA 19 B742 D
22 99.1
22 98.0
22 96.�
22 96.0
03/ 23/ 00 13:0323 N�VA19 B744 D 22 95.7
03/ 29/ 00 12:��:17 NWA19 B742 D 22 9�.5
03/ 10/ 00 13:02:�3 NWA83 Unknown D � 22 95.1
03/ 06/ 00 13:1�:37 NWA19 B742 D � 22 94.6
03/ OS/ 00 13:20:� 1 N WA 19 B744 D 22 94.1
03/ 04/ 00 13:27:34 N WA 19 B742 D 22 93.0
(RMT Site#18)
75th St. & 17�' Ave, Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
TvDe Departure
03/ 18/ 00 13:55:19
03/ 06/ 00 13:1�:11
03/ 26/ 00 8:36:25
03/ 31/ 00 12:40:19
03/ 24/ 00 12:�3:54
03/ 22/ 00 13:15:21
03/ 13/ 00 13:18:30
NWA 19
NWA19
N WA 83
N WA 83
NWA19
NWA19
NWA19
B742
B742
B742
B742
B742
B742
B742
�
•
�
r
�
�
r
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
103.7
103.6
102.9
102.0
101.6
101.1
100.9
03/ OS/ 00 13:3�:19 N WA 19 B742 D 22 100.8
03/ 04/ 00 12:41:44 N WA 83 B742 D 22 99.4
03/ 04/ 00 13:27:10 N WA 19 B�42 D 22 99.2
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Cominission ANOMS Program 23
C
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
"i"op Ten Loudest Ai��raft I�oise Events for 10��SP
March 2000
(RMT Site#19)
16tb Ave. & 84�' St., Bloomington
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 04/ 00 16:19:�4 SCX793 B'72Q D 22 95.2
03/ 25/ 00 5:32:24 CCP210 B72Q D 22 95.1
03I 05/ 00 15:55:04 DAL1624 B72Q D 22 94.�
03/ 04/ 00 1621:23 SCX743 B72Q D 22 94.3
03/ 11/ 00 8:41:09 NWA312 DC9Q D 22 93.1
03/ 11/ 00 8:59:18 NWA762 DC9Q D 22 92.7
03! 04/ 00 17:��:19 SCX753 B72Q D 22 92.4
03/ 14/ 00 7:11:59 N WA 120 B72Q D 22 92.0
03/ 04/ 00 6:18:26 SCX625 B72Q D 22 91.9
03/ 16/ 00 8:33:44 NWA762 B72Q D 22 91.9
(RMT Site#20)
75`�' St. & 3� Ave., Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure �
03/ 03/ 00 2324:11 NWA1267 B72Q D 22 93.3
03/ 07/ 00 8:59:17 SCX'715 B72Q. D 22 87.I
03/ 13/ 00 22:41:44 FBF709 DCBQ D 30L 86.0
03/ 26/ 00 8:36:51 NWA83 B742 D 22 85.6
03/ 25/ 00 14:50:16 DAL1731 B72Q D 30L 85.5
03/ 11/ 00 6:�924 BMJ56 BE80 D ,. 30L 84.0
03/ 27/ 00 13:57:03 UAL378 B73Q D 30L 83.9
03/ 27/ 00 13:�3:34 NWA780 DC9Q D 30L 83.6
03/ 11/ 00 829:�4 DAL1001 B733 D 22 83.5
03/ 27/ 00 14:00:50 NWA209 DC9Q D 30L � 83.4
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67�' St., Inver Grove Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Tvpe Departure
� 03/ 18/ 00 9:12:37 SCX715 B72Q D 12R 88.0
03/ 29/ 00 12:0727 N WA 1259 B72(�7 D 12L 86.9
03/ 22/ 00 9:0�:30 DAL1702 B72Q D 12R 8�.5
03/ 29/ 00 8:00:09 SCX325 B72Q D 12L 8�.1
03/ 12/ 00 16:22:�1 DAL1624 B�2Q D 12L 8�.1
03/ 29/ 00 15:(19:15 NWA304 B72Q D 12L 8�.1
03/ 29/ 00 1�:06:14 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 84.8
03/ 3Q/ 00 12:19:�4 NWA921 B742 D 12R 84.8
03/ 07/.00 19:20:27 UAL481 B72Q D 12L 84.7
03/ OS/ 00 7:42:11 SCX749 B72Q D 12L 84.6
24 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten I,oudest Aircrait Noise Events for MSP
March 2000
(RMT Site#22) �..
Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 18/ 00 9:05:53 SCX409 B72Q D 12R 86.9
03/ 18/ 00 7:25:15 SCX759 B72Q D 12R 86.5
03/ 10/ 00 936:29 DAL1'702 B72Q D 12L 86.2
03/ 04/ 00 22:39:15 SCX937 B72Q D 12R 85.9
03/ 06/ 00 16:32:02 SCX403 B72Q D 12R 85.4
03/ 17/ 00 13:I724 NWA19 B742 D � 12R 85.4
03/ 06/ 00 8:22:34 SCX705 B72Q D 12R 85.2
03/ 18/ 00 5:36:00 CCP450 B72Q D 12R 85.1
03f 20/ 00 16:3�:46 SCX403 B72Q D 12R 85.0
03/ 09/ 00 9:57:34 LNW189 Unknown A 30L 84.8
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Heights
_.Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lma�c (dB)
Type Departure �
03/ 23/ 00 9:49:39 NWA�47 B72Q D 12L 100.5
03/ 24/ 00 11:�7:5� N WA 1271 B72Q D 12L 99.4
03/ 06/ 00 13:30:41 NWA624 B72Q D 12L 99.1
03/ 24/ 00 13:09:10 NWA1266 B72Q D 12L 989 �
03/ 20/ 00 15:0�:48 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 98.9
03/ 05/ 00 11:5�:25 NWA1259 B72Q D ,, 12L 98.9
03/ 08/ 00 12:01:06 N WA 1259 B72Q D 12L 98.4
03/ 20/ 00 11:40:02 N WA I271 B72Q D 12L 98.2
03/ 18/ 00 13:28:40 N WA 1266 B72Q D 12L 98.1
03/ 08/ 00 7:47:21 NWA652 . B72Q D 12L 98.0
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Eagan
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
T��pe Departure
03/ 2Q/ 00 13:13:26 N WA 19 B742 D 12R 92.8
03/ OS/ 00 8:2�:03 SCX723 B72Q D 12R 92.2
03/ 22/ 00 9:04:13 SCX791 B�2Q D 12R 92.0
03/ 0�/ 00 9:07:04 SCX409 B'72Q D 12R 91.9
03/ 18/ 00 16:�2:14 SCX793 B72Q D 12R 91.7
03/ 29f 00 9:06:�9 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 91.4
03/ 18/ 00 9:0�:22 SCX409 B72Q D 12R 91.3
03/ 0�/ 00 17:3828 CCP4�0 B72Q D 12R 91.1
03/ 22/ 00 9:0�:�6 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 91.0
03/ 0�/ 00 14:44:03 SCX748 . B72Q D 12R 90.8
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Cor►unission ANOMS Prograin 2�
26
Metropolitan A.ircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top T+en Loudest Aircraft I�Toise Events for lO�ISP
March 2040
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 13/ 00 7:24:�7 NWA1053 DC9Q A 30L 89.6
03/ 18/ 00 16:40:23 SCX743 B72Q D 12R 89.4
03/ 20/ 00 19:55:29 SCX792 B72Q D 12R 86.9
03/ 20/ 00 8:15:37 CCP101 B72Q D 12R 86.3
03/ 18/ 00 7:48:10 CCP151 B72Q D 12R 85.4
03/ 18/ 00 9:10:10 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 84.8
03/ 02/ 00 17:44:58 DAL505 B72Q D 12R 84.7
03/ 23/ 00 8:16:46 CCP406 B72Q D 12R 84.6
03/ 16/ 00 22:23:34 SCX921 B'72Q D 12R 84.0
03/ 20/ 00 23:07:17 FBF709 DCSQ D 12R 83.9
(RMT Site#26)
6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 08/ 00 11:35:22 N WA I271 B�2Q D 12R 90.2
03/ 24/ 00 10:40:30 TRZ7241 B72Q D 12R 88.7
03/ 18/ 00 9:12:11 SCX715 B72Q D 12R 88.6
03/ 04/ 00 20:5�:0� NWA1273 B72Q D 12R 88.6
03/ 22/ 00 6:08:15 CCP101 B72Q D 12R 88.5
03/ 30/ 00 6:11:37 SCX481 B72Q D ,� 12R 87.9
03/ 23/ 00 �:4�:12 SCX6Q3 B72Q D 12R 87.8
03/ 08/ 00 8:31:16 CCP210 B72Q D 12R 87.'7
03/ 10/ 00 8:07:02 SCX325 B72Q D 12R 87.7
03/ 18/ 00 12:11:39 NWA619 B72Q D 12L 87.5
(RMT Site#27)
Anthony Middle School, 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Tvpe Departure
03/ 25/ 00 9:12:58 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 96.0
03/ 28/ 00 16:50:11 SCX785 B72Q D 30L 95.1
03/ 02/ 00 6:10:44 CCP201 B72Q D 30L 94.�
03/ 04/ 00 12:15:25 NWA921 B�42 D 30L 94.2
03/ 03/ 00 17:40:08 SCX403 B72Q D 30L 94.0
03/ 02/ 00 8:13:54 CCP406 B72Q D 30L 93.9
03/ 15/ 00 6:12:21 CCP101 B72Q D 30L 93.6
Q3/ 03/ 00 7:�7:09 UAL1217 B72Q D 30R 93.5
03/ O1/ 00 22:08:�1 SCX711 B72Q , D 30L 93.5
03/ 04/ 00 12:10:49 UAL1177 B72Q D 30R 93.5
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Progz'am
Metropolitan Aircraf% Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
�.'op Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP'
March 2000
�RMT Site#28) �
6645 16 Avenue S., Richfield
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ 31/ 00 6:�7:26 BMJ46 BE80 D Unknown 9�.6
03/ 28/ 00 6:32:41 BMJ56 BE80 D 30L 95.4
03/ 11/ 00 9:46:33 RYN431 B72Q D 30L 93.7
03/ 16/ 00 6:31:12 BMJ56 BE80 D 30L 92.4
03/ 07/ 00 6:42:51 BMJ56 BE80 D 30L 92_4
03/ 09/ 00 6:35:�4 BMJ56 BE80 D 30L 91.3
03/ 04/ 00 8:05:32 UAL1964 B73Q D 30R 90.9
03/ 25/ 00 7:06:47 BMJ56 BE80 D 30L 90.4
03/ 011 00 6:34:07 BMJ56 BE80 D 30L 90.1
03/ 15/ 00 9:56:59 NWA727 DC9Q D 30L 89.6
(RMT Site#29)
Ericsson Elementary School, 4315 31�` Ave. S., Minneapolis
Date/ Time Flight Number Aircraft ArrivaU Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
03/ Ol/ 00 7:26:00 NWA312 B72Q D 30R 92.8
03/ Ol/ 00 '7:21:42 SCX623 B72Q D 30R 92.6
03/ Ol/ 00 7:32:06 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 91.6
03/ 14/ 00 7:39:03 NWA312 B72Q D 30R 91.5 ��
03/ 31/ 00 21:30:04 SCX792 B72Q D 30R 91.0
03/ 31/ 00 14:1�:00 NWA624 B72Q D 30R 90.2
03/ 27/ 00 �:36:57 SCX710 B72Q D '' 30R 89.1
03/ 10/ 00 18:0�:48 UAL1616 B73Q D 30R 89.1
03/ 11/ 00 16:08:�3 UAL1957 B73Q D 30R 88_9
03/ 26/ 00 20:34:07 SCX792 B72Q D 30L 88.9
March 2000 Top Ten Summarv: The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RM`T for March
2000 were comprised of 93.1% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the
Boeing 727 Husheti with 67.6% of the highest Lmax events
Note: Unknow�n fields are due to data unati•ailability in FA.A flight track data
Note: Missing FAA radar data for 0 dati5 during the month of March 2000.
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 27
Metropolitan Airczaft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
r�nalysis of �,ircraf� Noise Even�s - Aircrait Ldn d�A
IVlarch 2000
� Remote Monitoring Towers
I
2
3
4
�
6
7
$
9
lU
11
1?
13
1�
i�
I6
17
18
19
2U
21
��
,;
��
��
��9 ��9.� 64.� � 66.2 7�.� 7�.� 69.3 6�.6 45.1 602 �0.� 40.3 n/a 63.6 �2.4
�6.9 ��8.9 6�.4 � 63.� 7�.� 71.7 64.1 60.1 �.3 ��.4 �.1 38.� 60.7 67.3 62.�
�;7.3 ��9.� 6�.3 � 6�.7 7G.8 I 76.� 68.3 6�.1 I 4�? �.6 =t7.� 4�.3 �t9.3 I 6�3 �3.7
��7.7 ��7.� � 64.� � 63.1 73.2 73.9 � 65.1 6I.8 41.1 �32 I n/a 3�.� �6.3 69.�1 �8.�
( 61.3 ` 63.3 68.3 b33 72 71.9 41.9 43 �1.4 » n/a I 40.1 62.� 70.4 6�.7
, i
( 62.� i 6?.3 ( 63.6 � C�.B 73.� 72.� �3.� 46.7 33.1 4�.7 42 38.� 633 69.8 67.1
i�9.6) �9.9 6�.9 Ert.2 7� 73.$ 6�.3 60.6 n/a 38.7 n/a 33.7 62.7 67.7 6�.8
i �
i�8.ti j 63.� 67.� � Cxi 7;.� 7�.0 I 66.1 61.4 4=1.8 �7.� � n/a ».9 60 69.1 63.3
��6.2 � 61.1 � Er}.9 6�.$ 73.6 i 7�.2 67.2 62.1 , 4fi.1 �8.8 49.6 �.7 �4.9 (i4.; �7.2
+ �9.2 j 62.� ! 66.6 6�.� 7�.6 74.7 66.$ 6�? 36.2 �03 47.9 42.� ��.2 67.> >8.4
I �8.1 j�9 63.6 I C�t.� 7�.8 7�}.� 6f3.� G�.4 42.1 4�.1 493 =�7 �.? 67.6 �9.2
i !
i �9 I 6p.1 ! 6�.8 I 63.6 76 73.9 � n�.3 61.2 33. � 39.2 �3.1 41.4 60 67.� 60.8
��8.8 i 60.4 I 66. t � 6�2 76 1 7�. i 7U.3 65.9 I 43.7 43.6 I 3�.1 39.8 =�3.6 63.1 5�4.7
j�8.9 '; tQ.3 � 6�.7 ! 6�.4 7-1 j 7�.7 6�3.4 ti32 47.4 42.8 37.� 43.3 � �9.9 66.1 61.4
!�6.� i�?.I { 6�#.� j 6;.4 7�.� i 7-t.h ! t;9.; � 63.9 �43.; �8.3 �3.8 I n/a �k�.l 63.7 47.3
� , � i ; ; i
;�.0 j 57? � E*4.3 ! 61.3 7�.c; !';.6 ; Exi. � I b3.1 I� 63.7 �.6 47.7 �2.4 63.1 �2.7
i t;0.; I 61.1 I 68.2 I 6;.; 7� : 71.n �-1".7 ��U.9 40.7 49.6 � � 42 63.� 68.4 64.�
; E�J. S � C2. 8 � 62� ; C� ; �? %U. �) �t �. Z � ». � I �49.2 �2.6 �4.8 38.6 6 � ( 70.6 67
` c� 1.h '. h.,. � ( h8.3 ; i *t C> � � , � -i ' 1 : -1-t.;� ! ;-�. � I � 1.9 �6.1 � � I .7 38.1 60 70.8 61
i
` h�.t; i t�-t.' ; ExY.�I i i�l..; 7� �'tt.i; �-4�.;i i 3c;.3 (�2.1 �3._i d�.d I 34.� 624 69.1 E�3.1
: 6?.E; � 6�.9 i E�E>.�l ; 7� � C, 7c; w'?�) ;� 7(�.;c i cx;.�+ ��10.1 39.� i n/a � 4U.6 33.� Er�.S 50.6
I
iy.7 fi3.? � t5ti.-1 � (ici �{ ( .?i " ; ?7 ; � (�2{.2 � (xi.fi i �7? �ki 39.3 ( �7.7 �8.7 67 �9..i
, ' ; , '
� C*� ; t�-t.� I hy.-� j i,; �) ?.; - "� � : ��.; -k�. i � �-J.1 37.:3 I 3:�.7 ( ;Fi.2 ( 63.7 70.7 6�.�
; �
C�. i� h? ?; i' I' ct, �. ��� � c�?.� C�-I.9 ���.1 �7.3 I 3%.2 ��.8' 6U. i 69. i 62.7
�i;.9 � ; ; � � 6� 3 c;� � � - ; -1 '-- � J i k� -1 c> ; 7 � �2.7 �4U. ] 32.1 i �7.1 ��.1 6�.? �2.9
i�8.? ; C�.1 � 6�.? � ti� �?� �� -� .; . t4ti i' ��i !�.9 4g.4 �.6 I 30.6 �8.8 66.> j7.�
, -- - ----- j
�;. �� Sy.l I h? i c.-1 �) �:'; -a_� "1 h; G�.9 ';.i.� 57.� (�1�.6 �=10.� 43.9 fr'1.9 51.]
;y ; G1.� I t;;., ; �; � '; �� '-1 ti t;�.v � 6; i ��'.� �}2.6 ��.8 37.3 �7.9 6�? �9.1
' �9.1 i 61.ti i 6�.-t � (til.;i 71 '�_ _ �-1 cx, c; ; h �.fi { �Q.1 �1�1.� �.9 47.� �9.8 63.5 61.1
?�.�) : 61.1 ; E,�.� ; t*l.? �.;,� �.; �� lt�;c t;2.� j�1.9 50.� 37.1 �t7.9 60.4 63.6 61.2
--- '
� i i
�$. � i ti).7 1 ci-�.1 i Cx;.l "t� 1?c� 1 7U.� i hCi.2 I=�0.:� �0.6 39.4.._ 3� 47.3 , 6�? 49.9
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
e
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (M1�1SAC) Technical Advisor's Report �
A.nalysis �iAir�rafi Noise Events - Aircra�i I,dn d�A
IVlarch 2000 �
Remate Monitoimg Toweis
1 67.6 ( 49.8 ��48.9 42.� �4.9 � 43.8 ��9.6 58.6 63.7 4b.4 »3 6�.6 66.� C�1.1
2 709 �7 >j.8 � 38.6 �#l.�i (>j.6 �8:3 71.1 64.8 �6.8 (�82 66 61.4 �2
; 69.2 �8 64.1 �6.8 63.8 40.2 �8.9 62 643 �3.> >3.1 68.3 63.6 62.8
4 71.7 62 69.2 66.> >2.8 ».9 61.7 ti�.9 67 �1.� ( 61.1 62.9 62? ».b
5 72 �2.9 �7.4 (�3.8 37.4 �8.7 61.2 72.2 66.6 56.7 63.6 �3 �6.6 n/a
6 69.8 �2.£� �9.4 47.7 41.7 �S.l 61 71.9 n!a 66 61.7 37.9 �8.1 38.�
7 71.8 �3.7 �7.8 � 1 J � 1.4 6U. I 603 72.8 6�1.6 �8.1 60.8 63.6 6�.? >j.4
8 71.7 ti�.4 64.1 ��.8 4£.9 �7.6 61.1 69.9 66.3 �7.4 60.2 5�.9 63.3 �2
9 68:7 63.7 �7.7 �1.9 4�.6 .�.1 �9.1 62.� 63.5 �8.� �6.7 62.9 6� �7.7
10 713 �8.� 60.7 ��.5 �0.7 �3.7 �9.6 6�.4 6�.9 �7.8 �9.1 64.6 62.9 60.7
Il 7U ��.8 61.7 �8.8 �.� 41.� �b.8 �3.3 63.8 49.7 �.7 63.9 62.9 62.1
12 7Q.� (�7.6 �6.6 473 �2.; 60.6 �9.� 70.2 6�.1 �4 �9.9 63.1 �9.8 �#.2
I� I 6;.6 �8.9 61.2 ».> >9 �7.b �6.8 6L� 62.3 49.> >2.6 64.7 6�.6 6�.8
' 1� � 69.7 ».d 62.1 �9.7 �.� ��-t.E, ��9.9 67.1 E�.7 �29 �7J 63.1 63.4 �9
�, (,_
i 15 ; 6�.8 I�4.6 a6. � 3b.2 ;;.� i 31.8 j 59.5 55.8 63.2 4D.8 46.6 66 64.6 609
i
IG � 65.7 ,�.I �3.8 �2 -1�.-3 ��-i.-t ! �-�.1 63 61.� �7.6 60.4 6� 629 �6.6
� ' '
17 i 71.7 i�? � 36.� ��.9 n/a ��9.3 ��9.� i 70.8 b�.� 62.�1 62.6 4f.3 �b.7 n/a
� � ; i �
l�i � i?.$ I�. i � 6[ ��t9 �4;? !�9.1 � fii.? i 73.3 6?.l �9.4 63 �3.� �7.$ �0
' l�) ; 7;.�t i�.�i �8S � 35.�t �8.; i�7.1 I�9.G ; 7(1.7 I E�6? G1.6 60.1 �.9 62.8 n/a
2Ct I 73.7 �-tfi.�t ��1.3 ��t?.�l n/a � t�t) � E�().9 i 7�.9 f�.7 63.8 61 4=t.4 �8.3 36.4
� 21 � C�S �7.3 ( 61.� � E�l.l �2i.7 ;�7.9 � 62.1 ��6.7 64.7 �33 SL� 662 6�.6 61.�
! �� j 7U.�L �8.ti ��8.7 j;3.� „�) ;;y.? j t;i.l i C�ci.9 6�.7 �b.8 61.9 6�.2 63.7 �5.�
i ; �
2; ; 7-t.2 ���t �».h �-�2.7 -I�.� :. �`�.�� i 61.� ; 71.7 67.8 66.7 64.1 �43.� �9.8 n/a
� '-t i 7�.$ j�6.fi I 6Q6 � jti.� �c� ?�t;. i; E�1.2 � 69.7 ( 67.1 6C.1 6U.1 63.3 6�.9 Er�
�� � 7U.1 I 6�.6 � 6�.� j 6C.fi �ci 1�-1Ci.; ' E�tl.� ': �$.8 6�.�1 �2.9 (�.8 63.7 6�.? 61.3
��; � c>9.6 ��199 � E�O.n j-1�.; ;;.1 �c;.-� � 61.1 ; C�.3 6=t.> >3.� 63 �9.2 n/a 63.2
2� � 7U. i j�t9.; �G.� ��7.? ;'� :;`>. (;;y. ;!�5.6 � 64.2 513 �2 62.1 69.6 62.E�
' ?4 � 6��.6 I ��.�1 �1.� � �t7.K �i.� -�-1.� ' �9? � 66 , 63.9 i 60.9 �8.8 63.7 66.7 �7.5
, 2�) � 71.G � GO.2 ��8.9 �7 -1?.? :�;{.h � C�O.9 i 7U 6G..i �7S �99 E0.3 62.6 �7.2
� ;t) ' f;9.� i 60.2 65.3 �� �-1S !;�i.7 ��`)."i I 69.� 6�.� 59.9 Er'1.4 E�.6 62.1 59.3
� 3l i t;7.�) � 5;.6 60 �19.�4 �1.9 ��lti.g ��9.� I E1.3 I h�.2 47 ».4 66.3 67.; 63.6
C
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 29
s
�. '�
C
Metropolitan Airports Commission '
�1 (�a�%) Ra�a���� �.2� ��� fl.2� �a���ie� ��� ��������r� ��e�°�tf��� a�v��°� _ :
1����� �� t�i� ���`° �o������° ����a���°y ������ l���c� �.���
Niinr+eapolis—St. Paul
�'��o�e�a�a�iou� �ate Plm� for Gaie North Corridor
�3/4�3/2��0 O�:a0:00 — 04/Oi/2(��0 OO:�D0:00
2'� �'a��c�ss Crass�d Caat�: L��# = 1(4.8%), Ftight = 20 (95.2%)
� �i3c�� . : .
d . . .
