04-12-2000 ARC PacketCITY OF MEIVDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIOIV AGENDA
April 12, 2000 Large Conference Room
1. Call to Order - 7 p.m.
2. Roll Cali
3. Approval of March 15, 2000 Minutes.
4. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Discussion of Minneapolis Resolution on Multi-Family Insulation
b. Update on Part 150 Study
1) Corridor Evaluafion
2) Runway Use Alternatives
c. Final Airport Relations Commission Brochure (Available Wednesday)
5. Updates
a. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
6. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. IVIASAC Meeting Agenda for March 28t`' and February 22"d Minutes �
b. February Technical Adviser's Report
c. February Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
d. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for March 24th.and March 10tn
Minutes
e. Airport Noise Report — March 31 St and April 7th editions
f. MASAC Newsletter
g. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Agenda for April 10tn
7. Other Comments or Concerns.
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.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
March 1S, 2000
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, March 15, 2000, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria
Curve. Chair Beaty called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. The foilowing members
were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Leumann, Petschel, Roszak and Stein. Also present was
Administrator Batchelder.
Commissioner May was absent.
� ' ' '' �I+l�����1 ��li�M�,
MOTION: by Commissioner Roszalc, seconded by Commissioner Petschel to
approve the February 9, 2000 minutes as written. The motion was
approved unanimously.
1��.71 Ii�Y7.91111� ��•L/l � 1��,\I Y'�I
i�haix Beaty stateti that :he was disappointed to see that there is a recommenr�ation to
maintain distant deparh.�re procedures as part of the 150 Study.
City Administrator Batchelder referred the Commission to the data presented in the
Mendota Hezghts Cor�ridor Analysis where the MASAC Operations Committee made
preliminary recommendations for the Part 150 Study. In addition to maintaining distant
de�artures, the following additional recommendations: 1) not change the existing
corridor bouridaries; 2) to maximize crossing proceduxes whenever possible; 3) continue
compliance monitoring; 4) use technology to develop distant departuxes. These
recommendations amount to keeping the status quo in the corridor. Eagan moved to
recommend the full recommendations to MASAC. Mayor Mertensotto voted against the
motion because the position of the City is to increase close-in departures. Batchelder
stated that the rnost recent evidence presented shows that close-in departures would be a
negative impact on the City, rather than a positive one as previously thought.
Administrator Batchelder emphasized that ail the material that has been provided to this
date has indicated close-in departures wouid be beneficial to Mendota Heights. The
explanation given by HNTB consultants is that there is now a different fleet mix with
more stage III aircraft.
A review of close-in departures was done in Minneapolis. It was determined that at
certain gates planes are 500 feet higher, but this height could not be correlated with noise
� ,� monitored on the ground. A reduced thrust setting is used with close-in depa.rtures which
C�
�
C a
�,:nr . . ... , .
C
MENDOTA I�IEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
malces the plane louder on the ground. The difference is greater with the old Stage 2
aircraft than with the newer Stage 3. The recommendations were passed to the full
MASAC body.
Administrator Batchelder stated that one of the City's biggest concerns expressed in the
City's original scoping letter is the runway use system. He referred Commissioners to
the resolution on nighttime runway use that was recently adopted by MAC without any
prior notification to airport communities. It states in part:
"Whereas, as part of their ongoing noise abatement measures, MAC and the
Metropolitan Sound Abatement Council support the use of the Eagai�/Mendota
Heights Corridor and in particular its use during nighttime hours, as a proceduxe
for avoiding nighttime activity in the residential areas west of Cedar Avenue and
north of Highway 62;..."
2
This clearly continues to protect South Minneapolis. The additional runway will �llow
more options to move planes around, but this resolution does not take the new runway
into account. Commissioner Petschel noted that the computer data was used to justify the
resolution without talcing into account the new runway.
Chair Beaty stated that he would like to see t�e contours from eight years ago for
comparison purposes that would show the difference between the projected contour in
1991 and the real contour that Pxists today.
Mayor Nlertensotto visited the meeting. He stated that he cannot understand how 1VI��C
can justify close-in departures on the Minneapolis end of the airport but nat on the
Eaga�ri/Mendota �Ieights side. The cQmputer expert tried to Pxpl.ain �that it will not rnalce a
difference with Stage 3 aircraft, but DC-9s will be in service for a long time. Mendota
Heights was the only City that voted against the corridor resolution. Mr. Stein explained
that the airline saves money by using 80% thrust for takeoff with close-in departuxes. It
saves on the life of th� �ngine.
Administrator Batchelder stated that the City's scoping comments requested the
elimination head-to-head operations and bring planes in on a new runway during the
night. Chair Beaty stated that if there are three runways, there should not be a need for
head-to-head operations, which affect residential areas of the City.
Mayor Mertensotto noted that the headizigs are based on ground tracks that define the
corridor.
Administrator Batchelder stated that the MAC nighttime runway resolution is based on
land use compatibility issues. MAC has issued instructions regarding nighttime use
based on that resolution.
C
r )
MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMNIISSION
DISCUSSION OF GROUND RUN-UP ENCLOSURE
Administrator Batchelder noted the letter from Northwest stating they are not in favor of
building a run-up enclosure at this airport because it would be too difficult for big jets to
back in and out. The City's position is concern for noise abatement, and even measures
with incremental benefit should be done.
Mayor Mertensotto emphasized that the $5 million cost is fur run-up enclosures is a small
amount compared to MA.C's $500 million capital improvements budget.
. �., � . . ��. . 1 � �
:'1 '
It was the consensus of the Commission to use the language as stated in the February 9,
2000 rneeting minutes and loolc at a draft brochure at the next meeting.
MASAC YEAR IN REVIEW R�PORT
MASAC goals for 2000 were noted:
1.
2.
3.
. 4.
�.
6'�
7.
8.
9.
Continued pursuit of Internet development
Ground �Zun-up Enclosure (GRE) Feasibility Study Findings
Guest speakers
Assessment of Different Global Positioning System (DGPS) Requirements
Finalize new report formats for the MASAC Technical Advisor's Re�ort and
Eagan/Mendota Heights departure corridor analysis
Assess Stage 3 fleet�activity at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airp+�rt (MSP)
and receive reports from airlines on fiit��re fleet mixes.
ANOMS: Introduction to Lochard — the new ANOM� provider
Evaluation of Part 150 recommendations for implementation
Reviewing the status of MSP's DGPS ground station upgrade to a Local Area
Augmentation System (LAAS)
Chair BeaTy asked for clarification of the assessment of Stage 3 aircraft. Administrator
Batchelder explained that there will be an evaluation of Stage 3 manufactured and
hushkitted aircraft. The fleet mix of each airline will be assessed to find out phase-out
plans for hushlcitted aircraft.
Commissioner Stein referred to page 19 of the report and noted that the percentage of
MSP Airport operators for Northwest Airlines is stated as 52.9%, which does not include
cargo planes. With cargo planes it would be closer to 70%.
It was the consensus of the Commission to further review this report and bring any issues
that need to be discussed to the next meeting.
C�
MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
�ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORR�SPONDENCE
Commissioner Petschel asked if the noise contour used for sound insulation is confined to
65 degrees or will be moved to 60 degrees. Administrator Batchelder stated that the
legislature moved it to 60 degrees, but the federal government questioned that change.
The legislature and MAC wouid have to fund it themselves. The question is whether the
FAA will approve it, even if it is MA.0 money being spent.
Chair Beaty asked about the activities of the Governor's Stabilization Task Force.
Administrator Batchelder explained that the Task Force met to discuss noise issues. The
result of that discussion was that the State of Minnesota should pay for mitigation. The
sales tax at the airport should be put in a Fund for the Department of Economic
Development to give out as commtuuty grants. Communities could create TIF districts in
order to redevelop and relocate residential areas.
The r�leeting adjourned at 9:20 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted,
T�earine Gueblaoui
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MENDOTA �IEIGHTS
MEMO
April 10, 2000
To: Airport Relations Commission
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator
Subject: Discussion of Minneapolis Resolution on Part 150 Sound Insulation
DISCUSSION
The City of Minneapolis has submitted a resolutian to the Metropolitan Airports
Commission regaxding their priorities for the sound insulation program, including the existing
program based on the 1996 contours. The priorities that Minneapolis would like to implement
are different than the established program, and if implemented, would significantly change how
the federal fiva:ding is targeted. Therefore, MAC and MASAC are asking each �f its members to
consider the proposed Minneapolis priorities and provide a formal response, prior to May l,
2000. (Please see attached MAC letter and resolution.)
� ' � ' 1
The Commission should consider the Minneapolis proposal and should discuss the
priorities for Mendota Heights and make a recommendation to City Council.
�
C� ��
�PP + IS SAIh
T
�c'`, -}- '7
F �
� m O
.11 t � t N
O v1
v
a
O��T t. � GO
9� 41RPORSS
;�` ;i �, � ;,; � . ��' :'r , ,�� ,; '� �: :,,
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
Mr. Kevin Batchelder
City Manager
City of Mendota Heights
1100 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dea� Mr. Batchelder.
March 29, 2000
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is in the final stages of a Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) Part 150 Study update for the (Vlinneapolis 5aini Paui Iniernationai Airpori
(MSP). The general purpose of an FAR Part 150 Study is ta provide recommendations
conceming operational procedures for noise abatement strategies, land use determinations and
to develop consistent implementation guidelines.
As part of the 1991 MAC MSP Part 150 update process, the communities endorsed an
implementation sirategy to sound insulate single family residential properties within fhe 1996 DNL
65 noise contour first and then concentrate on muiti-family residential properties. MAC expects to
compiete sound insulation of the single-family residential homes within the 1996 DNL 65 contour
by eariy 2002. �
t' � With the 1996 legislative decision to keep the airport at its current location, the MAC and the
legislature agreed to provide sr�und insulation out to the DNL 60 contour area. As a resuft of this
decision, we are now trying to gather sound insulation priority recommendations from affected
communities wifh respect io single family and multi-family residences within the 1996 DNL 65,
2005 DNL 65 and the 2005 DNL 60 contours.
In November of 1999, the Cify of Minneapolis passed Resolution 99R-406 (attached) that outlines
their specific priority recommendations. Their proposed priority is as follows:
1. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall wiihin
the 1996 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours;
2. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 D�IL
65 and greater noise contours;
3. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours;
4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL
65 and greater DNL noise contours;
5. Complete the sound insulation 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 residential structures within the 2005 DNL
60 to DNL 64 noise contours.
The MAC has since presented the attached resolution and proposed priority options to the
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) �perations Cnmmittee for
consideration. The Operations Committee and MAC are specifically requesting the City of
Mendota Heights to provide MAC with your city specific sound insuiation priority
recommendations.
I have inciuded a map of the area for consideration� within the City of Mendota Heights with a
preliminary 20�5 noise contour. The final 2005 noise contour will be developed from community,
consultant and MAC recommendations and available early this summer.
The MetropoliEan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
www.mspairport.com
Reliever Airports: AIRLr1KE • ANOKA COUNZ'Y/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT P�1LZ DOWNPOWN
�
C
C�
According to the MAC's geographic information system database, the Ciiy of Mendota Heights
does not have any multi-famiiy parcels within the 2005 DNL 65 contour. Please verify that this
information is correct. If there are multi-family structures within the 2005 DNL 65 contour, please
provide MAC with the addresses of these parcels and property identification numbers.
Please consider the priority sequence that the City of Mendota Heights would like ta endorse with
respect to the 2005 DN� 60 contour and forward any resolution or City Council actian to MAC
staff no laterthan May 1, 2000.
If you have any questions conceming this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. Thank
you for your cooperation in expediting this request.
Sincerely,
l� �v�° ----..
Roy hrmann •
Man er, Aviation Noise and Sateliite Programs
C
c�c1P,_�i�p�
REFEPREO TO (NAt.iC OF) COh+MftTEE ��� O L U! � O� l
__ t .l
�ATE ' `�
�of the `���
� � CITY OF
. �INNEAPOLI�
Mead, Colvin Roy, Lane, Niland, Johnson, Biernat, Ostrow, Campbeli, Cherryhomes
By S'.��.m�i]., Herr�iy Thurbe.L, McDonald
Setting forth the City of Minneapolis' comments on the Metropolitan
Airports Commission's (MAC) preliminary Capital Improvement Program 2000-
2006 _ �
. Whereas, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has circulated a draft of the
preliminary Capital lmprovement Program 2000-2006 for comment by affected
municipalities as required by Minnesota Statutes 463.621, Subd. 6; and
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis is greatly affected by the operations of the
Minneapolis-St. Paui international Airport; .
Now Therefore, Be It Reso(ved by The Ciiy Council of The City of Minneapolis:
That the City of Minneapolis remains concerned that the completion date for
homes located within the 1996 65 DNL noise contour not be delayed further and
recommends that budgeted amounts be adjusted upward through 2003 as required to
i ) maintain a pace of 100 homes per month.
Be It Further Resolved that the City recommends that the budgeted amounts for
residential sound insulation be factored to account for inflation.
�_ Be It Further Resolved that the City urges MAC to complete the sound insulation
-' of all eligible properties within the 65 and greater DNL noise contours before any
properties.within the 64 to 60 DNL noise contours.
Be It Further Resolved that the City urges MAC to amend the Preliminary Capital
Improvement Program to reflect completion of the Part 150 sound insulation program in
the following order of priority:
1. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that
fall within the 1996 65 and greater DNL noise contaurs;
2. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the
1996 65 DNL and greater noise contours;
3. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single fami(y and duplex homes that
fall within the 2005 65 and greater DNL noise contours;
4. Com.plete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the
2005 65 and greater DNL noise contours; � �
CK-3007 Rev. 7/89
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
�
April 10, 2000
To: Airport Relations Commission
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator
Subject: Update on Part 150 Study
DISCUSSION
In March, two lerigthy MASAC Operations Committee meetings were held in which two
important items were discussed. First, the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor was discussed on
March 10`h and, second, the Runway Use Alternatives were discussed on March 24`h.
At the March 15, 2000 Airport Relations Commission, I provided some information
relative to the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor discussion. On Wednesday evening, we can
review that information and discuss the Runway Use Alternatives that were discussed at
MASAC Operations Committee on March 24`h. (Please see attached handouts from March 24,
2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting.) The Runway Use Alternatives discussion is not
yet concluded and will be continued at the April 14, 2000 MASAC Operations CQmmittee .
meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED
Discuss the Part 150 Study Update proceedings and provide staff witli any appropriate
directions.
C�
C
�
�
; � � 6/1 %99
:�� �
MSP AT 71'10.4G
�. . . � , � .�. • �
.
l •• ', i
a. Th.e guideiines for the issuance of air
tra�c control instructions relating to noise
abatement for att turbojet aircraft and all other
Group IV and V ai�craft shall be according to
the procedures stated in this chapter.
b. Controllers are� required to be thoroughly
knowledgeable with the provisions of this '
chapter and to exercise their best judgment if
they encountec situations not covered by it.
801. RUNWAY SE�ECTION.
Runway selection shall be determined in
accordance with FAA Order 8400.9, Naiional
Safety and bperational Criteria for Runway
Use Program.
a. Parallel runway selection shall be based
on, but not timited to, wind, weather, and tra�c
conditions, and determined by the OSfC with
input from the Tower Supervisor/CIC.
b. Vector arriving aircraft at 4,000 ft. MSL
or higher until intercepting the glidepath unless
a particular situation dictates othenrvise.
c. Whenever the normal ianding pattem is
over Highland or the South Minneapolis area, a
noise sensitive message shall be added to the
ATIS. �
d. When operations require the use of
parallel runways, a configuration should be
selected that will place the majority of traffic
over the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor when
operationally feasible. .
e. When operations and conditions permit
the use of Runway 4 or 22, these runways
should be used in a balanced manner and in
conjunction with the Mendota Heights/Eagan
noise corridor as much as feasible.
Note: "Balanced manner' means that
Runways 4 and 22 shouid be used with equai
priority. This priority does nat guarantee equal
numbers of aircraft operations will occur ai
each runway end.
f. To accomplish the noise �abatement
procedures, cross runway operations are often
required. Cross runway operations are not
required when the visibility is less than ane
mile, and/or the Supervisor/Tower CIC
determines traffic volume and� complexity are
such that safety and service would be
derogated by the use af a cross runway.
g. The runway(s) in use shall6e the .
determining factor in approving or disapproving
a touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach.
h. Requests for a circling approach by
turbojet aircraft for training shall be denied.
i. All helicopters requesting approaches
shall be accommodated in accordance with the
procedures contained in this chapter.
802. MENDOTA HEIGHTS/EAGAN
PROCEDURES.
a. Departures on Runways 12R and 12L.
(1) Whenever possible, under non-
simultaneous depa�ture conditions:
(a) Aircraft depariing Runway 12R will
be assigned a heading to maintain an
approximate ground track of '105° magneiic,
and; '
(b) Aircraft departing Runway 12L will
be assigned a heading to maintain a ground
track along the extended centerline,
approximately 118° magnetic.
(2) When diverging separation is in use,
it shall be based upon the following criteria:
Par 800 $'�
� a.
. . . � � � �/� �
7/17/99
� - .: 804. MIDNIGHT OPERATIONS.
�
a. Opposite direction operations.
(1) Opposite direction operations will be
utilized when wind and weather permit as per
FAA Order 8400.9 and local runway use and
noise abatement procedures.
(2) The Tower will ensure that noise
sensitive aircraft will not start departure roll
when �like arrival aircraft is 15 flying miles or
claser to the airport. .
(3) Tower will ensure that all noise
sensitive departures will remain within the
noise corridor. �
(4) When visual separation is to be
applied, Tower will advise TRACON when
frequency change is necessary on arriving
traffic.
(5) If Tower anticipates more than a 15
_ minute total delay or 5 minute delay at the
O runway for departure aircraft, coordinate with
TRACON as necessary for possible change to
the preferred cross runway operation.
(6) Good Operating Procedures
MSP AT 71'10.4G CHG 1
(3) For situations requiring further` � - �
guidance, cali MSP-5 (4perations Manager). If '
not available, call MSP-2 (Assistant Air Traffic
Manager). If not availabie, call MSP-'1 (Air
Traffic Manager).
(4) The Supervisor/mid-shift controller is
responsible for position management until
being relieved by a supetvisor or CIC.
(5) The mid-shift CIC has the authority
to approve/disapprove leave for midshift
staffing and the following dayshift down to local
FAA/NATCA agreed upon staffing numbers.
c. Emergencies.
(1) The Tower and TRACON
Supervisor/Midnight CIC will keep each other
apprised of all emergencies or other pertinent
information, and any necessary log entries
pertaining to these situations stiall be made on
the Daily Record of Operatians for both
facilities.
(2) The Tower and TRACON will handle
all emergencies and other pertinent situations
as per FAA Order 7110.65, the MSP aircraft
accident binder #5, and CiC binders.
(a) Monitor frequency 124.7. 805.-899. RESERVED.
(b) Operate D-BRITE scope on 40
mile range.
(c) Always consider most preferential
noise runway when applicable.
b. Non-Standard Situations
(1) When a "B" shift controller (either
Tower or TRACON) calls in sick, the supervisor
or midnight CIC may call in a"C" shift watch
supervisor or controller earfy.
(2) The Tower/TRACON will share
responsibility for ensuring that the engine
� ) generator is started when CAT II weather
� ' exists.
Par 804
�
C
�
� ^
C �
`''Q1 �
O �
;� v
u �
��
Qi ~
? y
� �
m ..
�' s
m �
'.w ci
•� v
r
w �
� �
�o
� �
� ��
�', c`�v
ti
Oi1 ai
r w
40 "0
� �
C "�
' O
C y 'V
� � C
ti Y
+i '� ?
� y C
� � O
� v
y � C
C .: � .
y V �+.
o� " `�,
r �, .. -�
C •^+ O
v""'�„ ,��y, �
,� � v d
�
•C�••� C �4!
� � 0 v
N
'^~+ O �` ..
�.Y *,y d �
� � `� O
d '� :" "v
? � � y
�� �� �
�; a
``, z � '-
o ,� �
� � Q C
O C C `�
n, « �
o �° �' v
v
U v � y
C '� � »
m q�
; y -ca
�w� �
h
� y y a
y �
•y � � �
� N � `
C� C
+�. "�
� ."+�. y C
r` ^ 0� v
C �, �^' �
� ►., � ,.
� v �
� � � C
� y .," �'
Ci q,'� � �
��Liv°q
� ti N
�
a
�
y� C � C M N O
3� N^ M N �� N
aQ
d
E+
Oz
� Ci' Cr
� b N ~ � ,�y. 4'N1 �
a
0
a
(
�y o 0
� O � O oO � N
'�" � � ~ � M N ~ M N
�o A
b
q O
0 0
� � N � O N � t`"
O M !!'
a.
c7 �
rn � p O
�r�N�O O O O O M
00 �. �t �
b A �
q O �
� �
� ��
N M O � O� G1
� N O � �
M
�
� O O
W� � O O O O� O�
n A
O
Q � �
� o� o �
h o 0 0 � o�
� N
a
C�
y
W� aco c ooc
+A� i (
n
Q �
�O�O O O O O O
a
�w''��yy G � �
'k' O N�� O� 1 �
� � � �� �� � � �
� ,CD
�vi � � N .� � � � U o
E�, o W >� �� .G � H
U � '� �
�
r'
�
�
y o c
N O C O N�C., 00
pa � 'y' C�1 M N �� l�`,
3 M ti � N
aQ
H
Oz
0
c o
� b N o � .�d. G� �
O
a
�
y O O
�ra.1 � � 0�0 O N t�n � O
N ,-� � � ly.
b A
�
O
b
q �
O O
� � N � � N N �
a r''� � `�'
0
a
�
�7
� O O
. �� O� O O O� M
b A � �Y � � �i
b
q O
o c
� �""� O O � N N
M ~ r"� ~ �
a
cz� �
W� �oo o ��aN
n A � � �
� z
q o
� o 0 0
� o 0 0 �o.'r'�.
a � N
�
�
�� aoo 0 oco
� A I �
Q � �
� o00 0 o�ao
a
� o °� ^
�• p t�C O ~ � ,��..' O � 'Q�
o �
� •� ��"" �.+���E�
� oW >��� ��o
U a� � �
�
�� o0 0 �v�'c
� M ti N N 0�0 � r
ti N
aA
E
O z
0
0 0
� b M � � � � �
O
w
�
�-y. C O O � � M
?] N O O N M�.�,.� C
b A � N
�
O
b
�i �
Q G
� � � p�p . � N � �
a M I�
�
t9
y O Cr
,.a � � � O O � 0�0 �
b Q
b '
4 a
� o 0 0 �
�t � � � Gl'�'` N�
LL ~ ~ � ""� T"+
F+ I
t�
�(((�---... c
W� � O O O � O M
N
�
n A
O
q o
� o a o
� o 0 0 � o �
'-+ N
a
�
y
a� o00 0 ooc
+ Aa
� z
q o
� -
0 0 0 0 0 o c
a � i
� � � �
� � �n � cn o 'T� i-7
� �`�����c�H
�•
a� �
h oW �x���ao
U !i� '-'
0
C�
c�
y O O
� p 0 O et � ti
p'�.i � �� N N 0�0 M r
3 M ~�� N
hA
� z
° o 0
�O O O N NI� G'�1
� N � � �iC�.t �
a �
�
�� a� � �a~
� N � N N M cr+� N
b A
d
b
q O
0 0
� � N � O N 0�0 �
O _ M !t
w
� �
�N o 0
a�� ��o 0 o�v�'"i
0o d. � �
a
b A � �
q °
d
�� O O � � �.M,y O
a � ^' a' .-' �
0
a
C4
i���q±±± Q
�� � O O O ��� N
� A � �
s
q a i
�� O O O �lv�i �
a ! N
a �f
� 1
�
�
�
a� o00 0 000
+ �
� I
q � �
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0
a.
O
a
� � � �
o �
� o � � � a �
� •� `� � � b � c° �
.., �... � � H
h o W >� �� � � �
U w � �
�y O O
�7 � M G'�1 M N G��O ��
aA
N
O z
0
o c
� �p �y T'� � � Q� �
a I
c�
yFF.�� O � O �� N
��Z. M� M N M� O
bA 7 N ,-+ �"'� N
O
b
Q �
� �' o 0 0 � � �r'
a
� N O � M � �
O
P+
�
�� ' o 0
a� ��o 0 oo�'oN
a� � �r��'
b A •
q o
0
�� l`o' O � Q�i N �
M ~ � � ~ �"'�
0
a
t7
y���+++ G`
�� � O O O � O M
N
r�i
n p
q °
� o 0 0
� O O O ��O �
iL N
a ( (
�
�y
� O O O O O O G
+ A
�
N
Q � -
� o 0 0 0 0 o c
a
0
a
� � � ~
o�;�� o'°a
Q" q � a" .""'G Q � � -N 'Q�
� � � � � N ,Y"-�„� H
p., R+ �'ai a�i 'a� G � O
E►, o W >� � � .� � [�
U ai '� �
M
�y O a C �
� � M � O N � � N
�A
E
� z
F' o
0 0
� � N M � ,��, � �
O
a
�y
N y � � � O� O
��N O� � N c�'� � O
N'.,� M �,d
b A
�
O
b
q �O
O O
�0�0 � GM O �A �M G1
� N � M � �
O
a
i
�
y � �
. �� � O O O O O �
00 d. �O �j
b A �
b
�
z
q o
0
�� � � � � O �
a .-' °� '"'' �
0
a
�
� Q
� O O O O� � N
r1
f��. A
� '
� � Q I �
� � � � � � � � �
� � N
0.Oi
�
a�y���+++
O O O O O O O
+A
n
�a
p �
� o 0 o a o 0 0
a I
''S�" ° " ..
� � o ,� .� � o '� �l
� � � � � b � � � H
cc1 4. �... � •...
h o W >x �� � � �
U cA � �
c�
� F � O � O � � �
�"'7 M C` N N � e!' N
aA
H
O z
E" o
�oc' o �a�
W � N � � `�' � �
a .
�
��ooQ � �o'�
cV r` N N �M-+ r'� N
b �
�
O
b
q O
O o
�� rn O N v�oi N�v
'd' N � M � 'e7'
O
a.
�
y���+++ ` o 0
..� � N� O O �� y�j
L� � � � �
b A
b '
q O
0
� � o 0 0 0 �
O O .-� O�i M ~
a '_' '� °� '-" �
0
w
�
�� �oo o �o`O
N
r-9
n A
t
�
� ON
!"! O � Q
a� O O O � O N
RO+ �
C7 �� t
W� O O O O O O C
-i- q
n
4 � -
� o 0 0 o a o c
a �
� o � ^
o .�; � � o "a i-7
� � � (� � -� � a�°i t� E"��+
p., a W� v c� cu � o Q
U aa �� �x � � �
H
d'
C
C�
,'
�'
:
Runway Us�e System
Alternatives
N9SP Part 1!�0 Update Study
March 24, 2000
�
�Qgt�.'�1C��
6 Runway Use Factors
1 F�cisting and Future Runway Use
1 Existing Runway Use System (RUS)
1 RUS Alternatives Methodology
6 RUS Alternatives
I Discussion and Recommendations
J���,• }'b
`i�•I ,E;
9 �� t�
r } '
��+w.
�1119Wi�y `JSE� �aC�t)�'S
. . ............_ ....._...,..:__:.. _..._��_.,._ .
� Runway use is determined by
muitiple, inter-Imked, factors:
i Weather and wind conditions
1 Capacity and flow requirements
I Traffic demand
i Aircraft separetion
i Pilot compliance and safety considerations
i ATC
"°"' �,
'�+ *'' 1 Safety
�' �s
' , ,��„�' t�', ,-7
� N -f c3 c-�.�-��-- � M �s� °P. ;
� - 2 �t -o � '�,
1
C
�2aanway l)se Fac#ors
1 Runway use is determined primarily by wind
and capacity requirements
I These requirements limit options to significantiy
change runway use, even with the new runway
1 Capacity requirements drive runway �e
during day-hme haurs
1 Runway use aitematives are primarily viable
only during night-time hours
xt� , �,4 �-�---7
+
4 ��.:u.�J
+� +
'�nw
Exis�ing Runv�ray Use
.. - - .�_.�....:___.�.�.�: .__._ .-.
� 1999 Runway Use � �
1 ANOMS data for non-constrvction moritlis
in 1999: ]anuary, Febnaary, March,
October, November, and December
1 ANOM5 data for 1997 summer months:
April, May, �une, July, August, and
September
0
Exis�ing e211�
_ _ - __._ ....,._..�..�.,_��: ��_
e Ma�mize use of Eagan Mendota Heights
Corridor: depart Runways 12L and 12R,
arrive Runways 30L and 30R
I Head to head operations in corridor when
operationally feasible
i Balanced use of Runway 4j22
1 Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive
Runways 12L and 12R, at all other times
0
��- ����-
1
C�
Existang RLlS
. - - --.._._.�._.�::,�.�..��_..
8"Salanced" use of Runway 4/22 means that
ti�e runways are uwed with equal pnority
H This does not guarantee that equal numbers
of aircraft operations wiil occur at each
runway end
O This is true for the e�dsting RUS and the
altemativ�; to be discussed today
�
'�U#`tre �'i't�tlw�y l,9Se
_ . ..___,.., ._.._.__,.-..:�..�-.Y�y�__._.:,_�._�:_.
1 2005 Forecast Runway Use �� W�..�~. _
1 FEIS
�
��$ �1��$ �8,Ii7W��/ �S@
. - - - .. : .,�w�,.........o,.�.-.�.._._.y,.:..;.,,:.
B EIS used a methodology to forecast night
runway use that shifts runway use during
low-demand periods - similar to the
methodofogy used to develop RUS
altematives
� Runway 4/22 traffic is shifted to Runway
17/35 except during high wind conditions
0 Other traffic is concentrated on the south
parallel runway (departures using
,��'��, 12R/arrivals using 30L) as determined using
� ,� 1994 ANOMS data
;v '���
t �
3
R�S ,A►'t�/71a'l�IVC�S
P�et�hodology
.. _.. ' . . - .. . . iar.._.na..._..._..ar���er�i'X'i'l'..T._t��':«:.... .
1 RUS impiementation is most effective
during periods of low trafFic demand
s RUS must recognize weather and wind
limitations
1 Must be operationaily feasible
0
�u5 A�$Gf'1'1�t1V�5 '�
�Ieti'tOdOIOc�/
. _ .._.. __..�._._�._.�__. =�v��.y�;..- �
. _. . ... .._�._..�..�.,,�...:v....__.}_- _
1 Traffic Demand Analysis I
i ANqMS used to quantify ti�e average
number of aircraft operations during one-
hour blacks in 1999
i This data used to forecast average hourly
operations in 2005
1 ATC reports that RUS can be implemented
when there are no more than 7 operations
in a 30 minute period, or 14 operations in
��,,,,, � an hour
.*� +�
, �
:
R �� } ii.d.
' ....,1
�'.
R�lJ Alt�'i'rta�iV�'S
�Ae�hodology
_. . -... .._- .,.�.�T_..��._,��... ���_.�:�,_.._.. .
1 Traffic Demand Analysis
i Demand Table
�i
, `� wL�J '
J ��
�
GD'^ ��^-
r�w �`� �
u �``r_ ��
c/'�' �6 �'
�
�
0
C�
•------�
1 -� � �, 1
' � N N '
� � � � > �
� 0 � � � �
I �U�Q' t
�•
1 � �° ¢ 1
- ~ -
O
' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \
�'� o 0 0 0 0'o` o 0 0 0 0 �� o � o o � o o � o o O
� I� N N N rY CO N O) �t M� N N�t ��� N N O I� CD �- � O
I-� IO O O O O O IM t!) rt (O d' t0 tC) 1`- �t' CO d' I� tC) f� �f5 t.C) tC) �- O
U ' ' T
�
� ( �
f-' \
"" � � \ \ \ \° \° \'\° \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \ \° \ \ \ \ \ �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
C•� �01 et M N � N ��- ��0 N o0 N O O� aD CO cfl O� o� t`- f� i�- N �
p Q'O O O O O�-'d' d' d' �f' CO �.l� CO CO c+� C� u� a� d' 1�- C� � N N O
Q. ' ' �
O �) � o
� �\ \ � '� \° \° �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � \° \ � °
�'C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
�'+ Q'tt� �� N N tn'CD N� tC) O N�.!) 00 M e- O� tt� t0 N 1� � �Y CD
�Q'0000co'c*i �ricorir��r�uicoricci�.cico�ui r;T o
�
_ . .
. ' '
C ttS I� h tf) 00 1� N'tn �.t� N� N CD ��!� � O� � c1' �� r
� � �'� M M N tq T IU� � CO � 1� O~i � T I�. �� r c0 O��
.T •`� ~ 1 I
� °'
, � = p 1 1
� -� I �O CD N C'7 �l' W d' u� i� O� r� f� 1`- 1-
A —
, ,(0 � ` >'Q� CO CC tf) Q �' . . . . . . . . .
�� _ �'<C N N r'd' �'M ch M M tM r7' d' t� N tf� �t CO c'�7 CO � r1'
� Q
c°"n o �, 1 1
� v � �1 1
� ��� 'C� 00 O CO CO 1`� r tf) 6� O O O) CO t� O') O
Q'C 00 C) O M CD h . . .
~ ��'M O t- e- t- M ICO CO T CO cfJ CU tC) T ���- O t'� CO CO M
O� I 'CV � C7 CO N tt� Ch CO d' �i' M tf) �Y rt' M�f'
N �I I
� � � O
� f� Cp �
� � N
C
(6
� tII � o
�S > � �;
J Q N �
O
_ � o
� � �''� °
O tL3 � �
aao .
o a� � �
��
c�
` � �
i � I�
N � � �Q
z E—°
` O f`
. �.,,
� T �
) CO r'
) N r`
) T �
v;
c� 1 co 1�; o r- co �.n u� r- r co 0o co �: o ry�n �— v c� �
� OD M N N �t'
�°i �;� oMoc.�o�c°�o�ti�cv'o�m�r�.rn�r°�- c�°oN r°�i
�� �
O � '
�� I 'r- N�t r- N c0 c0 �-- 00 O� CO G.A o0 1� � t� 00 �f' N
�}�et N O N N�I O�
� Q� 4� N N�- M h I N M c� ��Y M d' rt' N V' M� C��') � d' d' � T' �
(O
� � '
� �' ' ..
N
Q�' 'cY7 00 i�- tI') c*7 I�- th t� t1') O'� i�- tC) N� O d: tfl � N
�� N CO CU r rf T;) �: O t` C� �- O s- �i' t� N i�- t() � M M CD (3� O�
��� M O O r' r M' N��� N�.CJ C7 UJ <`') �1" N V' M r!' M C*') �i' <" �
°' � 1 I
O r N C7 d' � CO I� �� O�- N M �
� O r N f*) d' �'CO I� CO 6� �-- c- �- r r r r- 1- r- r N N N N'O
i— � _. ..
a
co
0
o � �n
o d x
N � �
M � O.,
Q O
T �
C
�
0
U'
A
L
�
0
.0
N
.�
>,
N
C
Q
m
�
Z
_
�
�
�
�
0
z
¢
a�
m `
z o
= c�
RL�S Alternatives
Me�htadoiogy
. - . �.---.-�-__ ��.--._ _. .
i Traffic Demand Analysis
1 Analysis shows that ti�e potential exists to
reassign night runway �e fior up to:
I 10.93% of night deparivres (1.55% of total
departure ops)
I 27.97% of night arrivals (3.47% of total arrivai
ops)
I 18.87% of totai night operations (2.51% of total
.r "+k oPs)
;'� :
e� a"
o�!.�..k`
��S ��tBP11a$IV@S
'IVIetIlOtIOIOc,�}/ .
L�
, Traffic Demand Analysis
i Nthough this anaiysis focuses on RU5 use during
night-time hours oniy, RUS wouid be applicabie
during low-demand day-time hours
i RU5 im� plementation during day-time fiours is low
and ditficuft to accure�ty quanhfy
1 The noise "change" of an RUS aitematrve, although
oniy modeled at night, would aiso be beneficiai
dunng day-time hours when RUS is in use
��
R�S �0$�IT1atlVeS
I�1 e.'$ �'e O ti O 1 ti g�f
o Weather and Wind Conditions
t Analysis includes SO years of night wind dab,
from ]anuary 1990, thru December 1999
1 Departures are assumed to be capable of
opereting from a runway witli up to a 2D knot
crosswind andJor a 7 knot taiiwind ..
1 Arrivals are assumed to be capable of landing on
a runway with, up to a 20 knot crosswmd and/or
a zero knot ta�iwind
,� �• i wnds beyond these limits require the use of
;� �' anotherrunway
:
� +
°., �,�,,,f �:�.'T.,�7
5
��
t�
Rl9S Altero�atives
IVle�hocHolo�}/
. ._,_,_.. ..._ ____-__.��,_,.,�..�......�.M..
_ ...�.�.�.__..,��,..:�_.___._._ ..
1 Additionat Assvmptions
1 Conseivative methodology
t There are zero inkeractions between aircraft
during the low-demand period, and as a resulk
runway use can be det�rmined mdepender�t of
traffic conflict and flow considerations
i Head-tahead operations can occu� on Runways
12L/12R and 30LJ30R, and Runway 17/35, when
deemed operationaliy feasible by ATC
�� '� �,,� i Exdude Q5 mod�cations to night runway use
� +�
g �.■'�=l
�+�
,,..,
Ri.1S d�ltet71c1#IV@5
�P�iethodology
_ . .- . . - _.,�._::.�.� �Y�;��._,... .
� Additional Assumptions
1 Fub�re split of operations during RUS on Runway
12LJ12R and Runway 30L/30R is detertnined by .
actual operations during night hours, as
debermined by ANOMS
1 Use of Runway 4/22 requires cross-runway
operations, and may not be used when visibility
is less than o�e miie, and/or ATC determines that
use of the rvnway wouid not be sate - as a
,,.���., resuft, RUS aRematives are adjusted so as to not
�++; exceed 1999 Runway 4/22 night runway use
�� ,ro,�•,��'`' �....�r`"�
R�S �►��CT112tIV@S
��t�1OC�OtO��f
1 Runway use percentages used in FEIS and
forecast in RUS Aitematives are operationai
goals based on weatt�er conditions,
destination potentiai nase impact, and
operationa� effidency
1 Variation from forecast runway use will occur �
due to safety issues, ATC, weather
conditions, and temporary runway closures
�
C
62llS Alte�natives
Nte#hodology
� RUS percentages are determined by assigning
maximum use to the priority runway, up to
wind coverage limitations
I Remaining runway use percentage is applied
to the next n.mway in priority order, up to
wind coverage limitations
i This continues in runway �riority order until
�,, wind coverage equais 100%
I j - ��+1
5}� i�
, %~ •18iw�C � ' LWJ�
��S Af'�el'!la'�IV@S
1 Alternatives consider severai variations
in runway use priority during periods of
low demand, within ailowable wind and
weather conditions
�ypr� 4
� 1 4,
a�
� �} ,,,¢' �, ��
`%;.�
�'4,is �A$�!'i1r'�$11/@S
- - . .r..�.�...... _;�..�...,..����::w... .
I Existing RUS - departure priority 11s, arrivai priorily 30s,
minimize use of Runway 17/35
i Aitemative 1- deparivre priority 17, arrivai priority 30
o Altemative Z- departure priority i?s, arzival priority 35
� Aitemative 3- departure priority 1?s, artival priority 30s
i Altemative 4- departure priority 1?s, anival priority 35
1 Altemative 5- departure priority 1?s, arrivai priority 3S
„«,.
ai i�e
° z- �
�. +�-
�y ,���V r-.��
7
(` 1
/
�ttlS �►IterrHa$ives
_ . .._ .��, :..w:.�_....-�.u��-w_.__.�-..
1 Existing RUS
i Maximize usc of Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor:
depart Runways 171 and 12R, arrive 30L and 30R
i Head to head operations in corridor when
operationaliy Feasible
i Balanced use of Runway 4/22
i De� part Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways
171 and 12R, at ali other times
'..�..r�4�
t.� y
st i#
�` t '�.�
'w..
�
'Rus A�$eIT1a$IVES
1 Existing RUS
� dunng�fow-Zd�emand�p n�ods use of Runvvay 17/35
i Uses head-to-head operations
1 RUS rvnway use percentages
1 DNL contour
�
�u.�9 �0$@f'!7's��1VCS
- --.._,_ . ..... .........:_._.,_�...�,.<��.M,.�_,,,.....s... :.
B EYisting RUS .,.�..._....,. ...�,�.>....�___.__......
i Comparison of overall population chan�e with
Exishng RUS aftemative to 2005 Unmit�gated
Contour.
I DNL 70 dBA contour - approwmately 10 people added
i DNl 65 dBA contour - appro�omately 200 people
reduced
I �Nl 60 dBA contour - approximately SSSO people
added /
i Total change - appmximately yE00 people added
,,,ys,r.,,, r `{�
� �,
�
i
�
RUS Alte�natives
..._ _:. _ __. _ .. .��.�:�,, _u.^
���.�.._____..:.��_:�.k _..
1 Aiternative 1 .
i Ma�dm¢e use of Runway 12L/1?R for departvre, and
Runway 35 for arrivais
1 Second prior�ty - depart Runway 17, arrive Runway
30LJ30R
1 Head to head operations when needed and
operationaily feasbie �
i Third priority - balanced use of Runway 4/22
1 Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways
�.��"'� �,,^ 12L and iZR, at all other times
�� �.f
i �q f �+� �
+i.n,�
�R9JS ,I�Iternatives
1 Alternative 1
I Re!'�ance on head-to-head operations to achieve
operationat gaa[s is reduced
1 RUS runway use percentages
1 DNL contour
�
RU� Alternatiwes
. _ .,_�_ :_---.._.,,_....__...:.,_.,_�. -
. . . .�„�.�n�,�.���Y�.. _._�.�... .
1 Aiternative 1
1 Comparison of overall population chan�e with
Exis�ng RUS aftemative to 2005 Unmit�gated
Co�tour.
I DNL 70 dBA corttour - approwmately 40 people added
I DNL 65 dBA coninur - approximataly 340 people
reduced
I DNL 60 d8A contour - appro�timately 1730 people
added
1 Total change - appro�timately 1430 peopie added
,,�,, �aywrr 4.a
.f � 4
�41� �
.y ,���
�
r.
�
�%�$ /��tel"1'1's�'�IVGS
...�_....., _... ._._..._..._.�..n-....�....:_.. ....._.... . � .
.... -�..,..�s.___. �.- .
1 Alternative 3
1 Maximize use of Ea�g�n Mendota Heightr Corrido�:
depart Runways 1ZL/12R, arrive 30L/30R
1 Second priortty - depart Runway 17, arrive Runway
35
1 Head to head operations when needed and
operationally feasibie
i Third priority - balanced use of Runway 4/22
i Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways
;� '•+,, 12L and 17R, at ail other times
;�. �
g" w� � :.� �
' 'RUS A1t@I"1'I�tIVeS
1 Alternative 3
1 Uses head-to-head operations
1 RU5 runway use percentages
t DNL contour
�
i2US �il�ernatives
---.�..._�._....__.�..:,,m.._r.,.F...�;�...�.�„�..,�. _
1 Aiternative 3 . .u�v.~V�, �..�����
i Comparison of overall population chan�e with
Existing RUS aftemative to 2005 Unmitigated
ConCour:
I DNL 70 d8A contow - approwmately 20 people added
I DNL 65 dBA contour - approximatefy 260 people
reduced
I ONL 60 d8A contour - approximately 1300 people
added
I Total change - approximately 1060 people added
� �} r• }'�a
M. �
Yfy �!T�'�'�7
ey } wi��! La:�.7J-J
.�1re.'1'
11
C�.
u
R'v.�'! �1$S.'1'i1a'�1fIV�5
_ .... . : . - _ .__ ...,__..�. �...__..., �.,-�,:���.�..,.
1 Aiternative 4
1 Maximize use of Runway 17 for departure, and
Runway 35 for arrivais
� 1 Second prio '- depart Runways 12L/12R, arrive
I Runways 30t�30R
� i Head to head operations when needed and
' operationaliy feasibk
' 1 Third priority - balanced use of Runway 4/22
i Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and amve Runways
�� '�+, iZL and SZR, at all other times
'� �!
�.,�.� '"[�.►_''` L�'3a--
RIDS Alternatives
1 Alternative 4
1 Uses head-to-head operations
1 RUS runway use percentages
1 DNl contour
�
liUS �l,Iterna$ives
- . . -- .- .. ..,�,,.�.,n,._,..�::��.:�w�....�..-
1 Aiternative 4
1 Comparison of overali population chanc�e witl�
F,cisting RUS altemative to 2005 Unmit�gat�d
Contour.
i DNL 70 d8A contour - appro�timately 160 people
added
i DNL 65 d8A contour - approximately 110 people
added
i DNL 60 d8A contour - approximately 1580 people
added
!�+��• }1 I Total change - approximately 1850 people added
x� �
gv �t..��,i �. � t e -1
12
�
� ��
I RUS Alternatives
-. ---. ,..__. ....z_.d.�...._.�;m,._�- - . .
! Alternative 5
i Maximize balanced/equal prio �'ty use of Runways
121f12R/17 for departure, and Ftunways 30LJ30R/35
for arrivals
i Head to head operations when needed and
operationally feasble
1 5econd priority - balanced use of Runway 4/22
i Depart Runvvays 30� and 30R, and arrive Runways
iZL and SZR, at ail other times
�� ,.+"�
i �
�
s '�'T LL . rr=�
~ ��MK
�RUS �11te�na#eves
-. -. _ ..__. _.. v�_.�.a`__.._..� �...�....�,-��y..
� Alternative 5
1 Rei"�ance on head-to-head operations to achieve
operational goals is reduced
i RUS runway use percentages
i DN� contour
�y� r� }'�i
t} ;
='1' 2
�}w�
��,',', r� ��}rooi"
R1JS AItCi'i"!c-�$iVeS
_...__.__._,_.:�.�_ _....�_ _�,..,,...s:...,�..�.,.�._. ...�._..�
. ... ._.::,:.��::,�.:��.::�,�..,ti.� ..._,.,.,..:
� Alternative 5
I Comparison of overali population chan�e with
Existing RUS aitemative to 2005 UnmiGgated
Contour.
I DN� 70 dBA contour - approximately 90 people added
I DNL 65 dBA contour - approwmateh/ 260 people
added
I DNL 60 dBA contour - approximately 1130 people
added
i Total change - appro�mately 148� people added
, �.� r�+'.i
t-} �
�} a AT^ ='7
�y .E, � IaaJ.LLJ
��
13
�
i�
�t ��v�Noisfi
hT� �
O O
w�y�� o ol`t ��
� �1
4
O
G
O
,-�
O
O
O
tf�
O
O
O
O
�
�:
Lm�
7
b
W
U
H
a
.�
I
m
�
0
v
N
i.
b
N
U
O
c.
P,
�
q
m
�+
�
t�
�
�
I
O
O
O
O
.-i
(�
.-t
9ahi/z �avoo-tnvta�mauaaszni\-0
C
��
<
�'
�
� . ,,°� s � _ �
TO: Planning and Environment Committes
F RO M: Rict�ard B. Keinz, Direcfor of Environment (726-8134)
S U BJ ECT: Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
DATE: July 25, 1997
In the earfy 1990s, the Federai Aviation Administration responded to numerous requests for
unique noise abatement departure procedures, by studying the viability of using different
procedures off difFerent ends of runways at the same airport. The result ofi exhaustive testing
at the John Wayne/Orange County Airport (SNA) in Santa Ana, CA, was Advisory Circular
91-53A, Noise Abatement Departure Profiies, recommending two specific departure profi(es,
used as a function of the noise sensifivities off the ends of each runway.
AC 91-53A specified roles for each participant in fhe noise abatement departure profile (NADP)
process. Air carriers were to develop a Close-in Departure procedure, and a Distant Departure
procedure for each aircraft in their fleet, in accordance with specific criteria for developing safe
departure profiles outiined in AC 91-53A. Airport operafors were to specify to air carriers
serving their facility, which departure profile should be flown off each end of the airpo�t, a
function of the noise sensitivities off each end.
The Close-in NADP was designed to benefit noise sensitive areas close to the airport. Distant
NADPs were to be specified when noise sensitive areas were farther from the airport. Thrust
management and flap retraction are the parameters varied to effect the different benefits. �
Close-in Procedure Benefits "Ciose-in" Distant Procedure Benefits "Digtant"
Noise Sensitive Noise Sensitive
Communities Communities
80Q-1000 ft Reduce Thrust 800-1000 ft Retract Flaps
• Reduce Thrust
(Later...Not as
Much)
3000 ft Retract Flaps 3000 ft Normal Climb
Normal Climb �
The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii (MASAC) undertook the study necessary
to expficitly determine which NADPs produced :the greatest noise benefit off each end.
Contours were developed utilizing ANOMS flight path, aircraft type, and operation count
information. Based on the precedence set by the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee the DNL
� � 60 Contourwas incfuded. MACs Geographic Information Sysfem-(GIS) was used to objectively
� � 1.� C '
C Q •?
C y C' "^� .
�v CV C. .`��..
� y
a� �
� � � Q
!a � � :�
�o. � � c
� � .� 4'
" � c c�
� 'r � •
3 � v v
ti
v � `�'
v � �
c�. Q J.
:�: G.,� •� • " •y': . '
'.:�C1E,.C•• Q].r.' :i: "•r�. .. . . '
a..:.u•::.: : •: •.:: �. : :..: .,:: • . • . ; .
:��:Va:: ;�:. - . - ....
�.:�: �, •�i:::'.='. . • , . . . ..
. •.�-
.� � r �
c'
>,� .� �
�a'� �
a� �
°� � c � c
C .� E � � >,
� T
C �
Q ti � � y � �
� +.. V M �
N C � y � � v
.. c� � a... . C C .
.,p � '� � (,} C
:� Q). � . `^ .C. . .� � .
v � 3 °= a° '�
�c � � c.� Q �
J ' � � � � � qxj
,C � � C r � G
Q� N C� t0 � C
U� r c � a� '�'
� � �
. � � V � � O
L. n. Cw
C ~ � � �
^ � :.7 � aN.a Q .
�� 4 ..y...� � C G
,' C D ��' � C.. .� �y'�j, �cn' .
. y u �.'�� '_7 .. 4 :i .
a � � � T � G..
v �.. �s .a c
�
czr�, � Z Z
�� � � � � .�—
.� � -. � : �- .�-
� :, .. . •
�tA y '. ^ i" ..: �
��''' _ � C '� � �
C� � � ... y
E"' cC G J F^ U
• e
C
c"�
C-
C._
;_
__ _ _ c
.�
..... . .. . . ....^
.