=- �ao� . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o.. . .. ... ... . .
o ' ' '
a�m� ................ ............... ' ................ : ................
> �
a� : :
� 3��� ................................................. . .................
'C � � � O
°- 2�3�� ................ ............... ' .... .p.;b.�?�.�..........
st . � � G � . O
� � ���3 .........:...... :....� ...........: .........,,..... : ................
a . . .
s� : : :
� �
—2 —� d3 � 2
(Runway End) D��raa�timn �u�axrru ��s���s� o� ���re (ilr�il�s) (Corridor End)
+ ��r6y�a o ��g�ariva�� ❑ ��e�fBBg�i �
Page 2 lvton[hly Eagan/iVlendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
� .'
Metropolitan Airports Commission
339 (5.2�/0) Runway �.��.. ��d �.2� ��rr�e� ,�ei I�epar�a�r� (�p�rat��ns �ere
5o�t� of t�� C�r�-��o� (�o��h of ��� L�c����e�) Durir�g I+�I�rch �000
� N9inneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor
03/01 /2000 00:00:00 - 04/07 /2000 00:00:00
339 Tracks Cress�d Gate: Lefit = 218 (64.3%), Right = 121 (85.7%)
+^• 6
a�
ti
v �
C V
�
� 4
�
d
W
� y
�
Q' L
a
°1 i
>
0
�
a
..................:...................:..................:..................
..................•..................:..................,...............,..
r,��
� O 1
,i. f;���='i' � � fr • � •
� ;�,� . ti. F,.a!T�1 �!�,r+.'" .�
a i�
"'���y+'~`�ry �''Trr1►i« � �'r '��s:►-r�'��:�.� w �
�� (�) � ll` .✓r�:w •�--�F�"^�'' -�{ -�'��M'c-+a.��"''►i.��) _...
� •�� _'✓r-''��c ��;,,��.r,�*� ��.; �w� � cjr,.,
� ` •
-� -� o i 2
(Corridor End) p��va��o� �rom Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Point;
+ ArrBvai o �eparture ❑ Overflight �
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
1�(0.2 �Io ) l�u�way � 2L and 12R Carr�er J�t Depart�r� C.�p�ra�flons we��
5° South of the Corr�dor (5° South of 30L Locali�er) Durflng l�arch 2000
Page 4
^ 600
d
d
= 500
0
co 400
>
d
W 300
�
0
°� 200
�4
� 100
0
.�
Q
■
- Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Coeridor_5deg
03/01/2000 00:00:00 — 04/01/2000 00:00:00
11 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =10 (90.9%), Right =1 (9.1%a)
J� .................. . ............... . ................ .................I
�t ................. ............... ................ .................)
............. .................................... ..................)
� .�....... 0...... :.� ...............: ................ . ................
O . 0 � �: .
� ................ ............... .. 0............ ' ................
—2 —1 0 1 2 I
(Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Point)f
+ Arrival 0 Departure ❑ Overflight �
Nlonthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Ana(ysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 R.unway 12I.., and 12�2 I)eparture Destinations fo� 1Viarch 2000
/ D � ,
A � / � B
� � I � C7 i
i I � � � �
ORD Chicago - O'Hare 124,0 425 6.5°Io
DTW Detroit 105° 206 3.1 %
DEI�t Denver 2370 195 3.0%
STL St. Louis �60� 193 2.9%
DFW Dallas - Ft. Worth 193° 170 2.6%
MDW Chicago - Midway 124.� 151 2.3°Io
ATL Atlanta 149° 147 2.2%
PHX Phoenix . 231� 135 2.1%
MCI Kansas City 1 gg� 124 1.9%
EWR Newark 106° 115 1.7%
MEM Memphis 162� 111 1.7%
Ivti{E Milwaukee 114° � 110 1.7%
CLE Cleveland 109° 109 1.7%
LAS Las Vegas 2q.3� 103 1.6%
FAR Fargo 312� •• 100 1.5%
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Pa�e 5
�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Counci� (�1/1ASAC)
6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 726-8141
Chairman: Mayor Charies 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
SPECIAL IViEET1tVG NOTICE
NIASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
The Operations Committee will meet Monday, Mav 1, 2000 — 10:30 a.m, in the Large
Construction Trailer, 6040 28th Avenue South.
If you are unabie ta attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name
of your designated alternate.
, � ♦
�� oll cail
pproval of the April 14, 2000 Minutes
Old Business
�! Arrivai Impacts for Runway 35
New Business
t� Metropolitan Council Land Use Policy Review
�� /
"3.�' art 150 Land Use Measures
�: Lunch
r,?�Fieet Mix Alternatives
�Nighttime Fiight Track Alternatives '
9. Other Items Not on the Agenda
10. Adjournment
10:30
10:35
10:40
10:55
11:25
12:15
12:45
1:30
2:00
2:10
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 Heights
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Pam Dmytrenko, Richfieid
Tom Lawell, Appie Valiey
Tom Hansen, Burnsviile
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis
Gienn Strand, Minneapolis
Advisory:
Chad Leqve, 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
cifiy of
bloomington, minnesota
2215 West Old Shakopee Road ■ Bloomington MN 55431-3096 ■(612) 948-8920 ■ FAX: 948-8949 ■ TDD: 948-8740
April 18, 2000
Roy Fuhrmann
Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28`" Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear 1VIr. Fuhrmann,
This letter responds to your March 291etter requesting the City of Bloomin�ton's
recommendation on sound insulation priority.
The Bloomington City Council recommends the following priority:
1. Complete the sound insulation of 75 uninsulated single-family houses in Bloomin�on within
the 1996 DNL 65 noise contour (also referred to as the Deferred Area).
2. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes within the 2005 Di�tL 65
and greater contour. �
3. Complete insulation of single-family and duplex homes �vithin the 2005 DNL 60 contour for
runway 17-35 prior to opening of the 17-35 runway.
4. Complete insulation of multi-family homes within the 2005 DNL 60 and greater noise
contour.
For any questig,7s about this recommendation, please contact Larry Lee at 952�948-89�7.
0
Gene Winstead '�
Mayor
cc: John Nelson
Larry Lee
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities Empioyer
Qpl.iS SqI
2,P -j� '�T
rr t 9G
_ � �
m p
at , t �
p N
V
O'� t � GO �
9� 41RPORSy
� .�.� . .�..�. � �� �
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
April 12, 2000
Mr. Neil Clark
5917 Grass Lake Terrace
Minneapolis, MN 55419
Dear Mr. Clark:
I am responding to your request dated March 29, 2000. I understand your inquisitive approach to the
accuracy of the noise contours and the subsequent accurate representation of noise impact distribution on
the ground. In prior conversations, we have discussed how Integrated Noise Model (INM) fli�ht tracks are
developed through the use of ANOMS flight track data as acquired from the FAA via the ASR9 radar at
MSP. Your resultant request regarding the accuracy of the F,4A's ASR9 radar at MSP was forwarded to
Cindy Greene, FAA Minneapolis Air Traffic Support Manager. Mrs. Greene requested input from George
Inb aham, FAA Minneapolis Facility Manager relative to the ASR9 radar accuracy: Enclosed is Mr.
Inb aham's response, I hope you find this information helpfuL
Thank you for your thought and inquiry.
� � Sincerel �
,
�
Chad eqve
OMS Coordinator,
Metropolitan Airports Commission
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an aEEirmative action employer.
www.mspairport.com
Reliever Airporks: AIRL�KE • ANOICA COUNZ f/BLF.IlVE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAII�TI' PALJL DOWNTOWN
�: � � r,�:
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation _
Administrafiion -
Subject: Information: Minneapoiis ASR-9 Accuracy Date: April 11, 2000
From: Gregory M. ingraham:
Minneapolis Facility IVlanager, DMS SMO
To: Cindy Greene
Minneapolis Air Traffic Support Manager
Reply
To:
As specified in the Federal Aviation Technical Instruction Manual (TI 6310.24); the Minneapolis Airport
Surveillance Radar (MSP ASR) provides a range accuracy of 1/32 Nautical Miles and the azimuth
accuracy is within .088 degrees. If you have any further questions on this matter, pfease contact Curt
Wynkoop at (612)713-4113.
� . ,���
�
Gregory M. Ingraham
� � � � �� - � -� �� ,� � , �
i
�, � � •
,■• ill
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY AS
POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORIVI�L RESOLUTIONS.
Date: 3�Z�1 �
Name: / P �`) G a-r �''
Address: R17 C� Yass L ak� lcr:
��,{ � H � e�w ottz ,t,� �(
���y
Phone: (�t cSG �'-' Sdt�t-
Is this a one-time request? es r No
On whose behalf are you requesting?:
Yourself y c s
City Council
Mayor
Citizen
Organization /�,� �`i,uca� v �1J
Other
Beginning
If no, what is the expected time frame for this request?
to
Which of the followirig best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply)
�
Ground Noise Overflights �. Run-Ups Contours Part 150
Ending
Other
PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE AND/OR ATTACI3 ANY LETTERS OR
FORMAL RESOLUTIONS.
� � � - over -
c'
i � �•�• �� �� ��� � i � ,•.
�PP��IS SqI,�,T
t
2r t 9G
� �
� z
' m t, O
j � t N
O H
0
<"�
O �r .f- � GO
9� 41RPOaYy
Mr. Lance Staricha
3895 Newtown Court
Eagan, MN 55123 �
Dear Mr. Staricha:
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
April 12, 2000
I am responding to your request received on March 21, 2000. Your request focused on information
associated with the Skyline Court area in Eagan. Specifically, you requested Skyline Court overflight
information from 1999 and an approximation of aircraft overflight impact resulting in a 6� dB noise event
at that location. Additionally, you requested a determination of whether or not the Skyline Court area
experiences noise impact from aircraft overflights which would be equivalent to azeas within the 6� DNL
contour. Thirdly you requested information relative to the future increase or decrease of overflight impact
at.the Skyline Court area.
I have enclosed information which I hope you will find helpful in answering your questions. Below is a
surnmary of the information provided. .
• An overflight impact comparison of an existing Remote 1�lonitoring Tower
�; �� (RMT 3) which had a monthly aircraft DNL value of 65.4 dBA in February
— 2000 to the Skyline Court area.
Average Point of Closet Approach (PCA) slant range distance from runway
12R departure overflights to the Skyline Court area and the average PCA slant
range distance to RMT 16 from any runway 12R departure operation which
generated a noise event at that site, as well as a separate averaae PCA slant
range distance for runway 12R departure operations which generated noise
events between 65 and 66 dBA at RMT site 16>
The above information provides insight relative to the current overflight impact received by the Skyline
Court area relative to known areas of impact around the airport. When assessing the overflight impact of
Skyline Court in February 2000 relative to RMT 13 which had a monthly aircraft DNL value of 65.4 dBA,
it is evident that the degree af overflight impact is substantially less at Skyline Court as compared to RMT
13. In addition the average PCA slant distance from runway 12R departure operation to Skyline Court is
77.4°% greater than the PCA slant range distance from RMT 16 to runway 12R departure operations which
generated a noise event at site 16; and 63%o greater than runway 12R departure operations which generated
a noise event between 65 - 66 dBA at site 16� The overall findings are such that the Skyline Court area
currendy receives less over flight impact thaii areas known to be. experiencing 65 DNL aircrafr noise
The Metropolitan Airports Comm9ssion is an affirmative action employer.
www.mspairport.com
Reliever rlirports: ALRL4KE ' t1NOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELiYIO • SAIN`r P.4UL DO1ViVTOWN
impacts. In addition, aircraft departure operations are on average outside the range at which noise events �
are generated relative to information from known RMT locations.
It is anticipated tha[ the le'vel of impac[ received by the Skyline Court area will remain similar to present
impacts and eventually decrease due to newer aircraft introductions and MSP runway configurations. With
continued use of the Eagan/Mendota Hei�hts Departure Corridor, and FAA's commitment to maintaining
corridor edge compliance, the Skyline Court area will continue to receive minimal direct MSP jet
overflights.
If I can be of further assistance please con[act me at 612-725-b328.
Sincerel ,
�/
.�.------
, ad E. ve
ANOMS Coordinator,
Metropolitan Airports Commission
page 2
C
�
CiTY OF ERGAN 6516814612 03/21 '00 11:49 No.2$2 02/04
•�Y��1�� ���� ��'i�T��� .�i ,�� �.����e�.��� �����
�� �
�. • .� �.. , . .; : �. ;•:-• � :.
.
, , � . � .
. �. ti � c t �,�'
.• •� :.
D�te: aZ� D O
N�m�: � .S�' i
�i.d�Ye9s: 39�5' . n
•,�,�� /fi1t �'SI.�r.�_ �
Phn�e: .�,,,c-/., f ��-�I i'._„_._.._
TS t�i15 S 4IIC-t2ID.0 7'��� ( I e�/Of NO
1...��
! „ i i s r :.'n • ., � i: .�,; ,: y , .
, ., :
. �.
:�
1►Fa 1
,� r i/!'
• .�r n a • � /; /tt�/L`T r"s'r
• i. -�
If no, wh�tt is the expected tmo�,c fi�ane for th'ss re�uest?
�.
Which of the following best d�cn`I�ss th� aet� o£ ya�u resl.t� (Circle alI tbat app�Yj
' Graaa�d N�aiiRe [D�►erf�6 �a $J'ga �ta�+m�ars P�irrt 15D tDt�er
pLE,�.s� v�aarE a�r �to� �u�sT �� �r�R �,rrA� � L���s o�
Fi�RMAL.1tESc1LiJTIOPIS.
,
w: �' 1: ■ ,._ �� � - - •t �.._ �. :�. �• .t� �1 -.. �: � : � .�. •,.: .. : : • � . .-: � :.. • ` ♦ . r� � : ! F� � : <� �.
. _ . � ,., .: � � . 1 r� • • :� � •� s : I �
� �: '�. 3:. .., ►r- �.¢ : !' C i .S :. .._;� " � - : �i r � � :,-: � �1���• • � rr:.i! �� � � t_',';- �.t �. ,; r: ('.
.„ _. . , , .., , . ^ r. c � _ � ' � . ��ra� .
lf t 1 F� .. t,; �t. �,:.
, .� . _ � .:, .,,. ,` a�,� � ... _. � .
�.:. .1� _: , ti, � , .�,�,� � / �� fv . { � � 4. . ". . . . . : .�.� -... . . '
„ "
�.. _^,
�'..i;.� �1�"� ��� :� •�•� ..':C'� � I�' �`'".:`:7 dk�h::
- s r�:: .� � r = � � •.. _-� t•• • -
-s - - ` '
r, , > � , -� - � .
-. ._. . '- t,::.,..�:. � ; ��. �a: . :... :. �:� � . �:.;`����. ��! - i�r=t , .. .. .. : __
. . � .: : r�7 'r • r:�:... . , _ , . .. ,--
y, �
. . ... -�.. ., ..� .. . ._ :�: .�.-- � �.._.�. � _:.� ,.� 1 �• -1 _ '
�. � .-
� � . .. �. ��. . ..«
� _ �.. _ �
_ r `-
� r.. I. •. �. �. � �. � '�'. .: �II. .
• �.: i M � .,-.. � .• ��:, •'_► :. : .:s :. ' � ��. � � �� • .• ��"'•� � ►:� ':: r1 �' � � .' �.....
� . . .. � � � _ � _ .. � _.,, _._ .... . :: ^ s '�
� s c • • •�
t : L� y _ ,i: '� t ... t � �.�+t_ „�:- '� ... -: ��.• • l:�, �►_ � : • t � ' 1 « � 1:� . � :1 1 _ •v�r:l1'�.s:..
J , . _ ,.. . .� :
:�
� ». _ � - • K�'l..• .I :�.��•: �� �G'." ��'i =, , �e� `..,
-� - ;� ..,.� �. ��..:, �s��-•s� �s �_ �e • ��1•.�� ,. .� .• � ._ �. ._ ' rG +^ . , -
- � , �,� � , Ji , • ,e
. -. . _ �, . � • .c • �. � ... . __ �
- c�
� • -�- - • f� - ■ •�� �• a ��; �"�= - • ��"%t: ��,�:�' �' �'J�"9
•y r��i i � • 1
� • .. - � • -.. • �•�•� c��- ;1:�.,�,�, �-• - r a'►�.. - � _
�3
/ / , � � � , _,
� '. ," "� � '1' � ` =
Z'�:
FROIVI:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Fleet Mig Alternatives
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�ams
Fleet Mix Alternatives
April 19, 2000
As part of the Part 1�0 Update, many of the submitted scoping comments centered around MSP's aircraft
fleet mix and the time of day of the operation. The MAC and HNTB have therefore reviewed fleet mix
scenarios with various airlines, seeking their ability to alter the 2005 fleet mix aircraft that will potentially
utilize 1�ISP. In-depth discussions with the passenger airlines, charter and air cargo operators have allowed
us to consider the impacts associated with various alternatives.
At the May l, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting, HNTB will present the fleet mi� altematives
-- analyzed for the Part 150 Update and the associated impacts each alternative has on the overall noise
�, � eYposure for the neighboring communities.
Action Requested
Continued analysis is underway. Additional information will be available at the May 1, 2000 meeting.
.��A. SA C OPERA TIONS COMMITTEE
�:•. � �
'I'O: MA.SAC Operations Committee
1�IA.SAC
FRUM: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
SUB�ECT: Metropolitan Council Land Use Policy Review and Part 150 Land Use
Measures
DATE: April 24, 2000
During the November 12, 1999, MASAC Operations Committee meeti.ng, the members requested a review
of the Metropolitan Council's Landuse Measures to better understand the guidelines of Metropolitan
Council's Aviation Policy Plan.
At the January 7, 2000 Operations Committee meeting, the committee received a briefing from Mr.
Chauncy Case, Metropolitan Council, concerning the Council's land use guidelines_ Mr. Case covered
sections from the Aviation Policy Plan including the Landuse Compatibility Guidelines' tables as an over
view of the policy.
At the February MASAC Operations Committee meeting, members requested Mr. Case to develop overall
language with respect to landuse planning and review. The intent of the communities neighboring MSP
was to generate language which could be incorporated into their individual master plans. This type of
approach would ensure consistency between communities and be consistent with the charge of the
Metropolitan Council. Mr. Chauncy Case, has provided draft language conceming this request and the
proposal is included with tlus mailing. _
Additionally, HNTB will review the Land Use measures from MSP's previous Part 1�0 studies and present
analysis and recommendations of these measures for this update.
Action Requested
Recommend that the MASAC Operations Committee endorse the draft language change submitted by Mr.
Case and endorse HNTBs recommendation for land use measures for the Part 150 Update and fonvard
these recommendations to the full body of MASAC for endorsement.
2000 AVIATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE
There are sever,al activities involved in updating of the information in the 1996 Aviation
Policy Plan as relates to aircraft noise and land use compatibility guidelines:
1. Deletion/Replacement of dated or inaccurate text ma.terial;
2. Incorporation of 1999 asnendment recommendations from public hearing document
(more general information about a�iation. Plan. Process, aircraf� noise, DNL60 for
relievers, etc);
3. Incorporate up-to-date noise policy contours for all system airports (include noise
policy contours from most recently approved LTCP's, Develop & provide to
communities noise contours in GIS forma.t, currently coordinating with the MAC);
4. Assess/Incorporate low-frequency noise information (issues paper to be prepared as
part of aviation guide update with recomrnendations in public hearing document);
5. Assess/revise MSP Noise Policy Area to reflect NEM from 2005 Part-150 update.
These (5) activities need to be considered in the Part 150 submittal to FA.A. Discussed
below is proposed text identifyi.ng the recommended changes to the Aviation Policy Plan.
The updated plan will likely be adopted about early stamrner 2001. This te� shows what
is already in-place and what is proposed [intent] so that it can be used in the Part 150
submittal which is likely earlier than adoption of the updated policy plan.
� +
Background: �
The Aviation Polic.�lan has contained a section on Land Use Compatibility Guzdelines
for Aireraft Noise since 1983 for community comprehensive plan & plan amendment
reviews. The guidelines identify, by category of land use and noise zone, whether the use
is "Inconsistent", "Conditional", "Provisional" or "Acceptable". The uses are further
categorized into two groups —`�ew Development & Major Redevelopment", or "Infill —
Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures". -
The compatibility guidelines are applied in areas defined by the airports' noise zones.
The noise zones are derived from tlie FAA's approved Integrated Noise Model (]NM).
The I]�TM noise contours are approved by the Council as part of an individual airport
long term comprehensive plan (LTCP). Noise zone (4) represents the area bounded by
the DNL 60 to 65 contours; Zone (3) is DNL 65 to 70; Zone (2) is DNL 70 to 7�, and
Zone (1) is DNL 75+. Implementation of noise controls within a one-mile buffer, beyond
the DNL 60, is optional at the di�cretion of the affected community.
Existing. Planning:
Under state law all communities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area must update their
local comprehensive plans. The plans are reviewed by the Metropolitan Council for
consistency with the Metropolitan Development Guicle, including the Aviation Policy
Plan chapter. The MSP International Airport communities have been usina the
compatibility guidelines and noise zones depicted in the Aviation Policy Plan in �
preparing their local plan update; however, a number of these plans rema.in to be
completed in 2000.
The community focus has been to address primarily "preventive" land use measures
assacia.ted with "New Development & Major Redevelopment" within the DNL 60.
Whereas, "corrective" land use measures have focused on use of federal Part 150 funds
for home acquisition and insulation progra.ms within the DNL 65. Land use protection
under the current guidelines is therefore in-place. Also, additional protection occurs due
to the size of the current MSP noise zone that covers a larger geographic area than tha.t
projected under future conditions.
Future Planning:
The Aviation Policy Plan is being updated in 2000. It is proposed that the following
changes be included:
• Tha.t the MSP 2005 Part-150 noise exposure map (��IEl1� submitted to 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 DNL60 contour and one-mile buffer zone,
be incorporafed 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 "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.
_
� � , I ♦ � . ,
,` � �', � ; '>, ;�
`I'O: MA.SAC Operations Committee
�'�lsl�C
FR�M: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Pro�-ams
SUB�TECT: Nighttime Flight Track Alternatives
DAT]E : April 24, 2000
An analysis is being conducted to determine if there are specif'ic nighttime flight track altematives that
minimize the impacts associated with MSP operations for neighboring communities as a whole. The FEIS
flight track locations and the assumptions for runway use are all factors affecting the ability to minimize
noise impacts for the Part 1�0 Update. At the May 1, 2000 meeiang, HNTB will present information about:
- Nighttime runway use assumptions in the FEIS
- Prefened nighttime flight tracks
- Nighttime operating assumptions in the corridor
- Runway 17 flight track alternatives
- Potential Runway 1'7 river depariure possibilities
Communities affected by nighttime aircraft operations must carefully consider the FEIS modeled flight
tracks, departure procedures, nuiway use assumptions and the methodology for preferred nighttime
operations with the ne�v runway. Consideration should be given to existing land use opporhznities such as
commercial, industrial and natural open areas, that combined with flight track assumptions, can be use to
help minunize noise impacts associated with operations by taking advantage of less populated areas.
These types of procedures will be considered at the May 1, 2000 Special Operations Committee meeting.
Action Requested
Recommend that the MASAC Operations Committee select prefened nighttime flight track alternatives
presented by HNTB that optimize compatible land use surrounding MSP and forward these
recomznendations to the full body of MASAC for endorsernent.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-72�-6326
� ✓�"'
A MINUTES
i � 1ViASAC OPERATIONS CON�VIITTEE
_ April 14, 2000
The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Ivletropolitan Airports Commission and
called to order at 10:30 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Vlembers•
John Nelson, Interim Chair
Dick Saunders
Bob Johnson
Mary Loeffelholz
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
Jamie Verbrugge
Chuck Ctury
Brian Bates
Roy Fuhrmann
Advisorv•
Chad Leqve
Jason Giesen
Mark Ryan
Mark Kill
Cindy Greene
Visitors•
Kent Duffey
Kim Hughes
Tom Lawell
Kevin Batchelder
Will Eginton
Glenn Strand
'�'� �n �n� �cr- ��rc5
Jan DelCalzo
Bloomington
Minneapolis
MBAA
NWA
Mendota Heights
Eagan
ALPA
Airborne Express
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
FAA
HNI'B _
HNTB
Apple Valley
Mendota Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Minneapolis
���
City of Minneapolis
AGENDA
Administrative Changes
Chairman Nelson reported the following administrative changes:
1
• Roll call will be taken at each meeting.
s The agenda will include times for each item. �
• Each Operations Committee memorandum will indicate whether the agenda item is for information
only or if action is being requested.
Receipt of Communications
Chauman Nelson reported that three letters had been received:
• A letter from Neil Clark, Minneapolis, questioned the accuracy of the radar tracking system. Chad
Leqve, Technical Advisor, indicated that a response had been drafted and would be forwarded to
1�Ir. Clark.
e A letter from Lance Staricha, Eagan, regarding the INM inputs and reports that have been generated
throughout the year was received. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, indicated that an analysis has
been completed and a letter drafted to NSr. Staricha.
� A letter was received from Steve Hughes, Chairman of the Tnver Grove Heights Airport Noise
Abatement Commission, regarding questions ahout a destination gate analysis, their preferences for
the sound insulation optioris beyond the Ldn 65 and suggestions for the Technical Advisor's Report
revisions.
Chairman Nelson noted that due to the Part 150 update's intense schedule, staff has asked, and he
concurred, that the Technical Advisor's Report revisions agenda item be postponed until the fourth
quarter of the year. Chairman Nelson also noted that staff has already put together a comprehensive
proposal for the Technical Advisor's Report revision.
CHARLES MERTENSOTTO, iVLENDOTA HEIGHTS, NIOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, NIBA.A,
SECONDED TO MOVE 'THE TECH1�tICAL ADVISOR'S REPORT REVISIONS AGEYDA (
ITEM TO THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2000 AND THAT THE MASAC CALEYDAR BE
ADJ[1STED ACCORDINGLY. THE VOTE WAS UNANIlVIOUS. MOTION CA,I�D.
Approval of IVlinutes
'The minutes of the March 24, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed.
Special Operations Comnuttee Meeting
Chairznan Nelson reported that due to the tight Part 150 Update schedule, an additional Operations
Committee meeting was being proposed for May l, 2000. There were no objections to this schedule
change.
Hourly Tower and Ai.'�tONIS Operations Counts .
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, presented .a graph comparing the OAG operations counts between September 13
and 19, 1999 for MSP with the ANOMS counts.
Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the graph illustrates that the 23:00 to 06:00 timeframe is most conducive for
implementing a runway use system (RUS).
An additional �aph of only the weekend hours showed that operational levels do not chanQe much
compared with the rest of the week. �
C
0
Departure Destination Gate Analysis
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the members�on a departure destination gate analysis that was
performed for all deparh.ires occurring in February 2000 except those that did not have a destination
airport tag. '
l�Ir. Leqve reported the following:
• The two predominant heading ranges for departing aircraft are the 100° to 130° range and the 220°
to 240° range, which is consistent with what Cindy Greene, FAA, presented at the March 10, 2000
meeting.
'The top three airport destinations for the 100° to 130° heading range are Detroit, Newark and
Chicago-O`Hare. The top three airport destinations for the 220° to 240° heading range are Phoenix,
Denver and Dallas/Ft. Worth.
Chairman Nelson asked from which runway aircraft depart when going through the 220° to 240° heading
range. Mr. Leqve said most of them are coming from the parallel runways, not the crosswind runway.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked why Chicago-O'Hare airport shows up under two of the top
three airports within heading ranges. Mr. Leqve said although there is an ideal heading range for aircraft
bound for Chicago-O`Hare, aircraft headed to Chicago-O'Hare may have to exit the airspace at othez
points.
SIlVINIOD Overview
Kent Duffey, HNIB, gave a brief overview of the SIMOD demonstration that was presented before the
meeting. The following points were made.
• The SIlYINIOD demonstration illustrated the projected traffic flow (arrivals and departures)
associated with the new runway and how capacity is determined using SINIlVIOD.
• SINIlVIOD was used extensively in the EIS process to project runway use for runway 17/35.
• SINIlVIOD showed that, even with the additional runway, during peak hours in IFR weather the
airport will be at capacity.
o Keeping in mind that runway 17/35 is a one-directional nuiway, the ru.nway will be able to handle
approximately 40 arrivals per hour or 51 departures in an hour. _
• Currently, the hourly capacity at the airport is 110 operations per hour under VFR conditions and 80
operations under IFR conditions.
• In the future, the hourly capacity of the airfield is expected to be 145 operations per hour under VFR
conditions and 105 operations per hour under IFR conditions. -
• In 2005, the hiQhest number of per hour operations is projected to be approximately 115.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked if the airport currently operates at full capacity (110 operations per
hour). Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that although the airport reaches that capacity at times during the day,
the average number of operations per hour is clo'ser to 60.
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Duffey if he would provide a summary of the SIMOD presentation along.
with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Duffey said he would provide a summary.
Chairman Nelson asked that the summary include information �about the hourly capacity of each runway
3
in order to further define the times when a runway use system could be implemented. I1!Ir. Duffey said
runway capacities are not much different from each other and that how the runways interact is more �
important than individual hourly capacities.
Cindy Greene, FAA, noted that a similar study had been done for the runway 4/22 extension project.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said that the RUS should take into account the impact it may have on aircraft
movement on the �-ound.
2005 No-Build Runway 17/35 Contour Analysis
Kim Hughes, HN'I'B, 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 e:�isting 1999/2000 runway use data, the
expected operations level and the 2005 fleet mix. The no build contour also inco�porates approximately
7% of the day operations (approximately 110 operations) being pushed into the night hours due to
capacity constraints that could be expected without the new runway.
Compared with the 2005 Unmitigated Contour, the no build contour adds approximately 22,280 people
to the contour. In other words, without runway 17/35, an estimated additiona122,000 people would be
impacted within the 60 DNL level. .
Chairman Nelson asked if the no-build contour would be included as part of the Part 150 update
documentation. Ms. Hu�hes said she expects the document will include a discussion of how the new
runway will affect the noise environment around MSP.
Runway 17/35 Fliaht Track Alternatives
Kim Hughes, F3�tTB, briefed the members on runway 17/35 flight track dispersion alternatives. She �
noted that the analysis was conducted to fulfill a requirement of the Record of ]Decision (ROD) for the
Dual Track FEIS. The ROD required a reconsideration of the departure tracks for runway 17, an
elimination of jets on the west-most track and the possibility of implementing a smaller dispersion fan
than what was detailed in the FEIS.
IVIs. Hughes noted that a�oup of representatives from the cities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan and
Bloomington have been meeting to discuss issues related to operations ori the north/south runway. She
said although the group has agreed on the appropriate Noise Abatement Departure Procedure (NADP)
for the runway, she is unsure whether a unanimous recommendation will be reached regarding the flight
track alternatives. Chairman Nelson said that group's recommendation and/or individual preferences
will eventually come before the Operations Committee for review, hopefully before the Nlay l, 2000
meetin;.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if any of the alternatives studied would result in a reduction of
capacity at the airport. IVIs. Hughes said that none of the three alternatives would reduce the airport's
capacity.
Ms. Hughes said three dispersion fan alternatives were considered for the analysis, a 150° dispersion, a
75° dispersion and a 60° dispersion.
C
0
• It is assumed, for analysis purposes, that propeller track use will be the same for all alternatives; only
jet track use will change and that aircraft are assigned flight tracks (headings) based primarily on
destination.
• Divergence requirement's (15° or 3 miles in trail) and interactions with other aircraft, including
arrivals on nuiway 30L and 30R, are also considered in determining potential flight track use.
• New flight tracks were introduced in order to analyze the alternatives with the proper divergence
requirements. A R.iver route was also added.
ISO°Fan
• This fan encompasses 75° on either side of the straight-out departure heading of 170° (frorn 95°
clockwise to 245°).
• In this scenario, all jet traffic that would normally take track G(285°) based on destination would be
shifted to other nearby flight tracks that are just to the south of track G but still west of runway
centerline (170°).
• This fanning scenario maintains the closest flight track layout and use to the Dual Track EIS.
Several scenarios were analyzed using a 150° fan. Withiri this fan, the best alternative is Case D tivhere
jet traffic that would normally use track G(235° heading) be given a visual, daytime river
departure procedure. Under IF12 conditions, the jet traffic that would normally use track G would
be assigned to track F. It was estimated that 1,000 people would be taken out of the 2005 Unmitigated
contour by eliminating jet traffic on track G.
Cindy Greene, FAA, cautioned the members that using a visual, daytime river departure procedure may
' not be possible due to capacity constraints. She said since there is no tec�inology or procedures available
;' � to separate aircraft from each other when using a visual river departure, it would slow down the
�'' --' operations at the airport, which would make it very difficult to implement. She said she cannot mix
visual departure procedures with instrument departure procedures. In other words, there would be a one
for one loss for every river departure.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked how other airports use a visual river departure. Cindy Greene, FAA,
said other airports use them during low-demand periods.
Chairman Nelson asked Chuck Curry, ALPA, how pilots feel about flying a visual departure procedure.
N1r. Curry said this type of pzocedure is fairly simple for a pilot, but that they prefer not to fly visual
procedures.
Mr. Curry then asked whether an aircraft could be assigned a heading that would mimic a visual rivez
departure. Ms. Greene said it would be difficult to choose a specific heading on a daily basis for a river
departure because of the variation in wind speed and direction. She said she and Mr. Fuhrmann have
talked about how best to emulate a river departure track. In this case it would not be referred to as a
river, visual procedure. `
Chairman Nelson said this issue will need to be resolved quickly because several communities to the
south are interested in implementing a"river departure." I3e also noted that similar �vork had been
accomplished with the runway 4/22 standard instrument departure (SID) analysis. �
5
Charles l�Iertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he is concerned about eliminating a track when there is no
experience in using the new runway. Chairman Nelson reminded Mr. Mertensotto that the alternatives �
did not represent a complete elimination of a track, only that jet usage on certain tracks would be
restricted. Kim I3ughes, HN'3'B, also noted that the FEIS ROD instructed the airport to reconsider the
departure flight tracks for n.ulway 17. �
60 °Fan
• FAA has indicated that a m�n�mum of 60° is needed for flight track divergence off runtivay 17 to
maintain adequate runway capacity.
• The 60° fan concentrates traffic from the far east and far west tracks onto southerly tracks between
110° and 200°.
• The 60° fan includes five departure tracks, diverging in 15° increments, from the straight out
departure track plus the River track. �
Several scenarios were analyzed using a 60° fan. Within this fan, the best alternative is Case D,
ho�vever it relies on future technology and is not yet viable. Case E, which uses a daytime visual
river departure procedure, provides similar results and is viable.
It was estimated that 1,190 people would be taken out of the 2005 Unmitigated contour by implementing
a 60° fan with an FMS/IFR river departure procedure used both day and night.
75 °Fan
• This did not yield a significant reduction in population.
Considerations
• The population analysis indicates that a 60° fan with a visual river track impacts the least amount of
people within the 60+ DNL contour. �
o A 60° fan concentrates tracks more so than the EIS fan, however development of a River track
would help to reduce the concentration over the southern communities.
• A 150° fan with a River visual departure reduces the population tivithin the 60+ DNL contour to
within 160 people of the 60° fan and does not significantly concentrate flights over the southem
communities.
• Communities south of runway 17/35 will consider the detailed analysis and provide the MASAC
Operations Comrriittee with a recommendation between the 60° and 150° fan alternatives.
Disczcssion
Jennifer Sayre, NWA, asked if any of the alternatives would affect capacity. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said
none of the alternatives would restrict capacity but that a smaller fan would have an impact on the user.
She said because a smaller fan may result in aircraft being given headings that are not always "on-
course," some aircraft will have to fly a short distance further to get to their on-course heading.
Roy Fuhrmann, IVIAC, asked how much farther an aircraft would have to fly if it were not b ven an on-
course (ideal) heading. Cindy Greene, FA.A., guessed it would be about ttivo to five miles. She also
noted that the narro�ver the fan of departure headings (tracks) allo�ved, the more interaction they �vill
have with each other.
C
�, Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked whether there would be any interactions with approaches. Cindy
Greene, FAA, said there would not be approaches and deparhires at the same time on that runway. But,
if aircraft are landing on runways 30L/30R and departing runway 17, ATC could not deparC aircraft any
further east than 150° off runway l7 in order to avoid interactions.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked how high an aircraft would have to be, in the above scenario, in order to
ttun east of the 150° heading. Cindy Greene, FAA, said an aircraft would have to be approximately
seven miles south of the airport. It was reported that this scenario would occur for approximately 5 to
6% of the operations at the airport.
Chairman Nelson said the southern cities have been given a staff recommendation and have been asked
to come to the April 26, 2000 meeting ready to make a decision. That recommendation will then be
forwarded to the MASAC Operations Committee for review and consideration.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, requested that the consultants perform an analysis on the effects of eliminating
both the 95° and 285° tracks for jet usage for the next meeting of the runway 17/35 communities.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, reiterated his discomfort with using the word "eliminate." He
said it would be better to have "preferred" tracks. Cindy Greene, FA.A, said she understood his concem
but that ATC would actually prefez to have specific guidelines rather than preferences.
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley, asked why an FMS/IF'R day/night river departure was only modeled for the
60° fan alternative. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said that this type of departure was modeled for the other fan
-� alternatives but not shown because they showed little change in the population affected.
(
_
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked the consultants, in regards to his request, to include information on the
effects of the alternative on the other eastern cities of Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, reiterated his concern with limiting the airspace and creating
"no-fly zones."
Chairman Nelson urged the Comiriittee members to keep an open mind with respect to the southern
communities' recommendations, as well as with the consultant and FA.A recommendations or
suggestions. He also reminded the members that a change in the way runway 17/35 is operated
compared to the EIS could very well trigger the need for additional environmental_documentation.
Final Gronnd Run Up Enclosure (GRE) Feasibility Report
Roy Fuhrmann, IVIAC, presented the fnal GRE Feasibility Report and briefed the Coznmittee on the four
noise reduction alternatives.
In response to a request made at the last meeting, a pie chart was presented that showed the distribution
of run ups in 1999 that occurred within specific time periods within a 24-hours timeframe.
Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the four alternatives: -
r )
Scenario 2b
• Increase the height of the west wall �
• Cost: $1M or $50,025 per dB (= cost divided by the total number of decibels reduced in all
communities) -
• Would provide a 6dB reduction in Richfield and Bloomin�ton and would keep e:cisting conditions at
a11 other communities.
Scenario 2d
a Increase height of the west walls and add noise panels to the east, south and west walls
r Cost: $2.5M or $82,781 per dB
• Would provide an 8dB reduction in Richfield, a 6dB reduction in Bloomington, reduce to ambient
levels in Eagan and Mendota Heights and keep existing conditions in Minneapolis and St. Pau1
Scenario 4
• Build new GRE across from existing GR.P
• Cost: $SM or$113,378 per dB .
• Would provide a reduction in noise Ievels to ambient in all communities except Bloomington
Scenario 3
• Convert the existin� GRP to a GRE
a Cost: $SM or �156,862 per dB
• Would provide a reduction in noise levels to ambient in all communities e:ccept Bloomington
Staffs Recomrnendation
Staff recommends Scenario 2b. - extension of the GRP's west tivall - at a per decibel cost of ��
approximately $50,000.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she felt it was important to keep in mind that the noise monitoring data
reflects a single event with an aircraft at higher than normal engine levels and at a time when run-ups are
normally not occurring. She said she is not comfortable with presenting a 6 dB as a representative
reduction in impacts.
Roy Fuhrmann, NWA, said it would be expected that during the daytime hours the city of Richfield
would experienc 3-decibel rise over the ambient noise levels during a run up. Ms. Loeffelholz
asked if this rise reflects a monitored value or if it represents an extrapolation. Mr. Fuhrmann said it was
an extrapolation from the nighttime rise over ambient information. He said a daytime ambient level was
determined by placin; a noise monitor at the same location in Richfield during the day and then the
expected rise over ambient was calculated based on the information gathered during the nighttime.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said Northwest Airlines does not believe the benefit gained by constructing a
higher wall justifies the cost. `
Roy Fuhrmann, NIA.C, said in addition to the noise attenuation benefits, a higher west wall may also
address a safety and/or operational consideration. He said tivhenever there is a northeasterly wind an
aircraft with a DC-10 style end ne is limited in its turning radius. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she
spoke tivith one of NtiVA's DC-10 hangar managers and �vas told that this scenario did not pose a
�
0
significant operational concern for NWA.
'. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he was very pleased with the analysis and response by staff to
MA.SAC's concerns about run-up noise. He said, although the recommendation by staff was a good one,
he feels it does not go far enough and that he is a proponent of building a new GRE across from the
existing GRP. He said he feels this option is best for all communities.
KEVIl�t BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, NIOVED TO RECONIlVIEND TO MASAC
THAT A NEW GROUND RUN UP ENCLOSURE (GRE) BE CONSTRUCTED ACROSS FR.OM
THE EXISTING GROUND RUN UP PAD (GRP). 'IrHE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE
LACK OF A SECOND.
KEVIl�T BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS,. MOVED AND DICK SAUYDERS,
MINIVEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO RECOMN�ND TO 1VIASAC THAT THE WEST WALL OF
THE EXISTIlVG GROUND RUN UP PAD (GRP) BE HEIGHTENED, AT AN ESTIlVIATED
COST OF $1 NIILLION, TO PROVIDE A MEASURE OF NOISE ATTENUATION FOR
COMMtTNITIES ADJACENT TO THE AIlZPORT. THE VOTE WAS 5 NAYS AND 4 YEAS.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Disczrssion
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the recommendation were to be implemented whether or not
additional improvements could still be made if it is found to be necessary in the future. Roy Fuhrmann,
MAC, said MASAC would have the opportunity, if it chooses in the future, to reevaluate how well the
solution is working and possibly recommend one or more of the additional �noise attenuation options.
i ) Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked why the number of run ups beiween the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. was so high (464). He said he was under the impression that very few run ups occurred dvring these
times. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, directed the members' attention to page 8 of the feasibility study where
the nighttime run up operations for November 1998 to October 1999 were tabulated. He noted that the
Nighttime Run Up Operations Field Rule states that aircraft run ups are prohibited at MSP between the
hours of 12 a.m. and 5 a.m. Between 10:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. and between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
aircraft cannot be run up except for in emergency situations or if the aircraft is scheduled for an early
departure and needs to perform an engine check. From 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. there are no restrictions
on run ups. He noted that the bulk of the nighttime run ups are being performed during the 5:00 to 6:00
a.m. timeframe. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said that Northwest Airlines is committed to following the
feld rule guidelines. _
A discussion followed regarding the proper procedure for conveying the committee's discussion and
denial of the recommendation to the full MASAC body.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said the Operations Committee serves the full MA.SAC body and
should not place itself in the position of controlling what appears on the MASAC agenda.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, expressed her concem with the Committee's ability to conduct business if each
recommendation becomes subject to a re-vote at MASAC. Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, said historically there
have been times when the full MASAC body has rejected Committee recommendation and times when it
has endorsed items that were rejected by the Operations Comrriittee.
0
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said MASAC is the controlling body and should have the ability to �
decide whether to accept the Committee's recommendation or not. � l
Chairman Nelson said the GRE discussian and analysis has been an ongoing issue for �many years and
deserves to be forwarded to the full body.
KEVII�T BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS,
IY�QNNEAPOLIS, SECONDED THAT THE FINAL GROUND RUN UP ENCLOSURE
FEASIBILITY STUDY BE FO ARDED TO THE FULL MASAC BODY WITH THE
RECOiVIlY�NDATION NO M DIE'ICATIONS B� CONDUCTED ON THE CURRENT
GRP. THE VOTE WA ANilYIOU . MOTION CARR�D.
Discussion ��� � m' a'`�`i �' � ��°� `" `�`9
A discussion ensued regarding whether or not the motion should be presented to MA.SAC as an
information or action item.
NIARY LOEFFELHOLZ, NWA, MOVED AND BRIAN BATES, AIItBORNE EXPRESS,
SECONDED TO PRESENT THE GROUND RUN UP ENCLOSURE FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND THE RECONIYi IENDATION OF DENIAL AS AN INFORMATION ITEM WITH NO
ACTION REQTTESTED. MOTION FAII.,ED ON A VOICE VOTE.
Noise Abatement Departure Procedure (NADP) Analysis .
Kent Duffey, F3NTB, reviewed a history of the FAA's Advisory Circular (AC) 91-53 and the NA.DP use
at MSP. �
�;
• The original FAA AC 91-53 was adopted in 1978 and identified a single noise abatement departure
profile for all situations (effectively a distant procedure)
• AC 91-53A (1992) sets criteria for safe N.ADP's to be used by subsonic turbo jet powered aircraft �
over 75,000 pounds.
• Two NADP's are considered in AC 91-53A; the close-in and the distant departure procedure. The
close-in procedure typically reduces noise levels for areas in the immediate vicinity of an airport and
the distant typically reduces noise levels for areas beyond 3.5 miles froin start of takeoff:
• When an aircra$ is performing a close-in departure procedure, it is at a lower air speed for a
significant portion of its climb.
• In 1996, MSP undertook an analysis of the close-in versus the distant procedure for each ninway at
MSP and considered the impacts within the 65 DNL contour.
e Since 1996 analysis of NADPs have improved. INM has improved its take off profiles, there is an
increa'sed lmowledge of NADPs and their impact on aircraft performance and noise, and ANOl�IS
data is able to support the analysis.
o There is a comznon misperception that the close-in procedure is better for all urban runways. But it
is only beneficial for those communities within 3.5 miles of the start of takeoff. The close-in
deparhu-e procedure does increase altitude but it also reduces the airspeed of an aircraft thereby
increasing the single event noise duration and exposure.
m
Runway 04 �
, • The distant procedure is currently used off this runway.