�.
..
. �.
. . -
:.
,�
..
, _ _.
.. .
. _
_ ..
.
�
,
.. .
. .
, .
, .:.
. :
.
�
_
_ ,
�
.
.
.
. -► _
;. - �
._ ,
_ _
. , �
, ,� ,
,
�
_
..
.
_ .
__ .
. • .
. ., ,
�
���. �, � � ....
•
��i � ...��... .� � .. ,.__.
� �
L l
�
.
•
f•
O�
�
�
� � � � � �
i� � � ! i
� � � �/ �1
�
.� � '� � � '.�
C�
t
...._..-�-- ----� .... ..........
.
.
•
.
�
�
�
.. .
� a
� � �
_
�
,a .
� �.
�
• �
_ �
�
• •
�
j •
� _..
�
>.;_ �
�
�
�- � _
.. �
� , �
� •
•
1
� i
� �
L
_._
�
�.. , �
, i �
� �
�
...,._ . .. .1�
'. _ �
'..... . • . _.. .. �
, �
_
_ �
� , ; _
.
� ._ '�' .
i'
�` �
. a
,
�
�
� :� � � .� �.
� r s � �r
�r � � � �s
�, ,. _
. � .. �: � � � t -� �, ,. � :� �,
�'',.
C•J
�
'i':
i ':
�si;?,I'' .
a
0
a
_ � � �
. � � � cn
�
p � � E
c� v r°� v
. o e o
v �
�' �
t�
a`° L � r� �
z; � r� �, �
�==o���
,., p„ � U c�i
'd';
N: � � ��
O: �•�q�oQ
� ` C.� [Gl cA °
a
0
Z � � a�i
ri. Q
C � � �
t0 � V" �
(� C.) N C�
. . .
c.t�
;r. � ,i::> � �. .
X
;, ;
. ��.. r_._......__.u� ."_.
� z
e
: x (,i. k ...,, � O°r t �+-fi.� •�.K �
i�;'��,' • e • �S`f�.t s �s,�',�� -� �{=�
v � � ��
�-5 �.�� y �•`ic �'a'�r�G it,isj ..i��,!s
�;r y r. �. 1 ,
L � s�sr n � .�j-"�
.rr� � � ,ri 7 u j �w� 'S1 ...�L'�' _
�. .' � 1 � . � �a :( t .
.� •�.��' � �� +'�r � . c i �" .
i7 �.� �rE r�a�,S :: r � z
' E �- �:�. � R..rSW� �' .�f i
r � . � � �: L �ii Qi � Y "�^�i� i.. � �' �.� � �:
. � Gi. a ', x {' �, �W^.
,^F � ��; � Ri i '��'. �et' Q y .''i�.a� :
r� :. �„ �(y, ..^�1 t � �— �"'"
S � ,� � � • � _ (1, � `� t ; r Q [� . � c I�
�* _ � i �Qi;.�' � O � .�''i �. z '� � �-c�,e��,
ln '(n � � -O s a
u i��� � O � ":..Q .� RS 1i�ir�-t,' � G ', s
ftf +.. N • � +., i . -1,., ,
- � Q- �.L V. � 6 6 ; 6.' (n � � ;
L O O '' � � � : �
� � � ; a: U L� ! tir
� � � :{f N�
� ' ° I I
�� � o Y ,
���F� ,, � . _ . . . .
��`� � � � O .. � �.:.0 ':.�� ��O ��O � � � 0 O .. 1
7',� � t. c� Ca �. c.i o 0 0 -.; o ' c� o o- o:
�: , o ,o ,o 0 0
Q � i,n - d' CO N T'
O O O �
�j T � � �- � �
irf � � � � " .:
. M1 '. .- . {-1
� ,:
;� � � � pn�i� t� L,�
.t,r�;- _ � (�aa�) a Id , , ,
� :n _;z.�r,...� � f
� �� t � �� .J'F y'^""^hT.xP�" '. . k �� y�t�j,F3'�3°�'}�r-��, K �T G �h � .� . kt S„'�'�S''' �"�j K` (�'xa'^,� q � h.� � �
xS a4'�i � '4 ",�,N'i���rc� x , i `5'�1r�1't,� y.�'i:- -�"'U{. - e., sV-S_�i.�rxu,.,�`s�xs��- "'i'�ku:r.�L �'_:•�L-i �.tf •�.`a>,.....xaS !'`'�..Ct .+...�
:,,r�5''..�J,:::a:zr�:.:�. � ``Z`*. :�?�.S:.�z.r .c'u:..� a,u�;uis�z�d.�u�. �u":�...c�.:.W..L`�,. . .
. �; _... . ... �.. � - _. . . - -
_. _
�. . .. , :_ . . �::. ..
�
C�
� -. _ � � '�+ ."V '
���" ..�
:'
�::
I
Q.. CL
� �
<L �C
ZZ
c �
.� �
ccs
� �
U�
II
yti�
tJ,
; ::�
��
i�,
,}'�
J
_.�z'�
-Y�+
. ��
-�:i
:>>` r
`:;�!
"v�
` t�+3
�"
j:
'r
a=�r
, �k
14�
�
J:�.�� _ f :'i
-'N r .t
;
� ,
�
- {
�
O -: :: `
O � Q
O � t.f) O �
p � � N O I`- tS) N � f�. �f7 N
c7 N. N CV GU ''- '— '--
(s�ou�) paadsaid
. .. .a- R-ie-„-7. ^^t`....., "�..` �.': j' � . i �6 � � � �,.c [ c'� Si,�r--4 -�x �--^. �7'e � .s: �`5 f akyl.
�";"YrL �. �{'Gy��...�-'+�i�'7`S ".u`r� � {.,� d.� e,rt].� y t � � r ).;?n -� ��� ...,_. � . .
.D�..3r....�IinT..:...1.�..... �[ .._Y....>'w,ic�_-.;�,.YsG�".`- .,�t✓f�'�:2.....5.7.,....L=.s`:.�ii�...A.-.-S�,.�:a:�
k�`:n�i..:a.l.%..�.-�L `7.f.Y4�ae .-:-.s.;..:�,..�=.�a Y':ui«..v_...,..... . _�......_`�_.�... .t.�... _
C�
�'
C
II ''�:'
r�
'. Gf.
�t'
1�t,
_ � � R r
..a`r
��F��
,, � � ,r�
�
r�{,�
�i�I
��t
i� �
� Aiy.
� � � -� ��i
� � � 4 1 "�.l'r
Q �C �-r
-t �t' M ;
z z � � ��:, ;
c -�-� : � `
. � � ��, ; �t �� � ��
a� �=
� ;jY �+.� f ^'�t r t .:.
� � i"' `3�� , �� y .
� ' �t.iif 1 r. � T'J'.r �7+) ; r. L�
U : �, ,«�
�;� ,,S y� t :
� � �N � aat n . , y'
T �
l. �o- y� � � at cw�
3 ":; �, S '� -rrr.. L1`�,i`� � � , C�a'.
� �;Y'r� f )r�r{{ .
} �/� � S
��l' `�.Vd�l.�,f�.
[��.v� .J �+
�� �� �.a�
f
, .� , - �.
� a�F�'� . . � � -� t
T x
..-�`y`�.,3..,t�7� r�::�i1..._
n-� z+. r.vr ,.{1�, �
, ....�r�tisKu "i'r1�'�y'Y+�� �.
w
� , �a
��.
��j r
e s �
�$
tk "' `�
�p�zvy
�4- .'� . O � �.. � ... O ,, '� ' � �° � ��. ` � � � � . � � � � �i Q � O _�-
�!� - � N O
O I'� t.c) N o r'
' T 7.T' �.�.T . r' LS� N .Y
�.�,7� C� N N N tV . �" ::
: ;
���' (s�ou�l) .paadsaiy .'�
�� r �� :
,,.,,.,�;�... ;�� : =J�,r�1
: �" � �:� �,,..�. �...� : . �,,.,,T.�i••—Tr;�yT^C'.R -•� YTlr^r i�� :iy.�E��i;: � Sl ri�<}< � i''"r�5rf.'��,...,.Z..�� �` r�..�,g�`K..����'�+..`���,��
� `'r -r ��� ��� '�,..''�'x` t i '�, ` t 'a �vr ` k}, �,.t�k`b...�.i=.i� !�.,1.stia,.,�. �nhs...�i ,a.h<�t�,�' �. wa _.-:�wa a�..�,s.7 .a.mU..-.''�ec .s9�
�;.���...,�SF:,.r�..�;..`'�u r.r.�'�J.i,�n�..::�.s�.c.i!s�.J'w1.�J. ,...-+=. .
��;�„ � � . _ .. _ . . � . .. .. . - - ' ' .-
., -� ...,
� ,..... � ••'t'� � \
.�- . '�'�� '�'
� ..�...•'�
O � p p O
p p O O O
O � 4
� _ � N
� � �}- C�
,� •�-•- T
T T�
(spunod) �snaul
O
O
O
T
_,-
t=;?
a� :' _'.
;;:-a::'
::�. �.
., �'i';�-;
,���
�H\
�.t' i,.
i�c:
:�.,
'�;
i
'N �
':i
� ;�
O
O
O -
O
T
C
�
�
�.
C
C
C�
C
�
C
Procedure
Distant Departure
Result
Resuft
Procedure
City of Mencioia Heights
Ciose-In Procdure is more beneficial for Mendoat Neights
population within the DNL 65 Contour
� . � � . � � (!LI����
- • � ����
ti,'�;�- �'�� `� �r �e"•� �� .ar�+y c�t*i"' � $ �:�� °n`°' 4 �—, "S
,��s�:sL�'%._�`.,air� �icn�,��.L-Sd a�''.'n�'`�.'K.�� Fyic:tw.'.-'S�';,��.Scj...u"`°t,',.��
� � ���_
� • • '• -• • . •�• .�•
� .� . . . . -. . - � . . .
. . . -
v�-� ,tp . t d' 4 ^'tu' �
�f2'� ... . � i�.a�t�.s.'�2'�.�.?�S�'�'c���a3�
'c�zS.� � ii
� �.�. '�� � ��:
��� � � � • •
� • � � • � � ��iiiiiii
�ic1i1 �iT7 ��'�7 �ti7 �
D�fFerence � 100 �$ ` • �f�.=�'��4��,��
Resuft Close-In Procdure is more beneflcial for Mendoat Heights
dwellings within the DNL 6b Contour
Difference
Resuft
2000 MSP Popula6on Counts
DNL 60 DNL 65 DNL 70 DNL 75 Total
210 0 0 0 21r0
tC .�+. � . '� u'tU'"iw'�h. �.. �. � .f i'�"SMtT '.13 �.
100 0 0 0 100
Distant Procedure reduces total dwellings within the
DNL 60 contour and is equal at the DNL 65 contour
and higher noise levels.
C
� "u'�
� .�
O E � t'
`��-1
`� M N N I.t� CO �COt�00`� a? 00 O fD O
a� � r=;..,:::,,.:0 O �
C m O O O CO O_If�,s:Ns � � � t!) tt�
((i ��`:.�+il
� rs � �;i
C.) - ::i. �1
��;...�
Z' '
6� r P� O C0 1'�- O..4��h CD 0 0'�-
� CO M CO O i�'� V�.C) r" T �- T I�`
E� L[') fD CU CO Cfl CO t0 CD CD CO CD LC)
�
E
0
"" °' �-0000000000•-
C m � O O O C O O O O O U O O
m
s
v
ca
� � M O�N•-MNt�-Md'Od:N
z°m° �c�DCCOo�c00D���cNDc.No�uN�
u�
�
O �
�
O
w�. d
tb tnc+�d'Ot-O c�'��'?d'C7�-
� m �n-, OOOOOO�OOO
R
�
y U
a�
�
t° o
CO �t �.f) t!7 (� M 1�- CO r- d: d' N
QZ U InMCOr0000NNNNtf�N
t1� Cp CC� CD CO t1') CO cD CC7 cD t!� tc�
1�
C ,_� r '-'u�j� �
p _:t_� t[s+.x;�`� .
L �, "1 L.'-�` �Li:4'� ...1. y
rir_n
Q: �/i � :��i � � � �i�:i �":j M � V Q: V
c 0� �=:N i cV c'� � e�:<<T:t � s� r- t�i �
� �;� - _ „'!
L � �r= � =
U -�, l:'�'•�:=1
c �p�Cptf�NCO'�tOOCDMtC)
� �-lf)Mt�h�tC)d'1�-r0�0
co Ci� c� Ln c� co co Cn co co tn cfl
�
O
�
y y O�?r"pONONd:�i;�rf;
G � 000�-O�OOOOrO
R
�
�
�
� �tr-�.n�-c+�or-�nm�ra��n
H d CO c'7tC')NCO�NCONNCON
oZ ��o����n���o�o��
�
d' CA N�- tY') N f�- c*J d' O d' �-
� y tOc+)CO.-NCONo�NN�N
o� t1) CO cD cD CO t!) CO Cfl CD CD tt> t(')
N m
C i
O 4�
ip � r—NC'')d't.C)CDI�Nd7��-�
U �
o Z
J
�
0
c
�
Q
m
�
O
cD
J
Z
�
c
r
.�
a� "
a�
c
m
�
v
m
�
0
c�
v
c
m
�
0
c
0
U
Q
m
'D
�
Ct�
J
Z
�
c
:c
�3
a�
rn
c
m
L
v
m
'a
�
�
�
�
N
�
C
�
�
Z
O
U
�
Q
�
A
a
�
�
c
c�.
N
�
�
tV
U
m
a
E
��
>�
��
� �c
�m
.c .N
� '�
o�
N C
� �
� O
in �' N
� N T
.� uci m
� m
N �
t0
��Z
� .c_
N'F.�; �
�7 '-'�::;: V
c6 i:s�':!' �
m ', _ o
� f,,:`:u�
� � . " .,
;
�
i )
;• �, r� ;� : � .__ =� . �- • � � � •� . � = ; � �_ -�, _ "� ��.
. `� , �;
'`�. ° : � � ' � ' _ � ; ��v .��
, • � i ���
. . ;'� �
❑ MASAC meeting agenda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for '
� March 28, 2000
0 Minutes of the February 22, 2000 MASAC meeting � �
0 Minutes of the March 8, 2000 Communications Advisory Board meeting
CI Minutes of the March 10, 2000 Operations Committee meeting �
❑ Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form :. .
❑ Blank MASAC 1Vews Feedback/Input Form
❑ Monthly Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program Update
❑ February 2000 Technical Advisor's and Corridor Reports
'2- `�1 `j
C
�
C,
�.l1 �� .J�� � l .��� �7 V �,��
���� � ��� ���� ���
t
C 2�, 2000
;� �,� � � � - � �7 � ado �� �- _ � � ��vc: � z�
-��
� �,r' . . G o✓�.t1-e,r5 c v "� ' '{� (`�t-�. � S . L� � � ►� v�"'�- �`�"
( �� •
_ �.�,� S .�.Q Z � ` bd o
� (/(ji�' �-' c...�i i� Z l 7 �,"'�' '�- � r-t. W-� t^' '�"' C� G �..�Q �" � O � . S/ � -'.. �j � S '
"'j 'Z. Q'S e.a..r- L ��c. r �,
'
c _ � � �� 5 �E-� -� �...�-� �. E--- �5 �- �I ��. t c � �. �-�E-�o�. b�
�
. ��� �� M�� �� : S�� �r.
� `✓' n v t "f" �..ft-e--33..e ,�-t.2,-w-1,w�3 �-^, �( j �'" /�. `$- ��f"5
� �
�--�-5 '� �� C C7 � c � � t � t� � � � r? `-' �' ( "'�-�0
r
,�C .� c�.o l i.� ✓�^ c�"" `� C o'-, � I'"a� �`"1 � o u�`� T"
-� -
� v�. S c� �a. C a�-
� �- �, ` � �—�. � s.�.� b �� C� ,r-� �--e-S c
�.,L �...� �, S n c � �-- � o � � � ,e�.,� w.�.Y u� �
( (=- ,� �.�..�, �,, c. � /t� � � s,-¢- — �4 � '� c c. � � f � � s s c,-e �, .r �`,�¢.�
l,,,o w'
C
(
° Y
. , ►, � . . , � � . � .
C��C�
General Meetin4
March 28, 2000
7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
6040 28TH Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
l. Call to Order, Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting February 22, 2000
3. Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
4. Guest Speaker - Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director of MAC
5. Nominations for Second Vice Chair
6. Part 150 Update Briefing Topics
• Standard Items for Noise Compatibility Program and Land Use Measures
s Proposed Mitigation Measures to Carry'Forward
7. 2000 Airport Noise and A,ir Quality Symposium Report
8. Report of the March 10, 2000 Operations Committee Meefing
9. Report of the March 8, 2000 Communications Advisory Soard Meeting - Chad
Leqve
10. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting - Chairman Mertensotto
11. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary
12. Persons Wishing-#o Address the Council �
13. Items Not on the Agenda
14. Adjournment
Next Meeting:
� ��� � �� April 25, 2000
.��1.�'AC .
� ��� �� � �� �
'I"O: Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
FI201VV�: Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor
S�.TB.TECT: Guest Speaker - MAC Executive Director, Mr. 7effrey Hamiel
DATE: March 20, 2000
M�i.SAC
At the March 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive D'uector, Mr. Jeffrey Harniel will provide
information and answer questions relative to current issues at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International
Airport and the IvIAC's perspectives on the various topics. Mr. Hamiel began lus career at the MAC as
the Aviation Noise Pro�ram Manager and has served in various capacities throughout MAC
departments. As the Executive Director, Mr. Hamiel has remained commit�ed to ensuring MSP and the
MAC system of airports remain safe, efficient and consistent with the demands of the traveling
public's present and future needs.
� � Throughout Mr. HamiePs tenure as the Executive Director he has remained committed to the policies
--' (locally and nationally), programs and issues which positively effect the noise environment in
communities surrounding MSP and the MAC's system of airports. Mr. Hamiel's adarnant support of
the MSP Part 150 program and the proposed expansion of the program (insulation out to the 60 DNL
contour and low-frequency noise impacts) through the update process represents a precedent setting
perspective relative to the recognition of airport noise impacts in communities around MSP. In
addition Mr. Hamiel is significandy involved with the Airports Council International (ACI) - North
America (NA) organization. Through his involvement with ACI-NA Mr. Hamiel has actively
participated in airport noise related initiatives, ensuring that airport noise issues are given adequate
consideration by U.S. and intemational airport executives. Currenfly Mr. Hamiel, in association with
ACI-NA, is chairing the Stage 3 Study Committee. This Committee represents an effort on behalf of
the MAC and ACI-NA to address the issue of hushkitted aircraft and the formulation of a proposed
phase-out plan.
Mr. Hamiel will provide additional information at the March 28, 2000 MASAC meeting. Please come
prepared with any questions you may have for Mr. Hamiel.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328.
T� e
FROM:
SiT�JECT.
DATE:
L � '
, �',. .• ` ��,,
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor
1oi�VL iC
New MASAC Operations Committee Chairman and MASAC 2°d Vice-
Chairman Nominations
March 2Q 2000
On February 21,.2000 Mr. John R. DeCoster, Northwest Airlines Regional Director Airport Affairs,
submitted a letter appointing Ms. Mary Loeffelholz as 'the replacement for Mr. Mark Salmen
representing Northwest Airlines on MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee. As a result of
Mr. Salmen's depart,ure, at ihe March 10, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, Chairman
Mertensotto appointed Mr. John Nelson as the temporary MASAC Qperations Committee Chairman.
A permanent MASAC Operations Committee Chairman will be established upon the completion of the
critical Part 150 update initiatives currently being conducted by the MASAC Operations Committee.
In addition, as a result of Mr. Salmen's serviee as the MASAC 2"d �ce-Chairman, nominations will be
conducted for the MASAC 2nd vice-Chairman at the Mazch 28, 2000 MASAC meeting. Nominations
will be received at the March meeting and a vote will be conducted for the new MASAC 2"d vice-
Chairman at the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting.
If you have any questions or commenu please contact me at 612-725-6328.
��
f
�o:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
� � �
��� r
�
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager - Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Part 150 Update Progress
March 20, 2000
Standard Items for Noise Comnatibilitv and Land Use A�leasures / Pro�osed MitiQation Measures
At the November 30,.1999 MASAC meeting, Council member Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, requested
that MASAC be briefed on the continuing process of the Part 150 update. Since that time a briefing
was scheduled for the February 22, Z000 MASAC meeting but had to be cancelled due to Kim
Hughes's unavail�bility. The topics and associated issues for that presentation will be presented by
Kirn Hughes, HNTB Corporation, at the Mazch 28, 2000 MASAC meeting. The briefing will provide
information on the following:
• Standard Items for Noise Compatibility Programs
• Standard Items for Land Use Measures
• Proposed Mitigation measares to Carry Forward
These topics have been initially reviewed by the MASAC Operations Committee and aze currently
under further evaluation. Tt�e briefing will describe the typical elements usually associated with each
of the above mentioned topics and the anticipated measures that will be pursued as part of this update
process.
MAC staff will also provide an update on other issues related to the progress of the Part 150 Study
update at the March 28, 2000 regularly scheduled MASAC meeting.
Contour Review
At the March 28, 2000 MASAC meeting the final 1999 Validation Contour will be presented. Final
ANOMS data, operations counts and fleet mix have been developed to accurately represent the 1999
conditions. Additionally, the 2000 Base Case Contour and 2005 Base Case (Unmitigated) Contour will
be presented. After detailed discussions with major passenger and cargo carriers at MSP, the fleet mix
for the 2000 and 2005 cases have been finalized and used to develop the contours to be presented.
Several changes in fleet mix have been made to better reflect carriers' intentions in the years 2000 and
2005 since the original presentation of the 2005 unmitigated contour. Finally, further development of
tracks has been completed to reflect the increased information provided through ANOMS data. An
outline of the topics and associated issues to be presented are: �
• 1949 Validation Contour (fleet mix and operational level finalized)
• 2000 and 2005 Base Case (Unmitigated Contours) with the most up to date projection of
fieet mix and day/night split for each year considered.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6326.
'TCI:
FRt.�1l�I:
SLT�JECT:
�DA'I'E:
`� �
�; � `; �; 1;
1l�I�SAC
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor �
2000 International Airport Noise and Air Quality Symposiums Review
March 20, 2000
On February 14-17, 2000 staff attended the 2000 International Airport Noise and Air Quality
Symposium in San Diego, California. The Symposium was sponsored by the Institute of
Transportation Studies at the University of California Berkeley. The 2000 format ofFered two
symposiums for those interested in airport environmental issues, one cavered airport noise issues and
the second covered airport air quality issues (this represented the first Air Quality Symposium held as
part of the program).
The 2000 International Airport Noise Symposium brought together diverse perspectives from U.S. and
'.� foreign airports, state and federal agencies, the airline industry and communities. More than 300
�� ,_ people were in attendance (lazgest in symposium history) and representatives from around ihe world
were on hand to participate. Topics covered as part of the 2000 International Airport Noise Symposium
included:
• What the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) accomplished and what remains to be
done
• The economic aspects of noise
• New technology and emerging issues
• Noise impaM evaluation
• Changes in noise regutations and policies
• Land use compatibility - tegulatory and process issues
• Forum on the pteservation of natural quite
1"he presentations given at the symposium concentrated on the above listed areas.
In addition to the noise symposium an Airport Air Quality Symposium was offered. T'he 2000 Airport
Air Quality Symposium represented a new conference addressing regulatory, technological, science
and planning issues. Speakers included national and international representatives of airports, airlines,
aerospace industries, governmental agencies and experts specializing in mitigation efforts. The
symposium addressed a variety of national and global issues involving airport air quality. The
presentations and information provided as part of the 2000 Airport Air Quality Symposium centered
around five questions: �
• How are government agencies coliaborating to make regulations compatible across
agencies?
• How can airports satisfy regulations while providing services to meet increased demand?
° What new operational procedures are being adopted by airlines to reduce emissions?
• What new technologies will produce cleaner and more fuel-efticient aireraft?
• How can ground access be improved?
The presentations given by the symposium participants provided insight and answers relative to the
questions listed above.
At the March 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, MAC staff will provide a review of the information provided
as part of the 2000 International Airport Noise and Air Quality Symposiums.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328.
,
�: _
�'�:
F+'ROM:
SiTBJEC'T:
DATE:
� t
�E�SI�C
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor
MAC Resolution Number 1866 Regarding Nighttime Runway Use
March 20, 2000
At the February 22, 2000 MASAC meeting discussion occurred regarding MAC Resolution number
1866 (see the attached resolution) adopted at the Februazy 22, 2000 Commission meeting. Following
the discussion a� rec}uest was made by Council member Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, requesting
additional clarification relative to the intent of MAC Resolution number 1866.
Over the years MAC occasionally reafFirms existing policies and procedures at the airport remaining
committed to supporting policies and procedures in place which help reduce the noise around MSP. By
adopting MAC Resolution number 1866, on February 22, 2000, the Commission re�rmed the use of
the Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor and in particular during the nighttime hours. The
resolution oudined MAC's support of the procedure as being consistent with the existing FAA Air
Tra�c Control Tower Order. The resolution dose not in any way represent a change in the nature and
intent of the Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. The resolution represents MAC's ongoing
commitment to existing noise reducing efforts around MSP.
It is important to note that such resolutions do not supersede the work being conducted thraugh
MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee relative to potential mitigation strategies associated
with the Part 150 update. Noise abatement measures incorporated into the Part 150 update by MASAC
and approved by the MAC would take precedence over existing procedures and endorsements there of.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328.
NIETROPOLITAN AII2PORTS COl�IlY1ISSION
RESOLLTTION NO. 1866
WI�REAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission ("-MAC") oums and operates
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport; and - �
W�REAS, as part of their ongoing noise abatement measures, MA.G and the Metropolitian
Sound Abatement Council support the use of the Ea�a.n�Mendota Heights CoFridor and in
particular its use during nighttime hours, as a procedure for avoiding nighttime activity in the
residential azeas west of Cedar Avenue and north of Highway 62; and
� WHEREAS, effective use of the Comdor requires the ongoing $upport and commi�nent of the
�Federal Aviation Administration A.ir Traffic Control ("ATC") per'sonnel.
NOW, THER.FOR.E, BE IT RESOLVED, that the MAC � reiterates its support of the
Eagan/Mendota I�eights Corridor as an important aspect .of MSP's overall noise mitigafiion plan ,.
which provides si�ificant noise relief for heavily populated areas of residential properties �
adjacent to the airport. . '
BE IT FLTRTHER R.ESOLVED, that MAC encourages the Federal Aviation Air Traffic Control
Tower personnel to continue to maximize the use of the Eagan/Mendota Heights. corridor during
quiet hours (10:30 P.M. to 6:00 A.M.) as much as feasible.by departing Runways I2L and 12R,
and landing Runways 30L and 30R.
Dated: � ��� , 2000
Mwc ��.a. �P..�.mo r�m �„m..m�
�
��:
�i2oM:
SiTBJEC'T:
DATE:
�; t �
��. ,t� •, ��:
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor
Informational Items
March 20, 2000
Passeneer Facilitv Charee (PFC) Tax Increased From �3.40 to $4.50 Per Person
On March 2, 2000 an agreement was made between U.S. House and Senate conferees to raise the
current $3.00 Passenger Facility Charge to $4.50 per person. This increase in the PFC tax represents a
significant financial influx for the purpose of U.S. airport projects, noise mitigation and any initiatives
which are worthy of PFC fund allocations. On a national level the increase equates to a$�00 million
dollar increase in PFC generated dollars. On a local level airports such as MSP with approximately 32
million passengers annually the increase equates to approximately $15-20 million dollazs (50%
increase) annually. A significant portion of M5P's noise mitigation efforts including the Part 150
program aze funded by PFCs generated at MSP. As a result, this increase in PFC taxing authority
represents a positive funding allocation for noise abatement initiatives at MSP and airports around the
country.
New Presence o Boein�717-200 Aircraft at MSP
In the February 2000 Technical Advisor's Report, for the first time, the Boeing 717-200 is shown to
have operated at MSP. Trans World Airlines (TWA) is starting to periodically fly the new aircraft into
and out of MSP. This is noteworthy due to the excellent climb performance and low noise generating
characteristics of the aircraft. Initial ANOMS evaluation showed that in some cases the B717-200 out
performs the A320 in climb performance while generating less noise energy. Attached is the specific
noise data for the one TWA B717-200 departure during February 2000. The departure generated only
one event which occurred at RMT # 16. The noise levels and duration associated with the operation
represent low noise energy emissions. (the attached information is available via a new query
application on the www.macavsat.org website). The introduction of this aircraft at MSP represents a
step towards the noise reducing benefits of newer technology aircraft.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328.
Noisc Report Smnmary
http-r�www.macavsat.org�coid_tus�on apps�m�sc;report2.cSin7Requcstluneoui=?v�.:
� • `lr
Start Date: FEB/23/Z000
End Date: FEBr24/2000
Aircraft Type: B712
RMT ID: 16
Mode of Operation: D
, •, � •
Noise Events Avg. Maa Level Avg. SEL Avg. Leq Avg. Duration
. _. .._ . ..- --
� _. _ , � .66.8 . '78.1 65.5 18.0 --
C�
1 of 1 3/20/00 7:4� AM
Metropalitan Aircraff
6040 28th Avenue South
Ghairman: Mayor Cha�les Mertensotta
Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Walter Rockenstein, It, 1982-1990
Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982
Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor:
( j
Chad Leqve
�
Sound Abatement Coun��1 (MASA�)
• Mlnneapoiis, Minnesofia 55450 • (b12) 726-8141
Louis Jambois, Director
Department of Trade and Economic Development
O�ce of CommunitY Finance
500 Meiro Square
121 7`� Place East_
St. Paul, MN 55101-2146
Dear N1r- Jambois:
March 8, 2000
The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) is an organization comprised of equal
communiry, airline and airport representarion. MASAC continually strives to find new and innovarive ways
to address airport noise issues around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP)- Through
cooperarive decision maldnS and insightful proposals, MASAC has a long list of noise reducing successes
in which bath the communities and the airlines played an active role.
MASAC is continually faced with noise issues �d �sota State Leg slature'slde c sion t keep MSP initsd
with MSP's current location. As a result of the Mu�n
present location, the financial burden associated with addressing the resultant magnitude of noise
abatement initiarives becomes immense on behalf of the Metro�ptoCo �A �° St�abi�tion Funding Task e
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Governor's Airp tY
Force's efforts to formulate new and crearive ideas to provide monies for the various un-funded noise
mitigarion iniriarives around MSP is crirical to the future realization of a holistic and comprehensive
approach to the noise abatement issue.
On behalf of MASAC, I would like to extend our sincere graritude for your presentation at the February 1 l,
2000 MASAC Operarions Committee meeting and for the tremendous amount of effort each Task Force
member put forth throughout the process. The collaborarive teamwork resulted in a prnfessional and
comprehensive plan for addressing un-funded noise mitigation iniriatives around MSP.
Sincerely,
�� '"� LL� -�
Charles Mertensotto
MASAC Chairman
Richard K Anderson
Executi�•e �'icr President
8. Ghicf Operating Officer
February 22, 2000
Chad E. Leqve
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
604U - 28�'` Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Chad,
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 2000, acknowledging the contribution of
Northwest Airlines in reducing airport noise. Northwest has made significant
investments in complying with federal Stage 3 noise emission standards through our
engine hushkitting project. We converted one-hundred-seventy-three DC-9s and thirty-
four ?2?-200s to meet Stage 3 standards and fitted four 747-200s and six 747 freighters �
with more powerFul J-type engines to meet the requirements. ,
Northwest Airlines is proud of all its groups in Technical Operations who worked very
hard to modify our fleet by the deadline for completion. Please be assured we will
continue our commitment to responsible noise mitigation.
Sincerely,
• ' • 1' 1 1
%
� �
R.ichard H. Anderson
.
• =.;.... :,, �
�K�;`:
� •,.�'ti:. ;
��''q;8��_L-
., , `: ; � ;� ; . � ',r'' ' •, •.
�
1
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEM�NT COUNCIL
GENERAL MEETING
February 22, Z000
7:30 p.m.
6040 28`h Avenue S.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Call to Order, Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Second Chair John Nelson at 7:40 p.m. The following
members were in attendance:
Mary Loeffelholz
Jennifer Sayre
Brian Simonson
Brian Bates
Bob Johnson
Petrona Lee =
John Nelson
Jamie Verbrugge
Lance Staricha
Jill Smith
Will Eginton
Neil Clark
Dean Lindberg
Dick Saunders
Leo Kurtz
Glenn Strand
Cynthia Putz-Yang
Mark Hinds
K.ristal Stokes
Stephen Wolfe
John Halla
Jeff Bergom
Tom Hansen
Advisors
Cindy Greene
Chad Leqve
Mike Pedro
Jason Giesen
Shane VanderVoort
Mark Kill
Visitors
(� � None
Northwest Airlines
Northwest Airlines
DHL Airways
Airborne
MBAA
Bloomington
Bloomington
Eagan
Eag�n
Mendota Heiglits
Inver Grove Heights
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Sunfish Lake
Richfield
Richfield
St. Louis Park
St. Paul
Burnsville
Burnsville
FAA
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
2. A�pproval of Minutes
The minutes of the 7anuary 2�, 2000 MASAC meeting were approved as distributed. �
3. Introduction of Invited Guests
There were no invited guests.
Receipt of Communications
• A letter was received from Mr. John DeCoster of Northwest Airlines notifying MASAC of a
change in membership. Replacing Mark Salmen will be Mary LoefFelholz, NWA's
Environmental Programs Manager. Second Chair Nelson noted that since Mr. Salmen had
been Chair of the Operations Committee, staff would investigate the procedure for appointin�
a new committee chair.
• A letter was received from Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, requesting information from
the Federal Aviation Administration MSP ATCT. The letter was referred to the MASAC
Operations Committee for its review and consideration.
� A letter was received from Brian Bates, Airborne Express, notifying MASAC of a change in
membership. Replacing Michael Anderson as alternate will be Jamie Dearham.
• A letter was received from Glenda Spiotta, Sunfish Lake, notifying MASAC of a change in
membership. Ms. Spiotta will now be Sunfish Lake's alternate and Ms. Cynthia Putz-Yanj
will be the MASAC representative.
• A letter was received from Neil Clark, Minneapolis, regarding a suggestion for a new yearly
trend metric to be included in the Technical Advisor's Reporf. The letter was referred to the
MASAC Operations Committee for its review and consideration.
• A copy of a letter, sent from Staff to all airlines serving MSP thanking them for their Stage 3 ( y
compliance at MSP, was available at the meeting. The letter was the result of an approved �
motion at the January 25, 2000 MASAC meeting.
• Although a formal letter had not been received, Jeff Bergom, Burnsville, has been appointed
as the City of Burnsville's representative.
4. Part 150 Update Briefina Topics
Due to unforeseen circumstances, Kim Hughes of HNTB was unable to attend the meeting. An
update on the progress of the Part 150 Update will be given at the March 28, 2000 meeting. Chad
Leqve, Technical Advisor, noted that HNTB is currently involved in finalizing the 1999
Validation Contour, the 2000 Base Case contour and the 2005 Unmitigated Contour.
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, updated the members on the plans for the next Part 150 Public
Workshops. The following dates and locations have been solidified:
Monday, May 22 - Pearl Park Comrnunity Center - Minneapolis
Tuesday, May 23 - IJnknown
Wednesday, May 24 - Pearl Park Community Center - Minneapolis
Thursday, May 25 - Royal Cliff Banquet Center - Eagan
The May MASAC meeting will be held following the public workshop on Tuesday May 23rd.
Members will be notified as to the location of both the workshop and the MASAC meetina in
subsequent mailings. (-
5. 1999 MASAC Year in Review
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the council on the 1999 MASAC Year in Review
document, which was mailed to mernbers prior to the meeting.
Mr. Leqve reviewed the following topics:
1. MASAC's Efforts to Implement New Technology
• Evaluation and endorsement of a DGPS Requirements Assessment (a review of the
completed assessment is included in the year 2000 goals and objectives and may be
included in the Part 150 Update document)
• Support and input into internet application development (ex: interactive ANOMS-like
internet application modules and noise complaint form)
• Evaluation and endorsement of a ground run-up enclosure feasibility study
(recommendations have been presented to the MASAC Operations Committee mas part
of year 2000 activities)
• ANOMS upgrade to version 63 (most significant changes to ANOMS since its inception,
allowed for Y2K compliance) and the addition of five new ANOMS remote monitoring
sites)
2. Informati�onal and Educational Briefings
• Briefing -by MAC Executive Director (new commissioners, the low frequency noise
policy committee, Part 150 Update, reliever airport legislation, Raisbeck hushkit
packages) �-
o Part 150 Study Session (moderated by HNTB}
• Briefings on technology and policy addressing noise (NASA's Advanced Subsanic
Technology (AST) Program, internet information technology, FAA's 1998 report to
l' '� congress on stage 2 phaseout)
s MSP construction briefings (Gary Warren of MAC provided a short and long-term airside
construction briefing, ongoing staff briefings)
New and Enhanced Abatement Procedures
• Follow-up crossing in the corridor analysis (follow up analysis yields finding of increased
procedure use)
• Implementation of the Minneapolis Straight-out Procedure (MASAC facilitated the
public comment portion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process)
4. Noise Monitoring Studies
o Northwest Airlines' test cell monitoring study (requested by the Eagan Airport Relations
Commission)
• MSP run-up pad monitoring (to establish a baseline for existing run-up pad noise
impacts, findings were used as part of the GRE evaluation process)
MASAC's Increased Communications Efforts
• MASAC Communications Advisory Board established (tL1ASAC News newsletter, press
releases)
• Review of monthly report formats (review continues into 2000)
6. MASAC and the Part 150 Update
• Review of Part 150-related information
+ Review and input into Part 150 topics (validation process, operational/procedural
measures and policies, contour boundary definition, land-use measures, insulation
priorities)
• Supported public workshops
Mr. Leqve also reviewed operations statistics for 1999 and included MASAC's year 2000 goals
and objectives.
• The most used aircraft in 1999 was the hushkitted DC-9 at 27.7%.
• Overall usage of Stage 2 aircraft in 1999 was 13%.
• Runway 22 departures were higher than normal due to the reconstruction of the eastern most
portion of the south parallel runway. '
• First quarter complaints for 1999 were up from 1998 and 1997, possibly due to advanced
communication regarding the south parallel runway reconstruction project.
o Monthly average RMT DNL values per community from 1995 to 1999 were included in the
analysis.
Discussion
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, questioned Mr. Leqve about the goals and objectives for the year
2000 included in the document. He asked how it had been organized. Mr. Leqve said it
represents a summary of the goals and objectives calendar endorsed by MASAC at the January
2000 meeting. He noted that the goals and objectives had originated with the MASAC Executive
Committee. �-
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said the MASAC goals and objectives schedule represents more of an
agenda than goals and objectives. He said it mixes details with long-term issues.
(..
Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked if the list of goals and objectives included in the Year in
Review was consistent with what MASAC approved at the January meeting. Chad Leqve,
Technical Advisor, said the list is a summary and reflects the approved goals and objectives
calendar.
Second Vice Chair Nelson suggested that in the future a more in-depth explanation as to why the
goals were chosen be included in the process.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, suggested that MASAC engage in a discussion of long-term goals
(2005 to 2010) noting that the Part 150 Update will include operational procedures and policies
that will be in place between now and 2005. Second Chair Nelson suggested that MASAC may
want to enaage in a Strategic Planning process, similar to what the MAC does, to set short- and
long-term goals.
Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked if the summarized goals and objectives were placed in any
particular order. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said that they were not.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, said for future Year in Reviews staff might want to consider
including a discussion of the costs and resources associated with the accomplished items.
JILL SNiITH, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA,
SECONDED TO ACCEPT TI3E REPORT AS PRESENTED AND THAT IT BE
FORWARDED TO THE MAC PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE �'OR
�
REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION. TI3E VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION
CARRIED. �
6. Report of the Februarv 11, 2000 O_perations Committee Meetin�;
Second Chair John Nelson reported on the February 1 l, 2000 Operations Committee meeting.
Draft Ground Run-up Enclosure (GRE) Feasibility Study
• Mr. Ted Woosley of Landrum and Brown presented the study and the recommendations
• The Operations Committee has asked for additional information to be discussed at the March
meeting.
• The committee plans to make a recommendation to MASAC in April.
Governor's Airport Stabilization and Funding Report
• Mr. Louis Jambois from the Department of Trade and Economic Development presented the
report.
• The committee accepted the report and forwarded it to the full MASAC body for review.
• The report investigated all potential funding sources for noise mitigation projects and the
level of revenue that could be raised from each.
• Second Chair Nelson encouraged members to read the report, which was provided at the
. meetina.�-
Part 1 SO Sound Insulation Program - Beyond DNL 65
Mr. Steve Vecchi, MAC Part�� 150 Manager, presented additional information about plans and
possible changes to the program for the next round of sound insulatian.
1999 Validation Contour, 2000 Base Case Contour and 2005 Unmitigated Contour
� Staff and HNTB are continuing to gather dat� far these contours. The contours will be presented
� � to the Operations Committee at the March 10 meeting.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, clarified that the Governor's Task Force focused their efforts on
what is needed over and above what the MAC already provides for noise mitigation. He said it is
an open question as to how the report might be used for future mitigation funding options. He
said the Task Force based its work on the decision made by the Legislature in 1996 to keep the
airport at its present location.
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the Task Force also found that the State has a responsibility
to support the necessary noise mitigation measures that are a result of the 1996 decision. He
noted that one of the Task Force's proposals was to cap sales taxes at the airport at 1996 levels
and using the excess for noise mitigation measures.
Second Chair Nelson noted that a bill has been introduced to the Legislature (Senate File 2937)
that includes provisions based on the Task Force's proposals. (A copy of the proposed legislation
was included with the minutes of the February Operations Committee minutes.) He said a
number of cities_have.reviewed the �roposed.legislation.axd submitted-comments and that it is a
work in progress at this point.
Jamie Verbruage, Eagan, said the legislation includes provisions for each community adjacent to
the airport. He reiterated that the legislation includes provisions for a sales tax capture and is
similar to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) concept. He said the legislation makes the
argument that if the airport had not expanded at its present location, the additional sales tax would
�
not have been generated. He encouraged MASAC members to review the bill and contact their
legislators if they are in favor of its provisions.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked who the authors of the bill are. Mr. Verbrugge said the �
authors are:
• D. H. Johnson (Bloomington)
• Deanna Weiner (Eagan)
s John C. Hottir�ger
e Douglas J. Johnson
• Carol Flynn
Second Vice Chair recognized Mr. Verbrugge for his participation on the Task Force.
7. Report of the Low Frequencv Noise Policv Committee Meetin�s - Dick Saunders
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, reported on the last two Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee
meetings.
• The last meeting held with the expert panel was on February 7, 2000 at which time the panel's
final reco�nmendations were presented.
• Three contour lines were established: an 87 dB, a 78dB and a 70dB.
s The 87dB contour is the line at which residential occupancy was deemed incompatible by the
expert paneL �
� The bulk of the 87dB contour lies within the airport property.
• Within the 78dB contour, there would be noticeable rattling of windows, pictures on a wall
and dishware. No treatment or remedy was proposed.
• The area between 78 and 70dB was deemed not to be impacted to the point of needing � a
miti�ation. �
o There was not unanimous agreement between the three expert panel members.
� One proposal was to create a four-decibel margin of error on either side of the existing
contour lines to take into account all possible options.
• The panel also did not agree as to the impacts of reverse thrust on the contours.
At its meeting on February 14, the LFNP committee accepted the 87dB contour as level at which
redevelopment would be necessary. The committee also did not accept the proposal to designate
a four-decibel mar�in of error it felt it would destroy the integrity of the study, which would make
it difficult to apply for federal funding. The committee also agreed to accept using projected
runway use data rather than basing impacts on a 100% runway usage scenario. The committee
did not feel this was a realistic scenario.
Second Vice Chair John Nelson asked if the committee would meet again. Mr. Saunders said the
committee has completed its work and does not plan to meet again.
Second Vice Chair Nelson asked how the report would be incorporated into the Part 150 update
document. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the MAC and the City of Richfield were
producing the report. He said the intent is to make the report a part of the Part 150 docurnent.
8. Report of the Februarv 9 2000 Communications Advisorv Board Meeting — Chad Leqve
There was no report of the Communications Advisory Board meeting. (
\
Re�ort of the MAC Commission Meetin�
Bob Johnson, MBAA, reported on the February 22, 2000 MAC Commission Meeting. He
reported that Commissioner Himle, Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee, had
' ' resigned from the Commission and that MAC's bond rating had been upgraded. Commissioner
Roger Hale will assume chairmanship of the Planning and Environment Committee.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the Commission had also endorsed the use of the
Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor, which was forwarded to the Commission for endorsement from
the Planning and Environment Committee following a special meeting held the same day.
Significant discussion followed. Both Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, and Jill Smith,
Mendota Heights, expressed concern about why the Planning and Environment Committee and
the Commission endorsed a noise abatement procedure without input from MASAC and while
the Part 150 update was in process. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked staff to report back to the
council at its next meeting as to why this endorsement was made and how it will affect the Part
150 update process.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he felt the endorsement was a reafFrmation of the existing preferred
procedure and was relative to the existing operations at MSP.
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the motion represents an endorsement of the existing
policy/procedure and that any changes that are made to the Part 150 update would supersede this
action. �.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, reported, as well, that the MAC had presented its Strategic Plan
Report to the Commission and that Goal #9 reads, "to continue leadership in environmental
�
mitigation."
10. Technical Advisor's Report
Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, answered questions about the Technical Advisor's reports for
January 2000.
• Most complaints during the month of January were made between 4:00 and 8:00 p.m.
• Northwesterly winds were prevailing.
• There was 100% Stage 3 usage at the airport during January.
o The reported noise levels decreased within the top 10 noise events tables.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, noted that although the noise levels have dropped in the top
10 tables, the worst offenders for noise continue to be the hushed 727's.
Jennifer Sayre, NWA, announced that Northwest Airlines now has a plan in place to replace their
727 aircraft with A320's and A319's in staged phases starting in 2002. She said by 2004 all of
NWA's 31 hushed 727's will have been replaced.
Neil Clark, Minneapolis, said he doesn't believe there has been any reduction in aircraft generated
noise with the use of hushkitted aircraft. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said based on FAA
Part 36 data and the drop in noise levels in the top ten tables, there has been a drop in overall
noise levels. He said hushkitted aircraft provide a noise reduction of approximately four to six
decibels from Stage 2 aircraft.
Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, noted that it is possible, however, that the increase in the number of
operations at the airport has masked the reduction in individual aircraft noise events.
1 l. Persons Wishins to Address the Council �
�
There were no persons wishing to address the council.
12. Items Not on the Asenda
Second Vice Chair Nelson announced that there would be a special Operations Committee
meeting on Friday March 24, 2000. �
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked staff to provide a summary of the Aviation Noise Symposium for
the next month's meeting. ,
Jennifer Sayre, NWA, responded to a question about power backs from the last meeting. She said
that although there are no restrictions on power backs, Northwest Airlines does not generally
perform them during the nighttime, mostly due to the fact that there are no scheduled depariures
at that time. She said NWA only uses power backs wi�h DC9's and 727's.
13. Adjournment
Second Chair Nelson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
�`. . � ; � �' , • i � � '� ', , . ..
; �; , � ; : ,. . , • ;� �, � �, �`_ �. �; .�`
�,
0
< ��-
' 1,
(
MINUTES
� � ♦ ��. ��. .,.. ' . . . 4 . . ' /. . � . :'. ',� '.• "�� , � �, �,
March 8, 2000
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission Lar�e Conference Trailer and
called 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
MA.0
MAC
MAC
The minutes of the February 9, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed.
Review Dra ft 2"d Ouarter Newsletter Content
Committee members and staff reviewed the draft content for the second quarter newsletter. The
following comments were made:
s Since the results of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee are not clear-cut at this
point, the planned article regarding the Committee's findings will not be included.
� To replace the LFNPC article, an article highlighting MASAC's 1999 accomplishments and
its goals and objectives for 2000 will be included. The presentation given to the MAC
Planning and Environment Committee will be used to outline the 2000 goals and objectives.
The list should include, in this order, Part 1 SO Involvement, Technical Evaluations and
Study, Orientation and Education, and Communication Efforts.
• A footnote should be added that those interested in obtaining a copy of the 1999 MASAC
Year zn Review should contact the secretary.
• The names of the new MASAC members should be included in the newsletter.
• The use of the acronyms, NEM and INM, should be used sparingly. Refemng to the NEM as
the noise exposure map and the INM as the FAA's computer modeling program is preferred.
MASAC's Involvement in the Part 150 Update
o Reference HNTB as the consultant working with MAC on the Part 150 update in the first
paragraph. � (-
o Move the last sentence of the first para�raph to the end of the article. Rework the sentence
for readability purposes.
What is DNL? and How is it Used to Ouantifv Impact Under Part 150�
• Clarify the second paragraph to say that nighttime flights aze given a ten decibel penalty
rather than stating that these flights are penalized by a factor of ten.
MSP Construction Update
There was discussion as to the relevancy of the construction items listed. Members felt the most
significant items were the first phase construction of runway 17/35 and the extension of the south
parallel runway to accommodate long-haul flights during 2001 when runway 4/22 is extended
and taken out of service.
Because the FAA has not ruled on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the extension of
runway 4/22 and the impacts to the community associated with the south parallel being used as
the long-haul runway have not yet been defined, it was decided that the full listing of items
should be included with the two projects mentioned above listed first.
Members agreed that an article on the effects of the extension of the. south parallel runway
should be included once the potential impacts are defined and the EA is complete.
A discussion of the proposed graphics to be included in the newsletter followed. Members asked �
that the graphics be made as clear and readable as possible. Members also discussed the
appropriate captions for each image.
For the DNL graphic the caption could read somethin� like, "The graph above depicts the added
nighttime penalty to flights occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m."
For the graphic showing runway use designations, the caption should explain how runway
designations are derived.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, submitted an edited copy of the draft content for consideration.
The second quarter newsletter is scheduled for distribution on Apri13, 2000.