• A population analysis shows that there would be no change in the number of people impacted within
the 2005 60 DNL contou"r if the procedure were changed to the close-in.
Recommendation: Distant NADP
Runway 22
• The distant procedure is currently used off this runway.
• A population analysis shows that there would be no change in the number of people impacted within
the 2005 60 DNL contour if the procedure were changed to the close-in.
Recommendation: Distant NADP
Runways 30L and 30R
e The close-in procedure is currently used off this runway.
• A population analysis shows an overall reduction of 10,460 people impacted within the 2005 60
DNL contour if the procedure were changed to the distant.
• However, within the 70 DNL contour 460 people are added and within the 65 DNL contour 260
people are added.
Recommendation: Adopt the Distant NADP
Chairman Nelson asked if any recommended changes to the procedures could be implemented
immediately or if implementation would have to wait until the Part 150 update was approved. Kim
Hughes, I�1T'B, said typically NADP changes and implementations occur outside the scope of a Part
150 document and there would be no reason a change could not be implemented as soon as the
Corrunission approved it and the appropriate notification occurred.
Chairman Nelson expressed his concern about the recommendation given that the impacts will increase
for people within the most impacted areas. On the other hand, if the distant procedure were to be
implemented the contour's dimensions would shrinlc, which is the goal of the Part 150 progzam.
Kim Hughes, HNTB, expressed her concern about attempting to weight the impacts within the 60 DNL
contour when the communities and the airport have akeady made the decision that the 60 DNL level is
considered a non-compatible land use area at MSP.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said all of the parcels that would be added to the 65+ DNL contours with the
change to a distant procedure are in the current program (1996 65 DNL contour). -
Chairznan Nelson questioned whether the differences between the two procedures were noticeable.
Cindy Greene, FA.A, said ATC notices the difference and Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the
implementation analysis completed after the change to a close-in procedure showed an average 400 foot
difference in altitude with the close-in procedure. It was also noted that with the newer technology
aircraft, the differences between the procedures is minimal. ,
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis, expressed her concern with the proposal to give the people between the 65
and 60 DNL level a reduced insulation package but then regard these same people as having the same
impact as those above the 65 DNL level. �
11
Chairman Nelson noted that the cost of insulating the additional 4,050 parcels within the 60 DNL �
contour, at a minimum cost of $40,000 each, would be approximately $ 163 million.
DICK SAUNDERS, IVm.vNEAPOLIS, NIOVED A..tVD ROY FUHRIVLANN, MAC, SECONDED '
TO FORWARD TO 1VIA.SAC THE RECOlYIlY�NDATION THAT THE DISTANT NOISE
ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURE BE IlVIl'LEI�NTED FOR RUNWAYS 04, 22, 30L
AND 30R AT NISP AND THAT THIS RECOMIV.�NDATION BE FORWARDED TO T'HE
N�TROPOLITAN AIl2PORTS COMIVIISSION FOR APPROVAL. THE VOTE WAS
UNANIlVIOUS. MOTION CARR�D. .
Update on Single Faamily and Multi-family Inventory
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, presented the final single-family parcel counts for each city touched by the 2005
unmitigated contour. He noted, however, that trailer parks and mobile homes are not yet included. The
parcel counts do include parcels already within the 1996 65 DNL contour.
Other
There was a short discussion on the timeline for making the decisions that will affect the Part 150 update
contours. Chairman Nelson encouraged the members to be mindful of the need for quick and decisive
decisions. �
JAMIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND MA.RY LOEFFELHOLZ, NWA, SECONDED
TO HAVE STAFF PREPARE A LETTER, FR.OM THE MASAC OPERATIONS COM1�I[TTEE
CHAII2, TO BE SENT TO ALL AIR CA,RR�RS SERVING MSP ENCOURAGING THEM TO
PERFORlYI RUIVUPS BE'T�VEEN THE HOURS OF 6:00 A.M AND 10:30 P.M. AND TO �"
AVOID, TO THE FITLLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE 10:30 P.M. TO 12:00 A.M. AND 5:00
A.M. TO 6:00 A.M. TIlYIEFR.AIVIE. � �
The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. A special MA.SAC Operations Committee meeting will be held
on Monday, May l, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the MA.0 General Offices.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Scovronsld, Committee Secretary
12
� �
,
� ��� _ .,f ,.s
,.. 7
: �� .
.
. � m '
; f ..� �R �
�. tiveekly update on liti;ation, regulations, and technolo;ical developments
Volume 12,Number 13
Lambert-St. Zozais Int'Z
FEDERAL, STATE COURTS OF APPE�L
ISSUE RULINGS SUPPORTING EXPANSION
In back-to-back rulinas, the City of St. Louis won major legal vic[ories in federal
and sta�e appeals courts supportin� its controversial 52.6 billion expansion plan
for Lamber[-St. Louis International Airport, which includes a new parallel runway
that will displace over �,000 people in the neishboring City of Bridgeton, ivl0.
By a 2-1 vote,�the U.S. Court of Appeais for the Ei;hth Circui[ held on April 7
[ha[ the Federal �viation �dministration acted properly in approvin� the airport's
preferred espansion plan. known as W-1W.
Three local Qovernments — Brid�eton, the City of St. Charles, and St. Charles
County — cIaimed that the FAA had failed to wei�h the project's harmful effects or
consider less disruptive airport expansion alternatives �vhen it approved [he
project in September 1993.
On April 10, the �Iissouri Court oP Appeals — Eastern District unanimously
upheld a circuit cour[ decision enablin� the Ci[y of St. Louis to expand Lambert
International without the zonin� approval of the Ci[y of Bridgeron.
BridQeton argued that the expansion of Lambert violated its zonin; ordinances
and s[a[e sta[ute (section 30�.200). The court said that the legislative inten[ of [he
sta[ute distin�uished the establishment of a new airport from the zxpansion oF an �,
(Contiiittecf on p. 52)
ttiliami Int'Z
FAA, DADE COUNTY AGREE TO TEST
NEW NIGHTTII�IE DEPARTURE PROCEDURE
The Dade Coun[y �,viation Department and the Federa] Avia[ion Administration
recently agreed [o conduct a 130-day test of a netiv nigh[time departure procedure
desi�ned to reduce noise impact on [he communities of Key Biscayne and
Brickzll, FL, eas[ of �Iiami International Airport, tivhich have lon� complained
about aircraft noise. �
�ircraFt dzpartina to the zast betwzen the hours of l0 p.m. and 6 a.m. will fly
five miles oFf the coa�t (aoout 10 miles from the airport) bet'orz turning north or
south to join th� mnin air routes out oF South Florida.
Thz ne�v depar�ure proc�durz tries to avoid neiehborhoods by havinQ aircraft fly
oti•er commerci•.?1 areas. Sou[hbound aircraft departinQ to the east �vill be directed
o�•er the Port of �Iiami and Vir�inia Key and out over thz Atlan[ic Ocean before
turnine. Northbound aircraft �vill male their turns in the middle oi Biscayne Bay
fbettiveen �Iiami snd �Iiami Beach) or be directed throuoh a verv narFo�v area over
a solt coursz un �Iiami Beach before turning on route.
The ne�v depar�urz pr�cedure �vas developed by the Aviation Department with
assistance fram a�iois� .�oa[ement Task Force and consultants, said Norman
He«edus. an aviation en�: ironmzntal planner lvi[h Dade Countv.
(Cvrttiiiued on p. i11
April 14, 2000
In �'his Issue...
Lambert-St. Loacis Int'Z ...
The City of St. Louis wins
major lawsuits in state and
federal appeals courts support-
ing its controversial expansion
plan for the airport, which will
require the relocation of over
5,000 residents of the neiah-
boring ciry of BridQeton. In a,
2-1 rulin�-,' an Eighth Circuit
panel finds that the FA.A's
consideration of alternative
expansion sc�narios met
NEPA requirements - p. 52
Miami Int'Z ... Dade County
and the FAA ajree to conduct a
180-day test of a new ni�httime
departizre pracedure desiQned to
reduce noise impact by routinQ
aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean
before turninQ them - p. �2
San Francisco Int'Z ... The
Oakland City Council wants
San Francisco to perform
additional studies to determine
ho�v the extension of its run-
�vays into bay r,vould affect
Oakland International - p. 5�
t�leyvs Briefs ... EIS will be
prepared for runway improve-
ments at Ne�v London: ROD
for new air traffic procedures at
Indianapolis sianed; Couple
sues Toledo-Lucas County Port
Authority for not yet gettin�
sound insulation - p. ��
April 14, 2000
existing facility.
This distinction, [he court said, "avoids the si�uatio❑
where no surroundinQ municipalities would allow expan-
sion within [heir boundaries. and thereby render expansion
an impossibiIiry and potentially, as a resuit. doom a viable
airport, as well as the economic well-beinQ of the dependen�
region."
The expansion project would add a third parallel runway
and make other airfield improvements at Lambert to reduce
air traffic conjestion, parcicularly in bad weather.
Airport Director Leonard Gri�gs applauded both cour�
rulin�s, which he said validate the technical soundness of
the airport's expansion plan and the approval process.
Gri;Qs said tha[ the favorable rulinjs by the two appellate
courts "certainly provide a clear indication that it is time for
all of our nei�hbors to work with us in promotin� the
expansion of Lambert, this reQion's economic engine."
Bridjeton Mayor Conrad Bowers espressed disappoint-
ment with the rulin�s. The city will ask the 1�Iissouri
Supreme Court to review the state appeais court rulinj, he
said, and is considerinQ appealin; the EiQhth Circuit
panel's rulinj also. The city could ask the federal appeals
court panel [o rehear the case, ask the full Eijht Circuit to
review the case, or petition the U.S. Supreme Court [o
review the case.
"The ri�ht of citizens to make.decisions regardin� the
planninQ and zoninQ of [heir communities throujh their
municipal governmen[s is so basic to our form of �overn-
ment that we will requesc that the i�lissouri Supreme Court
review [the state appeals court rulin�] and are confident
they will rule in our favor," Bowers said. "The [statej
Supreme Court simply canno[ abide by this preceden[
which would allow any aovernmental en[ity to invade and
rezone and other city on the Qrounds of a areater public
interes[."
Eighth Circuit Ruling
The federal appeals court denied [he peti[ions for review of
the FAA's Record of Decision on the airport espansion
project filed by BridQeton, S[. Charles; and St. Charles
Coun[y.
Two of the [hree judQes on the panel found tha[ the
expansion alternative preferred by Brid�e[on, known as NE-
la, which �vould avoid che need to rzlocate residents, failed
[o adequately meet the avia[ion needs of Lambert and thus
was not a reasonable alternative.
'`NE-la is essen[ially a sort-tzrm strateoy whose delay-
reducinQ limitations would require St. Louis to beain
plannin� for addi�ional runway cons�ruc�ion and land
acquisition (ona before the year 201�," the date to which
the bV-(W plan �vould be workabie, the courtsaid.
The court wen[ on to state,'`At the time the FA� selected
the alterna[ives to be given detailed an�lysis in the FEIS
(final environmen[al impact statement], its ex[ensive
experience in airpor� op�rations and the data evaluating the
possible alterna[ives for expandinQ Lambert's operational
53
capacity justified che requirement tha[ the project include
independent simultaneous IFR [Instrument Flight Rules]
arrivals capacity in bad weather [which NE-la cannot
provide]. Therefore, the elimination oE' NE-1 a satisfies our�
rule-oF-reason alterna[ives review."
Ho�vever, in a dissentin; opinion, 1udQe Richard S.
�rnold said that the FAA erred in not �ivinQ more de:ailed
consideration to the NE-la alternative, which meets the
purpose and ne�d of the project to increase capacity and
reduce delay at Lambert. NE-la was rejected only because ic
did no[ provide independent simultaneous IFR arrival
capabiliry, which is a desirable ;oal but not the only way to
achieve increased capaci[y and reduce delay, Judje �rnold
said.
"W-1W will require the relocation of over �,000 people
in the Ciry of Bridgeton, while NE-la would reguire the
relocation of almost no one, except people who are already
QoinQ to be relocated for reasons independent of this
particular project. Remember, when we talk about `environ-
mental' consideration here, we are not talking about snail
darters (however valuable [hey may be). We are talkinQ
about human bein�s, their homes and businesses. It seems
[o me en[irely possible tha[ the human and economic cost
of movina so many people mijh[ be sreat enouQh to
outweishythe increased transportaEion benefits of W-1`V
overNE-la. But, as�tfie EIS is presently drafted, we do not
know the answer [o [hat question, because the FAA never
reached it."
"This is exactly the sort of thinQ tha� NEPA was desiQne '
for," the judQe �vrote. "The possibility that some substan-�
tive benefits of a project might not be sreat enoueh to
justify its environmental costs is exactly the point of
NEPA.,,
JudQe Arnold also no[ed that the FAA had violated
federal laws by certifyinQ [hat bV-l�V comported with local
plans even �hough it is inconsis�ent with Bridae�on's
zonine and land use la�vs and plans.
Iudse ?.rnold's reasoninQ would mos� likely form the
basis on an appeal by BridQeton. ��
Impact Beyond 6� DNL
The Eiahth Circuit panel, with no dissent from JudQe
Arnold, disa�reed with the St. Charizs petitioner's concerns
about aircraft noisz. The court noted that'`the FA,� deter-
mined that the St. Charles petitioners' (city and county) lie
outside thz 6� dB contour, the poinc a� which noise level is
considered compatible with all land uses."
The F:�A determined that St. Charles will be belo�v 60 dB
DNL includinv noise trom the erpanded airport. The cour[
concluded that �he F�?.'s analysis of noise impacts and
their mitiQa[ion complied �vith Narional Environmental
Policy �,ct requirements.
The panel also addressed the issue of noisz impact on
historical sites. Section �(f} of the Transpor�ation Act /"
requires that the F.� � take certain measures if i� determ�ne'�.
that a transporia[ion projzct �viil "usz" natural and historic
Airpurt�oiseRzpurt
;
�
'�
�
�� April 14, 2000
resources protected by the statute. St. Charles contended
that the FAA's decision to approve the W-I W expansion
plan viola[ed [hat act because the noise impacts would
constitute a use of St. Charles's unique Historic District fit
is where Lewis and Clar: launched their expedition), which
includes the Goldenrod Sho�vboat and Frontier Psrk. But
FA,� rejected this contention because the boat and park lie
outside the 6� dB DNL contour.
S[. Charles asserted that F.�.�'s reliance on the land use
compa[ibility table in its Par[ 1�0 pro?ram is Flawed
because the historic district is a protected use unlike any of
the uses set for[h in the Par� 1�0 table. There is support For
this theory is a ruling in allison v. FA�1 where the cour[
found that the impact of noise on the kinds of land uses
listed in Part I �0 table '`bears little or no relation to the
effec[ of noise" on a wildlife refuge and further support in
dicta in Grapevine v. FAA, where the court "posited that the
DNL 6� dB standard miQht no[ adequately protect an
historic viila�e `preserved specifically in order to convey
the atmosphere of rural life in an earlier (and presumably a
quieter) century'.' �
"The problem with the theory is this case is [hat St.
Charles's Historic District is not a wildlife refuQe or a rustic
villaje," the Eijht Circui[panel reasoned. "Its uses do find
reasonable parallzls in the Part 150 compatibility table. For
example, the sub-cateeories for audi[oriums, concert halls,
outdoor music sheIls, amphitheaters, nature exhibits, zoos,
parks, resorts, and Qolf course."
Nlictmi Int'l, fro�n p. �2
The county is in the process of preparing an environmen-
tal assessmen[ on the proczdure that tivill be tes[ed as well as
other departure procedurzs desi�ned to miti�ate noise
impact. One ne�v procedure tivili sznd more aircraft to the
tivest of the airport over commercial areas on departure.
Currently, 7�-30 percent of departures from �Iiami Interna-
tional are to the eas[ because the prevailinQ winds are from
that direction. The county hopes to be abie [o reduce that
number to �0 percent �vith its new departure procedure.
The environmen[al assessment on the netiv procedures is
almost done and soon tivill be submiued ro[he FAA for
approval, HeQedus said.
�tiami Intzrnational has no Part I�0 Airport Noise
Compatibility Proeram pe[. The coun[y decided that
developinQ the noise abatement depar[ure procedurzs as
part oFa 1�0 proQram �vould take too lone, Heaedus
explained. The airport ma�� do a Part 1�0 later, he added.
,� ne�v run�vav is currentiv under desien at Miami Interna-
tional. It was approve� by the FA:� in December 1993 and
�vork should beQin on construction in early 2001. Hesedus
said that the environmental impact sta[ement prepared in
conjunetion �vith the ne�c run�vay indicated that 160,000
pzople �vill be within the airport�s 6� DiVL noise contour.
5�
San Francisco Int'l
OAKLAND '4VANTS iV10RE STUDIES
ON ADDING RUNW�YS Ii�TO B�Y
The Oakland, C.�,. Citv Council has called For more
environmencal and technical studies on �he proposed
expansion oFSan Francisco International .�irport which
could include thre� ne�v run�vays estending into San
Francisco B ay.
The runway estensions could require Oakiand Interna-
tional Airport [o chanQe its air routes or alter its pluns to
also extend runwavs into the bav.
The Oakland City Council asked San Francisco to conduct
more detailed s�udies examininQ the issues of potential
chan�es to fli�hts tracks, altitude, and volume of traffic and
to analyze noise impacts. The Council also wants to see an
evaluation of altzrnatives to extendins runways into the
bay, such as usins San Jose Interna[ional :�irport and
Oakiand International to help alieviate aircraft delay.
Steve Grossman, director oF aviation for the Por� of
Oakland, said [hat Oakland International is underutilized.
W hile 40 percent of airline passengers live closzr to
Oakland International than to SFO, only 16 percent usz
Oakland. hz said. -
EYpandin� San Jose Ruled Out
However, the expansion oFSan Jose International Airport
or the addition of commercial fliehts at l�foffett Field have
already been ruled out as alternatives to addin� runways in
the bay at San Francisco International.
In a status report on the state environmental impac[ report
(EIR) on the project, Hillary Gitelman. the San Francisco
plannina official �vho serves as the environmental review
officer for [he EIR, said that expansion of San 7ose Interna-
[io�al �vas rzjected because i[ would ha�•e involvzd
relocation of two hightivays and �r•ould have increased noise
impact on the community. l�toffett Field. located in
l�lountain Vie�v, CA, �vss rejected becausz it would have
caused airspace problems and delayed traffic a[ San Jose
and Palo �lto airports. Communities around �Ioffett also
wzre opposed to increases in aircraf� noi�e.
"We ivant [o do the bes[job [hat �vz possibly can to look
at technoloey or management techniques that lvould
address the airport's objectives �vi�houi fillinJ thz bav."
Gitelman told [he San Jose �Iercurv Ne�.� s. She noied that
five hearinQs will be held from April ?'. �o :l-Iay 3 thruueh-
out the Bay Area ro Qet public inpu� �n tne run���av projzct.
SFO oFticials sa�� tha[ e.xtendin� run« a��s into San
Francisco Bay is ihe only way to end th� deia�• in aircraft
operations caused by [he narrow spacin � uf runtiva;: s. «�hich
does not allow simultaneous opera-t.ion: in bad ���eather.
Extendins the run�vays in�o the ba�• �.� i':: meec t�vo othzr
airport goals: reduce noise impaci un th� cummuniry and
accommodate n��.� larJzr b00-pass�n���,- airplanes.
A irport Vuise Fzoort
April 14, 2000
ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Steven R. Alverson
�t anaser,Sacramento0 ffice
Harrisbtiller��tiiler� Hanson
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spieeel3c �[cDiarmid
W ashin�ton. DC
James D. Erickson
Director, Office of Environmenc and Eneray
Federal�viation,�dministration V
John C. Freyta?, P.E.
D irecror, Charles i�L Salter A ssociates
San Francisco
In Brief ...
EIS at Groton
The FAA announced tlpril 1 1 that an environmen[al impact sta[ement
(EIS) will be prepared for a proposal by the State of Connecticu� to
construct Runway Safety Area improvements to Runway 5-23 a[ Groton-
New London Airport in Groton, CT.
In order to obtain public input, a scopin, mee�ing will be held on 1�Say
10 at I 1.m. at the Conneticut Air National Guard faciliCy in Groton.
For further information, contact Frank Smi�elski, an environmental
specialist in the FAA's New EnQland re;ional office; tel: (731) 238-7613.
ROD for Indianapolis Signed
l�iichael Scott Gatzke, Esq. The FAA announced April i 1 that the FAA reeional administrator
Gaczke,Dillon 3c Ballance approved and sijned the Record of Deeision (ROD) for implementation
Carlsbad, CA
of air traffic control noise abatement procedures and land use mitiQation
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. measurs at Indianapolis International Airport on l�iarch 20. V
Cutler& Scanfieid For further information, contact Annette Davis, an environmental
Denver specialist in the FAA's Des Piaines, IL, office; tel: (8�7) 29�-8091.
Suzanne C. �IcLean
ChiefDevelopmentOfficer
Tucson Airport authoriry
John �f. bieenan
Senior V ice Presiden[ EorIndustry Policy
AirTransport Associa[ion
Vincent E. l�Iestre, P.E.
President. ��t zstre Greve :lssocia[es
Ne�vportBeach.CA
5teven F. Pflaum, Esq.
4lcDermo[t, GV ill S Emery
Chicaso
Karen L. Robertson
Ivlanaeer, Voisz Comoatibility Office
Dallas/ForctiV or�h International.�irport
l�Iary L. Vi;ilante
President,Syner�y Consultants
Seattle
Lisa Lvie �Vaters
Ntanaeer,Nuise Aba[zmzntPro�ram
Palm Beach Coun�}•Depar[mentoFAirports
Toledo Lawsuit
A couple livin; near Toledo E:tpress Airport sued the Toledo-Lucas
Councy Port Authority and its consultant, O.R. Colan Associates, the
week of April 3 because [heir home has not yet been sound insulated.
Andy and Lori Glenn of iYlonclova Township, OH, asked the Lucas �
County Common Pleas Court to order the airport ro besin work on their �
home immedia�ely and to pay them at least �2�,000 in dama�es for the
delay. � �'
The couple contends that they have been in their home lon;er than
nei�hbors but have been continually passed up For sound insula[ion, said
their a[rorney Rober[ J. Bahre[.
A spokesmao- for the airport authority said he could not comment on
pendin� li[iQation.
Bahre[ said he has asked the airport to produce [he system it uses for
determininQ who Qets sound insulation and ho�v they are prioritized. The
couple was told thzy would be in Phase 3 of the sound insulation
proQram and it is now in Phase 6 and they have had nothin� done, he
said.
AIRPORTNOISEREPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, ContributinQ Editor
Published �6 time: a vear at Y'3973 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20117; Phone: (703) 729-=�367; FA:�: (703) 739-1�'_8.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price 5��9.
�u[horiza�ion to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the in[ernal or personal use of specific cliencs,
is Rr•�n�ed b}� �lirport Noise Report. provided that [he base fee oF US� 1.03 pzr pa�e per copy
is paid direc�ly to Copyrieht Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Dri�-e. Danvers. �[A 0l9'__. USA.