The next meeting of the Communications Advisory Board will be held April 12, 2000 at 3:30
p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski, Secretary
r
� ? .� �' ; i �' �. •. � : i �, � � ;� � ♦ -.,_ � s
� � � . � � �. � � � '.' � �� �'. � ; ��,�
UNAPP]E2OVED M I N U T E S
' MASAC OPERATIONS COIVIl'VVIIITTEE
March 10, 2000
The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
called to order at 9:00 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
Shane VanderVoort
Jason Giesen
Mark Ryan
Steve Vecchi
Cindy Greene
Visitors:
Kent Duffey
Kim Hughes
Jennifer Sayre
Kevin Batchelder
Will Eginton
Glenn Strand
William Kuntz
Jan DelCalzo
Approval of Minutes
Bloomington
Minneapolis
MBAA
NWA
Mendota. Heights
Eagan
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
FAA
�Il�TI'B
HNIB
NWA
Mendota Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Minneapolis
Visitor
City of Minneapolis
. � .
MASAC Chair, Charles Mertensotto, asked if there were any additions or corrections to the February 1 l,
2000 minutes. Jennifer Sayre, NWA, noted a change on page five of the minutes. T'he last sentence of
the fifth full para�aph should read, "He said a typical run-up for periodic check would last about 4 to 5
minutes." She said, although the complete "in to out" time for a run-up is about 45 minutes, the engine
1
run time is only 4 to 5 minutes. With this change, the minutes were approved as distributed.
\
Appointment of Operations Committee Chair
MASAC Chair, Charles Mertensotto, appointed John Nelson, Bloomington, as interim chair of the
Operations Committee. A pern�anent appointrnent will be made within the next three to four months.
Administrative Details
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that due to schedule conflicts, the Operations Comrriittee meetings would
now begin at 10:30 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. Ghauman Nelson asked staff to send a notice of the
change in meeting time before the March 24 meeting to the MASAC body as a whole. �
Correspondence
Chairman Nelson reviewed the five correspondence received and outlined how they would be handled.
o The letter from Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, requesting information from Cindy Greene,
FAA, was to be discussed at a later time in the meeting.
• The letters from Steven Hugh and Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, were to be discussed during
the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor discussion.
o'The letter from Neil Clark would be discussed as part of the Technical Advisor's Report revision
discussions be? nning in April. .
• 11 ' : ' i l • 1 : • : � :1 � I: • • � 1 1 i
�. �, ,. � �. � . �� ., � � � �
. • �� � � � • :� � � � • � �� . . r � � :�
•� �• � • � � � :� � t • • • •��� �
Discussion of GRE
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefed the mernbers on how the Capital Improvement Program (CII') at MAC
would be affected if a new GRE were to be recommended.
• MAC and the airlines have just recently negotiated an airline lease agreernent, after three years of
negotiations.
� The lease lists the projects included in the CIP that are being planned and executed as part of the
MSP 2010 plan.
o Plans for a new GRE are not included in the CIP.
• However, over the next 10 years, plans and projects will be added and/or dropped from the CIP. It
is understood between the MAC and the airlines that when these additional projects are deemed
necessary, a negotiation process will take place. (For instance, if there is a cost savings on one or
more projects, a project ma.y be added to the CIP.)
o These negotiations are based on the priorities of both the MA.0 and the airlines.
o Preparation of the following year's CIP is begun in May and June, _with adjustments made
throughout the year, and is approved by the Commission in December.
Mr. Fuhrmann also briefed the members on low frequency noise issues for the proposed new GRE.
• A ma.jority of the run-ups are conducted at power settings at less than 80% power.
• The maximum time at full power is four to five minutes.
• Departures and other activities at the airport mask the low frequency noise associated with a run-up.
This assumes that run-ups are generally not performed during nighttime hours when ambient levels
at and around the airport may be lower.
Mr. Fulu-rnann introduced two additional pages to the GRE Feasibility Study. Page 17 depicts the Leqr
contours (DNL was not used since run-ups are prohibited between 12 midnight and 5 a.m.) at both the
current Ground Run Up Pad (GRP) and an alternative location at the end of runway 22, historically used
by the Air National Guard for their C130 aircraft. (Currently the altemative ground run up location is at
the end of runway 04. T'his location will no longer be available after next year.) The runway 22 run up
pad has no noise attenuation barriers. Ninety-five percent of the run-ups currently taking place at the
airport are completed at the primary GRP. The contour for the runway 22 run up area assumes five
percent of run-ups would have to take place at this location once the 04 alternative is no longer available.
Page 18 depicts a worst-case scenario for an unattenuated run-up at the runway 22 locarion for a single
event using a DC9 Hushkitted aircraft.
Mr. Fuhrmann said a final GRE report will be distributed when it is completed at the end of March. .
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, asked if the low frequency noise generated by a run up at the
GRP would be masked by the two parallel runways without the new north-south runway in operation.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the majority of the low frequency noise, with respect to the run up pad,
�� � affecting the communities would be masked by operations from the north-south runway.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, clarified that although there may be cost savings from one or more projects in
the CIP, other projects may go over budget and those cost savings may be needed for those over-budget
proj ects.
Chairman Nelson asked if the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee considered low frequency noise
generated by run-ups on the 04/22 runway in its analysis. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the LFNPC
concentrated on low frequency noise generated by departures and arrivals (reverse thrust).
Chairman Nelson asked how the LFSL low frequency noise contours were generated. Roy Fuhrmann,
MAC, said the contours ase a combination of the maxirnum low frequency noise level between the
octave band of 25 and 80 hertz.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, asked if the contours had been verified through field
measurements. . Roy Fuhrniann, MAC, said, yes, the measurements taken in the community are
consistent with the contours. He said staff is confident that the model represents reality.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, then explained NWA's position on the need for a GRE. A letter from Mike
Mahoney of NWA was distributed. Ms. Loeffelholz made the following points:
• Through research, NWA found that there was not a clearly defined need within NWA to support
constructing a GRE. �
e Although in the past NWA has had concerns about not being able to perform run-ups during the late
evening and early moming hours, these problems have been addressed through changes in how
NWA does business, particularly its maintenance operations. Most of its wide-body fleet run-ups are
being performed in Detroit now.
• The GRE project was not contemplated within the CIP. It could require the eliminarion of other
projects that are more beneficial to noise concerns.
• The bottom line is that a new GRE would not give NWA much more than what it has today to work
with at MSP, and NWA can operate within the current constraints.
A discussion followed regarding the specifics of the changes NWA has made to accommodate its
maintenance operarions. Mary Loeffelholz, NW.A, said the inability to perform run-ups in the evening
hours was not the reason maintenance operations have been moved to Detroit. She said the maintenance
operations were moved because it was a more e�cient way to do business.
Ms. Loeffelholz said NWA tends to be fiscally constrained. Jennifer Sayre, NWA, noted also that the
costs of improvements in the infrastructure at MSP are rather large at this point.
7ennifer Sayre, NWA, said she believed most of the requests for perforn�ing run-ups during the shoulder
hours of the curfew are occurring during the 5:15 to 5:30 a.m. timeframe rather than during the 10:30 to
12:00 midnight timeframe and asked iZoy Fuhrmann, MAC, if that assumption was correct. Mr.
Fuhrmann said that although a larger number of requests may be occumng during the early morning
times, there continues to be requests for performing run-ups during the 10:30 p.m. to 12 midnight
timeframe.
�
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, noted that the GRE Feasibility Study was not based on NWA's
wide-body aircraft run-up operations only and that a GRE would benefit the airport as a whole. He said
he feels MASAC would be misdirected to consider the benefits of a new GRE based solely on cost
issues. He said it was also important to plan for the future, when there will be less DC-10 aircraft (large)
and more Airbus aircraft (smaller). Jennifer Sayre, NWA, said she and Ms. Loeffelholz were asked to
bring information on their cost-benefit analysis to the group and that is what was being presented.
Ms. Sayre also noted that in the 1998 Ground Noise Study, ground noise had been identified as a
marginal source of noise at the airport. She said the study shows that communities will not hear ground
noise during the day, when run-ups are occurring, because the activity at the airport masks it. She said
NWA would rather spend funds on other environmental projects.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if NWA or other carriers were to re-institute the Asia-Pacific flights
whether it would affect the need to perform run-ups during the curfew timeframe. Mary Loeffelholz,
NWA, said even if these flights were to be re-instituted, they would most likely not depart in the
morning, so there would be plenty of opportunity to perform run-ups during off-curfew times. She said
substitutions in aircraft could also be made if it becomes necessary.
Mr. Saunders then asked if NWA could support modifying the existing GRP, as outlined in the
feasibility study, which would be of less cost than building a new GR.E.
4
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, then briefly explained the modification alternatives contained in the feasibility
; study. He said there were three modifications to the existing GRP that were outlined in the study, the
first of which provided aerodynamic benefits for run-up operations but did not offer noise reduction
benefits.
T'he other two were (1) to extend the west wall of the GRP and (2) to attach acousrical panels to the back
of the blast fence walls. Each option would help attenuate noise by about 6 dba. If both options were
exercised and acousrical panels were attached to the west wall, as well, it would cost approximately $3
million. This compares with an estimate of $5 million for a new GRE across from the existing GRP.
The level of noise reduction would be approximately 6 decibels to the west, south and east.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said MASAC and the Operations Committee should be concerned
with abating noise rather than the costs associated with abating noise. He said the question should be
whether the proposal benefits the communities by reducing noise generated at the airport. Mr.
Batchelder said he also felt the $5 million cost for constructing a new GRE was relatively small
compared to the total CIl' budget. He said �5 million of a$2.1 billion CIP budget is like adding $5 to a
$2000 budget and does not represent a significant increase in the overall budget. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC,
noted that approximately $410 million of the CIP budget has been designated for noise abatement
projects including sound insulation of both homes and schools.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said it was irnportant to lrnow whether the funds for the proposed GRE would
be taken out of the $410 million budgeted for noise abatement projects. He also said he did not lrnow
whether or not his community would benefit from the addition of a GRE since a majority of the noise is
masked by daytime operations. However, he said he did not believe a decision should be based on
parochial concerns.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, then explained the noise level reduction benefits for each area around the airport
for each of the alternarives. He said the rise in noise levels at each of the monitored locarions at 11:00
p.m. while a run up was occurring in the GRP was:
l. In Bloomington - 8 decibels
2. In Richfield - 15 decibels
3. In Minneapolis - 4 decibels
4. In St. Paul - 3 decibels
5. In Mendota Heights - 3 decibels
6. In Eagan - 1.5 decibels
• A rise of 3 decibels or less is undetectable to the human ear.
The following scenarios assume either the GRP or GRE is being used and that a run up is being
performed during a"quieter" time at the airport. These scenarios are also based on a single event.
Addition of a GRE (�S million)
o Reduction of 15 decibels in Richfield, which would make an engine run-up unnoticeable
• Run-ups would be unnoticeable in all other areas
5
Increase Height of West Wall ($1 million)
• Reduction of 6 decibels in Richfield (a rise of about 9 decibels over ambient compared to 15 �
decibels without the modification)
• Reduction of 2 to 3 decibels in Bloomington (a rise of about 5 decibels over ambient compared to 8
decibels without modification)
• No changes to decibel levels in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mendota Heights or Eagan
Attach Acoustical Panels to South Wall Only ($1.5 million)
• No reduction to Richfield, Minneapolis and St. Paul.
• Make noise unnoticeable in Mendota Heights and Eagan locations
s Reduction of 2 to 3 decibels in Bloomington
Acoustical Panels on All Walls and a Heightened West Wall ($3 million)
o Reduction of 8 decibels in Richfield (a rise of about 7 decibels over ambient compared to 15
decibels without the modification)
• Reduction of 6 decibels in Bloomington (a rise of about 2 decibels over ambient compared to 8
decibels without the madification)
• No reduction of levels in Minneapolis or St. Paul locations
• Make noise unnoticeable in Mendota Heights and Eagan
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, reminded the members that the data being discussed is based on a single event
run-up in the evening at a time when there normally would not be a run-up. She also noted that there are
only an average of 4.5 run-ups performed each day. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC,�said it is true that during the
day under riormal operating conditions, the noise levels associated with a nui-up would not be heard over
the ambient daytime levels. He said the report is, by design, based on a worst-case scenario. (
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Fieights, said the question to answer is whether the benefits of the proposal
are so marginal as to not recommend it, or does it offer a tangible reduction in noise levels as to lead to a
favorable recommendation. He said MASAC has akeady recognized that because many of the more
significant noise abatement measures have already been accomplished, it is now forced to work toward
incremental changes and improvements, which a new GRE may afford.
Steve Vecchi, MAC Part 150 Manager, noted that the sound insulation program is currently spending $3
million per month to insulate approximately 80 homes against noise. He said a GRE at a cost of $5
million, on the other hand, would benefit many more homes on a permanent basis at certain g-iven times
during the day. He said he thought a cost benefit analysis of a GRE taking into account the amount the
Commission is spending on insulating homes, would show a cost benefit.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said it is important that MASAC do everything possible to reduce
noise generated at the airport that impacts neighboring comrnunities. He said there would be political
ramifications for not recommending any mitigation measure that could even incrementally reduce the
noise impacts.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, noted that a number of homes in the impacted areas could possibly be bought
out in both Bloomington and Richfield. He asked Mr. Fuhrmar�n how these possibilities affect the
impact of the run-ups at MSP. Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the location in Richfield monitored for the GRE
Feasibility Study was located approximately four blocks west of Cedar Avenue. Although
redevelopment plans for Richfield continue to be uncertain, the area agreed upon in the LFNP
Committee as needing mitigation was no more than two blocks west of Cedar Avenue.
Mr. Verbrugge, Eagan, also asked how many run-ups of the approximately 2000 in 1999 were performed
during the nighttime hours. Roy Fuhrn�ann, MAC, said he did not have that information but would be
happy to provide it at the next meeting.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she did not feel that comparing the cost of a GRE to the cost of insulating
individual homes per month was valid. She said the comrnittee should base its decision on truly what is
the impact to the communities from the eacisting operations in the defined hours of operation.
Chairman Nelson suggested four ways in which to move forward with the issue:
l. Incorporate certain elements of the GRE Feasibility Study as part of the low frequency noise portion
of the Part 1S0 update document.
2. Include the recommendation as part of the MAC CIl'.
3. Include the recommendation as an element of the Part 150 update document.
4. Elect not to move-the recommendation forward.
There are also several modification or redesign proposals for the existing GRP. Chairman Nelson
encouraged the members to once again�review the GRE Feasibility Study and the 1998 Ground Noise
Monitoring Study before the April meeting. Chauman Nelson also asked staff to prepare a more in-
depth briefing of the modification alternatives discussed in the study.
Finalize 1999 Validation, Base Case 2000 and 2005 Projected Contours
Kim Hughes, HNTB, introduced Kent Duffey of HNTB who explained how the updated contours had
changed and why.
Overall, the changes to the contours are due to the following:
l. A change to INM version 6.0
o Takes into account humidity and its affect on the absorprion of noise by air (higher humidity =
less noise absorption) MSP has an average humidity level of 69.8%, which increased the
contour over the previous version of the model.
• Takes into account the spectral shape of aircraft noise
s Better terrain processing
2. Additional information
ANOMS data for the full 1999 calendar year is now available
There were changes in the actual 1999 full year fleet mix and operational level compared to the
projected
Revised fleet mix information for the 2005 contour, including enhanced information frorn cargo
carriers and Northwest Airlines
3. INM model refinements
e Model now includes seasonal variations in runway use (for instance, heavier aircraft are not as �
. sensitive to runway length between January and March)
� Refinements in track location and� full year gate analysis, including track dispersion. There are
now 170 modeled tracks.
� Improvements in modeling heavy aircraft departures
• Additional operational categories to segregate heavy, prop and jet operations
• Improved information on average aircraft takeoff weights by trip/stage length.
• NADPs are now applied to all jet operations above 75,000 (previously only for NWA)
1999 Yalidation Contour:
l. Better gate definitions and track dispersions, along with an increase of about 4% in operations on
runway 30L (north parallel) contribute significantly to the change in the northern lobe.
2. To the east, the changes reflect better terrain processing within INM version 6.0. It also reflects
better data.
Validation data from the RMT sites compared with the modeled contours was distributed to show
how well the model predicts actual noise levels. T'here was a ma�cimum deviation of 1.9dB DNL. A
change of 3 dB DNL is necessary for the human ear to notice a change so the model reasonably
predicts actual noise levels.
A discussion of the p90° flight track ensued. Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he was
concerned that this track use was underrepresented based on the symmetry of the contours for both
ends of the runways. Kent Duffey, FiNTB, said off that runway, the most common track heading is �
105°. He also noted that the density of flights and the type of aircraft using a track will also affect
the contour. He noted that the 12L B departure track, which represents the 090° track, is heavily
influenced by the predominance of prop aircraft using that track. (See 1999 Validation Contour INM
Input Data)
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked Mr. Duffey whether the model takes into account areas
where multiple flight tracks intersect. Mr. Duffey said the model does take that into account as part
of how it works. Mr. � Eginton asked Mr. Duffey about the possibility that "noise islands" could be
formed at locations where multiple flight tracks intersect farther from the airport. Mr. Duffey said,
due to the altitude of the aircraft at locations such as six miles out, the naise heard on the ground
would be significantly negated. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reiterated that the modeled contour and the
actual noise levels at the monitoring towers were very close, even at the furthest out monitoring
tower.
2000 Base Case Contour
The 2000 base case contour essentially uses the same inforn�ation as the 1999 validation contour but
with a projected increase in operations and changes in fleet mix (some stage 2 to all stage 3). The base
case contour is used to illustrate the existing conditions. The changes between the 1999 validation
contour and the 2000 base case contour is the change in fleet mix to an all stage 3 fleet in 2000.
E:?
i 2005 Unmitigated Contour
Chairman Nelson noted that the 2005 unmitigated contour is the contour that will be used to determine
how the various mitigation measures proposed and studied will affect the noise environment around
MSP.
Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the changes between the preliminary 2005 unmitigated contour and the
updated 2005 unmitigated contour are due to the reasons discussed earlier. In general, the contour to the
northwest is more widespread because there is better dispersion of flight tracks, seasonal differences
have been accounted for, and a full year of data is available to deterrnine runway use.
Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, asked why there was a change in the placement of the northern most
lobe between the 2000 base case and the 2005 unmitigated contour. Mr. Duffey said that although the
flight tracks had not changed, the runway use percentages for the northern parallel runway change
between the 2000 base case and the 2005 unmitigated contour. (2005 unmitigated contour was developed
with only six months of ANOMS data, 2000 base case used all of 1999 ANOMS data)
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked how the runway use was split on the parallel runways. Mr. Duffey
directed the members to= the MSP Part 150 Runway Use page of the packet where percentages of
departures and arrivals for both the�day and nighttime, as well as for the type of operation, is available.
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, noted that the accuracy of the projections of runway use, operational
categories and the levels of operations significantly affect the contour. He then asked whether or not
various scenarios for changes in these variable have been considered and plugged into the model. Kent
�, ) Duffey, HNTB, reiterated that the three variables II�TM is most sensitive to are the fleet mix, the runway
use and the flight tracks.
Chauman Nelson said he feels the 2005 unmitigated contour reflects the best assumptions and data
available and that the more pressing and challenging work is to decide on what mitigation measures to
apply.
Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Discussion
Chairman Nelson introduced the topic of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor and indicated that the
conespondence received regarding the topic would be discussed and considered at this time. He also
said it was his intention for the comrnittee to take action on the topic and that recommendations from the
committee would be forwarded to the full MASAC body for discussion.
Cindy Greene, FAA, presented information that was requested by Will Eginton of Inver Grove Heights
regarding why all aircraft do not necessarily turn at the three-mile mark at the end of the industrial
corridor when departing off the end of runway 12L and 12R.
Ms. Greene explained that approximately four years ago the community of Inver Grove Heights asked
that a tower order be changed to reflect its desire to have aircraft turned "as soon as practicable" after the
three-mile mark. Ms. Greene said at the time the FAA. MSP Air Traffic Control Tower personnel
attempted to reassure the community that they were already doing everything possible to be sure aircraft
were turned as soon as they were able at the three-mile mark. .Although a change in the tower order
would not impact how aircraft were operated in the corridor, as an act of goodwill toward the city, the (
FA.A included the language in the tower order. The tower order language is as follows:
"Proceed on the assigned heading until at least three miles from the depart�ire end of the runway then
assign on-course headings as soon as practicable at the three-mile point."
The change is the addition of "...then assign on-course headings as soon as practicable at the three-mile
point."
Ms. Greene said the air traffic control tower had already been perfornung the order in this rnatter and the
change in the language did not affect operations in the corridor.
Ms. Greene then explained how aircraft are operating in the corridor in reference to the three-mile turn
and handed out a diagram of the 12L and 12R video map.
Ms. Greene said the air traffic controllers consider four variables when determining when an aircraft can
be turned on course.
l. Separation from succeeding or proceeding departures. When aircraft are departing
simultaneously, they must be separated by 15 degrees. Most of the prop aircraft are sent out on the
90 degree heading (farther to the north of the corridor) because they aze slower than jet aircraft and
could interfere with operations in the corridor. Before a controller can turn an aircraft off the 15
degree divergence, there must be another form of separation, which will either be a three mile
separation or 1000 feet in altitude.
2. The ultimate destination of the aircraft. All of the departures to the top 15 airport destinations �•
exit the airspace between 110 and 240 degrees. The top seven destinarions all exit the aizspace
between 110 and 130 degrees, which means a good many departures will never be turned based on
the need to exit the airspace between 110 and 130 degrees.
3. Activities occurring at the St. Paul Airport. MSP operations co-exist with operations at St. Paul
Downtown Aiiport. In order to operate at the same time, the FA.A has designed the airspace with
separations. Any departure that comes from MSP and needs to cross into the St. Paul airspace (cross
the solid blue line) must be at 4,000 feet altitude or greater. Aircraft operating in and out of the St.
Paul airport can operate at 3,500 feet or lower, which will shield them from the operations from
MSP.
4. Arrival corridors (STAR). A large portion of the arrivals coming into MSP airspace originate at
the eastem STAR, with the second busiest being to the south. Aircraft enter the airspace at 11,000
feet and do not drop below 8,000 feet until they reach the final approach. 1n order for aircraft
departing to the east and south to miss arriving aircraft, the departing aircraft must either stay at
7,000 feet or below or climb to 12,000 feet and above. Half of the time departing aircraft are directed
to climb and half the time they are directed to stay at 7,000 feet or below.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the MSP tower controllers coordinated with the St. Paul
controllers. Ms. Greene said they do not because it is unnecessary.
Mr. Eginton asked Ms. Greene if the MSP control tower is ever in control of the St. Paul airspace. Ms.
�
Greene said the MSP tower does not control St. Paul Downtown Airport's airspace. She said when the
to�� " at St. Paul is closed at night the airspace becomes uncontrolled. This does not mean, however,
tha� _�rcraft cannot arrive and depart to and from the airport during this rime, only that there is no
controller on duty to assist with the operation.
Mr. Eginton said his concern is that when the corridor was established it was assumed that there would
be the opportunity and necessity for equal fanning of aircraft after three miles, but that in reality, this has
not proven operationally feasible or desirable. Ms. Greene reiterated thaf if the corridor were not in
place today, she would not expand the headings to the north because of the four considerations discussed
above. She said the only operational change she could make safely is to widen the corridor to the south
to a 140-degree heading. She said the "Corridor" is not what is hindering the aircraft from turning to the
north.
Mr. Eginton asked if the location of the airspace e cor dors are not based on the position of the
considerations. Ms. Greene said the airspace departur
other airspace departure corridors but on the destination of the aircraft.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if headings s and thus the he dings giv n to auc a�ft are
headings. Ms. Greene said aircraft fly by aircraft heading
magnetic. -
Members then broke for lunch. =
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, addressed the remaining conespondence. He noted the following:
e: Iomes within the new 65 DNL contour not insulated as part of the current insulation program, will
be insulated first. Insularion prioritization will be based on the degree of impact.
o A block prioritization map will be produced, similar to the current prioritization map, which takes
into account DNL levels, by one decibel intervals, the number of overflights a block would
experience in an average day and the associated altitude given the point of closest approach.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he would pass the inforxnation along to Steven Hughes of the
Inver Grove Heights Airport Noise Abatement Commission.
Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the members on the history of the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor,
including a recap of the June 1999 Operations Committee meeting.
Ms. Hughes noted that the comdor was first analyzed in 1969 before NEPA was enacted. Will Eginton,
Inver Grove Heights, asked why there had not been an environmental assessment in 1984 when the
corridor "cone" was added to the tower order language. Ms. Hughes said it was because it did not
change operational procedures, that the "cone" had been used for many years up to that point and that it
was simply being fornialized at that time. Ms. Hughes emphasized that in a Part 150 study airports must
work with existing conditions. The scope of a Part 150 study does not include performing environmental
studies on past decisions.
Ms. Hughes reiterated that:
1
11
'I"he 2005 unmiti�ated contour also includes the 60 Ldn.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he could not reconcile why the close-in departure profile
would be best for the city of Mi.nneapolis and not for the communities on the other side of the airport
given that MSP is considered an urban airport. He said the elevation in Dakota county is higher and
needs to be taken into consideration, as well. Hughes explained that in Minneapolis, the residential
population is much closer than in the Corridor. She said the close-in departure profile is designed to
benefit only those communities that aze very near the airport. Mr. Duffey said the model does take into
consideration the terrain beneath the flight tracks.
Mr. Mertensotto said he feels it is more important to consider the intensity of the noise experienced
close-in to the airport than the number of people who would be added further out in the contour.
Chairman Nelson reitera.ted his feelings that M5P is an urban airport and that it seemed that the close-in
procedure would be more beneficial for all airport ends.
Kent Duffey, I�ITB, explained that with the close-in departure profile aircraft are lower and slower for a
longer period of tirne, which INM takes into consideration. This is why the close-in departure profile
adds so many more people to the contour.
Will Eginton, Inver Gro"ve Heights, said he feels the river bottoms should be exploited for noise
reduction purposes, as much as possible, and asked why a"standard" depariure procedure couldn't be
used in place of either the close-in or distant procedure. He said he feels aircraft should climb as high
and as fast as possible over the areas that are less sensitive to noise (i.e. the Comdor and river bottoms}.
Mr. Duffey said currently at the airport, using the distant procedure, aircraft maintain takeoff power until
they reach 3,000 feet in altitude. {.
� At Minneapolis for a close-in departure, thrust is reduced at 1,500 feet for an A320 and 1,000 feet
for a DC-9.
• At Minneapolis for a distant departure procedure, takeoff thrust, whether it is full thrust or at some
reduced thrust setting that the pilot has chosen for departure, is maintained unti13,000 feet.
Mr. Eginton said he thouQht a"standard" procedure was srill an option and wanted to lmow why it wasn't
being considered. Mr. Duffey said the FA.A prefers to have one or the other procedure rather than
"fracturalized" procedures at different airports.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked Chairman Nelson to clarify what it was that he wanted to accomplish in
the meeting. Chairman Nelson said he wanted the members to agree on what elements should be
forwarded to the full MASAC body for consideration for inclusion in the Part 150 update as they pertain
to the Corridor.
Mr. Verbrugge asked which DNL contour level is considered when determining whether or not an EA or
EIS is necessary. Roy Fuluinann, MAC, said if the communities wish to designate the 60 Ldn contour
level as incompatible in the Part 150 update, then impacts to that contour need to be considered when
looking at mitigation alternatives. Ms. Hughes reiterated that the FAA considers a 3+ dBA change in the
60 Ldn contour as an indicator that there would be a 1.5 + dBA change in the 65 Ldn contour area.
C
16
� 11 ' : ' � 1 • 1 : • : • :1 • 1: • • � 1 1 •
� ' • ' 1 :1 ' • t 1 1 • � • :1 : � :1 : • / • '
' :1 ' • 11 ' • • ' • ' • C 1 ' • ' 1 ' 1 • C i � •
'� 1 : uc •�_MM_ � �I : � • �
t 1 1 • :1 • • • 1 1 • 1 1 � 1' •' 1
• i • 1' �' •''11•. . � � � �, � .�
Ci • • :t • 1 • 1 •' � :1 • 1 1 1
Discussion
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, confirmed that a vote to forward the recommendations to the full
MASAC body does not indicate a fmalization of the Corridor issues.
Cindy Greene, FAA, said she was not sure why the continuing of corridor compliance analysis would
need to be included in the Part 150 update. She said it does not make sense to include it as part of the
Part 150 update since it is not a mitigation measure and doesn't affect the contour. Charles Mertensotto,
Mendota Heights, and Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, agreed.
Charles Mertensotto, Mei3dota I3eights, said he could not support the motion because it includes the
recommendation to continue using the distant noise abatement departure procedure.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if approval of the three ma.ps presented to the members was
needed to move forward. Chaimian Nelson said the contours should be viewed as a work in progress,
but that they should be used for worldng purposes at this point. He said he felt the 1999 validation map
was very tight, but that discussion will confiinue as to the validity and strength of the inputs.
Jennifer Sayre, NWA, affirmed that the recommendarion to implement new technology did not imply
that MAC would dictate to the airlines when and how quickly the airlines should begin using the new
technology.
• U ':' � 1 • / :•: •.1 � 1:. � • 1 1 •
' � • � i � � i� ` � � � • � � � � • � � i� �. � � ". i � , ' � ,
i� � � � � i� / � � �� � � i � � � • i� r ► � • �. .• � �.
� i � • . . � � � �� � � i� � �
a" • ,
Single Family and Multi-Family Field Surveys
Single Family Field Surveys
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, presented maps of the single and multi-family parcel counts for each of the ciries
included in the unmitigated 2005 DNL 60 contour. Detailed maps for each city were handed out to the
appropriate representatives.
Mr. Fuhrmann then briefed the members on the number of single-family parcels within the DNL 60 2005
unmitigated contour. (The decimal points for the percent confirmed for the city of Eagan should be
moved to the left two places.)
m
With 74% of the parcels within the contour field verified, there are approximately 20,063 homes within (
the contour. (Note: Many of these homes have been or will have been insulated as part of the current
insulation program.) Field verification began with the highest LDN levels and spread out from there.
Vacant parcels were not counted.
Multi family Field Surveys
Steve Vecchi, MAC Part 150 Manager, presented infomiation about the possible costs of insulating
multi-family structures within the DNL 65 contour.
The Pacluzge
• Window treatments
• Door treatrnents
s Interior wall air conditioner baffle
The Types ofMulti-Family Structures
s Apartments
• Condominiums
• Townhome
� Triplex
• Title II
• Low Income
Cost Estimate Assumptions
•.All multi-family units within the 2005 DNL65 will be treated
• Existing doors and windows will be replaced
Cost Unknowns
• The actual unit sizes and window/door opening sizes
• City codes, EGRESS and ordinance restricrions
• Construction staging, scheduling and access impacts (could be very complicated)
• Regulatory issues for federally subsidized units
• MAC multi-family Part 150 program policies (i.e. will every unit be eligible?)
• Impacts of future economy (materials and labor)
• Program development (starlup) costs
• STC and ANLR window and door requirements
• Required IAQNentilation remediation (different than single family housing)
An estimated minimum of $29.5 to $31.5 million would be needed to insulate the multi-family structures
within the 2005 DNL 65 contour. This represents $13,000 per unit and a full year's allocation of funds
now available for sound insulation. The cost could jump depending on the above variables.
18
I
Next Steps
e A MASAC recommendation to MAC
v A MAC decision and inclusion in the Part 150 Update
• Overall program development
• Acoustic testing and research
• Pilot program
o Identification of funding soiirces
• Annual implementation and phasing with residential program
Bob Johnson, MBAA, asked if the unit counts included homes that have been broken up into apartments.
Mr. Vecchi said those types of slructures were included in the counts.
Several prioritization and funding scenarios were discussed. It was noted that the contour could still
shrink and the number and location of units rnay change.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, asked each of the representatives to bring the information to their respective city
staffs and come back�with recommendations as to whether and how multi-family structures should be
insulated.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.� 'The next MASAC Operations Committee meeting will be held
on March 24, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the MAC General Offices.
Respectfully Submitted,
� ) Melissa Scovronski, Comrnittee Secretary
�. )
19
�
a�
� ..fl �
� � :� Q
� � Cap E'"
� � ,� o
� � O
� pq w
� O n)
�. '-.
Q� � �+.�
� �
V1 '= � W
�., '� c. �
� � �
� � c
�
E� ° �
o N� z
h
� •." o �
U
� Q
� �
o �- �
0
� � �
0 0�.
� o cct v -
�
o p O .rL', �
�/ N y v'
�'1 � p O �
�r" aV oI
0 � c� i q
1..
� � O �
'� � �' "d
� a � �
� �
� o
'� �
� � � a� � �
Z O .,+ � � �
i°'°i � ' O
A � .r � �.
� O > �
� � •� �
C!1 � 7� 4?
1� � G �
•� Q" � p a
� � C C.'r
Z � � 3 �
0
W �
� � �
�
� U � i:
'�' 4 � -�
G-�� � ° ��
^ �" w �
� o � � �
� N ca v� C/1
� '
H °.-�° , a � o
,d � � �� �c
� �
�w � � i..1 ��
� � � •� �
o� � °
0
¢ �' � cn
� N �
�
0
u
�
c
�
�
0
U
�
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p O O O O O�n O O O
�y N r-+ M M.-� 00 O� M
�i� oo �'t [`� r �1 M�-+ t"r'i rr
� 64 6F3 b4 6H b�} � 69 69 f�T
�
F y .
� '. O O �+
� 0 0 v V � � � � � � N � �
� y�.,�.�o�oo�n�n�o
�,� N N N N M
� �I b�}6464bgE!-}69b�}6�t6F}
7h
� N O
O � �
� M N
c
0
� �
W =
� o �
O " �
x * U
A � �
e �,
H U �
a � �
ay •tA •V)
Cd C�
U x '"'"
w
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0
r�i rTi r�i �i �i �i �, ►�i �i
Q1 M G'�i M N C� N o0 N
M d' G1 �!' O d' � v� v�
'-» N v1 0o Q o0 Q1 I� �
.—i
�
�
N
59
V]
'd
�cvr�v�n�t^�ooc�o H
�rnc�c,Q,c,a,rnc�o 0
c, a, o, c, c� o, a� rn o
�+ .-+ ,-+ ... .-+ ,-� .-+ .-� � N E�
� �
MASAC Members
Chairman:
C6arles Mertensotto
IMendWa Hcights)
First Vict Chairman:
John Nelson (Bloomington)
MASA C Operations Cnmminee Chaimwn
and Secnnd Vict Chairman:
John NeLson IBloomingto�l
Arrbome Fspress:
s�� aa��
at.ra:
Roo Johns«�
Citv ojBlnomingron:
Petra� l.ce
v�� wu��
Cirv of Bumsville:
Charles Van Guilder
Cirv nf Eagan:
)amie Verbrugge
l.azue sraricha
Cirv nflnver Grnve Heighn: •
Charles Eginton
Cin� nfMendnta Heights:
Jill Smith
Kevin Batchelder
Ciry of Minneapofis:
Barret I.ane
n�n L�a��
,r« c�
ca�� sc�a
Saodrs Cdvin Roy
Mike Cramcr .
Citv of Richfie(d
Kristal Stokes
ne.,�n w�;rut
Cirv ojSt. l�uis PanF
Robert Aadrews
Citv nfSt. Paul:
��nt�te
cin• ojsunfish Lake:
Cynthia Putz•Yang
Ddta Airlineslnc.:
• �y c�aring
DHL Airways:
Brisn Simonson
Federvl Espress:
John Schussler
MAC Smfj.•
Roy Fuhrmann
MBAA:
Robert P. Johns«i
Mesaba Nnrthwest Airlink:
rh;� s�
Nnrrh west Airlines:
Jennifer Sayre
Mary i,o�tr�mdz
s►�.� x��
x��y se«,ac
Sr. Pau! Chamber of Cnmmercr. ,
Rdf Middleton
Sun CnunrrvAirlines:
C�ordou Graves
United Airlines lnc.:
Kevin Black
United ParcelService:
Michacl Geycr
U.S. Airwavs Ina:
I.arry Yandle
MASAC Advisors
Merropolitan Airpons Cammisrion:
Chad I,eqve
Metrnpolitan Airpnrts Cnmmissinn:
Commissioner Altoa Gasper
Federal Avintinn Administratinn:
Ron Glaub
Cindy C,rxene
Air Transportation Assaciatian:
Paul McC,nw
MN Air Natinnal Guard:
Major Roy j. Shetka
U.S. Air Fnrc•e Resen•c:
Captain Dsvid J. Gericen
Secreran�:
Melissa Scovronski
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Deciaration of Purpose
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity: promote air navigation and transportation, intemational, national,
state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and
economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national
and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the
full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to
conelate that azea with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for
the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that
azea;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental
impact from air navigation and transportation. and to that end provide for noise
abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minim�ize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.
Metropotitan Aireraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the genezal welfare of the
communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul Internatio�al Airport - Wold-
Chamberlain Field, a public airport in ihe County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the
airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of
suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and
promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations,
consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and
through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected
residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise
nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to
alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and govemmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority
and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport
users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be
called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User
Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
This repoR is prepared and printed in house by Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator and Shane
VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician questions ar comments may be direcied to:
MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Ptograms
Minneapolis/St. Paui International Airport
6040 28�' Avenue Sou[h
Minneapolis MN, 55450
Tel: (612) 725-6328, Faz: (612) 725-b310
MAC Environment Department Home Page: www.macavsat.org
Ti�e Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-94! 1. Complaints to the hotline do not result in
changes in airport aaivity, but �.rovide a public samding board and airpert information outlet.
The hotline is staffed during busrness hours, Monday — Friday.
C
�.
C
' Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Table of Contents for February 2000
Complaint Summary
Noise Complaint Map
FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3
MSP All Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Compositio
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
0
:'�
�
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage x
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9
� � MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks � 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Canier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 1�
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT
18-27
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 28-29
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
,� t r. • 1
• � ' , i � '�;
letun�er of NuQniier of % of Total
City Arrivaal De�arture Conmp�aints Complaia�ants Com�plaints
Bloorrrington l 0 17 2"� 20 10 � 3`: 2.69�
Bumsville p 0 1 `Q 1 1 �: p:_ 0.1%
Eagan ?3 I 1 12 1 37 11 I 2 4.9�Ir
Eden Prairie p 0 4 �: 4 6 � _'p 0��I�
Edina p 0 3 Z _5 3 � � 0.79�
Inver C�ove
Heights 44 0 242 Q-` 286 ?� � �. 37.790
L.ake F1mo 1 0 I � Q,: � 2 1 �. 03�Ir.
Mapie G-ove 1? 0 lg 0 30 1 � � 4.09'�
Maplewood 1 0 p 0 1 1 � 0.1�7c
Mendota p 0 � 0 1 1 � 0.1�/c
Mendo�a Heigh[s g 0 2p 0 28 11 ( � 3.7%
Minneapolis 101 � 185 4 290 110 2 38.2�/0
Plyrmuth � 0 0 � 5 1 � 0.6�Io
Richfield p 0 24 �. � 24 25 � 3.2�Io
South S[. Paul p 0 4 � 4 2 �. ,': - OS�Io
St. Louis Park ; 0 p 0 5 3 `� 0.7�Ic
St. Paul j 0 7 0 12 12 �� 1.6%
West S�. Paul p 0 4 _.0 4 1 `: 0;" OS90
Total 207 5�2 759 233 _. 140.0% .
Nature of I�ISP Complaints Time of Day Complaints by Airport
Nature of : _ , ,
_. ,...
Complaint Tatal Tivae �'vt.�i �►ia�ori ,, :: Total `
Exressive Noise 597 3 pppp-O;i9 50 6 MSP � 803
Early/Late 107 3 060b - 06�9 34 0 Airlal;e I 0
�w �y�g 26 i 0700 - 1159 219 I � Anoka � 6
S�ruc[uralDist. 13 1 1200-1559 99 2 Gystal � 2
Helicopter 0 � 1600 - 1959 156 i- Flying Cloud� 6
GroundNoise 41 � 2000-21�9 143 ��.... LakeIItm � 0
En�ine Run-up l 1 22pp - 2?59 53 1 St. Paul � 3
Freyuency I 6 I 2 i
Other p 1 2300 _?359 37 1 Misc. j 0
Total �03 'Tata.l 8�3 T+�ta➢ : 3�0
Note: S6aded Calumns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet
� �
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolii,an Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
4 , .• , .I.. 1 , ���, • • • :� • . . ''.', ,.':
(FAA Runway Us� I.ogs)
Febn�an• 20U() FA?► Air-port Traftic Record Cuunts
Air Carrier � 838 7:30
Co�ter I 321 315
- GeneralAviatio❑ 217 352
( ) Militarv � 9 8
_ Total 1375 ( i �lil�
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 3
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
' � ,1' . 1,;
r �, • �•��; •�, °,�. ���
__
I.ast Year I�ast �
ArrivaU Covnt Count Year
RWi' De rtur+e ( Over�iaht A.rea O rafions Percent O rations I'er�ent
4 An So. RichfieYUBbomin on � 46 0.29c 218 1.3�10
12L Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield � 3673 18.S�Ic 4112 24.7�Io
1?R Arr So. Nlinnea lis/No. Richfi�kl � 3899 20.0�/� 4127 24.7�c
22 Arr St. PauUHi nd Park ! 56 0.3�% 48 0.3%
30L Arr Ea an/Mendota Hei ts i 6299 32.3% 4275 25.6�Io
�
30R Arr Ea an/Mendota HeiQhts � 5_545 2�.4% 3895 23.4%
� Tatal Arrivals 19�18 IOQ.4% 1fiS75 100.0�'la
4 De St. PauUHi nd Park � 2? O.1�I� 44 0.3%
12L ' De Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 3610 18.8% 3922 24.0%
12R De Ea an/Mendota Hei hts i 4100 21.3�� 4330 26.5%o
?2 De So. Richf'�eld/Bk�orrrin on I 249 1.3�/� 412 2.5%
30L � De So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield I 5884 30.6% 396� 24.3%
30R � De ' So. Minnea lis/No. Richfieki � 5376 27.9�7c 366"7 22.4%n
Tokal De res 19?�1 10!?,0%n 153�0 100.�r10 �
iatal0 eraficrns 3K759 33()15
� A Preduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
Mevopolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
�, . . ,, �, . . � _ �
'�' .. • t� • � 1 • ;� ' . �':.� ;�'
Arri�°at/
gtWY Departur
Over�ight Ama
Count
Last Year Last
Caunt Year
�ne ratians Pe rce r.
4 Arr So. Richf'�ek�/Bk�omin on 32 � 0.2�/c 166 1.4%
12L : Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfield 2563 18.0�'/c 2718 23.3%
12R Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Ric:hfield ! 2931 20.6�I� 2990 25.6�1c
22 Arr St. PauUHi nd Park ; 43 0.3�/0 32 0.3%
30L Arr Ea an/Mendota Hei hts � 4765 33.S�10 3122 26.7�Ic
30R Arr ! Eaaan/Mendota Hei�hts ( 3904 27.4�I� 2657 2?.7%
Tt�tal Arri�aLs 1��38 1U{).i)�o I16�5 1i}{?.i►%
4 De St. PauUHighiand Park � 7 O.I�I� 6 0.1%
12L De Ea an/Nlendota Hei� ts ' 2505 18.4�Ic 275� 23.9%
12R De Ea an/Mendota Hei hts � 3058 21.69� 3191 27.7%
22 De So. RichfiekUBkx�min on 188 1.3�Io 127 1.1%
30L ' De So. Minnea lis/No. Richfieki 4769 33.8% 3156 27.4%
30R ' De So. Minnea lis/No. Richfieki 3505 24.890 2290 � 19.8%n
�� ���� � Total �e r#ur+es 1�132 1Q(t.i}% 11��1 lf)O.�in10
Total ('� e rati+�ns 2$370 2321 U
A Product of the Meuopolitan Airpc�rts Commission ANOMS Frogram 5
n
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report __
February 2000 .IVISP Carrier Jet Fleet Coanposition
FAR Part 36 7I��c
T ott'No�se txve� Air�cra� Descri 'o►n S �e Count Percent � �
B7�� 110.0 Boeine 747-200 3 76 0.3�k
B741 109.4 I Boeine 747-100 3 1� 0.0°Io
DCS 1Q5 i ! McDonnell Dou las DCS-500/600 2 0 0.0�7c
B743 1055 Boein 747-300 � 3 53 0.2Ck.
DC10 103.0 � McDonnell Dou las DC10 I 3 1396 4.9�k i
B727 102.4 Boein 727-200 ! 2 0 . 0.09c �
B744 101.6 Boein 747-400 � 3 27 O.l�k '
DCS 1005 I McDonnell Dou las DC8 (Modified St . 3)' 3 274 ; 1.0�7c
L101 99.3 ! Locldieed L-1011 � 3 137 ' O.i9�
DC9 98.1 ! McDonnell Dou las DC9 • 2 0 0.0%
B732 9�.7 I Boein 737-200 ! 2 0 0.09� �
BA 11 97.0 British Aeros ace (BAC� 1-11 2� 0 � 0.09�
A� 96.2 Airbus Industries A340 I 3 2 i 0.0%
MD 11 95.8 I McDonnell Douelas MDl l � 3 4 n n�r
B763 -
DC'87
B72Q
B772
A306
A310
B7�g.
MD80
B752
DC9Q
B7 �
A 320
B738
B735
B737
B733
A319
BA4C
B712
F100
9�.7
94.�
94.3
94.0
92.9
92.1
91.�
91.4 •
91.0
88.9
87.8
87.7
87.7
87.5
87.5
H%.J
84.9
83.0
81 8
I
McDonnell Douelas UC8-700
Boeing 777
,irbus Industries A300B4-60
Airbus Industries A310
Boeine 737 (Modified S[Q. 3;
McDonnell Douelas MD-SO
IMcDonnell Dou�las DC9 (Modifi
Boein� 737-400
Airbus Indusu-ies A320
Boeing 737-800 �
$oeing 737-500
Boein� 737-700
Boeing 737-300
Airbus Industries A319
British Aerospace 146
Boeing 717-200
� 3
i 3
1- 3
3
I 3
I 3
I 3
�-
3
' 3
i 3
�--=-
i 3
�
�
� • •'
��
���
O.d9c
0.3�
122°Io
0.0 r'o
0.1�
o.o��
3.2�10
3.6�
9.0%
33.0%
0.4°Ic
16.4°l0
0.0%
13%
0.0%
1.9�10
4.9%
� Folcker 100 i 23% �
E14� 81.8 I Finbraer 145 � 3 206 � 0.7%
F70 80.1 I Fal:ker 70 � 3 4 � 0.0%
G°�RT 79.8 Canadair 650 i 3 396 ( 1.4�10
'Tatafs _
,.
Z$370 l0U 4%-:; ,
Cou�t Curr�nt �,ast Ye�rs
Sta�e II ( 0 0.0% � 2I.9%
Sta e III ' 13999 49.4%
Sta�e III Manufaccured i 14371 50.6%
Total Sta e III : 2K37t) ] Ob.t) r� � 78.1 �� i
Note: Stage III represent aircrafr modified to rreet all stage II1 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This
Includes hushkit engines, engine revofits or aircraft aperational flight configurations.
•The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented per aircraft type during [ake-off ineasured in EPNL dBA (Effective j/
Perceived Noise Level). �
•EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-carected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A-
weighted decibeis.
6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba�ement Council {MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
� ` • 4 � i • . 1 , �' �'' 1 ! 't � �' ..
;� � . � . � � . ;� � : (; ,) '
I�st Year Last
ArrivaU Co�ant Caunt Year
; R1Yir De urre OverBi htAr�a O rations I'ercent t3 rations Pereent
4 Arr So. Richf`�eld/Bbomi.nston 32 . 2.6% 83 7.9%
12L An So. Minnea lis%No. Richfield 130 10.6�Io 99 9.S�lo
12R Arr So. Minnea lis/No. Richfi�ki ; 194 15.99� 142 13.6�Ic
22 Arr St. Paul/Hi nd Park � 14 1.1�/0 27 2.6�10
30L Arr Ea an/Mendota Hei�hts 64b 52.7�Io 512 49.1%
� 30R Arr Ea an/Mendota HeiQhts i 209 17.1% 1�0 17.3%
Total Ar�vals 1225 lf!(}.1}% 1tD�3 1�O.�i'�'o
4 De St. PauUHi�hland Park � 11 1.0% 18 2.5°Io
12L De Ea an/Mendota Hei ts � 192 17.8�'c 185 25.690
12R De EaQan/Nl�ndota Hei hts + 274 25.5�% 240 33.2��
22 De So. RichfieYi/Bk�ominaton � 28 2.6�/0 24 3.3%
30L ; De So. Muuiea lis/No. Richfieki 313 29.1% 145 � 20.1%
30R ' De So. Minnea lis/No. Richf�eld i 258 24.0�'/0 111 15.3%
�, � Total De � riur�s 1(}76 1U(i.!)% 723 100.{i�lc
- Total (3 rations .'�301 .17fit5
A Product of the Metropolitan Air�rts Commission ANOMS Program 7
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
I�lighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m, to 6000 a.rri.
Runway U�e l�.eport Febru�ry 2000
r�t Ye� �t
Arri�aU Count Ct�unt Year
RWY De ure Overfli ht Area (J ratians Pe�ent Q rations Fercent
4 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomin on I 25 ?.5�/� 63 7.6�10
i?L Arr So. Minnea tis/Na Richfield � 112 11.0�% 84 10.1%
��R f1ri' So. Minriea lis/No. Richf'�e3d � 166 16.39'� 118 14.3%
�� An' St. PauUHi hland Park � 9 0.9�'lc 22 ?
.7�'lc
30L An Ea an/Mendota Hei hts i 519 50.9�/� 402 48.6%
30R ' Arr Ea an/Mendota Hei ts i 188 18.4�Io 138 16.�%
i TutaI At't�'ais 1f)19 1t?(i.1}%n 8�7 1110.fi°10
4 �e St. Paul/Hi nd Park � 0 0.0�/c 0 0.0%
12L i De Ea an/Mendota Hei ts i 123 17.3�1� 91 21.0%
12R De Ea an/Mendota Hei hts ` 195 27.4�/0 171 39.4%
�? De So. Richf�eld/Bbomin on I 16 2.?�Ic 10 2.3%
30L � De So. Minnea lis/No. Richf�eld ( 261 36.6�0 116 � 26.7%
30R ' De So. Minnea lis/No. Richfiekl ( 118 16.5% 46 10.6%
T��tal De artures _ ?13 ltl4t.1}%n �3� li)p.0�'lc ( ,
Total � rations 173� 12b 1.
g A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Febnaary 2000 Top 15 Actual I°Jightti�nne Jet C)pea�togs by �`ype
,
10:30 p.m to 6.00 a.m
Airiine II) S ae '1' Count.
American AAL 3 F100 29
! American AAL 3 MD80 26
; Airborne ABX 3 DCBQ 17
! Airborne ABX 3 32
i America West AWE 3 A319 2
i America West AWE 3 A320 27
' Cha ion CCP 3 B72Q 88
� ComAir COM 3 CRT 1 i6
� Delta DAL 3 B72Q 3
� Delta DAL 3 B733 28
Del�a DAL 3 MD80 �
I FedEx FDX 3 B72 7
- ; FedEx FDX 3 A306 21
Total Nighttime Jet ' FedEs FDX 3 DC10 58
O rations Hour � FedFx FDX 3 MD11 2
Fiour Count ' Northwest NWA 3 A319 8
2230 526 Nonhwes� � NWA 3 A320 219
2300 ' 4$9 ' i Northwest NWA 3 B72 30
�' '� � 2400 � 203 � ' Northwes t NW A 3 B75? 203
100 ' 67 � � Northwest NWA 3 L�C10 7
� 200 ; 26 � ; Nonhwest NWA 3 LX.`9Q 252
300 24 Orm i A ir OA E 3 DC10 36
400 102 R an RYN 3 A320 18
�00 29; ' Rr an RYN 3 B72 85
� TnTAL 1732 � R an RYN 3 B734 9
Sun Coun SCX 3 B72 144
. Sun Coun � SCX 3 DC10 21
Trans W orld TW A 3 23
Trans W orld TW A 3 MD80 4
United UAL 3 B72 26
Uniced UAL 3 B733 10
United UAL 3 B7 2
United UAL 3 B752 8
� UPS UPS 3 B763 2
UPS UPS 3 DCS 56
Van uard � VCC� 3 B7 48
Total 1b12
Note: The top 15 nigi�ttime operators represent 93.1 °k of the total nighttime operations.
� �� '
A Prcxluct of the Metropolitan. Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 9
m
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Aba�ement Council (MASAC> Technical Advisc�r's Report
February 2000 Nightti me Fleet Stage Mi x for 'i'op 1S Ai rl i nes
10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m
�.e�' �,��' P�� �G4 �� qev ���-�,P o� 4,��' S��-��P �Qv �4S ��o
Airi;ne
Stage 2 O Stage 3 � Manufactured Stage 3
Febn.�ary 2000 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for'Top 15 A,irlir�es
10:30 . to 6:00 am
.
Manu�'actured _;
1 Airiine
AAL
ABX
AWE
CCP
COM
' DAL
FDX
' NWA
' OAE
RYN
SCX
TWA
UAL
UPS
VGD
' Total
�
10 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
�' ,
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Ad�risor's Repc�rt
� ' 1 ' i i , � ; / ' ; ` • 1 . . - 1 ;
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
- - � -�y�, ::- �:_ .. - T�^.�, . :• .;• ---��-•- _ _:.� ._
� — _ = � _ _ :\ : �-': `-�ti� ^ „' ' _ _ ;�.::' - - -
�, _ _'�,:,;_. .�,� '�,�.`�y -�:-'' '1 �-�
�,.-^_ :.�: _-}::�,- _ = r� _.��� .== "�:''. - - -
- t'`^) �^=,— � - �!�'. � `+� - —
:,:� /1,::..---��� r — -- � `'' :\, �\ ;••'>-�,�` --
:'3�. .! _ ..._..."'_y"� __..�� � ..•. —
f_. —/'�ji?_f`� ' _ — ,�. . : �,;,
� ! —t t� ' . i�\. -•�_
- -'+ri— ^ � '.. _ — — — — �,� '. .
..�;•: _� `' — — '��_�
'"__' � �-1 "� �---� ` �\ �, \ ` _
�_�.,�� L---�1� poiis=.' . - = — - =
-s '..v J = -.—_ a =__(`� - _-,---t - __
, - �. . ..:. , _..
� " . �J � •-----� �: � �-- � ,- _ --
_ _'Iw !��
_�,I�;�' -'__, ,
�
�
^ - l;� _
_-�_ J� __
—��•�`''�'�' `+r•-�:-.
`�•i ;•:.: . - —
� �,� • ... ^`, _
.i r� j.%•- ' -
���3� - y , � _��l''�- r.: '�.
: ----..�''.-_ � : ��� '' `
^_; ` y .;� _, -,� ;:'�_=-""=y'-�
_ . = . ..� /`/'—=-��`� .
'�'-/ ii" _ _--
=_ c ' ��_'.
=_�� _��':1��'r� _ —_ � �_ -- �: . I
��• ' —"' _ ' '
� . / r.:' rM� -�_ _ � ._�_ �
� =.
� ��•� � �...1', _: _ - - --- _:ti=:. � =.- .
-_�� ^�� /� -- _ '--_----r--= -.
,,= '_--�--':_, r, . _ — _ C: i -
�= ��::�" — ..:; -��;;� __ - _ - =��- --
`i� .�' �VI ='�` --- -- �-
—,. , ��.:4. : \ _ _ _ _--- . --...--= sa =._
. �,'�-�x�.. � %_� r - ----- —
, ' �, :�—=.--��r , � � . . -,� _ _ ._. _ —
:���� �,�--'_=—_-�Ie�dota — _. . _- ._- =�-
. �� l�`� —�_'�� ..., _ _ "_ _ _._�.
�r;�' ` _ eigli „ -.� .� --- --- �`��-.
. r. _ . =_.
---_----'. ;-,�-_.--• +-� 1' ;::! ,, -_�, / r`� r� `, . �;^w -.
--- - ..-1`i % �':'�/�'� ' � � �;�- � :� a7 - —'-�,-.._.,. `:'•,�' �} -
^ IZ1C�ifie�f� -�� _ = r'��T .,� -��:�� . ,3 ,� j� . C,,,�.� _ • ,�-�.�:�,�
__. � ,��_�_ -
. � j; '.
... __, J
..�'_.___—_1-.-�_ '�' _'"_"- �:% �'�" _... _ C"��--�� - �-, .�
C � �� � - '-
' ,�--'_ n -
' ira � ,. '- - ' - � �?' V '
- - '-- - "
_. �v -'�-__ _ - _ _ ; l;` _ �,.
1.. ; J �' � ��--- -r;: �~ �T:,-
�� v� -i:� .�t~ �- . a ,�
--- - - _ -�� � — _ _ ii r-;is' � �--�- _ � ; . � �..`�.,T'.. L: -� i .+ _
�- _-- _� . r;.:_y .
- �- _ -- - =- --- -- ` - = ��i' '�, �. . ��� �~`2� - --
-�',, —�'�--�, - -- � %.r I_'",� -_ - - '`� 4\.�} ' � ..-�=G'=.
r. � --c•�i . '__ _ - ^�'^ lt�..,�; . . •� - -i �... "�� '`� ,� -- I
__ _� -- ----_= =_- , � � - �25 —_ _r,��- ------- -
" .: -: - -- -�� - ; -- --= _'`� =-- ` �-' i; : :.._ —`�, -__ -- `+� � °�� ` � .
--- - ��ooaa�ington � � . � �' . - _�� �G - - _
t�- - ^. -�- t'�; -- _ . . � -. �
�--� - -C� _ - - �. � --� -. --�-=--_- _----- _ - �:�""�' - _—�t"_� �.
_---_- _ V=-- __ - _- .-; /, -- _ __ _ _ _ ; �� = ��=��a�. _ -= - � �� � -� �:.�,
- -�—, .
-- - - _- . /� ..-. ` L `�, : - ._� : - �'j�`"
__,_ _ _ _ _-� '_' _-__.._' ../ fK-'' _ �a�.r � ti :- - �� � -_ - ' , �V,: .' _ . _ � C�.,� _'.
.. , ^ __ 1 ". -i1"�!'•� . .. . _ - _ — -' — �''�-: -- _ . ':{•'_ v4
------- _ •-==�I _ `'' :� ' -- . .. -. -...-,,_ f• -- `' �. � � : _.... - '-J.-.._ r; - - — _ -
.. � �'.l._-` , '� ' . . ' �- -Yr' � ... � --r ' --= y --- � _ _ -_ - , �-- . __'
� � i' -�--' � : `-+ ' -
...r. �� i.!.i � � — _, .. . ~.. � : � - _ h..� !! ."- — `-'-. _ �^ t'� '_ `. t`, -- .. — —'
�~� __ + '__�f-.. '/�- ' _ _'_ -' �-�.t('__" ... '-bj, � _ _ _ • _ • '_�....:.. -�.'"-. � '_
. ..� ' - '_ � l �� "-=n.
- i � -- � :%'.�.' '; . '- ,: `. . .. _ �j �u . Jt-Oi` _
�/� - .v--. . � -..J .- . .
_ _ _ _..- - --_' ' _ : ' � .- ,^ S-�i�, .. ' •
� - '"j � _ _ -- �-�_ �# `� `-- � .:z _ v �n �`,� � � �`� -- _ _ . _ — --
' "C. - :_�, : „ :._,�-.���i „ _
. �- •
_ ... . .. .
_ _ .
. .- - - - - — --
- - � • � - � �' q ---� o
Le�end
j ) Remote Monitoring Tower
A Prc�ducc of the Metropo(itan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 15
,
Mevopolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
• ' ' ` . � •' . • 1 � • • v
,.1 . `1I1
Cit Atkle+ess
Minnea olis i Xen�es Ave. & 41st St.
Minneapolis Fremon[ Ave & 43rd St
Minneapolis � Wesc IImwood St. & Belmont Ave
Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th St �
Minneapolis ! 12th Ave. & 58th St
Minneapolis � ZSth Ave & 57th Sc
Richfield ' Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
Minneapolis L.on fellow Ave & 43cd St
S[. Paul Sazato a St & Hartfoni Ave
St. Paul :- Itasca Ave. & Bowdom St.
. St. Paul Fumn St. & Scheffer Ave.
St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave
Mendota Heieh�s � Southeast end of Mohican Court
�Qan lst St. & Mcl:ee St.
Mendota Heights � Cullon St & l.eJ6n ton Ave
��an Avalon Ave & V'ilas Lane
Bloorrrin ton ' &kh St & 4th Ave
Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave
Bloomin ton 16th Ave & 84ch S[
Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave.
Inver Csove Hei h[s : Barbara Ave & 67th St
Inver Csove Hei�hts : Anne Marie Trail
Mendota Heiehts Fnd of Kenndon Ave.
__ �£an Cfiapel Ln. & Wren Ln
Fa�an Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd
InverGrove Hei hts � 6?96 Arkansas Ave W
Minneapolis � Anthony Schoo15757Irving Ave S
Richfield • 6645 16th Avenue S
Minneapolis : Fricsson Flem Schoo14315 31st Ave S
TotaI Arrival Noise E�ents
A���
Events
>S�dB
4207 �
2800
3391 �
3049 .
3762 �
3030
316
277
43
53
9
5
92
6224
347
41
47
22
7
51
3192
1980
6400
411
593
157
586
11
46��3
Ar�ival
Events
�SOdB
67
270
1302
714
2338
11
5
25
40
0
1
0
26
9
Arrivai
�vents
�9ddB
0
1
29
3
37U
480
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
89$
Araival
Events
>100d�
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
15 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
C,
�
Metropolitan Aircrafr Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
C�.rrier Jet Depaa�tur� lZel�ted l�oi�e Evenis
February 2000
Departur� Depart�r+e �7►e�ure I9e�aatur�
R1tiIT Eves�ts Events Events Eveuts
� ��y _ �: Ac�ress ` >GS4iS >SOd� _ >94d� >100d�
1 Minnea olis � Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 892 � 98 0 0
� 2 Minnea olis i Fremont Ave. & 43nt S[. 1109 � 144 1 0
' 3 Minnea olis i West IImwood S[. & Beimont Ave. 2517 i 336 15 0
i 4 Minnea olis � �aldand Ave. & 49th St. 2876 /� 489 16 0
; i Minnea olis I 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6298 �� 2408 .5�. 14
� 6 Minnea olis ; 25[h Ave. & 57th St. 6662 �; �91g �0� 75
7 Richfield � Wentwonh Ave. & 64th St. 4119 / � 1190 94 0
; 8 Minnea olis L.on fellow Ave. & 43rd St. 214� � S18 18 �
� 9 St. Paul i Sazato a St. & Harcfonl Ave. 2? i 3 Z 0
� 10 St. Paui �' !_ Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 18 � 8 � �
� 11 St. Paul � Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 22 ; 4 0 0
13 St. Paui � Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 31 � 0 0 0
13 Mendoca Heiehcs � Southeast end of Mohican Court 2338 ' 244 3 0
14 Eaean lst St. & Mckee St. 3566 / 1 846 66 0
i� Mendota Heieh[s � Cullon St. & Lexin ton Ave. 2610 � 482 19 0
(' ) 16 Ea an Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 3503 � 1177 219 1
17 Bloomin ton ! 84th St. & 4th Ave. 150 1 36 16 0
j 18 Richfield ` 75ch St. & 17th Ave 279 � 122 52 6
! 19 Bloomin ton 16th Ave. & 84th St. 188 � 79 16 0
2� Richfield � 7�th St. & 3rd Ave. � 56$ ; 24 3 0
i 21 Inver G'ove Heiehts Barbara Ave. & 67th St. � 1086 ( 61 0 0
� 22 InverCsove Hei hts ! Anne Marie Trail 13Q2 I 60 0 0
�
23 Mendota Heights � End of Kenndon Ave. 3785 i 1318 327 0
� 24 Faean Cha el Ln. & Wren Ln. 2872 �� 387 3 0
! 2j Ea an Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rd. 1386 � 20 0 0
26 Inver C�rove Hei hts ; 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1606 � 134 1 �
27 Minnea olis i Anthon School 5757 Irvin Ave. S. 2323 � 350 13 0
� 28 Richfield I 6645 16th Avenue S. 4944 �( 380 3 0
29 Minnea olis ; Fricsson Elem School 4315 31st Ave. S. 1415 � 145 1 0
To#a! Dgr�artasr� �iaise Events , 6063? .13981 - 233� ',.:<95 , '
(� �)
A Product of the Metropolitar► A.irports Commission ANOMS Program ��
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
�'op Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IV��P
February 2UO0 � �
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41 � St., Minneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/18/00 7.21.56 CCP512 B72Q D 30R gg.9
02/22/00 8:12:43 MES3611 BA4b A 12L gg.�
02/13/00 8:14:43 NWA95 DC10 A 12R 87.9
02/29/00 20:10:17 DALT683 B72Q D 30R $7.9
02/26/00 7:33:33 FBF442 DC85 A 12R 86.2
02/29/00 21:13:24 NWA615 B72Q - D 30R gb.2
02/27/0016:56:19 SCX715 B72Q D 30L 86.1
02/04/0019:56:59 DAL1583 B72Q D 30R g5,8
02 / 13 /00 8:15:54 MES3611 BA46 A 12R 85.5
02/19/0010:23:45 KHA1849 B72Q D 30L 85.3
(RMT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43`d St., Minneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Tvpe Departure
02/24/00 22.44.55 NWAb49 B72Q A 30L 95.6
02/18/00 7:21:39 CCP512 B72Q D 30R 91.8 �
02/Q6/0017:25:48 SC1C785 B72Q D 30R 89.9 ��
02/23/0012:00:29 MES2756 SF34 A 12L gg.g
02/13/0011:45:26 NWA616 B72Q A 12L 8g.4 �
02/25/00 8:40:35 NWAl93 A320 A 12L gg,g
02/24/00 20:35:22 NWA628 B72Q D 30L 88.2
02/25/0p 11:58:05 NWA616 B72Q A 12L gg_1
02/23/0012:00:30 MES2756 SF34 A 12L g�,�
02/27/00 21:26:25 NWA615 B72Q D 30R 87.6
(R1�1'T Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Tvt�e Depazture �
02/24/QO 20.23.48 SCX581 B72Q D 30L 96.7
02/?5/0011:46:22 NWA741 B741 A 12R 94.3
02/24/00 20:15:33 DAL1683 B72Q D� 30L 94.1
�2/25/0014:40:30 - DAL1416 B72Q A 12R 93.8
02/19/00 9:04:37 SCX715 B72Q D 30L 93.4
02/25/0013:41:49 NWA588 B72Q A 12R 93.3
02/25/00 20:50:18 NWA548 B72Q A 12R 93.3
02/25/0010:30:13 NWA84 B742 A 12R 93.1
02/23/0019:17:37 SCX408 B72Q A 12R 92 g
02/25/0p 18:50:50 NWAl95 B741 A 12R 92.8
. �
i g A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Te�hnical Advisor's Report
Top B'en I.oudes� Aircraft Nois� Events for 1VISP
February 2000
(R.MT Site#4)
Oakland Ave. & 49``' St., Minneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/23/00 8:40:31 SCX325 B72Q D 30R 94.6
02/18/00 7:21:17 CCP512 B72Q D 30R 94.5
02/18/00 7:53:37 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 94.3
02/06/0011:26:44 NWA1271 B72Q D 30R 92.6
02/25/0013:38:D0 CCP505 B72Q A 12L 92.4
02/29/00 7:53:02 UAL1217 B72Q D 30R 92.0
02/10/0016:02:57 DAL1624 B72Q D 30R 91.9
02/Ol/00 9:47:14 CCP101 B72Q D 30R 91.8
02/26/0013:53:37 NWA616 B72Q D 30L 91.4
02/16/0017:22:51 Unknown Unknown D 30L 91.4
_ (RMT Site#5)
12`i' Ave. & 58''' St., �tinneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Depazture
02/27/00 9:47:58 CCP501 B72Q D 30L 101.7
02/14/0014:14:58 SC?C729 B72Q D 30L 101.6
02/24/00 23:24:21 NWA615 B72Q D 30L 101.4
02/07/Q011:09:37 CCP460 B72Q D 30L 101.3
02/24/00 20:15:08 DAL1683 B72Q D 30L 101.2
02/29/00 7:29:31 CCP290 B72Q D 30L 101.1
02/26/0011:54:06 NWA627 B72Q D 30L 101.1
02/26/0019:36:56 CCP101 B72Q D 30L 100.9
02/24/00 20:55:47 NWA557 B72Q D 30L 100.6
02/24/00 20:47:57 NWA625 B72Q D 30L 1Q0.6
(RMT Site#6)
25�' Ave. & 57`'' St., l�sinneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/26/0015:15:02 NWA1026 B72Q D 30R 106.9
02/27/0013:34:20 NWA616 B72Q D 30R 106.5
02/29/Q015:04:13 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 105.8
02/22/0014:48:57 NtNA624 B72Q D 30R 105.3
02/26/0016:49:03 NWA770 B72Q D 30R 104.7
02/10/00 7:43:59 SCX621 B72Q D 30R 104.5
02/26/Qa 21:00:11 NWA615 B72Q D 30R 104.5
02/18/0013:47:40 NWA624 B72Q D 30R 104.4
02/19/00 9:34:00 NWA375 B72Q D 30R 104.1
02/26/0012:28:43 N4VA1259 B72Q D 30R 104.1
(� j � .
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Prograrn 19
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten I�oudest Aircrait 1�loise lEvents for MSP
February 2000 /
\
(RMT Site#7)
Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St., Richfield
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
_ Type Departure
02/10/00 6:45:21 CCP201 B72Q D 30L 97.1
02/03/00 9:07:23 SCX407 B72Q D 30L 96.7
02/09/00 9:03:11 SCX407 B72Q D 30L 95.3
02/03/0018:15:21 CCP450 B72Q D 30L 95.2
02/26/0014:59:40 CCP315 B72Q D 30L 95.0
02/03/00 8:45:50 SCX709 B72Q D 30L 95.0
02/15/0017:51:40 SCX753 B72Q D 30L 95.0
02/04/00 6:24:11 SCX731 B72Q D 30L 95.0
02/04/00 7:52:30 CCP272 B72Q D 30L 94.9
02/18/0018:42:15 SCX403 B72Q D 30L 94.9
_ (RMT Site#8)
Longfellow Ave. & 43`� St., Minneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
_ Type Departure
02/29/00 7:50:58 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 93.9
02/26/0012:18:42 UAL1055 B73Q D 30R 93.7
02/26/0017:35:11 SCX793 B72Q D 30R 93.6 �� ._
02/09/00 8:09:18 SCX325 B72Q D 30R 92.8 �
02/07/00 7:21:07 SCX623 Unknown D 30R 92.6
02/11/0017:45:26 SCX743 B72Q D 30R 92.0
02/07/00 8:11:37 SCX325 B72Q D 30R 91.8
02/06/0017:23:52 NWA752 B72Q D 30R 91.7
02/27/Q013:34:55 NWA616 B72Q D 30R 91.5
02/19/00 7:25:46 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 91.2
(RMT Site#9)
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave., St. Paul
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway . Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/26/0011:13:15 NWA743 DC9Q A 22 93.5
02/23/0p 13:49:30 NWA19 B742 D 04 92.7
02/23/0012:45:07 NWA921 B742 D 04 91.5
02/26/00 8:50:33 ATN1710 DC8Q A. 22 gg,6
02/26/0012:54:28 UAL1786 B72Q A 22 g�,�
02/26/0013:07:53 SCX748 B72Q A 22 87.1
02/26/00 6:4$:19 EWW124 DC87 A 22 86.7
02/26/0010:59:03 NWA203 DC9Q A 22 86.6
02/26/00 8:38:56 OAE83 DC10 A 22 86.0
02/26/00 5:29:24 UPS560 DC8Q A 22 g5,2
�
20 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'I'op 'Ten Loudest Aircraft l�toise Events for NISP
February 2000
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. &. Bowdoin St., St. Paul
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Depazture �
02/23/OQ 13:49:02 NWA19 B742 D 04 99.6
02/23/0012:44:41 NWA921 B742 D 04 98.8
02/07/0013:03:08 NWA19 B742 D 04 96.4
02/26/00 8:39:36 OAE83 DC10 A 22 95.7
02/16/0014:13:09 NWA19 B744 D 04 94.7
02/13/0013:07:07 NWA19 B744 D 04 93.7
02/26/00 2:29:29 SCX404 B72Q A 22 93.2
02/29/00 4:59:55 FDX1718 DC10 A 22 92.2
02/26/00 8:51:15 ATN1710 DC$Q A 22 92.1
02/28/00 23:59:16 SCX464 B72Q A 22 91.9
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/13/0013:07:24 NWAl9 B744 D 04 89.7
02/07/0013:03:26 NWAl9 B742 D 04 88.0
02/16/0014:13:32 NWA19 B744 D . 04 81.0
02/23/0013:49:20 NWAl9 B742 D 04 80.1
02/22/0011:32:58 NWA616 B72Q A 12L 78.6
02/22/0011:29:11 NWA706 DC9Q A 12L 76.7
02/23/0012:44:50 NWA921 B742 D 04 76.5
02/28/00 7:08:25 Unknown BE18 D 12R 76.4
02/12/00 7:33:03 BMJ66 BE80 D 12L 75.7
02/25/00 7:39:42 BMJ66 Unknown D 12L 75.6
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul
Date/Tune Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/22/0011:32:33 NWA616 B72Q A 12L 8b.2
02/14/00 7:17:43 Unknown BE18 D 12L 84.2
02/17/00 7:31:18 Unknown BE18 D 12R 82.5
02/25/0015:47:04 BMJ48 BE80 D 12L 82.4
02/22/00 9:32:46 N4VA9863 B752 D 12R 79.5
02/02/00 7:03:38 BMJ48 BE80 D 12R 78.6
02/24/0015:28:37 MES3330 SF34 D 12L 78.6
02/02/00 9:34:4b MES3238 SF34 D 12L 77.1
02/02/00 7:18:34 TN16U BE18 D 12L 76.6
02/23/0013:25:06 MES3084 SF34 D 12L 76.0
(� � � � .
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Rrogram 21
Metropolitan Airccaft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
�op �'en ]Loudest Aircraft I�oise Events for M�F
February 2(}00
��
(RMT Site#13)
Southeast End Of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/21/00 9:16:15 SCX715 B72Q D 12L 92.0
02/21 /00 21:24:16 NWA615 B72Q D 12L 91.6
02/21/00 6:28:38 CCP512 B72Q D 12L 90.7
02/21/0017:02:25 NWA580 B72Q D 12L 89.7
02/08/0015:02:40 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 89.6
02/14/00 7:12:07 SCX623 B72Q D 12L 89.2
02/17/0012:13:09 NWA1271 B72Q D 12L 89.1
02/22/00 7:46:44 NWA360 B72Q D 12L 88.7 �
02/23/0013:10:07 NWA616 B72Q D' 12L 88.7
02/22/00 7:19:57 SCX710 B72Q D 12L 88.6
- (RMT Site#14)
1 S` St. & Mckee St., Eagan
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/14/0010:10:53 CCP460 B72Q D 12R 97.7
02/05/00 5:38:04 CCP450 B72Q D 12R 95.2
02/22/00 7:37:01 CCP290 B72Q D 12R � 94.7 �^
02/24/00 8:27:22 SCX709 B72Q D 12R 94.6
02/21/QO 20:51:02 NWA557 B72Q D 12R 94.0
02/26/00 7:27:44 NWA844 B72Q D 12R 94.0
02/21 /0019:43:19 SCX403 B72Q D 12R 939
02/25/00 9:34:14 CCP504 B72Q D 12R 93.8
02/23/00 21:08:41 NWA1273 B72Q D 12R 93.5
02/09/0012:54:30 NWA921 B?42 D 12R 93.4
(RMT Site#15)
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Depazture
02/28/0015:26:08 SCX743 B72Q D 12L 96.2
02/28/00 8:01:50 SCX710 $72Q D �2L 95.1
02/23/0p 12:20:38 NWA619 B72Q D 12R 93.6
02/25/00 9:35:23 SCX710 B72Q D 12L 93.5
02/08/0015:52:18 DAL1624 B72Q D 12L 93.0
02/21/CO 21:23:58 NWA615 B72Q D � 12L 92.1
02/25/0015:09:42 DAL1731 B72Q D - 12L 92.1
02/23/0015:24:15 AJT397 B7ZQ D 12L 91.9
02/28/00 7:24:16 NWA652 B72Q D 12L 91.8
02/21 /00 17:02:07 NtNA580 B72Q D_ _<.12L . 91.5 ,"
�
2� 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 �IS�'
February 2000
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane, Eagan
Date/Tisne Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/26/0010:02:15 SCX409 B72Q D 12R 100.3
02/26/00 7:27:27 NWA$44 B72Q D 12R 97.6
02/26/0010:00:21 NWA547 B72Q D 12R 97.3
02/21/00 8:25:21 CCP101 B72Q D 12R 97.0
02/24/00 9:49:29 SCX407 B72Q' D 12R 96.9
02/22/0010:52:24 CCP520 B72Q D 12R 96.9
02/22/0016:47:14 SCX785 B72Q D 12R 96.7
02/26/00 9:30:44 SCX701 B72Q D 12R 96.5
02/21/0014:33:16 SCX729 B72Q D 12R 96.4
02/17/0018:11:42 CCP450 B72Q D 12R 96.3
� _ (RMT Site#17)
84`�' St. & 4`�' Ave., Bloomington
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Depazture
02/27/00 5:40:58 CCP101 B72Q D 22 97.8
02/28/0013:53:31 NWA19 B742 D 22 95.9
02/14/0013:06:18 NWAl9 B742 D 22 95.1
02/19/0013:33:57 NWA19 B742 D 22 94.2
02/27/00 6:13:05 CCP201 B72Q D 22 93.6
02/26/0013:45:00 NWA1270 B72Q D 22 93.5
02/06/0016:32:05 CCP450 B72Q D 22 93.4
02/29/0012:58:30 NWAl9 B744 D 22 93.3
02/21/0013:09:28 NWA19 B742 D 22 93.2
02/11/0013:24:31 NWA19 B742 D 22 92.2
(RMT Site#18)
75`h St. & 17�' Ave, Richfield
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/26/Q012:08:47 NWA1271 B72Q D 22 101.5
02/26/0013:28:02 NWA19 B742 D 22 101.1
02/02/0013:20:37 NWA19 B742 . D 22 100.8
02/26/0012:39:58 -�1iNA83 B742 -D 22 1�.7
02/26/00 8:27:52 CCP530 B72Q D 22 100.6
02/19/0012:53:18 NWA83 B742 D 22 100.1
02/14/0013:05:54 NWA19 B742 D 22 99.7
02/28/OD 13:53:06 NtNA19 B742 D 22 99.5
02/21 /0013:09:02 NWA19 B742 D 22 98.8
02/11/0013:24:05 NWA19 B742 D 22 98.3
A Produc[ of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 23
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
'Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
February 2000
�,.
(RMT Site#19)
16`h Ave. & 84``' St., Bloomington
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
_ Type Departure
02/26/00 8:28:12 CCP530 B72Q D 22 97.2
02/27/00 6:32:58 SCX533 B72Q D 22 96.4
02/05/00 8:46:33 CCP530 B72Q D 22 96.2
02/27/00 8:48:26 CCP406 B72Q D 22 95.2
02/27/00 8:19:40 SCX723 B72Q D 22 94.9
02/27/00 6:25:32 SCX481 B72Q D 22 93.7
02/OS/0016:13:00 SCX793 B72Q D 22 93.1
02/26/0010:21:28 BSK609 • B72Q D � 22 93.0
02/05/0016:24:07 SCX743 B72Q D 22 92.3
02/05/00 8:31:11 SCX701 B72Q D 22 91.3
- (RMT Site#20)
75`� St. & 3`� Ave., Richfield
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Anival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
-- Type Departure �
02/27/00 5:29:22 SCX603 B72Q D 22 93.1
02/27/00 5:05:12 RYN610 B72Q D 22 92,8
02/26/0012:09:10 NWA1271 B72Q D 22 91.8 �.
02/06/0015:59:28 DAL1624 B72Q D 22 89.3
02/29/00 9:04:39 SCX715 B72Q D 22 86.6
02/26/0013:28:30 NWAl9 B742 D 22 85.1
02/26/0019:44:59 NWA1292 DC9Q D 22 85.1
02/02/0013:21:05 NWAl9 B742 D 22 84.4
02/20/00 23:29:17 NWA615 B72Q D ?.2 g4,3
02/06/0015:49:11 DAL1731 B72Q D 30L g4.2
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67`� St., Inver Grove Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02/08/0013:37:43 NWA19 B744 D 12R g�.9
02/22/0013:30:24 NWA616 B72Q D 12L 87.2
02/26/00 6:15:Ob CCP310 B72Q D 12R g6.2
02/21/0012:29:41 NWA921 B742 D 12R g5 9
02/08/0013:12:38 NWA616 B72Q D 12L g5,�
02/26/00 7:58:11 SCX759 B72Q D 12L g5.5
02/25/0016:31:12 SCX748 B72Q D 12R $5.0
02/21/00 7:41:42 SCX710 B72Q D 12L 84.6
02/28/Q012:08:20 NWA921 B742 D 12R 84.4
02/08/0015:03:15 SCX743 B72Q D 12L g4.g
C
24 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
� Metropoli[an Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP
February 2000
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure _
02/04/00 6:57:28 MES3078 SF34 A 30R 87.8
02/01/00 21:32:13 Unknown H25 A 30R 85.4
02/04/00 7:19:50 NWA1045 DC9Q A 30R 85:4
02/02/0010:21:36 CCP550 B72Q D 12R 85.2
02/02/00 9:40:59 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 84J
02/23/00 6:34:24 NWA1278 DC9Q A 30L 84.7
02/21/0015:01:28 CCP270 B72Q D 12R 84.7
02/25/0015:18:03 CCP270 B72Q D 12R 84.2
02/09/00 5:23:53 RYN610 B72Q D 12R 84.2
02/OS/0015:05:11 DAL1731 B72Q D 12R $4.0
(RMT Site#23)
� End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure �
02/25/0015:06:53 NWA588 B72Q D 12L 100.0
02/28/0011:32:25 NWA619 B72Q D 12L 100.0
02/08/0011:27:25 NWA619 B72Q D 12L 99.4
02/21/00 6:27:58 CCP512 B72Q D 12L 99.1
02/28/0011:29:47 NWA1271 B72Q D 12L 98.2
02/26/00 8:09:26 SCX325 B72Q D 12L 97.9
02/21/QO 21:23:35 NWA615 B72Q D 12L 97.6
02/22/00 8:01:51 5CX325 B72Q D 12L 97.5
02/21/(� 13:08:21 NWA616 B72Q D 12L 97.5
02/25/QO12:12:34 NWA619 B72Q D 12L 97.5
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Eagan
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure
02 / 13 / QO 17:17:25 MES3679 BA46 D 12R 93.8
02/21/00 8:30:16 SCX705 B72Q D 12R 92.5
02/21/00 6:18:35 SCX731 B72Q D 12R 90.5
02/21/0014:33:53 �SCX729 B72Q D 12R 89.8
02/02/00 9:40:29 SCX407 B72Q D 12R 89.8
02/05/00 5:38:21 CCP450 B72Q D 12R 89.3
02/21/0019:43:39 SCX403 B72Q D 12R 88.8
02/21/00 9:36:51 SCX407 B72Q � D 12R 88.6
02/12/00 9:13:00 SCX409 Unknown D 12R 88.6
���� �
02/25/Q015:17:29 CCP270 B72Q D, 12R 88.5
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 25
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for Il�ISP
�'ebruary 2000
C
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan
Date/Time Flight Number A.ircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Depazture
02/17/0017:23:38 DAL505 B72Q D 12R gg 6
02/28/0014:12:03 SCX571 B72Q D 12R 85.5
02/07/00 7:07:14 Unknown Unknown A 30L 83.7
02/21/00 7:19:00 VGD422 B73Q D 12R 83.3
02/28/0010:05:23 CCP460 B72Q D 12R 82.8
02/28/0014:57:36 CCP270 B72Q D 12R 82,7
02/28/00 9:38:30 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 82.6
02/09/00 21:52:24 ABX353 DC8Q D 12R 82.4
02/21/0010:00:03 GLA6785 B190 D 12R g2 2
02/09%00 0:18:56 RYN710 B72Q D 12R 82.2
- (RMT Site#26)
6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Departure �
02/28/00 8.24.53 SCX705 B72Q D 12R 90.2
02/21/00 7:20:44 SCX623 B72Q D 12L gg,5
02/06/00 6:19:56 SCX533 g72Q D l�g 88 5 �.
02/25/0013:17:12 NWAl9 B742 D 12R 88.1
02/21/0012:29:20 NWA921 B742 D 12R g8;�
02/12/00 8:38:58 SCX759 B72Q D 12R 86.9
02/26/00 5:16:22 CCP4S0 B72Q D 12R 86.9
02/12/0010:53:26 NWA931 B741 D 12R $6.8
02/13/0010:38:01 SCX791 B72Q D 12R 86.6
02/22/0012:32:10 NWA921 B742 D 12R 86.4
(RMT Site#27)
Anthony Middle School, 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Depariure
02/04/0013.01.37 CCP4b0 B72Q D 30L 94.5
02/29/00 7:30:13 CCP290 B72Q D 30L 94.2
02/14/0016:15:41 CCP301 B72Q D 30L 92.6
02/24/QO18:18:13 DAL505 B72Q D 30L 91.7
02/27/Q011:25:04 NWA619 B72Q D 30L 91.6
02/14/0014:15:33 SCX729 B72Q D 30L 90.9
02/09/00 9:04:39 SCX715 B72Q D 30L 90.8
02/27/00 9:16:57 SCX791 B72Q D 30L 90.5
02/26/00 20:56:02 NWA1273 B72Q D 30L 90.4
02/07/00 9:01:47 SCX715 B72Q - D 30L 90.4
�
26 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Ahatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top T�n L,oudest Aircraft Noise Even�.s for .1VISI'
February 2000
(RMT Site#28)
6645 16`h Avenue S., Richfield
Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
02/18/00 6:50:32 BMJ56 BE80 D 30L 93.5
02/26/00 20:47:30 NWA1097 B72Q D 30L 91.3
02/29/00 22:52:20 FDX1381 � B72Q D 30L 90.6
02/10/00 6:19:37 UAL738 B73Q D 30L 90.2
02/05/0014:09:55 EWW738 DC8Q D 30L 90.0
02/03/QO 22:48:02 DHLl42 B72Q D 30L 90.0
02/15/0015:45:31 NWA599 DC9Q D 30L 89.0
02/03/00 20:04:46 FFT861 B73Q D 30L 88.9
02/27/00 9:15:20" OAE453 LJ24 D 30L 88.6
02/14/0015:00:33 DAL1731 B72Q D 30L 88.4
(RMT Site#29)
Ericsson Elementary School, 4315 31 S` Ave. S., Minneapolis
\ j Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Arrival/ Runway Lmax (dB)
Type Depazture
02/26/Q019:33:34 SCX792 B72Q D 30R 90.3
02/03/00 7:32:30 SCX710 B72Q D 30R 88.8
02/03/00 7:23:07 NWA652 B72Q D 30R 88.7
02/29/Q015:10:33 UAL1872 B73Q D 30R 88.4
02/14/0018:50:28 NWA558 B72Q D 30R 88.3
02/02/0017:54:36 SCX408E B72Q D 30L 87.9
02/29/0018:49:53 NWA558 B72Q D 30R 87.9
02/03/00 7:17:39 SCX621 B72Q D 30R 87.8
02/15/0017:25:44 UAL1957 B73Q D 30R 87.7
02/29/0013:22:35 NWA616 B72Q D 30R 87.5
Februarv 2000 Top Ten Summary; The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for
February 2000 were comprised of 83.8% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was
the Bceing 727 Hushed with 69.3% of the highest Lmax events
Note: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track data.
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 27
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisc�r's Repc�rt
Analysis of �ircraft Noise Events - Aircraft L,dn dBA
February 2000
RPrmtP Mnnitnrino Tnvrp.�c
�---- -----------a - --�� .
Date #1 #f2 #3 #4 #5 #5 #�'7 #S #9 #14 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15
1 54.6 5�.9 59.3 61.8 70.6 725 65.7 I 62.5 392 42.3 37.6 30.6 � 32 � 63j 482
�
2 57.6 60.2 63.4 ( 62.7 71.1 733 64.8 62 44.4 46.6 40.9 46.8 � 58.1 � 65.1 61 S
3 56.4 57.1 66.8 ! 63.7 74J 74.1 70.6 ( 63.7 45.8 37.2 46.9 38.9 � 38.4 � 63.9 49S
� 4 563 58 62.9 � 63.9 72.7 74.7 70 62.9 39.4 33S n/a 32.8 ! 36.9 � 62.1 50.1
� 5 53.6 54.9 58.6 � 625 70J 70.9 66.1 60.9 51.4 532 44 3�.8 � 33_2 � 672 48.8
' 6 58 59.6 62.8 � 64 703 73.9 64J 64.5 46.9 34.4 47.6 37.8 ': 5�.8 I 6�.8 58
� 7 5�.4 573 63.6 ( 635 73.4 74J 68.5 6;5 43.6 55.2 47.8 n/a � 37.6 � 61.4 35J
� 8 I 59.1 59.1 63.1 I 63.1 70.8 732 63.1 I 60.5 46.8 49.4 42S 45.3 i 6Q.4 i 66,6 625
9 �8.6 60.9 64 � 63 72 73.2 66.5 � 60.1 44.7 33.9 395 34 i 59.6 � 66.6 60.9
10 57 57.5 64.4 I 63.1 72.7 74.8 70.8 63.5 36.7 30 32.2 38.5 � 36.5 � 63 44.
�
11 54.3 5�.7 59.9 ; 61 72.6 72.7 65.8 63.1 40.6 38.9 41.4 43 37.1 � 5� 39.7
12 58.3 61 64.5 � 62 69.8 69.4 46.5 49.6 32 445 37.6 37.2 58.8 I 67.2 60.4
I 13 .i9 i 59 66.5 � 61.9 71.7 68.3 56.4 52.8 35.3 52.4 49.2 33J � 59.3 ( 68.6 60.2
� 14 5�.8 58.7 62.9I642 74S 74� 68.8 62.7 40.1 44.6 41.8 45.4I55.8 63.7 57.7
�
I 15 61 � 62.2 66.3 � 64.3 72.2 73.4 66.2 61.4 313 . 51.8 51.6 37 57.6 ( 66.4 60.9
16 54.1 5�.5 60.5 ! 63.6 72.6 72J 66.3 63.2 46.2 52.2 44.4 40.3 � n/a � 58.6 45
17 61.8 62.6 67.6 ( 65.1 72.4 70.4 54.7 53.5 395 41.7 n/a 45.8 60.3 � 69.9 62.8
18 57.6 60.1 64.5 � 66.2 75.7 755, 70.4 64.8 33.9 44.9 38.1 36.1 35.9 � 63.8 43.3
i
I 19 56.9 57 62.5 i 61.7 73.6 , 73.8 67.1 I 63.1 ( n/a 40.7 n/a 433 � 46.8 � 61 54
� 20 ��.8 57 61.8 ' 61 69.9 72.2 62.5 60.4' n/a 49.8 n/a 38.1 j 60.5 ( 66,4 63.4
21 60.4 60.7 66.2 � 62.7 70.3 71.3 41.5 49.1 41.6 46.1 36.8 42.6 64.4 ( 68.9 66.1
22 62.6 61.7 67.9 i 64 74.3 72.6 57.4 56.9 42.4 45.3 45.1 50.7 � 60.7 68.7 62.9
23 63.4 65 69.6 i 66.8 75.3 75.3 55.9 I 50.6 56S 61.9 46.6 443 i 65.1 i 705 68J
24 61.8 67 67.9 � 663 763 733 56.4 58.1 � n/a 39 n/a 41.3 � 59 683 625
� 25 655 I 67.8 71.4 ( 69.1 76.3 75.3 52.8 I 53.9 40.7 43.1 41.1 41.3 I 64.9 693 68S
26 61 J 63.6 66J ( 67 73.9 76.3 66.1 I 64 � 60.8 63.7 46:1 44.8 ( 59.4 69.6 612
27 55.8 58.2 60.8 i 64.4 723 75.3 67.7 63.7 ( 37.1 40.2 36.9 36.4 � 38.6 ( 635 482
28 62S 64.5 683 i 66.7 73.1 74.2 51.5 53.4 40.1 59.4 44J 46.5 � 63.6 I 68.7 66.8
� 29 59.6 62.5 64.1 ; 65.8 74.4 75.7 68.4 6�.4 59.8 65 36.6 443 � 51.2 � 632 61 S
ll�la. Ldn 5�.� 61.3 65.�1 �64.3 73.1 73.fi 66.i b1.7 50.0 �4.8 �3.7 42.2 55:6 6�.� �1.3
�
�g A Product of the Metropolitan Airi�orts Commission ANOMS Program
(
Metropolitan Aireraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC? Technical Advisc�r's Repc�rt
A.nalysi� of Aircraf� I�toise Events - A.ircrai# Lc�n d�A
.� February 2000
, �
Remote Monicoring Towers
` Date #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #23 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #2� #29
� 1 � 66.8 43.7 43 39.4 47.3 322 59.7 j 595 � 59.7 4b.3 43.2 � 58.5 62.4 ».9
I 2 ?0.1 49 57.3 43.7 563 51.1 58.2 67.4 ( 63.8 58.8 56.3 57.4 63.7 61.9
3 69.8 43.9 49._5 43.4 5�.9 n/a 59.9 � 58 < i 64.1 51.6 48.1 62.9 67S 60.8
' 4 68.2 50.8 47.5 495 5�.8 33.6 59.7I60.9I62.4 505 46.9 62.3 64S 61.4
5 68.8 51.8 59.6 � 60.3 48.3 37.7 52.9 I 58.9 ; 63.2 53S 51.7 �7.� � 61.6 56.9
� 6 69.7 56.8 58.8 53.8 57.6 53 59.2 � 64.1 � 633 52.1 62.9 57.8 63.4 59.8
� 7 68.8 45.6 45.4 41.7 48.9 41.1 54J 52.9 � 60.3 5�.4 46.6 62.7 63.6 57.9
8 68.8 53.1 43.9 46 58.8 565 57.6 i 69.6 ! 63.3 60_5 57.7 57.6 64.8 59 i
9 70.4 60.6 55.5 42.4 35.9 58.3 60.6 i 68.6 � 652 582 60.6 59.3 63.7 51.3
' 10 66.9� 64.6 61.8 485 51.8 37 55.2 � 53.9 � 61.9 46.9 533 63.7 65.9 59.3
11 6�3 �0.8 ( 5�.1 46.7 4b.9 35.6 SQ.3 i 48.6 I 57.1 44.6 41.6 62.2 59.4 ��.7
i? ( 68.8 33.i 48.7 47 � 37 57 57.8 l 69:2 � 63.7 53.8 61 47.4 53.9 39.8
i 13 � 70.6 34 43.9) n/a 39.7 59.7 59.� � 68.8 I 65.3 57.4 60.4 52.2' 63.7 44S
14 67.9 54.4 56.9 47.7 51.7 51.3 58.4 � 65.4 � 61.8 49.4 54.6 643 63.3 58.2
�
l� 69 363 45. 50.9 52 56.5 i 67.1 � 633 573 58.7 54.7 6�.4 60S
16 65.8 42.1 47 48.9 44 36.1 50.4 � 50.2 � 58 475 47.7 62.6 61 S 54.8
I 17 73.3 42 ( 38.6 I 372 36 59. �.S � 70.4 � 662 61S 63.2 51.7 61.3 n/a
18 68.7 46.9 4�.3 39.7 4b.2 48.3 62.3 `���.6 I 63.1 383 51.5 65.3 66 60.8
19 ( 67 62.9 70.1 63.4 54.3 39.6 55.8 ! 57. : 61.4 492 51.1 63.1 61.7 60.6
20 69.2 63.2 69. I( 645 56.2 56.6 56.3 ; 70 ! 62.6 53.7 57.6 � 58.5 59.3 �3.1
21 71.2 51.7 5�.6 45.6 38.3 58.2 61.7 I 72•7 I b6•7 64•2 59.8 46.1 55 47
� 22 70.9 50.4 54.7 43.2 41.2 56 � 61.9 ; 70.8 � 65.8 6�.6 59.9 58.6 60.3 48.7
23 71 35Z 32.9 37 43.1 i9.4 623 73.7 ! 67.8 64.8 63.9 48.2 66.8 42.9
24 73.1 39.4 42.4 353 �.8 �0.7 61.1 : 69.6 ! 652 62.7 56.3 63.9 62.2 48.7
! 25 71 S 42.8 50.6 48 41 S 60S 61.5 � 73.7 I 66.4 675 64 4b.5 62.1 375
i 26 70.9 563 70.7 60.2 56 57S 61.3 i 68.4 I 66.4 55.7 63.3 583 62.9 60S
' 27 685 69.8 72.6 69.2 65.8 43 563 � 57.9 � 633 44 48.5 62.7 64 59.8
� ZS 70.3 54.2 I 56.1 43 41.4 58.3 59.7 � 71 S � 66.4 65.9 63.2 47 60.1 42.1
29 67 58.2 ( 64•2 59.9 58.6 i�.l 58.1 : 59.2 � 63.8 51.3 52.7 65.5 66.7 64
� 1VIo. L,dn 69.6 5d.� 62.4 �7.7�54.$ ��.9 SS.��G_7.9 64.0 59.3 5$.7 64.6 63.� 57.5
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �9
� 4�� r. � .� .��
� .
, . ,: r.
� � . � �; �, - �;; � �; : � -i
: : � , , - ,
`,,_ ` ,`'' ' 1 i'. � .
F
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Page 2
19 (�>� �o )����v�y 12� �n� 12� C��r�er ,��� L��p��°���� Ope���i�r�s were
1�0�-�� �f i�u� ���° Coa����o�° ���r�c��r� �a�ri�� F�lb�-��ry �,000
I►�inneapoiis-St. Paul
4'�ne#ration Ga3� Pioi �or Gate Rlorth_Corridor
�2/01/2��0 00:00:00 - 03/01/2000 �O:fl0:00
i9 �'rac9cs C�assed �ate: L��i = 2 (1�.5%), #�ight = i7 (89.5%)
� 600�
� . •
= 50�� ................ ............... ................ .................
o • •
� 4�1�0 ................ : ............... ' .. ........... ................,
m • . :
� 3t30� ............... � � ' O
� . ........................o .......�..:..� �..........
o � �
°. 200� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . C� . . . . . . . . . c�s"'.': � ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`� . o .
> y ono . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o . . ....
. .
� � .
. �
� . .
� , .
—� —� p � 2
(Runway End) p�Y9��t9ma� �'rQr� Cent�s� ofi Caa3e �GG�iii�es) iCorridor Endl
� �r�iv�i �=� �eparture ❑ i�yer€lighi �
lvtonthiy t�;agan/IVtendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
(
Metropolitan Airports Commission
337 (6.0%) IZunw�y 12L and 12IZ Carrier Jei I�epartur� Operatio�s were
South of the Cora�idor (South of 30L Loca�izer) I)�ring F'ebruary 2000
Niinneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor
02/01/2000 00:00:00 — 03/01/2000 00:00:00
337 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =161 (48.0%), Right =176 (52.0%)
^ 6U00 _ .
� • : :
d '
� 5000 ................ . ............... . ................ : ................
o , • �
� 4000 ................ ................. ................ • ................
� .� . � .
:O
W3000 •� o ..� ... .................:.................. .................
� o � • .
Q 2000 �c •��• F' .G ...... : ................
.�
� 1000 ..............C�., .�.0 ..�� � .v���y:w" ":���........
o . • : -^�-
.c • : �
°Q 0
—2 —1 � 1 2
(Corridor End) pevia�tion Frort� C�n�e� of Gate (�Ililes) �RWY Mid-Poin
+ Arrival � �e�arture ❑ . Overfilight �
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�(Oo1%) I�unway l�i. �nc� fl.2� C�rrier J�� I)�p�r�ure �per��ions wet-e . .
5° S��t� of t�e �or�°��or (5° S��th o� 30L L�c�lizer) ���i�g �e�����y 2000
Page 4
IVlinneapoiis-St. Paul
P�netraiion Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor_5deg
02/01/20�0 013:00:00 - 03/01/2D00 00:00:00
8 Trac3cs Crossed Gate: L��t = 7(87.5%), Right -1 (12.5%)
� 6000
� :
� 5000 ................ ............... , ................ , .................
o ' ' •
} 4000 ................ : ............... ................ : .........,.......
a� • •
� 3000 ................ ..................................... .......... ....
'� • p : .
°. 2fl00 ....�.......... :.Q ......... � : ................ : .................
� . � � � .
� 7 000 .... . ......... : ............... ................ ' .................
o • •
.
.n • � �
. . .
°`t n ' ' ' - -- .