� ��� �:� ,.� �.� � :�
!��' �
:1 tiveekly update on litigation, reaulatioas, and technolo;ica] developments
Volume i3, Number l�t
Sta� e 4 Standard
AIRLINES WILL HAVE `UPHILL FIGHT'
WITH CONGRESS ON STAGE 3 PHASEOUT
It will be "an uphill fiQht" for the aviation industry to persuade the U.S. Con-
aress tha[ a phaseout schedule for Sta�e 3 aircraft should not be imposed in
conjunction with a ti�hter Sta�e 4 aircraft noise standard, David Heymsfeld, chief
of staff of [he Democratic (minority) side of the House Committee on Transporta-
tion and Infrastructure, predicted at the 3ta�e 4 Noise Symposium, held April (9
in Arlington, VA,
The committee will not be satisfied with aircraf[ being opera[ed well beyond
their desijn life and only subject to economic decisions by [he airlines,
Heymsfeld said, addina that it will hard to justify a schedule on StaQe 3 retire-
men[s that is looser than wha[ the Europeans will adopt.
Heymsfeld's assessmen� was a splash of cold wnter in the face of the U.S. airline
and air carQo industries which want to see no forced retirement of the StaQe 3 fle�t,
They have asserted this position as the Interna[ional Civil Aviation
Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmen[al Protection (CAEP) begins
the process of considerinQ options for a tiQhter international aviation noise
certification standard, being referred to as "StaQe �."
Heymsfeld said it is unczrtain at this point what the role of Con�ress tivill be in
(Co�itinued on p. S7)
Baarbank Airport
AIRPOR.T AUTHORITY VOTES TO BEGI�1
PART 161 STUDY ON STAGE 3 CURFE��
In landmark action. the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority vo[ed
April 17 to beQin the first federal Part 161 study aimed at imposing limitations on
S[age 3 aircraf[. The airport seeks, amono other things, to impose a nighttime
curFew on Staoe 3 aireraFt opzrations and a cap on the number of operations at the
airport.
'`There's no yuestion this will be a ground-breakin� eFfort," said Carl 1�Ieseck.
president oF the airport authority. "The premise of the �lirport �toise and Capaci[y
,�ct (ANCA) �vas that StaJe 3 jets were not ro be interfered with. but it is clear after
13 years of Sta�e 3 jets at Burbank that they may not be the final answer as far as
our communiry neishburs are concerned. �Ve still have to look at nighttime
fliQhts."
Burbank �vas [he tirst airport in [he county to acquire an all-Stage 3 airline fleet
in 1987, [hree years beFore Conerzss passed ANCA and 13 years beforz all airports
in the country reached all-Sta�z 3 status.
Thz Part l6l studv cou(d dzlav construction of a netiv 53�0 million tzrminal at
Burbank For thrze }'ears or more. The airport authority had hoped to be�in
construction this yzar.
(Contirtued vn p. �S1
�
Aprii 21, 3000
In This Isszce...
Sta; e 3 Phaseozct ... The
airlines and the air carao
industry will have a touQh
time convincing ConQress that
Sta�e 3 aircraft should not be
phased out in conjunction
with the imposition of a
ti�hter Staae 4 ICAO airplane
noise certification standard,
participants at a Stage 4 Noise
Symposium are told - p. �6 ',
Sacrbank ... City Council
votes to move ahead with first
ever Part 161 study desi�ned to
limit operation of Staae 3
aircraft - p. 56
San Francisco ... Airport
seeks to require use of laraer
airplanes to reduce conaestion
and delay problems - p.��8
Van tVaays ... L.A. City
Council approvzs ordinance
cappin� number of Sta�e 2
business jets - p. �8 �
New Briefs ... The World
Health Oraanization issues its
first auidelines for environmen-
tal noise; Some 31 members of
Con�ress from New York,
New Jersey ask Port Authority
of NY�7 to curb aircrafr noise;
Officials of Highpoint, �TC,
plan to visit FedEx car�a hub at
Indianapolis to learn about
operation, impact of niQhttime
aircraft noise an communitv.
il 21, 2000 57 .
the adop�ion oF tiQhter aircraft noisz standards. It cou(d
ranQe From le;islation imposin� aircraFt noise levels and a
Staae 3 aircraFt phaseout schedule to simply closely
watching [he ICAO process. But. he s�ressed, that there will
be stronQ interest in ConQress on the issue and that Con-
sress will do some sort oF in-depth analysis of it.
L",�I1 poli�ics is local.'° HeymsFeld said, repeatin� the
Famous adage of Former House Speaker Tip 0'Neill. That
adage applies to the aircraf[ noise issue, he said, no[inQ [hat
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL). under stron� pressure from
consti[uents impacted by noise from Chica�o 0'Hare
In[ernational Airport, managed [o hold up crucial leoisla-
tion reauthorizins the Federal Aviation Administration over
provisions [hat would increase �he number of aircraft
operations at 0'Hare.
The con�ressional process is desisned to protect the
minority, Hymsfeld explained, notins that some conaress-
men from districts impacted by aircraft noise could have a
major influence on whatever is done by ConQress.
Options for Sta�e 4 Standard
C�EP is considerins 26 options for ti�htening the current
StaQe 3 noise certification standards for aircraft and whether
they should be accompanied by a phase out of Sta�e 3
aircraFt. The three opcions beins Qiven the most serious
considera[ion are: � y
A cumula[ive noise level reduction of minus 8dB from
Sta�e 3 standards and the sum of the noise level reduc[ions
at any two of the three noise measurement points must have
at least a 2dB marsin over StaQe 3 standards;
A cumulative noise level reduction of minus 1 IdB and
the sum oF any ttivo measurement points must have at least a
3dB mar,in over StaQe 3 standards; -
A cumulative noise level �duction of minus 1�4dB belo�v
Staae 3 s[andards and the sum of any two measurement
points must have at least a=�dB marQin over Stage 3
standards.
This reduc[ion sounds si�nificant, bu[ it is a cumula[ive
number, addins to�ether the noise level reductions
achieved at the three noise certification measurement
points: takeoFf, sideline, and approach.
So, if a new StaQe =F standard were se[ at minus 3 dB, an
airplane could meet it bv beine just 3dB quieter on takeoff,
ZdB quieter on approach, and 3dB quieter at sideline than a
comparable Stage 3 airplane. The newest Qeneration of
S[aQe 3 aircraFt. such as the BoeinQ 777 and the Airbus
A3�0 already esceed S[asz 3 standards by more than 30dB
cumulative. y
The .�irport C�uncil International (ACI) is callinQ for a
minimum improvemen[ of 14dB cumulative �vith an
improvement of al lea_t 1dB at any one of the three
measurement points. �CI-North America tivants the ne�v
standard set at minu� �OdB cumulative, Richard �Iarchi,
ACI-N.�'s senior vice president for technical and environ-
mental aFPairs, told �he conferenee.
Huwever. Coiin Stu�r[. ��ice president markztinQ For
Airbus Industrie, said [hat the aircraft manufacturers'
council, which includes Boein� and ?�irbus, supports no
strinQency hioher [han 8 dB.
The airlines declined to parcicipate in the conference, (
tvhich was attended by approximately 60 people. �
Asked �vhere he thou�h� the S[age 4 standard would be
set,lames Erickson, director of the Federal Aviation
Administration`s Office of Environment and EnerQy.
specula�ed it would be minus i l dB cumulative but tivi[h no
use of "trades" - provisions [hat allotiv aircraft [o exceed [he
noise level limi[s at certain points if they are sufficiently
below them at others. Eliminating the trades has the effect
of makinQ the s�andard 2dB tighter, lie said, so a minus
1(dB standard with no trades would in essence be a minus
13dB s�andard.
The FAA has not yet indicated tivhat option it supports for
a new StaQe � scandard and will not do so until af�er
September when a CAEP workin� sroup meets in Sinsapore
to consider the costs and benefits of the various options.
ACI-NA and the Caroo Airiine Association want to see the
issue of phasin� out the Stage 3 fleet considered separately
from a Sta�e 4 s�andard. Erickson said tha-t the cost/benefit
analysis will vary areatly dependina on whether a phaseou[
is required.
Accordinj to Airbus data, of the-13,000 commercial
aircraft operatinQ as of June 1999, 43 percent (5,�23
aircraft) would no[ meet the minus 8 dB cumulative
s[andard, �7 percent (7,389 aircraft) would not meet a minus
11dB cumulative standard, and 77 percent (9,880 aircraft)r.
would not mee� the minus 14dB cumulative standard. �
The minus 8 standard would decrease the fleet value of
5340 billion as �'EJune 1999 by 17 percent (S�7 billion); a
minus l IdB standard would decrease [he fleet value by 31
percent (�104 billion); and a minus 1�dB cumulative
standard would decrease the fleet value by 62 percent (�210
billion), accordinQ to Airbus da�a presented at [he confer-
ence.
An official with an aircraft ]easinQ company who was
attendinj the conference said [hat izasinQ companies could
be forced out of business if the Staaz � s�andard is set at a
strinaent level and that could haveya cascadinQ effect on
other sections of the aviation industry. "If capital flees the
marke�, that would have serious ramifica[ions," he warned.
At the end of the conFerence, Ylor�en Beyer, who hosted
the conference, declarzd [hat he has no[ seen FAA take any
kind of leadership role on the Stase � issue and questioned
whether [he industry should form4a coalition to educa[e the
public and ConQress on the economic impact oF a strinsent
Stase � standard. Beyer formed such a coalition �vhen Stage
3 aircraft noise standards were bein� de��eloped in the la[e
1980s.
.AirportNoiszReport
C
April �1, �000
5�
Bccrba�zk, fr-om p. �6
Thz airport authoricy said it will so forward with the Part
l61 study reQardless of tivhzcher ic and the Ci[y oF Burbank
reach a development aQreement For thz airport's replace-
ment passenger terminal. ,� draE't aareement on the new
passen�er terminai has ozen neso�iated last Au�ust but
faces widespread opposi�ion.
The draft agreemen� reauired [he closin� of the airport
terminal buildinQ ro passenQers be«veen I 1 p.m. to 6 a.m.
The airporc and ci�v had hoped tha[ this provision in the
draft asreement woul�i avoid the need to conduct a Part 161
study. However. 7ane Garve,�, administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, objec�ed to the provision con-
tendinQ it tivas a de facto curfew and would require a Part
161study.
"We're movinQ ahead on [he Par[ 161 study because [he
Authority sees the pursuit of a curfew as part oF its overall
noise reduction program." said l�feseck. "We want to be a
sood neighbor and do everychin� we can to provide noise
relief to the citizens of Burbank and Los Angeles. Now is
the time to beQin." l�Seseck said, addine, "�3 �n also hopeful
we s[and a be[ter chancz of succeedin� now than iF we had
tried to begin this study earIier."
The �lirport .�u�hori�y's ac�ion left open �he exact terms oF
the curfew tha[ �vill be studied, pendinQ further discussions
wi[h the City of Burbank, the FA:�, private aircraft opera-
tors, and the commercial airlines. The airport said that the
initial phase of the s[udy �vill cost approximately �1
million and the total cost will be S3 million to �� million
by the [ime the F?�.� completes its rzvie�v. FAA approval is
required for noise res�rictions on StaQe 3 aircraft.
The Cincinnati-based avia�ion consul�ing firm Landrum
� Brown was rztained in early 1999 to head up a team to
conduct the study and the company submitted a proposed
scope of tivork last June. But final consideration of the scope
of work has been dzlayed since then as the airport and City
of Burbank [ried [o finalizz their development aareement
on the ne�v terminal.
Safz Francisco 7�at'l
AIRPORT SEEKS TO REQUIRE
USE 0�' LARGER AIRPLANES
San Francisco Int�rnational �,irport Director 7ohn L.
�Iartin announced .�,pril 19 tha[ he �vill be releasing a
de[ailed report on Flisht de!avs at SFO and indicated [hat he
�vould move immedia[el�• on one oF its recommzndutions:
namely to petitiun the Fzderal Aviation ,�dministration for
a rule maling under Part lbl to require that larQer aircraFt
be used in marhe;s �� her. codav mul�iple smallerplanes are
used to meetdzmand.
ANR was unao!` to clariT�� beforz deadline whe�her [he
phrase "petition the (F.�.a] ior a rule mai:ing under Pur[
l6l" means that [he airporc plans to conduct a Par[ 16l
study to support tne requirement to usz larser aircraft.
The large numberof smallerplanes operatina multiple
frzquencies at SFO is a"substantial factor in flight dzlays
and cancellations" at the airport, �Iartin said. He noted tha[
[he airport also is considerinQ a rule [o require increased
aircraft turn-around time to provide a better cushion for
airline schedules.
'`San Francisco In[erna[ional Airport will take all steps
within its power. in cooperation with the F.a� and with the
participa[ion of Che airlines operating at SFO to alleviate
flight delays until reconfiaured runways are in place,"
�I artin said.
The delay study �vas prepared For the airport by indepen-
dent consultants. It looked a[ the causes for delay and made
recommendations to help reduce delays until the airport
reconfi�ures its runways.
Van Nziys Airport
L.A. CITY COUl�CIL CAPS
NUI�IBER OF STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT
The Los Angeles City Council April 13 approved a
proposed ordinance developed by the city's Airport
Commission that caps the number of Stase 2 aircraft
operatinQ at Van Nuys Airport, the busiest �eneral aviation
facility in the country.
The ordinance caps the number of S taae 2 business jets at
the present level of about �0. These StaQe 2 aircraF[ can be
replaced with other Stase 2 aircraft until Jan. 1, 2011, at
which point they must be replaced with quieter Stase 3
aircraft. However, the ordinance ailows owners oP StaQe 2
aircraft who do+�bt choose to repface them to keep the older
technoloQy aircraft indefini[ely at [he airport.
Neither homeo�vners near the airpor[, who have battled the
city over noise for [he past 20 years, nor aviation interes[s
tivere pleased �vi�h the final ordinance. Gerald Silver,
president of Stop [he Noise, a coalicion of 23 homeo�vners
associations, felt the ordinance did not go far enouQh.
Aircraft otivners based at the airport said the ordinance
�vould hurt their business.
The Los Angeles city charter does not allow the City
Counci) to amend ordinances pr000sed by [he Airport
Commission. The council can only approve or reject �vhat
[he commission proposes. That limitation frustrated some
politicians who had souQht the complete elimination of
S[aQe 2 aircraft a� Van �iuys by ?010.
The ordinance proposed by thz .�irport Commission and
just adopted by the City Council is less stringent than the
oriQinal 1990 proposal, �l�hich �vas arandfathered under the
�irpo�t Noise and Capacity Act. :�s ori�inally prop��sed. the
ordinance had three parts: expansion of the nighttime
cur€ew on aircraft producin� noise levels in excess of 71
dBA (e:cczpt StaJz 3 aircraFt) b;� one hour (to 10 p.m.): a
non-addition rule for Stage ? and Sta�e 3 business jets.
�r•hich would ac� as a cap on based operations; and a
phaseout of all aircraFt (Stage 2 and �) �ha� produced noise
levels in excess of 77 dB�,.
Airp��rt voise Rzport
April 21, 2000
. ANREDITORI�L
ADVISORY BOARD
Steven R. Alverson
�[anaeer,Sacramento0ftice
Harris M illertYt iller& Hanson
In B�ief ...
WHO Guidelines on Ploise
i
59
The World Health OrQanization (WHO), based in Gzneva. has issued for
John J• Corbett, Esq. the Firs� time Guidelines for Environmental Noise. They �vere deveioped
Spie�ei�ytcDiarmid by a panel of predominantly European experts and, in addition to
Washin�ton.DC ;uideline values, address the topics of environmenLal noise asszssmen[
James D. Erickson
Director, 0 ffice of Environmentand Enersy
Federal�viation�dministration y
John C. Freytag, P.E.
D irector, Charles NI. Saltzr Associates
San Francisco
blichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke,Dillon & Baliance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutler& Stanfield
Denver
Suzanne C. �IcLean
ChiefDevelopmentOfficer
Tucson Airport Authority
John bi. bieenan
SzniorVice PresidentforIndustryPolicy
AirTransport;�ssociation
Vincent E. �festre, P.E.
President, �,f estre G reve Associates
Ne�vportBeach,CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
�IcDermott. �Vill & Emerv
Chicaeo
Karen L. Robertson
blanager,Noise Compatibility Office
Dallas/Fort�Vorch International Airport
�Iary L. Vigilante
President,Synerey Consultants
Seattle
Lisa Lyle FVaters
titanaaer, Noisz AbaezmentProeram
Palm Beach County DepartmentoEAirpurts
and managemen[.
AccordiuQ to [he Quidelines, moderate annoyance during the daytime
and evenin� will occur in outdoor livin� areas if the noise level exceeds
50 dBA over 16 hours. "Serious" annoyance will occur durinQ daytime
and eveninQ in outdoor livin� areas if the noise level exceeds �� dB,�
over 16 hours.
To avoid speech in[elligibility problems and modzrate annoyance
indoors, the noise level should not exceed 35 dBA over 16 hours,
according to the guidelines. To avoid nighttime sle�p disturbance in
bedrooms, the noise level should not esceed 30 dB:� over eight hours.
Port Authority of iVY/NJ Asked to Curb Noise
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) sent a letter sisned by 3I members of Conaress
from Ne�v York and Ne�v 7ersey to Lewis Eisenbers_ chairman of the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, requesting immedia[e action to
curb airport noise.
"W hile other major airports nationwide are takins off with ae�ressive
anti-aircraft noise programs, New York-New 7ersey airports are still
delayed at the gate," Holt wroce. He criticiaed the asency for failin� to
take any action after he and Rep. Anthony tiVeiner (R-NY) released a C
study that revealed the Port Authority uses none of its Passenser Faciliry
Charje revenue for noise mitigation. y
The lawmakers wan[ the Port Authority to conduc� a Part 1�0 s�udy at
its three airports and to beQin a residential sound insulation proQram.
Highpoint O�cials to Go to Indianapolis
To better understand the impact a controversial FedEx carao hub at
Peidmont Triad International Airport might have on the community,
officials of Hi�hpoint, NC, plan to travel to Indianapolis, IN, to observe a
FedEx hub there.
Hiahpoint Ciry Council members tivill make [he visit on april 26 and
27. Ci[y i�IanaQer Strib Boynton said the trip is an opportunity to Find
out firsthand what a car�o hub operation is likz. Se��eral City Council
members said it will give them an opportunity to see if [he concerns oF
their constituen[s over aircraFt noise are valid.
AIRPORTNOISEREPORT
�lnne H. Iiohut, Publisher
Charies F. Price, Contributin� Editor
Published �6 times a year at �43973 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, y'a. ?01�7; Phone: (703) 729-�4S67; F.�\: (703) 729-=��?3.
e-mail: editor a,airportnoisereport.com; Price ���9.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is �ranted by Airport �ioise Report, provided that the base fee oF US$1.O:i per paQe per copy
is paid directly to Copyri�?ht C(earance Center, 222 Rose�vood Drive, Danvers, �[.�. 019�= . US.�.
� �� • -� . .,.: 7"""
! '.� -� •J "r
^ �t
t. � .'.� � �� •� ��.: ��i j;
.� weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technologicai developments
Volume 1?, �tumber 1�
San Frczncisco Int'Z
SFO SEEKS RULE iVIAKI�tG UNDER PART 161
TO REQUIRE USE OF LARGER �I�ZPLAi`dES
In precedent-settinv action [hat will open a national debate on how the size of
aircraft affects airport capacity, San Francisco Internationai Air�ort is petitionins
the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct a rule makin� under its Part 161V
reQulations to require airlines at SFO on certain rou�es to use larser aircraft in �-
order to decrease the number of operations by smailer regional jets.
In an effort to cut the most severe weather-related air traffic delays in the
coun[ry, SFO �vants the airlines to stop ugi,n.g smaller 30 passenaer resional jets on
routes to smaller cities and to use airplanes with a minimum capacity oP a �0-60
passengers, said Ron `�iilson, spokesman for the airport.
Wilson said that the F:�A's Part 161 resulations allow [he airport [o petition the
agency to conduct a rule makins to require the use of laraer aircraft at SFO. The
FAA may require the airport to conduct a cost/benefit analysis �o support this
petition, he said, explainins that it is noc the airport's intention to puli any airline
service from a community or to require the use of laraer airplanes at cities that
canno[ accommodate them.
Airport Director 7ohn tilartin publicly discussed his intention to file the petition
under Part 161 at an airport conference held last week, Wilson said, but noted tha��
(Coi2ti�u�ed o�i p. 61)
Grarzd Ca3zyo�a
AIR. TOUR OPERATORS CHALLENGE
NEti� FAA RULES LIiVIITING AIR TOURS
The U.S. Air Tour Association (USATA) and several family-owned small
businesses that provide air tours over the Grand Canyon National Park announce�
April 28 that they have filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District oF Columbia
challensins ne�v federal reQulations developed by the Federal ,�via[ion Adminis-
tration andythe National Park Service that �vill limit fli4hts over �he canyon.
"Whether Interior Szcrecarv Bruce Babbitt and the National Park Service have
the au[hority to deny a�cess to the Grand Canyon Nationa] Park to more than
800,000 visitors annuallv includinv the elderly and physicall}� challen�Ted is a
question posed'' in thz IawsuiC. USATA said.
Callins the ne�v res�rictions on air tour operations an "unconscionable act of
av�Tression by the Clin[on �dministration avainst visi�ors to the Grand Canyon."
USATA President S�z��� Bassett said. "A< <he direct order of Przsident Clinton. the
National Park Servirz znd the F,�A have abused their revulator�: po��ers For the
sofe purpose oF irrepnrably harmin� and destroyin� the small business air tour
operators that provide spzc�acular air tours [o neariy ?0 percen� oF the par;:'s
visitors.in the only mannzr many oF [hem can see, the Grand Canyon. 1ti'e canno[
sit by and permit these a� zncies to iUnore �he �vill oF Con�ress to kill an impor�nn�
an�i vibrant part of the zconomti� of the rural West. an�1 to i:lusz the Granil Canyon
f Carttinu<<;� on p. 6_')
�
�pril ?3, 3000
�n �'his Issue...
San Francisco Int'Z ... In a
move that will spark a na-
tional debate on how the
increasins use of smaller
reQional jets �vill affect airport
capacity, SFO plans to peti-
tion the F�1 to conduct a
rule makina under its Part 161
rules to require the use of
laraer aircraft at SFO - p. 60
Grand Canyora ... Air tour
operators challenQe netiv FAA
rules limitin� tour fli�hts over
the national park. The lawsuit
questions whether Ft�A has the
authoriry to deny access to park
visitors - p. 60
FAA ... The aaency is in the
process of checl�inQ whether the
airlines and air carao industry
are abusina a law that allo�vs
Stage 2 enaines to temporarily
replace Sta�e � engines - p. 62
Ft. Lcczcderdale ... County
commissioners approve
avi�ation easements, voluntary
sales assistance proaram for
homeotivners in 6� dB D�V'L
noise contour - p. 6?
t'Jew Briefs ... Los Angeles
airports must continue to Qro�v
in order for re�ion to continue
to prosper. study concludes ...