-2 -� 0 i
(Corridor End) Devia�io� Fr�ra� C2nter of Gat� (�iiles) �RWY Mid-
-�- Arrival O peparture ❑ �v�rfligh� �
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
r^.
�;
Metropolitan Airports Commission
T�� fl.5 I�u��v�y 12�. ��a� �2� D���r��r� De���m����o�as �'��° Fe�����y ����
-�' r� 3i � c�—^—s—., $-T.— rr*� �h "�' .. _�Y"7 Pp `'�-�. f's�,�t `�'�� t ,�,� u r'� ,r t�}a�x—`"�,'.p,"—T =i
�� ? �, �.i 8�. 4`s'} ^� tii. #`G§ 7�t"r 6 '�l k.J ..;� i�� 4 " {`+ � T .S ��./��� L�- i� �� � "1
k � � z � � ;� z �, ,� , � � � � � , �'eadrn,� .� 5 �_ �� � �r� x�a �erce� o,�;.
n 4 ri � �� �'� i d t'f ,�,� f,+ t 4� 7 i a
� OTt ° '`� 2 ( �a-ti � ' �j�L� � � a r �'+ 'rrr� � e � . '��t �rt's t r r � YtUP�4 £�� i "r�-� r f "� t�' �,' ��
4'�y -y}� �. r � �'' ��i..� � t� '. � 1-� a �,, m�1,yY,�t �:.3E �„� ���r�.� {r Fskw (��.�� k; '+'.�k -S e�x �tl`�ar��X e}l(%tQ�O�%.� �j���
�",-�.:..i�„#^v,^,a s,-...T-`�r?,�}i, t�,�#t�tyy y..� � F .t x h��.�,Y�Ci rsc' �'"a� � �� � 3 „'�i.�'�..��i..r .,�,�i�...; '�. h>,_�.. ac�. �? z2_i'7� ,.�c�ntSS� S r;«�. <a_�,« ��
s
, ; ��i. ° , �, �I , •t • : •. ,
• ,.• � ; � ---
�������3Z"����t ��• � .. �� .,�
; . . ,. , . :• �,
� ' -� 'I : - ��� I� � �; � � �; ' �' �
• •� i .. � � :',
• � ,;
y � •� � ,• ' ,� ! , „� '
�I �� IIII �,'� � • ��'� „� 'i
�imi.� ' , , � � • . ,
.
- • ', � . ; 1 • `; � •r.
��� �i� � �� � ' � � .�I ' � � �
i�� � • .. ; •.
:
��: � •- � . � ,� •,
:��� .- - . r , � ,•-. :
. ,.
: •,,
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 5
_ F
� � �letropolifian Aircraff Sound Abatement Counci! (�ASAC)
6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolfs, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 726-8141
Chairman: Mayor Charles Mertensotto
Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Waiter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990
Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982
Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor: Chad Leqve
MEETING NOTICE
MASAC OPERATIONS COIVINiITTEE
The Operations Committee wiii meet Fridav, March 24, 2000 — 10:30 a.m. in the Large
Construction Trailer, 6040 28th Avenue South.
If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name
of your designated alternate.
l ) Approval of the March 10, 2000 Minutes �
Runway Use Aiternatives Discussion
Other Items Not on the Agenda �'(z.,.�-�, c aF-
Please note change in meeiing time.
M�MBER DISTRIBUTION
,,.�hairman John Nelson
�6b Johnson, MBAA
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Brian Bates, Airborne
Ma,ry �oeffelholz, NWA
�� Saunders, Minneapolis
or Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights
�y Fuhrmann, MAC
cc: evin Batchelder, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
�1Akf1 Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Mark Hinds, Richfield
John Alabach, NWA
Tom Worum, NWA
Advisory:
Keith Thompson, FAA
�' Glaub, FAA
indy Greene, FAA
Chad Leqve, MAC
�on Giesen, MAC
SJx�ne VanderVoort, MAC
�lenn Orcutt, FAA
� ,,,.,,, �..a..r,�--� ��
��. �- a� � c�, c-�U
�' ( .�, "` `"' ���,r.4-
C
C� �
.�IAS.� C �PERA TIONS CO.ti��.11�ITTEE
TO:
I��ROIY�:
SUBJ�ECT:
I)ATE :
��� ��� ��� �����
MASAC Operations Committee
, . .
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Runway Use 5ystem Alternatives
March 17, 2000
At the March 24, 2000, special MASAC Operations Committee meeting, proposed modifications to the
existing Runtivay Use System (RUS) to include Runway 1�/35 will be presented.
Runway use selection is basically a function of air traffic volume and wind conditions, which limit options
to significantly change runway use - even with the new nuiway. Capacity requirements drive nuiway use
during daytime hoursx RUS altematives are viable only during low-demand hours and when weather
conditions allow. Detailed weather, capacity and demand analyses are complete and the results will be
used to formulate several RUS altematives.
An outline of the topics and associated issues to be presented at the meeting follows:
• Overview of e.usting RUS.
• Review and discussion of the weather, capacity, and
including the limitations of RUS implementation and use.
• Presentation of RUS alternatives, including:
• Potential ruuway use combinations and priority
• DNL contours
• Population counts
• Discussion of RUS recommendations.
demand analyses,
I have included additional information about the Runway Use System that reviervs a brief history,
development� 1999 operational levels and capacity requirements with this memorandum.
A complete analysis and recammendation for the committee wiil be presented at the March 24, 2000
meeting. .
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-b326.
C
�
�` � -
:
_, ., .,� � � ,
.
�.,
_ ;�; . � ,. ,.�ti
i:
5.1 Operafional Considerations � �
�' � A long standing noise mitigation operational procedure at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
-" Intemational Airport has been to direct as many aircraft operations as possible over noise
compatible land use areas. Since that is not always possible, other methods of distributing
aircraft noise were developed, such as the current day Runway Use System (RUS). The
RUS originated in the late 1960s as the Preferential Runway System (PRS) which
formalized a public/airportlusers consensus to concentrate aircraft overflights over the
Minnesota River bottoms and the predominantly commerciaUindustrial land uses within
three miles of MSP, in Eagan and Mendota Heights.
5.2 RUS Development
Various adjustrnents and refinements to the PRS and the Corridor occurred during the
1980s. In 1989, after much public debate, federal lawsuits, a 180-day test with e�austive
analysis, and a number of environmental assessments, the basic principle of continued first
priority overflight of the river bottoms and the Eagan-Mendota Heights commercial/
industrial corridor was reaffirmed in the RUS; a refinement to the ori�inal PRS. The RUS,
implemented in 1990, provides direction to conirollers regarding how traffic should flow
at MSP, within the constraints of wind, weather, and traff'ic volume. The RUS procedures
are highlighted below:
Metropolitan Azxports Commission - Noise & Safellite Program's
Runway Use System (RUS�
• RUS Procednre - Daytime
• Use Eagan/Mendota Heights Coiridor to greatest e:ctent possible.
• Maximize use of Runway 04/22 alone and in combination with Comdor.
• RUS Procedure - Night (10:30 P.M. - 6 A.NL)
• Ma imi�e use of Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor for both arriving and depart-
ing traff'ic (head-to-head).
• Use Runway 04/22 when corridor operations are not possible. Use in a balanced
manner.
Runway assignment is basically a function of traffic volume and wind conditions, with
requirements of the RUS (cited above) applied to the greatest extent. At MSP, during high
volume traffic hours, the parallel runways (30L&RI12L&R) are required �to •handle
operational demand. Since 95% of all traffic arrives or departs MSP between 6 A.M. and
10:30 P.M., the airport operates on the parallel nwways most of the time. Wind speed and
direction, coupled with the conditions of the RUS determine whether the flow of traffic
will be from northwest to southeast (departing over EaganlMendota Heights), or southeast
to narthwest (arriving over Eagan/Mendota heights). FAA's Controller's Handbook
recommends assigning a wind favored runway when wind speeds are 8 lmots or higher.
Below 8 knots, runway selection is at the discretion of�the controller, coupled with the
requirements of the RUS.
Equally important is the distribution of air traffic at MSP. �During the past year, MAC's
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) recorded aircraft overflight
informaiion for 1999 and the following table reflects data for this past year. c
2 Illetropolitan Airports Commission - Noise & Satellite Program's
Runway Use System (RUS)
(.
t
Areas southeast of MSP may e:cperience slightly more total overflight traffic because of
Nighttime RUS use of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. However, this past summer,
the number of aircraft using the crosswind nuiway during the months of April and May
increased significantly due to the reconstruction of the south parallel, runway 12RJ30L.
This was a temporary shift that is not RUS driven, but part of operational necessity during
the recanstruction period. Usually, the volume of air traffic at MSP demands use of the
parallel runways most of the time, and the use of the crosswind runway (Runway 04/22) is
normally less than 4% to 5% of the total operations. Again, because of the Minnesota
R.iver bottoms, and the Eagan-Mendota Heights industriaUcommercial land use, the first
priority for noise considerations between 10:30 P.1v�. and 6 A.N1. is to use the area southeast
ofMSP in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor.
5.3 Runway Use System Capaciiy
� Air tra�c volume dictates use of M5P's parallel runways for nearly all hours of the day
(6:00 A.Iv1. to 10:30 P.M.). Only very selected portions of hours have low enough traffic
. volumes to allow air traffic controllers to move traffic to the crosswind runway. In a
typical year, with normal runway configurations, about 40% of the traffic overIlies
neighborhoods northwest of the airport, and more than �0% of the traffic overflies areas to
the southeast of MSP. During the past two years, reconsiruction of the south parallel
runway, transfened a significant portion of the departing tr�c to runway 22. Even with
the heavy use of the crosswind nuiway due to major aizport construction, there continues
to be a dominance of use on the parallel runways at the airport. The typical snall �,
percentages on the crosswind runway, 04/22, reflect more of the volume of traffic at MSP
than the effects of the RUS, especially because over 95% of jet traffic arrives or departs
MSP during day hours. At night (10:30 P.M. to 6:00 A.M.), however, a much more
noticeable shift in traffic occurs, into the "corridor" southeast of the airport, and onto the
crosswind runway. The majority of crosswind runway operations (landings and takeoffs)
overfly areas southwest of MSP, i.e., over Bloomington and south Richfield.
5.4 RUS Summary
The RUS has been formulated, tested and ref�d over the years by the communities, FAA
and MAC to reach the best possible mix of alte�natzves while meeting MSP's operational
requirements. The distribution of overflights over vari�us sommunities must be balanced
to the greatest extent possible. ��
Today, the RUS functions as it.has since implementation in 1990, however, traffic at IV1SP
has increased steadily over the past several years, and last year, aircraft operations reached
their highest level ever, with over 510,000 operations. As the airport continues to grow
according to the MSP 2010 Master Plan, and operational demand changes, the RUS will
likely face additional changes to meet the requirements of the Dual Track EIS a.nd North
South Runway implementation. '
� Metropolit.an Airports Commission - Noise 8c Satellite Program's
UNA.PPROVED M I N U T E S
MASAC OPERATIONS CONIlVI[TTEE
March 10, 2000
The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the l�fetropolitan Airports Commission and
called to order at 9:00 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
lYlembers:
John Nelson, Interim Chair
Dick Saunders
Bob Johnson
1�Iary Loeffelholz
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
Jamie Verbrugge
Roy Fullrmann
Advisorv•
Shane VanderVoort
Jason Giesen
Mark Ryan
( ) Steve Vecchi
Cindy Greene
Visitors•
Kent Duffey
Kim Hughes
Jennifer Sayre
Kevin Batchelder
Will Eginton
Glenn Strand
William Kuntz
Jan DelCalzo
Approval of IVlinutes
Bloomin�ton
Minneapolis
NLBAA
NWA '
Mendota Heiahts
Eagan v
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
FAA
HNTB
HNTB
NWA
Mendota Heiahts
Inver Grove Heights
Minneapolis
Visitor
City of Minneapolis
AGENDA
MASAC Chair, Charles Mertensotto, asked if there were any additions or corrections to the February 1 l,
2000 minutes. Jennifer Sayre, NWA, noted a change on page five of the minutes. The last sentence of
the fifth full paragraph should read, "He said a typical run-up for periodic check would last about 4 to S
minutes." She said, althou�h the complete "in to out" time for a run-up is about 45 minutes, the engine
run time is only 4 to 5 minutes. With this change, the minutes were approved as distributed.
Appointment of Operations Committee Chair
MASAC Chair, Charles 1�Iertensotto, appointed John Nelson, Bloomington, as interim chair of the
Operations Committee. A permanent appointment will be made within the ne:ct three to four months.
Administrative Details
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that due to schedule conflicts, the Operations Committee meetings would
now begin at 10:30 a.m. rather than 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson asked staff to send a notice of the
chan�e in meeting time before the March 24 meetin� to the MASAC body as a whole.
Corresponcience
Chairman Nelson reviewed the five correspondence received and outlined how they would be handled.
The letter from Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, requesting information from Cindy Greene, FAA,
was to be discussed at a later time in the meeting.
The letters from Steven Hugh and Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, were to be discussed during
the Eagan-lYlendota Heights Corridor discussion. �
The letter from Neil Clark would be discussed as part of the Technical Advisor's Report revision
discussions beginning in April.
C
JANIIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, NIOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, 1VIBAA, SECONDED, TO
FORNIALLY THANK 1VIA.RK SALMEN, FORMER NIASAC OPERA.TIONS COMMITTEE ��
CHA,IR, IN A LETTER FROM THE COMNIITTEE FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE -
OPER.ATIONS CONTiVIITTEE. THE VOTE WAS UNANIYIOUS. NIOTION CARRIED.
Discussion of GRE
Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, briefed the members on how the Capital Improvement Prob am (CIP) at MAC
would be affected if a new GRE were to be recommended.
• MAC and the airlines have just recently negotiated an airline lease agreement, after three years of
negotiations. .
• The lease lists the projects included in the CIP that are being planned and executed as part of the
MSP 2010 plan. � -
• Plans for a new GRE are not included in the CIP.
• However, over the ne:ct 10 years, plans and projects will be added and/or dropped from the CIP. It
is understood beriveen the MAC and the airlines that when these additional projects are deemed
necessary, a negotiation process will take place. (For instance, if there is a cost savings on one or
more projects, a project may be added to the CIP.)
• These negotiations are based on the priorities of both the MAC and the airlines.
• Preparation of the followin� year's CIP is beb n in May and June, with adjustments made
throughout the year, and is approved by the Commission in December.
1�Ir. Fuhrmann also briefed the members on low frequency noise issues for the proposed ne�,v GRE.
C�
�a
' ' • A majority of the run-ups are conducted at power settin;s at less than 80% power.
• The maximum time at full power is four to five minutes.
• Departures and other activities at the airport mask the low frequency noise associated with a run-up.
This assumes that run-ups are generally not performed during nighttime hours when ambient levels
at and around the airport may be lower. .
Mr. Fuhrmann introduced two additional pages to the GRE Feasibility Study. Page 17 depicts the Leqr
contours (DNL was not used since run-ups are prohibited between 12 midnight and 5 a.m.) at both the
current Ground Run Up Pad (GRP) and an alternative location at the end of runway 22, historically used
by the Air National Guard for their C130 aircraft. (Currently the alternative �ound run up location is at
the end of runway 04. This location will no longer be available after next year.) The runway 22 run up
pad has no noise attenuation barriers. Ninety-five percent of the run-ups currently taking place at the
airport are completed at the primary GRP. The contour for the runway 22 run up area assumes five
percent of run-ups would have to take place at this location once the 04 alternative is no longer available.
Page 13 depicts a worst-case scenario for an unattenuated run-up at the runway 22 location for a sin�le
event using a DC9 Hushlcitted aircraft.
Mr. Fuhrmann said a final GRE report will be distributed when it is completed at the end of March.
Charles l�Iertensotto, 1Vlendota Heights, asked if the low frequency noise generated by a run up at the
GRP would be masked by the two parallel runways without the new north-south runway in operation.
Roy Fuhrmann, NSAC, said the majority of the low frequency noise, with respect to the run up pad,
affecting the communities would be masked by operations from the north-south runway.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, clarified that although there may be cost savings from one or more projects in
the CIP, other projects may go over bud�et and those cost savings may be needed for those over-budget
projects.
Chairman Nelson asked if the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee considered low frequency noise
generated by run-ups on the 04/22 runway in its analysis. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the LFNPC
concentrated on low frequency noise generated by departures and arrivals (reverse thrust).
Chairman Nelson asked how the LFSL low frequency noise contours were generated. Roy Fuhrmann,
Iv1AC, said the contours are a combination of the maximum low frequency noise level between the octave
band of 25 and SO hertz.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Hei�hts, asked if the contours had been verified through field
measurements. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said, yes, the measurements taken in the community are consistent
with the contours. He said staff is confident that the model represents reality.
Nlary Loeffelholz, NWA, then e:cplained NWA's position on the need for a GRE. A letter from Nfike
Nlahoney of NtiVA tivas distributed. Ms. Loeffelholz made the following points:
• Throuah research, NWA found that there was not a clearly defined need within NWA to support
constructina a GRE.
• Although in the past NWA has had concerns about not being able to perform run-ups during the late
3
evening and early mornina hours, these problems have been addressed through changes in how �
NWA does business, particularly its maintenance operations. Most of its wide-body fleet run-ups are
being performed in Detroit now.
'I'he GRE project was not contemplated within the CIP. It could require the elimination of other
projects that are more beneficial to noise concerns.
The bottom line is that a new GRE would not give NWA much more than what it has today to work
with at MSP, and NWA can operate within the current constraints.
A discussion followed regarding the specifics of the changes NWA has made to accommodate 'its
maintenance operations. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said the inability to perforni run-ups in the evenin�
hours was not the reason maintenance operations have been moved to Detroit. She said the maintenance
operations were moved because it was a more efficient way to do business.
Ms. Loeffelholz said NWA tends to be fiscally constrained. Jennifer Sayre, NWA, noted also that the
costs of improvements in the infrastructure at MSP are rather large at this point.
Jennifer Sayre, NWA, said she believed most of the requests for performing run-ups during the shoulder
hours of the curfew are occurring during the 5:15 fo 5:30 a.m. timeframe rather than during the 10:30 to
12:00 midnight timeframe and asked Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, if that assumption was conect. Mr.
Fuhrmann said that although a lar�er number of requests may be occurrin� during the early morning
times, there continues to be requests for performing 'run-ups during the 10:30 p.m. to 12 midnight
timeframe.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, noted that the GRE Feasibility Study was not based on NWA's
wide-body aircraft run-up operations only and that a GRE would benefit the airport as a whole. He said (�
he feels MASAC would be misdirected to consider the benefits of a new GRE based solely on cost
issues. He said it was also important to plan for the future, when there will be less DC-10 aircraft (lar�e)
and more Airbus aircraft (smaller). Jennifer Sayre, NWA, said she and Ms. Loeffelholz were asked to
bring information on their cost-benefit analysis to the �oup and that is what was being presented.
Ms. Sayre also noted that in the 1998 Ground Noise Study, ground noise hacl been identified as a
mar�inal source of noise at the airport. She said the study shows that communities will not hear ground
noise during the day, when nu1-ups are occurring, because the activity at the airport masks it. She said
NWA would rather spend funds on other environmental projects.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if NWA or other carriers were to re-institute the Asia-Pacific fli�hts
whether it would affect the need to perform run-ups durin� the curfew timeframe. Mary Loeffelholz,
NWA, said even if these fli�hts were to be re-instituted, they would most likely not depart in the
mornin�, so there would be plenty of opportunity to perform run-ups during off-curfew times. She said
substitutions in aircraft could also be made if it becomes necessary.
Mr. Saunders then asked ifNWA could support modifying the e:cistin� GRP, as outlined in the feasibility
study, which would be of less cost, than building a new GRE.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, then briefly explained the modification alternatives contained in the feasibility
study. He said there were three modifications to the e:cisting GRP that were outlined in the siudy, the
first of which provided aerodynamic benefits for run-up operations but did not offer noise reduction
benefits. '
C
0
i The other two were (1) to extend the west wall of the GRP and (2) to attach acoustical panels to the back
of the blast fence walls. Each option would help attenuate noise by about 6 dba. If both options were
e;cercised and acoustical panels were attached to the west wall, as well, it would cost approximately $3
million. This compares with an estimate of $5 million for a new GRE across from the existing GRP. The
level of noise reduction would be approximately 6 decibels to the west, south and east.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said MASAC and the Operations Committee should be concerned
with abating noise rather than the costs associated with abating noise. He said the question should be
whether the proposal benefits the communities by reducing noise generated at the airport. Mr. Batchelder
said he also felt the $5 million cost for constructing a new GRE was relatively small compared to the total
CIP budget. He said �5 million of a$2.1 billion CIP budget is like adding �5 to a$2000 budget and does
not represent a si�ificant increase in the overall bud�et. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that
approximately $410 million of the CLP budget has been desi�ated for noise abatement projects including
sound insulation of both homes and schools.
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said it was important to know whether the funds for the proposed GRE would
be taken out of the $410 million budgeted for noise abatement projects. He also said he did not know
whether or not his community would benefit from the addition of a GRE since a majority of the noise is
masked by daytirne operations. However, he said he did not believe a decision should be based on
parochial concerns. -
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, then e.cplained the noise level reduction benefits for each area around the airport
for each of the alternatives. He said the rise in noise levels at each of the monitored locations at 11:00
p.m. while a run up was occurring in the GRP was:
l. In Bloomington - 8 decibels
2. In Richfield - 15 decibels
3. In Minneapolis - 4 decibels
4. In St. Paul - 3 decibels
5. In Mendota Hei�hts - 3 decibels
6. In Eagan - 1.5 decibels
• A rise of 3 decibels or less is undetectable to the human ear.
The following scenarios assume either the GRP or GRE is being used and that a run up is bein�
performed durina a"quieter" time at the airport. These scenarios are also based on a single event.
Addition of a GRE ($S million)
a Reduction of 15 decibels in Richfield, which would make an engine run-up unnoticeable
o Run-ups would be unnoticeable in all other areas
Increase Height of GYest Wall (�1 million)
o Reduction of 6 decibels in Richfield (a rise of about 9 decibels over ambient compared to 1� decibels
without the rnodification)
s Reduction af 2 to 3 decibels in Bloomington (a rise of about 5 decibels over ambient compared to 8
decibels without modification)
• No chan�es to decibel levels in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Ivlendota Heights or Ea�an
Attach Acozrstical Panels to Sozrth Wall Only ($1.5 million)
• No reduction to R.ichfield, Minneapolis and St. Paul.
• Make noise unnoticeable in Mendota Heights and Eagan locations
o Reduction of 2 to 3 decibels in Bloomington
Acoirstical Panels on All Wa11s and a Heightened West Wall (�'3 million)
• Reduction of 8 decibels in Richfield (a rise of about 7 decibels over ambient compared to 15 decibels
without the modification) �
• Reduction of 6 decibels in Bloomington (a rise of about 2 decibels over ambient compared to 8
decibels without the modification)
s No reduction of levels in Minneapolis or St. Paul locations
• Make noise unnoticeable in Mendota Heights and Eagan
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, reminded the members that the data being discussed is based on a single event
run-up in the evenin� at a time when there normally would not be a run-up. She also noted that there are
orily an average of 4.5 run-ups performed each day. Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, said it'is true that during the
day under normal operating conditions, the noise levels associated with a run-up would not be heard over
the ambient daytime levels. He said the report is, by desi�, based on a woist-case scenario.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Hei�hts, said the question to answer is whether the benefits of the proposal
are so marginal as to not recommend it, or does it offer a tanaible reduction in noise levels as to lead to a
favorable recommendation. He said MASAC has already recognized that because many of the more
significant noise abatement measures have already been accomplished, it is now forced to work toward (
incremental changes and improvements, which a new GRE may afford.
Steve Vecchi, IvfAC Part 150 Manager, noted that the sound insulation program is currently spending $3
million per month to insulate approximately 80 homes ajainst noise. He said a GRE at a cost of $5
million, on the other hand, would benefit many more homes on a permanent basis at certain given times
during the day. He said he thought a cost benefit analysis of a GRE takin� into account the amount the
Commission is spending on insulating homes, would show a cost benefit.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said it is important that MASAC do everything possible to reduce
noise generated at the airport that irnpacts neighboring communities. He said there would be political
ramifications for not recommending any mitigation measure that could even incrementally reduce the
noise impacts.
Jamie VerbruQje, Eagan, noted that a number of homes in the impacted areas could possibly be bought
out in both Bloomin�-ton and Richfield. He asked Mr. Fuhrmann how these possibilities affect the impact
of the run-ups at IvISP. Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the location in Richfield monitored for the GRE
Feasibility Study was located approYimately four blocks west of Cedar Avenue. Although
redevelopment plans for Richfield continue to be uncertain, the area agreed upon in the LFNP Committee
as needin� mitiaation was no more than two blocks west of Cedar Avenue.
Mr. Verbru�ge, Eagan, also asked how many run-ups of the approximately 2000 in 1999 were perforined
during the nighttime hours. Roy Fuhrmann, MA.C, said he did not have that information but would be
C:�
happy to provide it at the nest meetinQ.
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she did not feel that comparing the cost of a GRE to the cost of insulating
individual homes per month was valid. She said the committee should base its decision on iruly what is
the impact to the communities from the e:cisting operations in the defined hours of operation.
Chairman Nelson suggested four ways in which to move forward with the issue:
` 1. Incorporate certain elements of the GRE Feasibility Study as part of the low frequency noise portion
of the Part 150 update document.
2. Include the recommendation as part of the MAC CIP.
3. Include the recommendation as an element of the Part 150 update document.
4. Elect not to move the recommendation forward.
There are also several modification or redesi�n proposals for the e:cisting GR.P. Chairman Nelson
encouraged the members to once again review the GRE Feasibility Study and the 1998 Ground Noise
Monitoring Study before the April rneeting. Chairman Nelson also asked staff to prepare a more in-depth
briefing of the modification alternatives discussed in the study.
Finalize 1999 Validation, Base Case 2000 and 2005 Projected Contours,
Kim Hughes, HNTB, introduced Kent Duffey of HNTB who explained how the updated contours had
changed and why.
Overall, the changes to the contozrrs are dzre to the following:
1. A change to INM version 6.0
• Takes into account humidity and its affect on the absorption of noise by air (higher humidity =
less noise absorption) MSP has an average humidity level of 69.8%, which increased the
contour over the previous version of the model.
� o Takes into account the spectral shape of aircraft noise
• Better terrain processing
2. Additional information
• ANOMS data for the full 1999 calendar year is now available
• There were changes in the actual 1999 full year fleet mix and operational level compared to the
projected
• Revised fleet mix information for the 2005 contour, including enhanced information from cargo
carriers and Northwest Airlines
INl�I model refinements
• Model now includes seasonal variation's in runway use (for instance, heavier aircraft are not as
sensitive to runway length between January and Nlarch)
•. Refinements in track location and full year gate analysis, including track dispersion. There are
now 170 modeled tracks.
• Improvements in modelin� heavy aircraft departures
• Additional operational categories to seg-regate heavy, prop and jet operations
7
• Improved information on avera�e aircraft takeoff weights by trip/stage lensth. /
• NADPs are now applied to all jet operations. above 75,000 (previously only for NWA) \
1999 Yalidation Contour:
1. Better gate definitions and track dispersions, along with an increase of about 4% in operations on
runway 30L (north parallel) contribute si�ificantly to the change in the northern lobe.
2. To the east, the changes reflect better terrain processing within INM version 6.0. It also reflects
better data.
Validation data from the RMT sites compared with the modeled contours was distributed to show
how well the model predicts actual noise levels. There was a maximum deviation of 1.9dB DNL. A
change of 3 dB DNL is necessary for the human ear to notice a change so the model reasonably
predicts actual noise levels.
A discussion of the 090° flight irack ensued. Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he was
concerned that this track use was underrepresented based on the symmetry of the contours for both
ends of the runways. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said off that runway, the most common track heading is
10�°. He also noted that the density of flights and the type of aircraft using a track will also affect
the contour. He noted that the 12L B depariure track, which represents the 090° track, is �heavily
influenced by the predominance of prop aircraft using that track. (See 1999 Validation Contour INM
Input Data)
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked Mr. Duffey whether the model takes into account areas
where multiple flight tracks intersect. Mr. Duffey said the model does take that into account as part (�
of how it works. Mr. Eginton asked Mr. Duffey about the possibility that "noise islands" could be '
formed at locations where multiple flight tracks intersect farther from the airport. Mr. Duffey said,
due to the altitude of the aircraft at locations such as six miles out, the noise heard on the ground
would be si�ificantly ne�ated. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, reiterated that the modeled contour and the
actual noise levels at the monitoring towers were very close, even at the furthest out monitorin;
tower.
2000 Base Case Contoa�r
The 2000 base case contour essentially uses the same information as the 1999 validation contour but with
a projected increase in operations� and changes in fleet mix (some sta�e 2 to all stage 3). The base case
contour is used to iIlustrate the existin� conditions. The changes between the 1999 validation contour
and the 2000 base case contour is the change in fleet mix to an all stage 3 fleet in 2000.
200� Unmitigated Contoz�r
Chairman Nelson noted that the 2005 unmitigated contour is the contour that will be used to determine
how the various mitigation measures proposed and studied will afFect the noise environment around
NISP.
Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the changes between the preliminary 2005 unmitigated contour and the
�'
:
updated 2005 unmitiQated contour are due to the reasons discussed earlier. In general, the contour to the
f northwest is more widespread because there is better dispersion of flight tracks, seasonal differences have
been accounted for, and a full year of data is available to determine runway use.
Jan DelCalzo, City of l�Iinneapolis, asked why there was a change in the placement of the northern most
lobe between the 2000 base case and the 2045 unmitigated contour. Mr. Duffey said that although the
flight tracks had not changed, the runway use percenta�es for the northern parallel runway change
between the 2000 base case and the 2005 unmiti�ated contour. (2005 unmirigated contour was developed
with only six months of ANOMS data, 2000 base case used all of 1999 ANOMS data)
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked how the runway use was split on the parallel runways. Mr. Duffey
directed the members to the MSP Part 150 Runway Use page of the packet where percentages of
departures and arrivals for both the day and nighttime, as well as for the type of operation, is available. ��
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, noted that the accuracy of the projections of runway use, operational
categories and the levels of operations si�nificantly affect the contour. He then asked whether or not
various scenarios for changes in these variable have been considered and plugaed into the model. Kent
Duffey, HNTB, reiterated that the three variables INM is most sensitive to are the fleet mix, the runway
use and the fli�ht tracks.
Chairman Nelson said he feels the 2005 unmitigated contour reflects the best assumptions and data
available and that the more pressing and challenging work is to decide on what mitigation measures to
apply .
Eagan-IVlendota Heights Corridor Discussion
Chairman Nelson introduced the topic of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor and indicated that the
conespondence received regarding the topic would be discussed and considered at this time. He also said
it was his intention for the committee to take action on the topic and that recommendations from the
committee would be forwarded to the full MASAC body for discussion.
Cindy Greene, FAA, presented information that was requested by Will Eginton of Inver Grove Heights
re�arding why all aircraft do not necessarily turn at the three-mile mark at the end of the industrial
corridor when departin� off the end of runway 12L and 12R.
Ms. Greene e:cplained that approximately four years ago the community of Inver Grove Heights asked
that a tower order be changed to reflect its desire to have aircraft turned "as soon as practicable" after the
three-mile mark. Ms. Greene said at the time the FAA MSP Air Tra�c Control Tower personnel
attempted to reassure the community that they were already doing everything possible to be sure aircraft
were turned as soon as they were able at the three-mile mark. Although a change in the tower order
would not impact how aircraft were operated in the corridor, as an act of goodwill toward the city, the
FAA included the language in the tower order. The tower order language is as follows:
"Proceed on the assigned heading until at least three miles from the departure end of the runway then
assig-n on-course headinas as soon as practicable at the three-mile point."
The chan�e is the addition of "...then assign on-course headings as soon as practicable at the three-mile
point."
Ms. Greene said the air tra�c control tower had already been performing the order in this matter and the
change in the langua?e did not affect operations in the corridor.
Ms. Greene then e:cplained how aircraft are operating in the comdor in reference to the three-mile turn
and handed out a dia�am of the 12L and 12R video map.
Ms. Greene said the air traffic controllers consider four variables when determining when an aircraft can
be turned on course.
1. Separation from succeeding or proceeding departures. When aircraft are departing
simultaneously, they must be separated by 15 degrees. Most of the prop aircraft are sent out on the
90 degree heading (farther to the north of the corridor) because they are slower than jet aircraft and
could interfere with operations in the corridor. Before a controller can turn an aircraft ofF the 15
degree divergence, there must be another form of separation, which will either be a three mile
separation or 1000 feet in altitude.
2. The ultimate destination of the aircraft. All of the departures to the top 15 airport destinations exit
the airspace between 110 and 240 de�ees. The top seven destinations all exit the airspace between
• 110 and 130 de�rees, which means a good many departures will never be turned based on the need to
eYit the airspace between 110 and 130 de�ees.
3. Activities occurring at the St. Paul Airport. MSP operations co-e;cist with operations at St. Paul
Downtown Airport. In order to operate at the same time, the FAA has desi�ed the airspace with
separations. Any depariure that comes from MSP and needs to cross into the St. Paul airspace (cross
the solid blue line) must be at 4,000 feet altitude or greater. Aircra$ operating in and out of the St. "
Paul airport can operate at 3,500 feet or lower, which will shield them from the operations from �= �'
MSP.
4. Arrival corridors (STAR).. A large portion of the arrivals coming into MSP airspace originate at
the eastern STA.R, with the second busiest being to the south. Aircraft enter the airspace at 11,000
feet and do not drop below 8,000 feet until they reach the �nal approach. In order for aircraft
departins to the east and south to miss arriving aircraft, the departing aircraft must either stay at
7,000 feet or below or climb to 12,000 feet and above. Half of the time departing aircraft are directed
to climb and half the time they are directed to stay at 7,000 feet or below. �
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if the MSP tower controllers coordinated with the St. Paul
controllers. Ms. Greene said they do not because it is unnecessary.
Mr. Ejinton asked Ms. Greene if the MSP control tower is ever in control of the St. Paui airspace. Ms.
Greene said the MSP tower does not control St. Paul Downtown Airport's airspace. She said when the
tower at St. Paul is closed at night the airspace becomes uncontrolled. This does not mean, however, that
aircra$ cannot arrive and depart to and from the airport during this time, only that there is no controller
on duty to assist with the operation. •
Mr. Eginton said his concern is that when the corridor was established it was assumed that there would be
the opporiunity and necessity for equal fanning of aircraft after three miles, but that in reality, this has not
proven operationally feasible or desirable. Ms. Greene reiterated that if the comdor were not in place
today, she would not eYpand the headings to the north'because of the four considerations discussed
�
10
above. She said the only operational change she could make safely is to widen the corridor to the south
to a 140-degree headin�. She said the "Comdor" is not what is hindering the aircraft from turning to the
north.
Mr. Eginton asked if the location of the airspace departure corridors were based on separation
considerations. Ms. Greene said the airspace departure corridors are not based on the position of the other
airspace departure corridors but on the destination of the aircraft.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Hei;hts, asked if headings were based on Crue north or on magnetic headings.
l�Is. Greene said aircraft fly by aircra$ headings and thus the headings given to aircraft are rnagnetic.
Members then broke for lunch.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, addressed the remaining correspondence. He noted the following:
Homes within the new 6� DNL contour not insulated as part of the current insulation pro�ram, will
be insulated first. Insulation prioritization will be based on the de�ee of impact.
A block prioritization map will be produced, similar to the current prioritization map, which takes
into account DNL levels, by one decibel intervals, the number of overflights a block would
e,cperience in an average day and the associated altitude ?iven the point• of closest approach.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he would pass the information along to Steven Hughes of the
Inver Grove Heights Airport Noise Abatement Commission.
Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the members on the history of the Ea�an/Mendota Heights Corridor,
including a recap of the June 1999 Operations Committee meeting.
Ms. Hu�hes noted that the corridor was first analyzed in 1969 before NEPA was enacted. Will Eginton,
Inver Grove Heiehts, asked why there had not been an environmental assessment in 1984 when the
comdor "cone" was added to the tower order language. Ms. Hughes said it was because it did not change
operational procedures, that the "cone" had been used for many years up to that point and that it was
simply being formalized at that time. Ms. Hughes emphasized that in a Part 150 study airports must work
with existing conditions. The scope of a Part 150 study does not include performing environmental
studies on past decisions.
Ms. Hughes reiterated that:
1. In order to maintain capacity ofF the ends of 12R and 12L, three departure streams must be available.
If the boundaries were reduced by even 5 degrees, there would only be two departure streams
available because of the need for aircraft separation.
2. Compatible land uses have developed within the Corridor.
3. Moving the corridor boundary on either the north or south side would impact neiQhborhoods on
either side of the current boundaries.
Kent Duffey, HNTB, said five noise abatement measures have been analyzed for the Corridor. Ms.
Hughes said the abatement measures were extracted from the comments to the- Part 150 scopina
document and that they represent the suQgestions for change, made to date, regardin� the corridor and its
11
usage.
1. Changing to a close-in Noise Abatement Departiue Procedure off the 12's. (Close-in NADP)
2. Fanning operations, rather than keeping them inside the comdor. (Eliminating the corridor.) (Fan)
3. Moving the north boundary to 095° while maintaining the south boundary.(095° North Boundary)
4. Creating symmetry by moving the south boundary Yo 150° and maintainin� the 090° north boundary.
�SY�e�3')
5. Using GPS/FMS to develop standard departures. (New Technoloay)
Each measure was analyzed for:
1. Its potential to reduce the population within the 60+ DNL contour.
2. The possibility of it reducing capacity or increasing delays.
3. Operational feasibility.
4. Whether it would change noise levels at sample representative locations. (Whether an EA would be
necessary.) �
Close-In Departarre Procedure
An e:cplanation of the differences between a close-in and distant NADP was given, along with a DNL
contour showing where changes would occur if the close-in procedure were to be adopted. Kent Duffey,
HNTB, said the close-in procedure keeps an aircraft at a lower altitude and slower speed over a lon�er
stretch of land to a certain point. The close-in procedure benefits those areas within three miles of the
end of a runway.
1. Overall, the close-in departure procedure would add approximately 440 people to the 2005 �
unmitigated contour. �
2. A change in the procedure would not have si�ificant impact on capacity.
3. A change in the procedure would be operationally feasible.
4. A change in the procedure would not produce significant noise changes at sample representative
locations. (An EA would not be necessary.)
Conclusion: There is no significant benefit to changing the current distant NADP off runways 12L and
12R to a close-in procedure. It would add population to the contour and there are no close-in
communities that would benefit from the change.
Fan
Fannin� represents an elimination of the corridor. To model this, all aircraft projected to depart runways
12L and 12R were given a heading based on their projected destinations. (In other words, if there �vere
no Corridor or noise mitigation restrictions, and it was operationally feasible, what would the optimal
headings be for aircraft based on their destination?)
1. Overall, an elimination of the Comdor would add approximately 1,010 people to the 2005
unmitigated contour.
2. An elimination of the corridor could potentially improve capacity. -
3. Fannin� is not operationally feasible due to the interaction with St. Paul Downtown Airport and
12
Runway 17 departure tracks.
4. Fanning would produce significant noise changes at sample representative locations.
Conclusion: An elimination of the Comdor through full fanning would significantly increase the
number of people impacted within the 2005 urunitigated contour, is not operationally feasible given the
interactions with other airspace needs and invalidates the existing land use planning efforts of the past
two decades.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if it would be possible to construct a Comdor where a
percentage (such as 20%) of the flights were directed over more populated areas to the south and a larger
percentage (80%) were kept in the existing Corridor. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the problem with even
sli�htly expanding the corridor is the resulting interaction with both the St. Paul Downtown Airport and
the North/South runway airspace.
095 °North Boz�ndary
This proposal would move the north boundary of the Corridor to the south 5°. The results of this
narrowing are: .
1. � The population in the 2005 unmitzgated contour is not affected. �
2. It has the potential to si�ificantly increase delays as operations �own beyond 2005.
3. It is operationally feasible, although a decrease in capacity would result.
4. There would be no sib ificant noise chan�es at the sample representative locations.
� Conclusion: There would be no significant noise reduction benefit in implementing this change. The
�` -- FAA, as well, has continually rejected this altemative on the basis of runway capacity constraints and the
possibility of increased delays.
Symmetry
The syrnmetry alternative changes the south boundary of the Corridor to 150° to provide �0° divergence
from runway centerline off either runway. This would allow aircraft to fly a more southerly route and to
fly to southerly destinations by a more direct route.
The results of this alternative are as follows:
l. Overall, the population within the 2005 unmitigated contour b ows by about 2,110 people.
2. . There is a potential for capacity improvement.
3. It is operationally feasible.
4. There are si�nificant ne�ative noise changes at sample representative locations.
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Duffey to explain the representative sample locations and what they
represented. Mr. Duffey said the locations represent ima�inary monitoring sites where changes in DNL
values from the 2005 unmitigated contour could be detected if an alternative were to be implemented. A
table of the DNL values for each sample location compared with the 2005 unmitiQated contour values for
each mitigation alternative is included in the packet. -
13
Conclusion: The symmeiry alternative significantly increases the population within the 60 DNL 200� �
contour, would require environmental documentation and invalidates the existing land use planning
efforts of the past two decades.
Chairman Nelson noted that sample location #6, which registered a si�nificant change in DNL values
with this altemative, is located in a non-populated area (the river). He asked if this would make a
difference as to whether environmental documentation would be necessary. Ms. Hughes said the need
for envirorunental documentation is based on changes in DNL values in residential areas.
Jamie Verbrugge, Ea;an, asked who determines what is an acceptable change in noise levels with any
given alternative. Ms. Hughes said the FA.A would have a very di�cult time approving a mitigation
measure that adds that many people to the contour. Mr. Verbrugge asked what level of capacity
improvement would have to be proven in order to implement an alternative that adds a significant
number of people to the contour. Ms. Hughes said she did not have an answer for that question and
reiterated that improving capacity at the airport was not one of the goals, only making sure there was not
a negative impact to capacity for any one of the alternatives. She also noted that the interaction with
runway 17 departures may negate any capacity improvements.
Netiv Technolo�
This altemative assumes the use of Flight Management Systems (FMS) and/or Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) in 70% of all aircraft in the fleet mix in 2005. It is assumed that approximately 30% of
the fleet mix would not have these capabilities and would maintain today's dispersion accuracy.
With these assumptions, the following results could be expected: �
1. A very slight chan�e (50 people reduced) in the population would be realized.
2. It would not hinder capacity or increase delays.
3. It will be operationally feasible at some future date when a lar�er percentage of the fleet mix are
using the technology.
4. There would be no si�nificant chan�es in noise at the sample representative locations.
Conclusion: Because the Corridor is currently being used well, the efFects of addins FMS/GPS
capabilities to the fleet would be minimal during heavy demand periods. The most significant benefits .
would be realized during periods of low demand when aircraft could be directed over specific areas.
Kim Hughes, HNTB, then eYplained when an EA and an EIS becomes necessary. She said the necessity
of an EA or EIS is not predicated on a number or percentage of flijhts that are moved with any given
mitigation alternative but on the change in DNL levels within the contour (1.5 within the DNL 65 and 3.0
within the DNL 60).
HIVTB Recommendcrtions for the Eagan/[Llendota Heights Corridor
1. Maintain the Distant NADP.
2. l�Iaintain the eYisting Corridor boundaries. -
3. Nla;cimize use of the Crossin� procedure when possibl'e.
C.
�
4. Continue compliance analysis of the Corridor.
5. Apply GPS/FMS procedures as soon as possible.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Hei�hts, asked if a change to the head-to-head operations in the corridor was
considered a runway use system discussion item or a Corridor discussion item. Ms. Hughes said it would
fall under the runway use system.
Discarssion
Chairman Nelson e;cplained how the discussion of the topic should ensue.
l. A question and answer period where each member has five minutes to ask questions of the
consultants.
2. A discussion of the alternatives.
3. Recommendations to the full MASAC body.
Recommendations should be based on whether the alternative is operationally feasible and whether it has
an abatement component with consideration of the impacts to the population.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he had asked for documentation at the June 1999 meeting as to
why the 095° boundary change had been rejected fihrough conespondence between the FAA and MAC
and had not received it. He asked that he be sent that documentation.
Mr. Batchelder then asked why the Close-in Depaihzre profile information had chan�ed so si�nificantly
from the 1996 study. Kent Duffey, HNTB, noted that the following had changed since that siudy:
1. INM has improved �eatly since that time.
2. Northwest Airlines has offered very specific information about their departure procedures.
3. The model no�v takes departure profiles into account for all aircraft over 75,000 lbs.
4. The fleet mix is now all Stage 3, which produces less of a difference in noise levels between the two
profiles.
5. The 2005 unmitigated contour is now being used as a base case, which was unavailable in 1996. The
2005 unmitigated contour also includes the 60 Ldn.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Hei�hts, said he could not reconcile why the close-in departure profile
would be best for the city of Minneapolis and not for the communities on the other side of the airport
given that MSP is considered an urban airport. He said the elevation in Dakota county is hijher and
needs to be taken into consideration, as well. Hughes explained that in Minneapolis, the residential
population is much closer than in the Corridor. She said the close-in departure profile is designed to
benefit only those communities that are very near the airport. Mr. Duffey said the model does take into
consideration the terrain beneath the fli�ht tracks.
N1r. Mertensotto said he feels it is more important to consider the intensity of the noise eYperienced close-
in to the airport than the number of people who would be added further out in the contour. Chairman
Nelson reiterated his feelings that MSP is an urban airport and that it seemed that the close-in procedure
would be more beneficial for all airport ends. -
15
Kent Duffey, HNTB, e:cplained that with the close-in departure profile aircraft are lower and slower for a
longer period of time, which INM takes into consideration. This is why the close-in departure profile
adds so many more people to the contour.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said he feels the river bottoms should be e;cploited for noise reduction
purposes, as much as possible, and asked why a"standard" departure procedure couldn't be used in place
of either the close-in or distant procedure. He said he feels aircraft should climb as high and as fast as
possible over the areas that are less sensitive to noise (i.e. the Corridor and river bottoms). Mr. Duffey
said currently at the airport, using the distant procedure, aircraft maintain takeoff power until they reach
3,000 feet in altitude. �
At Minneapolis for a close-in deparlure, thrust is reduced at 1,500 feet for an A320 and 1,000 feet for
a DC-9.
At Minneapolis for a distant departure procedure, takeoff thrust, whether it is full thrust or at some
reduced thrust setting that the pilot has chosen for departure, is maintained until 3,000 feet.
Mr. Eginton said he thou?ht a"standard" procedure was still an option and wanted to know why it wasn't
being considered. Mr. Duffey said the FAA prefers to have one or the other procedure rather than
"fracturalized" procedures at different airports.
Jamie Verbrugae, Ea�an, asked Chairman Nelson to clarify what it was that he wanted to accomplish in
the meeting. Chairman Nelson said he wanted the members to a�ree on what elements shoutd be
forwarded to the full MASAC body for consideration for inclusion in the ParE 150 update as they pertain
to the Comdor.
�. -a
Mr. Verbrugge asked which DNL contour level is considered when determining whether or not an EA or �
EIS is necessary. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said if the communities wish to desi�ate the 60 Ldn contour
level as incompatible in the Part 150 update, then impacts to that contour need to be considered when
looking at mitigation alternatives. Ms. Hughes reiterated that the FAA considers a 3+ dBA change in the
60 Ldn contour as an indicator that there would be a 1.5 + dBA change in the 65 Ldn contour area.
JAIVIIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, 1VIBAA., SECONDED TO
FORtiVARD THE RECOMNIENDATIONS OF HNTB TO THE FULL MA.SAC BODY FOR
FURTFiER CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE PART 1S0 UPDATE. TI3E IVIOTION
PASSED BY NIAJORITY VOTE WITH ONE NAY VOTE.
AN AIVLENDIYIENT TO THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED TO DROP THE
"CONTINUE COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS OF CORRTDOR" RECOMIVIENDATION FROM
THE 1VIOTION. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OF TI�E AMENDMENT.
Discussion
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, confirmed that a vote to forward the recommendations to the full
MASAC body does not indicate a finalization of the Comdor issues.
Cindy Greene, FAA, said she was not sure why the continuing of corridor compliance analysis would
need to be included in the Part 150 update. She said it does not make sense to include it as part of the
16
Part 150 update since it is not a mitigation measure and doesn't affect the contour. Charles Mertensotto,
Mendota Heights, and Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, agreed.
Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he could not support the motion because it includes the
recommendation to continue using the distant noise abatement departure procedure.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked if approval of the three maps presented to the members was
needed to move forward. Chairman Nelson said the contours should be viewed as a work in pro�ess, but
that they should be used for working purposes at this point. He said he felt the 1999 validation map was
very ti;ht, but that discussion will continue as to the validity and strength of the inputs.
7ennifer Sayre, NWA, affirmed that the recommendation to implement new technology did not imply that
MAC would dictate to the airlines when and how quickly the airlines should begin using the new
technology.
JANIIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, NIBA.A, SECONDED, TO
1VIAINTAIN TTIGHTTIlVIE HEAD TO HEAD OPERATIONS IN THE CORRIDOR AND THAT
THE PRIMACY OF THE CORRIDOR BE CONTINUED AS THE PREFERRED NIGHTTINiE
RUNWAY USE OPERATION. AFTER SOME DISCUS5ION, THE MOTION WAS
�VITHDRA�VN.
Single Family and Multi-Family Field Surveys
Single Family Field Surveys
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, presented maps of the single and multi-family parcel counts for each of the cities
�__ � included in the unmitigated 2005 DNL 60 contour. Detailed maps for each city were handed out to the
appropriate representatives.
Mr. Fuhrmann then briefed the members on the number of single-family parcels within the DNL 60 2005
unmitigated contour. (The decimal points for the percent confirmed for the city of Eagan should be
moved to the left two places.) �
With 74% of the parcels within the contour field verified, there are approximately 20,063 homes within
the contour. (Note: IVTany of these homes ha�e been or will have been insulated as part of the current
insulation pro�am.) Field verification began with the highest LDN levels and spread out from there.
Vacant parcels were not counted.
tLtarlti family Field Szrrveys
Steve Vecchi, MAC Part 150 Mana�er, presented
multi-family struciures within the DNL 65 contour.