City of Phoznix seeks rfps for
residential sound assistance
pro�ram mana�ement - p. 63
April �3, �000 61
l�Iartin has not yec spoken ofiicially with the FAA reaarding
the petition. Wilson expects a written petition to be made
public as early as the tirs� week of tiiay.
l�Iartin spoke at an invi�ation-only conFerence in Wash-
in;�[on. DC, sponsored by �he National Science Foundation,
hzld to discuss issues relacins to airporc capacicy and what
role the FAA shouid play in the forthcoming capacity
crunch, Peter Kirsch of the Denver law tirm Cutier &
Staniie[d told Aa.'�R. F�A �dministrator Jane Garvey
a[tended the conference.
i�lanin toid the conference that 18 percent, almost one-
fifth, of operations at SFO are conducted with airptanes that
carry only 30 passentrers but these airplanes transport only
3 percen[ of [he passen�-ers usins SFO. The statistics for Los
Angeles In[erna[ionaI t�irport are even worse, Kirsch said.
"Ivlartin is opening a can of worms that is very important
to open up because the probiem is not unique to San
Francisco," the attomey said, explaining that l�Iartin has
joined the issues of airport capacity and size of aircraft and
put them in the national debate. What role shouid the
federal sovernment play in establishina policy on what
kind of air service we want in this country? Kirsch asked.
"i�Saybe 1�Iartin is foreteliinQ a fundamental shift in the way
in tivhich airports are viewed. We may have to decide that
airports operate as a reaional system in which certain types
of [rafFc Qo [o different airports."
If you look at airpores as a resional system. instead of as
competitors, regional jets could be pushed out of SFO and
into Oakland, he said_
Kirsch noted that the issue of e;ctendinQ runways is also
related to the size of aircraft. A study jus[ presented to the
Cleveland City Council :�viation Committee shows that all
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport can erpect in [he
future is reQional jecs that only require a 7,000 foot runway,
he said, and that miQhc not justify the cost of extending the
run�vay to 11,000 feet for one or ttivo flishts a week by larae
aircraft to the Pacitic Rim. �
Any rule makinQ done by FAA under its Part 161 regula-
tions to address airport capacity would be precedent setting,
Kirsch said. "blar[in has said wha[ nobody wanted said
publicly, that the shifc to reQional jets is maCerializing and
�vill radically shift the capacity of American airports."
He predicted that the costlbenefit analysis tha[ miQht be
needed [o support San Francisco's plan would be very
difficult. It �vould be ��ery complex because oF the difficuity
of comparing the economic value of service to diFferent
markecs. "A flivht to Tokyo is more important to San
Francisco �han a flivh� to i�Iontzrey," he said, "but to
Mon[erey, the value uf ths tlight is very hi�h."
Plan tii'ould Be `Disast�r'
Uni�ed �irlines, the airport's larvest carrier with ��
percen� of thc; operations a� SFO. said the plan �vould
impose dzep cu�s in its service and would dama�e the Bay
Area econom�� and impact jobs in the re�ion. It would also
t�ave a nc�Tative impact on small�r communi[ies who stanci
to lose service, the airline said.
"Nothins concerns us more than the Frustration our
customers in San Francisco experience because of airporc (
constrain�s," United President Rono Dutta said in a pre- `�
pared statement. United will continue to work with the
airporc to do all ic can to improve its operation a� SFO< he
said, but warned. "it would be nothinv short of a disaster Por
the airport to attempt to seek to impose heavy-handed
resulations on United."
Dutta said the pian expected to be reieased by city
ofticials "sinsles out United from other carriers who operate
at SFO and attempts to For�e the airline [o eliminate a
si�niticant number of fliehts to and from the airport. It
includes deep cuts in service to Los Anaeles, Sacramento,
and Fresno. The pian seeks to dictate the size of aircraft and
frequency of fliQhts tha[ United can schedule bettiveen a
number of markets. The net effect of this wilI be [o force
United to severely reduce its schedule."
An initiai analysis of the requirement to use larser
airplanes, prepared by the airport, found tIiat United
Airlines would save $200,000 per day (in terms of crew
time, fuei, landinQ fees, and other costs) and could still
serve the same number of people, WiIson told ANR.
Interim Solution
SFO has proposed a�Z.� billion pro�ram to expand
runways into San Francisco Bay in order to inerease the
distance between runways and allow simultaneous opera- /
tions that would si�nificantly reduce weather-reIated �
delays_ The airport's paralleI runways are only 750 feet apart
and one must be-shut down in bad weather.
SFO spokesman Wilson said that the restrictions on aircraft
size souQht by the airport are an interim solution to reduce
delay and add capaciry durin� the five years i[ would take
to construct the new runways, tivhich environmen[alists
stronaly oppose. The airport must demonstrate under
environmental law that there are no alternatives to reducina
delay other than extendin� the runtivavs into the bay.
Fli�ht Path �aised
In other news, SFO announced April 26 that it has
successfully petitioned the FAA in raisine the altitude of
most aircraft crossins over a naviQational fix a[ tilenlo Park/
Palo Alto, Atherton and other sou[hern San i�lateo Coun[y
ciCies south of the airport.
Aircraft inbound [o SFO from Southern Calitornia,
l�Iexico, Phoenix, Las VeQas, Ha�vaii, and north from Point
Reyes will cross a navivational fix at �he tilenlo PariJPalo
�lto boarder 1,000 feet hiQher than in the past. Approxi-
mately 70 aircraft a day use this routing and the nuise
reduction equates to approximately a—:1 percent reduction,
accordinv [o the airport.
Other cities on this inbound route �r-ill benefit from the
chanQe berause aircraFt on approach to SFO �vill be hiQher�, �
and descendinQ sliQhtly steeper alon�T [his route �vith
enQines at ia(e thrust, the airpor[ said.
Airport iVoise Repur[
April 28, 2000
�
Gr-cznd Canyoun, from p. 60
to visits by elderly and physically informed visitors."
US�TA and the air tour companies are being represented
in the lawsuit by the Mountain S[ates Lerai Foundation
(MSLF) ot Denver. described as "a non-protic, public
interest leQai cen�er dedicated [o individual liberry, the
right to own and use property, limited vovernment, and the
free en[erprise system." NISLF has appeared before �he U.S.
Supreme Court and numerous federal courts of appeal and
has nntionally recovnized experts on western federal lands
and environmental ancl constitutional law, USATA said.
At issue in the la�v sui� are final resulations published on
April �(12 ANR 4=�), which will become Fnal on Nlay �.
The air tour operators contend that the new reeulations
violate both the U.S. Constitution and federal law. They
have asked the federal district court to delay implementa-
tion of the resulations pendin� a final rulina by the court
on the srounds that the new rules will cause them irrepa-
rable injury.
The rules were adopted by the FAA with the assis[ance of
the NPS pursuanr to the OverfliQhts Acc of 1987 which
souQht to restore "natural quiet' to the Grand Canyon.
The air tour operators contend that the new rules are based
on "flawed sta[istical evidence and junk science," and will
"drastically curtail" air tours in the near future and end
them altogether tivithin two to [hree years.
They contend that the new rules violate federal law that
prohibits reQulations [hat are "arbitrary, capricious, or
other�vise no[ in accordance with law." In addition to
alleaation of faulty science, thz air tour operators fault as
"arbitrary and capricious" the exciusion of aircraft noise
Penerated by commercial, military and �1PS aircraft. They
assert that because Consress did not intend to end air tours
at the Grand Canvon. the ne�v rules are no[ in accordance
�vith the law. Thev aiso contend that because a Native
.�lmerican sroup is excluded from the new reaulations, they
violate [he ec�uai pro[zction auarantee �nder the Constitu-
tion. y
US,�,TA contends that there is a stronQ body of evidence
"ciearin� sho�vinv" that there is not a noise proo(em �vith
air tour aircraft over the Grand Canyon. "The Park Service
anc� FA.�, have ignored the facts and proposed harmful
reQulations based on boaus sound studies and voodoo
economic: analysis." y
F�-1A
Fr�A CI�ECI�I�G COI�IPLI�N�E
W�T� ST�.GE 2. 3 ENGIi�E i�IIYI�tG
The Federal A�•iation Administration is in the process of
checkin� whctllzr tl�z airlines and the aircarvo industry are
abusinJ a section oF t�dzral la�v that allo�vs operators oF
lar�e transpor� caCe`=orv �urbojet airplanzs to use Stage 2
en�*incs on their aircratt for us lona as 90 days while repairs
are bzinU m�li�e [O Stavt 3 en��ines.
In r.•<trly April. th� a� enc� issued Buli�tin No. FSAbV 00-
0� which provides ouidance on intermixing StaQe 2 and
S[ave 3 ensines on lar�e transport aircraft.
Federal law ailows an operator to tly a IarQe je� aircraft
wi[h a mix of enQines For a period of up to 90 days. Typi-
cally, operators oF multi-enaine Sta,e 3 airplanes use this
provision to install one Scave ? engine while a S[a,e �
envine is beina repaired. The intent oF the reQulation is [hat
the substitute StaQe 2 en�ine be used onlv For main�enance
purposes and noc be used indet7niCely for the purpose of
bolsterinQ the size of the operator's Stave 3 tleet.
The FAA is beQinnina to inspect operators' records for
turbojet engine-powered, lar�e transport cateQory airplanes
of 75,000 pounds or areater to determine in the last 36�
days how often operators substituted Stave 2 envines, why
they did so, and how often the substitution las[ed the full
90 days.
Paul Dykeman, deputy director of the F�A's Office of
Environment and Enersy, said that, of the first 20 operators
eYamined by [he aaency, only one used a substitute StaQe 2
engine and only for a short period of [ime. He said the
aQency does not suspect that there is widespread abuse of
the substitution provision which was promuIaated prior to
the phaseout of Staae 1 aircraft but stili applies to the
transition to Stase 3 aircraft. �
Ft. Zazcderdale-Hollywood I�zt'Z
COUNTY �.PPROVES E��.SEyIENT,
SALES ASSISTANCE PROGRAyI
Broward CourrEy; FL, commissioners approved on �prii
11 the use of aviQation easements and a voluntary sales
assistance proaram for residents near Ft.Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport. The measures tivere part of
an update to the airport's Part 1�0 Airport iVoise Compat-
ibili[y Pro�ram.
The airport will offer 290 homeo�vners in the 6� dB DNL
contour around the airport a one-time payment of 5?,�00
dollars in exchanQe for an avi�ation easement. The amount
of the easemen[ �vas based on real zs�atz data indicatinv tha�
proximiry to the airport �vas not a si�nificant factor in the
pricinQ of homes near [he airpor[. accordin� [o Lori
Klivteld-Labelle, noise ofticer for rhe airport. The market
for real estaCe near the airport, even �vi�hin �he 6� dB DNL
contour. is stronQ, she salid.
The easemen� will be voided if th� noise level in the
current 6� dB D�iL noise contours increases to exceed 70
dB DNL. a scenario unlikely to happen ec�n �uhzn an
extension oF the airport's south run���av from �, �0� feet to
9.000 feet brinvs aircraFt closer to homes. �n environmental
imp'acC sCaCement currently is bein« przpared for the runway
z;ctension projec�. which is ex�ec�za co be done in �OOS.
I�(ivfeld-Labelle saiel that the airpurt did not oPfer a
residential sound in�ulation pro�Tram in i[s upda�etl Pa.r[ 1�0
pro�ram because there has been�s�ronv opposi�ion to i[ in
the commanity. Resiclen[s diil not lile the idza ot not bein�
able to opcn their �vindoevs. she �xplainzd.
Aitport �tuisc Report
t�pri128, ?000
ANR EDITORIAL
�DVISORY BO�RD
Steven R. Alverson
Manaser.SacramentoOtftce
[-Iarris y[iller�[iller&H�nson
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spie,ei 3c �IcDiarmid
Washin;ton. DC
James D. Erickson
Direccor, O�ce of Environmenc and Ener�
Federal Avia�ion Adminiscracion
John C. Freyta;, P.E.
Director, Charlas M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
l�fichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gaczke, Dillon & Ballance
Carls6ad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cucler & S tantield
Denver
Suzanne C. �IcLean
Chief Developmen tOfficer
Tucson Airpott �uchoriry
John l�I. �feenan
Senior V ice Presidenc Tor Industry Policy
AirTransporc Associadon
Vincent E. l�Iestre, P.E.
Presiden[. �Ies[re Greve �ssocia�es
NewportBeach. C�
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
tilcDermott. �Vi118: Emen•
Chicaso
Karen L. Robertson
�[ana�er, Noise CompacibiliR� OTfice
Dallas/ForC�Y'oRh Inczrna�ional .�.irporc
btary L. Vi;ilante
Presidenc. Syner�y Con�ut�an�
Sea�tle
Lisa Lvle �Vaters
�Iana�er.Noisz �ba�emencProgram
Patm Beach Counc}• Degaremenc of .airports
63
Ira Brief ...
�
LAY Study
The Los AnQeles rePion —[oday's principal U.S. Qateway for Asia/
Pacitic Rim commerce — could see those economic benefi�s slip away to
Dallas, Denver, or Chicago if the reQion fails to improve i[s air transporta-
tion capabilities, according to a study done by the Los Angeles Worid
Airports (LAtiVA).
Denver, Dallas, and Chicaao have modernized their airport systems in
recent years and are actively pursuina opportunities to Prow their
resional economies and complete for Southern California air transporta-
tion doilars, the study noted.
The study examined the present capabilities, potential, and limitation
oFLos AnQeles Interna[ional, Oran�e CoundJohn `Vayne, Ontario
International, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena, Long Beach, Palm SprinQs,
Palmdale ReQional, and O:�nard airports, as well as tive military bases
that have been proposed for conversion or expanded use.
"The inescapable conclusion of this study is that all the reQion's
airports must grow for the reQion to continue to prosper," said Lydia
Kennard, executive director of LAWA. "L:�X cannot and should no[
capture all of �he new demand for air transportation. L:�Y's unique role in
the future should be to focus on handling most of the international
component of the reaion's air=service needs."
The study> "Air Transportation in the Los AnQeles Reaion," makes
ciear that the reQion° s airports do not have the current capacity to handle
the increased demand for air [ransportation resultinQ from our �rowing �
economy," she said.
The study projects a decreas� in LAX's share of overall demand for air
services in the reQion but LAX tivitl remain the reQion's primary airport.
The study conciudes that if LA� is not modernized to meet future
�rowth, the re�ion will lose major employment and financiai opportuni-
ties to other airports.
Phoenix Sound Tnsulation RFP
The City of Phoenix is seekinQ proposals from qualified individuals or
firms to provide proaram manaQement services for the Aviation
Departmen�'s Residential Sound Assistance Pro�ram for Phoenix Sky
Harbor Incernational Airpor�. Request for proposals packaQes will be
available on �pril 2� with submittals due by titay 19.
Interested parties should concact Alice StallinUs at tel: (603) 273-''069.
AIRPDRTNDISEREPORT
Anne H. Iiohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Con[ributin� Editor
Ptiblished 16 rimzs a year 1t ��978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn. Va. 20117; Phone: (703) 729-a867: F:�\: (%03) 72�-1��5.
e-mail: editor�.airportnoiszreport.com; Price ��-�9. ,
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal usz oi soecific clients, %
is vrsnted by� .�irport �`oise Report; provided that the base fee of USS t.0 � per pavz per cop��
\
is paid direc[ly to Copyrivht Clearance Centzr; �?? Rosewood Dri�'e. Danvers, �I.a O l9� �. US.�.
Airport \oise R�pur[
.:
<: . :<
� � � :� � ::,r
, ;
; , :�
Fa � ,. _, . � �'
� �_ ... _ _ . _ �., _ _ � <.
:� weekly update on litigation, re;ulations, and technological developments
Volume 1?, �tumber 16
San Francisco Int'Z
AIRLINES BL�ST SAN FRANCISCO'S PLAN
TO REQUIRE USE OF LARGER AIRCRAFT
The Air Transpor[ Association came ou[ swinging at San Francisco In[ernational
Airport's plan to petition [he Federal Aviation Administration for a rulemaking
under its Part 161 rules to require the airlines [o use larger aircraft �at SFO as an
interim solution to the airpor['s serious delay problem.
"This plan viola�es federal law, would drastically reduce service [o smaller
cities, and would damase small communities as well as the entirz Bay Area
economy," said :�T:1 President and CEO Carol Hallett, echoing comments made
earlier by United Airlines, the dominant carrier at SFO and the carrier tha[ wouid
be most affected bv Che rulemakins.
"San Francisco airport is a key economic enQine for the reeion and any move to
cut fliQhts wiIl have a dramatic impac[ on business and jobs," Hallett contended.
SFO recently announced its inten[ion to file a petition with [he FAA to prohibit.
use of aireraft with less than �0 seats to specific cities such as Los An�eles,
Sacramento, and Fresno. arQuin� tha[ such action will reduce airport delays.
But Hallet[ asserted tha� the �vay to reduce delays a[ San Francisco "is to update
their antiquated run�vay layout because it restricts operations in bad weather. The
San Francisco Airport ne:ds to stop [rying to distrac[ passen�ers with unrealistic ,; :
(Cotttinued oii p. 6.5)
Hicshk-its
EUROPEt�N Ui�tION Bt�N ON ADDITIO�
OF HUSHKITTED AIRCR�FT TAI�ES EFFECT
The European Union�s rule barrina the addition of hushkitted aircraft in Europe,
�vhich has been the subj�ct of a lon� and acrimonious dispute bet�veen the EU and
United S[a[es and is no�v bzfore [he In[zrna[ional Civil Avia[ion Organization [o
resolve, took eFfect on liav �.
The UE did noc mark the occasion. The U.S. Air Transport Association did,
issuing a press release assertino [hat the ban violates international aviation
s[andards. "Clearlv this is a policy dzsi�ned to give the EU a competitive advnn-
taoe ovzr U.S. firms.'� �aid Carol Hallett, president and CEO of the airline trade
sroup. "It's unfortuna�e that thz European Union is i�norin� international
standards. Even more alarminv is �he fact that they are willing �o risk con[inuin�
pro�ress on impur.ant ea� ironmen�al issues by this politically motivated regula-
tion."
AT.-� said that th� EL- re_ulation �r•ill discriminate against and eFfectively ban
aircraF[ equipped n i�h t; .S. —developed hush:it technoloay.'`The EU regulation is
unacceptable to [he t'.S. o�cause th�re is no scientific basis for it and it faiis to
promote environm�n�al in�erests in any tivay." ATA said.
`'Thz Eli claims tha: �h� reason for �his resulation is noise," Hallett saiil. "If they
(Coiitinueil nn p. 66J
'�'
l�i ay �, 2000
In This Issaie...
Sttn Francisco Int'Z ... 'I'he
Air Transport Association
stron�ly opposes SFO's plan
to petition the FAA. for a
rulemakinQ to require the use
of lar�er aircraft at SFO on
certain routes to reduce delay
problems. Such action violates
the Airline DereQulation Act.
ATA asserts - p.�6�
Hushkits ... The European
Union's controversial rule
barrin� the addition of
hushkitted aircraft in Europe '
took effect on �Iay 4- p. 64 !
Legislation ... Bill introducedl
in California Le�islature would
provide a tax credit of $�00 for
homeowners in the 65 dB DNI,
or �reater contours - p. 66
Homestead �.PB ... Two key
chairman of Housz. Senate
committees overseein� restora-
tion of Everglades National
Park tell President Clinton that
conversion of Homestead to a
commercial airport may be
incompatible �vith park - p. 66
New Briefs ... County blocks
residential development near
airport; San Josz l�Iayor an�ry
at not beinQ involved in air
route chanaes to SFO - p. 67
AVR tivill not publish the �veek of
1�Iay 8. The nest issue, Vol. 12, �io.
17, tir•il] be published on �lIav 19.
5, 2000
talk of Fli�ht rescrictions and concentrate on updating their
runways," Hallet� said.
SFO officials say they only wan[ to limit the size of
aircraft to reduce delay as a s[opaap measure For about five
years until they reconfiQure their runways to solve the delay
probiem. y
Hallett contended [hat SFO's proposal violates federal
law. Under the Airline DereQulation Act of 1978, any eFforts
by an airport, ci[y, state, or o[her entiry [o set prices,
determine routes, or mandate types of aircraft used are
specifically prohibited, the ATA chief said. That section of
law was enacted to ensure free and open competition by
airlines without �overnmen[al interference, she added. The
result of dere�ula[ion is that airline prices have dropped by
36 percent in real dollars since 1978 and the number oF
people flyin� annuaily has grown from 278 million 22
years ago to 640 million in 1999.
SFO Releases Report
1�Ieanwhile, SFO officials held a press conference May � to
release a consuItants' report which concludes that requiring
larjer aircrsft on certain routes is the best option the airport
has for addressins i�s serious delay problem.
The report said that, in the absence of any realistic chance
of �ettin� the airlines to voluntarily reduce operations on
bad weather days, San Francisco International Airporc is left
�vith no choice but to try to impose "aircraf[ up�au�in�" —
the use of larjer aircraf� on routes with hieh-frequency
service — by some form of rulemakinj. ~
Aircraf[ upgauainQ will reduce flisht frequency but
should not reduce the number of seats offered in any of the
markets examined (Los �nseles, Sacramento, Nlonterey,
Fresno, and Eureka), accordin� to the report, which was
prepared by Charles River Associates and The John F.
Brown Company.
Notins that rulemakinQ options are limited, the report said
the most promisins option is to initiate a"Notice and
Comment" rulemakine and seek approval from the Federal
Aviation Adminis�ra�ion to adopt a local congeseion delay
rule under [he aQency's Par[ 161 reaulations on Notice and
Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restric[ions.
The airport plans to �ake such action but has no[ formally
submi[ted a rulemakins pe[i[ion to the F�A yet.
AircraPt "upQauging" will not eliminate weather-related
delays a[ the airport, the report concluded, but added, "it
does have the potential to reduce it sionificantly, to reduce
the disproportionate ourden borne by the �Vest Re�ion
crea[ed by existinQ delay `manaaement' procedures, and to
reduce the costs and the stress it creates for passengers."
The airport asked th� consultants to identify approaches it
miQht pursue to provicie interim relief oF its delay problem,
tivhich is caused bv havins parallel runways spaced too
closely to allow simultaneous landinQs in bad wenther. A
run�vay conFiguration project. under which the airport
hopes to extend run�� a}�s in[o San Francisco Bay and allow
simul�aneuus landines in poor �veather, is not expected to
65 .
be completed Eor five years, and curren�ly is in the environ-
mental review process.
The consultants could only consider options [hat are abl�
to opera�e tivithin the airport's current runway confiQuration
and to take into account SFO's currzn� lease and use
aQreemencs with �he airlines. These aQreements run un[il the
year 201 l and severely limit the airpor�'s ability [o use
measures such as peak load pricinQ to ailocate run�vay
capacity, accordin; to the report.
To prepare their report, [he consul�ants analyzed [he
frequency of various weather conditions at SFO and how
they impacted air �raffic and developed simulation models
to help estimate how changes in traffic levels, weather
characteristics, and the airport's arrival acceptance ra[e
impac[ed delay and cancellations. They also conducted
four focus groups made up primarily of frequent SFO users
and surveyed passen�ers in a departure lounae reflectins a
statistically valid cross-section of the airport's customers.
The consuitants met with officiais of United Airlines, the
primary carrier at SFO, with the management of the FAA's
Systems Command Center at Herndon, VA, and other FAA
Facilities, and with mernbers of the W eather Sensinj Group
at MIT Lincoln Labs in Lesin�ton, ti1�.
They found thac many airports, zspecially those in the
Northeast and �Sidwes[, face delays due [o constraints on
the capacity of the en route air traffic control sys[em. This
means more aircraft want to land and take off from these
airports, especially at peak travel times, than can be safely
accommodate. r C
�'roblem Is Weather
y..
SFO's delay problem, however, is due primarily to bad
weather, they said. Fos is frequent in the mornings, espe-
cially in the summer, and rnins tivith Qusty �vinds occur in
[he winter.
The airport has ttivo pairs of intersectinQ parallel runways.
W hen �veather conditions are ideal, one pair of run�vays can
be used for landings and the other pair for takeoffs. W hen in
[his confiauration. SFO can handle up to b0 landings and
60 takeoffs per hour. Demand exceeds this level only for
brief periods each day and then no[ by much.
But the parallel runways are only 7�0 fee[ apart, [oo close
for parallel landina approaches in bad iveather. This forces
aircraft to arrive followinQ one anocher co a sinQle run�vay.
OperatinQ in-trail cuts the airport's abilicy to accept arriving
trafFic by one half.
On a typical day �vhen weather �vas bad all day, only
about half the Fiish�s arrived on Cimz (�ti•ithin 14 minu�es of
schedule), [he rzport notzd. It said [he incidence of delays
snd cancellations aFfect mainly flights in the 1Vest due to
two fac�ors: the F.�A's procedures for manaQinQ air traffic
control delays related [o SFO �veather: snd decisions by thz
airlines concernins �vhich of their SFO in-bound fliehts wi1L
be delayed or cancele�i and �vhich �vill operate on or close�
to schedule.
AirpurtNoiszRepurt
5. 2000
Htcshkits, from p. 6=�
are really interested in reducinQ aircraf� noise, they should
have finished their adop�ion of an al]-StaQe 3 Fleetjust as
the U.S. has done."
Actually, the United S�ates decided to speed up the StaQe
2 aircraf[ phaseout schedule recommended by ICAO, which
is what the Europeans are Followin�. The EU ar?ues that it
was the United S[a[es' accelera[ion oF the phaseout sched-
ule that caused so many airlines to have to resort to
hushkits as a means of complyin� with Stage 3 noise
requirements.
Halle[t asserted that aircraft with hushkits meet StaQe 3
noise standards and have a saFety record identical to new
aircraft. The EU reQulation, she said, would prohibit the
re�isEration of hushkit-equipped aircraft in the EU and ban
the opera[ion of such non-EU registered aircraf[ within
European airspace within two. years. The EU policy would,
however, permit EU-reQistered aircraft with hushkits to
continue to operate within European airspace after 2002.
On i�larch 14, the United States filed a formal complain[
with ICAO protes[in� the EU hushkit reaulation. The
Europeans' response to that complaint, called a memorial, is
due in early July and may be prepared by France, which
may be significan[. Observers no[e that France, Germany,
and Great Britain are the EU members most ea�er to find a
resolution to the EU hushkit regulation dispu[e.
Californza
BII,L W OULD PROVIDE
TAX CREDIT �i�ITHIN 65 DNL
A tax credi[ of ��00 �vould be �iven to homeowners
located in the 6� dB or Qreater CNEL (Community Noise
Equivalent Level) noise contour of a"noise problem"
airport under legislation introduced in the California
Assembly in February an sliQhtly amended on April 24.
Assembly biil No. 206� �vas introduced by Democratic
Assemblyman Georgz Na!:ano of the �3�d Assembly District,
which includes cities in the sou[hern coastal re;ion of L'os
Anaeles Countv near Los An�eles International ?.irport.
No hearinQs havz yet bzen held on the bill, which was
referred to the Assembiv Commi[tee on Revenue and
Taxation.
Thz bill would provide [he tax credit untii Dec. l. 2006,
and �vould reyuire the Franchise Tax Board to report
annually to [he Levislature on the number of taxpayers
claiminQ the crzdit.
On April Z-�. the bill n as amended to clarify who would
qualiFy for the ta� credit. They must be a"qualiFied
resident." mzanine thz�� are located �vithin the 6� dB CNEL
contour oF a Noise Probiem Airport as detined by Section
J��� Ot 5(1[z �1�b'.
Homestead AFB
COI�TPATIBILITY OF AIRPORT,
EVERGL�.DES QUESTIONED
T�vo Ohio R�publicans who chair House and Senate
commi[tees tha� �vill play a major role in the upcominQ
debate on the rzstoration oP fundinQ for [he South Florida
Everglades National Park �vro�e President Clinton in �,pril
expressing concern that efforts to turn �he former Home-
stead �Lir Force B ase into a commercial airport may not be
compa�ible with the park.
"I am very concerned [hat the noise. air quality impacts.
water quality impacts, and developmental pressures oF
commercial airport operations may no� be compaCible with
[he adjacent National Parks and [Florida Keys National
�Iarine] Sanctuary," Sen. George Voinovich and Rep.
Ralph Re�ula told Clinton.
They said it would "be irresponsible for [he fedzral
aovernment to approve an investment of biIlions of dollars
in restoration of the South Florida ecosystem at the samz
time it was approvin� a reuse plan For Homzstead Air Force
Base that is incompatible with thz restoration objectives."
Sen. Voinovich is chairman of chz Szna�z Subcommitte�
on Transportation and Infrastructure which has oversiQht of
the Army Corps of Engineers, one of two major players in
the res�oration oF the park. Rep. Re�uta chairs �hz House
Appropriations Subcommittee's Subcommittee on the
Interior, which oversees the budset of the Department of
Interior, thz other major restoration player.
The Clinton Administration has supported the redzvelop-
ment oF Homestead, which was closzd after beinQ hit by
Hurricane Andrew in 1993. But efforts to turn the base inco
a commercial airport stalled in the face of concerns by
environmental �roups over the impact of the airport on the
Everglades. They con[end that aircraft noise tiviil shatter the
tranquill.ity of Biscayne and EverQlades na[ional parks.
which are locatzd nearby, and that the impact oF air and
water pollution from a commercial airport would bz
siQnificant.
An Air Force contractor recentiv issuzd a draft environ-
mental impact report concludinQ that a commercial airport
at Homestead could be compatible n•i�h [he parks providzd
that noisz impacts are addressed. Bu[ federa] and statz
asencies. includina the Deoartment oi In�erior and the
Environmental Protection .a�encv. ha�•e challenued this
findina. �
Interior Secretarv Bruce Baboiit and �everal conservation
groups arz endorsinQ a proposal to r�d�:elop the oasz ��•ith
resort hotels. golFcourses, and a major ayuarium. Sen.
Voinovich and Rep. Regula expressed �upporc for [his plan
in their let[er [o Presidznt Clinton.
?.irport�uisz Reporc
Nlav 5, 2000
ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Steven R. Aiverson
1�[ana;er,Sacramenro0ffice
Harris �t iller�( illerS. Hanson
John J• Corbett, Esq.
Spieeel3c �[cDiarmid
`Vashington, DC
James D. Erickson
Director, Office ofEnti•ironmentand Energy
Federal Aviation �dministration
John C. Freyta;, P.E.
Director, Charles 1�t. Salter:�ssociates
San Francisco
i�fichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutler& Stanfieid
Denver
Suzanne C. �IcLean
ChiefDevelopmentOfficer
Tucson Airporc �uthori[y
John l�t. l�leenan
Senior V ice President forIndustry Policy
AirTransporc�lssocia[ion
Vincent E. l�Iestre, P.E.
President, b[estre Greve?.ssociatzs
Ne�vportBeach,C:1
5teven F. Pflaum, Esq.
�[cDermott, «� ill �R. Emzry
Chica�o
Karen L. Robertson
�[anaeer, Noise Compatibility Office
Dallas/For<<V orth Incernationa! �irpor[
�Iary L. Vi�ilante
President, Synerey Consultan�s
Seattle �
Lisa Lvle ��'aters
�.Ianaeer.Noisz.�,baeemen�Proeram
Palm Beach Cuunt�' Deoarcmenc oEAirports
,s
67
In Brief ...
County Blocks I3ome Development
On April 20, the commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas. bloc!ced a
proposed residential development on 160 acres near Johnson Coun�y
Execu[ive �irport. The commissioners are required to approve develop-
ment within one mile of the airport.
County staff determined [hat the site near the airport was not appropri-
ate for new residential development for reasons of safety and noise
impact and did not comply with the counry's mas[er plan.
San Jose lYIayor Angry Over Route Change
San Jose, CA, l�Iayor Ron Gonzales is angry that the Federal Aviation
Administration did not involve mayors of communities in the south San
Francisco B ay area or the area's congressional dele?ation in discussions
that led to the reroutin; of traffic from San Francisco International
Airport over their heads.
The FAA implemented the change in order to reduce weather-related
delays at San Francisco International Airport.
Improvin� service at SFO cannot be done at the expense of residents of
San 7ose and Silicon Vailey, the mayor said.
A spokesman for FAA's reQional office said th�at the agency did notify
the San 7ose plannin� department about [he proposed air rou[e changes
which wi11 affect aircraft above 6,000 feet. Under federal environmental
law, [he FAA can assume that air route changes above an al�itude oF
3,000 feet have no significant impaet. Such changes can be made
administratively. �
FAA computer modelin� indicated that the air route chanQes would
increase noise by only 0.01 d�'�
The FAA had only pianned to hoid only one public hearing on the
reroutina but. after meetinQ tivith l�Iayor Gonzales, decided [o hold
another day of hearings and to extend the public comment period by t�vo
weeks.
FAA R&D Advisory Committee
The FAA announced �Iay � that its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Commit[ee will mee[ on 1�Iay 18 to discuss aircraft noise certificatio❑
issues. The committee will vote on a Notice of Proposed Rulemakin�
(�IPR�I) re�ardinQ the harmoniza[ion of U.S. and European airplane
noise certification standards.
The meetinQ is open to the public. For further information, con�act yls.
Anaela 0. �inderson; tel: (202) 267-963 t.
�lIRPORT t�1 DISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Contributin� Editor
Publishzd �6 time: a vear at �3978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-=�367; FAX: (703} i29-4�23.
e-mail: editor@�irportnoisereport.com; Price ���9.
.�.uthorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is �ranted b} Airport Noise Repvrt, provided that the base fee of US� 1.03 per paae per copy
is paid directiv to Copyri�?ht Clearance Center, 222 Rose�vood Drive, Danvers, �-la 019? �. US.-�.
AGENDA
{ \ . REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIltPORT RELATIONS COMIVIISSION
EAGAN,IVIINNESOTA
EAGAN CITY COUNCII. CHAMBERS
MAY 9; 2000 �
7:00 P.IVI.
Y. ���,L ��,�, ar,� n: ���r�r� �x ��Lrr�� .
II: APPROVAL OF M[Tl�TUU'I'ES
F1L •' � : :i •'1
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS _
A. North-South runway Flfght Track Update
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Part 1S0 Land iJse Discussion
VI. STAFF REPORT �
.�
A. Legislative Update
B. MASAC Update - �
C. North-South ]E2unway Communications Plan and Communiiy Mitigation Plan
D. Twin Cities Airports Task Force
1 1 �'
VIII. FUTURE MEETING A.ND AGENDA
A. Negt Commission IVgeeting — 7:00 p.m. '�uesday, June 13
B. Nezt NiASAC Meeting — 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 23
C. Nezt MASAC Operations Committee 1Vleeting —10:30 a.m. Friday, Ii'Iay 12
D. MAC Public Meetings — 5:Q0-8:00 p.m. Tuesday,lVlay 23 and
5:00-8:00 p.m. Thursday, May 25
I► � 1 � ' 1
Auxiliary aids for persons wrth disabilities wi11 be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice
of less than 96 hours is received, the City ofEagan will attempt to provide such aid.
C
��
DISPLAY ADVERTISEMEM SALES
UK and EUROPE
DisplayAdvertisingEnquiries +44�20�86�23315
DisplayAdvertisingFax +4412018�Z89St
Group Advertisemerrt Oirectar Richard Thiele +441201 �2 3319
pdvertisemeMManagerSimonLees +44120)86523904
SalesandEvertlsCo-ordinatartisaDevlin +94120�86523315
Advertisemerrt Productian Oisp(ay/Clessfied _
Howard Mason +44120186523267
UK, IRELAND, BENELUX, IBERIA, GREECE,
THE MIDDIE EAST and ISRAEL, AFRICA
GERMANY, SCANDINAVIA and
EASTERN EUROPE
SalesManagerShawnBuck +44120i86524998
AreaManagerWarrenMcEwan +44(20i66523376
FRANCE and SWI7ZERLAND
SalesUirectorkancePierreMussard Te1+33j11`�`�9513
fleed Business Informa6on F�ance, Z rue Maurice Hartmann,
921331ssy-les-tvtoulineaux,France. Fax+33(1)55959515
ffALY .. .. .
ManagingDirectarflo6errolaureri . Te1+39�2�2362500
laureri Assaiates SRL. Va Vallaae A3, 20131 Milano, ibty
Faxt39 2 236 4411 E-msiilaureri.assoc��e6talia.tf
NORTH AMERICA . _ . .
vice-preside�rtUSSalesJohnTidy Te1+1�94917561057
fleed Busineu InfortnaBon, 3700 Campus �rive, Suite 203,
Newport8each,CA9266�. Fax+1�949�7562514
Sales Oirector, Eastern US and Canada Ro6ertHancock
• • : ' Tet+t (/03I8367444
SalesManagerChrisSweet . ' Te1+1p031���9
fleed Business Infortnation, 333 N FairtaxStreeC Su'rte 301, ..
Alexandria,VA22314,USA. Fau+ip03�836744&
TtafficManager0eb6ieKoib Te1+1�272�3707446
"Head�ce;fleed8usinesslnfomiaoon, Tel+t�212j3707440
125 ParkAvenue, NewYork. NY 10077, USA Fsx+t �212►3707441
ASIA : . " : .. _ . � . _ .
Singapore6raceWong , . � Tei+&54343303
ReedAsianPublishingSingapore.No.7TemasekAvenue, • '
#77-0iMilleniaTower,Singapore03979Z fax+&53383213
Nong Kong Jan Lai Te1+8522°�65 7555
fleed Elsevier (Greater China) ltd,l9th Floor, B Cortmercial Tower,
BSunYpStreeCChaiwan,HongKorg. Feu+852297607�6
aus�auasua - � �
SalesDirectorSimonWebster . Te1+61�3►92457350
Reed Basiness Puhlishing,l8 Salmon Street, Fax+61(3� 92457511
PortMeiboume,Vicroria3207,Austrslia ' '
BusinessManagerAlisanWeller Te1+44�Z0�86524438
CLASSIFIED & RECRUITMEM
ClassifiedAdvertisingEnquiries �t44�201865Z3811
ClassfiedAdvertisingFax +44{20186524802
GroupAdvertiseme�rtManagerian8urke +441ZOj86528228
AdvertisemerttManagerKatherineBeilamy +-04j20�86523811
Intemational Sales Executives
Catherine Hamson +44 1201 8652 43Z2
Simon Aogers +44120�86524896
Matthew Pullen +44120� 8652 4898
KertyManolasses � +44120�86524897
Daniel Sedman +44 (20) 8652 4806
ClassifiedAsia/Pac�cGraceWong +6543433Q?
Classified/Rec�uitrnent USA
US Classifted Sales Directar Chris Sweet +1(703� 836 3719
ClassifiedlRecruitrnentSales '
Traffic Mananer �ebbie Kolb Tel+t �212)3707446
Pu6lisherAllan Winn +44120)86523882
Pubiisher`s PA Lisa Jenkins +44120� 8652 36B2
i ii�iiiiiiiz�
The text of flight intemational and Aidine Business can be found on the
following data6ases: lexis-Nexis, Knight-flidder �ataStac Ff Pmfile, IAC/
Predicasts, and Reuters. Oetails Bom: tel: +44 j20) 8652 8721.Pu61ished
ty Reed Business Information, Ouadrant House, The �uadrant, Sunon,
S�rrey, SM2 SAS, UK
Aight/ntemadorelis soid subject m tha (ollawirg mnditicns: nameh/. that it
is no4 wi�hout tl�e written censent at the pu6lishers fi�st given, lent �e-soid,
hired out or in arry unau�horised cc�er by way of tr�de: or atfixed to. or as
Part of, am� puhli�tion or advertisirg. I'rterary w picmriai matter whatsoever.
The pu6lishers ot Flight /ntemauonalare prepared to accept unsolicited
material, 6ut oniy an the understa�irg that such material is suhmitted
wholty at the risk of the pravider, and ihat the puhlishers cannot guarantee
the receipt, safekeeping or retum of ncirtemmiscioned swrk in arry forznat.
induding manuscripts, digitai data, ptatcgraphic prints and transparencies.
Flighr International' is a registered trdemark of fleed Business
�nicrmation Ltd.00 2000 Reed Business Information Ltd.
' f i.,;a::a r:5 . ':xi
t - ' s• Y � �:s'.
, ' y `; � �
HE DEEP RIF'T' between the USA and
Europe over the fornc�oming hushldt ban
results directly from the international
community's failure to move forward with
newnoisestandardsto followInternarional Civil
Aviation Organisarion (ICAO) Chapter 3 rules.
These regulations, - �
almost25 years old, are
clearly well past their
sell-by date. To its
credit, the aerospace
industryhas continued
to introduce new aero-
enginetechnologythat
has bought with it
much lower noise lev-
els — which an ever-
more environmenrally
conscious general
public now rakes to be
the norm. _
People livuig near
airports now see no .
reason to put up with
the continuing racket
made by ageing aircraft
kept in service at the �-
whim of airlines wish- -
ing to cut costs. They
would certainly not
support the idea that they have to put up with
this noise to ensure the resurrection of the Pratt
& Wlurney JT8D and the survival of the US
hushldtind,�su-y.
While it is t=ue that hushlfltted aircraft meet
Chapter 3 rules, there can be little doubt that
such aircraft are subjectively more noisy than
their modern counterparts, as weIl as consider-
ably rnore polluang and less fuel efficient
Fitted with hushlats, or operadng at reduced
weights and with various aerodynamic changes,
they remain in service only because of a bizarre
tradeoffsystem that enables excess noise in one
measurement area to be set off against margins
in another.
Why, then, has there been no new ruling?
Eactensive work is going on independendy in
ICAO to develop a new"Chapter 4" standard. It
is a complex process, given rhe technical ques-
tions thathave to be setrled. But the issue has also
become a bargaining chip between the two sides
as they fight over the legality or otherwise oFthe
hushidtban. .
Itmay be u-ue that the European Union (EL�
is actin� outside the international legal frame-
' work in baiuiing aircraft that are catered for
' within Chapter 3. But the fact is that Europe is
meeting increasing environmental pressure
fromits own citizens, not justover aircraft, but in
many other areas. The evidence is that
airports themselves are t�ng uniiateral action.
' The USA has on noise aaed reasonably in
complaining to ICAO about EU policy and its
dubious legality. It should, however, take no
credit for its procrasrination in agreeing to talks
� on a new noise stan-
dard, while its linking
of the ban to direct
pressure from Airbus
seems fanciful.
US claims that the
European consoraum
is behind the EC's
hushkit policy appear
groundless, and reflect
the usual -paranoia
about Europe's indus-
try " and rulemal�ng
bodiesbeinginc�hoots
to ens�re that the con-
tinent's ownbestinter-
ests aze served. �
The "fact is that
' Airbus has achieved a
50% market share by
' `competing =directly
with moderri, US-
manufactured aircraft
. that were desip ed
fromthe outsetto be compatiblewirh (': hapter 3.
Airbus' growth has not, and will not, be imped-
ed by any threat from modified Chapter 2 air-
craft. Indeed, while Pratt & Whimey is clearly
the main vicdm of the ban, other US firn�s such
as General Electric (through CFtI�I Inter-
nadonal) stand to gain rather than lose.
The USA would do well to remem6er that
many in Europe feel that a"protectionist"
lobby is at work in the USt1, and mal�ng itself
felt in numerous ways, not least through the
Federal Aviaaon Adrni.nis�adon's staced mis-
sion of suppordn� U5 indusuy. The USA may
shout about European protecdonism, but there
are murky waters on both sides of the Adantic.
If there is any �aod to come out of the present
fiasco, it may be rhat the protagonists will be
forced to accept that it is time to nail down a new,
unambiguous noise law—one thatleaves no scope
for con�adictory interpretadons of the sort that
have caused the present troubles. The hope is
thatSeptember'sIC.�10 meetingin ySontrealwill
see a positive move in this direction.
The hushla� fighc is doing nobody any good.
Not the r�oulators, nor the airlines and certainly
notthe image ofa indusuy that conrinues to field
aircraft thatshould long ago have been retired in
the interests of a quieter, cleanerworld. C7
See Featrcre P28
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 18 - 24 April 2000
:'�; ` r�:' �' � ;:,�' ,';" =r„ - r�e' .?�� - � i �
i; s - - -
. _ ��� _
r �-;� . ��
I � �
� . a f . _
� r . � �. . � � _�.
�_�� . � � r .
�.
GuY NoRRis/LOS ANGELES
BFGOODRICH and Raisbeck
are studying a plan [o tackle
Stage 4 noise reguirements for the
Boeing 727 by combining the for-
mer company's "Super 27" conver-
sion with Raisbeck's aerodynamic
modification package.
The Super "Plus" 27 would
meet the stringent noise require=
menEs by combining the improved
take-off characterisrics of the
Raisbeck LEAPS (leading edge
advanced performance system)
package with flatrated, lowernoise
setdngs on the Super 27's Pratt 3z
WhimeyJT8D-217 engines.
"We are not in a joint venture.
We are investigating rhe potential
of how to meet Stage 4 on the 727,
and this seems to be one wa}�' says
Raisbeck Commercial Air Group
president, and chief executive
James Raisbeck.
The package would include a
combination of reduced leading
edge slat cleflection on rake-offand
landing, reduced flap deflection for
approach and landing, and flat rat-
ing the engines on take off to red-
uce sideline noise. Raisbeck says
the aircraft has a typical ma.�mum
take-off weight (MT04� of
86,SOOlcg (190,SOOlb), and a maYi-
mum landing weight (N1L� of
170,150kg. "By flat rating the -217
engines about 3%, liruiting. the
leading edge slat deflection by 11 °,
limiring landing flap deflecdon to
28°, and addingthe Raisbeck exter-
nal mixer to the centre engine,
Stage 4 is met with no trade-offs",
says Raisbeck • � '
. The MTOW is expected to be
reduced to 83,OOOkg, but MLW
would stay at 70,150kg. Raisbeck
adds that these are "not bad opera-
Lufthansa in�roduees wei-leased ER�-145
TEANI LU �"11iANSAfranchisee t;irrusAu-luies haswet-ieased its
recently-delivered Embraer�RJ-145 50-seat regional jet to the
German flag carrier for operation between D'usseldorf and
Birmingham,UK.Theab eementwithSaarbrucken-basedCirrus
initially covers the summer season but may be estended, says
Lufthansa. Curus also operates BombazdierDash S turboprops on
German domestic and intemational scheduled services.