The Package
• Window treatments
• Door treatments
• Interior wall air conditioner baffle
information about the possible costs of insulating
17
The Types of Multi-Family S'tructzrres
• Apartments
• Condominiums
• Townhome
• Triple,c
• Title II
• Low Income
Cost Estimate Assumptions
�
• All multi-family units within the 2005 DNL65 will be treated
• Esisting doors and windows will be replaced
Cost �Tnknowns
• The actual unit sizes and window/door opening sizes
• City codes, EGRESS and ordinance restrictions
• Construction staging, scheduling and access impacts (could be very complicated)
• Regulatory issues for federally subsidized units
• MAC multi-family Part 150 program policies (i.e. will every unit be eligible?)
• Impacts of future economy (materials and labor)
• Program development (startup) costs
• STC and ANLR window and door requirements
• Required IAQ/Ventilation remediation (different than single family housing)
An estimated minimum of $29.5 to $31.5 million would be needed to insulate the multi-family structures
within the 2005 DNL 6� contour. This represents $13,000 per unit and a full year's allocation of funds
now available for sound insulation. The cost could jump depending on the above variables.
Next Steps
• A MASAC recommendation to MAC
• A MAC decision and inclusion in the Part 150 Update
o Overall program development
• Acoustic testing and research
o Pilot pro�ram
� Identification of funding sources
o Annuai implementation and phasing with residential pro�am
Bob Johnson, l�[BAA, asked if the unit counts iricluded homes that have been broken up into apartments.
Mr. Vecchi said those types of structures were included in the counts.
Several prioritization and fundin� scenarios were discussed. It was noted that the contour could still
shrink and the number and location of units may change. ,
iE:?
� Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, asked each of the representatives to brin� the information to their respective city
� staffs and come back with recommendations as to whether and how multi-family structures should be
insulated.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. The next MASAC Operations Committee meeting will be held
on March 24, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the MAC General Offices.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
�
� �
� � :'� � �. r:� ;,, � $;.� � , f;. 4
A weekly update on litigation, rebulations, and technological developrnents
Volume 1?, vumber 11
/
� Bacrbank
CITY COUNCIL GIVES VOTERS APPROVAL
OF AGREEI�IENT ON NEti� AIRPORT TERNIINAL
The Burbank City Council March 23 unanimously agreed to aive voters
approval over any a�reement reached between the city and the airport authority
on a new terminal for Burbank Airport.
Puttine the matter to a referendum guarantees that the city residents will have a
voice in the outcome of the dispute over the airport, said Councilman Dave
Golonski, who proposed the measure. He called it "simple and leQally defensible."
The City Council's action followed its refusal to put before the voters a more
restrictive ballo[ initiative supported by a group called Restore Our Airport Rights
(ROt�,R), which would have required voter approval of any new terminal e�ceed-
in� 200,000 square feet, and would have imposed a mandatory curfew at the
airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a 10 percent cap on future fliahts and
passen�ers.
The ROAR measure tivould have kilied a tentative agreement between city
of�cials and the airport authority on a new 330,000 square-foot, 14-aate terminal
to replace the e;cisting 170,000 square-foot facility. Tha[ agreement must still
must be approved by the Burbank City Council.
On Nlarch l�, the Burbank city clerk disqualified the ROAR ballot initiative
(which ROAR claimed included 7,=�00 sivnatures) because the siQned petition did
(Co�iti�tued on p. 41)
Hacshkits
EU COUNTER PROPOS�L TO U.S. Ov DISPUTE
OVER HUSHKITS APPEARS DEAD ON r�RRIVAL
A counter proposal offered by the European Union to resolve its dispute with
the United States over an EU rule barrinQ the addition of hushkitted aircraft
appears to be dead on arrival.
Little enthusiasm �vas shown this week by the U.S. aviation industry and
�overnment to�vards the counter proposal offered by EU Trade Commissioner
Loyola de Palacio to resoive the impasse over the UE hushkit rule, which is due to
tnke eFfect in 1�Iay.
The EU offered [o let the part of its rule barrin� the addition of hushkitted
aircraft by member states ao into effect on i�Iay '� and to suspend another part of
the rule barrinv the addi�ion of hushkitted aircraft operations by countries outside
the EU, which comes into effect on April 1, 2002.
The EU proposed to take this action in e;cchan�e for an aQreement by the United
States to suspend i�s formal request asking the International Civil Aviation
Orvanization (ICAOj to resolve the dispute. Tha[ request �vas filed under :�rticie
8� uniler the Con��en[ion on In�ernational Civil Aviation and puts EU member
states at risk of losin� their votin� ri�hts in ICAO.
i�fembers ot the Eurapean Parliament also wanted [o see a written asreement
(Continued on p. �i)
��
l�larch 31, 2000
In Thas Isszce...
Burbank ... Ciry Council
aQrees to referendum givin�
voters approval of ajreement
over airport terminal; ballot
measure disqualified on
technicaliry - p. 43
Hushkits ... An EU counter
proposal to resolve dispute
with U.S over hushkit rule is
dead on arrival - p. 43
Grand Canyon ... FAA
issues rule makina further
restrictinQ air tours; air tour
operators threaten to sue - p. 44'
Awards ... N.O.I.S.E. �ives '
its Le�islator of Year award to
three conaressmen for their
efforts to pass leaislation ad-
dressin� aircraft noise - p. 4�
Sarasota ... Town of Lon�
Boat Key, FL, sues Manatee
County for conditionina ap-
proval of eYpansion of Sarasota-
Bradenton International Airport
to imposition of revised depar-
ture procedure - p. 4�
News Briefs .. . Madrid
suburbs file suit aQainst expan-
sion; EU Court of Human
Rights accepts night noise case;
Draft EIS on FedEY hub at
Greensboro due out soon; Five
firms chosen as finalists in SFO
desiQn competition to put
runways in bay - p. 46
IYlarch 31, 2000
not meet a requirement of state law that it include the names
of the chief supporters of the measure: former City Council-
man Ted NlcConkey and city resident Howard Rothenback,
who both stronaly oppose a ne�v terminal.
ROAR said it may challenQe the city clerk's disqualifica-
tion oti its baliot measure. 4
Burbank Nlayor Stacey Llurphy and Councilman Bob
Kramer had asked the City Council to use its powers to
place the ROAR measure on the bailot foliowin� its
disqualification, but on a 3-2 vote the Council opposed
such action.
The Air Transport Association is �rmly opposed to the
ballot initiative. "We are willing to sit down and discuss the
issues with Burbank in sood faith," Chris Leathers, ATA
director of sovernment affairs, told the L.A. Times. "But we
canno[ neaotiate away issues like a mandatory curfew and
any effort to place arbitrary limits on capacity and future
arowth at the airport. That's clearly was this initiative is
trying to do."
The tentative aQreement reached by th� city and the
airport authority on the new terminal would close the new
terminal at niQht, link expansion of number of terminal
�a[es to a mandatory curfew, use $1.5 million a year in
Passenaer Facility Charses to offset lost property taxes, and
impose a permanen[ ban on takeoffs to the east. However, it
has been cri[icized by Los Anseles politicians, residents
near the airport, the airlines, and the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Increasing Use of Ballot Initiatives
The push for a bailot initiative on a new terminal at
Burbank comes on the heels of the landslide victory in
nearby Orange County, CA, of a ballot initiative that takes
away from county supervisors and Qives to county residents
the power to decide �vhether to convert the former El Toro
l�iarine Corps Air Station into a IarQe commercial airport.
If i[ survives a court test, that ballot measure — which
passed by a margin of 67 percent to 33 percent - most
likely will rinQ the dea[h kneli to plans to convert EI Toro
to a commercial airport.
The increasinQ popularity in the United States of ballot
initiatives was examined by Washinaton Post senior
political wri[er David Broder in a l�iarch 26 article adapted
from a book he �vrote on the topic entitled "Democracy
Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of IVloney."
Broder cails the ballot initiative "an alternative form of
sovernment." In hundreds of municipali[ies and half the
s[ates, particularly in the `Vest, he said, "the initiative has
become a rivai f�rce to Citv Hail and the State House." Of
66 state�vide initiati�•es put forth in 1.998, some 39 became
la�v. "Simply put," Broder wrote, "the initiative's �rowina
popularity has si��en us somethinQ that once seemed y
un[hinkabie — not a Qoti•ernment of laws, but laws withou[
governmznt:"
Some 24 states ha�•e a ballot initiative process. They
includ� Alaska. �rizona, Arkansas, CaliFornia, Colorado,
44
Florida. Idaho, I1linois, iVlaine,l�lassachusetts, Nlichivan,
Nlissouri, Ivlississippi, Ivlontana, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, �
Grand Canyon
CLIVTON ANNOUNCES RULES
TO CONTROL AIR TOUR ROUTES
Caliing the Grand Canyon National Park "a timeless
treasure," President Clinton March 23 announced further
rulemakin� by the Federal Aviation Administration to
manatre sight-seeing flights over the canyon.
The ruIemaking proposes new and modified air tour routes
over and around the Grand Canyon. The new routes are
expected to go in[o effect this fall.
The new rules add a five-mile section to the airspace over
the eastern most por[ion of the Speciai Fliaht Rules Area of
the park to address Native American Indian tribal concerns.
They also propose an "incentive corridor" throush a
cunently fli�ht-free zone throush which future air tour
aircraft meetins stricter noise standards would be permitted
to fly. �
The FAA has not yet defined the criteria for quiet technol-
o�y for air tour planes but the recently-passed Ft�,A reautho-
rization bill requires the aaency to address the issue this
year and to issue criteria by ne:ct year.
The new rulemakinQ also contains a system ta limit the
number of flights each air tour operator can makc, ensurina
that the overall number of flights wili not increase. �_
The FAA first issued rules in 1996 to limit air tours in the
Grand Canyon but they pieased no one. They were chal-
lenQed by the air tour industry, environmental sro�sps, and
Native Americans in separate suits that were consolidated
and heard by the U.S. Court of Appeais for the District of
Columbia, which ruled in favor of the federal government.
The Sierra Club has not yet commented on the current
rulemaking but the U.S. Air Tour Association (USATA),
which represents 5� air tour operators, called the new rules
"irresponsibie" and "election year politics at its worst."
The new rules limit air tour fliQh[s over the Grand
Canyon to the number flown between ivSay 1997 and April
1998, �vhich USATA said was the worst year in Grand
Canyon air tourina history. The rules will mean a reduction
in cunent operations anywhere from l0 pzrcent to 70 tor its
members, accordina to the association. It said tha[ the new
rules expand the ilisht free zones in the canyon to more
than 7� percent of the park, expand the Speciai Fliaht Rules
Area to more than 100 percent of the park, modify air [our
routes, and increase flight altitudes.
AccordinQ to USATA, one Las Ve�as-based Grand
Canyon air tour company �vili lose 3� percent of its
rev�nues of $3 million the first year the rules �o into eFfect
"rendering the company's $12 million investment in IarQe�
aircraft useless." y
"The �Vhite House can play its little election year trames if
it wants," USAT.� President Steve Bassett said. "but this is
Airport Noise Report
lYIarch 31, �000
life or death for the Grand Canyo� air tour industry and will
not Qo unchaliensed." He said the association is evaluating
its legal options and is considerina mounting a le�al
( �� challenge to the new fligh[ restrictions.
� �
Restore `Natural Quiet'
The new FAA rulemaking Further implements a 1987 law
requirin� the F:1A and the National Park Service to work
toQe[her to "substantially restore natural quiet" in the park
Substantial restoration of natural quiet has been defined
by the NPS as more than half of the Grand Canyon National
Park beinQ free of aircraft noise 7� to 100 percent of the
day. Currently, aircraft cannot be heard in 32 percen[ of the
park 75 to 100 percent each day. This rule would increase
that amount to 41 percent of the park.
The FAA plans to publish the new rules in the Federc�l
Register�and has already posted them on the a�ency's web
site at www.faa.Qov. The Federal Register notice will
include [he final supplemental environmental survey that
evaluates the noise and other impacts associated with the
rulemakin�.
The public can obtain copies of the rulemakina by goin�
to the Government Printina Office website as ww�v____�D�•s��•
Organizations
N.O.I.S.E. GIVES CONGRESS1VIEv
LEGISLATOR OF YEAR AWARDS
The National Orsanization to Insure a Sound-controlled
Environment (NOISE) presented its "Legislator of the Year"
award IVlarch 14 to convressmen 7oseph Crowiey (D-NY),
Anthony D. �Vziner (D-NY), and Christopher Shays (R-CT).
ConQressmen Cro�vley and `Veiner, who represent
constituents e:cposed to noise from the three larae airports
in the New York City area, were credited with passing
"crucial leQislation asainst fierce opposition" in the House
of Represen[atives that will provide $10 million per year
over the ne:ct three years for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's research and development proaram
for airplane noise reduction - a 44 percent increase in
funding for tiscal year ?000.
This fundins increase is "essential for the development of
Sta�e 4 next-seneration ultra-quiet aircraft," NOISE said.
"In a rare victory for a Democratic measure, the Weiner/
Crotivley amendment a[trac[ed bi-partisan support to pass by
a vote oF 2?�-203." NOISE said in announcing the awards.
The amendment was added to the FAA reauthorization bill,
which Con�?ress recently passed.
Conaressmen `Veiner and Cro�vley also have introduced
levislation that �vould mandate quieter aircraft enaines. The
Silent Skies Act, in�roduced luly 13, 1999> would require
all aircraft to meet ti�h�er Stase =� noise standards by 2012.
It has littie chance oF passage�
NOISE said the Rep. Shays has also played a sivniYicant
role in the past year in efTorts to pass "sensible" aircraft
45
noise lesislation. Not only did he vote for the Crowley/
��/einer amendment, but Shays sponsored a tloor amend-
ment to the FAA reauthorization act that directs the
Secretary of Transportation to conduc;t a one-year study on
the effects oF non-military helicopter noise on individuals
and to develop recommendations for noise reduction.
Celebratin� its 39''' anniversary, NOISE said it is the
oldest nation-wide communi[y based association address-
ins aircraft noise. Its members represent over 30 communi-
ties and local governments throughout the country.
Sarasota-Bradenton Int'Z
COUNTY SUED FOR TYING
AIRPORT EXPANSION TO SID
The town of Long Boat Key, FL, a barrier island a few
miles west of the Sarasota-Braden[on International Airport,
has sued i�ianatee County, FL, for condi�ioning its approval
of a runway e:ctension and netiv terminal at the airport on
imposition of a new departure procedure.
Florida has a state-mandated permittinQ process for
projects of regional si�nificance, includin� airports, which
requires approval of the project by local and reQional
�overnmental bodies. l�Sanatee County approved the airport
expansion projects on the condition that a new Standard
Instrument Departure Procedure (SID) be used on the
extended runway.
In January, Long Boat Key filed a lawsuit in state circuit
court asserting that federal law expressly preempts local
jurisdictions from dictating where aircraft fly. A judge is
expected within a few weeks to determine whether the town
has presznted a valid case. If so, the judQe will serve notice
to the county that i[ must respond to the litiQation. The
airport is not a defendant in the suit.
Airport officiais contend that the new Standard Instrument
Departure Procedure (SID), which will turn aircraft from
their cunen[ 29� dearee radial to a 270 desree radial, is
needed because pilots cannot follo�v the 29� radial pre-
cisely and tha[ results in sreat splay of fliQht tracks and
dispersion of the takeoFf noise.
They also assert that the new SID �vill reduce noise impact
on neishborhoods in hish noise contours near the airport
and will not significantly increase noise on Lona Boat Key.
But Lons Boat Key officials argue that the current 29�
radial keeps aircraft in the middle of the bay and that
technolosy exists to allow pilots to makz [he turn precisely.
The ne�v SID does no[ aet at the roo[ of the problem, which
is the splay of flivh[ tracks, David Persson, the a[torney for
Lon� Boal Key, Cold ANR.
He said the new SID will impermissiblv shitt the noise
impact from one aroup to another. It ���ill shift more noise to
Lonv Boat Key and to a neivhborhood north of the airport,
which no�v �ets sideline noise but will be directly in the
noise path with the new SID.
The Federai Aviation Administratiun is currently
Aiiport Noise Report
Nlarch 31, Z000 46
conductin� an environmen�al review of the new SID and
Persson said the aoency will require that a full Environmen-
tal Impact Statement be prepared because the new SID will
increase the noise impact in an area north of the airport by
more than t.5 dB DNL, FAA's threshold forsigniticant
noise increase.
For the last 14-15 years, the airport has [ried various turns
on departure in an attempt to direct aircraft over water and
reduce impact on the community, said Noah LaQos, senior
director of aviation for the airport. The new SID offers the
most noise mi[ieation with the most control of aircraft, he
explained. y
The new SID would redirect where airplanes currently fly
over the LonQ Boat Key, he said. Under the departure
procedure now beine used, commercial jets fly over the
northern end of the key and commuter aircraft go over the
mid-section of the island. The new SID wouid send all
aircraft over the island's middle, which is a commercial
district that includes tourist hotels.
The new SID wouId result in less noise impact for 1,2�3
dwellins units and 1,270 people on Lons Boat Key and
more noise impact for 1,012 dwellins units and 900 p�opie,
accordina to LaQos. y
A sliQht variation on a departure turn already in piace, the
new SID would initialIy direct aircraft on takeoff over an
area close to the runway cleared of homes that fell within
the airport's 7� dB DNL noise contour. The airport main-
[ains this area as vacant property. A runway extension
included in expansion plans wiil ailow aircraft to �et higher
on takeoff, passing Lona Boat Key at an aititude of at least
3,000 feet. �
Residents of the island are not opposed to the runway
extension because they understand that it will allow
airplanes to gain altitude on takeoff, Laaos said. The isiand
only gets an averaQe of three overflights a day now, he said,
and wili only �et an averaae of 12-13 per day when the
runway is extended and the netiv SID in place, he added.
Final Approval for Expansion
On ivlarch 1�, the Sarasota County Commission,gave the
airport the last approvai from a local aovernment that it
needed to more ahead tivith the e:cpansion project, which
includes a lonoer runway, IarQer passenQer terminal, a
parkin� �ara�e, and up to 1=�4 ne�v hanears.
The airport straddles the line be[tiveen Sarasota and
Nlanatee Counties and also falis within the jurisdiction of
the City of Saraso[a. It needed approval from those vovern-
mental bodies for its expansion plans plus the approval of
two reQional �overnments: the Tampa Bay Regional
Planninv Council and the Southwest Florida ReQional
PlanninQ Council. �Vith all approvals n�w obtained, the
airport e:cpansion should beQin this sprin�.
I� includes construction of a noise banier alon� roads
runnin� near the airport. although residen[s in [he area are
seekinv a better buffer. They also want the airport to muffie
the noise of Qround vehicles.
I1V BRIEF ...
Kennard Is New Director of LAWA
Los AnQe(es Ylayor Richard Riordan announced vlarch
10 his appointment ot Lydia Kennard as esecu[ive director
of Los AnQeles Worid Airports (LAWA).
Kennard has served as interim executive director of
LAWA since Ausust 1999 and as depup[y executive
director since 1994. She will be responsible for directinQ
the operation of LAWA's four airports, includinQ Los
An�eles International, Ontario Intemational, Van Nuys, and
Palmdale RegionaL
"After an e;ctensive national search, Lydia was by far the
best candidate for the job," Said Niayor Riordan.
Opposition to NIadrid Airport E.�rpansion
Some 16 suburbs of Iviardrid, Spain, filed suit in Feburary
aQainst the expansion of Iviadrid's Barajas Airport, which
was built in 1931 and is located just 7.5 miles from the city.
They alle4ed that the airport is a danQer to their health and
safety and will interfere with urban planninQ.
But Ntadrid's new mayor, Jose Ivfaria Aznar, who was re-
elected on iviarch 12, is opposed to buildin� a new airport
and wants to expand Barajas. In 1996, the mayor's govem-
ment added a third runway and a new control tower at the (
airport and plans to add two more runways and an addi- �
tional terminal by 2004.
Human Rights Court
The Court of Human RiQhts in StrasbourQ, France, has
accepted a[est case filed by ei�ht residents near London's
Heathrow Airport challensine the British sovernmen['s
decision to allow 16 nisht fli�hts between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m.
and unrestric[ed fliehts�between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.
The court said that night fli�hts at Heathrow Airport "may
infrin�e the riaht to a decent home life of families that live
in the fIisht pa[h," the British Guardian ne�vspaper reported
ivlarch 13. The court accepted that under Articie 8 of the
European convention,niaht fliQhts may infrinQe the right to
enjoyment of one's home.
Jud�es at the Strasbourg court has accepted the case and
asked the British sovernment to account for its action, but
so Far the government has not put up a defense, the paper
reported.
Draft EIS on Fer1�Y Hub at Greensboro
The FAA announced l�tarch 31 that on April 6 it will
release the lon�-awaited Draft Environmental Impact
Sta�emenr for the proposed run�vay and associated projects,-
for a Federal Express hub at Piedmont Triad International (
AirporC near Greensboro, NC. �
There is stronQ iocal opposition to the proposed carso
Airpor� Noise Report
Nlarch 31, 2000
ANREDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
� Steven R.Alverson
�tanaser.SacrameneoOffice
Harris �tiller VI iller& Hanson
John J• Corbett, Esq.
Spie�el & �tcDiarmid
�Vashinaton. DC
James D. Erickson
Director. Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation �dministration
John C. Freyta;, P.E.
Director. Charles �I. Salter?.ssociates
s� F���s�o
�tichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Carisbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutler & S tanfield
Denver
Suzanne C. l�icLean
ChiefDevelopmencOfficer
Tucson Airpon Au[hority
John �f. �Ieenan
Sznior Vice PresidentforInduscry Policy
AirTransport Associarion
Vincent E. l�lestre. P.E.
President. �testre Greve Associates
NewponBeach. C.-�
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
�IcDermott.l�Vi11 &c Emerv
Chicaso
Karen L. Robertson
�tanaQer. Noise Compatibiliry Office
Dallas/FortlVorthInternational �irport
blary L. ViQilante
President. SynerQy Consultants
Seattle
Lisa Lyle �Vaters
�tanaser. Noise Aba�ement Program
Palm Beach Count�• Depanment of?.irports
47
hub, which would brin� more night fli�hts to the area. The hub woufd
include a�300 million cargo-sortin� center, some �?00 million in airport
area improvements to support the operation, and wouid require construc-
tion of a new runway.
Ocean Routing Wiil Be Ele�tion Issue
The New Jersey Coalition Aeainst Aircraft Noise (NJCAAN) announced
that it plans to make oczan routing of aircraft departing Newark Interna-
tional tlirport an issue in the upcoming coneressional elections in the
state. The coalition of towns impacted by FAA's restructurins of commer-
cial air routes over New Jersey over a decade a�o wants to see a live [est
of its Ocean Routing pian on the policy platforms of all congressional
candidates. The test of the plan has been endorsed by NJ Gov. Christie
Todd Witman as well as many state lawmakers.
Five Firms Recomrnended for SFO Runways
The San Francisco Airport Commission Nlarch 21 announced the five
winners of its world-wide competition to develop concepts for building
runways at San Francisco International in the water.
The winners of the Offshore Runway Construction Concepts Competi-
tion are three U.S_ firms (AGS, Inc., Parsons Brinkerhoff, and Peratrovich,
Nottingham & Drage, Inc.), a partnership of Chinese-U.S. firms (T.Y. Lin
InternationalBen C. Gerwick, Inc./Han-Padron Associaties), and a Dutch
firm (The Dutra Group).
Ali the firms recommended buildinQ'runways into San Francisco Bay
supported on pile structures, except for the Dutch company which. not
surprisingly, advocates building a rock dike filled with earth. The
Chinese-U.S. partnership recommended a pile supported, earth filled. and
floating structure.
The five selected iirms now have three months to further develop and
refine their concepts. The refined concepts are due in July. In September,
the airport will decide which, if any, plan to Qo with.
Haashkits, from p. 43
with the United States on a phaseout schedule for Staae 3 aircraft (or
marginally Sta�e 3 aircraft) that ICAO is considerino in its process of
developinQ more strinQent aircraft noise certification standards.
"They took thin�s off the table" that had been offered in earlier
ne�otiations with the United States over the rule, one observer told ANR.
Earlier the EU had aQreed to suspend its entire rule but would not
concede to a demand by the United States that it be allo�ved to file its
Article 8=� action with ICAO and then suspend it.
AIRPOR�'NOISEREPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Contributina Editor
Puhiished -�6 times a vear ac �3978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 201=�7; Phone: {70i) 729-=1867; FAX: (70 �) 72)-=k�28.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price ��=�9.
Authurization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or [he internal or personai use of specific clients,
is �Tranced by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US51.03 per paQe per copy
is paid directly to Copyriah[ Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive. Danvers, I�IA 0192 �. USA.
Airport Noise Report
�
C
C�
( )
� �,� � � � � :"` `� 4' "`• � �';; � -
?, tiveekly update on litigation, re;ulations, and technolo;ical developments
Volume 12, Nurnber 11
Burbank
CITY COUNCIL GIVES VOTER� APPROV�L
OF AGREEiYIENT ON NEW AIRPORT TERI�IINAL
The Burbank City Council i�larch 28 unanimously agreed to aive vo[ers
approval over any a�reement reached between the city and the airport authority
on a new terminal for Burbank Airport.
Putting the matter to a referendum guarantees that the city residents will have a
voice in the outcome of the dispute over the airport, said Councilman Dave
Gotonski, who proposed the measure. He calied it "simple and leQally defensibie."
The Ciry Council's action followed its refusal to put before the vocers a more
restrictive ballot initiative supported by a aroup called Restore Our Airport Rights
(ROAR), which would have required votzr approval of any new terminal exceed-
in� 200,000 square feet, and would have imposed a mandatory curfew at the
airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a 10 percenrcap on future fliahts and
passenQers.
The ROAR measure would have kilied a tentative agreemenc between city
oft7cials and the airport authority on a ne�v 330,000 square-foot, 1=�-gate terminal
to replace the e;cisting 170,000 square-foot facility. That a�reement must still
must be approved by the Burbank City Council.
On lYlarch 1�, the Burbank ci[y clerk dis�ualitied the ROAR ballot initiative
(which ROAR claimed included 7,=�00 si�natures) because the si�ned petition did
(Cortti�tuect ori p. =��)
Hzcshkits
EU COUNTER PROPOSAL TO U.S. ON DISPUTE
OVER HUSHKITS APPEARS DEAD ON ARRIV�L
A counter proposal offered by the European Union to resoive its dispute with
the United States over an EU rule barring the addition of hushkitted aircraft
appears to be dead on arrivai.
Litt(e enthusiasm was shotivn this eveek by the U.S. aviation industry and
government towards the counter proposal offered by EU Trade Commissioner
Loyola de Palacio to resolve the impass� over the UE hushkit rule, which is due to
take effect in tiiay.
The EU otfered to IeC the part of its rule barrina the addition of hushkitted
aircraft by member states Qo into effect on �Iay =� and to suspend another part oP
the rule barrin� the addition of hushki[ted aircraft operations by coun[ries outside
the EU. �vhich comes inro effect on �pril 1> 2002.
The EU proposed to take this action in e:cchange for an avreement by [he United
S[1[es t� suspend its formal request askinv the International Civil Aviation
Oraanization (ICAOj to resol��e the dispute. That request �vas Filed under Article
8� under the Conven�ion on In�zrnational Civil Aviation and puts EU member
states at risk oE losinv their votin� rivhts in ICAO.
�fembers of �he European Parliament also wanted to see a tivritten aUreemen�
(Continueci on p. -�%)
�Iarch 31,?000
In This Issiie...
Burbank ... City Council
aQrees to referendum givinQ
voters approval of agreenient
over airport terminal; ballot
measure disqualified on
technicality - p. 43
Hzcshkits ... An EU counter
proposal to resolve dispute
with U.S over hushkit rule is
dead on arrival - p. 43
Grand Canyorz ... FAA
issues rule makinQ further
restricting air tours; air tour
operators threaten to sue - p. 4-�
Awards ... N.O.I.S.E. gives
its Le�islator of Year award to
three congressmen for their
efforts to pass leaislation ad-
dressin� aircraft noise - p. 45
Sarasota ... Town of Lon�-
Boat Key, FL, sues Manatee
County for conditioning ap-
proval of expansion of Sarasota-
Bradenton International Airport
to imposition of revised depar-
ture procedure - p. 4�
Netivs Briefs ... Nladrid
suburbs file suit against expan-
sion; EU Court of Human
Ri�hts accepts night noise case;
�i Draft EIS on FedEx hub at
� Greensboro due out soon; Five
firms chosen as finalists in SFO
desiQn competition to put
runways in bay - p. 46
Nlarch 31, 2000 44
not meet a requirement of state law that it include the names
of the chief supporters of the measure: former City Council-
man Ted McConkey and city resident Howard Rothenback,
who both stronQly oppose a new terminal.
ROAR said it may challenQe the city clerk's disqualifica-
tion of i[s ballot measure. y
Burbank Ntayor S[acey i�Iurphy and Councilman Bob
Kramer had asked the Ciry Council to use its powers [o
place the ROAR measure on [he ballot followins its
disqualification, but on a 3-2 vote the Council opposed
such action.
The Air Transport Association is frmiy opposed [o [he
ballot initiative. "We are willin� to sit down and discuss the
issues with Burbank in sood faith," Chris Leathers, ATA
direc[or of government affairs, told the L.A. Times. "But we
cannot negotiate away issues like a mandatory curfew and
any effort to place arbitrary limits on capacity and future
�rowth at the airport. That's clearly was this initiative is
trying to do."
The tentative aQreement reached by the city and the
airport authori[y on the new terminal would ciose the new
terminal at niQht, link expansion of number of terminal
�ates to a mandatory curfew, use �1.5 miilion a year in
PassenQer Facility Charges to offset lost property tases, and
impose a permanent ban on takeoffs to the east. However, it
has been cri[icized by Los An�eles politicians, residents
near the airport, the airlines, and the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Increasin� Use oi Ballot Initiatives
The push for a ballot initiative on a new terminal at
Burbank comes on the heels of the landslide victory in
nearby Orange County, CA, of a ballot initiative that takes
ativay from county supervisors and Qives to county residents
the power to decide �vhether to convert the former El Toro
Marine Corps Air S[ation into a larse commercial airport.
If it survives a court test, that ballot measure — which
passed by a margin of 67 percent to 33 percent - most
likely will rina the death knell to plans to convert El Toro
to a commercial airport.
The increasinQ popularity in the United States of ballot
initiatives was eramined by Washinaton Post senior
political writer David Broder in a Nlarch 26 article adapted
from a book he �vro[e on the topic entitled "Democracy
Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Vloney."
Broder calis the bnilot initiative "an alternative form of
Qovernment." In hundreds of municipalities and half the
sta[es, particularly in the West, he said, "the initiative has
become a rival force to Ci[y Hail and the State House." Of
66 statewide ini[iatives put forth in 1998, some 39 became
law. "Simply puc," Broder wro[e, "the initiative's growins
popularity has given us somethina [hat once seemed y
unthinkable — not a �o��ernmen[ of laws, but la�vs withou[
aovernment."
Some 2� states ha•ve a ballot initiative process. They
include Alaska, Arizona. ,�rkansas, CaliFornia, Colorado,
Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Nlaine, Ivlassachusetts, Michi�an,
�fissouri, 1Viississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oreaon, South Dako�a, Utah.
Grand Canyon
CLINTON ANNOUi�CES RULES
TO CONTROL AIR TOUR ROUTES
C
Calline the Grand Canyon National Park "a timeless
treasure," President Clinton Niarch 28 announced further
rulemaking by the Federal Aviation Administration to
manaQe sight-seein� flights over rhe canyon.
The rulemakins proposes new and modi�ed air tour routes
over and around the Grand Canyon. The new rou[es are
expected to �o into effect this fall.
The new rules add a five-mile sec[ion to the airspace over
the eastern most portion of the Special Flisht Rules Area of
the park to address Native American Indian tribal concerns.
They also propose an "incentive corridor" throu�h a
cunently fliQht-free zone throush which future air tour
aircraft meeting stricter noise standards would be permitted
to fly.
The FAA has not yet defined the criteria for quiet technol-
ogy for air tour planes but the recen[ly-passed FAA reautho-
rization bill requires the asency to address the issue this
year and to issue:criteria by ne;ct year.
The new rulemakinQ also contains a system to limit the
number of fli�hts each air tour operator can makc, ensurins %
that the overall number of flights will not increase. y�._
The FAA first issued rules in 1996 to limit ai; tours in the
Grand Canyon but they pleased no one. They tivere chal-
lensed by the air tour industry, environm�ntal �ro�sps, and
Native Americans in separate suits that were consolidated
and heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, which ruled in favor of the federal �overnment.
The.Sierra Club has not yet commented on the current
rulemakina but the U.S. Air Tour Association (USATA),
which represents 5� air tour operators, called the new rules
"irresponsible" and "election year politics at its worst."
The new rules limit air tour fliahts over the Grand
Canyon to the number ilown between �tay 199? and April
1993, which USATA said was the worst year in Grand
Canyon air tourina history. The rules will mean a reduction
in current operations anywhere from 10 percent to 70 for i[s
members, accordine to the association. It said that the new
rules expand the flight free zones in the canyon to more
than 7� percent of the park, expand the Special Flight Rules
�,rea to more than 100 percent of the park, modify air [our
routes, and increase flisht altitudes.
Accordins to USATA, one Las Veaas-based Grand
Canyon air tour company will lose 3� percent of its
revenues of $3 million the first year the rules Qo into effec[
"renderin� [he company's $12 million inves[ment in larQer(-
aircraft useless." � �
"The bVhire House can play its little election year games if
it wants," USAT� Presiden[ S[eve Bassett said. "but this is
Ai rport Noise Report
�� )
Nlarch 31, 2000
life or death for the Grand Canyon air tour industry and wili
not so unchallensed." He said the association is evaluatin=
its lesal options and is considering mounting a legal
challenQe to the new tlisht restrictions.
Restore `Natural Quie#'
The new FAA rulemakins further implements a 1987 law
requiring [he FAA and the Nationai Park Service to work
to�ether to "substantially restore natural quiet" in the park
Substantial restoration of natural quiet has been defined
by the NPS as more than half of the Grand Canyon National
Park bein� free of aircraft noise "IS to 100 percent of the
day. Cunently, aircraft cannot be heard in 32 percent of the
park 7� to 100 percent each day. This rule would increase
that amount to 41 percent of the park.
The FAA plans to publish the new rules in the Federal
Register�and has already posted [hem on the a�ency's web
site at www.faa.sov. The Federnl Regisrer notice will
include the finai supplemental environmental survey that
evaluates the noise and other impacts associated with the
rulemaking.
The public can obtain copies of the rulemakinQ by �oing
to the Government PrintinQ Office website as www.=p�.
Orgarzizations
N.O.I.S.E. GIVES CONGRESSNIEN
LEGISLATOR OF YEAR AWARDS
The National OrQanization to Insure a Sound-controlled
Environment (NOISE) presented its "Le�islator of the Year"
award l�Iarch 14 to conaressmen Joseph Crowley (D-NY),
Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY), and Christopher Shays (R-CT).
Congressmen Crowley and Weiner, who represent
constituents exposed to noise from the three IarQe airports
in the New York Citv area, were credited with passing
"cruciai leQislation aaainst fierce opposition" in the House
of Representa�ives that will provide $10 million per year
over the next threz years for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's research and development program
for airplane noise reduction - a=�=F percent increase in
fundinQ for fiscal year 2000.
This fundinQ inerease is "essential for the development of
Stase � next-Qeneration ultra-quiet aircraft," NOISE said.
"In a rare victorv for a Democratic measure, the Weinerl
Crowley amendment attracted bi-partisan support to pass by
a vote of 22�-20 �." NOISE said in announcina the a�vards.
The amendmen[ was addzd to the FAA reauthorization bill,
which Convress recenCly passed.
Con�ressmen `Veiner and Cro�vley also have introduced
levislation that �vould mandate quieter aircraft enQines. The
Silent Skies Act. introduced July 13, 1999, would require
all aircraft to meet [iRhter Stave 4 noise standards by 2012.
It has little c:hance of passaJe.�
NOISE said �he Rzp. Shays has also played a sianiticant
role in the past year in efforts to pass "sensible" aircrafC
4�
noise legislation. Not only did he vote for the Crowley/
Weiner amendment, but Shays sponsored a tloor amend-
ment to the FAA reauthorization act that directs the
Secretary of Transportation to conduct a one-year study on
the effects of non-military helicopter noise on individuals
and to develop recommendations for noise reduction.
Celebratin� its 39''' anniversary, NOISE said it is the
oldest nation-wide community based association address-
in� aircraft noise. Its members represent over 30 communi-
ties and local governmen[s throughout the country.
Sarasota-Bradenton Int'Z
COUNTY SUED FOR TYING
AIRPORT EXPANSIO� TO SID
The town of Lona Boa[ Key, FL, a barrier island a few
miles west of the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport,
has sued Manatee County, FL, for condi[ionin� its approval
of a runway e:ctension and new terminal at the airport on
imposition of a new departure procedure.
Florida has a state-mandated permitting process for
projects of reQional significance, includina airports, which
requires approval of the project by local and reeional
�overnmental bodies. Manatee Counry approved the airport
expansion projects on the condition that a new 5tandard
Instrumen[ Departure Procedure (SID) be used on the
ectended runway.
In January, Lona Boat Key filed a lawsuit in state circuit
court assertin� [hat federal law e:cpressiy preempts locai
jurisdictions from dictating where aircraft fly. A jud�e is
expected within a few weeks to determine whether the rown
has presented a valid case: If so, the judse will serve no[ice
to the county that it must respond to the IitiQation. The
airport is not a defendant in the suit.
Airport officials contend that the new Standard Instrument
Departure Procedure (SID), which wili turn aircraft from
their current 29� de�ree radial to a 270 dearee radial, is
needed because pilots cannot follow the 29� radial pre-
cisely and that results in $reat splay of flight tracks and
dispersion of the takeoff noise.
They also assert that the new SID �vill reduce noise impact
on nei�hborhoods in hiUh noise contours near the airport
and will not siQnifican[ly increase noise on Lons Boat Key.
But Lon� Boat Key oFficials ar�ue that the curcent ?9�
radial keeps aircraft in the middle of the bay and that
technolo�y exists [o allow pilots to make the turn precisely.
The netiv SID does not vet at the root of [he problem, which
is the splay of tli�ht tracks, David Persson, the attorney for
Lon� Boat Key, told ANR.
He said the ne�v SID wi11 impermissioly shift the noise
impact from one sroup to another. It �vill shift more noise [o
LonQ Boat Key and to a neivhbornood north of the airport.
which now gets sideline noise but �vill be directly in the
noise pa[h with the ne�v SID.
The Federal Aviation Administration is currently
Aiiport Noise Report
lYIarch 31, 2000
conductin� an environmental review of the new SID and
Persson said the aeency will require that a Fuli Environmen-
tal Impact Statement be prepared because the new SID will
increase the noise impact in an area north of the airport by
more than 1.5 dB DNL, F.�A's threshold for siQnificant
noiseincrease. y
For the last l�F-15 years. the airporc has tried various turns
on departure in an attempt to direct aircraft over water and
reduce impact on the community, said Noah LaQos, senior
director of avia[ion for the airport. The new SID offers the
most noise mitieation with the most control of aircraft, he
explained. �
The new SID would redirect where airplanes currently fly
over the Lons Boat Key, he said_ Under the departure
procedure now beinQ used, commerciai jets fly over the
northern end of the key and commuter aircraft go over the
mid-section of the island. The new SID would send all
aircraft over the island's middle, which is a commercial
district that includes tourist hotels.
The new SID woutd result in less noise impact for 1,253
dwellina units and l,?70 people on LonQ Boat Key and
more noise impact for 1,01? dwellin� units and 900 people,
accordins to LaQos. �
A sligh[ variation on a departure turn already in place, the
new SID would initially direct aircraft on takeoff over an
area close to [he runwav cieared of homes that fell within
the airport's 7� dB DtiL noise contour. The airport main-
[ains this area as vacant property. � runway extension
inctuded in expansion plans will allow aircraf[ to get hiQher
on takeoff, passinQ Lone Boat Key at an altitude of at least
3,000 feet. y
Residents of the island are not opposed to the runway
estension because they understand that it will allow
airplanes to aain altitude on takeoff. Laaos said. The island
only gets an averase of three overtliQhts a day now, he said,
and wiil only Cet an averaQe of 12-13 per day when the
runway is extended and the new SID in place, he added.
Final Approval for Expansion
On ivlarch 1�, [he Sarasota County Commission Qave the
airport the last approval from a local sovernment tha[ it
needed to more ahead �vith the expansion project, which
includes a IonQer run�vay, larser passenger terminal, a
parkina garase, and up to 1=�=� ne�v hananrs.
The airport straddles the line between Sarasota and
ivlanatee Counties and also falls �vithin the jurisdiction of
the Ciry of Saraso[a. It nzeded approval from those aovern-
men[al bodies for its e:ipansion plans plus the approval of
two reQional Qovernmznts: the Tampa Bay Regional
Plannin� Council and the Southwest Florida Resional
Plannin� Council. ti� ith all approvals now obtained. the
airport expansion sh��uld bevin �his sprin�.
It inciudes construc�ion of a noise barrier a]onQ roads
runnin� near the airpurt. althouvh residen[s in the area are
seekin� a better buffzr. Thzy also want the airport to muftZe
the noise oF�round vzhicies.
46
IN B.�IEF ...
Kennard Is New Director of LAWA
Los Anveles 2vlayor Richard Riordan announced Nlarch
10 his appoin[menc of Lydia Kennard as erecutive director
of Los AnQeles Worid Airports (LAWA).
Kennard has served as interim executive director of
LAWE1 since August 1999 and as depupty executive
director since 1994. She will be responsible for directinQ
the operation of LAWA's four airports, includins Los
AnQeles International, Ontario International, Van Nuys, and
Paimdale Resional.
"After an extensive national search, Lydia was by far the
best candidate for the job," Said Mayor Riordan.
Opposition to 1VIadrid Airport Expansion
Some 16 suburbs of Mardrid, Spain, filed suit in Feburary
asainst the expansion of NSadrid's Barajas Airport, which
was built in 1931 and is located just 7.5 miles from the city.
They alleged that the airport is a danQer to their health and
safety and wiii interfere with urban planninQ.
But 1bladrid's new mayor, Jose l�Saria Aznar, who was re-
elected on March 12, is opposed to buildinQ a new airpor[
and wants to expand Barajas. In 1996, the mayor's �overn-
ment added a third runway and a new contro� tower at the (
airpor[ and plans to add two more runways and an addi-
tional terminal by 2004.
Human Rights Court
The Court of Human Riahts in Strasbours, France, has
accepted a test case filed by eight residents near London's
Heathro�v Airpor[ challen4ina the British sovernment's
decision to allow 16 ni�ht flishts between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m.
and unrestricted flishts between 6 a.m, and 7 a.m.
The court said that nisht flishts at Heathrow Airport "may
infrinse the risht to a decent home life of families that live
in the fliQht path," the British Guardian netivspaper reported
l�larch 13. The court accepted that under Article 8 of the
European convention ni�ht flishts may infringe the ritrht to
enjoyment of one's home. �
7udQes at the Strasbourg court has accepted the case and
asked the British �overnment to accoun[ for its action, but
so far the government has not put up a defense, the paper
reported.
Draft EIS on FedEY Hub at Greensboro
The FAA announced i�larch 31 that on Apri1 6 i[ tivill
release the lons-awaiced Draft Environmen[al Impact
Statement for the proposed runwav and associated projects
for a Federal E:cpress hub at Piedmont Triad International �
Airport near Greensboro. NC.
There is stron� local opposition to the proposed carso
Airport Noi�z Rzport
Nlarch 31, 2000
ANR EDITORIAL
r�.DVISORY B�ARD
� Steven R. Alverson
�lanaeer,SacramentoOffice
Harris �l i l ler �( i i ler �@ Hanson
��� �.
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spie�ei & i'�IcDiarmid
Washin�ton. DC
James D. Erickson
Direc[or.Office ofEnvironment and Enersy
FederalAviadon;administracion v
John C.Freyta�,P.E.
Director, Charles �l. Salter Associates
San Francisco
�tichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dillon & Bailance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cuder3cStanfield
Denver
Suzanne G I�IcLean
ChiefDevelopmentOfficer
Tucson ,4irport,�.u[hority
John �1. �feenan
Senior Vice PresidentforIndustrv Policv
AirTransport Association
V'incent E. �Iestre, P.E.
Presiden[. Mestre Greve.4ssociates
Newpon Beach, CA
Steven F. Pftaum, Esq.
i�IcDermott, bVill �X: Emery
Chicaso
Karen L. Robertson
ivlana�er, Noise Compatibility Office
Dallas/Fort Wotth International :�irpon
�fary L. Vi;ilante
President, Syneroy Consultants
Seatde
Lisa Lyle tiVaters
Nlanaser. Noise Abatemen[ ProJram
Palm Beach County Departmen[ of Airports
47
hub, which would brin� more night fliahts to the area. The hub �vould
include a��00 million carao-sor[in� center, some �200 million in airport
area improvements to support the operation, and tivould require construc-
tion of a new runway.
Ocean Routing Will Be Election Issue
The New Jersey Coalition A�ainst Aircraft Noise (NJCAAN) announced
that it plans to make ocean routin� of aircraft depar�ing Newark Interna-
tional Airport an issue in the upcomin� conaressional elections in the
state. The coalition of towns impacted by FAA's restructurina of commer-
cial air routes over New 7ersey over a decade aso wants to see a live test
of its Ocean RoutinQ plan on the policy platforms of all consressional
candidates. The test of the plan has been endorsed by NJ Gov. Christie
Todd Witman as well as many state lawmakers.
Five Firms Recommended for SFO Runwavs
The 5an Francisco Airport Commission Nlarch 21 announced the five
winners of its world-wide competition to develop concep[s for buildins
runways at San Francisco In[ernationai in the water. y
The winners of the Offshore Runway Construction Concepts Competi-
tion are three U.S. firms (AGS, Inc., Parsons Brinkerhoff, and Peratrovich,
Nottinsham & Draae, Inc.), a partnership of Chinese-U.S. firms (T.Y. Lin
InternationalBen C. Gerwick, Inc./Han-Padron Associaties), and a Dutch
firm (The Ducra Group). ,
All the firms recommended buildinQ runways into San Francisco Bay
supported on pile structures, ercept for the Dutch company which, not
surprisingly, advocates buildins a rock dike filied with earth. The
Chinese-U.S. partnership recommended a pile supported, earth filled, and
floating structure.
The five selected firms now have three months to further develop and
refine their concepts. The refined concepts are due in July. In September,
the airport will decide which, if any, plan [o go with.
Hushkits, from p. 43
wi[h the United States on a phas�out schedule for Stase 3 aircraft (or
marginally Stage 3 aircraft) that ICAO is considerina in its process of
developin�.more strinsent aircraft noise certification standards.
"They took things off the table" that had been offered in earlier
negotiations with the United States over the rule, one observer told Ai�IR.
Earlier the EU had aareed to suspend its en[ire rule but tivould not
concede to a demand by the United States that it be allo�ved to file i�s
Article 3� action with ICAO and then suspend it.
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Contributina Editor
Published =�6 times a year at ��978 Urbancrest Ct., �shburn, Va. 201�7; Phone: (703) 729-=��67; FAX: (70 �) 729-=��23.
e-mail: editor@airportnoiserepor[.com; Price ���9.
Authoriza�ion to pho�ocopy items For internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use oP spzciFic clien�s.
is �ranted bv Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee oF liS� 1.0� per page per capy
is p�id directly [o Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 232 Rosewood Drive. Danvers, 1�I,�. 01)33. USA.
Airport Noise Report
C�
( �
.,_ _ �
� r._:.. � � ii
' `;� :'� i ' , � � �i'
.. <. ,t, � .
_ _. _ :
..
.s .
.?
A�veekly update on litigation, rebulations, and technolo;ical developments
Volume 12, Number 12
Denver
COUNTY lYIOVES HOi�1E NO-BUILD LIVE
TO 60 CONTOUR; REQUIRES DISCLOSURE
The Arapahoe Counry, CO, commissioners Nlarch 14 approved a chanQe to
zoning resulations tha[ will e:cpand the no-buiid line for homes in the county near
Centennial Airport, Denver International Airport, Front Range Airport, and
Buckley Air National Guard Base from 6� dB DNL to 6d dB DNL.
The chan�e to the county's airport oyerlay districts also wili require air condi-
tioning or sound insulation to mitiCate noise in residences in the » dB DNL
contour to an interior noise level of 4� dB, and wili require disclosure notices for
new home construction.
While �enerai aviation Cen[ennial Airport and Buckley Air National Guard
Base are located within Arapahoe Coun[y, Denver International and Fron[ Range
airports are not. They are located in adjacent counties, ho�vever their noise
contours e;ctend into Arapahoe County. �
Coun[y commissioners said that [hey wanted to protect the airports and the
communities and to stem complaints about airport noise.
Adoption of the reQulations ends a buildin� moratorium in the airports' influ-
ence areas imposed by the commissioners last November. Approximately eight
square miles around Centennial Airport, four square miles around Buckley, and
(Continued on p. 49J
Seattle-Tczcomcz Int'Z
I�tSULATING 15 SCHOOLS I�t FLIGHT P�TH
COULD COST UP TO $22�iV1, REPORT SAYS
Architectural studies released in NSarch concluded that it would cost between
� 178 million and �226 million to sound insula[e l� schools in the Highiine
School Dis[rict that are located in the flight path of Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport.
Two Seattle-based architectural firms estima[ed i[ would cost at least � 178
million dollars in improvements (in June 20U0 dollars) to ensure that all students
within the 1 � affected schools are able to hear at least 90 percent of all �vords
spoken durin� any aircraft fly-over.
They anticipated tha[ the en[ire 1�-school up�rade will take from five [0 1�
years to complete. Total costs for an average 10-yenr implementation schedule
(anticipatinv a�k percen[ pzr year intlation rate per year) are projected to be at
least �2?6 miilion.
The question of ho�v the sound insulation will be paid for is not yet decided. A
spokesman for the Port of Seattle said that a great deal of nevotiations are goin�
on over the matter. He said that some oF the schools are so old, however, [hat it
doesn't makz sense to sound insulate them. He stressed that the Port and �he
school district have a sood working relationship at this point and that the Port is
concentratin� on the fac[ that [hey are startin� to work rosether.
(Co�itinued ori p. �U)
April 7, 2000
In This Isszce...