�, �, � .�' �` �� t` � � � � .� ��� �� � � :� t, ��: '� � � �� i `�`. � �� :: �' :
LauRa HAi�sroNe/DUSSELDORF
EUROPEt1��i AIR E.�cpress
(F�1E) is gearingup for e�cpan-
sion, following its recent tal:eover
of Filder A.ir Services. The
German regional's gro«-th plans
partly depend, ho«ever, on the
espansion of the run�r-ar at its
D'usseldorEEspress (DE<�.7 airport
baseinitiIonchengladbach.
Et1E's fleet consisu of two
Brirish Aerospace J31s and nvo
ATR�Zs, inherited in the take-over
of Filder. These aircrafc have
replaced EAE's �vet-leased Fol;.l:er
SOs. Tthe airline is loolang for
addirional ATRs, including ATR
42s and the IargerATR % 2. Sercices
to 1bIunich, Luton and Hamburg DEX mini-hub in 1999. "We have
are the mainstay of the operation. only taken on the Debonair routes
NIanaging director Peter
Hauptvogel believes e:cpansion
plans will move more easily once
DEX's 1,200m (3,93 Sft) runway is
e.�ctended. "We have jet operations
in mind, but undl the runway is
developed we cannot contemplate
buying these," he says. He says an
e.�ctension is planned by late ne.Yt
year, which would increase rhe
len�th to 1,680m, enabling the
ATR 72 and small regional jets to
operate more comfortably.
Hauptvogel had been a director
of the nosv defunct Debonair and
formed Et1E when the UK
re�ional began scaling down its
that are profitable, says
Hauptvogel. "They tried to be a
low:cost airline providing mini-
mum service. We are offering a
fuller more frequent service."
Eight routes are planned over
the nest four years, at a rate of one
for each summer and �vinter sched-
uled season. Flights to Nice com-
mence at the end of April, and a
summer seasonal service to the
German island of Sylt will be
reint=oduced in l�Iay. A double
daily non-stop service between
Luton andMunichwill start inJuly,
and flights to Hamburg begin
in September. ❑
tional weights for an aircraft that
started outin 1963 as a S tage 1727-
100', and whose wing design has
never been changed". By fine tun-
ing the LEAPS modifications,
which increase lift over drag on the
727 by around 11 %, Raisbeck
believes the MTOW reduction
could be less . than envisaged. If
studies prove posirive, and the
furore over the adoption of new
noise levels in Europe is resolved,
Raisbeck says the Super 27 could
be re-certificated to Stage 4 as the
Super "Plus" 27. ❑.
See feature, P28. . - •
Israeli ai�line seeks .
sector fli�hts to
eastern Ei�rope : - �
�SRAEL'S LARGEST private
airline, Arlfla, is to appeal to the
couniry's Supreme Court in a fin '
efforttogainapprovaltoflysched�,,_,.� �
uled services to destinations not
servedbyElAl. .�.- ._
According to Arlfla's president
Israel Borovitch, the Israeli min-
istry of transport has so far turned
down all the airline's requests to fly
to destinations in eastern Europe.
The rights to these destinations,
which include cities such as Sofia,
Tashl;.ent and St Petersburg, are
held by state-owned F1 Al, but are
notused. Arlda's efforts to take over
the rights have so far Eailed.
"This is our last hope...the
Supreme Court will have to rule
whether our demand is justified,"
says Borovitch. Acortunittee head-
ed byAvnerYarkoni, directorgen-
eral of the Israeli civil aviation
authority (CAA) has recommend-
ed rhat private airlines can operate
scheduled flights on routes not
served by El tll, but this has not
been implemented.
"The problem begins with the
fact that the Israeli Government is '
the re�ulator and also the o�vner oF
EI Al," says Borovitch.
Arkia's fleet has recently %- -..�
espanded with the introduction of�
two new Boeing 757-300s, and the �`�" �
airline plans to purchase another '
757-200. ❑ i
12 FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 18 - 24 April 2000
barring the 2,000 or so Chapter 2 aircraft The chief battleground between the two is endanger their health and qualiry of life". I
already hushlatted or available for hushltitting, Annes 16 of ICAO's founding document, the Washington, however, got in iu strike eve�'
which would, in theory, be able to fly into ChicagoConvenrion.TheEUsaysAnnesl6 beforetheparliamentaryvote,taldngtherowto�
Europe afterbeing made Chapter 3-compliant Chapter 3, which is used as the basis for certifi- ICAO for arbitration with only the fourrh ever
Brusselsisadamantthatitismotivatedpure- cation,wasnevermeanttoincludere-certificat- acrion underArticle 84 ofthe CIucago Con-
lybyenvironmencalconcerns;ithasnodesireto ed aucraft, defined as a"civil subsonic jet venrion,andclaimingrhatEUpolicydiscrimi-
see noisy aircraft cleazed for operarion into the aircraft initially certiflcated to Chapter 2 or nates against Chapter 3 compliance achieved
EU after hushkitting to Chapter 3 standards equivalent standards, or originally noc noise throughentirelylegaltechnicalandoperarional �,
when those same aircraft, in their original certificated,•which has been modified to meet measures.OthersinrheUSAhavegonefiuther, ',
Chapter2 "form", havebeensubjectto a phased . Chapter 3 standards; either direcrly'through with Congress threatening to scrap a dispensa- ',
ban theie since 1995. :. :." technical measures or indirecrly through oper- don allowing Concorde flights into the UStl,
- In the USA, however, the EU's stxategy is � ating restzicrions". The USA argues `�at com- and other Draconiari measures, although these
regarded noc as environmenrally friendly, but as pliance with the regulauon should be open to do not have White House support .
procectionist. The USA is home not only to a"all subsonic aircraft, including :derivatives". ICAO is well into a 90-day review of the
largehushldtmanufacturingindustrywhichhas .' •- ' ;'. :, t. Artic1e84complaintNewattemptsatcompro-
no equivalentin Europe, but also to the airlines '. SIMMERING. ARGUMENT :,;� .:: , mise have centred on the USA committing to
. ,.�:., .� _.
which operate the bulk of Chapter 2 aircraft —: The USA-EU awment has been,`s_immering _ the :early introduction of undefined Chapter 4
Boeing727s,737-200sandMcDonnellDouglas �;sinceEu"ropefir'stproposedanon addirioriban noise standards ancl to phasing out Chapter 3
DC-9s—ripeformodificarion.Itclaimsthatthe iniVlarcfi1998 AbandateoflApnl,;.1999,was au'craft,'stardrigwithliushtflttedrypes _ • ==
EU stance represents a threatEo its indusuyand proposed, but ;nth the row tlu�eatening to turn ';A deal could see ICAO agree a new standard
by escluding them from European operarions into a trade wai�, Europe'decided;on a.year s. requiring fiu�rher cuts of 8-i 1dB ui'cumiilative
'. the resale value of affected aircraft. �- delay,'setdng the new deadline of negt month: noise levels; but although_tTS opinion supports
". The USAhas also been eliminanng Chapter "US eonimerce secrerary_ Lawrence : Dalep these levels � for n'eni � applications, it � stands
2 aircraft ahead ofthe ban, with all such aircraft '. hailed the move, as a"eonstrucnve"measure behind the validicy of hushlat=based solutions;
liarred from the 48 contiguous states since 31 .�which should be used for reaclung a;common �;withPratt & Wlumey's LarryGray, nianager of
De"cember lastyear, ahead ofEurope's final ban `�undersranduig"; yet attempu to close the gap customer.value analysis,'demancLng "esplicit
on Chap[er�2 operaaoris; which coincides with .: between the two sides failed, and lastmbnth the language that will spell it out" : •- °
ICAO'sApnI2002 deadline.'I'he USA, howev European Parhament ratified the 4 iYlay dead= : Room for�further manoeuvre is limited and
: . ..: _ ,
et, � has no' qualms about'. allowing aircraft line,'saying an mdefinite siSspension of the ban the chance ofa breakdu�ough seems remote: As�
hushkitted to Chapter.3 standards to contiriue would "eiitail an unsustainable situauon in th'e �one US indusay observec,says: "The political
operatuig aftei the ICAO deadline EU, esposing people to no�se levels which �ssues aze bigger than the technical ones." ❑
. :.� � _ ..._ ' ._.-. _. .. :. _. _ : :� .. .__:: _- - w . _ � .... . _ ,.. .. .. .__ .. _. . _..._ ._ __.....
� _ •
, ._. ,.. } ��ti } ' -�
'`_-�a �
� x
- - , - - w t=t - • . _ � s• .
" .� . � ...� ..�._ . �� - ��-• �`'�''�''; - �. �=.::� ,
�ru�sels say� its �uuar� MoxoN/PAR1S
� � . �,
�
, ,' ` � !� '
� �, • ; �
1965 1966
� i' �4VHEN A senior
� European � Com-
mission official says
the US stance in the
hushlat row is "an
Ayatollah-like reaction", itis clear that relations
between Brussels and Washington are nearrock
1972 1973 19'74 1975 1976 7
The US Federal Aviation ,. .: (,; I,.1977 - ICAO draws up
,
bottom over the issue. The EC is particularly
upset by claims that its noise policy has been
inspired by protecaonism rather than by envi-
ronmental concems. Brussels believes the U5A
fails to understand the level oE support for
"greeri" s�ate�ies in Europe, and the clamour
for a get-tough approach to aircraft noise.
Hushldts may offer technical compliance
with Chapter 3, but theycontravene thespirit of
'1978 1979 1980 1981 1
.•,�;_...
1984
,� FLIGNT INTERNATIONAL 18 - 24 April 2000 29
-�:�'
4 �.;y Y"� ji'` y' a:� tC �-�'= r� '
Aarcrc�ft such as the Boeang 727, 7�7 "200, McDonnell Douglas DC 9; Fokker'F28 antlBAC' ��� i;��
�, ....., k--...y � ...r.�,��'`-�'L - Q^sU '� 'c 3 � . fs- �- E� . r �X . s �
One Eleven, wath b y pass ratios o�1 S-2 D, could notsat u f y Cha pter 3 wathout hi�shkattin g�' �} ��
. : ; .:' . .:. . �. ,�� r � . . '� ; �! "�3-=-� "�4 F �+ , t y�..d _.1. } : ,� �. � , � .:� ti �.r�' � �3= ^�` .
the law, the EU arb es �'In Europe, it says, ur-' ficanon is "not to provide.:a seal of operauonal failure to do so ' When Chapter 2-sfandards
portstendtobeclosertocitpeen�resthaninthe `appiovalonanypartieularairc=aft,buttoensiire became compulsoryin the 1980s, the aircrah
USA,andthereisagreaterairporCdensity,mak- thatthelatestavailablenoisereductiontechnot :,'.worst hit was the Hawker Siddeley Trident;
inghushlattedaireraftunwelcome. o;y is incorporated into aircraft desigri":;;�who'sesoleoperator,Britishtlirways,replacedit
tYloreover, individual airports are akeadyact Ars ung that ICAO Annes 16, Chapter 3, `was with Boeing's 7� i. -- ---_ - '
ing to cutnoise. ITK operator Bt1A has iniriated conceived for new aircra$ and "never intended � The EC also says that its strategy will,afFect
a 10% landin� fee surcharge ori the noisiest toapplytorecerdficatedaireraft",anEGsource relativelyfewairci�aft.EUstateshavefewerthan
Chapter 3 aircraft "regardiess of how they claims it has "followed the ICAO ruling to the 30 hushldtted aircraft on their registers, and it
achieved their Chapter 3 status". Ic says this word", and that measures to cap numbers of saysonlyaround300"foreign"aircraftwilleven
"makes more sense as it is the noise oE the air- hushiatted aircrah are entirely justifiable. be affected by the b•an. The US hype, it clairns,
craftthatisimportanttothecommuniry,rather TheECsaysEuropehasalreadyre-equipped is"Foravinuallynon-e�istentnumberofthird-
than what is behind the noise certificadon°. with aircrak designed to meet Chapter 3 stan- counay aircraft operating into the EU"...: .,. ,
The EU adds that the purpose ofnoise cem- dards, and cannot be blamed for US carriers' Europeans claim the US imposition of corri-
1985 1986 1987 1988' 1989 1990 y
1992 1993
1 January, 1986 — Enforcement of ICAO 5 November,1990 - No more Stage 2 Septem6er 1991 —The USA proh�bits new fease:
,: Annex 76 Chapter 2 m.Euiope bans all aircraft are aliowed for import to operate v. foreign owners. The USA's F�nal Ru(e details hc
�,�.�::; . +. , _ --- ..- _ - - . . ._. , ... �._ ..._
30
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAI. 18 - 24 April 2000
pliance dates for the withdrawal of Chapter 2
a.ircraft- 25% by 1994, 50% by 1996, 75% by
1998 and 100% by 1999 - was a recipe for
hushldrting. By the end of 1996, around 6� 0 air-
craft had been hushldtted, and by 2000, more
than 1,540. AnotherEC gripe concerns the way
in which hushldtting e.Yploiu Annes 16's per-
mitted crade-offs between thenoise oFaircraftas
measured at the three points for certification:
lateral, flyover and approach.
The certification procedure allows for an
escess atonepointto be offsetbycorresponding
reductions in the two others. For ezcample, if an
aircraft falls within the noise level allowed dur-,
ingapproachiccanbecerrifi edasnoise-com-
pliant even when it e�cceeds the allowable noise
attake=off, orflyover.The EC says theseare the
points which create the most noise nuisance.
;' A report carried out for the EG by consul-
tants in Agril last year says many aircraft have
therefore been "shoehorned" into compliance
with Chapter 3. Aircraftsuchas the Boeing727,
737-200; McDonnell Douglas DC-9, Fokker
5 ' .
� .... ` . , . .
.�
4`
idards,
ircraEt
adent,
acedit
iaffect
erthan
and it
ill even
`third �
�f com-
� � �;
, -
� .
. •
F28 and BAC One-Eleven, with bypass ratios of
1.5-2.0, could not sarisfy Chapter 3 without
hushldtting, while later aircraft with turbofans
with rauos of 6-10 are easily compliant.
The EUsays its ban on recertificaced aircraft
with a bypass ratio of less than 2 is necessary as
aircraftnoise is linked to engine e.�chaustveloci-
ry, a halving of jet velociry equadng to a 20dB
reduction in noise oucput, or a fourfold reduc-
rion in perceived noise.
Shoehorning, it says, has helped hushlatted
aircrafr, and even the Pratt & Whimey JT8D-
200-powered Boeing MD-80, commonly
regazded as the Chapter 3 benchmark, butwith
a low-bypass rado engine and compliant only
by trading offlarge marg'uis at approach. .
The Rolls-RoyceTay, with a bypass ratio 0£3,
gives the Fokker 100 a cumuladve Chapter 3
noise margin of+T.8dB, with no shortfall in any
of the three measurement points, whereas the
lightestofthelVlD-80 series, theNID-8�, has a
cumulative mazgin of just 1.9dB, including a
0.6dB shordall in the lateral measurement
Guv NoRRis/LOS ANGELES
��! THE US aviation
� indusuy is calling
`foul play' on the
hushkitting issue,
claiming that the
European viewpoint is based on virtually all
�ounds except environmental concern.
�
"We are convinced the rule is wrong, illegal
and not even justifiable environmentally; says
Mark Atwood, a panner in the Washin�on
DC-based law firm of Sher and Blackwell, and
counsel for a noise reducaon technology coali-
tion formed by three companies which either
mal:e hushkits or modify aircraft lift systems to
help meet Sta�e 3(the US equivalent of
Chapter 3) requirements. The alliance includes
the ABS Parrnership, Burbank Aeronautical
and Duganair.
i�Vlore importantly than the $2 billion of
economic harm it could do, the legislarion
threatens the whole smicture of internarional
standards on cer[ificarion, environmental stan-
dards and a lotmore," saysAtcvood. "This is not
driven by a small group of hushldt makers any-
The EC says rules barring operadons-•hv
aircraft transferred from one EU re;ist{ )
another are aimed at preventing "any mcrc�e
in movements of recertificated aircraft" in the
area. It says that between April 1998 and
September 1999 there were oniy seven recer-
tificated aircraft operational in the member
states, and only three were transferred, "so
u�ansferabiliry is simply not an issue".
New EU Transport Commissioner Loyola
de Palacio says that if a global agreement on a
nelv noise standard can be reached at ICAO's
next meeting in Montseal in September, it will
replace the regulation on hushldts, and that the
EUwill also "look at the aspects of the issue that
are most damaging to non-EU nations".
Progress, has been painstaldngly slow, and
the EU says that although it "accepts that the
USAisin favourofa newstanilard", it "requires
fiirther clarification, in paracularregarding ttie
phase-outofthenoisiestChapter3 aircraft"-in
other words, hushldtteii a ircraft. .. _ �❑
Additional reporting by Cbris�aspe,:
� • , . � ��
more. It now involves the entire industry, and
has gone well beyond the non-addition issue."
Ironically, some in the USA believe the crisis
began almost by mistake. "Its genesis lies in a
terrible misunderstanding of ITS law when
somebody interpreted that hushlatted Stage 2
aircraft would not be allowed to fly in the USA
afrer 31 December,1999," says Aavood. "They
suddenly thou�ht thuridering herds of aircraft
would fly to Europe and darken their.slaes."
Some US companies and organisations also
name Airbus Industrie as one of the m•ain agira-
tors [to sell ics o�vn aircraft]. Bob Olson of
D aeanair says: "It goes back five years, and was
indirecdysponsored byAirbus, ofthat there can
be no doubt. The problem is that there has been
a huge amount of misinformation fed to the EC
1993 1994 1995 1996 i997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200:
I
teases of tage 2 aircraft from March 1998 - EC proposes a ban on the 31 March, 2000 European Pariiament Autumn 2007 ICAO 33rd
aiis how tfi transi#ion to an addit�on of recert�ficated aircraft to =confirms `non adddwn deadiine Generai Assembl tn disc�
� ;::_ � .... -
i .. _ •:: ... _:'�: ;
....��.-...�-...:.� . �".,,:. . . �: . �-•.: :�:_ ,. ... . . �: . :.-"...,.;.;� �u__�._�5�...__�_:.�__ ��:`' �:__':i�.,...-...c.�..��+;iv'anfiriri;
� 2000 •`) FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 18 - 24 April 2000 31
:jf
r:
a
;i
��
�s`'tE-f�=���C'E�i a '� _ ,�r :ay fR`;� t�+' a;�=
. . ..._.. _ .. . . . . . .. _ . ...: .. :._
US_Congress has threatened to scrap a dispensation allowing noisy Concorde flights.snto the.USA,
and other Draconian measures, ctlthough these do not have White Hozcse support ' `
to sayhushldts are notatthe same technical leve
as new aircraft. In some respects thatis true, bu
notin the noise arena, which is surely the whol
point of this,"he adds.
But Airbus says: "There's no way we woul
get involved in this. tiVe would have notlung t
gain and a lot to lose from any attempt to Force
the EC to bring in such a rule".
Suaimarising US concerns, the tiir Trans-
portt�ssociadon says that the proposed rewla-
tion is "unacceptabte because there is no
technical basis forit, itfails to promote environ-
mental interesrs in any way, and because it has
been carefully crafted to protect European
� aviadon interests while puttin� US workers,
manufacturers and carriers at a severe disadvan-
tage in internadonal trade".
ATA president and chief esecudve Carol
Hallett adds: "This Europeui re�ulaaon ban-
nin� aircraFt �vith hushlats is clearly illegal
under internadonal lasv and w•e support our
gocernmentin talangstron� acaon."
Support also comes from the US Aerospace
Industries Association (.�L�). president and
chief executive John Douglass sugjesu, the
action is as much about legal protocol as dis-
cri�ninatoryposrurir,g. �Unfornmacel,v, the EU
seems determined to �o its oti�-n way despite the
obligations ofits membersrates underICt10. In
doin; so, the EU has pl�ced the ICAO consen-
sus-building process ac risl:. :�L� remains con-
vinced that ICAO is the appropriate place to
negoaate :ui internarional consensus on accept-
able levels ofaircraftnoise and emissions".
Pratt �� tiVhimey sa}•s evenone, tlirbus
included, �vill suffer if rewlarions vary from
1 region to regiou: ". We build for a global indus- ., hushlatvng) commercial fleet of 2,614 aircraft.
t try, and even Airbus does not want a scattesing More than 1,400 aze already hushlatted. Its
e of regulations. It is hard enough for an engine . wider interest is in keeping these aircraft flying
makertodealwith,letaloneanairframer." soitcansellenginepar�sovertheirlifedme—far
d Ruth Harkin, senior vice-president for � more lucraave than rheirhushldt sales:
o P&W'sparentcompany,UnitedTechnologie�,� AnotherUSobjecdonistheEUrulebanni.ng
says: "The EU non-addition rule is nothing' aircraftwithengineshavingabypassratioof7ess
morethanaprotectionistmeasuremasquerad- than2fromusingEuropeanairportsfromApril
ing as an environmental initiative. Re;ional 2002. "I say to the EU, you shouid not:lae in the
bodiesshouldnotmakeunilateraldecisionsthat businessoftellinjmanufacturers,enginemaic-
affect world trade. Not only is it absolutely ers and entrepreneurs �vhat bypass raao to have
unFair, it could serve to.unravel the fabric that on an engine," says James Raisbeck, Raisbeck
holds global trade together and makes it possi- Commercial tlir Group president and chieF
ble.TheEUcannotbepernuttedtoundernvne executive."Theyshouldbetellinguswhatnoise
internadonal standards." footprint we should have to live with, and then
letus fiwre out how we can clo it." .
BOTtDM LINE � Raisbeck is worlan� on a possible combina-
The bottom line, P&tiV believes, is that the EU aon oEits LEAP (leading edge advanced perfor-
keeps chan�ing rhe requirements. It adds that mance) system wirh BFGoodrich's Super 27
thiscouldhavedisastrousimplicadonsforoper- JT8D-200 re-en�ined 727 programme. This
ators and a negative impacton che en��ronment solurion, which is aimed at Stage 4 compliance,
asit�villstopincrementalimprovementstaking will fall foul of the bypass raao requirement
place. The company says: "You can't keep on lvhen the EU rulinP takes effect.
asl:ing the world's airlines to meet a standard Omega's iQ7 programme, which replaces
which is suddenly changed again. tiVhv tivould the 70Ts P&tiVJT3D engineswithJT8D-200s,
anyone invest in C-i.�ing a 737 when there are no is similarly affected . Omega's winning of an
,guarantees that the rules will not esempt it in a iniaaf victory in the UK's Hi�h Coun lastvear
fe�vyears?tit/eareonlyasl:ingforarationalpol- has cheered US interesu. The court said the
icy for something that will provide long-term rewladon was "wholly defecdve in its reasons"
benefits to the environment and.the industry." as it�r-as based on a single design parameter, not
P��W has a substanaal stake in the hushl:ic an environmental requirement. But the court
businessfortheJT8D(7Z%,737-Z00andDC-9) referred the issue to the European Court oF
through various parmerships with orders and Jusace for a decision, which has yet to be made.
options for 2,011 shipsets, or 77% of the e:cist- Omega is e.xpected to lodge similar compiaints
ing "standard" JT8D-po�vered (ie excluding throu�hout Europe in the hope that a national
JT8D-200-en�ined aircraEc, tivhich do noc need court may make a ruling irself. ❑
32
FUGHT INTERNATIONAI 18 - 24 April 2000