Zoning ... Arapahoe
County, CO, commissioners
approve changes to zonin�
reaulations that expand the
no-build lir�e for homes in the
c�unty near Centennial,
Denver International, and
Front Ranae airports from 6�
to 60 dB Di�l"L and impose
real estate disclosure require-
ments - p. 48
Seattle ... Price tag for sound
insulatina 1� schools in flight
path of Sea-Tac could be as
hi�-h as $228 million - p. 48
Reno/Tahoe ... Faced with
opposition to new USPS car�-o
sorting hub, airport plans to be
role model on Part 150 public
input process - p. 49
1Voise Nlodeli�ag ... Improved
method for computing ground
effect within FAA's InteQrated
Noise Model validated but not
yet ready to be incorporated int
I�i INI, article says - p. 49
Le;islatiora ... President siQns
into law landmark aviation
legislation providing hiQhest
ever funding levels for airport
development - p. �0 '
Pierlrno�zt Triad ... FAA
releases Draft EIS on proposed
FedEx carao hub; proponents
say it clears �vay for approval of
5300 million faciliry - p. 51
Apri17, 2000
three square miles around Front Range Airport were affected
by the moratorium. Y
The zonine chan�e has �enerated no controversy, said
Susan Conoway, planninQ proQram manaaer for Arapahoe
County. This is because the Focus of thz chan�e in reaula-
tions was Centennial Airport, around which a Qreat deal of
land is aiready zoned commercial, she e:cpiained. Only a
handfui of peopte turned up at public hearings on the
chanse and most, including the home builders, supported it,
she added.
The zonina chanse wiIl affect one upscale development
around Centennial Airport called Greenwood Viilage.
Reno/Tahoe Int'Z
AIRPORT PLANS TO BE
ROLE NIODEL ON PROCESS
Faced with public opposition to the relocation of a U.S.
Postal Service cargo sortins center to Reno/Tahoe Interna-
tional Airport, the airport authority is takin� steps to
address concerns about inereased aireraft noise impact.
On April 4, the Airport Authority of Washoe Coun[y held
the first of four public workshops on the update of its Part
1�0 Airpor[ Noise Compatibility Pro�ram, which was
adopted seven years aQo. The airport authority is spendin�
more than $?00,000 on the public participation component
of [his study. "Not only are we exceedind federal require-
ments for locai involvement, but we wiil become a role
model for other airports to foilow in receiving public input
for the Part 1�0 process," said Krys T. Bart erecutive
director of the airport au[hority.
The airport authori[}� said that, while FAR Part 150
requires unspecified public involvement, it has reached out
to representatives from Reno, Sparks, and tiVashoe County
neiahborhood advisory groups to participate on the Part
150 Community Advisory Committees. In addition to local
residents, local planninQ aaency representatives from the
avia['ron and business community, and the airport
authori[y's Community Outreach Committee and Airport
Noise Advisory Panel will participate on the Part 1�0
Plannine Advisory Committee.
In January, the airport authority expressed concerns about
the Draft Environmental Assessment the US Postal service
prepared for the relocation of its western sortinQ hub from
Nietropolitan Oakland International Airport to Reno (12
ANP� S).
In comments on [he EA. the airport authority asked USPS
to explain why hushki�ted 7?7 aircraft will be used at [he
hub instead of quietzr aircraFt, to provide de[ails to support
its conclusion that altzrnative airports �vere not feasible
locations for the hub. and to consider shiftinv late niQht
tli�hts to eariier in ths eveninQ or later in the mornins.
The airport auchuritv also wants Kitty Hawk Airlines, the
contractor USPS selzrced to serve its new sorting hub, to
fli=ht simulate a new departure procedure desiQned reduce
noise impact on communities south of the airport which are
expected to challen�e the Environmenta] Assessment on ('
the hub. y �.
Fer3EY Wiil Use Quieter �ircraft
On Apri14, a welcoming ceremony was held a[ Reno/
Tahoe Internationai Airport for a FedEx Airbus A310
aircraft that will replace one of three noisier FedEx BoeinQ
727s servinQ the airport. y
"This excitinQ announcement sisnifles the growth in air
car�o delivery needs in the [area], and the cooperation with
the airlines servin� Reno/Tahoe to provide quiet aircraft
with the most advanced aircraft noise attenuation technol-
ogy," the airport authority said in a press release.
Noise tl�lodeling
I�TETHOD Iy1PROVED FOR
CONIPUTING GROUND EFFECT
An improved method for computing �round effect (the
attenuation that occurs in aircraft noise as it reaches the
�round) within the Federal Aviation Administration's
Intearated Noise 1�Iode1 (Ii�1iV1) was explained in a paper in
the latest issue of Noise Control Engineerine Journal (Vol.
43, No. 1). �
The principal author of "Ground Effects in FAA's Inte-
�rated Noise Model" is Greg� G. Flemins of the Departme�(
of Transportation's Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center in Cambridae, NIA.
The new scientificaliy based, experimentalIy validated
methodoloPy for computinQ ground effect within the INM
"will result in an improvement in the model's predictive
accuraey, especially at small reflection anales," FleminQ
wrote. Further, he said, "it provides the I�tI�S user �vith the
abili[y to take into account the effects of an acoustically
hard surface such as water, includine the effects of mixed.
acoustically soft, and hard Qround surfaces; a capability
never before available in the model."
Flemins said that recent field studies have shown the
approach to asree well with measured noise data. Addi-
tionai in-situ fieid test wili provide the researchers wi[h
further validation of their model. However, FleminQ said
that more research is needed before the n�w methodology
can be incorporated into [he INi�L
I[ is generally recoQnized that the lateral attenuation
alsorithms used in the curren[ INI�i. which are dominated
by data from older low-bypass BoeinQ 727-100 aircrafc, "are
the sinvle bivQest acoustic weakness in the model,"
Flemine said. This is for t�,vo reasons: (1) "the al4orithm,
�vhich represents a sin�le relationship developed from da[a
dominated by one type of aircraft. is applied equally to the ,.
entire tleet; and (3) the algorithm cannot account for �
propaaation effects over acoustically hard terrain, a major'' �
weakness at airports in coastal areas."
Airport Noise Rzport
i
1.
50
A ri17, 2000
Le� islatiorz
PRESIDENT CLIi`�1TO�t SIGNS
L�NDiVIARK AVIATIO�I BILL
On April �, President Clinton sianed into law the Wendell
H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st
Century, landmark leaislation that will provide the highest
ever fundina levels for airport expansion projects.
The lesistation has the support of all segments of the
aviation industry as tiveil as the National Oraanization to
Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE), which
represents largely cities around major metropolitan airports.
A coalition of communiry Qroups stron�ly opposed the
leaislation and petitioned the president not to sign the bill.
They wanted the bill vetoed un�il the effects of airport
noise, air, and �vater pollution on the community are better
kno�vn and mitisated.
The leQislation does require the General Accountin�
Office (GAO) to conduct a study that. among other thines,
eramines the threshoid of noise at which health begins to
be affected (12, ��iR 3-�).
Airport operators are atir•are that [hey must address airport
environmental issues in order to e:cpand their facilities to
m�et the airlines' Qrowina need for airport capacity. An
informal survey conducted by the Airport Council Interna-
tional — North America (:�,CI-NA) found that airport
proprietors consider environmental issues, most notably
noise, to be their number one concern, followed by fundinQ.
The new law �viil provide ��.87� billion for Airport
Improvement Qrants throush fiscal 2003 and wii] increase
the PassenQer Facility CharQe that airports can impose to
suppor[ noise developmen[ projects from �3 per head to
�4.�0 per head. Airport noise mitigation projects can be
funded by both AIP grants and PFC revenue, and airports
are coming under growin� pressure from communities to
impose PFCs f�r noise mitisation purposes.
Seattle, fror�a p. =F8
The majority of the Hishline schools �vere built in the
19�Os and 60s, bu� some tivere built as far back as the 1880s
and 1890s. The airpor� opened in 19�9 and added a second
runtivay in 1973.
School officiais and rzsidenCs have lonv eontended that
aircraft noise �vas in�zrferinQ tivi[h the education of children
in the schools under thz Sea-Tac t7ight pa[h. After failinv ro
�et [he Port oF Seattle to fund a study, the school district
�vent to the State Levislature. which provided a�16�,000
�rant. The Port then avreed to con[ribute �1.2� million to
the study. �
`Equal Opportunity to Learn'
".�Pter 27 years, ���z finally knuw �vhat the bottom line is
to vive our studzn�s an e��ual opportuniry to learn," said
Hi�hline School District Superintenden[ Dr. Joe ylcGeehan.
"Our kids have endur�d �his intolerab(e si�uation lonQ
enouQh. It's time we started the actual improvements."
The Architectural and En�ineering S[udy and Cost
Analysis began in April 1999 foliowin� the initial sound
study and in-classroom baseline standard performed by
BBN Technologies of Canoaa Park, CA. The architectural
studies were conducted by S.YI. Stemper Archi�ects and
Cornerstone Architectural Group, both based in Seattle. An
important par[ of [heir studies was to reconfirm [he sound
information provided by BBN. Buth tirms confirmed tha[
the tested teachina spaces failed to meet the noise standard
recommended by BBN.
"Additional noise audits usina actual aircraft as the noise
source ensures that our recommendations are solid," said
Jerry Osborn, lead architec[ for the S.i�I. Stemper team.
AlthouQh both architectural teams conducted their projects
separately (they each studied haif the schoois), their final
noise mitiaation treatment recommendations �vere similar.
They include adding additionai layers of materials to
existing roofs, ceilin�s, and walls and replacina doors and
windows. They also ineiude construction of new facilities
when improvinQ an exis[inQ facility, such as portable
classrooms, was determined to be cost-prohibitive.
The improvements needed [o uparade [he acoustical
environment of schools also required changes to the
structural desian, mechanical systems, electrical systems,
fire and emerQency systems, and IightinQ systems oF the
schools.
Spe�ch Intelligibility
The ultimate goal of the school sound insulation program
is to provide a teachina environmznt for ali in the distric[
equivale�t to a representative school outside ehe hi�h noise
contours.
BBN developed [he criterion for an acoustically satisfac-
tory environment for education as one that "tolerates an
error rate of 10 percent inconectly heard words during
ma;cimum aircraft tlyover noise levels." The school district
and desisn teams concurred that the primary criterion for
evaluation and desiQn solutions should be spee�h intelligi-
bility.
The consultants proposed basina their desiQn recommen-
dations on [he premise [ha[ interior noise levels. aC their
hiahest value (Lmax) durinv aircraft flyovers should not
exceed �0 dBA. They concurred �vith BBN that an Lmax of
�0 dBA will result in 90 percent speech intelli�ibiliry
during an aircraft tlyover in a classroom environment.
They also souaht to have �vall, window and roof modifica-
tions achieve a noise reduc[ion of a� Izast � dB nbove the
measured or estimated noise reduction.
Aiiport Noise Report
April '7, 2000
ANR EDITORIAL
ADVISORY BOARD
Steven R.?,lverson
�[ana,er. SacramentoOffice
Harris �tilIer�tiller3c Hanson
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spie�ei 8c Y(eDiarmid
Washin�ton. DC
James D. Erickson
Director, O�ce of Environmenc and Energy
Federal Aviation Adminiscration
John C. Freyta;, P.E.
Director, Charles M. Saiter�ssociates
S:ui Francisco
l�tichael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Diilon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Cutier & StanFeld
Denver
Suaanne C. �IcLean
ChiefDevelopmen�Officer
Tucson Airport Au�horiry
John bt. l�ieenan
Senior Vice PresidentforIndustry Policy
Air Transport Association
Vincent E. �Iestre, P.E.
Presiden�. �[estre Greve rlssociaces
Newporc Beach. C?.
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
Y1cDermott, tiVill & Emerv
Chica�o �
Karen L. Robertson
IvlanaQer. Noise Compatibility Office
Dallas/Fort Wonh In�zrnational Airport
biary L. Vigilante
President. Synerw Consultants
Szattle
Lisa Lvle tiVaters
blanaQer. Noise :�ba�ement Program
Palm Beach Counc� Deparcment of Airports
51
Piedmont Triad Irzt'Z
FAA RELEASES DRAFT EIS
ON PROPOSED FEDEX CARGO HUB
On Niarch 6, the Federal Aviation Administration released the lon�-
awaited Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed
$300 miliion FedEx carso hub at Piedmont Triad In[ernational Airport
near Greensboro, NC, which has been a hotly debated local issue because
of concerns about noise from niQhttime aircraft traffic and the need [o
build a new 9-000 foot parallel runway.
Proponents of the hub say the DEIS paves the way for eventual ap-
proval of the facility and the airport's request for federal money to help it
cover the estimated $220 million in airport improvements linked to the
new hub.
Some opponents of the hub, mostly homeowners near the airport, tivere
angered by the document, contendin� that it whi[e-washed their con-
cerns. Others said they were not surprised by the DEIS but they were
disappointed that it ruled out a proposal they devetoped that did not
require the construction of a new runway.
FedEx plans to conduct 43 operations per niQht by 2005 and 126 per
niQht by 2009 at [he proposed sortinQ hub, which would serve the IVIid-
Atlantic region. The operation could eventually employ 1,800 workers,
process 200,000 packaQes per hour, and encompass 300 acres.
The three-volume DEIS was released on Thursday but it is difficult to
discern from the document what the noise impact on the community from
the various alternatives under consideration will be.
In an unusual move, the FAA's Southern Re�ion has refused to answer
ques[ions this week on the DEIS, requirinQ those with inquiries to subm�
them in writins.
The acoustical consulting firm Harris NSiller l�liller & Hanson, Inc.
prepared the acoustical impact analysis in the DEIS but those at the firm
who prepared it were on travei this week and unavailable for comment.
The FAA plans to hold a public hearinQ on the DEIS on itilay 23 and
hopes to issue a Final EIS by the end of the year.
The DEIS considers a no action alternative and various versions of five
build alternatives. 11�Sickie Elmore, director of development for the
airport said that airport offcials are stili trying to disest the DEIS and
could not comment in detail. But he said that, in eeneral terms, the
airport favors the three alternatives tha[ involve constructine a new
parallel runway in a northeast/south�vest direction. The airport con[ends
that 90-95 percent of the FedEr nisht operations could land from the
southwest over industrial and avricultural areas and could aiso takeoff in
that direction. �
AIRPORTNOISEREPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Con[ributins Editor
Published �6 timzs a year at =�3978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn. tia. 201=F7; Phone: (703) 729-1367; F:�X: (703) 729-=��28.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price ��=}9.
Authorization to phutocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, �
is aran�ed by Airport Noise Repo•rt, provided that the base fee of US� 1.03 per page per copy '
is paid dir�ctly to Copyri�ht Clearance Center, 222 Rose�voud Drive. Danvers, NIA 019? �. US�.
Aiiport Noise Rzpor[
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS CONIlV]ISSION
EAGAN, MIlVNESOTA
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
API� 10, 2000
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
� . � , . � . � �� �
11 �' i: CI �' 1
_� '�� 1 C 1 i: i
A. Part 150 Update
V. NEW BUSINESS �
A. City of Bloomington Comprehensive Guide Plan Update
B. City of Minneapolis Resolution Re: Multi-Family sonnd Insulation
VI. 5TAFF REPORT
A. Legislative Update
B. MA.SAC Update
C. North-South Runway Communications Plan and Community Mitigation Plan
1 1 �•
VIII. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA
A. Nezt Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 9
B. Negt MASAC IVYeeting — 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Apri125
. C. Nezt MA.SAC Operations Committee Meeting —10:00 a.m. Friday, April 14
D. Negt Runway 17/35 City Staff Meeting —10:00 a.m. Thursday, April 13 arid
10:00 a.m. Wednesday, April 26
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice
of less than 96 hours is received, the Ciry of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid.
�
��
C��
��+�`v,�*�'��,+�`'w "}k�'��.:�'''Ya�a-wti, v:v��r:�'�:�s:�'rF ��rr �+: : �..,,�.:.._....rr,�,...-.,=1 ..,...;------=---='-----____�__.-�-•---.._.�.. _,.:._;....__.�..�._.
Editorial
, �.
��. ;•; � :
By ,J.A. Donoghue
irlines face the daunting
challenge of retiring 700
aircraft within one year
or confronting an overca-
pacity problem that will
further attack endan-
gered yields. This won't be easy. Last year the
industry retirred a record number of aircraft–�ut '
that number �was well short of 300, asA7'W reports
this month in our 1999 WorldAirline Report. Tak
ing that further leap to create additional mountains
of scra}�ped aluminum will require a major change
in indusUy beha�ior patterns•
R��ing growth during tunes of plenty is a
recendy acquired beha�ior arising from a lesson
well-learned in the early 1990s. The period since
has seen the first instance of self-constrained
capaaty growth during economically prosperous
times since the dawn of commeraal air travel. .
But no�v, in order to protect their bottom
lines, carriers will ha�e to back away from mar-
kets or market share--potentially sacrificing
competitive advantaje—if fiillY depreciated
older aircraft are to leave the fleet.
There have been large-scale retirements be-
fore, certainly, but only in times of technical
obsolescence or financial hardship• Neither is
the case today. Airlines are proBtable. There is
no immediate scre�anung need to eject the older
aircraft. A prudent regard for future profits is
the driving force here, and historically that has
been a weak motivation for management to take
a competitively retrograde stance.
Perhaps the ultimate inhibitor of the retire-
ment trend is the reluctance to be the first to act
in fear of being the only one to act. This "you
first, please" mentality leaves most of the industry
in a perpetual state of suspended pre-animation,
lcaning toward commitment but failing to move.
A number of years ago when IATA AGiVIs still
had some element of a meeting of peers rather
than the scripted conferences they ha�e become,
�� a new airline chief recendy departed from the
te�-tile industry stood up to opine that all this
gnashing of teeth over capacity problems was
Air Transport World 7/99
silly. All the airlines had to do was get together .
and joindy agree to ditch an equal percentage of
their fleets and be done with the issue, he said.
As US carrier representatives ran for the
doors to get far away from this kind of collusive
talk, the remainder shru�ed at such naivete.
Even if such a thing could be done legally; the
thinldng ran, why �ve the competitors a break?
e eY-te�crile man had a further point. Don't
cgl
j sell the old aircraft, retire them with e�ctreme
prejudice, i.e., destroy them. Nothing will cool
an airline's ardor for retirement faster than the .
specter of disposed airplanes coming back to
haunt it in the liveries of new airlines looking for
cheap capacity. Whi1e the Et1 has developed an
elegant and logically defensible rule that will keep
out older aircraft on environmental grounds, the
rest of the world remains open for hushldtted air-
craft to fly until the sun cools. When the air-
planes go, the cutters' yard should be the termi-.
nal destination.
Big batches of retirements will produce no
immediate wimiers but some considerable
losers. Winners include airlines and ori�nal
equipment manufacturers, while spares retailers
and maintenance providers will suffer substan-
tial harm. The spares people incur a double
hit a flood of additional spares a�ailable to
sustain a substantially smaller user population.
Even the �vinners �vill not enjoy irnmediate pay-
offs. The OE.�l4s already are winnir►g; it is their
newly built capaciry provoking the retirements.
Future s�les are protected, however, by safeward-
ing the profitabiliry of their airline customers.
In obseiving the industry over the years, we
ha�e noticed a number of carriers that do not
need special encouragement to retire older air-
craft. They do so on a regular basis, as a matter
of normal business strategy. These airlines also
seem to be among the most consistendy prof-
itable in the industry.
Airlines might try to gain some politic.11
ad�antage in a retirement campaign, perhaps
tivith a proper spin, something on the order of
airlines pledging to cut fuel use and noise by
banding together to scrap old, tired airplanes.
That probably is a much too public stance to
take �iven the public's distrust of airlines these
days, especially in the US, tivhere rank dissatis-
faction �rith airline service and a load factor well
into the 70s would make a suspicious popula-
tion view a large-scale �oup retirement as y�et
another assault on service and comfort in order
to prop up billions in airlii�►e profits.
Better to do it one at a rime, quiedr, at ni;ht, but
consistendy, st�dily ChoP up the genatric jeeze�,
but mal:e sure to s��ve a couple of each npe for
those ���ho apprea�te tirplanes as technic<�l :u-t.
�
By �oan M. Feldman
�irports and com:munities no longer play
doormat to domineerin� airlines
S communities are becoming more
assenir-e about the air service they do or
don't �r•ant. Fed up w�ich hi�h fares, lack
of competition and back-of-the-h•and
tre�tment from airiines �ro�r-n arro-
jant from profits, consolidation and
are see�ng siots previously ativarded
only to airlines. They are changing airport gate lease terms
and going after service they do '
�vant with sophisticated market
analyses. They are chasing a�vay
serrice they don't ticant and gener-
ally bringin� more political pres-
sure ro bear in �vhatever cause
they are pursuing.
This trend is seen at nonhubs .
tir-ich unsatisfactory serrice, hubs
that have pla;�ed doormat to their
dominant airline and airports no�
wantin� airline serrice at all. P:u-
sen�er facility charges, political
pressure and regulatory s}mpath}� are �rin� coura�e to many
�vho previously had none.
rlmong the e.r•amples
• rlfter years of ko�vto«7ng to \onh�vest, an embarrassed
lietropolitan :1irports Commission in l�iinneapolis/S[. Paul,
i�linn., has become more acti�-e in seel:in; ne`v services and
helping those who �vant to pro�zde it.
• Baltimore/��'�uhington Internaaonal :-lirport in i4tarnland
nas one of the first to defi� i�s dominant ten•ant and continues
�o define its air service needs despi�e opposition.
• Cities such as Savann:ih/Hilton Head ha��e demanded that
i' lnot �iirlines, be given slots at con�rolled airports to help
.,, _.la[tract needed senzce.
• Ralei�h/Durham, «�hich seri�e� \orth Carolina's high-
tech Fesearch Triangle among other �ro«�ing business cen-
ters, learned its lesson onh� after btiildinQ a ne�c terminal for
:�merican rlirlines, �ti'hich dlen closed its hub there.
i�
Air Transport World 17/99 II�'!
• The Des l�loines (Iowa) and Peoria (Ill.) business com-
munities backed up thetoric with sizeable start-up capital for
Access �ir. ' ' -
• By contrast, Arapahoe Counry in Colorado rejected new
commerci•al air service despite the potential lass of federai
funding. �
In yiay 1998, the tiS DOT launched a study of 13 airports •�
and whether their practices discour�ged competition. The
studv itself was a reaction to reports from the General .
Accounting Office and complaincs from small airiines and ..
business travelers. Even so, DOT did not act �vithout knowin�
it had Congressional support for.somethina it should have
done a long time a�o. -�
' Seein� the federal jovernment act in the form of the airport '
study and the controcersial proposing of predatory pricin� •
guidelines provided poliacal cover for communities. A long-
time air service development mana�er fi�ures that "DOT has
� made it easier for communiries to
conrince airlines to serve�them" via
its reas�akened, more-public
actions on behalf of compedaon.
One DOT manager's tiiew is that for
too lon� cities relied on their air-
port managers: "Some city officials
have been critical of airport man-
ajemenc. They say, `They think of
, their job as mo�cin� the grass and
; maint�zinin� the ternunal."' ,
�
_ One ch<m�e in direcdon is occur-
� rin� at l�iinneapoli�/St Paul and its
Metropolitan Airports Commission. A�overnment anal}5t su�
gests they have "gotten reli�on" primarily because of a�j�ell-pub-
licized scudy sho�tiing hotiv high �I�P's fares �rere. "T�j�o ce�ars
a�o it �vas one of [he airports most closely ali7 ed �j��h irs hub
carrier. Even the (other] �Iajors �cere �ousin� the:e."
Then the public carping started, includin� irom tiiinnesota's
attorney general, «ho descrioed the i�L�C as "an embarrass-
ment" to the state and said it should spend more ame fosterin�
compedtion. Local resentment about Nonh�cest o���ners' lacl;
of communit� pardcipation and �heir scarin; state�local a�en-
cies into pro��idin� hu�e loans «�hen N1W� �vas nelr bant:ruptc�-
helped stoke unhappiness.
Actually the �LaC had bejun gendr encoura� na comperiuon
a fetiv years elrlier, includirig from Reno �ir—much to that
carrier's re�ret. V�uiguard and Frontier also entered che mar-
ket. But it became e.isiei• for the 1I.-1C to deh� \orh��-esc after
that airline's 199s sc��ii:e left the arca str.inded ai7d nher its
— --'='
72 Air 7ransport World ll/99
infamous foulup during a particularly
bad storm in Detroit last �inter.
f1s part of its effon the airporc; belat-
edly, is trying to ga.in more control of
gates--vorth�est has 5� of i0—
throujh a tradeoff for nen� ones or
imposing preferendal-use terms_ But it
still is walking on e;gs because it �cants
North�vesi to concinue �o�tiin� at �,ISP.
A federal investigacor sa�s the l�L-�C has
power if it wanrs to use iG "�irport
authorities generallp have bully pulpits �
to encourage incumbenrs to suble�se or
step aside. ICs not an insi�vficant
power, although they can't necessarily
hang their hats on it le�ally." �
All alon� the Ttiv-in Cities hare had their
oltin potential compe6tive prod. Sun
Country Airiines has been flping from
iYSSP as a charter carrier since its found-
ing in 1983. In 1996 it �as purchased
by �Iark Travel o�ner Bill La biacchia
(see bos). Durin� the ��� strike it pro-
vided some replacement seivice.
Despite Sun Country's tiny size and
charter niche, Norrh�rest has treated it
about the same as it has e�eiv other small
airline daiing to operate �ithin its domes-
dc nenvork The liS Justice DepG is inves-
ti�ating Nit�A's acdons, as it is those of
other yfajors, and DOT also has acted,
most publicly over NonhwesYs scheduling
and pricing moves againsi Reno :1ir.
In Sun Country's csse, among other
acdons Nonhtivest dropped a charter
contract and bought its own charter air-
line even before SC:1 started scheduied
service. SC�1 also thinks North�vest
caused it unnecessary inconvenience at
Los ringeles, either direcfly or through a
ground-handling company. Northwest's
reacUon has inIluenced others; l�iilwau-
kee-based l�Iid�vest E�cpress once used
lYtark Travel to operate its tours but
dropped it according to SCr1, to avoid
being caught in the crossfire.
Thou�h Sun Country's prior o�ner
apparently pinched pennies and sought
little in the way of amenities, the cunent
o�vners were different from the start. But
in response to a plea. for better space, the
M�1C actually told SC� to ask Northwest—
an astonishing noaon �ven the current
climate. La il4acchia says, "I'm not certaui
that the 1�1�C ever vieticed us as a new .
entrant but rather as more of a nuisance."
- --.... . . ... ...... ........___�... i
Not that big airlines are treated much
better a�vay from their own hubs. L�nited
Airlines earlier this ye�r wanted another �
jet gate at hISP. The 1�I�1C says it �vould
not provide that jate because Ur1L tivant-
ed to use it for turboprops, which for
"safety" reasons are supposed to use the
commuter temunal. linited disputes the
i41r1C's claim: A federal official who
taiked to both sides is unsure of the
truth even now. rllocal official savs
United may have had other plans. In any
case, ii is di�cult to Feel sorry for l�iajor
airlines that esperience space problems '
at rivals' facilities that aze a mirror
ima.�e of their actions back home.
The Mr1C's attitude to�vard Sun Coun-
try has changed some recendy. The air- •
port is building a new, separate temunal
to replace the old hangar no�v used. SCr�
along �vith charter airlines zvilt operate
from there rather than the main ternu-
na1. Still, despite the pressure to help -
new entrants, the iYi�C announced a con-
struction delay recendy. Bill La. �iacchia
Jr. says, "They still don't believe us," i.e.,
SCr1's commitment to scheduled senice. �
Minneapolis/S� Paul is only one of �
;
�
:�
��l
(
�: . .
:f
.i
€:
.�
�; ;
;;; ;
� 74 Air Transport WorJd 17/99
many hub communiaes that rolled over
and played dead to cum favor nith
major tenants. .It did no� have to. In
1993, when liS�ir (no�v tiS �irnavs)
dominated BWI, SouthRest �iriines start-
ed flying there �zch limi�ed schedules
from limited �ate space. Despite opposi-
tion from US�,ir, ttie airpon produced
more gates for South�rest the ne�ct year
and no�v is buildin� eyen more so SWA
eventually �ill operate from 16 gates on
one concourse.
BWI loves havin� Southwest but the
�carrier has preferential, not e�clusire, use
of its gates, as is the case for most B�C�I .
space. The airport also conuols eight
gates completely to ��e itself er-en more
flesibility. Thus B�PI has escaped from
the unenriable posidon of dependin� on
one dominant carrier and did so by using
PFCs. In fact, SouthRest is now the No. 1
jet operator there, and a byproduct is the
more-comped[ive fare structure enjoyed
at BWI's neighbors; l�ashington's Dulles
and Rea;an National airporrs. . �
Another DOT attempt to boost air ser-
rice occurred last sprin; �chen it award-
ed e�cperimental slot e�emptions at
At �ieasier �nices. ���e belie��e rhe
fe«•er miles mid mne zones bea��een }•ou
and �•our lanciinj sstems �IFO and
suppoiz parrner. the beuer.
�nd so ��•e'�•e smunued our ne�v
�co:ld«ide supoorr nencork co macch }�our
neecis.
Our �IFO and Cwtomer Ser�ice
CenteTs in the LS�. Fr.ince. the L�Ii. and
Chicago 0'Hare �irport to the ci�ies of
Greenville/Spartanburg and
Savannah/Hilton Head in South Carolina
and neisY►boring Georgia. The a�ency
gave the to�vns siY months to find air-
lines �villin� to pro�ide the service.
American Eagle and �dantic Coast/Gni�-
ed Espress, respecuvely, answered the
call. The cities promised to return the
slots if the operations were noc viable.
Spurred by DOT's move, Siou.Y City,
Iowa, filed for slots; as did :lkron-Can-
ton, Ohio, and Charleston, S.C. Ne�rport
News, Va., tried a second time aher
bein� turned down tivhen the nvo souch-
ern airports �vere �ven slots. But last
July DOT said it would allocate no more
slots to� communities until it had evaluat-
ed the results of the initial e:cperiment.
United had challen�ed DOT's abilirv
to inake the a�vards permanent even �
thou�h it and many other airlines have
held rights at slot-controlled airports
a�varded them in 1969—unless they
have opted to sell them. ��ashington
la�wer �iorris Garfinkle says, "DOT �va5
bein; politically e:cpedient. It actuallr
hancled out slots to certain poliucians."
He doubts'the concept will survir•e.
Garfinkle, remember, in 1993 came
up with the idea that �ashville should pay
USAir �5 million for the right to a Lon-
don route and �ve it to :�merican, then a
Nashville hub operator. He recalls,
"US�ir �vas g�me but we felt DOT proba-
bly wouldn't approve. Its mindset then
was still airline-oriented. But at least we
thought we could awal�en communities
to the idea that routes equal economic
development and that the;� had a stake."
DOT did deny the application but also
a�varded rlmerican the route. A.� operat-
ed to London for almost t�vo years, then
closed the entire hub.
Nashville°s proposal was an eYtension
of the US�-BL�S effort begun in 1989 to
�ve communities more say in airline-
dominated bilateral ne�oaations. The
cities' success in conrincing regulators
and negociators to listen to them was a
model that they no�v, belatedlc, are apply-
in� to the deregulated domestic market.
Raleigh/Durham didn't try to buy
route ri;hts for an�°one but it did build a
ne�v terminal to entice Arnerican to
operate a hub. RDL �as just as embar-
• � L
�a � � ,. .... ,... ,... . � k �+"` i -{ .
. p:. h�',n '^�, �e;
h ti... r -
�, .` � ri:� � �
. ,., ...,,.._ .., . .: ::?
s re�' J:fry�c' � !'• f ..k
. .. ,.,. �..= h� ..k 1 ' $ _ ;�ir. ti� ��
F: ..,
i. +, �� ,^y
f � �y-0 t!� _ 3
x., ,
r a.
f� C� `4-... ' �1,�., j.�'E: _
,..1`
Sin�apore offer round-the-cloct �OG
suppon, on-sice technic:il and en� neering
e�pertise for major o��erhauls, and paris
im•entorv
Our core discipiines encomoass the
complece landinj �ear diagnosric chec.L•li4
indudin� hydnL�lics, tivheels and bnkes.
and brakin� s�stems•
tilhich means ��orldti�ide opera�ors oF
Bo�in�,?�irbtu, 11cDonneil-Dou;Ias,
ATR, Bombardier, Embraer, FalconJec
aircnEt—and o�hers--now hace a ne�.v
cerrified source uP landin� s�stems �IP�O
suppott.
Thz di$e: e:ice beinQ, `Ieasier Senices
is jiut a li�de oic doser to home.
TU Il(.T11 1!!OR' (iGqtl[ lI(C.�I<'SS7tTSeT'l�CS [f[IL'[i�flR�A','lI✓2SC CC.Ii :LS !71 I-�50(}�.i�Y-�d:0 ift !/te CS.i a[ � � � � � �
35 r0i1 dd_'9 y� 13 in F.um(�r, or 6� 7d� 9� �7 ire .-l.�'ia For a comolimr.ntar; Lmchum.. �lrrur. a�rile tn
.l(�ss;�r-.Srr.i�rs PRC i5l�10 4tic��bi147aurLlnc cedcK Fnrnce. S e r V � C E.' S v
Indicate �lo. 75 on Reader lnquiry Card
rassed as N:Lshville �vhen :1.-1 pulled out
of both cities at the same time. But the
community learned that �ood thin�s
sometimes come in smaller packa�es:
�Sid�vay Airlines moved its operations to
RDU from Chicajo, and as of September
the airport is the focus oE a minifight
ber�veen US rlinvays' �IetroJet and
South�vest. The three-airline ser�ice
probably �von't last, but Ralei�h/Durham
�;uned a valuable lesson about market-
in� from the American debacle.
In one respect, Des Nloines-based
�ccess Air is similar to Detroit's Pro �1ir:
It obtained support from the business
community. But Pro rlir did not receive
a �uarantee of business from automak-
ers until after it started service, �hile
�lccess rlir made sure it had subst.�ntial
commitments before takin� to the air.
In fact, founder Roger Ferguson �
designed Access rlir to meet the needs of
business people like humself who R-ere
tired of spending overnights in connect-
in� cities. "You ca.n't make it on leisure
p:issen�ers alone in Des i�Ioines," �here
the population is 6�0,000, he sa�s.
"You need the support of corporarions."
dccess started tlying last Februars•, j��'
years after Fer�uson first approached
local business interests. In the interim
its ori�nal lessor went banitirupt, the tialu-
Jet grouncling in 1996 chilled interest in
start-ups, and F.�.a took a verv lon� time
to approve its certificate.
The first batch of capit:tl; � 16 million,
came primarity from corporate equit�•
inr-estors. As of late September a second
capital infusion, to repi�ce fiinds used to
buc its rivo ori�in�tl aircr:ift, brouaht
equin-investment to �25 miltion, includ-
in� pricate and corporate funds from
Ioica and Illinois lenders. Tlus autumn
the company is seel:ing a third round of
support to finance operations up to a
fleet of S-9 units. Access Air w.0 to take
deliven� of i37-200s Nos. 5 and 6 this
month and next.
In contrast to most communities that
are seekin� er•er-more flights, some
actuallc discourage ne�v seitiice. �e���
Engl:ind towns near Hcuiscom Fie?d in
1�Iassachusetts compl.uned to l�i.�spon
about i�s certification oi Sliu«1e :lmerica
to seiti�e Hanscom instead of Boston
Logan. Arapahoe Count��, near Dencer
and site of jener��l a��iation reliecer Cen-
tenni��l Airpor�, h�u been figh�in� fur
}�ears dle attempt by businessman John
�ndre«-s to operate commercic�l sznice.
�ndre���s «�as an im-e�tor in deEi�nct Jet
�.meric�i and �Iuse rlir ,tnd has tried to
start sei�-ice at other nonprimai�• fields
such as Charlie Bro��•n .lirport out:ide
�
�:"-1 rHmany peoE
=� :No�thwest Airiii
� _ Commission,; b
:frequency; lowc
��:leisure travele�:
- �;:.: �:�;In,1996, �8i11
;-'�Milwaukee=base
��p�evious
:otherfun
n.Sepfember:
Air Transpori Warld ? 1/99 77
ISO
� '� �
�+I' �i .
scneauiea amine �� ^ , { � , � x:' �-�:::. ;
_�By the ena of 1998, before formaily`telling the BtIllaMaccb:a,jr ��`�'"�`�"';,. �
N1AC, 5un Country said it.would start scheduled �� �3-� . r}, ��.�''�
�����
:seniice in June 1999 Service paints:reffected its existing charternefwork As q� ��{
; September ii.was flyirig 16 aircraft ` four DG1�Os and 12 hushed 727 200s lt alsa ��.<�
- had ordered six 737-800s froiTi ILFC under 1 � year operat�ng leases with first'deliv "`��'
-. � , � ,�;.. �, , z ,,�, �"" r��
ery scheduled for January,2D01 __ T _ : � ,-�u ,� � �.,,� .
:: � The fall schedule shows Sun Country'serving 12 po�nfs daily and three 3 4 fimes �;
weekly. .Ten of the �12 have one daily f(ight; tuvo, Milwaukee and. Detroifi, wh�ch along �. �
with the Twin Cities�are headquarters for Mark Trvel�tour operators; have'yfwo daily x�
� The autumn schedule aiso includes a few through flights.via MSP:: Bui SCA's�(imited �-r �
service to many points,`rather than severai daily frequencies to_a'few, ra�ses questions.� �
Is Sun Country fhe white knight that will relie�ie the MAC of Ndrthwes�s strangie; ":�;-,a
hold? Not yet, and maybe never. _ La Macchia'explains,"The charfer airime as we knew ;
it served tour operators. But the charter tour operator of old, which I ve been for many;�,� i
years; is not compatibie with the consumer of today. l'he consumer is looking at sched' �
uled airlines. .But a scheduled airline can't provide what we as'a tour.operator.need:'.So.:::-
we've adapted to the ne�N worid. Our primary strategy is a leisure�straiegy: �:We've;just, �:=�;�
enhanced what we had before through scheduled operations: :That is�our niche
The niche, though, is expanding to appeal to individuais visiting friends'and �rela=:°''��;:;:
tives and to small-business people who don't want to pay Northwest �1;200 for a' :�`;��:�.;�
roundtrip during the week. �Nloreover, La Macchia apparently corisidered sefling SCA :; -:°
or merging it wiih another charterer in 1997 after it lost potsful of money.� �:'. ,:�:_: �.= •:" :
After he bought the airline, he as�ced his son, Bi(I Jr., to leave his job.as an accountant `.
at a Las Vegas�hotei and head Sun Country. The younger La Macchia sajis the sched- �.� �
uled certificate has made a difference in people's perceptions. The airline thinks of itseff
as being a service business, but joining the ranks or schedu�ed airlines "legitimizes us." �
Still, he emphasizes, "We are not a traditionai airiine because of what Mark Travel
is" and can do for the carrier, including providing a hosted reservation system at far
less cost than dealing directiy with a CftS. SCA is counting heavily on N1ark Trave!'s
technology department to help it attract customers, inc►uding from trave! aoents tivho
previously used its soft�vare to book tour pac�cages.
Despite the brave assertion about holding do�vn a niche, Bill Jr. has the same ques-
tion about the company's strategy as others. He has asked his father, "V�lhere do N�e
�vant to take this airline?"
O�rmer La Macchia is realistic about Northwest, which not only has its otivn tour
operator but also has dependetl on leisure to fill the gap leit by reducetl business traf-
fic: "Our strategy in its purest form �,vas never designed to compete with Norh��vest.
Are we a competitor of theirs? I don't ihink so. �re ���e competing in a ne>>v niche? In
rec�nt airiine history therz's never been a company like this one.
"But Northwest is definitely ha�iing an effect on the execution of our stratagy"—�or
example, creating a frequent-�lier program. "There's no question ��vhat their inttnt is:
They're aimed at putting us out of business. You have to come from another ��vorld to
miss that. But ��vhate�ier happens in ibiinneapolis/St. Paul, �ve will react to them, e�ren
though from our perspective �r�e have our o�am niche."
C��
80 Air Transporf�World 11/99
Adar►ta. In other �cords, he's familiar
with fighdng established in�eresu.
rindre�r-s was not going to start ���th
large aircrah but some citizens fe�ared the
proposed small-plane ser�ice ��ould
b ow. The counry denied hirn permission
and convinced irs con�essmun to spon-
sor le�slarion, included in DOT's 1)96
appropriation, pro�idin� that no airport
had to accept scheduled serrice using
aircraft of nine sears or more. Obviously
o�cials concluded �ndre�vs �yould find it
uneconomical to �o�y his air3ine if limit-
�ed to eight-passenger aircrat't.
That �vas fine, e.r•cept Centennial had
collected F.�1�1 grancs for ye�rs and no
E�1A grant recipient is supposed to dis-
criminate "unjusdy," according to an
F.�� airport compliance officia�l.
rindrews was depending on that interpre-
tation because the airport permits air
ta�ci/charter operadons Rirh the aircraft
he would use. The E� official adds, in
hustration over the lon� running saga
that has gone to a federal appe�als court,
that �lrapahoe Counry and the to«n of
Greemcood Villa�e failed to pro�e their
ban �as necessary since the airport is
,�flp aixlines
��� on Ceo�xoni�5 �
.xe�.Y
not certi£cated for scheduled air service.
"But," the off'icial says, "this is America
and people are allo�r'ed ro indulge them-
selves" in espensive le�al batdes.
Andre�vs thinks the years-lon� stalling
bv F.�1 beEore reachin' an opinion on
Centennial's rights relates to Denver
Internadonal rlirport and former Denver
l�iavor/former DOT Secretary Federico
Pena's effort to protecc it and bondhold-
ers. DIr1 was funded during Pena's DOT
stewardsiup. l�ieamvhile, the helptul
local congressman also proposed le�is-
lation that tivould let Centennial continue
to receive federal arants even if it was
found to be discriminatin;.
rinother case of opposition to air ser-
vice growth involves Washin�ton, D.C.'s
hometo�vn airport. Sen. John i�icCain
(R-Ariz.) has tried for years to obtain
slots at Reagan National for constituent
rlmerica West. Antinoise citizens, �vho
�vanted DC.�, closed when Dulles opened,
have had to content themseives �zch
fighdng jrowth. I�IcCain, of course, �
m•aintains his concem relates purely to
competition. T�vo ocher le�islative pro-
posals would increase operations at
DC;1, thou;h not so much as �IcCain's.
Congress's �va[chdog, the General
Accountin� O�ce; recendy issued a
report saying DCr1 could handle 36 more
jet flighcs and 11 more commuter flights
a dav. But G�0 �vaned that en�rants
need not jusc slors buc gates, ba�a�e fac-
ilides and ocher accou[remenrs no[ easily
ceded by current tenants. The airpon
told GAO all jez �aces are le�.ised to incum-
bents unti1201�. Only rivo airlines, ylid-
way and l�fid«est Eenress, have �ained
reliable jate access ar DG� since 1956.
CommuniN battles to control their air
service are not just a tiS occurrence.
- Look at �lilan, �rhich �anrs close-in Linate
Airport used for flisits not just to Rome,
as ori�r►ally prescribed by all public
authorities inti�olr•ed, but to southern Italy
and no�v even some European cities. That
stirred up domesric and internarianal :�li-
talia rivals er•en more. Such fights in
Europe add a third dimension, includin�
not only city and nazional polidcians and
bureaucrats but the EiJ. Any city or coun-
trv that tizu�;s it is immune to such
debates in this dar- oE increased acrirism is
lirin� in a dre�m �corld :�
0
�(( lll ��`���'' j:� � � a "�~�- i
Audio • Video • Data Communication
International Headquarter �
Ceotronics AG �
D-63322 Rodermar4 - P.c�-Onel-Str. 6
Tel. + 49-607a/8751-0 - Fa:c y �g-607a/875176
...,: t �� �
t�.. t ;
y . � , h,� �. _ r ��.
. _
x �., �. _, � r�
;§, � t � ���r { �. ..> �c Y� „J:. F'�� J!`�
' , ,.
f
i
Y
. .
�,,. � .: .�.. .A ...
. . ... �
.'�
-.d.h. - ..�F .1�_ •�� k.�-�...
i , ' � � ' a , t tt . � � � '« E i� ' n
� Wireless radio headset � �
� Radio interace for aircraft intercom / e i-Si�� .��
� Foarding gate communication c,a.� r J S.o
� Quick Charge: 30 min. ma.x. �.��' �_�-'"� '
' �— -
Advantages:
� Complete saietv o; ground personnel – no cables
can get caught under the v�rheels of the aircraft
g Additional s�fety during lightning
� Freedom of mo�erm�nt uncier and around
the aircr�=v
"It's good to have safety cables and safety connectors
– It's even better to have none!"
Ceotronics �so o��ers cable bound Ground-Com Haadsats, Ground-Com testers, Coc=�pit Hea*ry Duty
and Lighttiyeignt �"'�."�.GCISCtS� De-Icing Headsets and communication systems for �G�.LC_G:L ZI�GIZI4�LIGPCP..
Please contact us for further information.
E-i�Iail sales;^sceotro*ucs.com http://www.ceotronics.coin
CT-GateCom System — a further step in evolution of ground communication
Indicate No. 46 on Reader Inquiry Card
�
Air Transport World 4/Z000
By'Ade'le C. Schwartz
� L ; .�.
� � ��
��� � � � � �
- � < ; ��
�� � ,_
Getting new airline service
for an airport means show-
ing a carrier it� can ma.ke
money ther.e � �
f you build it they will come—
but only if you convince them
they can generate profits oper-
ating there. The Maryland
State Aviation Administra-
tion figured this out nearly
Balt{more-Washington
International Airport
�30 years ago after it bought Friendship Air-
port from Baltimore City and turned it into
BaltimoreJWashington International. "We
hired a consultant to do studies on poten-
tial service that could be offered by various
airlines, and how airlines would profit by
serving these markets from BWI," recalled
Paul B. �Ioore, who was the airport's
director-trade development in 1973-79•
"�,t that time we focused on the [Washinb
ton] D.C. markeY' because the goal was to
position BWI to serve an e.rpanded re�on
encompassing Washington to the south
and parts of Pennsylvania to the north.
Moore and his team, including Sta.te
Aviation 9dministra-
tor Robert J. Aaron-
son, visited airline
top managements
' and took what ihey
called their "dog-
and-pony show" to '
carriers' reservation
centers. Travel
agents also were
courted, and a sepa-
rate marketi.ng office was established to
build cargo business. The airport often
advertised specific airline services, Moore
said. �
BWI still is following essential.ty the
same blueprint, concentrating now on
filling the 370,000-sq.-ft., $110 million
international terminal that opened in
1997. Right now the military's Air Mobil-
ity Command is the largest operator ,
there, carrying some 140,000 passen�ers
a year. AMC moved to BWI in February
1998 from Philadelphia. Air Aruba start-
ed service last year and rivo charter oper-
ators added Cancun flights.
"Our newest success story is Aer Lin-
gus," said William D. Castleberry, BWI's
associate adnunistrator-marketing and
development. The Irish airline hopes to
start daily nonstop A330 service to Dublin
this summer. This requires US DOT
approval and B�1I and its backers are
lobby-ing hard to win it. Maryland politi-
cal figures from the aovernor through the
10-person Con�essional delegation are
involved in this effort, Casdeberry said.
Dublin will be BWI's first new destination
in about 20 years and the senice �ill
ma.rk the first-er•er nonstop flights to Ire-
land from the area.
"Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
was a leader in making the senice hap-
pen," Casdeberry said. She worked «ith
Aer Lin�us and the US government to get
the service and «ith the business commu-
nity to support it. A number of Irish busi-
nesses have ties to the re�on, Castleberry
noted, and millions of residents claim
74 Air Transporf World 4/2000
Irish ancestry.
When ihe airport
targets a carrier,
"The first thing we
do is show them the
numbers," he said
"We show them the
benefits of the
re�on," which is
the fifth-largest con-
solidated metropoli-
tan area in the US
and has the second-
highesf disposable
income. "We start
by working with the
route planners, and
sometimes with the
North American
offices of foreign
carriers.°'
Once the new
service is set, "We
develop a partner-
ship with the air-
line" to sell it at both ends. In February
Castleberry and a high-level group from
Maryland went to Ireland "to tell them
how we'Te going to market the service,"
discussing advertisin� and public rela-
tions campaigns. "I don't know how to
market in Ireland," he said. "Aer Linws
has people who can do that. I can mar-
ket in �hiaryland and D.C."
He also kno�s how to market in Lon-
don. The airport's 1999 joint campai�n
with British Air�rays to sell BA's BWI-
Gatcvick senrice, which included televi-
sion spots and ads on London tasis and
in Under�ound stations, won a top pzize
at an international meeting in Rome.
Advertising and trips come out of the
a.irport's $2.8 million marketing budjet.
"Seventy percent of our resources are
used in assurin� that the carriers we
have here today are profitable," Casde-
berry said. "We start the marketing
once we have them established. We
have very stron� cooperarive a�eements
with our partners Icelandair and B�1.
The worst thin� �-ould be to get an inter-
national carrier that fails." This dedica-
tion to profitability "gets the attention of
other airlines," he believes.
Althoujh B�I has neier �en a new car-
rier concessions 3n airport charges, he said
"tlus is a distinct possibilin" for �er Lin-
gus. As of Februan>, "talk-s are ongoing."
While thev �ork on detaiLs of the Irish
service, BC�! marketers also are ne�otiat-
ing hard for ne«� �frican service. "There
are 1.5 million natire-born West Africans
lit�ing in this area;" Casdeberry said. "We
have met �vith Ghana ?,irn�a�s and rlir
BWI is concentrating on filling the 370, 000-sq. ; ft., $110 million tnternational
te»ninal (foreground) that opened in 1997• Most recent customer is rier Lingus,
pending US DOT ajiproval.
Afrique and are talking with Nigeria Air.
We th'vnk they're now very much aware
of the advanta.ges of usina BWI. This
would be a very successful service." �
Service to Frankfurt is another goal,
along with flights to Paris and Amsterdam.
Although the airport "can't build gates
fast enough" on the domestic side, it �
would like to add nonstop service to
underserved cities such as Seaitle, San
Diego and San Jose. These desti.nations
"get 175,000 passengers a year from
this area," Castleberry said. "I want biD,
wide nonstop airplanes" from BWI to
these cities. .
Ten ne�v domestic gates opening in
June will be used by Southwest Airlines,
which established its first East Coast ser-
vice from BWI in September 1993 and
no�v has pilot and flight attendant bases
there. The airport won the Southwest
hub over stiff competition from other
eastern airports.
' Southwest and BWI talked about the
service for more than five years, Bill
Owen, the airline's senior planner, told
A?'W. "They really helped us understand
how the area divided out among the
other airports," he said. "The airport
was not congested, on the �ound or in the
arr, [and] a�ailability of gates and passen-
ger areas was not a problem ...We were
wary of the congestion and slot restraints
at Washington's other airports.
"The �eatest thing an airport market-
in� department can do for a prospectne air-
line is help them understand the 6ner
nuances of the marketplace," he added. "A
lot of dat�1 is available to tell us about ti�-ho
_... __. _ L.S
lives where and what
their travel habits -
are, but we may not �� y�
know that a new
microchip plant is
moving into the area,
or that the local �
economy is thriving
after a short reces-
sion."
fihe Metropolitan
Washington Airports
Authority under- '
stands this. "Obvi-
ously it's important .
to know our mar-
ket, especially if it is
undergoing
changes," said Gen- .
eral Manager James
A. Wilding. "Just in
the last few years the
e.Yplosion oE hibh-
� tech indnstry along
the Dulles corridor �
has introduced an entirely new segment
of traveler and shipper" to Washington
Dulles International. "Our air service
team had to learn thaf market, work
with our e.scisting air carriers and find -
opportunities with new carriers to bri� ;
in additional service ... The result was a'
25 % increase in passengers and a corre-
sponding increase in air service at :'
Dulles in 1999.,, �
Some 60 mi. south of BWI, Dulles has ''
been the object of intensive marketing
efforts that began even before its Novem-
ber 1962 opening. Then-FklAdminis-
trator Najeeb E. Halaby and other gov-
ernment officials leaned hard on airlines,
with little initial success, to move flights
from convenient Washin�ton National to
the new federally o�ned airport 26 mi.
out in the tiir�nia country-side. •
In recent years Dulles has overtaken
BWI as the area's leading internationai
airport. Its newest service is Austrian
Airlines' Vienna trip, which began in
Niarch. In \oti°ember Sabena added
Brussels ser�ice and B� be;an flying
to Barbados, �na�ua and Trinidad.
B�I's Casdeberry insists he does not
see Dulles as a competitor. "At worst
our relationship is one of sibling rivalry.
We're looi�ng for netiv service," not to
take service a�ay from Dulles. He
believes all three airports are needed�"
serve the i�'ashin�ton-Baltimore mar ., '
"BA does tremendously well" titiith its
flights at both B�'I and Dulles, he noted.
But on the other liS coast, Oakland
International Airport blatandy competes
�vith San Francisco Internation��l, tellin�
76 Air Transporf World 4/Z000
the region's residents and the airlines
that serve them that for many it is the
more convenient airport. Oakland has
had e�ctensive marketing campaigns for
decades. In the 19 i Os it used billboards
and print advertising and had a central
aizport-information telephone number
to boost traffic for its carriers. The air-
port still rents the billboard at the east
anchorage of the Bay Bridge and offers it
to airlines to promote their OAK service.
"After working to fill the seazs that are
already offered at Ua.kland Internaiional,"
-an airport spokesperson said, `bffiaals
make annual visits to the route-planning
staff of each incumbent Girrier as well as
potenflal airlines. The main message is
simple: Oakland's passenger potential is
understated by DOT sta�stics ... As wearh-
er delays continue to push SFO's ontvme
arrival perfornkwce an average of nearly
10% lower than OAK's, the argument
becomes more and more compelling."
Oakland's laiest marketing success was the
addition of Aloha Airlines nonstop service
to Honolulu and Maui in Febniary.
� Melbourne, Fla., International is also
in the shadow of a formidable competi-
indicate No. 68 on Reader Inquiry Card
tor. Sixtv-two miles from Orlando Inter-
national, Melbourne is working hard to
establish its o�vn market "serving Flori-
da's space and treasure coasts." Mel-
bourne has a 10-year-old, 120,000-sq.-
ft. ternunal with siY gates. Its 2,800-acre
site includes 1,200 acres of industrial
space that bring in enough rental income
to provide a budget surplus that, by ]a.w,
must be spent on airport programs.
The Melbourne Airport Authority is
using tivs money to entice airlines to
serve the airport, offering at least
$200,000 for initiat marketing and, for
the first year, no landing fees and &ee
ticket-counter, baggage-handling and
office space as well as$8 in marketi.ng
money for each enplaned passenger.
The program could be worth as much as
$1.2 million to an airline, the airport
says. Carriers must a�ee to provide at
least two daily flights to at least one des-
tination not now served from Melbourne
for at least three years. They must
accept the pro�am by July 31 and be�.n
service by the end of this year.
In February, said Melissa B. Altman,
public relations manager, Melbourne
was negotiatin; with fiWA for service to
St. Louis and New York JFK, with Conti-
nental for Newark and Cleveland flights
and with Delta for nonstop trips to Da1- .
las/Fort Worth and Cincinnati. In mid-
February she to1dA7"t�that airport man-
agement was in "hard negotiation" with
one of the ihree for service to start later
this year. At the be�nning of February
MI.B be�an a campai��to get local resi-
dents and businesses to �vrite to these
airlines requesting the new service. The
airport was "s�vamped" �vith copies of
the letters, Altman said.
Nett goal is service to Germany and
England, the most-popular forei� desti-
nations for l�lelbourne travelers.
Adantic Southeast Airlines began flying
between Nlelbourne and Adanta in June
with load factors nearing 80%, and
added nvo dailyflights in Ju:;:� S�.-�rrlir-`
lines, Melbourne's first marketing part-
ner, was paid �4 per enplaned passenger
and �ven free a.irport use for a year after
it be�an service in September 1998.
Spirit now pa�s full airport charjes. The
authoriry also worked with Spirit to get
slots at LaGuardia.
Last November Spirit replaced 117-
passenger DC-9s with 164-seat l�ID-82s
on its two dailv �ielbourne-New York
flights. "Spirit increased the market to
and from Ne�v York's LaGuardia rlirport
by 964% and reduced average passen�er
ticket costs by 63%," said iYiLB E.r-ecutive
Director Jim Johnson. �
Air Tronsport World 4/2000 47
f" ..�
�'� '
h } � �:� r � ��:
^� ] 1 i
7' Y'ty t � -i !
}` T � �,} . `, ' ; ^ ` r'
".4: '5:.� 4 t : . �.
Y: t � .(`,*.
...t"" . F � '
- x,. ...F. � ---
�
f � ::2 ,�, ; : �.
�r .. t h: t '� � J�; , 1
F,,
� .., ." .. l'
1: �
.. . '� } t s '� �:
t �' �
a,u'-� . ��. � t .� � , t.� 3
�: � �
_ vy '. : ��.:
d; _w . -..3 - �.. „i �•;a�.... t .�. �..._,. �... �..... :. , ,.!� o. � ..�.-..s. w..�...
.� .�, . t :�� .: :; .
� � ..' '.._e ..� .� ^� �. � .`„ . �,�. � �S -
r�: ' ..' �� .� � :��',.. i . ,-W . . . ,. ..� "
By ,Joan M. Feldman
or nvo years the US-EU fight over restrictions
on hushed aircraft has relegated noise and
emissions to a secondary role. Not to worry:
The dustup came in quite handy for US airlines
tryin; to delay the nest round of equipment
investment and EU poliflcians tryinD to fend off
citizens unhappy about noise. Hyperbole and playing with the truth
have marked the entire mess.
The Chapter 3/Staje 3�craft noise standard was estab-
lished in 1977. Since then, pressure to reduce noise has esca-
lated, far more so in Europe than elsewhere. So the Buro-
peans have pushed ICAO, which sets noise and emission
standards, to speed up action. In 1990 IC�O set a 2002 dead-
line to phase out Stage 2 aircraft. Almost simultaneously the
liS passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act with an earlier
deadline of end-1999 to pacify its harassed airports.
US airlines were losing potsful of money in the early 1990s,
so F.�.� let them meet the deadline through hushkitting or re-
e*- '�in� Stage 2 aircraft. Thec mosdy chose the cheaper
t� .�sit option, ordering 1,507 systems versus 304 ordered
elsewhere: S73 for 72 is, 43� for 737s and ">03 for DC-9s.
Orders still are coming in.
Niean�vhile, ICAO's Committee on A��ation En�ironmental
r :,.�- .�-.; > ,,;, ,,., =:.:::.. _
:s' � r
Protection was studying new noise and emission standards.
But IGAO moves slowly—a disti.nct advantage for those wanting
to hold back change. In 1995 the EU pushed hard within CAEP
for a so-called Stage 3.5 but was beaten back by the US. A US
participant says, "They never got over it."
So in 1997 the EU Commission issued a directive using a
floor for bypass ratios, not performance, to measure noise.
F3ushkitted/re-en�nned airplanes fell below the floor. biore-
over, the EU said noise modifications meant the models had
been "recertified" and were not operating simply with supple-
mental rype certificates appended to the ori�nals.
The Commission also set deadlines. bSember states' airlines
could not add hushed aircraft to their re�stries after i�iay
1999—since e:ctended to May 2000; those re�stered before
could keep flying. Non-EU airlines also can keep flpin� their
hushed aircraft if they operated to the EU benveen 1995 and
May 2002. '
In 1998 the EU tried again to push ICr10, sugaesting that
year's Assembly permit re�onal variations in noise limits. That
proposal had so little support that no vote tivas tal:en, bruising
the EU's already delicate e�o. �n EUC mana�er calls that "the
final straw." The increasingly po�verful European Parliament
ordered the Commission to replace the more-lenient directive,
which is implemented through na.tional law, with a rewlation,
which is effective EU-�-ide and 'unmediately.
That action was no surprise. The European Ci`il Aviation
Conference, which often acts as the Commission's technical
arm, had done work on hushkits, �3rith US obsen•ers attendin�
meetings. A US airline source says, "We didn't pay attention."
Even so, an ICAO manager charges, "The EU «as sill�. Who-
ever �vrote the rule didn't kno5�- �vhat he was doin�. Then it
48 Air Tronsport Worid 4/2000
,�=�:ya
became a political football. ���:��"4
[Trade Commissioner
��� �
��:
Pascal] Lamy reco�ni2es �'�;�,.
the EU got itself into a f`�-.��;
�� � �
whirhvind. But beina ���., �
politicians they don't like :r�����+`
backing down. Thev "�` �,
must find a way out." Try- `�' �s''* .
l
ing to save face, the Com- r �`
mission promised to sus- 'a�:�;�
pend the rule if it can �aaon
accomplish the same thing F�
another way. -- �Y��°�
Paris CI
US airports, far more
esposed to hushed aircraft - `�`�'a
than the Europeans, are �aaon
sympathetic �vith the EU ` P� o
goal if not its unilateralism. �=
ACCOTC�iIlg to an article in �ome
Air �, Space Lawyer co- M�'d
authored by ACI-NA General - z���
Counsel Patricia Hahn, . �
"There is considerable con- souflce:
cern about the means [tiS]
airlines are using to achieve.
[Stage 3] compliance." The airports
want a "reasonable°' retirement sched-
u1e for models not meeting Stage 4.
They want to start it soon, by 2003.
US airlines have several antirea la-
. tion arguments, including a reduction
in European competition. But their
biggest concern is cost, no�v and in the
future, if the EU does not stick to ICAO
standards. North�est, with 172 DC-9s,
complained formally to DOT. NWA
does not operate DC-9s in the EU, but
industry balance sheets often include
aircraft values that may reflect opti-
mistic assessments of sales and operat-
in; potential. A Washington attorney
declares, "If you ha�°e to reduce values
by 20%, it blows the balance sheet to
bits." But an Ir1T�1 manager asserts,
"Cost avoidance [fieet replacement] is
the real specter, not loss of a resale
market."
People get vague n-hen asked about
the rule's financial impact. Some esti-
mate an unsubstantiated �2 billion
including reduced v°alues and lost sales.
But do upstart or fina.nciallv �veak air-
lines �vant old aircrafr R-hen Airbus and
Boeing offer splendid incentives even for
tiny orders? �1 manufacturer savs
Europe alone has 32� •�hushkittable"
aircraft-104 ha�-e been so fitted �vith
more possibilities else«-here. Whatever
the true potential impact; ACI-�;� Senior
VP Richard biarchi declares, "It ain't �2
billion of lost business."
L'S interests also sa}- b}pass rado per-
mits nois5� Airbuses to escape the crack-
do�z-n and is therefore "discruninatorv."
LGW
RY a
� �
�_ � ' Earcelona . .`:
�x;�� �.nv '�.
; � v;�
� is�� x�. �
AEA Yearbook, from French OGGA
Omega Air, which re-en�zies aircraft,
sued over use of the measure in the iTK
High Court and won a referrai to the
European Court of Justice. A US airline �
industry source declares, "The hushkit .
rule won't make any difference to those
near airports." AEr1 members operate
fewer than 20 hushed aircraft, so "it's
all optics."
Airlines swear their allegiance to .
reducin; noise impact. Some don't
believe them. An Fr1A staffer says,
"They obviously are not keen on Stage
4. And the EU has made it easy for
them. Instead of the ar�umenYs hanb
ina on Stage 4, they han� it on hushkits
and the credibiliry of the ICr10 system."
But, he �varns, US carriers had better
prepare for more pressure. "Once the
[Stage 2] phaseout �vas complete, noise
was still there. It's a moving target for
the public,. despite an 85 % reduction so
far. So after safery, environment is our
bigbest issue. l�e'd rather get out in
front and shape policy than be in the
EU's position."
The EU is long on rhetoric too. If it
were sincere it would preempt individ-
ual airports, as r�vCA is supposed to
do, though airport challenges could yet
prove effective. The �ashin�ton attor-
ney says, "Nothing in the hushkit rule
says airports can no longer promulaate
local restrictions." Or the EU could
rationalize the energy-�%asting ATC sys-
tem more quickly. ACI-Europe blames
"hushkitted aircraft [for] prevent[ing)
traffic growth," nailing charterers and
low-cost carriers as culprits.
�:��.;�«���-�� Other possibilities: Ger-
�� .�
��8$' �''�� 3��; many, with some of the
�;�5r '��' r� `� more-vocal environmental-
���`�'" ists, could stop Franidurt
�._�,� �-��
�a��m�;,,,�`,���`�-,��;� rlirport from adding 120
ieii# cap=��r� flights an hour to the cur-
HustKit;�,;Y. 78. Or B
< rent elgian and
�, {� � �
��,.�-,�r��� � Dutch politicians might not
b
,n��'�r�;3 s�,;,�;*:. back down £rom their .
��'�-��''�� tough-taiking noise-reduc-
�`,'� �.� tion promises at Brussels
� �
none �`� � �d �sterdam—but when
';},��iC'.rm �i
�'�' ;�� job losses loomed they did.
'>~- a� Or airports could buy out
;�; affected residents, as US air-
; ports have done with good
none i results. The EU is playing a
-� cynical game.
- Of all the arguments, the
,:� one that unifies US and other
�� parties is not US operations
to/in Europe or hushldt sates
but the high-minded notion of
the ICA.O sy�stem, which mem-
bers often support or aban-
don depending on the day of the year.
The US's ICr10 Council delegate, Edward
Stimpson, insists, "This is much bigger
than hushkits. IYs whether we have an
international standard or re�onal ones.
14fembers and industry both want a true
international standard on both noise
and emissions, and want to ensure the
EU sticks to it." Apparendy the US's
Stage 2 phaseout schedule, different but
simultaneous with ICAO's, and other
actions such as the security-targeting
Hatch Amendment, do not count as�
regional action.
A Stage 4 standard is to be presented,
maybe even for a vote; at ne.Yt year's
ICAO Assembly. Once it e.�ists, the liS
arD es, demands to meet it sooner
rather than later tvill increase even if it
; applies only to new desi�s and certainly
before airlines are ready. The pressure
tivill be greater still if better en�ne tech-
nology already is available.
So in October AT�, wrote Com-
merce Secretary William Daley and
Transportation Secretary Rodney .
Slater, in defiance of their wishes,
that they should "esercise estreme
caution in making commitments for a
Stage 3 phaseout." That referred to
Slater's alleged agreement to such a
phaseout, plus Stage 4 definition by
the Assembly meeting, in return for
the EU's caving in on hushkits. AT�
�vants "assurances that we will be
able to protect the esisting fleet and
to realize the fiill potential of the
investments made pursuant to r1�\'CA."
But if the Republicans win in Novem-
(.
ber, oral or written administration
assurances are not worth much.
Strangely, ATA insists Slater "commit-
�. i" to 2041. Others say he committed
only to negotiate by then. But the C�EP
process includes a meeting in December
or January to produce a recommenda-
tion for the Assembly.
ATA also demanded that the US file a
formal complaint under rlrticle 84 of the
ICr10 Convention against EU members of
IC�O. That is because the EU is only an
observer, though in its attempt to be
treated like a real government it acts like
a member. To the airlines' chagrin the
administration delayed filing. The State
Dept.-led peaceniks did not want the avi-
ation spat to become the fifth such filing
of the little-invoked article.
The US agency disagreement over
whether to file was matched by indus-
try's lack of cohesion on the �vhole
issue. Hushkit makers have different
agendas. Some claim they ca.n reduce
noise by a few e:�tra decibels with only
a sma11 investment. Voila! i�tore sales.
i�leanwhile, Mark Atcvood, an attorney
for some of them, wonders whether in
light of the current fight, capital w-ill be
avai.lable for an even newer generation
"''cits. The big lessors, with already
� dern fleets, have not participated in
the fight. Some ATA members do not
agree with the time and money spent to
help a handful of inembers—North-
west, FedEx and UPS. Heck, Pratt &
Whitney is debating internally whether
it is better to encourage the need for
ne�'v-technology engines sooner or to
e.Ytend sales of very profitable JT3D
spares for older aircraft as long as .
possible.
When/if the EU compromises by sus-
pending the hushkit rule—not �-ith-
drawing it, as demanded by US air-
lines—it must receive European
Parliament approval. That approcal is
linked to the allejed "commitments" to
the 2001 deadline, which is stricdv
theoretical. lYiuch politicl;ing remains:
Whether to apply Stage 4 to in-produc-
tion or ne�v-technolow aircraft; imple-
mentation, completion and transition
dates; the technical possibilities of
reducing greenhouse gas and nitrous
o:tide emissions along �vith noise; the
economics of all permutations. An �TA
official warns, "We are not joing to
��� ��'e to a ha.lf-baked solution."
�i�the 2001 r�ssembly fails to produce
a ne�v standard, European airports �a.nt
the EU to establish uniform airport noise
restrictions. Several European organiza-
tions also want the Comnussion to decel-
op land-use guidelines. As for US air-
ports, theAir F� Space Lawyer article
recommends, "Future processes for
resolving noise disputes at the interna-
tional level should ... include mecha-
nisms for re�ularly
reviewing the need to � �
revisit certificadon
standards in light of
emerging technology,
economics and environ-
mental impacts." If that
does not happen, it
says, citizens will
demand more local
restricdons. bUy lt.
Whatever the out-
come, the EU rule has
achieved something.
When we tried to dis-
cuss Stage 41ast year,
US sources barely
aclmowled;ed the pos-
sibility. Airlines and '
manufacturers wanted
more research. In fact
a Washington observer
even now says, "Stage 4 is one of the
great hoaxes because it is undefined.
You can write a Stage 4 that has
mar�nal irnpact on noise but not near-
ly so great as Stage 2 or 3." Much
work remains to achieve such a major
leap as those rivo stages.
Pratt has proposed such an engine,
the PW8000. Senior VP Ed Crow says,
"We're ready to do this machine." He
claims the engine can save 30dB over
the oribinal Stage 3 baseline, depenciing
on the airframe, on top of providing far
greater efficiencies. That figure is
about 7dB lower than the GE90-pow-
ered 777, which GE says was designed
to meet the `°highest espected noise
standard." "
Fr1A's James Erickson, director of
environment and energy, says the
GE90-powered 777 is the only model
with such lo�v noise impact. But he is
certain Sta;e 4"absolutely won't go
that far." Indeed, Stage 4 sovnds very
much like Stage 3.5. Erickson does
think that a 7dB reduction "would be
a very bi; deal." But a Washington
attorney says flatly, "If any new model
is only built for noise, airlines
�vouldn't buy it. If it is more efficient,
they will buy it without any deadlines."
Dr. Phil Gliebe, GE's principal
acoust9c pro�ram engineer, cites Nr1SA
research that could represent "quan-
tum leaps" in noise reduction. �hile
NASA's longer-term goal is to reduce
acoustic noise by IOdB, Gliebe says
Air Transport World 4/2000 51
that "somewhat lofty goal" will be
mitigated by what is affordable:
"�iaybe we can get 4-SdB of the
lOdB, with 2-3dB a good way toward
the shorter-term goal." He is sure
that "if we get the
requirements, we'll
engineer a way to get
there." Meantime,
"We've reduced noise
enough that the average
person recognizes it."
Emissions are a si�
nificant part of most
rational noise discus-
If lt 1S sions, though they come
under a different ICAO
standasd. Airports are
concemed about NOx.
The US espects Europe
to be as vocal on emis-
sions as noise. In
February 1999, IGAO
a�reed on NOs stan-
dards as of 2004 for
new en�ne designs that
are at least 16°o below
lim.its set in 1993. Industry knows
even more will be required. But
reductions in NOs produce increases
in carbon mono:cide and dio:cide, the
greenhouse gases that signatories to
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol promised to
reduce. So attention is sliiiting again
to CO�.
Indeed, the General Accounting
Office notes that a recent report by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change concluded that "the
increase in aviation emissions
attributable to a growing demand for
air travel would not be fully offset by
reductions . . . through technolo�ical
improvements alone."
Some people, eYcept maybe for the
still-Socialist-minded EU, think a
capitalist solution to environmental
problems would be cheaper and
faster. One Cr1EP group is studying
emissions trading and iYiarchi calls
the scheme "ideal" for aviation. It
would help airports by avoidin; the
sacrifice of noise improvements for
emissions reductions. Others pro-
pose noise rights trading, which
�vould let industry meet reduction
mandates more efficientl� than
through a welter of restrictions and
financial penalties.
That is even more true if the Wash-
in;ton observer is correct: "There are
only 15 countries [in ICAO] that care
about noise. The other 170 don't.
Some care a lot more about food." �r�
� any new
model is only
built for noise, �
a.1�'�1112S WOU�C�.TI.'t
more efficient,
they wil]. buy it
with0ut any
deadlines."
rr
�
. - ---;;; I
30 Air Transport World Z/2000
penny-pinching, "I win ,r:: � <�,�:
, ��''��"-,,, �M;
you lose' approach to ���f-��Rec�
running the airline. ;�,�„�'' .�r�'��.�':�
Coinciding with �= =��'�-" ��`�s��,?
Y`�S�fs w's'r'�
Northwest's recovery �<�` �� � *�;�ry
from the strike has been ,(mui�ons��'�
a better=than-e�pected =:op�s �'
performance out of �,sia, ,'aP�g �
which caused the airline >�:��-���or
to accelerate deliveries N�c �`om�`
of four 747-400s last `�MS �-`'
�:�� . •: �
year and reactivate two
mothballed 747-ZOOs for
service in 2000. Four
more 747-400s will
arrive this year, accord-
ing to Dasburg. North- �
west flies to Japan from eight US cities,
hubbing�at Tokyo Narita and Osaka Kan-
sai to a dozen beyond destinations in
Asia and the Pacific with a fleet of 747-
400s, 747-200s and DC-lOs. It current-
ly derives around 2046 of annual rev-
enues from its e.�ctensive Asia/Pacific
network, do�vn from 30% before the
onset of the �,sian crisis.
"We're seeing a si�ificant recovery
, . .,.
74 2
11 37
9.31
9.25
•?Load factor ( ) 75.1
_- Yieid (�) ' _ - ' 11.49
RASM (<) . 9.43
casH (t) E.so
'Applicable to common stockhoiders.
SOURCE: Narthwest Airllnes
'.-66738 '72`031
; 9i 311 ° 96 964
�'� 731 "• . . .74.3
''.1126 ' 12.11
9.12 . 9.76
9.21 8.63
Narita and now there are a large numbe
of cities throughout Southeast Asia that
have enormous populations, and as .
those econoinies gro�v we will have
enormous service opportunities."
He dismisses the idea that many of
these destinations can be served on a
nonstop or hub-bypass basis to and from
the US, thereby diminishing the value of
the Japan &anchise: "The overIlying of .
� Asian hubs to
places like
Kaohsiung and
Kuala Lumpur ,
IS ilOt a01Sla i0
happen in our
lifetime."
Northwest's
. � early 1990s
decision to
develop a hub at Osaka Kansai in the
heart of Japan's business/industrial re-
gion also is paying off. "The Kansai re-
gion alone has a GDP that is bigger than
many oi the ne�vly developing countries
in Asia," says Haan.
The bottom .��"�'�;; ;'�'�
line is that North- ;� NWA usuall
tivest expects to 1 On time$ e
YJ „ P
ride the Japan � ' '
S i ._ t
/rlsia recoven� to 1990 1995 ��
higher levels of ] 996
profitabiliry. The i99.�
potential im-
provement at the �� 3Q9g
pre-taY level 4Q��
ranges from �220 � l0/99
IT11ll10R t0 y� js� •g�;ed based an CS DOY on-
million a year, neneoridng carriers.
depending on the SOURGE: Notth�:�est Airline
strength of
Japan's resur�ence. Tlus takes into
account the negative effect of ne«� entry
into Japan but also some improvements
North�vest has put into place, such as
better revenue and pricing sofiti�'are that
�vill allo�v it for the first time to y7eld-
SOURCE: Northwest Airlines �
in the Pacific [that has] more than off-
set the �veakness in the domestic sys-
tem," declares Esecutive VP and CFO
Mickey Foret. That recovery, coupled
with the stron�er yen, "is going to
improve our performance in 2000."
North�vest is unique among US airlines
in terms of its vulnerability to a weak
yen; this perhaps is the only downside
to a 50-year presence in Japan that has
caused it almost to be vie�ved as a
domestic carrier. Sa�s Foret: "Good
times come tivith good Japanese GDP.
In strong Japanese GDP, �ve make a lot
of money." Adds Esecutive VP-Interna-
tionat, Sales and Information Services
Philip C. Haan: "�,s goes Japan, so go
our fortunes in :�.sia."
But hasn't the profit potential dimin-
ished considerably as a result of the
1998 US Japan a�eement that granted
US and Jap•anese competitors estensive
rights to operate bet�veen the two coun-
tries? No, sa�� airline officials. "There's
a lot of upside to that bilaterai for tiorth-
�vest," Anderson points out. "It solidi-
fied our hub and our be}-ond rights at
.� �. � �r r� mana�e its business
", ��' `"' beyond the Tokyo hub. It
�$U'tS �y w��
'�' �`� `'�� also has re-en neered' its
��� ` ��`; �a �
��
r,� "� ����- cost structure in Asia, tak-
MBER 1 Y,,,'.� ��g out "�45-50 million" a
t� " 7s98 t i year through a 153a reduc-
�$ 9 880 ; don in headcount, re-engi-
-' -$�827 ° ` neering and outsourcing,
1,054 �
' : s72 ` ' according to Foret.
5�3 The positive contribution
" ss`sas : from alliances also plays a
9373.1 �: p� � �S OptimiStiC 011t-
�-12.53 '"` look. Northwest has code-
9.85
' e.7a . sharing agreements with
Japan Air System, Air China
and i�ialaysia Airlines,
wlule its domestic partner-
r ship with Continental Airlines is yielding
an eschange of more than 400 passen-
. gers a day on seven codeshare flights
between Asia and the tiS.
Of course the granddaddy of all
alliances is Northwest's transaflantic
partnership with Kf�bi. Its-success can
be measured in a single statement: This
summer, Northwest and KL�Li4i will oper-
ate five daily roundtrips between Detroit
and rlmsterdam, three of which will be'
with 747s. The partnership 9s working
"beyond �vhat �ve forecast," Dasburg
observes.
The ��tWA/IQ�l�S joint venture is unique
among alliances for its shared bottom
line. That is the fundamental difference
behveen our view of the world and
most airlines that are forming global
marketing anangements," Dasburg
says. He is a firm believer in the prac-
tice: "i�here�er possible under the la�v,
we would like to joint-venture and have
a common bottom line. All of the par-
ticipants then have the same incentive
to ma�cimize profits and one airline isn't
� ' �•°�' 1 ��� ;'�'°� '�'� ,� jealous of
y runs a t�ght:ship �:; another airline.
`'� "` ` `� Furthermore,
rformance rank* ;;
the most crucial
#1 Y ' .j aspect of an
#2 ' ��ce is inte-
�#6 grating cus-
tomer systems,
#7 < Catior disruption �d "if you've
#� invested �500
#2 million on sys-
Umestatlstics%rC5 tems [common-
ality] you will
5 � have wasted that
if you don't have
a lon� term reladonship."
Negotiations are undenvay for Alitalia
to become a member of the joint ven-
ture, according to Dasbur�, �rlio adds
that "«-e intend to appls- to the US gov-
ernment for antitrust immlmiri� with
32 Air Tronsport World 2/7000
Continental, KI��1 and Alitalia across the
Adantic." He dismisses the likelihood of
further conflict ,�,..�.._,,,�z,,.,,� ,..�,,��
between Continental `"`' .� `f '� r
' �� � �Norfih�
and KLMM o�vin; to y; Y, �, s
Continental's desire `�ContinE
. �. L . - Fr ,.
to o�e�tly�sterctam market �
from Newark (ATt� , n y
f� 2 � J
l0/99� Y' J��• � �r ~
"There's an old say- "' �� -=- �,
ing, `cannibalize Muuieapohs s. '
yourself because
someone will eat you
a.nyhotiv,' and thaYs
kind of the view oE
the carriers."
practical standpoint it also reduces their
ability to cooperate on cost-reduction
initia6ves.
,.,��"_, �,N ..: � � Lt,
s =" N"�f -'� ��� "We reco zed
�st�ane(;°� L��.�� �
w,,: a,� �,,� that there is some
�tCi� i1u6_ �,. .percentage of the
�G.. �. m ? „ 4.. .
are�%� � �S� benefits of combin-
�, F�. �;� ing the two systems
' w �`� ``" `� :� that cannot be
NW � L CO ,# achieved in an
85 ` j- 2 ailiance environment
Houston (IAH) �1 82 . . . but recogtuzing
Detroit '81 '?2 ' those limita.tions, it
Memplus '85 �" 1 " was our judgment
Cleveland 3� � 60 '. that we could obtain
�Ne�vark � 3 � 54 g0% of the beneflts
�' � Together the four over a long term. �
'Network market share defined as percenttotai
airlines have a of 3� domestic RPMs for 10 major carriers. �8 SCL OUG SOtt12 C�1P-
16.2 % transadantic SOURCE: NoRhwest Airiines ogjg FOT I�12 �TSt IZ
seat share, placing
the ."Wings" alliance behind Star and
oneworld but ahead of the Air
France/Delta team. Partnership with Ali-
talia gives Northtvest access to "the
tivealthiest, strongest 0&D market in
Europe, tivhich is Italy," Anderson brags.
Turning to the US dornestic.market,
Northwest believes it has solved its scope
and scale disadvantage Uis-a-vis the Big
Three US l�fajors via the broad market-
ing alliance �rith Continental that accom-
panied its acquisition of a controlling
stake in the Houston-based airline in
1998 for appro:cunately $465 million.
This alliance allows the carriers to claim
an 1S% share of the US domestic mar-
ket, placing them second behind United
and giving them a substantial presence
in every US re�on via codesharing,
shared airport lounges ancl reciprocal
frequent-flier programs.
Although ��PA has placed its Conti-
nental stock in a 10-year votin� trust and
plays no part in the carrier's manage-
ment, the tiS Dept. of Justice is suin� to
force N1�V� to divest itself of its holding.
Noting that there is little overlap beriveen
the airlines' route spstems, E.tecutive VP
and Chief Corporate Officer pouglas
Steenland describes the lawsuit as "very,
very �ve:Lk. �le're confident we'll pre-
vail." The case is scheduled to go to
court late this �ear.
D<ubur� says the decision to for�o an
outright mer�er in favor of a marketin�
a1li:uice arose because "it is incredibly
difficult to merje pilot groups ... Our
vie�v evolved that merging �vas simply
too costly in terms of its disruption on
employees :uid passengers." Neverthe-
less the decision means the carriers can-
not offer joint promotions or discuss
issues such .0 pricing and capacity �vith-
out violatin� L�S 1IICITTl1Si I1�V. From a
b
months and we
achieved those targets tivithin 5%, and we
have now set out some very aggressive �
targets for the 2000 budget and we are
off to a roaring start," Dasburg states.
He adds, "We would probably charac=
terize last year's benefits as low-h�j'
fruit and notiv �ve're getting into the\ '
more-sophisticated pic4ting. This is
going to require some investment in sys-
tems so that the airlines can talk to each
other better with regard to their cus-
tomers and transfer that information
more effectively."
When there is a knock on Northwest
from the invesiment community, it often
relates to the airline's decision to hushkit
and upgrade its 172 DC-9s rather than
retire them, its reliance on "old-technol-
ogy" 747-200s and DC-lOs to provide
much of its international lift, and its high
average fleet age. "Our fleet age gets a
lot of press," Foret agrees, adding; "The.
real reason for the difference [between
ourselves and our competitors] is the
DC-9 decision. If you take them out of
the calculation, the rest of the Ileet is
; The terminal connects to the East Concourse via a walkuvay linetl with 15 shops -_
and restaurants and a:19,�00 sq:-ft. NWA WorldClub The 4,900 ft:=long concourse '=
;:wili have �66 jet gates inciuding 10 internationai gafes ;Fourteen of the gate§, are ,`
. , ,_, _.
widebody-capable;l2 can,handle Ariro RJ 'regionai jets: ;Passengers can_reach their ::
gates by walking, using a moving sidewaik'or riding the Automated Peopie Mover, a-
monorail that wiil ailow connecting passengers to transit the length of the concourse -=`
in arountl 5 min. They can eat and shop at 31 sfores and restaurants in the con- '
course; WorldGlub members can relax at either of two 6,800-sq.-ft. facilities.�
1"he smailer West Concourse is linked to the East Concourse via a 900-ft. under- �
ground petlestrian tunnel equipped with moving sidewalks. This concourse will have
at least 11 shops and food concessions as weli as its own 3,200-sq.-ft. WoridClub. it
wiil open with eight jet gates and 25 turboprop gates but NWA has plans to add up to
31 more gates by 2008. "When we finaliy build out the Midfield Terminal it wili have
more gates than Delta has in Atlanta. It's an amazing asset," deciares Executive VP
and C00 Richard Anderson.
Locai travelers can park in one of the 11,000 spaces in what is bilied as the largest
parking garage in the worid. They can check baggage in the garage as weli.
Also under construction is a fourth parallel runway. The 10,000-ft. runway will be
capable of handling all but the heaviest aircraft. Additionally, Northwest is putting i�
a six-position remote deicing pad. The terminal will have its own power plant to p�,
vide electricit�/, heating and cooling. �
The huge project is currently on schedule and on budget, says McCloskey, who
admits that "it's a very aggressive schedule. I'm not saying it's a cakewalk, but it's
our plan."
about 13-i/2 years old.
If you further take out
the 30 or so 72 is that
.
< � ��� eav�ng in 2002-0�,
.�ge age would be
about 10-1/2 vears."
Foret says the DG9
eYperience has been
"terrific; it worked out
�lllOSt eYSCTIV aS �V2
espected. The DG9 is
the most reliable aircraft in
our fleet." The recent runup
in fuel prices has not altered
his view: "If fuel were to
make this aircraft uneco-
nomic, it �vould have to be
over $3 per gallon."
Anderson bristles at the
su�gestion that Northwest's
large fleet of DG9s marks it
as a low-Yech airline. "On nc-9 50
the one hand we operate DC- nc-io-�o
9s. On the other hand we T��
operate the largest fleet of SOURCE: N
Airbus [fly-by-�vireJ air-
planes." He points out that among other
thin�s North�vest leads the industry in its
ability to predict and avoid areas of
potential turbulence (see Awards, p.
40),_ "�e've been developin� a state-of-
th' �� � fli�ht-planning system; our .
sc��._..l�hng systems, our gate algorithms
are state-of-the-art; we now have hand-
held check-in; Internet check-in is on
the �vay. Just because you operate DG
9s doesn't mean you're not technolo�i-
cally focused."
He also sees little to criticize in `orth-
�vest's lar;e-aircraft stratew, which has
eschewed ne�ver types such as the 777,
A3 t0 and A330 in favor of 747-200s and
the venerable DG10. "We're a i4i
operator [and] a purchaser of 747-
400s," he sacs simply. The airline
retired its last fe�v 747-100s but still
operates some 22 747-ZOOs in addition
to 14 747-400s. r1ll of the 747-200s are
late models and recently ha��e been fitted
«7th new interiors including bigger over-
head bins and new la�atories.
The DC-10 Ileet, 44 stron; and split
beriveen dash 30s and dash 40s, is more
problematic. �,'�VA holds orders for 16
�1330s, but these have been on the books
for years and it is unclear ���hether the
A330 is a suitable DC-10 replacement.
In fact, the nature of North�ti•est's interna-
tion^' route s�stem, with its focus on
hul nub fly�n� across the :�tlantic and
serving�capaciry- ancUor frequenc}�-con-
str�ined airports in the Pacific, does not
appear to leiid itself to an� oF the bi�
h��ins, ���hich lack the range anc�/or
�; 1 , ) . --�{�•+�^^T— . , : ' k
�r Northwest's h�ubs�-�
1 �.' �.�
Departures y
^'Hub perday �,
Detroit ;., _. , . ;. � 544 : _.,, . ;
Minneapolis/St Paul - 513
Memphis 208
Narita 18
osaka (x�sa;) 7
'Summer 1999
SOURCE: Northwest Airlines
Air Transport World 7/2000 33
capaaty it needs.
. Airline o�cials do
agreethatregardless of
the aircraft shell, the
premiurn product inside
is getting a bit long in the
too�h. "We jnmped the
industry when we went to
Worid Business Class
and riow everyone has
caught up with us,"
Anderson agrees. A relaunch
of the product is planned in
the near future, and North-
west has upgraded its food
service and presentation in
the meantime. Anderson
also points out that, "We do
have an advantage ihat other
carriers don't have: We still
. fly 747s across the Adantic.
-: 35 �� That means we have a premi-
22 um opporhu�ity. We ha�e the
, 421 upstairs: Our pitch is 78 in.
�ythwest Airlines upstairs in the dash 200s and
in the A zone on the 747-
400s. We don't sell it as first class on the
Adantic but we use it in a lot of marketing
and sales efforts." .
On the ground, Northwest enjoys
another premium opportunity at Detroit
i�ietropolitan Airport, its most important
hub and primary intemational gateway.
"We have the good fortune of having a
hub in perhaps the largest mannfactur-
in� center in the US and also geo-
graphically located ciose to the very
dense population areas of the East
Coast and Upper Nlidwest," says Ander-
son. "The other great thing about
Detroit is that unlike competing hubs
like Chicago, Newark, Cleveland and
Philadelphia, it has no capacity con-
straints. We are in the process of
buildin� our fourth parallel runway ,
and can probably build a fifth."
For years, North�vest and its passen- .
gers have had to make do in facilities
that are probably the worst of any large
hub airport. But all that will change in
late 2001 when the $1.2 billion l�fidfield
Ternzinal opens along with the fourth
run�vay (see box, p. 32). The new ter-
minal means North�vest will have a facili-
ty that is on par with those of its main
alliance partners and should pave the
«-ay for even tighter intearation of the
p:issenger systems that Dasburg views as
the cornerstone of successful alliances.
The �urline admits it has set a very
a�ressive schedule to complete the pro-
ject—three years from the blackboard
to openin� but �vhen you have momen-
tum, anything is possible. �r
�
�������
ir- <,�fY � t��� = • �
Se�ving your
n22t�S �
the n�eds o, f the
�Zobc�lAviation
Community
'� � � "�� =
� �.
� �. �-
'. � c. ,
a� w �
f� '�
-�� �q��r �t � .,{.
�,i`� :;'- x� �J� t �t ' _.
, k
>::}�r,Y�3 :: EJ �
ATW Media Group
includes:
Air Transpori World Magazine
ATW Ghina
ATW s Airport Equipment
& Technology
The World AIRLlNF REPORT
ATW Statisiics Online
ATW Issues on Compaci Disk
for 1997-'98
For sales and product information,
please call Karen Adair at: 202-
659-8500 :c123 or faY Karen at
:202-223-1979
Or, visit us at our website @:
w�vw.atwo�li�e.com
.: . . :::i�
:�t
�
��i �ra-e�i i icient airliners
s the 20th century closed, the '
' I'�e p�Wer �f airiiner industry appeared to be :-
dominated by derivatives; with ; °. `.
the marketplace feW aii-new designs on the.;�
drawing board or on the horizon: �.
ra�her �han �he Researchers and engineers are not idie, :°
• but their endeavours are being shaped �:
p rO I� ) S P Of more by the demands of the market, and
less by the possibilities of technology. ,=
leChC�OIOC�ICGiI ff a reminder was needed, last year's
decision by Boeing to hait work on, �:
advances is supersonic transports and the resulting �
termination of NASA's high-speed ,�•
tempering the research demonstrated the power of the .�
market. In its wake, and guided by t
G%I�T�bI IIOC� Of , Boeing, the US agency has reshaped its
aeronautics research around safety,
designers efficiency and the environment. t
AIRBUS NEEDS
In Europe, in the absence of a"European
NASA", research is increasingly shaped
by the needs of Airbus Industrie. Not
surprisingly, technology for the pianned
A3XX large airliner tops its priorities. But
the consortium is looking across its
entire product line. "We're examining aii
the possibilities for different members of
he family," says Alairi Garcia, �
vice-president, engineering.
Garcia has created two new pos
o address the issue of where f
qoes next: Juan Hererra is chief enc
uture projects and Marc Vincenc
;hiei engineer, ne�+v technology. E�
esponsibie for co-ordinating techr.
nput from Airbus' partner com�
ind their national research organis�
Hererra's brief is "4o think
advanced conrigurations and Ic
heir merits". In other words, Airk
�pening its future line-up to the
��
�esearchers and en.gineers are no� idle, ut t�
r�. .��.�
endeavours are being shaped by the mar���;e�
�� �
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
metai composite materials such as Glare
(g�assfibre-reinforced aluminium). This is
being considered for the upper fuselage
skin or the A3XX, for a weight saving of
around 10% over conventional
aluminium. The lower fuselage will be an
ali-welded structure, eliminating rivets
and reducing weight and cost, as well as
enabling a design with improved
structural e�ciency.
Boeing and NASA are also working to
demonstrate the feasibility of' manu-
facturing large, integrally stiffened,
metallic structures, with fewer parts,
joints and fasteners reducing weight and
simplifying assembiy. Techniques being
developed include high-speed machi-
ning, friction-stir welding and the roliing
of compietely jointless fuselage barreis.
IIGHTER ALLOY
Aluminium lithium weighs around 10%
less than conventional ailoy, and is 10%
stiffer, but is expensive. Doubts about its
fatigue performance have prevented its
usz in large-scale applications. The ad-
vanced alloy wiii probabiy find its way
into stringers and frames on new aircraft.
Composites feature heavily in Airbus
designs, with the empennage of the
A320 family and A330/A340 manu-
fac#ured from carbonfibre. In the latest
A340-500/600, use is extending to the
fuselage kesl beam and rear pressure
dome. This wiil be the first pressurised
carbonfibre component in an airliner.
Improved methods of manufacturing
composite structures are being
developed. Boeing is working with NASA
on technology to stitch composite plies
together, improving damage tolerance
and reducing weight. Using a NASA-
developed � stitching machine, Boeing's
Phantom Works has produced a 12.Sm-
long wing box, undergoing strucfurai
verification at NASA Langiey, where it will
be tested to 100% of its design limit
load. it will be intentionally damaged,
repaired by American Airlines' engineers
and tested to 150% design limit load —
and then to destruction.
The test section is the first fuli-scale
all-composite wing box for a transport
aircrait and is expected to demonstrate
production cost savings of more than
20% relative to a conventionai aluminium
�ving, while weighing 25-30% less. NASA
and Boeing believe this couid translate
into -a 5% reduction-in- environmental-
emissions and fuei consumption for a
current 210-seat airliner, rising to 8.5%
for a 747-sized aircraft. On a more
efficient design, such as Boeing's
Blended Wing Body concept, savings
couid rise to 70.5%.
"The next step wiii be going to totai
composite structures," says Phantom
Worics composite wing programme man-
ager Michael Karral. This wiil be ac-
companied, he says, by a gradual
transition to advanced resin transfer moul-
ding processes which let the composite
materia� be handled and stitched dry, "just
like carpet", before the time-sensftive,
expensive resin is injected. .
Composites can enable new
aerodynamic concepts that promise to
improve e�ciency. NASA's Active
Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) programme
plans to make the entir� wing a controi
surface by taking advantage of its
inherent flexibility. Active leading- and .
' traiiing-edge control surfaces wiil shape
the wing to provide roll controi, and the
wing structure will no longer be
burdened with stiffness requirements.
The result, says NASA, wiil be lower drag
and a potentiai 30% reduction in take-off
gross weight.
Given successfui demonstration of
the AAW technology, NASA believes
aircraft designers wiil be free to consider
thinner and higher aspect-ratio wings
providing greater speed and range.
Active aeroelastic control wiil aiso ailow
management of wing structurai loads
and drag throughout the flight, improving
efi�iciency and extending life. The
technology is to be tested in 2001 on a
Boeing F/A-18 fiited on one side with an
AAW-configured wing produced by the
Phantom Works.
Practical application of technologies
like the active aeroelastic wing requires
advances in aircraft systems. Some are
under way, with the aim of improving
reliability and safety while reducing
maintenance costs and power
consumption.
The move to an "ail-electric" aircraft is
expected to be gradual, because of
sarety issues. 'Today, we cannot go to
all-electric in one step, but we can go
more electric relatively straightforwardiy,"
says Klaus Fuchs, technicai director of
TRW Aeronautical Systems (Lucas
Aerospace). "More electric" couid
include back-up electrical actuation of
the flight control surfaces, reducing the
hydraulic system redundancy required.
This has been considered for the A3XX,
which wiii use a new high pressure
hydraulic system that reduces weight by
1,OOOkg through the use of smaller lines
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 1 JANUARY 2000 , :���
uitr�.-e�ici�r�� airliners
Franc2 hopes to restart European research into a next-generation supersonic fransport
and reservoirs and less fiuid.
Fuchs believes it is possibie to mix
hydraulic and electric actuation at the
control surface. The more-electric
aircraft will require higher-power
generators, but the integration of
microprocessors into subsystems wili
allow for "smart" controi and
erF�ancements like health monitoring.
T�e ail-slectric large aircraft will require
fhe, development of substantiaily more
powertul generators and actuators. "The
tr �logy for 100-200kW generators is
mG__, e, and we can design them, but
1 MW is not on the horizon within the
weight and envelope [required for aircrat't
use]," Fuchs says.
According to a study by British
F.erospace, efficiency improvements that
2ra coming in for the new decade could
bring a 20% reduction in fuei
consumption for an average 250-seat
aircraft. This is made up of 7% from the
engine, 4.5% from materiais and
structures and 8.5% from aerodynamics.
On a long-range aircraft, which spends
most of its time in the cnaise, the most
gain will come from aerodynamic
improvements, while in short range
aircraft the main benefits will arise from
material and structurai advances.
Improved efficiency also comes from
the simple expedient of increasing
aircraft size. BAe says doubling the size
of an A340-type aircraft reduces the tue!
consumption per seat by 9%. So for an
A3XX-sized aircraft, the totai gain over a
hypothetical current generation 550-
seater could be as much as 30%. That
assumes al� of the new technologies will
be introduced. "Not all of them will
satisfy the criterion of being cost
effective," says BAe.
Research into a second generation
supersonic transport was given an
unexpected boost at the 1999 Paris air
show when French prime minister �ionel
Jospin announced a new govemment-
funded research and development
initiative.
FREiVCH INITIATIVE
The work wili be led by French research
orgenisation Onera, but wili be funded by
the ministry of rasearch instead of the
transport ministry, which has hitherto
supported studies into supersonic
aircraft. This will "change the dynamics"
of the efforts, says Christiane Michaut,
responsibie for civii aviation and
European affairs at Onera's strategy and
marketing directorate.
"The objective is to reinforce the
poles of excellence in supersonics," she
says. "We realise there is an enormous
amount of work to be done and that
there are many potential barriers to a
programme to build a successor to
Concorde. But we believe we must
assemble a range of 'technology
buckets' so that we are ready if, and
when, other issues such as
environmental impact are settled."
An action committee has been
fonned of 19 specialists ftom industry
and research organisations that will
produce a list of projects by the end of
the year. This wiil be sent to the French
scientific community, says Michaut, who
is one of the committee members. She
adds that the work "will be open to
intemational co-operation. This has to be
a global programme". The subjects to be
studied wili bear on such areas as
development of computer codes,
variable geometry iniet studies and
materiais. "We want to look at a much
higher use of composites for this aircraft.
We must bring the weight down." She
adds that one of the major differences
with Concorde will be the expected
lifetime of the aircraft, which will 6e
60,OOOh — more than four times that of
Concorde. "This means we will have to
define procedures for airframe testing
that do not yet exist." Another important
area wili be to find ways of opiimising the
aircraft around transonic as well as
supersonic eificiency, since it wiil spend
a significant amount of its life flying in the
high subsonic regirime to avoid the shock
wave associated with passing through
the sound barrier.
The European Commission is also
backing supersonic research through its
recently approved Epistle programme,
which wiii centre on low-speed
aerodynamics. "One of the main
problems with a supersonic aircraft is its
noise around airports", says Michaut. "If
we can find ways of improving low-speed
aerodynamics for such an aircraft it will
be able to approach and depart from an
airport more slowiy and with less power".
Roils-Royce and Snecma have been
pursuing two distinct engine concepts —
the mid-tandem • fan and � the
ejector/mixer engine. Michaut says that
both exhibit problems and need further
development. "Perhaps we need a third
way," she adds.
A decision on which projects wiii be
selected under the new French initiative
will be taken in Aprii. This will be
submitted to the resaarch ministry for
final go-ahead by summer 2000. �
.;�'"".
:;�:� �=�.
�:=��=�The next step will be going to total composite
`'�ai�'w'Ji`-,' a.�.4,.:.f; ..
struc�ures -
FLIGHT INTEFiNATIONAI 7 JANUARY 2000
Michael Karral �s;�� ���:r�
���..
�r��M��..
t:; ��
:�
