The URL can be used to link to this page

10-14-1998 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIOIVS COMMISSIOIV AGEiVDA October 14, 7 p.m. - Large Conference Room 1. Call to Order - 7 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of September 9, 1998 Minutes. 4. Unfinished and New Business: a. Continued Discussion of Sound Attenuation Ordinance b. Continued Discussion of Ground Noise Study Report c. Crossing in the Corridor - An Operational Analysis 5. Updates a. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles 6. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. Airport Noise Reports for August 28, September 1 1 and 25, 1998 b. MASAC Agenda for September 22, 1998 and August 25,1998 Minutes c. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for August 1998 d. MASAC Corridor'Gate Penetration Analysis for August 1998 e. Public Affairs Forum - MAC and Twin Cities Airport Task Force f. MASAC Operations Cornmittee Agenda for October 9, 1998 7. Other Comments or Concerns. 8. Ad,�ourn. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIOIVS COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, September 9, 1998 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1 101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was calied to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Roszak, Fitzer, Leuman, Stein and Des Roches. Commissioner May was excused. Also present were City Administrator Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Roszak moved approval of the August 12, 1998 minutes. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Dick Saunders and Mr. Dean Lindberg, MASAC Representatives for the City of Minneapolis and members of SMAAC, were present to discuss Air Noise priorities for both the Cities of Minneapolis and Mendota Heights. Mr. Lindberg stated that they are seeking areas of common agreement and that they intend to inquire with other communities surrounding the airport as well. Administrator Batchelder inquired about the City of Richfield and stated that the City is receiving special consideration with respect to the new north/south runway construction. He stated that it appears MAC is trying to prevent a lawsuit and he inquired if the construction process is being delayed. Mr. Saunders stated that he believes an agreement will be reached by the end of September. In response to a question from the Commissioner, Mr. Saunders stated that the Mayor of Minneapolis supports the consiruction of the north/south runway and that their Council voted 7-5 in favor of the construction. He stated that there is still a great deal of disagreement amongst city officials in A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SSION - SEPTEMBER 9, 9998 M/NUTES � _ Minneapolis. Mr. Saunders stated that the airport traffic will increase as a � result of the new runway. He stated that the FAA has explained that fihe new runway will relieve the traffic on the parallel runways and that he is not so sure this will be the case. Saunders stated that MSP does not have specific runways designated for only arrivals and departures. He stated that the north/south runway can be used for departures only and the north parallel runway can be used for landings. He stated that landings and departures will increase over Minneapolis. He stated that the residents of Minneapolis are against the north/south runway because it will increase traffic over Minneapolis. With respect to how the SMAAC organization works, Mr. Saunders explained that the organization is trying to place a stronger effort in dealing with the Minneapolis City Council. Administrator Batchelder explained the functions of the Airport Relations Commission and stated that the Commission serves as an advisory commission to the Mendota Heights City Council. He informed Mr. Lindberg and Mr. Saunders that the Commission has just updated their Plan of Action and that he would provide a copy of the plan to them. A brief discussion ensued regarding the third parallel runway contract and it E was noted that the Mendota Heights City Council has signed off on an agreement through the year 2025. The Commission discussed how the north/south runway will benefit Mendota Heights in that currently Mendota Heights experiences 27 percent of departures and that with the new runway, the percentage should decrease to 8 percent. Mr. Lindberg stated that the terminal is operating at 80 percent of its capacity. He stated that the MAC will have to start looking at expanding the terminal in the near future. Mr. Saunders explained the City of Minneapolis' air noise priorities: 1. Closure on the Third Parallel Contract. Ne explained that the City is waiting on the sale of the Bureau of Mines. He explained that the City of Minneapolis is concerned with the MAC taking land and what their intentions are in developing the land. He stated that Minneapolis wants to see some of the land used for parks. Administrator Batchelder stated that Mendota Heights contract requires that MAC cannot purchase land for the purpose of construction a third parallel i A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMMlSS/ON - SEPTEMBER 9, 9998 M/NUTES 2 �� runway. He stated that the City has sent notice reminding MAC of this agreement and that the City is still waiting for a response. Mr. Saunders continued with air noise priorities: 2. At the MASAC level, Saunders stated that the City of Minneapolis would like the nighttime noise study to include all communities surrounding MSP and not just Richfield. 3. Enforcement of property redistribution plan for Runway 4-22. Administrator Batchelder stated that the City of Mendota Heights has a similar priority, equitable air noise distribution. Batchelder discussed the preferential runway use system and how the preferred option is to use the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor. He stated that Runway 4-22 is supposed to be used to relieve the burden of the corridor. He stated that this is not happening. Batchelder stated that Mendota Heights goal is to demand more equitable distribution of air noise and that all cities that surround MSP should share in the burden of air noise. Mr. Saunders continued with air noise priorities: 4. Long term standards of noise and toxic emission and how this affects human health. Saunders stated that there is a great deal of information on the Internet which indicates negative impact on human health. He noted fihat the City of Richfield has placed this concern within their long term plan. He noted that there are no regulations on toxic emissions. Chair Beaty stated that the Commission has expressed concerns regarding these issues as well. 5. Noise mitigation and Restriction on Nighttime Hours. Mr. Lindberg stated that there are roughly 300 people living within the 65 DBL. and 1,000's of people living within the 60 DBL. The Commission discussed departure procedures and the fact that there is a third departure procedure being utilized at other airports in the cauntry. It was noted that this topic will be brought to the attention of MASAC. The Commission also discussed hushkitting air planes and that hushkitted aircraft are still too loud. Administrator Batchelder gave Mr. Lindberg a copy of the City's Action Plan. He thanked Mr. Lindberg and Mr. Saunders for attending the meeting. AIRPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON - SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 M/NUTES 3 PRELIMIIVARY DISCUSSION OF SOUND ATTENUATION ORDINANCE Administrator Batchelder explained that based on discussions held during the April Comprehensive Plan Workshop, and subsequent City Council workshops, the Councils would like the Commission to consider the usefulness of the current Sound Attenuation Ordinance. Batchelder reminded the Commission that recent changes by the Metropolitan Council to their Aviation Guide plan Air Noise Zones increased the size of the noise zones in Mendota Heights. He explained that the City's existing Sound Attenuation Ordinance was adopted at a time when the noise zones were smaller in area and closer to the airport. He stated that the increase in air noise zones has created a number of land use issues, as well as, legal issues relating to zoning and comprehensive plans. Batchelder reminded the Commission that the City of Mendota Heights was the only City to adopt a Sound Attenuation Ordinance. He stated that the Council is concerned that the Met Council has unilaterally changed the zones and has created conflicts with established land use patterns. Batchelder explained that the City Council is researching whether or not to repeal the current ordinance. He stated that City needs to determine the pros and cons of the ordinance and how effective it really is. He stated that the City is not currently seeing significant residential development. He stated that most commercial developments are develop�ed using a developer's agreement where restrictions can be enfiorced by the City. Chair Beaty stated that without an ordinance in place, he is concerned that a developer will not adhere to City wishes. Commissioner Roszak inquired about the unilateral change made by the Met Council and what effect it will have in changing the City's Zoning Ordinance. Batchelder stated that only certain uses are allowed within Noise Zone 3 and 4 and that the City cannot leave zoning in a holding pattern. Batchelder reminded the Commission of Hoffman Homes proposal and that the proposal is now inconsistent with the new noise zones. Commissioner Roszak inquired if the City wants to avoid residential uses anywhere near these zones. He stated that the City is concerned with air noise equity. He stated that the new zones would not be as big if the air traffic has not increased. �_ A/RPORT RELATIONS COMMJSS/ON - SEPTEMBER 9, 9998 MINUTES 4 � Commissioner Des Roches suggested that the City cansider sending � ; correspondence to State Legislators. She inquired if there are any other avenues of communicating the City's concerns. Batchelder stated that other entities have pursued concerns relative to the noise zones changes, such as the Dakota County HRA. Chair Beaty stated that the City is reacting to the Met Council's decision and that the City should proceed with its overall goal in protecting its residents. Regarding Section 5 of the Sound Attenuation Ordinance (Scope and Effect), Administrator Batchelder stated that it would have to be rewritten to include the new noise zones. Batchelder briefly explained the City's Planned Unit Development process and how the City is able to impose conditions on a developer. Commissioner Roszak suggested that the City consider rezoning the affected areas to a PUD District and then the City has the ability to negotiate its position on a development. He inquired if a City can overlay a Planned Unit Development on an existing Zoning district. Administrator Batchelder responded yes. The Commission discussed the Met Council's rights to unilaterally change a zoning district. Commissioner Des Roches stated that the City should fight on factual issues and not jurisdictional issues. She stated that the City �-� would best be suited to challenge the Met Council's methodology in changing the air noise zone districts. Administrator Batchelder stated that the Met Council's methodology is not that accurate and that they area using the 1996 contours despite the fact that MAC's 2005 contours are significantly smaller. The Commission noted that they will be discussing the issues further as it is a priority within its Action Plan. INTRODUCTIOtU OF GROUND tVOISE STUDY REPORT Administrator Batchelder explained at the August 14, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, MAC staff presented their Ground Noise Study and a preliminary discussion was held. He informed the Commission that the discussion was cantinued for one month to allow MAC staff to research sound attenuation technology for run-up pad enclosures. Batchelder passed out 7 copies of the study to the Commission. Batchelder explained that six ground noise monitoring locations were A/RPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIDN - SEPTEMBER 9, 9998 M/NUTES 5 selected for the study. He further described how data is collected and analyzed. Batchelder stated that the "C" weighted Noise Scale may be a �, better predictor of noise than A Weight which the FAA uses. Batchelder reviewed Page 16, Section 2.6.2 - Comparison of Airport Generated Noise Events at the Airport and Community Locations. He reviewed Page 22 which shows contours of different air planes types and their run up contours. He reviewed Page 35 - Conclusions and Recommendations. Chair Beaty suggested that the Commission should review this study further at their October meeting. UPDATES MASAC Handbook - Administrator Batchelder passed out the MAC 1998 Noise Programs Handbook. Airport Plan of Action - Administrator Batchelder stated that the final copy will be mailed with the Commission's Friday News Packet. He stated that the Planning and Parks and Recreation Commission will be mailed a copy of the plan as well. Commissioner Des Roches suggested that a copy of the City's priorities and �� focus issues should be sent to State Legislators. Letter to MASAC on Corridor Departures - Administrator Batchelder stated that the City Council discussed the letter and made a few minor changes. He stated that the letter has been mailed. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDEIVCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Noise Report for July 31, 1998. The Commission discussed an article regarding Stage 3 Aircraft and Operating Fees Increased at Amsterdam's International Airport. The Commission discussed how the airport has divided all Stage 3 aircraft into three categories, based on their noise emissions, and will impose increased landing fees on the two noisiest ofi these categories as well as on all nighttime operations. The Commission discussed how MSP could do the same as Amsterdam. It was noted that the Commission has inquired with Mr. Hamiel, MAC Director, about this issue and that Mr. Hamiel has never reported back to the - �. �, A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON - SEPTEMBER 9, 9998 M/NUTES G � Commission. The Commission felt that this is an important topic and that it should be added to the Action Plan. The Commission acknawledged receipt of the MASAC Agenda for August 25, 1998 and July 28, 1998 Minutes. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Technical Advisor's Report for July 1998. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Corridor Gate penetration Analysis for July 1998. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Monthly Complaint Summary for July 1998. The Commission acknowledged receipt of fihe Eagan ARC Agenda for September 8, 1998. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the City of Richfield Letter to MASAC dated August 24, 1998. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Commission adjourned its meeting at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON - SEPTEMBER 9, 7998 MINUTES 7 Ground Run-Up Enclosures deflector was not designed as a noise absorpdon wall, some attenuation has been realized. The concept of quiedng aircraft run-ups is not rare, but structures or enclosures at commercial airports throughout the world to contain run-up generated noise is a rare occurrence. Throughout the r,vorld, there are four basic categories of devices or measures used to quiet aircraft ground run-up noise. a. Earth Berm - A barrier made of earth to reduce the spreading effects of aircraft ground noise. (Already in use at NISP) b. Blast Fence or Noise Wall - A vertical or curved wall designed to redirect the aircraft jet blast up�vard. (Already in use at VISP) c. Hush-House or Engine Test Cell - A facility that is fully enclosed, usually found at military bases, and often designed for one particular type of aircraft. d. Ground Run-up Enclosure or Pen - A three or four sided structure designed to redi- rect the jet blast and absorb noise. ,�, �tiletropolitan Airports Commission - Ground �i'oise �btonitoring St�rdv 1998 Survey j.2 SllI'V@3' The following companies responded to MA.0 inquiries concerning commercially available products for the absorption of ground run-up noise. The following is a list of compan.ies and the airports with their product: 5.2.1 Industrial Acoustics Company, Inc. Industrial Acoustics Company, Inc. has built both Ground Run-up Enclosures and Hush Houses. IAC has developed a multi-purpose, prefabricated facility for testing any fighter aircraft currently operated by the United States AirForce. There are over 70 IAC units installed world wide. These facilities are typically designed for a single type of aircraft or series of similar aircraft types. I+'jgure l. Aircraft Hush-House facility installed at a military U5?,F base. IA.0 also provides run-up pens for aircraft maintenance activity. The run-up pen is constructed of structural steel frames and steel panel components. The sound absorptive noise transmission loss characteristics are areater than a blast fence. IAC estimates noise level reduction capabilities of 20 dBA when using a noise pen. t�letropolitan Airports Commission - Ground :tioise iblonitoring Study I998 3 r � ( Survey 5.23 QITILITE INTERI�iATIONAL QUILITE INTERNATIONAL has developed a Noise Barrier system designed to meet the functional requirements of airport noise abatement walls. The panels are a lightweight translucent material made of polycarbonate or acrylic plastics. QLTILITE has built a demonstration facility at the Albany, New York airport to serve turboprop aircraft. They claim engine noise reductions of 19 dBA at two miles. They also claim that a good noise reduction will also be obtainable from the QiJII.,ITE shelter for jet engine noise. Figuz'e 4. QUIL.TTE Noise Barrier at the Albany, County Airport. New York. � ) �'�letropolitan Airports Comrnission - Ground :tioise ��lonitoring Study X99$ c� Survey BDI has also developed a Stabile-Flow technology which enhances the aerodynaznic qualities of the enclosure and allows the facility to be used in a wide diversity of wind conditions, significantly reducing the risk of engine surges, and compressor stalls. Figure 7. $last Deflectnrs, Inc. Vented Sidewalls (Left) and Acoustical Panels (Ri�ht). ( j � Nietropolitan Airports Commission - Ground Noise �tilonitoring Study 1993 � C Ground Run-Up Enclosures 5.3 Ground Run-Up Enclosures, Hush-Houses and Blast Fences Table 1: Partial Listing of G�ound Run-Up Enclasures tiVorid wide � ` Airport Hambur4, Germany IAC 3- 52' walls, All Airbus Aircraft GRE movable rear door Amsterdam Airport, IAC 3- 50' walls Up to 747-400 GRE Schiphol. Netherlands St. Augustine, Florida BDI 3 walls E8A J-Stars, F14 GRE Palm Springs, Florida BDI 3 walls and roof Skywest Commuter Hush- Aircraft House Chicago, Illinois BDI 3- 42' walls B777 G� Manchester .A.irport, Great Rheinhold 3 walls B747, DC 10 Blast Britain & Mahla Fence Manilla Int., Philippines Rheinhold 3 walls B747, DC10 Biast & Mahla Fence CKS Airport, China Rhei.nhold 3 walls B�47, DC 10 pen e & Mahla FBA Erkelenz, NATO Rheinhold 3 walls B747 Blast Airbase, Germany & Mahla Fence Stansted Airport, London, Rheinhold 3 walls B747, DC10 Bence Great Britain & Mahla Hannover-Langenhagen, Rheinhoid 3 walls Airbus 340 Bence Germany & Mahla Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Rheinhold 3 walls B747, DC1U Blast & Mahla Fence There are other airports that also have blast fences installed such as MSP, but to varying degrees and provide limited benefi[s with respect to noise suppression capabilides. ;� 1 , g �4letropolitan Airports Commisszon - Ground tVoise �tilonitaring Study 1998 C 1� ind 5.4 Wind Wind speeds and directiuns alsv play an important p•art in deternvnin� tl�c direcdun ��t'the aircrat't run-up headin�. Based on the follo�vin� inturmati��n 1'rum the m��st r�cent weath�r summary for MSP. [he average wind speed and direction probabilities are as Collows: "lable 2: tiVind Speed and l�irection Inforrnatiun Aircratt manufacturers specify [hat the aircraft must be within 22 degrees oF the dii•ection of wind tor high-bypass engines wi[h tivind speeds above 15 knvts. The alignment widens out to 180 degrees as the wind speeds diminish. i�it;ure 8. ALL �VEATHER 1ViND ROSE I'c�r i�(SP. Sc,w«: ti-(inn�:,��,li;. �i�1. �,v,�a�hc�� St�tiun 1�J81-19N0 �I�uun�l Climatc Data C�nt�r �, ) _. � ti�letrupnlita�r Airpurts C'o�n�trissio�r - Ground ;\•'visc rt'I0111IOf717� ,Sltrcfl� /99�g ` C (' ) Ground Run-Up Enclosures 5.5 Conclusions l. There are four to five manufacturers world wide, that have designed ground run-up enclosures or hush-houses for rhe suppression of aircraft noise. 2. The installation of noise walls around the run-up pad may help reduce the noise impacts of engine run-up activity in surroundin� communides. Many of the companies estimate noise level redacrions of 15 to 20 dBA for �round run-up enclosures. 3. Other technolojies such as "Hush Houses" and "Engine Silencers" are not practical due to the wide range of aircraft configurations and en�ine types that exist within the NISP flee[. Multiple structures or numerous engine silencers would need to be available to accommodate all possible en,ine/aircraft configuradons. 4. The �round run-up enclosure at Chicago O'Hare Intemational Aul�ort by Blast Deiiectors, Inc. is currendy bein� used by their local maintenance personnel approximately 85% of the time. The use has increased since the initial openin�, due to excellent lighting, convenience and the apparent desi�n benefits for wind considerations from the vented sides, rolled tops and tapered walls. 5. Costs for �round run-up enclosures will vary dependins on the size, and site work required %r the installation. IA.0 estimates approximately $50 per square foot. For a 400' by 400' three sided structure 50' hi�h, approximate cost would be �3 million. Blast Deflectors, Inc., constructed the Chica�o facility for $2.1 million with a total project cost of �3.1 miltion. Hush-house manufacturers declined to provide estimates, since the cost is d'uectly related to the size and type of aircraft the facility is constructed to accommodate. 10 tYlelropo�itan Airports Corrcmission - Ground iVoise c4lonitoring Study X998 CITY OF RICHFIELD Memorandum DATE: September 22, 1998 TO: MASAC Members FROM: �Kristal Stokes, Richfield City Council Member and MASAC Member SUBJECT: Richfield's Review of MAC's "1998 Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Study" On March 10 and April 9, 1998 the City of Richfield sent Mr. Jeff Hamiel letters expressing concern about the high number of complaint calls the Ciiy had been receiving regarding ground level noise. In April alone, the City fielded 98 phone calls strictly dealing with noise from run-ups, maintenance activities, testing of engines, and idling of aircraft for hours at a time. MAC staff, particularly Ray Fuhrmann, was h�lpful in providing suggestions as to what might be the cause of the increased level of noise annoyance. However, no consensus was reached regarding the likely source of the increased noise levels. The City of Richfield requested additional information for two reasons. First, to ide�tify the source of the noise in order to determine if there was any actions that could be undertaken to reduce annoyance level. Second, to use the information gathered from current ground leve! noise issues to he(p address potential issues related to the proposal for construction of Runway 17/35. We were particularly pleased with Mr. Hamiel's request that MASAC address this issue. Despite the good ;��;:e;itions of MAC, the information contained in the final report was clearly not targeted to respond to these issues. Specifically the design of the study, the nature of the noise measurements made, the site selected for monitoring, the analysis performed, the topi�s discussed, and the manner of presentation of information in the report of ground noise had little information for an informed discussion of issues of interest to the City of Richfield. While we realize that many other cities have little or no interest in ground level noise, the fact of the matter is, we are all neighbors of the airport and share in its impacts in different ways and to different extents. It is usefiul then that we all support gathering useful and clear report regarding airport impacts and possible solutions. Since the report provided to MASAC fails to analyze the problem properly, the '_� proposed solutions are not meaningful. September 22, 9998 - - ��_ Page 2 We've attached for your review a review of the report by noise consuitant. � We ask for MASAC to support the following actions: m The report should be referred back to MAC for revisions in the areas noted in the BBN response, including measurement methods and metrics, relatianship of measurements to future noise exposure, inappropriate frequency weighting procedures, and level of analysis and reporting. • A draft copy of the revised report should be provided back to MASAC members for review and discussion of potential recommendations regarding solutions to the noise problems identified within the revised report. • MASAC should convene a discussion of the proposed recommendations to address the ground level noise issues for consideration by MAC. If MASAC is to continue to be an effective avenue for discussing and resolving concerns regarding sound abatement procedures, then it is essential that the information providec��o us be responsive to our needs and that MASAC members have the opportunity to work together to address possible solutions to noise impacts on our community. We appreciate MASAC's consideration of these requests. KS:cak Attachment �� ' ''', - �1�� .1�1.� � �� . . : i . ;� �1�PYl !7 ►r[�7�� , � � t: � �:. .` r *~�tih �+ � �, t�f�; �- . •-� r c:�, :a' • ; • .�. • " .. �• . .. �. � ♦ �• ,i • - � �� i� . • ' • i � r � ,�, .. ��; �� I►�I 1�„ 1' 1 �` � These comments review an undated report submitted by Mr. Roy Fuhrnlann, mana.ger of MAC's Aviation Noise a.nd Satellite Programs, to the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council. Authorship ofthe report is unattributed, although it appears to be based at least in part on measurements and analyses that may have been performed by a noise consultant to MAC (cf. references on page 20 to information provided by the finn of �QvIMF�n. The report is referred to henceforth as the "ground noise study." �� ''" . � �� • ; � �� -� �� ' �s ' �� '� � 1� , ' �!� � �, 1 �� !' The ground noise study contains four numbered text sections, five appendices, glossaries of terms and acronyms, and references. l.l SECTION 1: O��.tVIE�V The Overview section of the report identifies requests from Richfield as the impetus for the conduct of the ground noise study; cites a"critical" need to understand aircraft noise impacts. for planning "valid courses of mitigative action"; and characterizes a cursory approach to measurement as a"disservice" to people living in noise-impacted environments. The section also contains brief descriptions of noise measurement conditions and instrumentation, and a map showing the location of short-term monitoring sites. It lacks any summary tables or graphics, or discussion of findings. 1.2 SEC'TIOI�T 2: I)A'TA ANALYSIS �ND �S�'I'S This section contains various tables and maps (but no other charts or technical graphics). Descriptions of technical aspects of the study are sometimes cursory or gazbled.' 1.2.1 Section 2.4: NYonitored Airport I�toise Events at Airport Sites Two tables swY:��rizing measurements of various aircraf't ground noise sources at two on- airport sites form the substance of Section 2.4. The findings suggest, among other things, that maximum A-weighted sound levels produced by taxiing operations and monitored at some locations may not differ greatly from sound levels produced by ground run-ups. The section also includes the followi.ng three-sentence rationale for measurement and reporting of A- and C-weighted aircraft noise levels: "*Note: The use of A-weighting is the accepted standard for aircraft noise measurements, since the human ear's frequency response capability is most sensitive in approximately the 1,000 Hz to 5,000 Hz frequency ' e.g., Section 2.1, page 9, "The averaging was accomplished by using an arithmetic method of the sound level - decibel value in decibels." �� range. This study focuses on the A-weighted monitored noise levels since the Federa] Aviation Administration has developed guidelines for mitigation throughout these frequencies and best - approximates the human ear's frequency range. The Gweighted values are included for comparison purposes only and will be used to provide insight into the impact of noise events within the frequency ranges tailored to the Gweighted metric." This rationale is worth a closer examination because of the tacit assumptions that it embodies. The first sentence of the rationale is an oversimplified statement about human hearing acuity. Hearing acuity depends not only on frequency, but also on absolute sound pressure level. The A-, B- and C-weighting networks were developed initially to permit appropriate characteriza.tion of the loudness of sounds in increasing ranges of sound pressure levels. More to the point, however, is that hearing acuity is not the sole issue tha.t should affect selection of a frequency weighting network for current purposes. In the present context, the audibility, noisiness and annoyance of sounds, as well as the need to consider structural responses of residences to low-frequency aircraft noise, also require consideration. The seemi.ng (but unstated) basis for primary reliance on A-weighted measurements is a belief that A-weighted measurements optimally predict the annoyance of aircraft noise events. If prediction of the annoyance of sounds with considerable low frequency content were truly the controlling purpose of the ground noise study, however, greater caze would have been taken to measure noise in a manner tha.t could ha.ve permitted calculation of additional noise metrics more closely linked than A-levels to audibility and annoyance.2 Furthermore, because A-weighted measurements are highly insensitive to sound at frequencies that can lead to rattling noises inside homes, it can be azgued with equal force that A-weighted measurements aze highly inappropriate for purposes of predicting residential annoyance with low-frequency aircraft noise.3 The first part of the second sentence of the rationale implies the primacy of FAA guidelines for aircraft noise mitigation for study design purposes, while the second part of the sentence restates the oversimplified ra.tionale of the prior sentence. The fact that FAA has made known its policy- driven preferences for providing access to federal funding for airport noise mitigation does not compel MAC to make only A-weighted noise measurements. FAA regulations explicitly subordinate the agency's policy preferences, expressed as generic "land use compatibility" guidelines, to thase 2 One way that this could have been accomplished would have been to design the study to focus data collection on broadband recordings of noise events, rather than on routine, relatively inexpensive automated measurements of time series of noise levels. 3 Since aircraft overflight noise generally reaches residential neighborhoods via air-taground paths, atmospheric absorption is usually responsible for most frequency-specific propagation losses. Runway sideline noise often reaches residences in the vicinity of airports via paths that further attenuate high-frequency noise through ground impedance effects, thus increasing the relative low-frequency content of noise pmduced by aircrafr ground operations. Outdoor A-weighted noise measurements may not adequately characterize high levels of low-frequency noise that may induce potentially annoying secondary emissions inside residences neaz tunways. Aircraft ground operation noise is characteristically described in complaints as a dull, rumbling sound with a slow onset time. Aircraft ground noise may be distinctively audible at I ) considerable distances from airports, particulazly at night, when less masked by other urban noise sources. 2 of local zoning authorities. MAC is not required in any event to pay for its noise-related liabilities with federal funds only.4 � In short, the rationale of Section 2.4 supports only a business-as-usual approach to the study of low-frequency noise impact issues. 1.2.2 Sections 2.�: Run-Up Atoise Contours for Selected Aircraft This section describes computer simulations of engine run-up noise contours in far greater detail than is accorded to other matters more relevant to Richfield's concerns. The A-weighted contours displayed in Figures 2 through 8(of the ground noise study) are not directly relevant to prediction of the rattling noises that engine run-ups may produce inside residences in eastern Richfield. � ` • ;�,� '' : ' � This short section describes and interprets the findings of apparently informal interviews with three airlines. The text of the section describes the motivation for ground run-ups, the inability of airlines to control or schedule them, the necessity to point aircraft into the wind when conducting run-ups, and the airlines' preferences for measures (e.g., improved run-up pad lighting) that could encourage the conduct of even more ground run-ups. � i •. ,� � , : � ,• � � � ,� . �, . 1.4.1 Conclusions The report draws ten conclusions from the measurements of the graund noise study. Most of them are only tangentially relevant to Richfield's concerns about noise impacts from operations on Proposed Runway 1'7/35. None of them is particularly pertinent to assessment of potential low-frequency noise effects. 1.4.1.1 Conclusion 1 The first conclusion indicates that aircraft takeoffs are currently the "predominant" noise source a� measuremer.* nositions on airport properry and in eastern Richfield. It cannot be determined from this observation whether departure noise will continue to dominate the noise exposure of eastern Richfield if and when operations on proposed Runway 17 create low-frequency sideline noise. It is also not cleaz from this observation how far west of Proposed Runway 17 such ,:ioise will� be audible, annr;�-i.ng, or capable of exciting secondary emissions in residences. 1.4.1.2 Conclusion 2 The second conclusion identifies noise from aircr��t taxiing as responsible for nearly a quarter of the discrete noise events measured during the study. The report provides little basis for " Although airport authoriries sometimes azgue that federal regularion prohibits diversion of airport revenues for unrelated purposes, noise mitigarion is a fully recognized and appmved use of locally-generated airport funds. ( applying this i.nformation to noise from future taxiways. Subsequent conclusions confirm that other aircraft noise sources (auxiliary power units and thrust reversal) make further contributions to aircraft ground noise i.n Richfield. The report does not indicate how many such noise events and what noise levels may be produced by future operations of an airport with a modified runway layout and opera.ting patterns. I.4.1.3 Conclusions 3 and 4 These conclusions indicate that auxiliary power units contribute little to the total aircraft- related ground noise produced at MSP, and that thrust reverser noise is readily noticeable in episodes of 10 -15 seconds in duration, at least a mile away from its point of application. 1.4.1.4 Conclusion S This lengthy conclusion indicates that noise produced by aircraft during takeoff roll and in near-ground flight shortly after takeoff can be confused with ground run-up noise, especially during busy periods at the airport, when large numbers of arrival and departure operations occur an various runways. The conclusion also notes that such aircraft noise is readily audible in Richfield, particularly at night, regardless of runway usage. 1.41.5 Concltesion 6 This conclusion notes that nearly 200 discrete run-up noise events occurred during the relatively brief (per Section 1.3.3) period of the ground noise study. This suggests that thousands of such run-up noise events may occur over the course of a year, although "run-ups are not being conducted for long durations of one or more hours at a time," and typically last about ten to fifteen minutes each — although 16% may occur between 5:00 AIvI and 7:00 AM. I.4.1.6 Conclusion 7 Conclusion 7 concerns calculated values of time-averaged, A-weighted sound levels for the few days during which noise measurements were made.5 Long-term, average A-weighted sound levels have little to do with annoyance due to ratkle or vibra.tion produced by discrete aircraft noise events. 1.4.1.7 Conclusion �t Conclusion 8 appears intended to reinforce the ra.tionale of Section 2.4 (see above). In essence, the conclusion azgues that A-weighted measurements should be preferred to C-weighted rneasurements of aircraft ground noise because A-weighted measurements e�ibit less variability. The logic of this assertion is weak, because a frequency weighting network itself is not the sole potential source of variability i.n measurements. 5 Airport adminisirations often dismiss such calculations (when made by others) as uninforznative or uninterpretable � ; because they may be unrepresentative of annual condirions. 0 The relative variability in A-weighted and C-weighted aircra$ noise measurements could equally well be due to variability in the low-frequency content of the noise sources themselves, or even to various artifacts of ineasurement.b If a weighting network tha.t is insensitive to � low-frequency energy is elected to measure noise sources that differ considerably in low-frequen�y content, it is not surprising that measurements so made are less variable than measurements made with a frequency weighting network that can differentiate between noise sources of differing low-frequency content. Thus, if aircraft engines of different types and power produce different amounts of low-frequency acoustic energy, and if ineasurements are desired to quantify the consequences of such differences, C-weighted measurements would be preferred to A-weighted measurements on these grounds alone — even though the resulting measurements would show a greater range of variability than A-weighted measurements. 1.4.1.8 Conclusion 9 T`his conclusion confirms expectations that noise levels produced by airport sources decrease in a reasonable manner at increased distances from the airport. 1.4.1.9 Conclusion 10 Conclusion 10 notes the confusability of ground noise sources with noise produced by near- ground aircraft in flight while retreating from observers at fixed points. 1.4.2 Recommendations The ground noise report contains two recommendations. The first of these is to modify an existing field rule concerni.ng engi.ne maintenance run-ups. The second recommenda.tion states, in �� essence, that no other form of source control of aircraft ground noise is feasible at MSP. , • � ,� �, ; � . , � 1 . � . This appendix asserts that its readers "must grasp" the pastiche of technical information that it contains to understand the conclusions of the report. Much of the mathematical detail is gratuitous and may unnecessarily intimidate non-technical readers. Little of the information presented in the appendix is truly needed to understand most of the report's conclusions, while more relevant matters escap� �-:ntion. � '' i � ,� .. The tables and figures of this Appendi:�:. cc~�tain 32 tables and 18 charts summarizing raw data. Apart from the captions of the charts (none is provided for the ta.bles), this mass of information is unaccompanied by explanatory or interpretive text. The information is arguably useful for " The effects of wind gusts and other artifacts on low-level and low-frequency acoustic measurements are widely understood and readily avoidable or remediable if sufficient careis taken in instrumentarion, data. collection procedures, and post-processing. Elaborate measures with which MSP's noise consultants are familiar have been taken in other field (.- measurement programs to control such artifacts of ineasurement. � 5 documenti.ng a subset of the information collected during the ground noise study, although the time history charts lack Gweighted information. I . �� . � , .�� : Appendix C contai.ns 53 pages of weather reports and runway use logs. Appendix D presents another 32 pages of operational information. The two appendices of information that MAC routinely collects for purposes other than the ground noise study occupy more than twice as many pages in the ground noise report as the four substantive sections. 1.� A.PP�+ IV�� + : 1VI01�1I'�'�RIl`1Ca �+ iZ�ID1V�N'i' This short appendix documents the setti.ngs of one automated noise monitoring instrument at one site on one day of the measurement program. The Glossary contai.ns an assortaient of informal definitions of terms, some of which do not appear to be mentioned in the text of the report. The definitions do not generally conform to standardized terminology, as embodied, for example, in American National Standard SI.1-1994 Acoustical Terminolo�y. .�' : :� O The emphasis of MAC's ground noise study is misplaced with regazd to Richfield's concezns for assessment of the needs for mitigatian of low-frequency runway sideline noise. The following are among the inadequacies of an aircraft ground noise study intended to address Richfield's concerns for evaluating needs for mitigation of low-frequency runway sideli.ne noise. r ` ,' � � , , :i � r� �' !� ;� ,, . .., ', , .' r - - The bulk of the measurements collected in MAC's studies are derived fram routirse measurements made at twelve automated and unattended noise monitoring sites (eight million records, ?^cording to the report of the ground noise study). Measurements of this type have no direct bearing on analyses of �e low-frequency spectral content of particular interest for present purposes. . � ;� . �; ; ;1 ' '1; �' ' �' ; . �; . : The report of the ground noise study makes no effort to extrapolate from current to future conditions, or to otnerwise predict anticipata.ble future noise impacts. Figure 1 shows the points at which the C-weighted and A-weighted aircraft noise events were monitored in MAC's 1998 ground noise study. Figure 2 transposes these measurement points from their positions with respect to Runway 22 (the source of much of the acoustic energy measured) to 0 their positions with respect to Proposed Runway 17 at MSP. This transposition permits estimation of C-weighted sound levels likely to be produced by operations on Runway 17 by the same fleet currently operating at MSP. Note that in relation to departures on Proposed Runway 17, the � measurement sites yield little information about potentiai runway sideline noise in Richfield. 1 0 1 2 Mibs ♦ �,��.,��.�....��4,.,,�«� NMw PNnf N W E S Figure 1 Points at which C- and A-weighted aircraft noise events were monitored in MAC's 1998 ground noise study. ; � 2.� YNAPP�20P�ATE FY2E�iTENC�' �VEIG]EITING PROC�D�:f�t]ES Although some C-weighted time series measurements were made during the ground noise study, they receive short shrift in the report of the study. For example, the contention in Conclusion 8(page 38) of the report that "...the A-weighted metric is better suited for use with the frequency ranges associated with aircraft generated noise" is misleadingly limited. Useful efforts to assess noise impacts associated with low-frequency runway sideline noise are even better served by measurements of noic� �e vels in discrete one-third octave band levels at frequencies below 100 Hz. ' � 1 • ' � � The report contains for the most part summary and highly processe, � informa.tion, prese.. �d in a manner tha.t permits only scant opportunity for independent analyses and verification of findi.ngs. The report presents no detailed spectral information that could be used to predict audibility ranges of low-frequency aircraft noise from present or future airport opera.tions. Likewise, the report does not contain information useful for predicting the number, noticeability, and annoyance of low-frequency noise intrusions inside present or future residences, nor the likelihood of sensible vibration or secondary emissions (ra.ttling sounds) in Richfield residences. 7 � ; 1 0 1 2 Miles � Trnnsoos�OMontarlacaoms NN�r Rt�wey N W E S Figure 2 Transposition of ineasurement points frorn their positions with respect to Runway 22 to their positions with respect to Proposed Runway 17 at MSP. : C � '� z:, / + � '' ' `�� ,� ` U� � .l�i 5 � � � � � .�t ',�9 �',� � :I :• .,; �. ;,�. C C Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 1.1 CDverview Air�orts around the world are continuously seeking operational and policy initiatives in an effort to aid ! ; in the continuing process of aircraft noise impact reduction. The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is no exception, wiih initiatives in this area dating back to 1968. One policy/procedure still in place at the airport has origins which date back to the mentioned early years. Conception of the Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor began in 1968. Since that time several refinements have been investigated and implemented. Although the corridor has evolved somewhat through the years, the original catalysts remains the same, concentraring on directing aircraft overflights above compatible land use (commerciallindustrial) areas to the south east of the airport. By concentrating the aircraft over flights above the commerciaUindustrial areas when departing runways 12L & 12R, the frequency of residential over flights is diminished significantly, resulting in lower noise impacts in the residential areas to the southeast of the airport. 1.2 What is the Crossing Procedure As was mentioned, several corridor refinement issues have been visited, some of which yielded modifications to corridor procedures. In 1995 a proposal was submitted to the FAA requesting the implementation of the "crossing in the corridor- procedure ". The proposal was driven by the desire to contain operations as much as possible in the center of the corridor when aircraft are departing in a nnn-simultaneous manner from runways 12L or 12R. The proposal outlined desired tracks along the ground which would maintain operations within the center of the corridor. Under the mentioned non- simultaneous conditions "when operationally feasible" for the FAA aircraft departing 12L should rnaintain a track along the earrh's surface of 118° (runway heading) and aircraft departing 12R should maintain a track along the earth's surface of 105°. By maintaining these tracks aircraft operations are concentrated in the center of the corridor. Although the propasal seems intuitive and straight forward, several critical variables relating to the airspace environment must be considered to conduct the crossing procedure. 1.3 �ariables Affecting the Use of the Procedure The execution of the crossing procedure is a function of several deternunates, most of which are hard to quantify due to there dynamic nature. The FAA has several variables to consider when attempting to use the crossing procedure. The terms "when operationally feasible" are heavily weighted when it comes to the ability of the FAA to execute the procedure. Six rriain categories play into the ability to perform the procedure they are: runway use, aircraft performance, .weather, separation criteria, pilot discretion and FAA staffing. The nature of the variables is indefinite and some neariy impossible to quantify. Section 4 provides more specific insight into the mentioned variables. 1.4 Assessing the Use of the Crossing k'rocedure The topic of crossing in the corridor was designated as a topic for the 1998 MASAC Operations Committee schedule. In an effort to assess the use or lack there of, the Operations Committee has embarked on a analysis to provide insight into whether or not the procedure is being utilized. The following analysis is prerlicated on time periods (2300 to 0600 and weekends sat. 1500 to sun. 1300j Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis which are the most conducive to the use of the crossing procedure, keeping in mind the primary � determinate is one locai air traffic coniroller. Taking into account the many determinates and their quantifiable or un-quantifiable nature the analysis is structured as follows. The analysis first assesses when the crossing procedure is actually being used during the mention�, time periods. Secondly, the time of one local controller staffing is noted during the weekend time - periods providing the total operations during that time and those that crossed out of the total. An FAA ` assumption that one local controller is used during the nighttime periods (2300-0600) was made eliminating the need to quantify this variable during that period. A time of departure analysis lending - some insight into aircraft operation separation, FAA variable definitions and weather information are provided, aiding in the assessrnent of procedure utilization determinates. Looking at the mentioned " topics in concert allows the formulation of an assessment of procedure use, and the variables which are . present that contribute to the effectiveness of the procedure. C. Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Section 2: �ross�� Op�rations .�i�°space Analysis o t)ctober 1. 997 �o �ilarch 199� (2300-06Oo) a�d Weekends (1500-1300) -� ; ,.: - ., ; � , � ,.r�, �. � : , . ; Crossing in the Corridor Analysis i,,. , ',`, .. �,�: ;,,: �� . � ,a �►�. �, .�` � �. �� : �, . ;�� . '�'r �. t. �� .�i � ��t, ,I' 1� 1,�. ,:� � � . . �. , �, . . i!: • 1, .: • 1: . �, ,� . . .. . ,�, ,�. ; i��'�' ,; ; �' ��+;�, �' i�> Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3 Crossing in the Comdor Analysis 1 1'�' ',`' -, . . 1.�, , �,. , ;i ��. � � . � , � ,� .� . i � . �- � � �':. : v � .� : . � : ' ' • ' 1 ,. ' 1 `- ` ' ''� ��• �1., .. . . � �' . . ... . ` ,c . �, .R. �. , .. . � �, ��' . t ��:�,� Page 4 Aviation,Noise & Satellite Programs Crossing in the Corridor Analysis ,. a . . , . � , � �� . . , : . , :�� . , ._ : . . 1: �I� .i � •i� � ; .�_. .� � x� 1� ,.i ,� � 1 � ;� • . � I . , , � : October 199'7 Oct. 4(15001 to CDct. 5(1300) All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. Oct.11(15001 to Oct. 12 (13001 All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet I)ep. (ips. 37 Tota.l 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Departures Oct. 4 f 1500) to tJct. 5(1300) Crossing Dep. Operations off 12� $� 12R 311 Tota.l 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Oc� 11(15001 to Oct.12 (13001 Cmssing Dep. Operations off 121L & 12R 2(5.4%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations 59 (19.0°Io) Carrier Jet Departure Operations ( j Performed the Crossing Procedure Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 1�:�5 (72.3%) of one local controller time, in which there was 37 total ops., 2(5.4%) of which crossed. *Note: During this time period there were 14:33 (66.1%) of one local controller time, in which there was 109 total ops., 36 (33.0%) of which crossed. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 � ' �) Crossing in the Corridor Analysis � ;�, �, . . � •� 'r� .,. , , �, �; ,.., . ��; � ' .� 5 _�; .•� �i� �� S . • �� ;� �� , �. y�, '� �! t�'. `�� 1 `I�� 1 t� 1'�'1�� .� . ;r. ,�. �� . . �,�; . ;�; ..� . . ��` , .; � .�._ � . �. .. . � : ,�,, ` � �I �i� . : , ,� � � � ,�, Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis ' � . (.; 11 .. r ,• `• �'. � � . ., �. �, [� ; �. ;� . �: r �. � � � � �, � �;;.��. � . '' � ., �, � _ ;'.:) ' ,1 ,' ,'. /' - � � ; � , • ' . ' • ,, C. . , ' . :', � � � � , � , � � �' .. . : � ,, 1' 1`I . � 1�II Pa°e 8 Aviation Noise & Satelli[e Programs � Cmssing in the Corridor Analysis : � . :. . . ,. . �� • . �, .� • . } .. � . :r � . � .. , , � , • ,, � ;�: . . � Nov 1(1500) to Nov. 2(13001 r�.il 12i. & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. I�1ov. $ (15001 to Nov. 9 (13001 All 12L 8z 1212 Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. 0 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Deparlures Nov 1(15001 to l�tov 2 113001 Crossing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12I� 4 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Nov. � (15001 to I�ov 9 (13001 C�ossing Dep. Operations off 12�, � 1212 0(0.0%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations / j Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 16:33 (75.2%)'of one local controller time, in which there was 0 total ops., 0(0.0%) of which crossed. 1(25.0°Io) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 17:48 (80.9%) of one local controller tame, in which there was 4 total ops., 1(25.0%) of which crossed. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis �' • � � ��'� ;� • ,: � .�. , c; . . . ; �, � '�' .; � .. : ° . �; '�� . ��, � . �' � � ;1' ' • ' � �` ` .' . � ' l�tovember 1997 Nov. 15 (15001 to Nov 16 (13(}Ol All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. Nov. 22 (15(PO) to Nov 23 (1300,� All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. 7 Tota.l 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Nov.15 (15001 to Nov 16 (13001 Cmssing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12R 2 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Nov. 22 (15001 to Nov 23 (13001 Cmssing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12R 1(14.3%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 15:40 (71.2%) of one local controller time, in which there was 7 total ops., 1(14.3%) of which crossed. . 1(50.0%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 16:10 (73.5%) of one locai controller time, in which there was 2 total ops., I(50.0%) of which crossed. Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Crossing in the Corridor Analysis . . . ,�; �; ,�, . ��: ��, ., . . i �:,, :�` .; . , . t�� . �, �. . � n �,. � . �, �, _ ��: . .. ,i � . � . '� . t. �: ._. Nov 29 L15001 to IVov. 30 (1300) All 12Y., � 12I2 Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. 2 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures l�Tov 29 (15001 to l�Tov. 30 (13001 Cmssing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12It 1(50.0%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: Durina this time period there were 18:57 (86.1%) of one local controller time, in which there was 2 total ops., 1(50.0%) of which crossed. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 11 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis �. .. . �� . 1, :1? Carrier Jet I)eparture C)perations ltun�vays 12L $� 121t (2300- 0600) �- . �� . . . . � �: , • r � ,, �, . . . . � ,� 'II . � F,11 Page 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � Crossing in the Corridor Analysis '; .. . . 1; :i; 1 + •. a ,� •. ��1 �. J� � .� e� • .� �, i .�. �y. ��, a� �-�,�r, • �; �_ �: i �` .1� r r ;.,, _ ; .• :,. � � •; '' �` � ' ;�''�: '�i ,;��. ,��; ��- � t�: /'r .� �/ � . .�. • ' ;�i _ .•. �. L': • - �� • �,. �: _ �� •�_ ,a�. - 4�. r ii . . . . ; .� �: ; =� ��- „ . • 1'.! � 1 -�= `�= Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 13 � Crossing in the Corridor Analysis Weekend Operation� t�ss�ssment: 12L � 12R Carrier Jet I;epariure Cross�n� �perations (�uaniification i)eeernber 1997 Dec. 6(15001 to Dec. 7(13001 Dec.13 (15001 to I)ec. 14 (13001 � All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. All 12L & 12R Carrier Jfet Dep. Ops. � 3 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures . Dec. 6(1500) to Dec. 7(13001 Crossing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12R 58 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Departures Dec.13 (15001 to Dec.14 (13001 Crossing Dep. Operations aff 12L & 12�t 0(0.0%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations 7(12.1 %) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure Performed the Crossing Procedure ( *Note: During this tiine period there were 16:00 *Note: During this.time period there were 18:04 (72.7%) of one local controller time, in which there (82. I%) of one local controller time, in which there was 3 total ops., 0(0.0%) of which crossed. was 14 totai ops., 5(35.7%) of which crossed. Page 14 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Crossing in the Corridor Analysis January 199� - Carrier Jei I)eparture Operations Runways I2I. � 12R (2300� 0600) � � . ' . • 1•r. •� ' . . • ;. .. , i�, �, iI . � 1�i! Page 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � Crossing in the Corridor Analysis .i . ,,i; `I„ ;�; . . i�: • ti: s . ;,s � ,. ,� '� . � r . ' r :�` �. , . �: '. � . • 1 .� • �. . .�. ,11 t�i'1 i . . : :� , • � �; � `� � . � . � .,; • '� • � .i � ,, � �, . . . - . ; � : ,� .� ;� : �' :i .� ;I ;1:. � � ;, Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�rams Page 17 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis . , : . �, i . '� _ ` � �' � �l .t �i, .� �. . _ • L � �z 1. �. `' • :,,.' _I - ,� . .,,.. � � , �.':_ • . .: , : ,' ...,' . � .' ,. � I I+ � 1an. 3 (15001 to .Tan. 4 (13001 All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet IDep. Ops. .Tan. 10 (1500) to Tan 11(13001 All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. 227 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Jan, 3(15001 to Tan. 4(13001 Crossing I)ep. Operations off 12L & 12R -8 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Jan.10 (15001 to Tan.11(13Q01 Cmssing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12R 44 (19.4%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 16:03 (73.0%) of one local controller time, in which there was 99 total ops., 29 (293%) of which crossed. 1 (12.5%o) CarrierJet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: Durin� this time period there were 15:13 (69.2%) of one local controller time, in which there was 8 totai ops., i(12.5%) of which crossed. Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Crossing in the Corridor Analysis � .�� . 3 .� '., /' '-,.� • �ti� �. t � :� ,,' . .•. � ! �' j ,,•. . ' • .�� t�. .`'`-_ ./� f, :,� �1 �'� Cross�n� Cip�rations Quant�ficaiion J�nuary 199� ,jan.17 (1500) to .Tan. l� (1300) .Tan. 24 (15001 to J�n. 25 (13001 All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. All 12L � 12IZ Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. 7 Tota.l 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures ,Tan.17 (1500) to ,Tan.18 (13001 Crossing I�ep. Operations off 12L c'� 12R 296 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures ,Ian. 24 (15001 to .Tan. 25 (13001 Crossing Dep. Operations off 12I� � 12R 3(42.9%) Canier Jet Departure Operations ' �� Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 16:03 (73.0%) of one local controller time, in which there was 7 total ops., 3(42.9%) of which crossed. 64 (21.6%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations PerFormed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 15:24 (70.O�Io) Df one local con�oller time, in which there was 105 total ops., 37 (352%) of which crossed. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 19 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis February 199� Carr�er Jet :Depariure i)perations Runways 12I.., $� 12R (2300- 0600) ( . ��, ��, ; � ' .� � `'' � :�:: � . � .� ,'. .�' .�:. ,:, -� ; ,• �: ..� ,• .• , ,': j .,, ',.. ��' . 1 �1�'� Page 20 Aviation Noise & Sateliite Programs ( � \' Crossing in the Corridor Analysis . ;a� �. , sl� �� ;�; • •� :,�' .� i� ! �'� ;, :�:. z�' � ;, 1 .• .�: �� • � •. .. S f; � � �` � i '' �, i �� .; ' ��, $�� ' ;';' i) r�; �) '. t'r - � � ► � ;�, • �' i'� • �'�; • �, �, ,� :� � �h ��.'.. � -.i' .r. 1�. ;i- • : . .. : �. ,.. � : - (_ � =� . 1 � y �: ;�: Aviation Noise & Satellite Proarams Page 21 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis . . . ; ,�. ;,. � � ,: . � ., . . ; ,� `�' . . . . � � t, . � � i�,. . � � . . � � �. ��. an. 31 (15001 to Feb.1 (13001 Al] 12L � 12R Carrier Jet Dep. C)ps. Feb. 7(1500) to Feb S(13001 All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. 28 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures .Tan. 31 (15001 to Feb. l (13001 Crossing Dep. Op�rations off 12L � 12R 318 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Feb. 7(1500) to Feb. 8(13001 Crossing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12R 5(17.9%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 16:22 (74.4%) of one tocal controller time, in which there was 27 total ops., 5(18.5%o) of which crossed.. 40 (12.6%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure *Note: During this time period there were 15:39 (71.1 �70) of one local controller time, in which there was 104 total ops., 29 (27.9%) of which crossed. Page 22 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � ;� Crossing in the Corridor Analysis � � . �1, �I# ��.; � , �, ,; . . , � �. . •,; �, . , �, ;�, . � ,• I '1� i ,� � :�. �: � ; • � •. . ' � :'.' ,� '� '-�.� � � .c, �.. �� .� ,• �� . .�. � • :,-. '.. ,,: 'j �'� .= i �` '1 � � m Page 24 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �. '' a � �,-� -�., Crossing in the Corridor Analysis . � �?; ,�' �, .; . �. • . �� ; •� ;1 .. ; �, �: ��, ;• , ; , � , °��' . � '� :� � . ;�, . � ,� � .� ,�:. : �. �� . , i:�, � :�, �, ,�_. ' �' �.�' i�' s�, SI. !� `�_ • ; �q ,� .� a .�; ,• '� ♦. • 4�` � �,�' .� � � aE ° -�� . . . , . � ; �, _ �: ;�; , �: �• :� ;�; � .�, Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 25 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis ' VVeekend tJperatioris A�sessment: 12L � 12R Carr�er Jet Departure �rossing Op�rations Quant�ficat�on � 11i�11arch 199� , � IVIar. 2� (15001 to Mar. 29 (13001 `` - All 12L & 12R Carrier Jet Dep. Ops. 160 Total 12L &12R Carrier Jet Departures Mar. 28 (15001 to 1VIar. 29 (13001 Crossing Dep. Operations off 12L & 12R 35 (21.9%) Camer Jet Departure Operations Performed the Crossing Procedure \ , *Note: Durin� this tirne period there were 13:09 (59.8%) of one local controller time, in which there was 53 total ops., 12 (22.6%) of which crossed. Page 28 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs . i _�, ;,. . M . - ;•� � • . • `. . �. � � � � � � � e�` � '• � ,; �' '�` � r:, ` � ' / �" �. 11 1•11 .: � -- - � i1 1!. Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 3.1 Time Between Runway 12L & i212 Departures One of the basic detemunates relative to the FAA's ability to cross operations in the corridor is the time between departures on either runway 12L or 12R. After significant analysis using the Radar Track Replay function available in ANOMS it was determined that departure separation times of greater than two minutes provided ample separation for crossing proposes. The two minute separation determinate was a function of fleet mix, taking into account aircraft performance and spacing requirements. The following tables provided numbers and percentages of departure operation within specific separation time ranges. Please note the last row of each table is highly representative of operations spanning separate data sample time periods. October 1997 (2300 - 0600) Time Between I)eps. Runways 12L & 12R October 1997 Weekend (5a� 1500 - Sun.1300) Deps. �tunways 12L &12R Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 29 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis November 1997 (2300 - 0600) Time Between Deps. Runways 12L & 12R November 199'7 Weekend (Sat 1500 - Sun.1300) Deps. Runways 12L &12R December 1997 (2300 - 0600) Time Between Deps. Runways 12L & 12R Pa�e 30 Aviation Noise & Sa[ellite Projrams � Crossing in the Corridor Analysis December 1997 Weekend (Sa� 1500 - Sun.1300) Deps. Runways 12L &12R January 199� (2300 - 0600) Time Between Deps. ltunways 12L & 12R January 199� Weekend (Sa� 1500 - 5un.1300) Deps. Runways 12L �i12R Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 31 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis February 1998 (2300 - 0600) Time Between Deps. �ways 12L & 12R February 199� Weekend (Sa� 1500 - Sun.1300) Deps. Runways 12L &12R March 1998 (2300 - 0600) Time Between Deps. Rnnways 12L & 12R Page 32 Aviation Noise & Sate(lite Pro�rams � � a ;( � Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 1Vlarch 1998 VVeekend (Sa� 1500 - Sun.1300) Deps. R.unways 12L &12I2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Pa�e 33 C� .� • ' , L � ♦ ;,i;,.• � • . .: .I , ` Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 4.1 Primary Variables The FAA's ability to perform the crossing in the corridor procedure is a function of several variables. The terms "whenever operationally feasible ", in this case, encompasses several aircraft operations and airspace management topics. The two basic requirements for the FAA to perform the crossing procedure are: l. T'he staffing of one local controller. 2. Only one aircraft at either of the parallel runways ready to depart at a time. The above two scenarios provide an environment wYuch is highly conducive to the use of the procedure. Although the conditions seem favorable in the above case the determination is still subject to additional variables. ' 4.2 Impact of Non-simult�z�eous Head-to-�iead Operations The use of the RUS endorserl non-simultaneous head-to-head operations (land 30L/R depart 12L/R) imgoses an additional array of variables which conflict with the use of the crossing procedure during non-simultaneous time of operation. Some of the mentioned variables are: l. How faz out is the arrival on the opposite direction final. 2. The speed of the atriving aircraft. 3. The type of aircraft that is arriving and departing. 4. The weather conditions. 5. The ability of �an arriving aircraft to see a departing aircraft. 6. The ability of a departing aircraft to see an arriving aircraft. 7. T'he willingness of either pilot to assume responsibility for visual separation. When head-to-head operations are in effect the above variables add another level of operational feasibility which affect the use of the crossing procedure. Please review the following letter dated May 28, 1998 from Douglas Powers (Acting Air Traffic Manager) to Mark Salmen (Chairperson, MASAC Operations Committee), regarding the relevant variables when performing the crossing procedure. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 34 ' r Crossing in the Corridor Analysis Page 35 us. [)eparrment of Transporration Federal Aviation Administratian : ••: Mr. Mark Salmen MASAC Ops Committee Chairman Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Dear Mr. Salmen: Airpo�# Traffic Control Tower 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 5545Q It is the understanding of the Minneapolis Airport Traffic Control Tower that the MASAC Ops Committee is attempting to do an evaluation of the Air Traffic Control utiiization oT the non-simultaneous departure procedures. As the Ops Committee and the City of Mendota Heights are aware, this proced�re was implemented with the understanding that these headings wouid be utilized "whenever possible". This term was intentionally used because there are many variables that �etermine if this procedure is possible. The two most basic requirements, as explained by Support Manager Cindy Greene, are the staffing of only one local controller, and only one aircraft at either of the parallel runways ready to depart at a time. Due to the infrequency in which these two require- ments are met between 6:00 AM and 10:30 PM, there are rare times throughout the day in which non-simultaneous departure procedures are possible. I understand that the focus of the MASAC Ops evaluation will now be during the quiet hours of 10:30 PM and 6:00 AM. During this time period, under normal circumstances, there is only one local controller staffed. There is rarely an aircraft at each parallel ready to depart at the same time. There are, however, still enough variables present to make this evaluation by the MASAC Ops Committee difficult, and most likely its validity questionable. The requirement for head-to-head operations (land 30UR depart 12VR) has an impact on the use of non-simultaneous departure procedures. Some of the variables associated with the impact of head to head operations are: 1. How far out the arrival is on the opposite direction final. 2. The speed of the arrival. 3. The type aircraft that is arriving and departing. 4. The weather conditions. 5. The ability of an arriving aircraft to see a departing aircraft. 6. The ability of a departing aircraft to see an arriving aircraft. 7. The willingness of either pilot to assume responsibility for visual separation. Aviation,Noise & Satellite Programs � C Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 2. Air traffic controllers evaluate each of these variables and make the decision which heading the departure is assigned. The controllers are well aware of the non-simultaneous departure procedures and also take these into account in their decision making. The air traffic controller provides the required separation between an arrival and a departure, or between two departures. The method to obtain that separation varies from one controiler to another. A controlier may elect to utilize visual separation, vertical separation, lateral separation, or merely wait until the arrival has landed. There is no way to provide the air traffic rationale for aircraft separation in each instance. The oniy scenario that can "normally guarantee" non-simultaneous headings is: One local controller, one aircraft ready to depart, No arrivals head-to-head, and weather not impacting the operation. Any questions may be directed through the MASAC Ops Committee to Cindy Greene, Minneapolis Air Traffic Cantrol Tower Support Manager. Sincerely, J�------,. � . .- `_,i�; �.,�...._.,--.----�` , D glas�. Powers i ��-� �� Acting Air Traffic Manager Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 36 C _ _ , . . ._ •�' the .�nalysis Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 5.1 Weather for October 1997 During the month of October temperatures avera�ed 50.2°F with an average daytime temperature of 60.7°F and nighttime temperatures of 39.6°F Precipitation for the month totaled 2.03 inches of rain. 1 Winds were resident from the South West with an average speed of 10.2 m.p.h. Throu�hout the month weather was fair with thunderstorms and rain October 6th through the 13th. 5.2 Weather for November 1997 During the month of November temperatures averaged 28.1°F with an average daytime temperature of 34.4°F and nighttime temperatures of 21.7°F Precipitation for the month totaled 0.69 inches (8.6 inches of snow) Winds were resident from the North West with an average speed of 8.6 m.p.h. Overall November predominantly included a trace of snow, mist and haze during the nighttime hours and early morning hours. 5.3 Weather for December 1997 During the month of December temperatures averaged 26.9°F with an average daytime temperature of 33.6°F and nighttime temperatures of 20.2°F. Precipitation for the month totaled 0.31 inches (3.3 inches of snow) Winds were resident from the North West with an average speed of 3.2 m.p.h. Overall the month received minimal snow fall resulting in no snow cover. Also during this month haze and mist occasionally developed in the early morning hours. 5.4 Weather for January 1998 j � During the month of January ternperatures averaged 19.1°F with an average daytime temperature of -' 26.0°F and nighttime temperatures of 12.1°F. Precipitation for the month totaled 1.64 inches (20.4 inches of snow) Winds were resident from the North West with an average speed of 8.1 m.p.h. Throughout January freezing rain impacted MSP operations. Mornings were hazy with several snow storms evenly developed throughout, including blowing snow and freezing rain. The most significant snowstorm of 4.0 inches occurred on the 25th. S.5 Weather for February 199� During the month of February temperatures averaged 31.9°F with an average daytime temperature of 38.0°F and nighttime temperatures of 25.8°F Precipitation for the month totaled 0.8 inches of precipitation including 1.1 inches of snow. Winds were resident from the North West with an average speed of 7.7 m.p.h. Overall the month was warmer than normal with mist and freezing fog occurred on 75% of the days during the month. The month alsa experienced occasional traces of morning haze. 5.6 Wea�her for March 199$ During the month of March temperatures averaged 31.9°F with an average daytime temperature of 39.7°F and nighttime temperatures of 24.1°F. Precipitation for the month totaled 4.56 inches including 11.6 inches of snow. Winds were resident from the North with an average speed of 10.5 m.p.h. Overall March had normal temperatures with some freezing fog during the first week and the third week of the month. A1so the last week of March comprised thunderstorms, drizzle, thick fog and mist. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 37 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis Table 5.1: Weather Notations Key Descriptor Precipitation Obstruction Other BC Patches DZ Drizzle BR Mist DS Duststorm BL Blowing GR Hail DU Widespread FC Funnel Cloud ' Dust DR Low Drifting GS Small Hail andl FG Fog +FC Tomado � or Snow Pellets Waterspout FZ Freezing IC Ice Crystals FCT Smoke PO Well Devel- oped Dust/Sand Whiris MI Shallow PE Ice Pellets HZ Haze SQ Squalls PR Partial RA Rain PY Spray SS Sandstorm SH Shower(s) SG Snow Grains SA Sand GL Glaze TS T'hunderstorm SN Snow VA Volcanic Ash VC In the Vicinity UP Unknown Pre- cipitation Intensity Qualifiers `+' = Heavy "= Moderate `-' = Light Page 38 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs C � m ~ N LL � �' 0� � � � r � � Z C � � � O � N � � � � W � cL r v > Z > Q m�y � > f— r � � a� °' � � � � -1 -� Z z U O z d � C O W � N ~ *' � Z N -� f ( I l � r�p6t � `�'a + 'a �.-" 4�� o 6Y��P . �Nf � h Crossing in the Corridor Analysis � , � � . . •, _ i,�� s '��-dQ N q 0000 0000 � N�.-iri.-� �.-1 ��-1N NN NN N NNNNO ri W � (� W u (+J �O �-I ri CD m P"1 Q� O tf1 t`� I� �-f ��'1 01 V N N N N e-1 t�l rl I� N N fV O r1 l0 V' O� g (!} fD ry O Z aICJ N ri .-i t1 �--I r-1 N.-i N N.-I �-1 N N N N ti N N�"1 �"'1 f'i N O O O O N(V .-1 �-1 N �i W Q w =� , a �' woo � (P O�--I OJ <T T ri v' f�'1 N O� f'1 O.--1 O Ol r'1 tf1 N rl N f�f �D �.-� m O tD C� .-� m } Z � O.i .. �� y Q��CIS e-f r-1 N� N N N f"1 r'7 N N!'t P'1 N� N N N N N�'-i N N .-� N.-1 .-7 N.-� = Q F r-1 N=_ OwtU �noorno r-irnom� �cvcrnr� Neti.-1N0� N[�f�N� N.-INt�tl10 Z W W1ON ZZ a� W HIQ .-� N nl � N N.-� N.-� � � N N N N ti N N t7 N f'1 �-f O O O O N N�.-� r'1 � J Q'� ''i — �� a3�dS �ori�ncvr+ ,-i�ncrcm cr+m�n� �inrnm�o miooinri rvrio�ri<r � Q � �oU II W � N N�-i NN N/ f'1N <f' c7'N �'7C'r'1N � �NNNN N f-IN N N NNNN NN V �— W OOZ NNo wp D��dS �tllNONm �vorn.-,rn <ruimr-„-, crmmr, u�cv�rcv �n.-�r�r�n�n N�= ZZ^ a_ ��ny '-c��n.-ir�o morMo rm�nrnc c'ONNO� ��nmmcv or�e�or v�om OON W � ,-i a � '-+ ,-� ,-� �-. .-� .-� � .-� .-� � � .-� .-� � m W tn � Q 4 J �� O� l77 lft N O C� tf1 tI1 W� V' h('� �O C c' r'1 O 01 N O1 �''7 CD O ct' N N Q1 V� V� Ol O O � Q O Ol F" ~ Q O dIQ S�H r rl rl ry N N O e-1 .-f N�--� �-1 e-f N N N O N i-i f"1 N r'7 ri �-I O O O rl N��--� N N � a c`1 N Q- n. � af -r U U � z Q��dS r�."?mmo.-� �m�mr-� r�rnc�r� ONNmt� �uir�o c��mt�mrr °: � j w�w�Z 'S 1Nt�/1�(1S�a'�t��ruir wrrc.io rminmN ,-�oN�r or�wr�ro ou��n�mc "� _ � ao.cn .� .-� .-t .a N .-a .-� .-a � .ti � .-a .--i � W .... -��/�-� �ar�om�n rrnoo�n rc�wvi�n cvro�nc rn�n�o�-+ mrom�nv�� m U�n or�nr�r rnmroro mc��-+rn c�mocv cv.-+mori .-�omm�oc � O � �� n� �� N N N N N N N� O N N N O� O O N O O O O N O O O O N N N N N Z j� m O O � WW �ov�ri�m roriori momr,M o�o.-�w,-i �ocvuirnm cmt�cv�� o� �� cN*� o.. = NOLL1/1S '-+m�nmm oom�r� m�nroa �ncvo�� r�rornor� Nomor�n � Z �z aZ ��/EI�/�d mmmmco rnmmrnrn mmmmrn mmmrnrn rnrnmmm rnmmrnmw �� w VI � N N N N N N N N N N cV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (n �� a a � � O o Nf103 0000o mr„� oc�rnoo 000'-+o 00 o caoorov� a � �� O O O O O O O O O T O O K7 O O O O O O O O O O O p O C1 � aWNJ d�'dM o0000 00o EE o,--i000 00000 0o E Eo 000000 �'`� �� 'i' Uv a� �� o0000 oc000 ooroo c0000 00000 0000co F n �+ ZZW WZ ocA T00000 00000 00 00 oc000 000co 00000o IN� ��_ a" N� MONS � �-+�-+ i www � Z N� ninoa N i o0o ao.� _ � T a31VM �- � .. 1 P �� cEom� ? p �� 3Q T o0000 00000 00000 oa000 00000 000000 � �.-+ N Vltn o� � aa� I � J ( W W� . � � �� O =?W Q F--� ��Z � �i W � U� .. �� S W Q O �Za f=- o j� Qs� n � W �' � v v Z u' � C N = W NN(n O� F.- ~ ~ W 'S� G m �' Z � wWw � �u� m N mm � ~ a~¢ �� naa¢a Naa a aa Na aa � a¢�� ZD FaG�c �ca c cc �m �a V W t7c7c7 �°�, �rvnoo� �o�000 ou�roo rrnooa o0000 00000 000000 ��I w � ¢ fD W� c�N �W `° � ¢�inr C7� Noc7nlr� rno 0 oN oot^ ct� �Orlmmv� m�-1Ntn.-� rm�0inom • ( pQ I i WQ m JNil�H �.-I .-+'-1 �-1 N.-1 r+ .-f .-1 N N f'1 N N r"1 rl r'1 N N N'-1 � i O W ( �� Z 8�t181�M r..o��u�ivi u�i��cc ��rQ1ir�ia ccv�irnr�Di rNirNirO1i�� NNr�1tTIv�C v� � �¢�o ��J�1�At/ �. � a ~ 1O �D w� I � .LdM�O �omomm .-IOtf1NN O�NCNOI ro.-�cmm <ruivicr-i o,-�.-+mr�r� rn I �rJb'�I�At/ � c u� �o tr c �n ��o c v� ui �a r� r� r� v� c v� r-� n� cv <v m r� c� N N r'1 N C C o V � ��Frnm � �bWaON ��r-i.-�mm rnc�oM�v ,-�rcvrn.-+ orimc�� orori�n,-+ r-�r�crnr�ui �� QS¢,-i� w� WOH� d�d i� N r+ ro cv .� i i i i i �.-, i i� ,-� .-� i i �� p o Q � * * ro c W� J ri r� �c�inr-icv �oN�nc rvmm.-�m rnrv�io,-+ t�c�oc .-irmouir o ,� � !Q-��' W �rJd�i�/�b' d' �n�or�� virrin�n r�v�cc vininv��rn riri-,r<rr� r�Nriccc � � O � W w � � � p �- ,-i�oor �o�nmrnr r-ir-�r�r�ui �o�rr.-+ r�v�r��nco r�r-�mmrn� m o W(1WINIW r� v� u� �o �n c c vi �o ri r-i �n �o ri r� r-i ri c v� r� r� rl N r1 t'1 N N.-1 N N(�1 f'1 r, * r � Z= ��-+o�nr �incroo oNr-imo �-+nr�ino o�arnv�m m�rnNri,-i o .-+ W(1W�..�W N�mmrr �omt�rr� mr�a��a ��a�oin�n cc�rrnri r�v�c�ui�n�n �o w0 S (� .-i�vricin �or mrno �c�ricin �nrmmo �-+�vr-�c�n �rmmo.-� �IbQ r O O O O O O O O O '-1 �-1 .-� rl ri .-+ �-+ .-� �-1 N N N N N N N N N N�`'1 /'t Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 39 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis ui m ~ N � ( CO � � (� T O . � � Z C � � � O � N � N � W � � r v > m CO �j E- r � � � � � J � � � —� —� Z z U Q Z Q � m � O W � N Z � � Page 42 a � �' •. • • . � �� Q N 00000 OOOOO rirl ri �-1.-1 .-i.-I m�-i fV N NNN N NN NN �f�"1 W � C9 W (•1 .--I .-i .-i .-1 r-1 m i*1 oJ h h C^ oJ O t0 t0 01 N e-1 t0 �O m N tD h cD ri O N v I� Q� (j t0 l'�j, N Z d�Q N N N O.-t O c"1 O O N N N N O.-i .-� r{ N f'1 r'1 O O O O.-i O O N N rt H N W Q .-+ � W`-2 * > Q. W r,,, O \ = I �NNtlt.-� mv�uir�m rn�a�-+rm mMomo ocmo�n e��noou�m a Z�o�v , Q � �y Q��dS �-I N N '-1 e-1 �-I �-f r-1 N N e-7 �-I �-1 .--� ri .-1 �-1 N N e-i �-1 �-I .-1 .-4 �-1 .-I .-1 r1 e-i J Q ��-y ry '•• w �( � � xx.. O QU r�.-�.-r�nr+ n�mr�rm t�rno�r wrnriui� �.-�rir-m m�m�rir z W wriN ZZ aQ �� EIIQ NNO00 c�'1Q ON N NN� �•--� '+N f"f 00 O r+0 rf O ON�-i r�'1 �-IN � m~'�� -O= Q � N � a3�dS n� �n �n � c �n �o m�v c ,-� .� r-� o a .-i vi � r� e� cv ui o r� r �n �o ��.-� r�-+ v'� � o o Z II W � N N N N� ri �-1 +-1 e-1 f+7 t�'1 e-1 N� N N N.-i .-I e-1 N N� N�� .-{ N�-1 e-f .-1 ry ~ wI Q��dS o ro� o ri �a o u� �n c� o�n c� � c o r, o ri N ,-, w m m rn ui in v� � m o J= N N o w mrncm� �ormcn�n chm�nm�o mminc�m fnmui�ro ��aa.<nro � ¢ ZZ� n. � �tJb'H�Aii .-a .-� ,-i ,� .� � m m cn �v w O O N tA� w�� ¢Q� EIIQS�k! c`V•�,�'-ir`"ioo c�'�iooNn�i NNNO�-i r1NNi'10 o�on`�i� o�mrNi.�-�c�.� o> a�N aa� � z Q��dS wrn�cn� allot�o rornwNr �nrv�.-�o o�mrt�- �mcc�cvo o � W w�w�z � 1N1ill(1S�ki ui r c� r ui ��n m cv ui N t0 N�O «1 m r c rn rn m a� cv ,-i rn �o �n .-i cn r� r 3� cL a tn � .a � ,� p Q .... -��1 cc�r�mnc ��r�a� ui��ain�n �owr��or �-+inrnrr� c�rnm�o.-� o GJ ai �y I��De-ie-i0 �No�W ri NN cN0 cD01.-i�-1.-i N�O100� r-IO�mOOm ¢LL ��y�s�ny a,o.000 oorna,o 0000o a,o�000 oornorn ommoorn � W .-��o �Q N NMc+lrt r7r'1NN�'t mt�i r+it*7 r1 N N t'1 r'if�'1 rimNMN MN N r'1r1ry � Z �S� � CA W N c+t 01 <J' O O� l� O,--I O� W C h OJ rn t�l N rl N N f� .-� lD rl a rn �o t!1 a7 t0 m '� _ �= N•. W� NOI.LtI.LS � r' *-� N.--� .-i N O 01 ri N N a' N O O� O N N N N N O.-i O �-i O m O O m '"� �' �� aZ ��JdE1�l1d mmrnmm a+rnrnmrn rnrnrnrnrn mrnrnmrn rnrnrnrnrn rnmmmmm �� `�� vi w "' N N NNN NNNNN NN N N N NNN NN NNNN N NNN N NN N(n �� a a O o� Nf1O3 0 0 o u� .-+ .-+ o.-+ o m rn m cv r� .-i a� r� o ri �n o 0 0 �� 000�-I O O 000 ON ONO �-I 00 N�-I O t1 O O � � ~~'� Q.., c' tl7 tl31b�M . . . . . . E, . . . . . . . . . E., r, . . . . . E., . E • E E E • �° o � � � F..p� NJ o 0000 O 000 00 000 0 00 000 O O O �� a = .-r � � � 0 0 o m,-+ .-+ o.-+ o .-i m o rn a in ui �a r•� t� � o 0 o c + Z Z� wz o� iltld . . . . . .E . . . . . . . . .FE.. . . . . .E . E •EEE . . A m— a` N� MONS �00000 0 000 �m.-�r�o .-i oo .-�,-io c o 0 0 1�n�nN��= N � N N o� i www (Wj ? NJ �OM N 1 ❑00 � N � - � � � .. O O O ' QOD OOiCN"J .. �� o� �.{jd3Q�.-i000� EEEEE Em�n�r r�rrr wmrnmo oornmmo� � � p`�'�aa� I � O O j F� � � � a �� F- _j � =. � C 2 N W � a.LLa... �� W � a a � � WO�' 2 z '� � � Z¢ Z W � � K� C N N N W N ��2 QQ� Q C9 ^ Q] ..".. S �T. d � Q 0=_� �j, 2 N Z tt � tr cL' N Z � i- LL � t!I G. Ul Rl GA (A m T p] Ql -� LL' N N lA O� N N N N N N N N N N = W F�� W? �¢�¢ N� C7 C�S S�^ S ... �.-C� 2cC`t.'.^.C� ~ Q cAmm � C C G` W G. W t!l W a L•, Z � W W W m N NN NC C NCN� C�L�C6.' �CCY,(5N N•5NN Q F- 1-F-tQ� (n � L• G. L• � N W QI W W R1CA W Q7 W W m¢1fAC:. NU' W paG.T `r2 � WWLLI S`i' GCCQN N2 2 22ZZ2 Z2222 22ZZ2 NNRC22CG �¢�� ¢ ' W�l C � O VJ tn C� tn Ul Ul U7 Vl t/7 tn tn C� Ul V] CQ tn tlJ G. 4t. [G V1 U] RI V W U' U' C7 Z� O �� rvnoo� ooaao 000ao 0000a o0000 00000 oaooaa �� W o � oW , ��mo � ( N U' � am�-+m� inio�nr�� r��in�m c�mt��c �wov� mr�mro� . ¢� c, WQ rJNIld�H mmrocvri r�c�r��n�n �o�ar��n vccin�n c�v�<rc ri�nm<rc�rn ui I �a � �m � � OW 1 � z 8�1(18 J�M o in c� r+ rn o c� �o .-i m cv .-i c^- �o m cv <r r�o �n ni �n in .--i r� <r r m.-a r� o m � � a� o ��ntl f'1 f'1 '-1 N N f"7 N N e-1 1 I 1 N r-I .-i e-I r-i N N N N N N N N N N f"1 W � Q F- frl �-1 i � Q C � lYl7Q N ' ��D t*1 O�D t� m�T N t0 (�1 V� QJ t!'1 CV 111 Ol O r�i N N Ol f�'1 N W�-I N lfl [^ 01 N N ' I ��n� N f"1 .-� e-� N N N N �-'� I I e-I '-I .-� � c-1 N .-i N N� N N N N�-1 N N � v W Q � r � ifl O � �HWCION � Q7 4' N Ol C� m t'� m O N Ql N ri f'� lf') N tfl C^ ('1 O N t!1 t"1 O� N v� lD T I11 N Ol � � Q= Q N w W�EI� d�d � ro .-i .-� .-� .-� .-i .-a � � <v � � � � .-� � � � .-a � .-� � �t � 0 Z W i i i i � W p� ,�a + * r! �'; (y� � ,Q ,� � ��I�nt% �%' rl (+t N N N O N O�.-i N�-1 O v' io N� m�� N N N N N N N N� N r'I � h �' �~� a � '-' Cr� o r' w � ,-{ � � mt�m�vc �vicmin c�r+irro cvrnmM.-a ov"�c.-� c�uiorn�--ic WnWINIW �'� N ri .-1 (V N N N I I 1 N N I�--� N .-1 I N N N� N CV N N N N N � I i i � O r1 � W(1WIXt/W c�r�u�<rmri f�lN�OtDN mmricri t*1t1NV'N c-mmrr ro<rinrno �n vi �-� v� V�rlNf'1 t'tf'lr'1N �-iN NN NNN NNNNN NMt�1NN T N WO SU �.LHQ T- O O O O O O O O O� �--i .-I .-, �.-I �-I �-f m.-i N N N N N N N N N(�j �(�'1 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs \ � u�i N r N � � �P m � � � r � � Z C � � � � � N �- m m � w � � r " m � � f- r � o � � � J � � � _! -� Z Z U O � c N W � N Z � � � Crossing in the Corridor Analysis � . �, � . ' '' : . � , .� : > �.� .�. �J.bQ N•-I N r�i 7' u'1 tO h a7 rn 0 .-i N r+t c' U1 �O l'� cn 0� 0 � N r'1 C Ut tD C� m O O O O O O O O O� �� '""� N N N N CV N N N N � W .-1 rl 1^'1 rl P'1 C t71 �D �O f"1 c�'1 r-I f^l h N lD lD f"1 N l0 Ol �O r'1 N CV N O l� � C�S l0 N�-1 Z �IIQ N O�"1 O N N N��-+ •--� r"� �"� � O�.-� O O O O N �� N rl .-� � N.-+ W a v� N � > Wv1N W�� t� t!7 rn O C� �D i"� rl t!1 .-� O� ttt O�o r7 N M.-� f't t�l ttt t� �71 .-i cD m l'� � Z ��-I rt .. .. ¢ � N Q��CjS '-1 .-i �-i .-+'-+'-1 N .i rl N .-1 N N �--� .-+ .-t �-1 N .-I .-� r'1 N rl .-1 = O t-''1 "1 =_ .. Wx � UU � QU cvo�occ �nin�� ,-��vrirm �OWNN�D O�ONN.-1 riot� O W hoN ZZ _�y �� EIIO N O rt r't � N N.-i ��"� O O O�-+ � O O O O N N.-� N�"'1 .-a r-i N�-+ � m d� �_ � � � Q O .- (� �� Q��dS �^��000m rm<rr� r�crvicv �omui�� mr+r�r NNN v F- ooz � {n N N H�-.� �y rl .-1 �-+ N�� N N N N.-i �-1 �--� �-1 N N��"'1 !`'1 N N il� yL W NNo rt��n�aN mcv�corn r-+�nuio� �nu�rnu�rn �mmmc in,-,m r J� ZZ" W II i��dS' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , �a, OON A�./ '_ O� � t+i N r+l .-i N�O a� ul .-i v� �O O t`� .rn r+t �o u1 V� tf1 �-I CO tfi N f"7 O m C [� W ar N Q Q J � Q �=J��' `y �-1 � r-1 �-i �-1 ri ri aD �n w o v� t� �a ut v� ui �-+ c�a ri c� vi t� �o �.-� o � vi � ri N r� r� c r� � Q o m �~ G Q NIQ S�d r M ry f•1 N N N ri .-� .-� �"� �"'1 N O N� O O O O M N� N N�--� � N N � � J M N n' n' j 7 Z r�-+mm�o r�mrm m�o�vrm uimc��rn �inm.-�ri r�c� � �> �¢Z Q��dS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a a v� � 1NdllfiS�a '- m m r+ ,-+ c� ,-� .-� �n m�rn o�� o� � m�� a� ri ui ��n ro m � w m '� � � n � W .... t(1 u'1 GJ O�D t'1 N N t0 N tY1 O� �o O CT CO h'-1 r'� W O N O tfl N ui l0 f*t � (� (n � _I�� N ri f'1 r'1 N N rl O Ol O Ol 01 O'i 01 01 I`� m Q1 Ol O 01 n7 01 t� 'P F'I �D , � ��S�AYl�o,0000 0000,o rnrnooa, ma,mrnrn ommrnrn mmm rn ui mocr � O ry M r+� �+f r+t f+t f�l (�'1 N�'1 N N t�t f`l CV N N N N N (''1 N N N N N N N N = �_ �, ,, � N rl � r7 V1 �--i �D P O� v� O N t/l N�D N C� tD O.-i �r c0 O rn�rn O Ul �O �--1 0 (n �� pNj O•• w= NOIld1S mN<+'r�M N.-�oo� oo.-+�o omrnoo oomoco uicc� �_ �Z �� o�.v ��t/H�AY/ mmmma, ma,rnrnm rnmrno,rn rnm�mm mrnmrnw mmm N ��aa Z � - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � cL O o AI(1Q3 � �-+ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �-+ o a� ��o m � o F �.�. c� 0 00 0000 00 0 0 0 �-+oo oco �.¢..y NJ d�dM oE�oo 0000� ooEEE oFoEE oE000 000 � � ��""„ aw y = O .-� O 00000 O C C 00 00000 O O � N t Z Z¢ WZ O F"' T�t/� . E. r. . . . . . . . . . r. � _ . r . . �, . . . . . . . . � i cD � � Z �"� NJ MONS m� ��' ��000 oc o 00 oa000 o`�� i NNo a ' i www ol- /U(103 rrrr� �mmmrn ma+�r`° "� � ¢¢¢omo V Z N J H3.1.dM r .-� .-� a � ,-� .-� � .-a a � ti .--i � � .-� .-i I ❑ � ❑ I " syz I vior� rncNi.. �� O � � � � NVItA �Zo �� H1d�0 c��`rrr rrr��n �n�nui�r+u+ �'.-��oo 00000 00E- � � o•-� n_a� �J - ¢ I WW� I- F- � � O ==W � �- :i � � Z � � <L 1¢_-Q �¢�_ W � U�= ��t- CL y � Q Q wOa W o � Z n¢. oi W � _ � N w Q o � _ w ¢ p zx0 W � m N ma � � ��"'"z �_ � � NN(n O G. C7 C.� m N N Z U' N 5 a Z W I- F- F- 2~ • G. C tv. Z�= UJ G. ^ CO tp � CC tn fn fn W`�i C C7Cv t� •LNN� L�CC NN 2 4:,�NN C."'_.� O F' F�W-IQ-l- mCn L„^ tc. : " =.. N N m tA O� tn !Il C7 = IA vl �] . ,'� � W W W � Q C2ZZC CC7CaN C.9�NZQ N4CNQ C9NdtriS �Qz � V d�� Z❑ C1t/JVJtnm G`C:.mcG1G.. 4,G.[Afr �CCAf�C ts.00W C 'W'Ctn W � �'�, �Nnoo� o0000 00000 0000o a0000 00000 00o a� � � Q� i ��oo OW m � ¢¢� (J (% W O Vl O� �D r't W v� N Ui N[� rl C C ltl C` N tft O Vl �-1 N O Ol O� C • LLJ Q JNI1d�H c"1 v' V' 1f1 a' �' a' �"� ��"� � a' m� N N N N N N f'i N N N N �-d N t�1 �� I O W � � m I � �J p � � J V�O V 8�f18.L3M ��n�o,u,�n rmco.-� mnr�vi r��o�nui cmr+ro in�nm • � �¢�+ �.��%\V N N.-1 e-r r-� .-� �-1 N rl f�l N N fV N t�/ t"1 rl f"'1 ("7 r'^7 M r`1 C t'1 C C rl N O ' W O Ui ' N H C � ld N1�a (D N N�-V r1 e-1 ��-f N N N N N N N� p('1 f*1 t�'1 f*t rl:� ch f'1 r1 T r�t N N v ¢ ��x�I�tl Ci� � N O }�o � lb'uW2jON � c,-� �o r, c� c� r ni ui r v� �o .-+ c o ri .-+ m w o ui m� c� ri c r� co �� Q x¢"' W WOa� CI�Q fi � .-� �-1 �--I .-I �-i .-I N N N ri �-1 N �-I .-1 N N N N ri p�-R �}.! Q Z Q I ft8k maF O � � �J t� O � f � Q. � W Q .-i 3�J�l�/�t1 �' �n o ui r m cv r.-� �-, o�-, m ro m .-� o m t� o �n o er ��n ��.-{ .-r �a � � rn W �' N N N N.-t .-. N N r'i f'1 r't N N f'1 f"1 v� 'P r'1 t'l C P'1 V' 4' T �I' C' rl f"1 f'i � /rt F- a W W * m � p 1- n coa�� rr�n�o� �oc�uimui w�inriri ornm�m ,-��m � �o WI IW�NIW C7 N N f-1 ti N f'l N ri N N t^l t"i f"l t`l f'1 f'1 f'1 f'l ("1 f'l N1 'O' t"1 N N ri O CI' � � * . . Z Z rn O rn r� m � i0 m tD tft c r'1 O tf1 .-� tt7 rt O� '-I �D O� �D Ol c N O.-i N m .-1 I-J W(IWiXHW NN�-,NNN �.,�,�,�,�, �,�,�,�,� ��-,�a �a�u,�, �n��., �, �+ WO SU � N rl c� ttl tD l� W O� O �-1 N f'f C ttl �O I`� m O� O .-1 N f+l C tf1 lD (� W �1„bQ '� O O C? O O O O 4 O N ��"^ "� "'� `� ''� N N N N N N N N N Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 43 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 1VIARCH 199� tU11NNEAPOLiS-ST.PAU�, �tIN �.�a �t rt N r'1 �f t11 �D [� m rn O n N t+t c tfl �O t'� o� rn O .-� N r't V� V1 t0 C� m O'� O�--1 N O O O O p p p O O�-+ '-1 �-1 r-� .-� .-� .-� N e-� �-1 N N N N N N N N N N rl rl W � � Z ald m c a.-a r ��-t �<r u� � o.-� r� � a� ui r� ,-a M m ri ,-i t� .-� m.-� �r m� c� � (,W� �n m`'' � � N O t"f 000 NOt�tnlrl MN f�'if"1�-i .-� 0000 O r'1mtiN NN rl �-100 � �G( ,ti r � � ¢ a. W�� CV Q�� ocr�o �wmo�-+ r�u�.-�or iov��-+�r� or�no.-� NO�Ntt10 y Z�o� .... � . I (7 � N Q��IjS �-1 N N �- I ti N�- i N� N � N f' 1 N.- I N N N fV .-f e-i N r-� N N N N�-i N N t�t = O h-'~ N S S � W ;��[+ � � � � ` C� W V� N t0 I^ v� .-� N v� a� Ol O N t�'f r-i �tl �o r1 .-+ r"1 W N.-� t� �-1 t� N�-i N N Vl � V,j W.--1 .-1 U C� v � ,� =O ��W dl� omOr,o Noor�r� cvro�m�-+ �000c or�r�.�<v .�c�r�,-�oo � m ¢•"r^ 2oS : � �� Q��dS ,-�ov�.-�cn amrru� r000�nm m�rn<rt� ,-+,-imm�n �ov�<r�no�r � ¢ � o•-U v� '• � " W � N.-� f't N fV .-1 N.-+ t�1 1�'1 N N(•1 V' N� � f�i N N� � N� N N N N N N 1*i t�'f V j— O O Z" 'O Z h � W N N O�`. J � � W I� Q��C'�S C� O N e-I 1I7 C 01 C t0 O O C� N.-f h N Ol (� h M m O O r�t �O tfl Ifl t0 N C� N tft �! � Z Z'� = W ny� u1 rt O W tfi I� �O !� O N .-i f�'t �fl O� O� O N a� N�O N u1 ¢7 a1 O rn a� 01 al fT'1 lo fA f� a1 O O/�J �`- �/ � � Q �.J V O�A�% '-1 .-1 e-� N r-1 .-1 �-f .-1 .-� �-I .�1 r-I .-1 ,-1 ,-i � m W n� N Q Q J 'q � N Q aIQ S�H O t�"1 rl O� N O O rl r1 rl N N f�t � r1 O O O O O rl r'f .-� rl � N nt O O O O � O. � N Q. Q. 1.¢L +` i Uj � V�' �` a3�dS u��o�o�� r�n,-�r�rn rmrc��n mc��n�nr �r�mt^�r� cm.-im�o m O� �w�Z ' �` � W T' � 1Ntl1lflS�a r�rornrM u�u�roo mcvo�nm 01NaNtf1 ,-iri�omo r.-i�n�nrn�n � � aatn - p/� .-� � ro ,-r ,-a � .-� ,--� ,-� ,-+ .-� ,--� p ,Q .... V� � Z rorn�n�rn tirrirnm r,-��nom mcc.-�m rm,-+cvr uimmwcm o U ai ' �Q W� � W W C1 O r1 .-I �-1 O N tfi t`- v� O� 7' c� t7 .-f O�-1 .-i O O.-f ri t'� tfl C� u'1 L!'1 to cr � �LL �cJya�ny mrnrnoo 00000 oomoo 00000 0000rn mrnrnrna,m � W co.-� ' � t— T � � � N N N c�'1 r�1 r�'f r�l ri rl rt f•') t'1 N rl t+l ri (�'7 !"1 t'i ri r'1 t�l ri t"i N N N N.N N N � Z .�'�. N.. � `[[ o W W orm�ui mr�.-�ui.-+ o�n.��nc in.-��m,� cnrnm� �rnmrna.m ."i-� � �g cNi o.. � � m J az 3 b�! nb' mmmrnm mmmrnrn mrnmrnm rnmrnmm rnmmrnm mmmcowm °� � �Z w v� � � ^" N N N N N N N N N N N N N(V fV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � �� a a C O�c' 47 U'1 00 O 00.-� N�000 O NNN N o�0i � tn � �( �� O o� Ntli�� r,o� o 0 00 0.-�o.-+ or000 oE000 E�norEcv � "1 'J Z Q ..., a' tA ki311�M . . . E.. . . E., E., . . . E.. . . . E., . . . . u ,Z W F.y �y� o00 0 o ao 0 000 0000 0 000 ,-ioo � � Z U a= � 0 Z wz ��'- �'� `�`".Q1E.,o r _oo or�o�n `n�aco o N_o 000 0 � ,,f"� N m aV NJ MONS r'o.-, .. c`� o0 0�or+ orioo oCc` o 000'�o� z on cc �r N W Z o� NfiD3 N .� W� m v o r-� d31VM Z '''� � o� o �~ �o m� N�d3�'"NE^��-+� �.�boo 000EE �vo�oo oo�.00 000000 � O � � . J H O � � � C7 W ¢ N O � L Q � � � � � � > � G" c0 � C� C�,7 J � Q,� q (7 N (�N„ N � �� N R7aG1�fAW Z ��„� C2N C ^'CC C C� �aN 2C2R: C7 NCnN'�., Q � ' pp W vl G.. !A cl C aI W [s. A aI G.. tJ1 C1 tn R1 [s. Q f� E Gi tr7 � �y7 � 24222 222 2Z 2 ZZ2 t2Q t Nt/7RLtA,y a v � �n a tn cn vl u1 m tn tr.1 tn m ul tn [n C tn C C Cl E tL E-� tx rY � C� QW JNI�100� 000ao oa000 00000 000ao aooao 000000 0 � WO m JNIl�H t�l N(�'1 'C� e•t r1 t't �'1 V� t!1 L(1 tfl r�l V� v� iT t*1 M N f`l f'1 O N t'1 �-1 � ri �-1 �-I N N N � lLJ V � 8'1f18.L�M i,.rnc��ov�r uirmr,m m�orr+ co.�om mcv.-+,-+�n �nr�morn�n � • a, U �ny�_�-�wy N f'1 N N N N N N e-I �-i N.-1 N N('1 t�l f+l N N Pl r'1 f•'1 C� 111 If) Q� L11 (y (n p� AA JVp�/1V MOS N �� 1dN1�a mmc�m� .-��iv.-+� u�o�nmt� rncvmm� rn�oc�rn� c-�Ninrn� r "�'.' � ��n� � N N N.-i N N N N I I I r-i .-I e-+ N N N.-' r1 N N N V� U'1 L(1 cr a� M �I r� N . � � '1t�Wl�ON � � }�- tf? � N.-I O t't O�--� a� 01 �D tD t!1 f+i O a9 t0 rl O r O ri .-i .-, v� N t7'i t� �O rl t't �-/ � p y z w¢ WOEI� d�4 '-' i,-� .-� .-i i,-� i i i� cv ti.-� � i �d i i i � � // � � � nv�.� O�D �D U'1 rn �D t� N m N N v� iD O N u'1 cr N�D FI v� !t'7 �O ri W ri T t+l .-I ri � � � � �.J vp�I`d C' (�1 r't N N N N N r'1 .-i ri e-, e-+ N N fV N rt r1 r'1 c'1 r"1 n7 t�t !*1 cl' �O t71 lfi lfl � f+l � � w r, � O ~ h�'-1 lD W ��D lfi �-i tf1 N r-i t71 Ol m lD tD O m� N tli � Q� lD� O� t0 e-1 ttl l� lft ' WI-IWINIW � N c"1 N.-� N N� N.-1 ri r-i .-1 N t'1 N N N N N.-7 f�l C V� a� V� (•1 (*7 <1' ' N .r`�a .',`+ r � � `'�{��'� o Wf1WIXt/W c� ri o,-� ri cv c m r�n m ro� �n o� a.. c r� �n �n �n ri r-i o N,-� a� �n �n .-i rn `p �.:�'� y r*1 i' r'1 f*1 P'1 r�1 r'1 f"1 N�--1 N N t*1 rt N r'1 'P t'1 a' C' v� C C V� �O ('� �O l0 tfl V' C' f"1 ;y �,•r `{�il � 4 / '` .-�roM�a�n �rmmo r,n�r-�cui �nr�mrno ,-acvric�n �rmrno� , Y°� �a �N� � �-LHQ r" O O O O O O O O O�-1 ,-� �-1 r. rl r+ .-� r-i r-i ry N N N N N N N N N N�"'1 r�l Page 44 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � � � Fw- iW-� C7 : ry = _� . � �� N Z Z� : rw.�-+��_ N '-I Q Q Q O m N � .. tf1 'O� N W pNj ; N r+� N VI cn = � S O F�� '<' O � �� h� ��Z �O= �� s a o¢.cZnp� � _ S=� _ ��O � NN(!,1 O � �- F- �- W 5' u'� u� u� `� cn } C� C7 C� Z � W � � F t!7 O tD Q m O W 1 t' O �J r10 . r �oN � F � W Q � y_ � �n o m � ZW ' Oo CC ��oo W o~ � i�� Z� �O =O Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 6.1 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis lteview The crossing in the corridor procedure is a topic encompassing a wide variety of complex feasibility determinates. This analysis was predicated on the use of the procedure and quantifying the variables which encourage or discourage the use of the procedure. The analysis- was constructed around four main topics. 'The topics of concentration throughout the analysis were: • Assessing when the procedure is being performed. � Assessing when the procedure is not being performed. • FAA operational variables such as time between departure operations and the presence of one local controller. • Weather during the annualized period. 'The data sample period spanned October 1997 to March 1998. The hours which were analyzed were 2300 to 0600 each month in addition to weekends from Saturday at 1500 to Sunday at 1300. Several reasons contributed to the selection of these time periods the two largest of which were traffic densities and FAA staffing of one local conh�oller. An assumption was made and validated by the FAA that during the period of 2300 to 0600 on local controller is on duty a majority if not all the time. The intrusion of head-to-head operations in the corridor is an existing variable during the nighttime hours, and should be noted as a possible catalyst for non procedural use during that time period. Although a number of intangible determining variables may exist in addition to those used in the study, the significance and impact of the ones represented allow for a high probability of proper situational feasibility and procedural use assessment. 6.2 Findings ;"�� Below are the major findings of the performed analysis: .i 1. During the six month period from 2300 to 0600 there were 990 carrier jet departures from runways 12L and 12R. 2. There were 357 (36.1%) carrier jet departure operations which performed the crossing procedure when departing runways 12L and 12R during the six month period between 2300 and 0600. 3. During the six month period from 2300 to 0600 the tunes between departure operations were prevalent in the 0 to 2 min. range with an overall percent of 12.5%, in the 10 min. to 30 min. range with an overall percent of 18.9% and in the 1 hr. to 7 hrs. range with an overall percent of 19.6%. 4. During the six month period on weekends from Saturday at 1500 to Sunday at 1300 there were 3734 carrier jet departures from runways 12L and 12R. There were 643 (172%) carrier jet departure operations which performed the crossing procedure when departing runways 12L and I2R during the six month period on weekends from Saturday at 1500 to Sunday at 1300. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 45 Crossing in the Corridor Analysis 6. During the 572 hours of analyzed weekend time one local controller was on duty for 416.4 (72.8%) hours. 7. During the 416.4 hours of one local controller during the mentioned weekend periods there were 1432 � carrier jet departure operations. 8. "There were 419 (29.3%) carrier jet departure operations which performed the crossing procedure when one local controller was on duty during the mentioned weekend periods. 9. During the mendoned weekend periods the times between departure operations were prevalent in the 0 to 2 min, range with an overall percent of 57.4% and in the 2 min. to 4 min. range with an overall percent of 22.2%. 10. One of the single biggest impediments to the procedure during the analyzed weekend periods was the time separation between departure operations. 11. The weather for the period was variable with thunderstorms prevailing during October 1997 and late in March 1998 with snow storms, and freezing rain present in January 1998. The above information provides insightful information relative to the current use of the crossing in the corridor procedure at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). In addition to the procedural use information the analysis lends information into the somewhat justified or unjustified use of the procedure. T'he time separation time between departure operations during the weekend periods seems to be a prevailing deterrent for procedural use. The overall nighttime period represents room for improvement taking into account the variables analyzed. Continued collaboration betwee% the communities surrounding MSP the MAC and the FAA will ensure the procedure is being utilized to its fullest extent. Page 46 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Federai Aviation Administration E , =w � �, � �� . � � t t:� '.`a .3 { �:�' Y, ��-F: M t �;�. � , � � �. � ; � .:��+}:; ,� � ��.,:-� u �: Subject: NOISE ABATENIENT DEPARTURE Date: 7/22/93 AC No: 91-53�4 PROFILES initiated by: AFS-400 l. PURPOSE. T'his advisory circular (AC) describes acceptable criteria for safe noise abatement departure profiles (NADP) for subsonic turbojet-powered airplanes with a maximum certi.ficaLed gross takeoff weight of more than 75,000 pounds. These procedures pmvide the user with one means, although not the only means, of establishing acceptable NADP's. These departure profiles are consistent with the airworthiness standards required by the Federal Aviadon Regulations (FAR's) Part 25 far type certification and-FAR Part 91 for general airplane ogerations. This AC also provides a technical analysis and description of typical departure profiles that are consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) safety responsibilities and ' fiave the potential to minimize the airplane noise impact on communities surrounding airports. 2. CANCELLATION. AC 91-53; Noise Abatement Departure Prafile, dated October 1�, 1978, is canceled. � 3. RELATED READING MATERIAL. a. FAR Parts 25, 91, 121, 125, 129, and 135. = b. U.S. Deparmient of Transgortarion, Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Assessment for ( ) AC 91-53A. Copies may Ue obtained from the Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, 8� Independence " Avenue SW., W�shington, DC 20591. c. FAA Analysis of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures for Large T�rbojet Airplanes. Copies may be obtained from the Office of Envimnment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. d County of Orange, California, Environmental Impact Report #546. Copies may be obtained fmm County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 12 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4�048. 4. BACKGROUND. a. For several years, the FAA has worked to develop and standarciize profiles to minimize� airplane noise. As part of that commitment, the FAA has worked with airport managers, airplane operators, pilots, special interest groups, and Federal, State, and local agencies in numerous pmgrams for evaluating noise levels in the airport environment The research considered a variety of departure flight tracks and profiles. b. From an environmental standpoint, avoiding noise sensitive areas by using preferential noise abatement runways_ and flight tracks whenever possible can effectively supplement a comprehensive noise abatement program. The FAA believes that using the two NADP's described in this AC for subsonic turbojet-gowered airplanes can provide environmental benefits to the airpart communities. The pmfiles oufline acceptable criteria for speed, ttuust settings, and airplane configuraiions used in connection with NADP's. These NADP's can be combined with preferential runway selection and flightpath techniques to minimize noise impact ; � , AC 91-53A _.__ 7./22/_93 ( c. FAA reviews of various airplane vertical NADP's indicate that some intricate NADP's have been developed on an airport specific basis. The management o� these intricate profiles could �compromise the pilot's attention to interior flight deck details, traffic avoidance, and other safety resgonsibilities. 5. DEFINITIONS. c� NADP. Noise abaiement departure pmfile. b. Close-in Community 1VADP's, NADP's for individual airplane types intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensidve areas locatecl in close proximity to the departure end of an airport nuiway. c. Distant Community NADP's. NADP's for individual airplane types intended to provide noise reduc- tion for all other noise sensitive areas. d AFE, Above field elevation. 6. NADP's. Acceptable criteria have been established for two types of NADP's for each airplane type, as defined for use by each airplane operator. These depariure profiles are applicable to all types of subsonic turbojet-gowered airplanes over 75,Q00 pounds gross takeoff weigh� The two rypes of NA.DP's are the "close- in" and "distant" profiles as described below. � � a. Close-in NADP. � (1) Initiate thrust cutback at an altitude of no less than 800 feet AFE and prior to initiarion of flaps or slats retraction. (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot initiated at or above 800 feet AFE. � (3) For auplanes without an operational automafic thrust .restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thnist level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/sIats configuralion of the airplane, the takeafiF path engine-inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. � . (4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve- and maintain no less thari the ffuust level necessary after thrust rednction to maintain, for the flaps/slats conf guration of the airplane, a ta.keoff path engine-inoperative climb gradient of zem percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine- inoperative ctimb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. � (5) Dur'ng the thrust reduc�ion, coordinate the pitchover rate and tiuust reduction to provide a decrease u� Plich �°nsistent with allowing indicated aitspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all-engine target climb speed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airplane configuration. For automated thnOttle systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Appmval of Flight Mana.gement Systems in Transport Category Airplanes. (6) Mainttin the speed and thrust criteria as described in subparagraph 6 a(�) through 6 a(5) to 3,Q00 feet AFE or above; or untit the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route climb configuration (whichever occurs first), ti�en tiransition to normal en t�oute climb procedures. b. DistantNAD19 (1) Initiate flaps/slats retr�tion prior to thrust cutback initia6on, Thrust cutback is initiated at an � altitude no less than 8� feet AFE, . . .� Par 4 7/22/93 AC 91-53A ) (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or 5y approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot iniiiated at or above 800 feet AFE. (3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restoradon system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slat� ,configuration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine-inogerative climb gradients specified in FAR Secrion 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after ttuust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, a takeoff path engine-inoperafive ctimb gradient of zem percent, pmvided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thnist to maintain the takeoff path engine- inoperative ciimb gradients specified in FAR Secdon 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (5) During the tluust reduction, coordinate the pitchover rate and thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with allowing indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all-engine target climb speed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airplane configuration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Approval of Flight Management Systems in Transport Category Aiipianes. (6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in subparagraph 6b(3) through 6 b(5) to 3,000 feet A.FE or above, or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route climb configura[ion (whichever occurs first), then tiarLsition to normal en route climb procedures. 7. OPERAT`IONAL GUIUELINES. a. Each aitplane operator may apply the procedures specified in tYus AC to determine the following �' �for each of its airplane types: (1) Close-in community NADP. (2) Distant community NADP. b. For each NADP, the airplane operator shauld specify the altitude AFE at which thrust reduction from takeoff thrust or airplane configuration change, excluding gear retraction, is initiated. c. Each airplane operator should limit the number of NADP's for any airplane type to no more than two. d Each a.irplane operator is encouraged to use the appropriate NADP when an airport operator requests its use to abate noise for either a close-in or distant community. e. This AC should not be construed to affect the responsibilities and authority of the pilot in corimmand for the safe operation of the airplane. � _. / �ony J. Bro erick Associate Administrator for Regulation arid Certification C� C. 6. NAQPs. Acceptable criteria have been established for two types of NADPs for each airplane type, as defined for use by each airplane operator. These departure profiles are applicable to all types of subsonic turbojet powered airplanes over 75,000 pounds gross takeoff weight. The iwo types of NADPs are the "close-in" and "distant" profiles as described below. a. Ciose-in NADP. (1) Initiate thrust cutback at an altitude of no less than 800 feet AFE and prior to initiation ofi flaps or slats retraction. (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manuai throttle reduction or by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot initiated at or above 800 feet AFE. �~' (3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the -- flaps/slats configuration of the airpiane, the takeoff path engine inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, a takeoff path engine inoperative climb gradient of zero percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (5) During the thrust reduction, coordinate the pitchover rate and thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with alfowing indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the ali-engine target ciimb speed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airplane configuration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Approval of Flight Management Systems in Transport Category Airplanes. (6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in subparagraph 6a(3) througt� 6a(5) to 3,000 feet AFE ar above, or untii the airplane has been fully transitioned to the enroute climb configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal enroute climb procedures. b. Distant NADP. (1) Initiate flaps/slats retraction prior to thrust cutback initiation. Thrust cutback is initiated at an altitude no less than 800 feet AFE. (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeofF for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot initiated at or above 800 feet AFE. - (3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine inoperative climb gradients �' � specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. C � . .. ..... .. ..... \..� �. (4) For airpianes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust levei necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the � flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, a takeoff path engine inoperative climb gradient of zero percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (5) During the thrust reduction, coordinate the pitchover rate and thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with allowing indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below tlae all-engine target climb speed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airpiane configuration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Approvai of Flight Management Systems in Transport Category Airplanes. (6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in subparagraph 6b(3) through 6b(5) to 3,000 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been fuily transitioned to the enroute climb configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal enroute climb procedures. 7. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES. a. Each airpiane operator may apply the procedures specified in this AC to determine the following for each of its airplane types: (1) Close-in community NADP. (2) Distant community NADP. b. For each NADP, the airplane operator should specify the altitude AFE at which thrust _ reduction from takeofF thrust or airplane configuration change, excluding gear retraction, is (� � initiafed. � c. Each airplane operator should limit the number of NADPs for any airplane type to no more than twa d. Each airpiane operator is encouraged to use the appropriate NADP when an airport operator requests its use to abate noise for either a ciose-in or distant community. e. This AC should not be construed to affect the responsibilities and authoriiy of the pilot in command for the safe operation of the airplane. /s/ Anthony J. Broderick Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification C ( U.S. Department of Transportation �ederal Aviation Administration Operations Specifications Form Approved OMB No. 2120-00028 C068. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles HQ Control: 7/22/93 HQ Revision: 010 The certificate holder is authorized to conduct noise abatement departure profile (NADP) operations in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph and the procedures in tha certificate holder's manuals. The certificate holder shall use the approved NADP's for its turbojet airplanes, havin� a maximum certificated takeoff gross weight of more that 75,000 pounds, operating from a noise sensitive airport within the tlnited States. The certificate holder shall conduct all NADP's in accordance with the restrictions and limitations specified in this paragraph and shall not conduct any other noise abatement departure profile operations. For the purpose of these operations specifications, NADP's shall be limited, for any airplane type at any one time, to a maximum of two profiles: (1) Close-In NADP operations; and/or (2) Distant NADP operations. Only one NADP can be designated for each runway at each airport. Only one NADP can be designated for each runway at each airport. The certificate l�older's NADP's must meet the following criteria: a. For each NADP, the certifcate holder shall specify the altitude above the field elevation (AFE) at which thrust reduction from takeoff thrust (Glose-In Profile) or airplane confi?uration change (Distant Profile), excluding gear retraction, is initiated. b. Close-In NADP: The certificate holder shall use the followin� NADP criteria for individual airplane types intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensitive areas located in close proximity to the departure end of the runway: (1) Initiate thrust cutback at an altitude of no less than 800 feet AFE and prior to initiation of flaps or slats retraction. (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduction or by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot initiated at or above 800 feet AFE. (3) For airp]anes without an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine-inoperative climb gradients specified in 14 CFR Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane, a takeoff path en;ine-inoperative climb gradient of zero percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine- inoperative climb gradients specified in Section 2�.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (5) Durin� the thrust reduction, coordinate the pitchover rate and thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with allowing indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all-engine target climb speed, and in no case to less than Vz for the airplane confi�uration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-1�, Approval of Flijht Mana�ement Systems in Transport Category Airplanes. C068-1 CERTIFICATE NO.: ( ) _ FAA Form 8400-8 (10-90) � C,. U.S. Department of Transportation Form Approved Federal Aviation Operations Specifications OMB No. 2120-00028 Administration t.__, .:...... ., „o.�.,:... ,.:.r;.r_, i ;,:e::.... .� erx..:r. ��..� .�. o... . . .. .. .r„ (6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in steps b(3) throu�h b(5) to 3,000 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en-route climb configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal en-route climb procedures. c. Distant NADP: The certificate holder shall use the followin� NADP criteria for individual airplane types intended to provide noise reduction for all other noise sensitive areas. (1) Initiate flaps/slats retraction prior to thrust cutback initiation. Thrust cutback is initiated at an altitude no less than 800 feet AFE. (2) The thrust cutback may be made by manuai throttle reduction or by approved automatic means. The automatic means may be armed prior to takeoff for cutback at or above 800 feet AFE or may be pilot- initiated at or above 800 feet AFE. (3) For airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thrust level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats confi�uration of the airplane, the takeoff path engine-inoperative climb gradients specified in Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than the thnist level necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/s]ats configuration of the airplane, a takeoff path en�ine-inoperative climb gradient of zero percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine- inoperative climb gradients specified in Section 25.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure. (5) During the thrust reduction, coordinate the pitchover rate and thrust reduction to provide a decrease in pitch consistent with ailowing indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots below the all-en;ine target climb speed, and in no case to less than V, for the airplane confguration. For automated throttle systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Approval of Flight Mana�ement Systems in Transport Category Airplanes. (6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in steps c(3) through c(5) to 3,000 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been futly transitioned to the en route climb configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal en route climb procedures. TEXT99 l. Issued by the Federat Aviation Administration. 2. These Operations Specifications are approved by direction of the Administrator. 3. Date Approval is effective: Amendment Number: 4. I hereby accept and receive the Operations Specifications in this paragraph. C063-2 CERTIFICATE NO.: � _. � FAA Form 8400-8 (10-90) ��` � :.5.\ t:}i�E�+�.?., :;;:;�;:::,;:: ';::<:::>;;? .{ .: . . ..:::..:.i,i:?.; ..,��:.;j.jt`..�ij'r•.S•. : i +. �5, )' . 23O 6 SEP 96 - :'AIR''3RAFFIC CONTROL JCI��GSEN � � ` " FLIGHT PROCEDURES (DOC 8168) 8. (PARI=�-V),(VOISE ABATEMENT PR4CEDU�RES 8.y (3.1) AEROPLANE OPERATtNG PROCEDURES — TAKE-OFF 8.1.1 (3.1.1) These aeroplane operating proce- dures for the take-off climb have been developed so as to ensure that the necessary satety of flight operations is maintained whilst minimizing exposure to noise on the ground. One o.i tbe two procedures contained in 8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.2 should be applied �outinely for ail take-offs. Data available indicates that Procedure A results in noise relief during the latter part of the procedures whereas Procedure B provides relief during that part of the procedure close to the air�ort�The procedure selected for use will depend on the noise distribution required and the type of aeroplane involved: _:::8.1.2 (3.1.2) The foilowing noise abatement �ke-off procedures are recommended as opera- tionally acceptable and effective in minimizing noise. 8.1.2.1 (3.1.2.1) Procedure A (Figure 8-1) Take-off to 450m (1,500 ft) above aerodrome elevation: . — take-off power — take-off flap — ciimb at V2 + 20 to 40 km/h (V2 + 10 to 20 kt) (or as limited by body ang(e). At 450m (1,500 ft): — reduce thrust to not less than climb power/ thrust. 450m (1,500 ft) to 90Qm (3,OOa ft): — climb at V2 + 20 to 40 km/ii (V2 + 10 to 20 kt). �.. �; � At 900m (3,000 ft): — accelerate smoothly to en-route climb speed �'� with flap retraction on schedule. Flap retraction and ;� accelerate smoothly to en-route climb 900m (3,OOOft) --------------------- � ---- 600m (2,000 ft) � Climb at V2 + 20 to 4C krn/h (V2 + 10 to 20 kt) 450m (1,500 ft) — — _ _ _ _ _ � Reduce to climb power/thrust 300m (1,000 ft) � . Take-off thrust V2 + 20 to 40 km/h (V2+ 10 to 20 k2) NOT TO SCALE Runway NOTE.• For purposes of these procedures the heights given in metres and feet, and speeds given in kilomet�es/hour and knots are considered to be operationally accepfable equivalents. Figure 8-1. Noise abatement take-off climb — Procedure A - OO JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC., 1994, 1996. ALL R�GHTS RESERVED. ..j �1 �,�'rt) t . '1 � C C � ._ .", ...+��--r�=.��=�V H�r1 6nHrr�1.. �,v�v � nvL ia iwr♦r av G.S 1 � `== FLI�GHT�FROCEDURES ' (DOC 8168) i ... �: � �.. . t' ��': 8.1.2.2 (3.1.22) Procedure B (Figure 8-2) Take-off to 300m (1,000 ft) above aerodrome elevation: — take-off power/thrust — take-off f�ap — climb at V2 + 20 to 40 km/h (V2 + 10 to 20 kt). At 300m (1,000 ft) — maintaining a positive rate of climb, accelerate to zero flap minimum safe manoeuvring speed (VZF). retracting flap on schedule; thereafter, reduce thrust consistent with the follow- ing: a. for high by-pass ratio engines reduce to nor- mal climb power/thrust; � b. for low by-pass ratio engines, reduce pow- erJi{arust to below normal climb thrust but not less than that necessary to maintain the final take-off engine-out climb gradient; and c. for aeroplanes with slow flap retracting reduce power/thrust at an intermediate flap sefting; thereafter, from 300m (1,000 ft) to 900m (3,000 ft): — continue climb at not greater than VZF + 20 km/h (VZF + 10 kt). At 900m (3,000 ft): — accelerate smoothiy to en-route climb speed. NOTE.• Aeroplanes such as supersonic aeroplanes not using wing flaps for take- off should reduce thrust before attaining 300m (1,000 ft) but not lower than 150m (500 ft). � Accelerate smoothly to en-route climb � 900m -f. (3,000 ft} — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — _ 600m -}- (2,000 ft) Climb at VZF + 20 km/h (VZF + 10 kt) Reduce power/thrust Retract flap on schedule ' 300m -�- (1,000 ft) — — — — ��- Accelerate to VZF �— Take-off thrust V2+ 20 to 40 km/h (V2+ 10 to 20 kt) Runway NOT TO SCALE NCJTE: For purposes of these procedures the heights given in metres and feei, and speeds given in kilometres/hour and knots are considered to be operationally acceptabie eguivalents. Figure 8-2. Noise abatement take-off ciimb — Procedure B � 8.2 (3.2) AEROPLANE OPERATING PROCEDURES — APPROACH 8.2.i (3.2.4) Compliance with published noise abatement approach procedures shouid not be required in adverse operating conditions such as: a. if the runway is not clear and dry, i.e., it is adversely affected by snow, slush, ice or water, or by mud, rubber, oil or other sub- stances; '? � b. c. d. e. in conditions when the ceiling is lower than 150m {500 ft) above aerodrome elevation, or when the horizontai visibility is less than 1.9 km; when the cross-wind component, including gusts, exceeds 28 km/h (15 kt); when the tail-wind component, including gusts, exceeds 9 km/h (5 kt); and when wind shear has been reported or forecast or when adverse weather conditions; e.g., thunderstorms, are expected to affect the ap- proach. . OO JEPPESEN SANDEFiSON, INC., 1992, 1994. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. C� r L;i `y:_ ,� a. f z f {•� t � $:., 7d: 'S�i,� :., +: c'�� . " +. %; � ", .. - .., .:; ..., c � . . � �, .._ i a im. .. �_ ., � _,. . Y = ..,F.._. s r a �i� r .._. ,...,. ,- ^ . - ' ?4, A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Voiume 10, Number 17 La�nbert-St. Louis Int'Z :�� . � � . . . �,�:�, . , ,. . • �,, � �. , � . Just hours after the Federal Aviation Administration announced on Sept. 30 that it had approved the Record of Decision on plans to expand Lambert-St. Louis International A.irport, the City of Bridgeton, MO, filed suit in state court alle�ing the expansion is in violation of the city's zonin� regulations. On Oct. 5, the city filed a second lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals in St. ' Louis challenging the FAA's Record of Decision on the controversial "W-1 W'� airport expansion plan, which would result in the destrucdon of one-third of Bridjeton to cleaz a path for a new runway. "The City of Bridgeton, the Air Line Pilot's Association, the National Air Tr�c Controllers Association, and others repeatedly warned the FAA that the airport was using technically and legally flawed assumptions and analysis to support the choice of W-1W," said Bridgeton Mayor Conrad Bowers. "For example, they urged the FAA to conduct a real time analysis of the W-1W plan, which they believe would have resolved questions regardin� safety and capacity wid� cer- tainty. The FAA has chosen to ignore these warninas, and now will have to answer for the Record of Decision in a court of law." (Continued on p. 132) Memphzs Int'Z CLASS A�TION LAWSUIT (�VER 1�OISE IMPACT Ci�ULD BE SE'�TL]�D WITgI $221VyILLION OFFER The first and only airport noise lawsuit in the country to be certified as a class action without an airport's consent is headin; for settlement foliowina approval by the Memphis/Shelby County Airport Authority of a�a22 miliion payment to homeowners near Memphis International Airport in exchange for avisation easements. y 1fie settlement costs will be funded by increased airline operating fees. Both Federal Express and Northwest Airlines hub at Memphis. On Nov. 11 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee wiil hold a fairness hearin� to determine if the proposed settlement is in the best interest of the class. On Sept. 3, the court preliminarily aQreed to the proposed settlement, which would provide the approximately 12,4�1 homeowners in the suit with payments ran�ing from $525 to $4,200, dependinQ on how lons they have lived near the airport. The airport authority unanimously aareed to the proposed settlement at a 7une 26 meetin�. Attorneys for the airport authority and the homeowners worked out the proposed settlement over an 1S-month period. R. Grattan Bro«�n, Jr. of the Mempnis law (Continued on p. 1;;) Copyri�ht r0 1995 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 20147 � October 9, 1998 In This Issue... Zambert-St. .Louzs ... City of Bridgeton challenges FAA approval of controversial airport expansion plan in state, federal court - p. 131 Memphis ... Court prelimi- narily a�ees to $22 million settlement of class action noise lawsuit - p. 131 Homestettd ... Supplemen- tal EIS underway on conver- sion of base near Everglades to cor�mercial airport - p. 132 Seuttle-Tacoma ... School district, state funding study to determine cost of adequate sound insulation - p. 134 Noise Grants ... FAA announces awards to six airports - p. 134 Luke AFB ... El Mirage in process of approving 3,000 homes near base - p. 134 Boston ... Communities south of Logan upset by increase in night aircraft operations - p. 135 Virginia Beach ... Citizens group files suit seeking to block Navy from transferring fighter aircraft - p. 136 Europe ... European Union moves to bar addition of hushkitted aircraft; fails to �et ICAO approval of unilat- eral action - p. 137 C 132 Airport Noise Report St. Louis, from p. I3l Bo�vers continued, "The fact that it took the FAA more than nine months after the Final Environmental Impact Statement [was issued] and 125 pages in its attempt to justify a project that they had already worked on for several years demonstrates in itself how deeply flawed this project is. When the court examines the FAA's decision in light of all the evidence, the FAA's decision will be reversed and W-i W will never be built." A decision from the court of appeals is not expected until the summer of 1999. Bowers said that more litigation is likely from Bridgeton, the City of St. Charles, which also would be impacted by the expansion plan, and other parties, which he did not name. Zoning Case Regarding the lawsuit filed in state court, Bowers said it attempts to prevent City of St. Louis officials, "who are neither elected by nor accountable to Brid?eton residents, from takinC away Bridgeton's constitutional ri�ht to de[ernvne how its land is used by expanding the airport onto land not zoned by the City of Bridgeton for airport use." The lawsuit asserts that Missouri Statute 305.200(c) prohibits the City of St. Louis, proprietor of the airport, from building an airport or landin� field in any city in violation of zonin; regulations. "Since the proposed airport - expansion buyout area in Bridgeton has not been zoned for � � airport use by the City of Bridaetan, the pmposed'JV-1W expansion plan cannot be built," Bridgeton asserted. The lawsuit also contends that the right of the City of Bridgeton to determine this zoning is guaranteed by the Missouri State Constitution and state statutes. As a Constitu- .tional Charter City, the Missouri Constitution (Ar[icle VI, Section 19(a)) grants the city fuil authority to desi�nate zoning within its borders, Bridgeton asserted. "This lawsuit will demonstrate that our laws do protect the property rights of Americans, and that Brid?eton residents and others cannot be forced to relinquish property based upon decisions by City of St. Louis politicians and others who are not elected by them. In fact, the City of St. Louis has as much right to force the airport into Bridaeton as we have to force St. Louis to relocate the Arch," Bowers said. He reiterated that the City of Bridgeton supports increas- in� the capacity of Lambert Field, but believes W-1W is a flawed plan that is not in the best interests of the region. He noted that under existing FAA rules, W-1 W will not provide simultaneous operations during inclement weather condi- tions as proponents have claimed. "We believe that, in the end, the FAA's failure to fully and fairly assess the available alternatives for expanding Lambert Field means that the FAA has not complied with the requirements of federa] law. I am confident that when a � court of law examines the complete, sorry record, it will ___ require the FAA to go back to square one and do the requisite studies and analyses which were recommended by its own technical experts. When those studies are com- pleted, there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that W-1W will not give St. Louis the world class airport that it needs and deserves," Bowers said. "Our metropolitan area should be hoping that we succeed in our legal efforts," he said. "The chairman of TWA's Pilot Association stated publicly that the proposed W-1W plan would not produce a world-class airport and had the potential to be a white elephant for the region. It is unfortu- nate that politicians like Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) have used political pressure to squelch these concerns, violate our rights, and made our legal actions necessary."� Homestead AFB 1; • • � 1 ' ' � �� ;• � '� 1 '` ` By Charles F. Price — At the urging of local officials and environmental groups, the Air Force is in the initial phases of a study re-examining the environmenial impacts of a controversial plan to transfer Homestead Air Force Base — located near the fra�ile Florida Everglades — from military control to Dade County, FL,, for development as a major commercial airport. Last January, the Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration decided to prepare a Supplemental Environ- mental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the groposed base transfer in response to concerns that current plans for the projected civil airport involve a a eater number of opera- tions than were contemplated in an oria nal 1994 EIS and thus will create a greater anay of noise and other impacts. The scoping process for the Supplemental EIS has been completed and a draft SEIS will be circuIated sometime next year, an Air Force source told EiNR. Closely watchinQ the SEIS process for Homestead is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of whose proprieties is a restoration and protection of the nearby Everglades. NRDC is a private organization dedicated ta advocacy and litigation to safeguard the environment. In a recent-statement NRDC pledged to monitor the Homestead SEIS to ensure that it takes into account all relevant effects of the proposed project and its attendant commercial development — especially those ampacting air, water, and noise quality. NRDC said that, although it is not opposed to the redevel- opment of the Air Base per se, "it is crucial both to the environment and to South Florida's economy to ensure that whatever project moves forward does not harm ti�e national parks and the restoration of the Everalades." NRDC said it is pressing "to ensure that environmental vigilance is maintained throughout the federa] transfer process." One sticking point cited by NRDC was the number of runways to be studied. The A.ir Force originally insisted that the Homestead evaluation be confined to determining the impacts of a one-runway configuration; but NRDC con[ends Airport Noise Report \e C October 9, 1998 pressures for a two-runway facility — thought by some to be a more commercially viable alternative — have mounted to the point that a two-runway airport should be reviewed instead. A recent Air Force newsletter on the scoping process said the SEIS would "discuss the possibility that a commercial airport could eventually expand and include a second runway." However, it stated, "The possibility of a future request to FAA for approval of airport expansion is not yet ready for consideration and will not be specifically evalu- ated in the SEIS." In its statement NRDC said, if the SEIS is adequate and shows transfer of the base will be compatible with protect- ing the national parks, it will "work to ensure that the base is transferred with su�cient environmental and development condit�ons to protect the parks." If, on the other hand, the SEIS proves inadequate and incompatible with the ecologi- cal health of the sensitive areas, NRDC said it "will fiaht to obtain an adequate SEIS and to ensure that the parks are protected and that plans to develop an airport do not go forward."� Memphis, from p. I3I firm Glankier, Brown, which represents the airport author- ity, said the airport will not accept the settlement if a significant percentaoe of homeowners rej�ct the deal. The court gave the participants in the class action suit until Oct. 30 to file a written objection to the proposed seitlement. Brown said he is "cautiously optimistic" that there will not be too much opposition to it. As of Oct. 4, he said he was aware of only two objections filed with the court. "This is the first time anything of this magnitude has been tried," the attorney said. He speculated that the litijation would have died if it had not received a class desi�nation. But he said that the class designation did give the airport a mechanism to settle the suit. Homeowners have said they could not decide whether to accept the proposed settlement until they understood the details. The court recently sent a notice to all members of the class outlining the provisions of the proposed setdement, and explainin� who will be included in the class. The attorneys for the property owners ajreed to revise the definition of the class to exclude owners of commercial property and to include additional residential property owners. The airport wants ali homeowners in the 6� dB DNL contour, especially those recently added to the contour in an updated noise map, to be included in the settlement. Suit Filed in 19�9 The lawsuit, Martha Alvarado, et al, v. Niemphis-Shelby� `' � County Airport Accthoriry (Civil Action No. 89-3001- _. HBRO) was fled in November 1989 by approximately 27 airport area residents who alleged that an increase in noise 133 and pollution from the airport had diminished their quality of life and damaged their property values. They sought damaaes on the grounds that airport noise had caused a tal:inQ of their proper[y or was a nuisance. The Alvarado case was certified as a class action in May 1993 despite vigorous le�al opposition by the airport authority. The class desianation in the Alvarado case is the first ever given for airport noise litiDation without the airport's consent. Class actions have been attempted in noise lawsuits at several other airports — Chicago, Austin, Min- neapolis, Raleigh-Durham, and San Jose — but were not certified. A class was certified in a noise case in New Orleans but that was done with the consent of the aarport authority. That case was settled but has been sealed so the details of the settlement are not known. The Alvarado case was liti�ated ag�essively for ei�ht years. The court turned down motions from both sides seeking summary judgment of a claim that some class members' substantive due process rights had been violated by misrepresentations by the airport authority of the comprehensive nature of its noise compatibility prob am. The court also turned down a motion by the plaintiffs seeking a separate trial on the substantive due process claim. In a notice sent to each member of the class explaining the details of the proposed settIement, the court noted that, if the suit is not settled, "it will require further extensive and expensive court proceedings involving complicated and expensive legal issues," such as: (1) whether there has been d takin� oi propeny; (2 j whether the airport has created a nuisance which has damaged property; (3) whether the airport has violated the Noise Control Act of 1972, thereby imposing afFirmative obligations on the airport as a result of receiving federal funds, and (4) whether the due process claim has rnerit. "If a decision on the merits is reached, the action may be appealed," the court said, adding that "no one can confi- dently predict how the various legal questions at issue, including the amount of damages, would ultimately be resolved." Class Redeimed As a condition of settlement, the attorneys for the airport authority and property owners submitted to the court a joint motion to redefine the class. Removed from the class will be owners of commercial property, owners of unimproved residential real estate, owners of improved residential real estate transferred before Feb. 10, 1997, owners who sold their property to the airport authority, owners of property that has been condemned, and tenants. Others would be added to the class by the expansion of the oriainal area included in the settlement. Noise con[ours were not used to define the area included in the settlement because the airport authority objected to such a use of contours when it tried to convince the court not to certify the class, according to Brown. $y statute, noise contours cannot be used a�ainst an airport, he said, Airpurt ivoise Report � C 134 Airport Nozse Report notins that the court aareed. So what was used as the noise impact area in the proposed settlement was the area earlier defned by the airport as encompassina the neighborhoods that would be represented on a Par[ 150 Airport Noise Compatibility advisory commit- tee, Brown said. This area is mostly within the City of Memphis, but also includes homes in Sheiby County, TN, and in Desoto County, MS, and some homes beyond the 65 dB DNL noise contour, he said. The method used to define the settlement was "unscientific and complicated," he explained.0 Resettrch SCHOOL DISTRIC'�' STUDYING COST OF ADEQUATE l[1°�TSULATION By Charles F. Price — A Tacoma, WA, school district impacted by noise from the operation of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is conductina a study to determine the effect of jet noise on teaching and learinQ and the cost of remediating it. In the first phase of the study, the Highline School District has hired acoustical expert Sandford Fidell of BBN Systems to measure acoustic conditions in classrooms of 15 schools, determine how much sound reduction each classmom needs, and recommend the soundproofin� measures necessary to lessen noise impacts on children. Fidell said his portion of the study is nearing completion and will be forwarded soon to Highline School Superinten- dent Joe McGeehan; its recommendations will then be priced by architectural and enaineering consultants to determine the cost not only of insulating the schools against airport noise but also of providing adequate ventilation in facilities that are soundproofed; it will be necessary as well to cost out ancillary work such as asbestos removal, required to meet building code standards for the upgrades. . Quantitative Information McGeehan said the study is designed to end years of speculation on how airport noise affects students. "We'll finally have quantitative information to understand the full impact of these distractions in our classrooms," he said. The 15 schools studied were chosen based on recommendations by Fidell and members of the affected communities. Nick Latham, a spokesman for the school district, said that Fidell is measurin� noise levels outside and inside the schools and that this information will be correlated with informatior�-provided by teachers who are noting the times that aircraft noise is causin� them to interrupt their teaching. The data on interruptions occurrin� at schools near the airport will be compared to data on interruptions beina taken at a baseline school far from the airport, he said. He also noted [hat overall noise level will be determine by averajinQ the noise over the six-hour school day rather than a 24-hour period. The project is the first phase of a$330,000 study, half of whose cost is being borne by the school district and half by the state. The Port of Seattle, which operates Sea-Tac, has said it is wiiling to fund school insulation to the tune of $�0 million, but the Highline District has ar�ued that the actual cost of needed improvements isn't known and the present study will yield an answer at last. Latham said that the school district has just reentered negotiations with the Port of Seattle abou[ its participation in the study. Half of the 32 schools in the school district are within the 65 dB DNL and hi�her noise contours of Sea- Tac, he said, with three schools located in the 75 dB DNL -contour. Portions of some schools already are soundproofed, he said. Many of the schools in the district were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Asked whether it would be better to just build new schools, Latham replied, "That's a very good guestion," and one that will be considered.� Grants . . . . s,). r. i' i � . I �, � . . �, � The Federal Aviation Administration recently announced the following b ant awards under the Airport Improvement Prob am for noise miti�ation projects: •$80(?,000 to Lambert-St. Louis Internationai for phase II of a project to sound insulate a high school; •$270,000 to Republic Airport, Farmingdale, NY, to update its Pai-t 1J0 ?.irport Noise Compatibility Proa am; �$1.9 million to Syracuse Hancock International Airport to soundproof an unspecified number of residences; •$1,400,018 to T.F. Green Airport in Providence, RI, to soundproof an unspecified number of residences; and •$1.0 million to Monterey, CA, Peninsula Airport to soundproof approximately 80 residences; �$271,513 to Dekalb-Peachtree Airport to acquire land for noise compatibility and to provide relocation assistance.� Luke AFB ,• I •',•, II r, I� �� ,�� By Chartes F. Price — A classic clash between expandina residential development and the need to restrict encroach- ment of homes into noise-affected areas neaz airports is shaping up in a suburban area northwest of Phoenix around Luke Air Force Base. "The nearby community of EI Miraae is reportedly in the process of approvin� 3,000 new homes in areas directly below the Luke flight path. Base suoporters fear that it the homes are indeed built, the new residents will soon besin to complain of jet noise from Luke operations, eventually necessitatin� a curtailment of traininQ fliahts and impair- ment of the mission of the base, ]eading ultimately to closure. Loss of Luke, they arjue, would deal a heavy blow Airport Noise Report � October 9, 1998 to the local and regional economy. Accordin� to base studies, Luke employs more than 7,800 people and contributes more than a half-biili�n dollars to [he Arizona economy. It also provides medical and other services to nearly 23,000 retired military personnel in the area. Last year more than 1,000 pilots trained at the base; an averaje of 600 takeoffs and landing per day were recorded. Demand for New Housing On the other hand, EI Mira�e and the neighborin� community of Surprise say they are trying hard to cope with risinQ demands for housing. A new home went up every 3.5 hours in Surprise in 1997, according to local reports. El Mirase Mayor Ma�gie Reese has said she doesn't want to jeopardize Luke's future but at the same time has no wish to limit �rowth in her community, whose 5,800 population, she claims, could triple if the planned subdivisions are built. "We cannot afford to stay this way forever," Reese said. She pointed out that almost half of the town's residents now live in rental housing and have been waitina more than 30 years for new homes. Without new homes, she argued, residents would start to leave. Both Reese and-Surprise City Manager Dick McComb contend their communities have tried to keep residential development away from Luke but haven't always suc- ceeded. McComb went so far as to say it is not a city's business to prevent landowners from developing properiy because the base is neazby. "If the state wants to restrict use of land," he asserted, "they should empower themselves to do it." Possible Violation of State Law Last July a group of state lawmakers and military and community representatives called the Airport Military Preservation Committee (AMPC) took up [hat challen�e and asked the state Attorney General's O�ce ta detemzine whether El Miraae would be violating an Arizona statute if the new homes are built. In 1995 the Arizona Legislature passed laws requiring development near Luke to be compat- ible with military airport operations. ANIl'C members claim the laws haven't been enforced. Encroachment was a factor in the 1991 closure of Wil- liams Air Force Base east of Phoenix, and base supporters are worried it will doom Luke as well. While base advocates contend the communities should follow the state guidelines, some officials of Surprise and EI Mirage argue that if the military wants to prever,t encroachment, it should simply buy the land in question. Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters has said the military mi�ht indeed consider such a purchase to create a buffer zone around the base. State Representative 7ean ivfcGrath, who head the AMPC, has said the state would probably contribute money to buy land. "It's really a state problem," she said, "And the state has to solve it. It was really the Air Force's and the Army's problem, but I get the feelina they're not CoinQ to pony up any money to solve it." 135 ANR attempted to learn the stams of the AMPC request for a le�a] determination but calls to Sen. McGrath's office and to the Arizona Attorney General's office had not been returned by press time.4 Boston Logan Int'l COIYIM�JNITIES SOUTH O� LOGAN UPS]ET �Y INCI2EASE IN �'LIGI3TS By Charles F. Price — An analysis of radar iracks by the operator of Boston's Logan International Airport earlier this year confirms claims by residents of the neijhboring communities of Weymouth and East Weymouth, MA, that increases in air tra�c have worsened jet noise in neighbor- hoods south of the airport, according to a Massport spokes- man and an aide to a state senator whose constituents are seeking relief from the noise. But remainin� in dispute was a contention by some representatives of the communities that the new tr�c consists mostty of night-time cargo flights stacking up over Weymouth and East Weymouth on approach to Logan. Massport spokesman Jeremy Crockford told ANR the analysis, promised last spring at a meeting of community representatives in the office of State Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth), was "only a start" but did show that the communities "are seeing more planes than they did a year or two ago," althou?h noise impacts in Weymouth-East Weymouth were far less than in other areas. However, Crocl�ord said that by making that comparison Massport did not intend to be insensitive or to downplay the concerns of the communities. "For them," he conceded, "the problem exists and is a real one." Massport and FAA sources attributed increases in aircraft operations at Logan mainly to strong b owth in the economy of the Boston area rather than to any deliberate policy to alter air routes into Logan. Massport's Crockford said, "The simple answer [to overall increases] is a str�on� economy. The number of operations is tied to the rate of growth in the economy, which has been about 5 percent higher this year in Boston." This would be true of cargo fli�hts as well as commercia] operations, he said. Also, Crockford pointed out, "our s}�ring and summer wind patterns do tend to move" fli�ht activity in the direction of the complaining communi- ties. Public Affairs Officer 7im Peters of the FAA's New Ensland ReQional tOffice told ANR that traffic at Logan generally "has been up this year," but said air traffic controllers at the airport "can't account for what the communities are sayinQ" specifically about experiencin� new night-time noise from more cargo planes than usual stacking up in the pattern over Weymouth and East Weyrnouth. Perhaps, he said, "it's a perception." He explained that runway assi�nments are made by a computer program based on variables of wind, weather, and tra�c volume. Airport Noise Repon �� :1�.: A Massport analysis of all Logan operations — day and nisht — over the communities for the month of December i 1997 showed an increase in arrivals and departures on Runway 4R, with "the greater impacts on the downwind approach," Crockford said. Petition Seeks Relief The issue of increasing night operations arose last spring when Weymouth and East Weymouth citizens complained about new noise — much of it at night — caused by what they said were more car?o planes than usual stackin� up waitin� to land. Sen. Hedlund has been trying to broker a solution with Massport officials. Last fa11250 residents of East Weymou[h si�ned a petition asking Massport to "provide relief from the incessant disturbance and noise pollution created by aircraft travelin� in a constant stream" over the community. Earlier this year, Sen. Hedlund sponsored a meeting in his State House office in Boston between William Desmond, a resident of nearby Weymouth, and Massport o�cials. The meetina was closed ta-�e press but afterward Crockford said Massport would try�to deternnine whether flight paths had been recently changed or traffic volumes had increased beyond normal levels. Crockford told ANR Desmond wanted a noise monitor positioned in the Weymouth-East Weymouth area to establish what noise levels there actually are, but Massport - , refused his request.� �� -_ � Base Reloeation ' �� ) CITIZEN GRO� FILES S�JIT TO STOP NAVY JET TRAI�SFER A citizens group filed suit recently a�ainst the secretary of the U.S. Navy asking a federal district court to block the transfer of 156 F/A-18 jet fighter aircraft to Oceana Naval Air Station near Norfolk, VA, until a Supplemental Envi- ronmental Impact Statement is done on the iransfer. The 300-member Citizens Concerned About 7et Noise filed suit in federal district court in Norfolk in July alleging that the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on the transfer of jet aircraft were arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of federal environ- mental law and Navy regulations. The transfer of the jets will add 24,000 acres and 38,000 people to the 65 dB DNL and higher noise contours around the base, according to Jack Ferrebee, of the Virginia Beach, VA, law firm Denton & Ferrebee, which represents the plaintiffs. The military is not required to do any miti�ation of the impacts of the transfer and has not estimated mitiaa- tion costs in its EIS, he said. The citizens group asserted in it lawsuit that such an omission is in violation of environ- mental law and Navy re�ulations. The military is not required to pay for the costs of mitiga- tion environmental impacts, Ferrebee said, but the costs should have been estimated in the EIS and should have been Noise R a factor in deciding where to relocate the fighter jets. An alternative site to relocate the aircraft, Cherry Point, NC, is in a relatively rural area where there would have been much less impact, he said. Some 22 schools in the Virginia Beach area will be in the hi�h noise contours of the Navy air base, whereas no schools would be impacted at Cherry Point, he said. In 1993, the commission established under the Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (BRAC) directed that the Navy's Cecil Field in Florida, the current home port of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet Strike/Fi�hter Wing, be closed and approximately 180 F/A-18 Hornet advanced jet fighters be redirected to Marine Corps A.ir Station Cherry Point, NC. However, two years later, the 1995 BRAC Commission revisited the Cecil Field realignment decision made by the 1993 Commission and reversed it. The 1995 BR.AC Commission contained no statement of specifac preference for single siting of the Cecil Field F/A-18's and did not identify specific receiving sites, according to the citizens b oup litigation. It asserted that "the open-ended nature of the 1995 BRAC Commission's decision as to the receiving location(s) for the Cecil Field F/A-18 fighter assets necessarily required the Navy to perform an open-ended site alternatives analysis as part of the NEPA (Nadonal Environmental Policy Act) process for this base realignment federal action." The Navy then issued a Notice of Intent to inform the public that it had identified Naval Air Station Oceana, and iwo Marine �orps Air Stations — Cherry Point, NC, and Beaufort, SC— as being the only three bases qualiiied to receive the relocated jets. The Navy then conducted a screening process to develop alternative realignment scenarios to be considered. Screening Process The Navy made several assumptions during this process "which significandy affected the scope of alternatives to be considered in further detail in the EIS process," the citizens' suit asserted. One of these assumptions is that at least one alternative had to evaluate siting all F/A-18 aircraft at one base. Another assumption was that splitting the Cecil Field F/A-18s among more than two locations was unacceptable. A third assumption was that splittinQ the fleet replacement squadron away from a majority of the operational fleet squadrons was unacceptable. "'I'he result of the screening process used by the Navy was to unlawfully limit the [alternative reali�nment scenarios] evaluated in the EIS to three sites. As a result, alternative siting scenarios that clearly had the potential for b eater avoidance and mitigation of significant adverse environ- mental impacts did not receive any significant review in the Navy's EIS, thereby deprivinD the final agency decision maker (and the public) of the ability to, amonj other things, fairly weigh and evaluate operational costs/benefits against environmental cost/benefits," the catizens' suit said. It added, "The Navy's screeninG process su jgests that the qirport Noise Repon t! � October 9, 1998 Navy unlawfully predetermined where it wanted the Cecil Field F/A-18 assets to go and then designed a screenin� and alternatives analysis to support its predetermined decision." The Navy's Draft EIS estima[ed that approximately 125,563 people in the Virginia Beach area wouid be eCposed to noise levels about 65 dB DNL from aircraft operations. In contrast, it estimated that only 4,500 people would be in the hi�h noise zone around Cherry Point if the fighters were moved there and only 5,200 people would be in the hish noise zone near Bea�fort. The draft EIS identified 22 public schools that would be located within the hijh noise zones near Oceana. In contrast, only four public schools would be within the hi�h noise zones near Cherry Point and no schools would be in these zones near Beaufort. The lawsuit also contends that the Navy "�rossly underes- timated" the number of people around Oceana that would be in the high noise zones by using 1990 Census data rather than more cunent data. It cited a memo from Daniel J. Cecchini of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, dated Aug. l, 1997, in which the Navy questioned whether it would be criticized for relying on the 1990 Census data rather than more current estimates, but then expressed concern that it would need to obtain current data from Beaufort and Cherry Point as well. Mitigation Costs Not Deimed The FEIS "does not in any way attempt to quantify or even generally define a range for the unavoidable cosis oi mitigating the significant noise impacts that would be imposed upon civilian residences schools, and commercial establishments in the Virb nia Beach/Chesapeake area if the Navy implements its ROD," the lawsuits asserts. The Navy's rationale for excluding such information, it said, "is an asserted lack of authority and jurisdiction to install sound insulation or carry out other civilian mitiQation measures:' 'The FEIS failed to document the cost of sound attention of homes, schools, churches, daycaze facilities, nursing homes and other sensative facilities, the cost of new and modified infrastructure by localities, the cost associated with in- creased traffic and congestion, and the costs associated with decreased property va]ues, the suit said. It noted that the Environmental Protection Agency commented in a letter dated April 21, 1998, that the Navy should evaluate specific noise mitigation measures for all sites since the level, perceived effectiveness and cost of mitigation (whether at the expense of the Navy, local governments, or citizens) could influence the selection process." Despite these concerns, the Navy issued a ROD on May 18, 1998, approvinQ the move of 156 fighter aircraft to Oceana and 24 to Beaufort. The ROD states that the cost of sound attenuation was not documented in the FEIS because the Navy does not have legal authority to expend federal funds on improvements to state, ]ocal, or private property, and that any attempt to determine the cost of sound a[tenu- 137 ation would only be speculative. But the citizens aroup contended m its lawsuit that neither NEPA, the reaulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, or the Navy's own NEPA regulations and orders authorize the Navy to avoid estimacing or quantifying significant mitigation costs on the o ounds that the mitiga- tion measure is outside the jurisdiction or control of the federal ajency decision mal:er. The Justice Department filed an answer to the lawsuit on Sept. 18. It denied all the alle�ations raised in the litiga- tion.� Europe E� MOVES TO BAR ADI)ITION OF HUSHKITTED AIRC]E2.A.FT Fearing an influx of hushkitted aircraft from the United States, the European Parliament has approved a proposed directive that would bar the addition of hushkitted aircraft from the registries of inembers of the European Union after April 1, 1999. T'he,proposal must still be considered by the Council of EU transport ministers. The proposal would not affect hushkitted aircraft in the European fleet prior to April 1, 1999. The Parliament did not act on another proposal that wouid bar the nighttime operation of Chapter 3(the international eyui:�alent of St:.ge 3) 2irp:a.�es i> tl:e diff�rence between the sum of their certified noise values and the sum of the Chapter 3 noise limit values is 5 EPNdB or less. The latter proposal "cleazly affects U.S. manufactured airplanes and �reatly impacts U.S. cargo operations," David Traynham, FAA assistant administrator for Policy, Plan- nin�, and International Aviation, told Michel Ayral, the EC's d'uector for Air Transport. "Based on our preliminary estima[es, this amendment would prohibit approximately 430 currently scheduled U.S. carrier cargo flights during this time period," Traynham said. However, 37 European countries were unsuccessful in an attempt to amend the policy of the International Civil Aviation Or�anization to allow member countries to take measures beyond those endorsed by ICAO to abate aircraft noise. The European countries wanted to get ICAO support for the action they are taking, but failed to do so at an ICAO Assembly held in Montreal Sept. 22-Oct. 2, according to James Erickson, director of the Federal Aviation Admini- stration's Office of Environment and Energy. He said the action the Europeans are contemplating would only help about four or five larae European airports. Only 36 hushkitted aircraft are operating in Europe at this point, he said, adding that there is no evidence to support the fear that a huQe influx of hushkitted aircraft will occur. The Europeans, Erickson said, are respondinQ emotionally to a politica] issue. Airport Noise RepoR � C (. 13g Air�ort Noise Report ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY B(�ARD Mark Atwood, Esq. Gailand, Kharasch, Morse & G�nkle Washington, D.C. Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Los Angeles, Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, School of Aviation & Transportation Dowling College Eliot Cutler, Esq. Cuder & 3tanfield Washington, D.C. J. Spencer Dickerson 5enior Vice President American Association of Airport Executives Edward J. DiPoivere ' Administrator, National Associafion of Noise ��{ Control Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Aicport Environmentai Spectialist, Division of Aeronautics, Calif. Dept. of Transportation E. Tazewell �ilett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Esq. Managing Director Federal Fxpress Corpomtion Angel ll4. Garcia Co-Chairman Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. °`Moe" Haupt Manager, Airport and Environmental5ervices, National Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. Bagileo, Sitverberg & Goldman Washino on, D.C. Joanne W. Young, Esq. Baker & Hostetler LLP Washington, D.C. Alarmed that the EC is moving to ban the addi6on of hushkitted aircraft, a coalidon of U.S. aviation trade b oups - including the Air Transport Association, the Cargo Airline Association, the Airports Council Internadonal - North America, the Aerospace Industries Associa- tion, and the General Aviation Manufaciurers Association - submitted a paper to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey urging her to vigorously protest the European action at the ICAO Assembly. "Unilateral action would erode ICAO's jurisdiction and lead to the accelerating proliferation of local rules and regulations that are uncoordinated and inconsistent," the trade groups told Garvey. "In short, unilateral actions undermine efforts to achieve global standardization."d ON THE A�ENDA... Nov. 8-10 American Association of Airport Executives/American Bar Assaciation Airport Law Workshop, West Palm Beach, FL (contact AA.AE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax- on-demand: (1-800-470-ARP'1�. Nov. 16-18 INTER-NOISE 98, The 1998 Intemational Congress on `� Noise Control EnQineering, Christchurch, New Zealand (contact Conference Secretariat, IN'TER-NOISE 98 Secretary, IVII�A, PO Box 1181, Aukland 1001, Australia; tel: (+64-9-379-7822; fa�c: +f4-9-302-0098). Nov. 20 The 1998 International Symposium on Recreational = t Noise - The Effects of Man on the Environment, ��_ Queenstown, New Zealand (contact Symposium Secretary Grant Morgan, Electroacoustic Calibration Services, PO Box 76-068, Manukau City, New Zealand; tel: +64-9-279-8883; fa�: -+-54-9-279-8833). Nov. 22-27 Noise Effects '98, the 7th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Sydney, Australia (contact The Conb ess Secretariat, Noise Effects '98, GPO $o�L;_�28, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia; tel: 61-2- 9262-2277;far 61-2-9262-2323). AIRPORT NOISE R�PORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher _ Charies F. Price, Contributin� Editor; Nlaria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4367; FAX: (�03) 729-4528. Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is Cranted by A.irporc Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyri?ht Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, 5alem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright �O 1998 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 2014� C � a�� • :i w .!- :.F .:.. � y � r r '1N � ��, , i�w7 � �� s. � >� ,��r` � wf'� ..l ,�':, r. .! ._. ` S.� t: 4! ,� n, ri ,� �.. 3,. �- ,� . A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 10, Number 14 Boeing Field COMMUIVITY GROUP SUES; SAYS COUIVTY NOT FROPERLY I�VIE'4�ING MASTER PLAN A community council in an historic section of Seattle filed suit AuQ. 12 seekina to enjoin the Kin� County, WA, Council from implementing two ordinances it � recently passed which the community �roup contends will result the expansion of Kin� County International Airport without the proper environmental review of its Nfaster Plan. The Master Plan for the airport, also known as Boein� Field, includes extendina the existinb main runway 800 feet closer to the community of Georgetown and extendinQ the parallel ta�ciway to within a few hundred feet of an historic ]and- mark, the Georgetown Steam Plant BuiIding. ' The Georgetown Crime Prevention and Community Council filed its lawsuit in �: Kin� County Superior Court followin� approval by County Executive Ron Sims and the County Council oftwo airport-retated ordinances in July_ Ordinance No. 13237 allows the Kin� County Council to lift its own moratorium on lon� term leases at the airport, which woald allow air carao operators to beQin investing in expanded carao facilities as proposed in the County Executive's y preferred Master Plan, "renderin� ail subsequent public participation a charade," (Contutued on p. 106) Research ALL AGRE]E T3�ERE IS ST1�4NG NEED FOR NASA, EN�I�.(�NM]ENTAL RESEARCH The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently completed a series of three workshops at which experts from the aviation indusm, the environmental community, academia, and federa] and state government agencies assisted NASA in developinQ a roadmap to reach its goal of significantly reducing aireraft noise and emissions over the next 25 years. In terms of noise, NASA's �oal is to reduce the perceived noise level of aircraft by a factor of two in 10 years and by a factor of four in 2� years. In decibels, this means a 10 dB reduction in perceived noise level in 10 years, relative to 1997 levels, and a 20 dB noise leve] reduction in 25 years. The workshop participants helped the agency.de:�elop a process for trying to ach't.eve these goals, and aareed that technology will have to impcove in both evolUtionary and revolutionary ways for the pro�c'am to be a success. The noise reduction goals NASA has set are "stretch goals." explained William L. Willshire, 7r., manaaer oi the aaency's Advanced Subsonic TechnoloQy Noise Reduction Program, based at the Landley Research Center ir� Hampron, VA. "We really don't know how to achieve a 20 dB reduction, but that's the idea of a stretch �oal. You motivate yourself to go somewhere and }•ou don't �:now exactly how to (Contin«ed on p. 1 U7) Copyright OO 1995 b�• Airport Noise Report. Ashburn, Va. ZOId7 August 23, 1993 In This Issue... Boeing Field ... Commu- nity �roup sues airport; alle�es improper review of Master Plan - p. 105 Research ... NASA gets stron� support at workshops for ambitious noise reduction research goals - p. 105 Legislation ... House, Senate FAA reauthorization bills would sli�htly increase noise funding - p. 107 AIP Grants ... Working closely with FA.A seen as key to gettin� b ants - p. 108 Ft. Lauderdttle Exec ... Airport is test site for new ANOMS upgrades - p. 109 Austin Bergstrom ... New airport receives.ACI environ- mental award - p. 110 Research ... NRDC estab- lishes new aviation environ- mental research fund - p. 110 Land Use ... ALPA fears land buffers will increase wildlife strikes - p. 111 Hushkits ... WestJet makes pact tivith AvAero - p. 111 Burbank ... Bar for Part 161 study will be high, FAA administrator tells Burbank officials - p. 111 Training ... H�IMH course on INM Version 5.2 set for October - p. 111 106 Airport Noise Report Boeing Field, from p. 105 the community counci] said in a press release. The lease moratorium was passed in 1995 as a result of heavy public pressure to control the noise generated by aircraft operations, especia]ly those from nighttime Staae 2 carQo ope�ations that shifted to Boeing Field becaase they could not meet the strict noise bud�et rule in�ffect at nearby Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The moratorium required the County Executive to develop nighttime noise restrictions at the airport but that ivork was never begun, according to the community council. In fact, it said, operations have increased day and niaht at the airport in the last few years with even �reater increases in opera- tions forecast for the future. Ordinance No. 13237 commits the Council to consider final approva] of the county executive's proposed Master Plan for the airport and approval of lona-term leases with air carao carriers at the airport after fhe Council receives and approves the county executive's proposed noise reduction woF� plan for the airport, the community aroup contended in its litisation. SEPA Approval Approval of the Iviaster Plan and of lona-term air tenant leases are actions for which State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) approval are required, Anthony G. Reifers, the Seattle attorrey reyresentina the communit;� council, asserted in his complaint to the court. The coun[y's commitment to approve lon�-term air tenant leases "will lead to the creation of long-term contractual obligations that will effectively lock the [county] into implementing all or part of the Master Plan and will render all subsequent public participation a charade," the commu- niry counci] noted in its complaint. Ordinance 13237 also commits the county to exclude from the Alternatives section of the Environmental Impact Statement any discussion of the "Community Alternative" development plan for the airport produced during a Ivfay 1998 airport roundtable on the issue, the Georaetown council said. "The Community Alternative is a reasonable aiternative to the Master Plan, and musf therefore be discussed in the alternatives sectiori of the EIS," the local council contended. The second ordinance the County Counci] passed, No. 13238, "appropriates at Ieast $6 million for, amonQ other thinas, construction and capita] improvements at the airport. includin� without limitation, chanQes to the run�vay and taxiway, and amounts to premature implementation of all or part of the Mas�er Plan," the community council told the court. "The ordinances [urn the Sta[e Environmental Policy ric[ on its head by approvin� Executive Ron Sims' Ivlaster Plan prior to completion of any environmental review, the community council said. "State environmental rea�lations require that when these kinds of major developments are considered, an environmental impact statement must be completed and reviewed by the public and other aaencies prior to selection and implementation." The community council cited the movement of larQe quantities of soil to the north end of the runway usinQ trucks and other heavy equipment as evidence that the county "has put the facts on the sround" before any environmental review can be done.� Airport Response Cynthia Stewart, manaQer of Kins County International Airport, said the county is in the process of responding to the litigation but has not done so yet. But, she contended that a number of the facts presented by the community council are incorrect. The basis premise of the lawsuit is not correct, she said. The Counry Councii has not approved a final Master Plan, it has passed legislation that says it accepts a particular preferred alternative as the baseline proposal to use in the EIS, which will beQin in September and wifl include public scoping. The County Council just defined a preferred alternative, she said. The assertion that action has been taken is incorrect: The draft EIS and the draft Master Plan will be issued for pubiic comment early in the new year, Stewart said. R-egardinQ the moratorium on leases, Stewart said it was adopted as a motion by the County Council, which means it does not have the effect of law. The council did not want the airport to en�age any long term leases until the Master Plan was done, but the next parcel to lease is one the carao operarors want to use and-they are now operatinQ quieter Staee 3 aircraft, she said. In the meantime, ho�vever, the noise issue has protracted the process of developina the IVlaster Plan ro the point where the council feels it should not be prohibited from releasins that parcel, she said. The leases will not be negotiated until• after noise remedies are considered that �vill �o beyond what is required in the federal Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibiliry process, she ' said, such as the possibility of financing sound insulation beyond the 6� dB DVL, noise contour, making fliQht path changes prior to submittal of the Part 150 program, and makina an earlier commitment to a hushhouse. "The council is saying, `We know there is a noise prob- lem, we want to work on it, �oinQ beyond the minimum requirements, and on that basis we can put out a request for proposal on the parcel [up for ]ease] which the carQo carriers want'," Ste�.vart said. The county oriQinally looked at a six different Master Plan alternatives with minimal differences between them, she noted. But at the end of the process of selectin� alternatives, "we got a zinaer thrown at us when we found out that the consuitants had not identified a major safety area at the end of one runway. Tha� ruled out almost all options, and now we can only choose to keep things the way they are with and without an 800 foot shifted runway." There are only two choices left. �irpoR Noisz Repott � ° August 2$,1998 Georgetown is not happy about the runway shift and worries about noise impact, Steware said, but predicted there would be no difference in noise impact because only about 3 percent of operations will use the added runway length. Stewart said "there is no question" that Georgetown residents have a noise problem, but said most of it comes from overfliQhts frorn nearby Sea-Tac Airport. The residents were unsuccessful in dealina with the Port of Seattle, proprietor of Sea-Tac, on the noise issue so now they are tryin� to deal with KinJ County, she said.� NASA, from p. I05 aet there." y NASA is stil] in the process of preparing a summary repor# on the workshops, which were not open to the public, but Willshire ajreed to discuss the process and Qive ANR his impression of the outcome. The workshops were very productive and a consensus emer�ed that there is a stconQ need for environmental research and technolo�ical development to take place, he said. 'This consensus arose from a larae, broad group of participants, he noted. Each of the three noise workshops was attended by about 95 people, representin� airframe and en�ine manufacturers, airports, airlines, consultants, attorneys, several other NASA facilities and the Environ- mental Protection A�ency, the National Resources Defense Council, the National Organization to Insare a Sound- controlled Environment, and several colleaes. Even the National Research Council was represented. Questions Posed NASA opened the first session by posinQ four questions: • What are the impacts of aviation noise and emissions on the environment? • How do you believe these may affect the growth of aviation? • Must the �rowth of aviation lead to increased environ- mental impact? • What is the relationship of NASA's noise and emissions goals to aviation's impact on the environment? These questions served to stimulate discussion by the participants, and were followed at the last session by another set oi four questions: • Will the attainment of the �oals satisfy your environ- mental concerns? y • Does the NASA strateQy appear to be appropriate? • Have the roadmaps'reached appropriate near- and far- term balance? ^ i�hat form of continuinQ communication with N�SA • would be of value? Willshire was only familiar with the responses of the industry participants to the workshop and said they felt that their environmental concerns would be satisfied if N:�SA's 107 noise reduction aoals were met. In addition to technology, the industry representatives said that issues such as afforda- bility, safety, and aircraft emissions goals must be addressed simultaneouslv with noise. Asked whecher NASA's Qoals for noise and emissions were compatib(e, Willshire said he was not sure. "We have to look at that point," he said, explaining that NASA does not want to do something in noise reduction that makes emissions reduction more di�cult and vice vera. The industry representatives also said that i�tASA's long- range noise reduction Qoal of 20 dB in 25 years may be more than is needed for all types of aircraft. LiQht aircraft, for instance, may not need such a large noise level reduc- tion, he said. The workshop participants urged NASA to conduct a"sap analysis" to find the technoloQy gaps that are currently y unfunded but needed to reachythe noise reduction goals. And the industry participanTs aereed that evolutionary and revolutionary concepts in noise reduction would be needed to attain the �oal and that they shouid be pursued in parallel. Revolutionary concepts in aircraft noise reduction technology account for a aood part of the projress that has been made over the past 30 years, Willshire said. During that period, aircraft noise Ievelshave dropped by 20 dB, he said. Revolutionary concepts developed in the past include the development of acoustic enaine liners and hiQher bypass ratio enaines; and movina the inlet auide vanes, he noted. NASA also was ursed to continue its team approach to findin� new noise miti�ation technoloay, Wiilshire said. Such an approach has been used in the past successfully. In terms of continuin; interaction, the workshop participants told NASA that the-industry-led steering committee and technical,committee it set up to Guide its current noise reduction program should be continued.� Legislation �ILLS WOULD INCREASE AIP NOISE GRANT FiTNDII�1� House and Senate legislation to reauthorize the Federal Avia[ion Administration would slijhtly increase the proportion of fundin� tha[ can be used to finance airpon noise mitigation programs throu;h federal Airport Improve- ment Prasram aran[s. The House bill, H.R. 40�7, which passed the full House the tirst week of Au�ust, would reauthorize the FAA for a period of one year and wouid increase the proportion of discretionary fundin� that could be tar�eted for airport noise �ran[s &om 31 percent to 33 percent. The companion Senate bill, S. 2279, which was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee in 7uly but has not yet come up for a floor vote, would increase the noise mitiga- tion project funding from 31 percent of the discretionary account to 3� percent, and would reauthorize the FAA for four vears. Airport Noise Report � �O8 The differences in the House and Senate bills must be reconciled in a House-Senate conference this fall. No date for [he conference has been set yet. In addition to reauthor- izinQ the FAA, the bills also address competition in the aviation industry and commercial air tour flights over national parks. The Senate bill includes a controversial amendment offered by Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) that would allow the Secretary of Transportation to use a previously completed environmental review of an airport construction project to satisfy the study requirements for additional construction. Noise-Related Provisions Noise-related provisions of the Senate bill include: • Slot exemptions for non-stop regional jet service — The Secretary of Transportation would have 90 days to_approve or deny applications for slot (takeoffs and landings) exemp- tions to provide non-stop jet air service between a non-hub airport or a small hub airport and the high density airports already subject to exemption authority (Chicago O'Hare, New York La Guardia, and New York TFK). The provision wo�ld provide 12 new daily commuter slots at ReaQan National Airport for service to under-served markets within the 1,250-mile perimeter limit at the airpoit; • Exemption to perimeter rule — The Secretary of Trans- portation wouId be able to grant limited exemptions to the perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport by distributing 12 newly-created slots for long-haul flights beyond the perimeter. The secretary would only be able to � ant exemptions to the perimeter rule at the airport w�ien the proposed service would increase competition by (1) providing air transportation service with domestic network benefits, and by (2) supportin� new service in multiple markets. Carriers could only use aircraft that meet StaQe 3 noise standards in the new slots. The 24 new daily slots at Reaaan National (12 air carrier for beyond the perimeter, and 13� commuter for within the perimeter) would be divided evenly amon� the hours of 7 a.m. and 9:59 p.m.. Within one ye3r of enactment, and biannually thereafter, the Secretary �vould be� required to certify that noise, con�estion, safety standards, and adequate air service to communities within the perime- ter, remain at appropriate levels; • Additional slots at Chica�o O'Hare Airport—The Secretary of Transpoctation would be authorized to convert 100 unused military slots to air carrier slots over three years. National Park Overfli�hts The Senate bill would require that air tour operators conduct their tours in accordance with the air tour manaae- ment plan of each national park: If a plan is not already in place for a particular park, the bill tivould require the F.�A and the National Park Service to cooperate to develop one. Under the legislation, commercial air tour operators would have to apply for authority to conduct operations over a park, and the administrator of the FAA would prescribe Airport Noise operating conditions and limitations for each commercial air tour operator. Existins commercial air tour operators would have 90 days to apply to the FAA for operating authority. New entrant air tour operators would be required to apply for the authority before beginnina commercial service over national parks. The FAA would have to act on these applications within 2=� months. S. 2279 incorporates the lan�ua�e of two free-standing Senate bills: S. 1353 on airline competition and S. 268 on park overflijhts.� AIP Grants WORI�ING CLOSELY WITH FAA SEEN AS KEY TO GETTIl�TTG GRANT It is extremely important to work closely with the local Federal Aviation Administration office to successfully receive a federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) �rant, accordins to Carla Kell-Smith, president of C. Keli-Smith &. Associates, Inc.,, a San Bruno, CA, fum that manaaes aircraft noise insulation projects. � WorkinQ closely with the FAA is key to obtaining AIP srants and to runnina successful sound insulation proQrams, Kell-Smith explained in remarks presented at the annual meetin� of the National Oraanization to Insure a Sound- controlled Environment (NOISE), held July 22-24 in Thornton, CO. "Any questions on what costs are eli�ible should be answered before you spend the money since the dollars may not be reimbursed," she said. "By developing a relationship with your `banker' you'll know the ins and outs of success- ful project fundina." Kell-Smith told the participants at the NOISE meeting, many of which are local elected officials, that AIP grants can be awarded to units of local government in the area surroundina an airport as well as to airport proprietors. The FA.A's Handbook on Airport Improvement ProQram FundinQ sta[es that AIP grants "can be made to public aaencies or private entities that own or operate the public use airport, or to units of loca] government in the area surroundine the public-use airport." Non-airport proprietors elieible to request AIP �rants include cities, counties, health care districts, and school districts, she said. First Step in Process The first step to requestin� a non-airport AIP grant, Kell- Smith said, is to conduct a preliminary meetin� with the local district or reaional FAA office to discuss the proposed project. Topics that should be addressed at this meetina include the scope of the project, �rant requirements and procedures, the procurement process, existin� and future noise contours, the public approval process, and the partici- pation of businesses owned by women and minorities under the federal DisadvantaQed Business Enterprise (DBE) program. Airport Noise Report � August 28, 1998 109 The formal grant process begins with the pre-application, which serves as a preliminary notice of the sponsor's interest and intent, Kell-Smith said. Accordin� to FAA o�cials, the most common mistake made by potential sponsors is to not provide a complete description and narrative of the project, she said. It is important that the pre-application define the noise contour boundaries of the project by neighborhoods, by a contisuous neishborhood, or by natural boundaries, she said. It also is important that the pre-application specify the number of structures — whether housing stock, libraries, churches, or other eligible structures — that will be included in the project, and to discuss the procurement process for professional and construction services, the local approval process, the community outreach proo am, and the project bud�et. The FA.A will review the pre-application to determine whether it complies with aoency requirements. If the proposed project is approved, the FAA will issue a Notice of Alloc'ation which "specifies the work items that have been desisnated for inclusion in the proaram and the amount of funds being reserved for these items," Kell-Smith said. The notice, she explained, is the first step leading to issuance of a grant offer from the FAA and it provides "reasonable assurance" that the project will receive federal funding. Most of the information used in the pre-application will be duplicated in the application. Kell-Smith recommended that, if possible, project costs should be further defined in the application. 'I"he final phase of the b ant process is the offer of an AIP crant and its acceptance. The Grant Offer details the work to be accomplished in the project, the federal share of the project, and the maximum obligation of the federal aovern- ment. The project sponsor is responsible for payinQ all project costs that exceed the maximum obli�ation, Kell- Smith said. "The acceptance of the offer by the sponsor completes the Crant a�reement and becomes a legal bindinQ contract between the sponsor and the United States." FAA Pleased with-Non-Proprietors Ellis Ohnsted, manaQer of the FAA's Airports Financia} Assistance Division, told ANR that the communities around San Francisco International Airport and the City of InQle- wood, CA, located near Los Anaeles International Airport, are the only two instances he knows of where cities that are not airport proprietors have received AIP grants for noise mitigation projects. Non-airport proprietors are eliaible for AIP grants as long as the FAA determines that they are capable of carrying out. the project, Ohnsted explained. The FAA o�cial said he has been very pleased with the outcome of noise projects administered by non-proprietor cities. AIP grant requests by non-proprietor cities are not put at the bottom of the funding list, he said. Funding is determined by the extent of noise impact. Non-proprieror entities seeking AIP noise mitiQation arants also must be ]ocated within the scope of an airport's approved Part 1�0 Airport Noise Compatibility Program.� Ft. Lauderdale Executive AI7�tlPORT IS TEST SITE I�OR NEW ANOMS UPGRADES Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport announced that it will serve as the test site for the latest upgrades to the Airport Noise and Operations Ivfonitoring System (ANOMS) before it is distributed internationally. The latest version of ANOIv1S, Version 6, incorporates enhanced graphics and mappina capabilities, and provides greater flexibility in generatin� reports frorn desktop PCs and conventional software applications. The airport recently received a$135,000 grant from the Federal Aviation Administra[ion alona with $7,500 in rnatching funds from the Florida Department of Transporta- tion to upgrade its ANOMS system. The $150,000 in improvements�ill include havinQ the airport serve as the te'st site for the latest ANOMS software and the addition of fo�r new permanent noise monitors. The airport will install four additionai noise monitors, brinainQ the total number of permanent monitors in the community to six. Two new noise monitors will be installed to the east of the airport to record levels from jet departures from the�main jet runway. One monitor wili be installed to the north in the Palm Aire Villa�e nei�hborhood to gather noise data from smaller, propeller aircraft using the cross- wind runway. The fourth monitor will be installed to the west of the airport to capture jet arrival noise and levels �enerated by nijhttime depanures to the west_ y The airport is. set to begin impiementing the improvements by late AuQust with completion expected by the end of September. The noise monitorin' system enhancements will improve the airport's noise contrc5l efforts and help it gather detailed data needed for its comprehensive noise abatement proQram. "We're pleased to have the opportunity to upgrade our noise monitorina system with the most current technology available throuah the use of state and federal grant funds," said Bill Crouch, manager of the airport. "The system is an intesral part of our Noise Abatement Prob am and has helped us implement a number of important chanQes to reduce noise in surroundinQ neiehborhoods." First Airport to Install AN�MS In March 1991, Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport became the first airpor[ to install an A�TOMS system, which is now installed at 30 airports in the United States and Europe, includina three other Florida airports: Miami International, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International, and West Palm Beach International. Executive airport said its noise monitorina system carrently features powerful inte�ration software, two permanent microphones in residentia] neiohborhoods, and a radar unit that records aircraft altitudes and flight tracks in. Iocal airspace. The equipment ennbies the airport to collect detailed data, includino noise ]evels and aircraft altitudes �irpon Noise RepoR 110 over residential areas. In addition, ANOMS makes it possibie for the airport [o automatically link citizen reports of unusually loud aircraft overflights to the individual operator that generated the disturbance. Airport staff use this information to monitor and implement noise abatement procedures and keep pilots informed of their progress in reducina noise. Future plans for enhancins the Executive Airport's ANOMS system include the possible replacement of the passive radar system and the inteQration of GeoQraphic Information Systems (GIS) mappin� capabilities, the airport said.d Austi�a I�zt'l NEW AIRPORT RECENES ACI ENVIRONMENT AtiVARD The Airport Council International - North Amecica (ACI- NA) awarded the new Austin-Ber�strom International Airport its 1998 Environmental Achievement Award for the environmental benefits of the new airport, which inciude . dramatically reduced noise impacts. The City of Austin said that it seized every opportunity to develop the new airport "in a way that enhances and protec[s the environment, reduces airport costs, and mini- mizes environmental liabilities." According to the airport, environment3l initiatives �lready implemented at the new airport include reduced noise impact, energy efficiency measures, water conservation, air quality initiatives, air quality improvements, reuse and recycling, and archeolo�ical and historic preservation. In announcina the award, ACI-NA Environmental Affairs Committee.Chairman Steve Domino said, "In designinQ and developinQ the construction plan for the new airport [the City of Austin] staff has helped their airport, their commu- nity, and the industry as a whole. Congratulations on your commitment to the environment as evidenced by this award." The city will receive the award at the ACI-NA Reaional Conference and Exhibition in October. 4 Concern about noise impact was one of the main reasons the City of Austin closed the old Robert MuelIer Municipal Airport and built the new Austin International Airport, ,�,� according to Jamy P. Kazanoff, spokeswoman for the airpon. lyioving the airport significantly reduced the noise impact on the community even thouQh the location of the new airport is only three miies away, she said. The old airport was located on 901 acres, five miles from the state capitol. The new airport is loca[ed on 4,242 acres three miles farther from the capito] in a rural area. At the old airport site, 30,000 residences and businesses tivere included in the 6� dB DNL and higher noise contour, she said, compared to 1,500 residences and businesses at the new site. Airport Noise R The Ci[y of Austin owns the land at the netiv airport site and has made sure that it is zoned compatibly with the airport, she told ANR. The city currently is in the process of updating its Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program, which is due to be completed in January. It will address noise miti�ation options for a residential development of about 50 homes in the 6� dB DNL contour of the new airport. Half of the homeowners there indicated in a survey that they are willin� to be boubht out, Kazanoff said.� Research A : . ..,.� / , � , � � '... . , . . . � A community group in Albuquerque has created a new research fund to help the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) continue documenting the environmental impact of airpoi-ts first reported in its widely publicized October 1996 document, Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of America's Airports. That report, which was criticized by airports, conciuded that airports release as much pollution as smokestack industries but are excluded from many of the rules that equally pollutin� industries must follow (8, ANR, 14�). It found that the most serious environmental impacts produced by airports were in air, water, and noise pollution, includina poor land use decisions that contributed to conflicts between airports and their neighbors. The report recommended that airports be required to follow the same reporting requirements as other major poliute�s and that the Environmental Protection Agency should require airports to notify the public about emissions by submitting information to the Toxic Release Inventory, a database that EPA publishes annually. Flying Off Course provided some of the groundwork for a recent lawsuit brousht by NRDC, Citizens Aviation Watch (a national coalition of community �roups), and several . other parties aQainst the operators of Washington ReaQan National Airport and Chicaao O'Hare International Airport alleginQ violations of environmentai standards. The.Airport Neitrhbors Alliance, Inc. (ANA), based in Albuquerque, came up with the idea for the new fund and named it after Albuquerque resident Charles Hi�gins who died in AuQust 1997 in an automobile accident and had been involved in local efforts to combat noise and air pollution from the expansion and new traffic routes at Albuquerque International Airport. "ANA established this fund with NRDC to encouraQe members of other airport-impacted communities to contrib- ute to the fund in order to brin� a professional scientific and IeQal focus on the various health and safety hazards airports and aircraft pose, includinQ noise, air, and water pol]ution. Those impacts have local and �lobal impacts, as they are apparently affectinQ weather and the ozone layer as well as the quality of life for millions in the vicinity of airports," Airport Noise Report C� August 28, 1998 ANA said in announcin� the new research fund. The fund currently has $225, according to Jack Ivlurray, director of development for �IRDC, which is a nationai non- profit organization of scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists dedicated to protectin� public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, it has over 300,000 mem- bers.� Land Use I• ' • i ' i • . � 1 1 1 . , .. . The large open tracts of land that surround many airpons are desirable for noise miti�ation but can become hazardous if they attract wildlife and increase the potential for wildlife- aircraft strikes, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) told the Federal Aviation Administration. "When considering the effects of noise, it is important to consider other factors in order to come up with the best solution for the overall issue of compatible land use," said- Robert W. Hall, Jr., staff enaineer in ALPA's En�ineerin� and A.ir Safety Department. "One important factor is the affect widdlife has on airports," he said. The ALPA o�cial told FAA that any final decision it reaches on the issue of land use must consider the contents of Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports." ALPA's comments were the latest submitted to FA.A in response to an agency solicitation seekin� new and innova- tive ways to foster compatible land use near airports. While none of the other comments submitted to the agency addressed aircraft-wildiife strikes, several others stressed that safety should be considered in determining compatible land use around airports. The FAA is still waiting for the Airports Council Interna- tional - North America to submit its comments to the aaency on compatible land use.� Hushkits WEST'JET MAKES PACT WITH AVAERO FO� KI�'S WestTet Airlines, the Canadian low-fare airline based in Alberta, has selected AvAero as iu exclusive lon�-term supplier of StaQe 3 hushkits for WestTet's BoeinQ 737-200 fleet, AvAero announced. y WestTet currently operates nine B-737-200's, four of which are equipped with AvAzro hushkits supplied under an earlier contract. The new arran�ement provides for AvAero to supply all of WestTet's future needs, includinQ an initial five firm hushkit orders and an unspecified number of options. These include converting the carrier's remainin� Staae 2 fleet, plus converting four firm and three optional 737-200 aircraft WestTet acquired in a recent transaction 111 with Japan's All Nippon Airways, pius future additions to the carrier's 737-200 flee[. WestJet was AvAero's first customer in Canada, installing its ini[ial kit in 199b. Since then AvAero has contracted with all remainina Canadian operators of 737-200 aircraft for instaliation of its hushkit. Transpon Canada, the air re�ulatory agency, issued its only Supplemental Type Certificate for 737-200 noise reduction to AvAero in 1996, certifying its approval of the AvAero system installation, the company said. It said a key factor in WestJet's decision to exclusively contract with AvAero for its hushkits was the airline's two years of maintenance-free service with the kit. AvAero is based in Safety Harbor, FI.,.� 1'raining Classes HMMH TO HOLD CLASS ON INM VE�.tSION 5.2 The acoustica] consultin� firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson announced that it will hold its next training course on Version 5.2 of the InteQrated Noise Model on Oct. 7-9 at its New En�land O�ce. y The three-day course will cover the basic steps necessary to develop noise contours usinQ the INM, Version 5.2. The course consists of a combination of short lectures and hands-on sessions, usino training materials developed by HMMH exclusively for use in its courses. The trainins course is desiQned to give new users a firm understandins of the IIVM and will provide experienced users with rapid proficiency on the new model. Additional information and co�rse registration is available online at http:/h�vww.hmmh.com/II�iM.html or by contactinQ Mary Ellen Eaaan, HMMH, 15 New Enaland Executive y Park, Burlin�ton, MA 01803; tel: (781) 229-0707; fax: (781) 229-7939; e-mail: measan@hmmh.com.� Burbank BAR FOR PART 161 STUDi' WOULD B� �IGH, �'AA S�YS Jane Garvey, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration met separately Aug. I 1 with representatives of the City of Burbank, CA, and the Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority to discuss their dispute over a new airport terminal project, which has turned into a complex and protracted legal battle. One of the topics discussed at the meetin_ �vas the feasibility of conductina a federal Part 161 study, which would be required to justify imposition of a nish[time curfew, noise budget rule, and cap on operations souaht by Burbank at the all StaQe 3 airport. � Following the meeting �vith the FAA chief, Burbank Mayor Dave Golonski said, "We agree with Administrator Airport Noise Report �12 •��1 • �,• • • r• (� � � � � � • II' 4 ' Mark Atwood, Esq. Galland, Khar�sch, Morse Sc Garfinkle Washing[on, D.C. Lee L. Blackman, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Los Aneeles, CaliF. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, School of Aviation u"c Transportauon Dowiin� Colle�e Eliot Cutler, Esq. Cutler & Stanfield Washington, D.C. J• Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice President American Associa[ion of Airport Executives Edward J. DiPoivere Administrator, National Association oFNoise �-aControl Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airport Environmental 3pecialist, Division of Aeronautics, CaIif. Dept. of Transportation E. Tazeweli Ellett; Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washingron, D.C. Julie H. Eilis, Esq. Managing Director Federal Express Corporation Angel l�S. Garcia Co-Chairman Citizens Agains[ Newark Noise E.H. "Moe" Haupt Mana�er, Airport and Environmental5ervices. National Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Siiverberg, Esq. BaQileo, Silverberg & Goldman Washin�ton, D.C. Joanne W. Youna, Esq. Bal:er & HosteQer LLP Washingron, D.C. Airport Noise Report Garvey that the legal process for proposing new noise rules, known as the FAA's Part 161 process, is neither useless nor futile. But we acknowled�e her admonition that che bar is a hiQh one. We also offered to work with � Administrator Garvey to explore opportunities for imposin� �owth limits at the airport outside the Part 161 process. None of this, of course, can happen until the Airport Authority simi]ariy demonstrates a commitment to findinQ a solution outside the courts." Mayor Golonski said that "in a effort to jump start discussions that could lead to a solution," Burbank recently hired the airport desiQn firm Edwards & Kelcey to desi�n a replacement terminal "that can meet everyone's needs." Airport authority o�cials also released a statement foilowins their meetin� with Garvey in which they said they urged her "to explain to representatives of the City of Burbank that it is not within the Authority's power to unilaterally impose mandatory curfews and noise restrictions and that holding the replacement terminal hostage [through it zonin� powers] will not change that fact." "This is too important a safety issue to be held up on noise issues," Thomas E. Greer, Airport Authority Executive Director, toid the FAA administrator. "We have one of the quietest airports in the coun�y and we have committed to workin' to make it even quieter. But this is a separate issue from whether or not a replacement terminal should be constructed for safety reasons," Greer said. Airport Authority o�cials asked Garvey to urge a"decouplin�" of the terminal and noise issues so that the replacement terminal project can proceed. Airport Authority Commission President Joyce Streator added, "This dispute has gone on far too Ion�, and we will do our part to brin� it to an end quickly. It is our hope that this new level of involvement by the FAA will result in construction of a modern terminal buildin� sooner rather than later." Streator said the airport authority is "committed to seekin� new, feasibie methods for mid�ating any future increases in noise impacts and aiso to reducina noise impacts below current levels even if there is an increase in air travel and air carrier operations." She noted that a Part 150 study currently is underway and that the airport authority expects to be able to recommend to the FAA new methods to reduce noise impacts early next year. Greer said it is the airport authority's hope "that these measures will address Burbank's concerns and expedite the buildin; of the replacement terminal." Garvey visited Burbank at the request of Rep. Howard L. Berman (D- CA).�1 AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Nlaria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 2� times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (70�) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. Price $49�. Authorization to photocopy i[ems for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is aranted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of USS1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Con�ress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyri�ht C 1995 by Airport Noise Repott, Ashburn, Va. 20147 l< � h � •. . .5�• ,� •• 4_;' � _ �` �,� h� 3 Y t � e ff ^. S� �i� 'T�'� �X . ; �• � l ' .� „_ �- ... � � � .,w . .. i: � � ., '-� � �. .....� .. r... ...:. .._� • .r �> ..r...� � ��,. 3y A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological develoQments Volume 10, Number 15 Fleet Mix AIRLINES WAITING TO END TO RET�RE STAGE 2 ALI2CRA.�'T, FAA R�PORT SHOWS Approximately half of the 3,00� Stage 2 aiicraft operating in the United States that must be phased out of the fleet by the end of 1999 were stil] flying at the end of 1997, according to the Federal Aviation Administration's annual fleet mix report to Con�ress. The FAA report gives members of Congress a statistical snapshot of how weIl the U.S. and foreign airlines are complying with the FAA's Part 91 regulations, which require that all Stase 2 aircraft operated in the United States be retired o� meet more strin�ent Sta�e 3 noise standards by Dec: 31, 1999. The FAA's most recent report, presented to Con�ress the week of Sept_ 7, shows that the airlines are waitin� until the final sta�es of the six-year phaseout period to retire their Stage 2 aircraft and are meetin; interim compliance deadlines by growing their Stage 3 fleets_ As of the end of 1997, some 1,453 Sta�e 2 aircraft were still oaeratin� in the United States, according to the FAA report These aircraft must come out of the fleet by the end of 1999, which means that most of the noise reduction benefits of retirina the Sta�e 2 fleet have yet to occur, explained William Aibee of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy. The FAA expects that the total size of the U.S. and forei�n fleet of aircraft operating in the United States will grow from 7,172 at the end of 1997 to approxi- mately 8,000 at the end of 1999, Albee said, and that approximately 1,000 aircraf[ in the year 2000 fleet will be hushkitted to meet Staae 3 noise standards. At the end of 1997, most of the major U.S. airlines already had increased the percentaae of their Stage 3 fleets to 75 percent or beyond, already meeting the end of 1998 interim deadline requirement. Alaska Airlines is already at 100 percent Staje 3 aircraft. Northwest and TWA have the two ]owest percentaQes of StaQe 3 aircraft in their fleets (67.2 percent and 69 percent respectively) but even they are relatively close to meetin� the end of 1998 requirement. On the other hand, only six of the 10 major U.S. carriers had phased out more than 50 percent of their Sta�e 2 fleets at the end of 1997. The optional way to meet the end of 1998 interim deadline requirement is for airlines to phaseout 7� percent of their ori�inal Staae 2 baseline fleet. The major U.S. airlines still had 753 Staae 2 aireraft that must be retired or converted to meet StaQe 3 noise standards at the end of 1997, with American, Delta, and Northwest havin� the most StaQe 2 aircraft to retire. As a�roup, the 26 U.S. cargo operators still had 241 Staae 2 a3fcraf[ to retire as of the end of 1997. Federal Express had the greatest number to retire (6�), fol- lowed by Airborne Express (31), Emery (29), and American International (23). The FAA report shows that the combined U.S. cargo fleet of 931 aircraft is comprised of 74.1 percent StaQe 3 aircraft. The cargo carriers, as a group, have retired 57.3 percent of their Stase 2 aircraft. United Parcel Service is the star of the carao group with its entire fleet of 194 aircraft meetina StaQe 3 standards.J September 11, 1998 . In This Issue... Copyright �O 1998 by Airport Noisc Report. rlshbum. Va. 20147 Fleet Mix ... The FAA submits its sixth annual report to Congress showin� the airlines' progress at the end of 1997 in meeting Part 91 regulations requiring the phaseout of all noisier Sta�e 2 aircraft from the commer- cial fleet by the end of 1999. The report indicates that half of the Stage 2 aizcraft that must be retired or retro- tirted to meet more stringent noise standards at the end of 1999 were still being flown at the end of 1997. This means that the airlines are waiting until the end of the phaseout period to drop their Stage 2 aircraft and that the greatest noise reduction beneiits of the phaseout have yet to be seen. The report also shows that the U.S. major airlines are ahead of schedule in meetin� requirements for the percent- age of Sta�e 3 aircraft that must be in their fleets. Selected tables from the FAA report showing the fleet mix for various categories of airlines begins on page 114. The entire report is on FAA's home page on the Internet at www.aee.hq.faa.gov. 114 REPORTED FLEET CONIPOSITION January l, 1997 - December 31, 1997 OPERATOR C�TEGORX DOMESTIC TOTAL (107 OPERATORS) U.S. IYlajors* (10 operators) U.S. Nationals* (16 operators) U.S. Cargo (26 operators) Other U.S. (55 operators) ° FOREIGN TOTAL (153 OPERATORS) Nlajor Foreign* (59 operators) •-�r Other Foreign (94 operators) ACTIVE FLEET TOTAL (260 OPERATO: Inactive Fleet (96 operators)' BASE L�'V�L T�TAL (356 OPF.PATD�S ;� Airport Noise Report C 1997 BASE 1997 1997 TOTAL 1997 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3� FLEET PRASEOUT'' FLEET MLY3 2,236 1,136 3,817 4,953 49.2% 77.1% 1,�50 753 2,77� 3,528 �1.4% 7c4.7% 84 78 2» 3�3 7.1% 76.6% �65 - 241 690 9�1 �7.3% 74.1% 37 64 82 146 -73.0% 56.2% 769 328 1,908 2,236 �7.3% 8�.3% �91 245 1,6>j 1,898 58.5% 87.1% 178 72 26=� 336 �9.6% 78.6% 357 3,362 719 7,172 � �1.6% � 79.8% Notes 'k "U.S. Ivlajors" refers to U.S. carriers with annual operatin� revenues of �1 biilion or greater; "U.S. Nationals" refers to U.S. carriers with annual operatin� revenues between 5100,000.000 and �I billion. 'ivlajor Forei�n" refers co foreign operators wi[h 10 or more subsonic turbojet airpianes over 75,000 Ibs. that are eligible for operation to the contiwous United States. � The number of S[aoe 3 airplanes listed in the active fleec may be somewhac understated. Once an operator notifies the Of6ce of Environment and Eneray that it has achieved 100-percenc compliance, no-further annual reports are requi�ed. Therefore, some fully compliant operators have increased their Sta�e 3 fleet withouc reportinQ the additional airplanes for noise compliance purposes. '' Difference between base level and number of Stage 2 airpianes divided by base level, showin� the percenta�e of Stage 2 airplanes phased out. Individual operators musc have phased out 50 percent or more afcer 1��1/96 to comply under the phaseout option. Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to permi[ the continued operation of the next whole number of Stage 2 airplanes. ThereFore, some percentages are lower than [he compliance percentaQes prescribed in the rewlations. ' Numbe� oF Sta,e 3 airplanes divided by total f7eet, showinQ the percentage of Staae 3 airplanes. Individual operators must have a fleet oF no less than 65 percent Sta�e 3 airplanes after 12/31/96 to comply under fleet mix option (50 percent to comply as new entrant). Calculations resultine in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation oF the next whole number of Sta�e 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages are lo�ver than the compliance percentaQes prescribed in the regulations. ' This cate�ory includes 24 new entrants tha[ �vere added withou� base level, contributinQ 40 StaRe 2 airplanes [o the total. Some of these operators have a sinQle airplane and under [he rounding rule achieved compliance without addine Sta�e 3 airplanes to their fleets. These factors result in [he neQative phaseout percentage and the low fleet mix percentage. � ' Inactive opera[ors are those operarors that have oone bankrupt, surrendered their cettiiicates, are no lon�er opera[ing to or within [he con[isuous United 5tates, or have not yet commenced announced operations to or within the con�iguous United 5tates. Airpon Noise Report � � September 11, 1998 i�� 1996 -1997 PROGRESS COiVSPARISON STAGE 2 SUMIVIARY OPERATOR BASE 1996 1997 STAGE 2 1996 1997 PHASEOUT CATEGORY LEVEL' STAGE 2 STAGE 2 CHANGEZ PHASEOUT' PHASEOUT`3 CHriNGE DOMESTIC TOTAL 2,2.i6 1,304 1,136 -168 41.9°Io 49.2°Io 7.3% U.S. Majors 1,5�0 8�6 7�3 -123 43.4�Io 51.4%o 8.0% U.S. Nationals 84 73 78 5 15.1% 7.l �lo -8.O�Io U.S. Cargo 565 268 241 -27 52.6% 573% 4.7% Other U.S. 37 87 64 -23 -97.7%' -73.0°l0' 24.7% FOREIGN TOTAL 769 374 328 -46 52.7% 57.3% 4.6% Major Foreign 591 , 291 245 -46 51.1% 58.5% 7.4% Other Forei n 178 83 72 -11 57.4% 59.6% 2.2% ACTIVE FLEET TOTAL 3,005 1,678 1,453 -22j 44.7% 51.6% 6.9% STAGE 3 SUMNIAR.Y OPERA.TOR 1996 1997 STAGE 3 1996 1997 FLEET MIX CATEGORY STAGE 35 STAGE 3' CHANGE FLEET MLY FLEET MIX CHANGE DOMESTIC TOTAL 3,489 3,802 31� 72.8% � 77.0% 42%a U.S. Majors �,604 �,77� 171 74.8% 78.7% 3.9% U.S. Nationals ✓ 180 �?» 7� 71.1% 76.6% 5.5% U.S. Cargo 600 690 90 69.1% 74.1% 5.0% Other U.S. 105 82 -23 54.7�10 �62% 1.5% FOR.EIGN TOTAL 1,676 1,908 232 81.g°Io 8�.3% 3.5% Major Foreign 1,451 1,6�3 202 83.3% 87.1% 3.8% Other Forei n 225 26� 39 73.1�Io 78.6% 5.�% ACTIVE FLEET TOTAL 5,16� �.719 5�4 7�.�%a 79.8% 4.3% Notes � Some changes in base level have occurred since the 1996 reporc due to the recurn of U.S.-owned airplanes leased to foreign opera[ors and cessation of operations by operators �vith base le��el. '` Increases resulted from the addition of new entrants and airplane data that were not previously reported to FAA. 3 1996 phaseout computed a?ainst base level of 3,034 airplanes. 1997 phaseout computed against base leve( of 3,005 airplanes. ° The na[ional category includes new entrants formerl}� reported as "Other U.S." that w�ere added without base level. contributing StaQe 2 airplanes to the total. The "Other U.S." category includes new entran[s that were added without base level, contribucing Stage 2 airplanes to the totaJ. Many of these opera�ors have a single airplane and under the rounding rule achieved compliance without addinQ Stage 3 airplanes to their fleets. These factors result in the ne2ative phaseout percentage and the low fleet mix percentage. 5 The number of Sta�e 3 airplanes listed in the active fieet may be somewhat understatzd. Once an operator notities the Office oF Environment and Energy that it has achieved ]00-percen� compliance, no futther annual reports are required. ThereFore, some Pully � � comptiant operators have increased [heir Stage 3 flee: without reporting the additional airplanes for noise compliance purposes. Airpott iVoise Report � R 116 Airport Nozse Report 1 1997 PROGRESS REPORTS SUMlY1ARY - U.S. NIAJORS , �C 1997 OPERATOR BASE 1997 1997 TOTAL 1997 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3 FLEET PHASEOUT' FLEET l�1LY` Alaska Airlines 32 0 78 78 100.0% 100.0% America West Airlines 33 23 81 104 303% 77.9% American Airlines 175 79 �62 641 54.9% 87.7% Continental Airlines l96 84 242 326 57.1% 74.2% Delta Air Lines, Inc. 224 127 432 �59 433% 77.3% Northwest Airlines 284 133 272 40� 53.2�10 67.2% Southwest Airlines 32 42 219 261 -313% 83.9% TWA 1�4 �7 127 1$4 57.5% 69.0% United Airlines 237 1�2 445 597 35.9% 74.5% � USAir 203 �b 317 373 72.4% 85.0% U.S. NIAJORS TOTAL (10 O erators) 1,5�0 7�3 3,775 3,528 51.4% 78.7% Notes 1 Difference be[ween base level and number of Stage 2 airplanes divided by base level, showing the percenta;e of Stage 2 airplanes '� phased out. Individual operators must have phased out �0 percent or more after 12/31/96 to comply under the phaseout option. Calcalations resultine in fractions may be rounded to permi� the con[inued operation of the next whole number of Sta�e 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentaQes are lower [han the compliance percentaQes prescribed in the regulations. Some individual operators have experienced rapid Qrowth in both their Staae 2 and S[age 3 fleets simultaneously. In cer[ain cases, S[age 2 fleet growth has exceeded base level. resulting in neQative phaseout percentages. 7fiese operators have chosen to comply through the fleet mix option. '" Number of S[aQe 3 airplanes divided by total flee[, sho�vin� the percenta�e of S[aQe 3 airplanes. Individual operators mus[ have a fleet of no (ess [han 6� percen[ Sta�e 3 airplanes aher 12/31/96 to comply under fleet mix option (SO percent to comply as new entran�). Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operacion of the next whole number oF ^ Staee 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages are lower than the compliance percenta�es prescribed in the rewlations. Airpott Noise Report .' �,--- � September 11, 1998 1997 PROGRESS REPORTS SUIYIMARY - U.S. NATIONALS 117 199'7 OPERATOR BASE 1997 1997 TOTAL 1997 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3 FLEET PHASEOUT� FLEET NILY` *Air Tran �iriines, Inc. 0 12 20 32 O.O�Io 62.5% Air Wisconsin 0 0 16 16 0.0% 100.0% **Aloha Airlines 19 17 0 17 10.5% 0.0% American Trans Air 8 1� 31 46 -87.�% 67.4% *Business Express 0 0 39 39 0.0% 100.0% Hawauan Airiines 6 0 10 '� 10 100.090 100.0% *Kiwi Intl. Air Lines 0 4 4 8 0.0% 50.0% *Midway Airlines Inc. 0 0 17 17 0.0% 100.0% Midwest Express 12 7 17 24 41.7% 70.8°la Pan American Airways Corp. 9 7 � 14 21 22.2% 66.7% Reno Air 0 0 29 29 0.0% 100.0°Io Sun Country Airlines 7I 5 11 16 28.6% 68.8% Tower Air 7 � 11 16 28.6�10 68.8% USAir �huttle 16 6 4 10 02.5'��0 40.0% *Western Pacific Airlines 0 0 18 18 0.0% 100.0°l0 World Airways 0 0 14 14 0.0% 100.0% U.S. NATIONALS TOTAL (16 OPERATORS) 84 78 2�� 333 7.1% 76.6% Notes * A new entrant that did not operate StaQe 2 airplanes durinQ the time period used to establish base level. New entrants must have a fleet of no less [han 50 percent Sta�e 3 airplanes af[er 12/31/96 to comply. **Aloha Airlines operates solely outside the conciQuous United 5tates in Hawaiian inter-island service. i DiFference between base level and number of S[age 2 airplanes divided by base level, showina the percentaQe of Staee 2 airplanes phased out. Individual operators must have phased out 50 percent or more after 1 J31/96 to comply under [he phaseout option. Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to pernvt the continued operation oF the next whole number of Stage Z airplanes. Therefore, some percentaQes are lower than [he compliance percentaQes prescribed in the regulations. Some individual operators have experienced rapid growth in both their Sta�e 2 and Stage 3 fleets simultaneously. In certain cases, Stage 2 fleet �rowth has exceeded base level, resulting in ne�ative phaseou[ percentaoes. These operacors have chosen to comply through the fleet mix option. '" Number of Stage 3 airplanes divided by total flee�, showing the percentage of Stage 3 airplanes. Individual operators must have a fleet of no less than 6� percent Sta�e 3 airplanes aher 12131/96 to comply under fleet mix option (50 percent to comply as new entrant). Calculations resulting in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next whole number of Sta�e 2 airplanes. There%re, some percentaoes are lower than the compliance percentages prescribed in the regulations. Airport Noise Report 11� 1997 PROGRESS REPORTS SUIVIlYIARY - U.S. CARGO ort Noise Report ' 199� OPERATOR BASE 199'1 1997 TOTAL 199� 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3 FLEET PHASEOUT' FLEET ML�'" *Air Transport International Ltd. 6 3 10 13 50.0% 76.9% Airborne Express 82 31 63 94 62.2% 67.0% American International Airways 49 23 � 20 43 53.1% 46.5% Amerijet International 1� 7 4 11 53.3% 36.4% Arrow Air 23 6 6 12 73.9% 50.0%a *Atlas Air, Inc. 0 1 21 22 0.0% 9S.5�1a Burlington Air Express, Inc. 16 4 14 18 75.0% 77.8% *Capital Cargo Tntl Airlines, Inc. 0 3 2 5 0.0% 40.0% Challenge Air Cargo 3 1 3 4 66.7% 75.0%o *Contract Cargo Airlines, Inc. 0 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0% . DHL Airways, Inc. 16 8 19 27 50.0% 70.4% :-; Emery Woridwide Airlines 66 29 45 74 56.1%a 60.8�/0 Evergreen International 33 13 8 21 60.6%o 38.1 �Io Express One Internationai, Inc. 29 9 19 28 69.0% 67.9�Io Federal Express 1�7 6� 204 269 58.6�/0 75.8% *Fine Air 0 10 11 21 0.0% 52.4% Fiorida West Airlines 7� i- 0 i 85.7% 0.0% *Gemini Air Cargo 0 0 7 7 0.0% 100.0% *Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. 0 10 � 11 21 0.0% 52.4�/o *Nations Air Express OI 2 1 3 0.0% 333�Io *Polar Air Cargo 0 . 6 8 14 0.0% 57.1 �lo Ryan Infernational Airlines 1 4 10 14 -300.0% 71.4% Southern Air Transport 13 1 7 8 923°Io 87.5% *Trans Continental 0 2 3 5 0.0% 60.0%o United Parcei Service 47 0 194 194 100.0�Io 100.0% *Zantop International Airlines 2 1 _ 0 1 50.0% 0.0%o U.S. CARGO TOTAL 56� 241 690 931 57.3% 74.1% (26 OPERATORS) Notes * A new envant that did not operate Stage 2 airptanes durin� the time period used to estabiish base level. New entrants must have a fleet oF no less than 50 percen[ Stase 3 airplanes nFter 1J31/96 to comply. - :�, � Difference benveen base level and number of Staee 2 aicp(anes divided by base level, showina the percenta�e of Stage 2 airplanes phased ou[. Individual operators must have phased out 50 percent or more afrer iJ31/96 to comply under the phaseout option. Caicutations resultin� in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation o[ the next whole number oP Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentages are lower than the compliarice percentages prescribed in the regulations. Some individual operators have experienced rapid growth in both their Sta�e 2 and Sta�e 3 fleees simu(taneously. In cettain cases, Sta;e ? fteee �rowth has exceeded base level, resulting in ne�ative phaseout percentagzs. These operators have chosen ro comply through the fleet mix option. ' Numoer oF Sta�e 3 airplanes divided by total fleet, showing [he percen[age of Stage 3 airplanes. individual operators must have n flee[ of no less \. than 65 percent Sta�e 3 airplanes after t J31/96 to comp(�� under fleet mix option (?0 percent to comply as new entrant). Calculations resulting in frac[ions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next whole number of Staoe 2 airplanes. ThereFore, some percentages are lower than the compliance percenta�es prescribed in the rewlations. � ;�irport tioise Report September 11, 1998 1997 PROGRESS REPORTS SUNIiV1ARY - MAJOR FOREIGN 119 199� OPERATOR BASE 1997 1997 TOTAL 1997 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3 FLEET PHASEOUT' FLEET ML'Y` Aeroflot 102 26 15 41 74.S�Io 36.6% Aerolineas Argentinas l� 2 9 11 86.7% 81.8�70 Aeromexico 1� 18 42 60 -20.0% 70.0% Air 2000 0 0 10 10 0.0% 100.0% *Air Atlanta-Icelandic 0 6 10 16 0.0% 62.�% Air Canada 3 7? 28 103 131 61.1% 78.6% Air China 0 0 16 16 0.0% 100.0% Air France/Air Charter 23 4 64 68 82.6% 94.1% Air India 4 4 13 17 0.0% 76.5% Air Jamaica 4 2 12 14 50.0% 85.7% Air New Zealand 7 0 26 26 100.0% 100.0% Air Transat 0 � 20 . 22 0.0% 90.9% Alitalia 13 0 2� 22 100.0% 100.0% Al1 Nippon Airways 0 0 31 31 0.0% 100.0% AOM-Minerve 0 0 13 13 0.0% 100.0% Asiana.Airlines 0 0 �6 56 0.0% 100.0°l0 Avianca 21 1 12 13 95.8% 92.3% Britannia Airways 0 0 28 28 0.0% 100.0% British Airways 19 15 110 12� 21.1 �l0 88.0% Canada 3000 Airlines Limited 0 0 11 11 0.0%o 100.0% Canadian Airlines International ° 6� 34 35 69 47.7�Io 50.7% Cathay Pacific Airways 0 0 42 42 0.0% 100.0�70 China Airlines 11 2 19 21 81.8% 90.S�Io China East Airlines 0 0 39 39 O.O�Io 100.0% Condor Flugdienst 0 0 29 29 0.0�70 100.0% EI A1 Israel Airlines 11 7 19 26 36.4�Io 73.1% *Eva Airways Corporation OI 0 10 10 0.0% 100.0�Io Iberia ll j 19 24 -400.0% 79.2°Io Japan Air System Co., Ltd. 0 D 26 26 O.O�Io 100.0�0 Japan Airlines �'�-' 1 � 126 141 6�.990 89.44'0 *Japan Asia Airways 0 5 8 13 0.0% 61.5% KLM Royal Dutch Airlines I 7) 0 46 46 100.0�70 100.0% Korean Air Lines 21 � 49 54 76.2�Io 90.7% Airport Noise Report 1�� Airport Noise Report 1997 OPEi2.�,,TOR BASE 1997 1997 TOTAL 1997 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3 FLEET PHASEOUT' FLEET Ni�'' Lacsa Airlines 6 3 9 1� 50.0% 7�.0% *Lineas Aereos Allegro S.A. de 0 5 7 1� 0.0% SE.3% c.v. LTU 0 0 20 20 0.0% 100.0% LTU Sud 0 0 ' 10 10 0.0% 100.0% Lufthansa 0 4 68 7� 0.0% 94.4% i�lalaysia Airlines 0 0 17 17 0.0% 100.0% Martinair Holland 3 0 14 14 100.0% 100.0% 1b1e.Yicana 44 20 2� 45 54S% 55.6% 1�lonarch Airlines 0 0 19 19 0.0% 100.0% Philippine Airlines 0 0 48 48 0.0% 100.0% I'� 10 5 9 14 50.0% 643% Qantas I1 0 57 57 100_0% 100.0% Royal Jordanian Airline 3 2 9 I1 33.3% 81.8�/0 Saudia Arabian Airlines 0 0 38 38 0.0% 100.0% Scandinavian Airlines Systems 0 0 13 13 Q.0% 100.0%o Singanore Airlines 4 7 43 50 -7�.0% 86.0% South African Airways 0 0 16 16 0.0% 100.0�10 Swissair 6 0 31 31 100.0�Io 100.0% Taca 4 4 10 14 0.0% 71.4�Io Taesa 10 � 8 12 60.0% 66.7�% TAP 0 0 12 12 0.0% 100.0% Thai Ain�vays International 0 0 i� i� O.O�Io 100.0�/0 Transbrasil Airlines 3 0 I 1 11 100.0% 100.0�10 Varig 0 3 33 36 O.O�Io 91.7% VASP 21 2 - 11 13 90.�% 84.6% Virgin Atlantic S 5 1; 1g 3� Sqo �� Io FOREIGN NIAJOR- TOTAL (�9 OPERA.TORS) �91 24� 1.6�3 1,393 53.�% 87.1% Notes * A new en[rant that did not operate Staoe 2 airplanes durina the time period used to establish base level. New entrants must have a tleet of no less than 50 percent StaQe 3 airplanes �fter 1 J31/96 ro comply. DifPerence between base tevel and number of StaQe 2 aitplanes divided by base level, showine [he percentaee of Stage 2 airplanes phased out. Individual operators must have phaszd out 50 percent or more after 12/31/96 to comply under the phaseout option. Calculations resultin� in fractions may be rounded to permit the continued operation of the next whole number oF Sta�e 2 airplanes. Therefore�some percen[a�es are lotiver [han the compliance percenta�es prescribed in the reeula[ions. Some individual C operators have experienced rapid growth in both their Stase 2 and Sta�e 3 t7eets simultaneously. In ceRain cases, Sta�e 2 fleet growth has exceeded base level, resu(tinQ in neaa�ive phaseout percenta�es. These operators have chosen to comp(y throu�h [he fleet mix option. y y Airpon Noise Report September 11, 1998 1997 PROGRESS REPORTS SUNIl�1ARY - OTHER U.S. 121 1997 OPERA.TOR BASE 1997 1997 TOTAL 199'1 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3 FLEET PHASEOUT' FLEET NIIX'' Ackerley Communications, Inc. 1 1 0 1 O.O�Io 0.0% *AirTran Corp. 0 3 6 9 O.O�Io 66.7% Amway � 0 1 1 100.0�/0 100.0% Arco Alaska � 1 0 1 �0.0% 0.0% BAC 1-11 Corporation 1 I 0 1 0.0% 0.0% BP Exploration, Inc. 1 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0% Calumet Farms, Inc. 0 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0% *Casino Express 1 1 1 � 0.0% 50.0% Champion Air 0 4 � 9 0.0% 55.6°Io Clay Lacy Aviation � 0 0 0 100.0% 0.0% Comtran International I 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0%o Cook Aircraft Leasing, Inc. 1 0 2 2 100.0% 100.0% Custom Air Transport 0 2 1 3 0.0% 333% Davis Oil Company 1 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0% Eastwind Capital Partners 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% Falcon Air Express, Inc. 0 1 1 2 0.0% 50.0% *Frontier Airlines 0 5 8 13 0.0% 61.5% Funair 1 0 1 1 100.0% 100.0% Gund Business Enterprises, Inc 1 1 0 1. 0.0% 0.0% Imperial Palace Air, Ltd. 1 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0�/0 J.A.R. Aircraft Services, Inc. 0 l 0 1 0.0% 0.0% Kalair � 1 0 1 SO.O�Io 0.0% KEB Aircraft 1 0 1 1 0.0% 100.0% *Laker Airways, Inc. 0 0 3 > 0.0% 100.0% Lynton Aviation 2 0 3 3 0.0% 100.0% *Miami Air 0 4 3 7 0.0% 42.9�10 Montes Drilling Co. 1 1 0 1 O.O�o 0.0% Nomads, Inc. 1 0 1 I 0.0% 100.0°Io North American Airlines 0 0 3 3 O.O�Ic 100.0% Occidental Petroleum Corp. 1 0 1 I 100.090 100.0% 'kOmni Air Express 0 2 3 5 0.0°Io 60.0% *Orca Bay Aviation, LLC 0 0 1 l 0.0% I00.0% *Pan American World Airtivays, Inc. 0 0 4I � 0.0% 100.0�Io Airport hoise Repett 12� Airport Noise Report 1997 OPERATOR BASE 1997 1997 TOTAL 1997 1997 LEVEL STAGE 2 STAGE 3 FLEET PHASEOUT� FLEET MIX'' *Park Corporation p 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0% Pharm Air i • 1 0 1 � 0.0% 0.0% *Piedmont Aviation Services, Tnc. 0 1 0 1 0.0%o 0.0% *Prime Air, Inc. 0 0 6 6 0.0% 100.0% Reeve Aleutian Airways 2 1 I 2 0.0% 50.0% Scaife Flight Operations 1 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0% Sierra Pacific Airlines 5 2 0 2 60.0% 0.0% Sky King, Inc. 1 I 0 1 0.0% 0.0% Sky Trek International Airlines 0 2 2 4 0.0% 50.0% Southern Aircraft Services 1 0 1 1 100.0% I OO.O�/o *Spirit AirIines Inc. 0 6 6 12 0.0% SO.O�Io �un Paci�c International, Tnc. 0 2 1 3 0.0% 33.3% *Sunworld Internationai Airlines 0 i 0 1 0.0% 0.0% TAG Aviation, Inc. 1 I 0 1 0.0% 0.0% The Limited Tnc. 0 0 1 1 0.0% 100.0% Tradewinds International Airlines 0 0 1 1 0.0% 100.0% *Traffic Management Corporation 0 1 0 1 0.0% 0.0% *Tri Star Airiines 0 0 3 3 0.0% 100.0�/0 *USA Jet Airiines, Inc. � 0 3 4 7 0.0% 57.1 �lo *Vanguard Airiines 0 4 5 9 0.0�70 5�.6% Westfield Aviation, Inc. 1 0 1 I 100.0% i 00.0% Wilmington Trust Company 0 1 0 1 O.O�Io 0.0% OTHER -U.S. TOTAL {5� OPERATORS) 37 64 82 146 -73.0% 56.2% Notes * A new entrant that did not operate Stage 2 airplanes during the time period used to establish base level. New entrants must have a tleet of no less than 50 percent S�aQe 3 airplanes after 12/31/96 io comply. : Difference bettiveen base level and number of StaQe 2 airplanes divided by base level, sho�vin� the percentaae of Stase 2 airplanes phased out. Individua! opera[ors must have phased ouc �0 percent or more after 12/31/96 [o comply under the phaseout option. Calculations resultins in fractions may be rounded to permie the con�inued operation of the next whole number of Stage 2 airplanes. Therefore, some percentaQes are lower than the compliance percentages prescribed in the reQulations: Some individual operators have experienced rapid Qrowth in both their Staee 2 and 5ta�e 3 fleets simultaneously. In cenain cases, S[a�e 2 fleet b owth has exceeded base level, resulting in neeative phaseout percentages. These operators have chosen to comply through the fleet mix option. L � '` Number of StaQe 3 airplanes divided by total fleet, showinQ the percentaQe.of Sta�e 3 airplanes. Individual operators must have a fleet oF no less than 6� percent Stage 3 airplanes after 12/31/96 to comply under fleet mix option (50 percent to comply as new entrant). Calculations resqltin� in fractions may be rounded to permit the contipued operation of the next whole number of S[aQe 2 ( airplanes. ThereFore, some percentages are lower than the compliance percen[ages prescribed in the rewlations. : y \., Ai�pott Noise Report `� i, „ �, .:,;r � �- r J/F- �r t�; 5b a� { �� .,, .�;,... . . .vx� �- . -. � �r �r �,�� `N d ��-},, r, ,�� { �Y, � k ,�. t. 1 }'.. - A biweQkly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 10, Number 16 San Francisco Int'Z SFO SIT�IVIITS FIl�ST PA]E�T 161 S7CtT]D�' ON RULE T� RESTI2I�T S'TAGE 2 A�]I�CRAFT In landmark action, San Francisco International Airport has become the fust airport in the country to submit a completed federal Part 161 study to the Federal Aviation Administration as a prerequisite to amending its current noise regulation to expand a nighttime curfew on Sta�e 2 aircraft operations. No new airport noise rules have been enacted in the United States since passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act in 1990 and the promulgation of FAA's Part 161 re;ulations implementing that act. Several airports — inciuding Los An�eles International, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, proprietor of Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK Intemational — began the Part 161 process shortly after the Part 161 rules were enacted in 1991 but dropped it when FAA declared they were not in compliance with the process, mosdy because of inadequate cost/ benefit analyses, which put their ability to impose Passenger Facility Chazges in jeopardy. More recently, San Jose International undertook a Part 161 study in considerin� a rule to accelerate the phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft but concluded the costs of such (Continued on p. 124) Burbank � ''i' ! l ':1 • IG 1 � : � � • � I � 1 i � Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Commission President Joyce Streator instructed airport stafF an late September to report in October on the feasibility of be;inninC a federal Part 161 study of potential noise and curfew restrictions at the airport. If undertaken, the Part 161 study would be the first in the nation to consider the imposition of restrictions on quieter Stage 3 aircraft. Burbank has been an ail- Staae 3 airpon since 1937. The action came after the commission voted �-3 to enter into an Airiine Use Asreement with Reno Air beainning Oct. 1. Reno Air said it would meet the airport's voluntary 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew for commercia] airline f7iahts that the could be made mandatory throuQh the Part 161 process. "The Commission has been sayina all alona that it would open a Part 161 study to examine the noise and access restricuons that the City of Burbank has de- manded as a condition for droppinQ its opposition to the replacement terminal project," Streator said. "FAA Administrator 7ane Garvey said during her visit last month that she would be open to such a study, so I think the time is riQht." Garvey warned Burbank, however, that the bar for successr"ully completinQ the Part 161 process would be set very hijh by the F�A. September 25, 1998 �12 T�LiS .ISSZlB... San Francisco Int'Z ... SFO becomes the first airport in the country to submit a completed Part 161 study to the FA.A to support an exten- sion c�f its nighttime curfew on Stage 2 aircraft - p. 123 ... SFO receives new varianee from state noise standard - p. 127 Burbank ... Burbank may be the first airport in the cc;.:��ry to con�uct a Fart 161 study on the feasibility of imposing noise restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft - p. 123 Lambert-St. Louis ... City of Bridgeton plans to sue if FAA approves airport's expansion plan - p. 126 Legislation ... Senate rejects efforts to revive EPA's noise off'ice - p. 127 Hushkits ... FAA releases tables showinQ how many hushkitted and re-enained aircraft were being operated by airlines at the end of 1997, the most recent fleet mix reporting period. The tables show that 14 percent of the Sta�e 3 fleet operating at the end of 1997 �vas comprised of hushkitted and re-engined aircraft. Tables begin on p. 128. (Continued on p. 12�) � " Copyri;ht O 1998 oy Airport Noise Repon. �shburn, Va. 20147 124 Airport Nozse Report San Franczsco, from p. .123 a rule outweiQhed the benefits and never formally submitted its study to the F.1A. Calculation of Benefits San Francisco's cosd benefit analysis conciuded that the benefits of extending its curfew on Stage 2 night operations outweighed the costs to khe airiines by a ratio of 3.1 to 1, but the consulting team of Hazris Miller Miiler & Hanson and SH&E, which prepared the study, employed a novel approach to calculating benefits which FAA wili have to assess. The approach they took reflects the avera�e cost of sound insulatinc homes near San Francisco Tnternational Airport and is based on the assumption that reduced levels of exterior noise are equaI in value to reduced leveis of interior noise. The average cost of soundproofing a home near SFO currently is $15,000. "Using the assumption that the avera�e value of noise insulation is equivalent to its cost and that the occt�pants of each dwelling unit receive a constant level of benefits for a period of 15 years discounted at 9 percent per year, the average benefit for each one unit reduction in the number of dwelling• units located within the 65 CNEL contour is estimated at $1,861 per year. With the number of dwelling units within the 65 CNEL contour reduced by 105 [as a result of the extended nighttime curfew], the annual noise reduction benent wilI eGuai �i�SSuuG,"�'v1H conciuded in its study for San Francisco. ^ It estimated that the potential costs to the airlines that would be affected by the amendment to the SFO noise rule — Delta, United, Tower Air, Canadian Airlines, and American International Airlines — would be only $62,�Q0. The Part 161 rules require airports to use "currently adopted economic methods" to determine costs and benefits. HMMH's Steven Alverson defended the approach devised for calculatin� benefits at SFO and said, if the FAA rejects it, it raises the larger issue of having to acquire the 10� homes to remove them from the hijh noise contour, which wou]d be a much more costly way of reducins impact, especially in the hyper-inflated real estate market in San Francisco. � San Francisco determined that it has already impiemented ail feasible alternative measures to its proposed noise rule, includin� sound insulation, land use plannin�, preferential approach and departure r�nway use programs, and restrio- tion on nighttime enaine run-ups. "Extendina the Stage 2 aircraft restrictions is the only cost-effective means that SFO has identified to reduce noise impacts in the near term," [he Part 161 study concluded. Impact of Ytestriction AccordinQ to SFO's Part 161 study, if the new restriccion of Stase 2 aircraft is not imposed, the popula[ion located within the 6� dB CNEL noise contour around SFO will grow by 7�0 people in 1999, the number of homes in the contour wili increase by 301, and the number of acres included in the contour will increase by 161. Imposing the restriction will result in 261 fewer peopie in the 65 dB CNEL contour, 105 fewer homes, and 314 fewer acres in the contour, according to the study. The study concluded the restriction is reasonable, non- arbitrary and non-discriminatory, does not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, maintains safe and e�cient use of the airspace, does not conflict with any existin� federal statutes or regulations, does not create an undue burden on the national aviation system, and that adequate notice and opportunity for public comment has been provided — all tests which must be met in order to impose a noise rule under the Part 161 process. The restriction is expected to affect only 63 flights per week and the most common airline response will be to use hushkitted aircraft in place of unmodified Stage 2 aircraft, the study noted. It said that United Airlines would have to re-certificate some of its Stage 2 74"7-100 aircraft to continue�nsin� them for evenin� operations. The initial cost to re-certificate five aircraft would be approximately $250,000. If United operates these aircraft for four more years, the annual cost would be $62,500. The cargo carriers are expected to substitute hushkitted DC-8-63 frei�hters for the DC-8-61 aircraft they currently use until they can obtain hushkits for the -61s. No aircraft operations are expected to be canceled or shifted'm other neasby airports as a resLlt of the rest�•iction, according to the study. The proposed restriction is expected to reduce Stase 2 airivals and departures between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. by a total of 63 fliahts per week. This reduction decreases the total area within the 6� CNEL contour by 314 acres. Rule Becomes Effective March 5,1999 The Airport Noise and Capacity Act allows airport proprietors to restrict Stage 2 aircraft operations without FAA approval as lon� as the airport provides notice to the public and interested parties 180 days before it enacts its restriction, analyzes the costs and benefits of the restriction, describes alternative restrictions considered, and describes alternative measures considered that do not involve aircraft restricuons. ANCA did not chan�e the current legal requirement that airport noise rules be reasonable, carefully tailored to locai needs, based on data that support the need and ratianale for the restriction, and not unduly restrictive of interstate commerce. San Francisco proposes to amend its Airport Noise Abatement ReQulation, which currently restricts operation of Stage 2 aircraft at SFO between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. and requires operators to agree to adhere to the airport's preferential runway use proQram in order to operate aircraft durins those house. The proposed restriction expands the current restriction on Airport Noise Rzport September 25, 1998 125 nighttime operation of Stage 2 aircraft by: • Extendin� the restricted hours to 7 p.m. through 7 a.m.; • Requirin; operators to agree to adhere to the airport's preferential runway use program in order to operate aircraft durins those hours, and � Eliminating the existina exemption from the restriction of operations between 6 a_m. and 7 a.m. for Staje 2 aircraft operators that a�-ee to adhere to SFO's preferential runway use program. The SFO rule also would have the important effect of barrin� any StaQe 2 aircraft that might receive FAA exemp- tions to operate beyond the Dec. 31, 1999, deadline for phasin� out Stage 2 aircraft from the commercial fleet. FAA Review Team Victoria Catlett of the FAA's Office of Airports, said the FAA received SFO's Part 161 study on Sept. 16 and that it has been referred to a standing committee of four FAA o�cials: Catlett, Aimee Fisher of the Office of Environment and Energy, Daphne Fuller of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and Frank Emerson, of the Office of Aviation Policy and Planning. This team pius three or four officials of the FAA's Western Pacific Re¢ion will conduct an economic analysis, leQal analysis, and environmental analysis of SFO's submission, and consider whether the proposed rule will impose an undue burden on interstate commerce or would be unjustly discriminatory to certain aircraft types. The FAA's review will be done by Oct. 23, when it will be submitted to the docket established at San Francisco. San Francisco has the option under Part 161 to consider the FAA's comments and revise its proposal in light of them, Catlett said. San Francisco will accept public comments on its pro- posed restriction until Oct. 23. Comments should be sent to Jean Caramatti, Secretary to the San Francisco Airport Commission, San Francisco International Airport, Interna- tional Terminal, Fifth Floor, P.O. Box 8097, San Francisco, CA 94128. The text of the proposed restriction also can be obtained from Caramatti.� Burbank, from p. X23 The City of Burbank has sought a mandatory curfew on ni�ht operations and the imposition of a noise budQet rule at the airport. The power to impose noise and access restrictions on commercial airlines' quietest, StaQe 3 jets was pre�mpted by Conaress in 1990 with passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act. 'The act, and the FAA's Part 161 rules which were promulgated to implement the act, do not require airport proprietors to aet FAA approval of new restrictions on Stase 2 aircraft, althoush the agency must de�ermine that the airport has met certain procedure requiremen[s as a precondition to imposin� new restrictions on StaQe 2 aircrafc. But the act and the rules do require airport proprie- tors to get FAA approval of new noise and access restric- tions of Stape 3 aircraft and they impose substantial impediments to the imposition of such rules. Airports must meet six conditions before FAA will approved a rule on Sta�e 3 aircraft: • The proposed restriction must be reasonable, non- arbitrary, and non-discriminatory; • The proposed restriction must not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce; • The proposed restriction must maintain safe and e�cient use of navigable airspace; • The proposed restriction must not conflict with any existing federal statute or regulation; • The applicant has provided adequate opportunity for public comment; and • The proposed restriction does-not create an undue burden on the national aviation system, a criterion which FAA has never defined. Noting that no other airport in the counhy has been successful in imposing noise and access restrictions through the Part 161 process, Airport Commissioner Jerry Briggs called on Burbank officials to be prepared to live with the results of the study. "We must remember that Ms. Garvey said that tlie bar is very hi�h and there are no guarantees," BriQos said. "Burbank o�cials must understand that the replacement terminal has to be built to improve safety at the airport regardless of the outcome of a Part 161 study." A.irport Exe��:s�re-�:.*e�tor Thomas Greer szid the commission's report of the feasibility of conducting a Part 161 study would be presented to the airport board at its re�ular Oct. 19 meetin�. "We have told the City of Burbank in mediation that we would open a Part 161 study. But this effort should be decoupled from the terminal project. A replacement tertninal is needed to improve airport safety. Both sides should agree to address the noise issue separately while the ternunal project goes forward." Peter Kirsch, special counsel to the City of Burbank on airport matters, said the airport commission has taken a first step in the Part 161 process and that the city is waitin� to see if the airport is serious in its intent to adopt an enforce- able cutfew. "We want results, not promises," Kirsch said. The current 68-year-old terminal is located less than 350 feet from the active runways and is out of compliance with FAr. safety standards. The new terminal would be more than 750 feet from the runways and would comply with all FAA regulations. Zoning Suit IVi�ves �'orward In other action related to the airport expansion, a Superior Court jud�e Sept. 15 rejected an attempt by the airport authority to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the City of Burbank that requires the airport authority to comply with the city's zonin� and other land use laws if its wants to build the new terminal. Ventura Superior Court Judve David Long, who is Airport Noise Repott 126 Airport Noise Report presidinQ over the case because the airport authority requested that the case be heard outside Los Angeles County, denied the airport authority's request to dismiss the case and ordered it to go forwazd to a hearing. "A city's zoning powers are probably the most important and fundamental way any city shapes the nature and quality of a ciry," said Burbank Mayor Dave Golonski. "The Authority is attempting to place itself above the law and ignore Burbank's land use laws. Today the court has ruled that Burbank may proceed with its case to enforce its laws." The City of Burbank wants to see a replacement terminai built on the Lockheed B6 property [the site the airport autfiority has selected], the mayor said, "but we intend to require that any new terminal be consistent with our zoning laws and redevelopment plan." Last May, when the lawsuit was filed, Mayor Golonski said the ciry would instruct its attorneys not to pursue the litigation if the airport authority provided enforceable assurances that it would redesi�n the proposed terminal to comply with the city's zoning laws and redevelopment plan. To date, the only plan presented by the authoriry to the Gity ofHt�rbank "clearly doesn't comply with the City's land use laws," said Kirsch. "We have repeatedly asked the authority to provide assurances that it will comply with the city's zoning laws, but they have i�nored those requests," Kirscti said. `"Their actions leave us no choice but to continue to seek enforce- ment of our laws by the courts: ' Richard Si:non, ceansel for the a.�*�ot-�•��:`::.rty, said ±hat many motions are filed at the beginning of lawsuits and that this case is only in its initial stages. "'This is just the iu-st run at it," Simon said. The airport authority will probably file a counter claim against Burbank on the grounds that its zoning ordinance is ille�al under state la�v because it is inconsistent with the city's redevelopment plan, he said. Tax Law Upheld In other leQal action, the California Supreme Court Sept. I 8 rejected efforts by the airport authority to appeal a three- judQe state appellate court decision which unanimouslv . upheld a Burbank city law that imposes a 10 percent tax on parking fees at Burbank Airport and other locations in the city. "For the second time this week, the courts have rejected the airport authority's continued attempts to invalidate or violate our city's laws, i�iayor Golonski said. The tax ruling, he said, "represents a substantial victory for the city. It removes a cloud from about $4 million in ta.Y revenues that the city has held in reserve pendinQ the outcome oi this case:"0 Lambert St. Louis Int'l :' 11 ' • ' ` � � . . . r. •, rl, , By Charles F. Price — If and when the Federal Aviation Administration approves a controversiai plan for the expansion of Lambert St. Louis International Airport, the neighboring community of Bridaeton, MO, wiil sue in state and federal court to stop the project, according to Bridgeton Mayor Conrad Bowers. Large portions of Bridgeton sit in the path of a planned new runway for the airport and will have to be bou�ht out to complete the project. A long-time opponent of the Lambert expansion plan, Bridgeton will base its state-court lawsuit on the question of zoning. "We want a final answer," Bowers said. "Does the City of St. Louis have such superior sovereionty that it can unilaterally decide to build a runway or make nse of land in another city that is contrary to the zoning Iaws established by that other city? We think not." T1ie federal liti�ation would center on what Bowers called "a host of environmental concerns and inconsistencies" contained in the final environmental impact statement prepared for the project. Among these are concerns about the safety of the proposed facilities. FAA currently is reviewin� the Lambert expansion plan and its conclusion — called a Record of Decision (R.OD) — is thought to be imminent. Bowers told AI'1R that Sept. 30 is "a rumored date" for release of the ROD because the current federal fiscal year expires then. Safety CQncerns Bowers expressed confidence that Bridgeton can prevail at both state and federal levels and succeed for the first time ever in stopping an FAA-approved expansion after a ROD has been issued. The Bridgeton case recendy was stren�th- ened when safety questions were raised by prominent members of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the National Air Tr�c Controllers Association (NATC}. One feature of the Lambert proposal is the addition of a runway to permit simultaneous approaches in inclement weather. ANTC's `Vayne Dimmic, in comments last May to FAA Administrator 7ane Garvey, said the location chosen for the new runway "renders the original goal impotent. The severe stagger [in aircraft operations] this convoluted design uses invokes a dependency that all but wipes out any gain. While we could very well land independently to the west, we would be obliaed to suspend departures to do so!" Dimmic went on to warn of other complications arisin� from the staQgered runway ]ayouc, concluding "these caveats increase the complexity of the operation and make it more difficult to run a`clean' and therefore safe operation." AI,PA's Phillip Rast, Jr., in a-recent letter to Susan Kurland, FAA associate administrator for airports, noted that for over �tivo years he worked with a number of indi- Airport Noise Repott ( I x2� September 25,1998 viduals on the Technical Working Group lookin� at the expansion plans and was in a position to witness the development of the plan. "In the beginning there was a desire ... to produce a creditable plan which would contrib- ute to the National Airspace System. In the end ... political considerations took precedence ... It became clear to me that numbers.were bein� manipulated ... This will be the most costly runway ever built, one frau�ht with poorly considered safety flaws, resultin� in a foolish expenditure of precious federal airport dollars and thus a most grievous public fraud." Rast said a proposed single taxiway be[ween the ternunal and the main runway was inadequate to support satisfactory ground flow and that the "excessive stagger" of the new runway with the center runway caused "extended ine�cient ground operations." These circumstances, he argued, made use of �e new runway in combination with others "opera- tionally dependent in several airport configurations, never independent as stated in the environmental impact statement and master plan." Dimmic pointed out that the plan "uses the same landina runways and therefore produces no more arrival capacity than w�are capable of today." He said imptementin� the plans would be the equivalent of tuming over to air tr�c controllers "the keys to a$100,000 Ferrari with four cylinders disconnected" Bowers pointed out that Rast's stand was unique. "lfiis is the first time that ALPA has taken a public position in opposition to an FA�,-approved expansion plan," he said. ANR contacted the Lambert-St. Louis Internarional Airport for their comment on the safety and capacity concerns raised by the o�cials of ALPA and A.N'TC, but had received no response from the airport by deadline.0 San Francisco Int'Z � � ' � ,i � .. , s ,!, , • ,, , � . � � staffer and San Ma[eo County airpor[ planner. The Roundtable negotiates with 5F0 on noise-related issues. The new variance at SFO took effect on SeQt. 20; it replaces an earlier three-year variance that expired in 1997. Carbone explained that when an existin' variance nears expiration, an airport must appiy for another; and during the time the state reviews the application, the old variance remains in effect "as lon� as it takes" for the state to deternune the conditions of a new one. Old variances never expire before new ones are a anied. In applyin�, an airport must show what progress it has made toward zero noise impact; and in b anting a new variance, the state tries to impose conditions that will bring about even more progress. Carbone told ANR enough progress has been made around SFO that another variance may not be needed after the new one expires in 2001. However, opponents of a new SFO variance — State Senator Quentin Kopp is one of the most outspoken — have complained that SFO is failing to minimize the effect of noise on communities. Foster City Councilwoman Eileen Larsen has contended, "Nothing has•improved." She said the best way for SFO to reduce noise is to require planes to fly over San Francisco Bay instead of over communities. Patrick Kelly, Roundtable chairman, said the airport is constrained by federal rules. "There are other things we'd like to do, but the airport or anybody else doesn't have any authority to do�them," Kelly insisted. The conditions of the SFO variance include spending $120 million for horne noisP.insnlation and infomung the public of any chanaes in flight paths. Airport spokesman Ron Wilson said, "We still have 3,000 homes that are impacted by noise of 6� dB or �eater. We should be at zero impact " He added that this could be achieved throu�h SFO's home insulation program and the phaseont of noisier Stage 2 planes, mandated by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 to be complete by the year 2000.� %,�' ��Clt1071 By Charles F. Price — The California Department of S�EI�AT'E RE.TECTS �II..L Transportation recently a anted San Francisco International �� p� ��5� p�FICE Airport (SFO) a new variance from state noise standards, �ivins the airport until 2001 to reduce noise in surroundin� By Charles F. Price — An effort to enact le�islation neiahborhoods below a maximum of 65 dB Community reviving the aircraft noise abatement function once carried Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). out by an arm of the Environmental Protection Agency AlthouQh anti-noise activists have opposed continued (EPA) failed in the Senate Sept. 24, but the sponsors of the arantina of variances at SFO and elsewhere in California. in bill— Democratic Sens. Robert G. Torricelli and Frank fact they are quite common. Because most of the major Lautenber� of New Jersey — immediately pledged to try for airports in California have not yet ach3eved the state passa�e again next year. standard of zero impact in areas subject to noise louder than Efiorts to refund the EPA's Office of Noise Abatement 6� dB CNEL, several are allowed to operate undzr variances and Control (ONAC) have been made intermittently for the which impose conditions for further noise reduc[ions during ;.: past 10 years by members of the New Jersey congressional the terms of the variances. dele�ation, but not have been successful. The conditions of the ne�v variance at SFO were based on The New Jersey senators, whose state is heavily impacted recommendations submitted by the t�irport-Communi[y by aircraft noise, had crafted what was called The Quiet Roundtable, accordin� to David Carbone, Roundtable Communities Act, which would have breathed new life into Airport Noise Report 128 Airport Noise Report Modified Aircraft Flying in the Contiguous United States as of 12/31/97 Hushkitted Aircraft ( O erator Name B-727 B-737 DC-8 DC-9 Grand Total ACES 1 � Q � 1 Aero California 0 0 0 3 3 • Aeromex ress 1 0 0 0 1 Aerotrans ortes Mas de Car a p p 1 � 1 Air New Zealand 0 3 0 0 3 Air Trans ort International Limited Liabilit Co. 0 0 7 p � Airbome Ex ress 0 0 17 44. 61 AirTran Airiines, Inc. 0 0 0 20 20 AirTran Co . 0 5 0 0 5 Alaska Airiines a 8 . 0 0 8 All Canada Ex ress 3 0 0 0 3 American International Airwa s 1 0 4 0 5 American Trans Air 9 0 0 0 g Ameri'et Internationa! q, � Q 0 4 Arrow Air � � 3 � 3 Aviateca � 3 � � 3 B�trlin ton Air Ex ress, Inc. p � 3 � 3 Canadian Airlines International p 1 � � 1 Ca ital Car o Internationai Airlines, Inc. 2 p � � 2 Casino Ex ress p 1 � � 1 Cham ion Air 5 0 0 0 5 Cla Lac Aviation � � �. � 1 � Continental Aviation Services 1 p 0 � � � Cook Aircrar Leasin ; inc. � �� 2 � � � 2 Custom Air Trans ort � 1 0 0 0 1 Delta Air Lines, Inc. 45 � 13 0 0 58 DHL Airwa s, Inc. 12 0 0 0 � 12 Eastwind Ca ital Partners p 1 � � 1 Eme Woridwide Airlines � � � � � Ever reen International 0 0 0 3 3 Ex ress One lnterntionai, Inc. 19 0 0 0 1g Faicon Air Ex ress 1 0 0 0 1 Federal Ex ress 80 0 0 0 80 Fine Air 0 0 11 0 11 First Air 3 0 0 0 3 Frontier Airlines 0 2 0 0 2 Funair � � � o j Genesis Aviation, Inc. 0 0 0 1 1 Great American Airwa s 0 0 0 1 1 Iberia 0 0 2 0 2 Kitt Hawk Aircar o, Inc. g 0 � 3 11 Kiwi International Air Lines 4 0 0 0 4 Lacsa Airiines 0 3 0 0 3 Laker Airwa s Bahamas LTD. 1 p � � 1 Lineas Aereos Alle ro S.A. de C.V. 1 p n � 1 Mexicana 4 0 0 0 4 Miami Air 3 0 0 � 3 ( Midwest Ex ress _ 0 0 _ 15 15 - Nations Air Express 1 0 0 0 1 Nomads, fnc. 1 � � 0 1 Airport Noise Report � September 25, 1998 129 Airpott i�loise Report 130 Airport Noise Report ANR EDITORIA.L AD VIS ORY B OARD biark Atwood,Fsq. Galland, Kharasch, Morse & Garfinkle Washina on, D.C. Lee L. Blackman, Fsq. McDermott, Will & Emery Los Angeles, Calif. Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP Dean, School of Aviation & Transportation Dowling Coilege Eliot Cufler, Fsq. Cuder & Stanfieid Washington, D.C. J. Spencer Dickerson Senior Vice President American Association of Airport Executives Edward J. DiPolvere • Administrator, National Association of Noise -'� Control Officials Richard G. "Dick" Dyer Airpon Environmental Specialist, Division of Aeronaucics, Calif. Dept. of Transportauon E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Washington, D.C. Julie H. Ellis, Fsq. Managing Direcfor Federal Express Corporation Angel M. Garcia Co-Chairman Citizens Against Newark Noise E.H. "Moe" Haupt Manager, Airport and Environmental Services, National Business Aircraft Association Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. Ba�ileo, Silverberg & Goldman Washington, D.C. Joanne W. Your b, Esq. Baker & Hosteder LLP. �Vashington, D.C. ONAC, which has not been funded since 1981, when it became a target of the Reagan Admin�stration. Restoring the office has long been an article of faith for anti-noise activists who believe the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration is incapable of both abatin� aircraft noise and promoting aviation growth. EPA's noise o�ce had r�o direct control over aircraft noise, but was able to offer proposals to the FAA on aircraft noise matters (none of wiuch were ever accepted). The o�ce, however, was the focus of federal research on the impact of noise on health and at the time of its defunding was in the process of conductin� reseazch to determine whether high levels of workplace noise exposure resulted in increased stress and blood pressure leveIs. The Torricelli-Lautenberg measure was offered as an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill. The Republican-dominated Senate tabled it by a vote of 69-27. � Bill Would Have Authorized Health Effects Study 'The bill would have authorized ONAC to conduct a study of aircraft noise, taking into consideration the point at which noise causes adverse effect's on health. It also would have evaluated the effectiveness of noise abatement programs currendy in use at airports azound the country. In offering the amendment, Torricelli told the Senate, "this problem will not soive itself and, indeed as the yeazs pass, it is clear it is going to get worse." He said the FAA has predicted there will be 36 percenf more fliahts in the year 2007 than there aze today and that 60 of the nation's largest airports are proposing to buiId new runways. He also said noise levels in communities have increased more than 10 percent in the last decade. Lautenberg arb ed that noise pollution, particularly aircraft noise, "is a serious environmental health probiem that deserves attention from the primary federal agency whose responsibility is environmentai protection — the EPA. Unforiunately that was not the view in 1981 when the O�ce of Noise Abatement and Controi was unfunded at the request of the Reaaan Administration. Now we have an opportunity to correct this mistake." After the measure was tabled, Torricelli said it was a"positive thing" that the issue had been publicly aired. He noted that supporters of a restored EPA noise o�ce now have a better understandino of what will be required to pass the measure in the future.� AIRPORT NOISE RE.PO.RT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charies F. Price, Contributin� Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 2� times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 2d147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4�28. Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Repoct, provided that the base fee of US� I.03 per page per copy is paid directly to CopyriQht Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright OO 149S by AirpoR Noise Reporc. Ashbum, Va. 20147 � � � �� ., .� ,� � !° :; �; ;�'; . a�` . ; � s' >�� ,� < <�' � .,. .�,, � ,�': � �. � ;� � ;� � ,� :. .� �` ,�� r '��. � Agenda for the September 22, 1998 MASAC meeting ❑ Minutes of the August 25, 1998 MASAC meeting C� Copies of MASAC correspondence - ❑ Blank Noise NTonitoring and Information Request Form OI Stage 3 Compliance Review cover memo ❑ Airport Ground Noise Study Report cover memo 0 Minutes of the September 11, 199� MASAC Opera.tions meeting with attachments and cover memos ❑ Monthly Part 150 Update � August 1998 Technical Advisor's Report .� , C C � �, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 90. 11. �� `I4�E7'ROI'OLlTAN AIRC�►Fi SOUND ABATEMENT CC�U�dCIL Genera! l�eetinc� September 22, 1998 7:30 p.m. io 9:15 p.m. 6040 28T" Av�nue South Minneapotis, �innesota Call to Order, Roll Call Approval of Minutes of Meeting Augus# 25, 1998 introduction ot Invited Guests Receipt of Communications Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary Stage 3 Compliance Review Ai�port Ground Noise Study Repori September 11, 1998 Operations Committee Report - Mark Salmen Report of the MAC Commission Meeting - Bob Johnson Persons �l/ishing to Address the Council liems Not on the Agenda /adjournment Nexi Meeting: October 27, 1998 1 iVIINUTES METROPOI..ITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEIVIETIT COUNCIL GENERAL I�iEETING August 25, 1998 7:30 p.m. 6301 34�' Avenue South IVlinneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance. Bob Johnson Mark Salmen Dick Keinz Brian Bates T.J. Horsager Steve Minn Sandy Colvin Roy Dean Lindberg Glenn Strand Dick Saunders Leo Kurtz Nathae R.ichardson Jce Lee Kristal Stokes Dawn Weitzel Mark Hinds John Nelson Jon Hohenstein Charles Van Guilder Kevin Batchelder Jill Smith Mayor Mertensotto Manny Camilon Brad Digre Advisors Roy Fuhrmann Chad Leqve Ka.y Hatlestad Cindy Greene Doug Powers MBAA NWA MAC Airborne Sun Country Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minnea.polis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Richfield Richfield Richfield Bloomington Eagan Burnsviille Mendota. Heights Mendota Heights Mendota Heights St. Louis Park Sunfish Lake MAC MAC MAC FAA FAA Visitors Jan DelCalzo Jon Larsen Charles Starner Brian Timerson 2. Approval of Minutes City of Minneapolis MEQB City of Richfield � MPCA The minutes of the July 28, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed. Introduction of invited �uests Receipt of Communications 'I'here were no invited guests. The following communications were received: ➢ As per the Operations Committee's request, letters from the cities of Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights were received regarding operations in the Corridor. Both letters will be forwarded to the 4perations Committee for discussion. ➢ A letter from the City of Richfield was received rega.rding low-frequency noise and will be forwarded to the Operations Committee for consideration in the work plan. Chairman Johnson requested the city to fill out a MASAC Information and Monitoring Request form and return it to the committee. ➢ A memo, provided by Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, was received regarding participation in the Metropolitan Airports Commission's aircraft crash exercise that will be conducted on Thursda.y, � September 10, 1998. 4. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summary Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said, in consideration of the time needed for the tours of the Air Traf�ic Control Tower, he would not be giving a full report as usual but asked if there were any questions regarding the report. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, noted operations in general and nighttime flights in particu]ar had increased over and above the number of operations that had been predicted in 1996. He also asked if there was an explanation for the increase in night flights. Roy Fuhrmann, Technica] Advisor, reminded members that the reconstruction this summer contributed to an increase in nighttime flights. He also noted that staff was preparing a second letter to the airlines reminding them of the new nighttime hours and requesting that they revise their schedules accordingly. He said sta.ff would be reviewing how the airlines are complving with the new hours in the upcoming months. Mr. Fuhrmann also noteti in the carridor compliance report that there were a number of excursions north and south of the corridor. He said upon closer investigation, staff found that a majority of them were associated with weather systems occurring on the 3`� and the 14`t' of the month, which moved from the Northeast to the Southwest. � 0 Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, said he had received a call from a resident in the "Tangle Town" azea about an"explosion" of aircraft noise over the previous weekend and asked if there were any other factors, l besides the reopening of the south parallel runway, that could explain the increase. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the reopening of the full length of the south parallel runway was the most likely reason for the perceived increase in the amount of aircraii noise. He said complaints to the hotline from certa.in areas also attest to ttvs. 5. Ooerations Committee Report Mark Salmen, NWA, reported on the Operations Commiitee meeting of August 14, 1998. Mr. Salmen said, due to the lengthy discussion of the run up and ground noise study, the NADP review was deferred until the September meeting. Mr. Saimen said Roy Fuhnnann, Technical Advisor, presented the Run Up and Ground Noise Study. After a significant amount of discussion, he said, the Operations Comin'rttee requested additional information from staff. He said the Opera.tions Committee would continue its review of the study at the September meeting. Mr. Salmen said the committee also discussed the status of the south parallel runway reconstruction project and noted that a full set of minutes from the meeting were included in the package. The next MASAC Opera.tions meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 1 l, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. 6. Report of the MAC Commission MeetinQ Chairman Johnson reported on the MAC Cornmission meeting held on We�inesday, August 19, 1998: He said two significant issues were discusseri: ➢ The Commission decided to build a new charter ternunal to replace the HE-IH Terminal. ➢ The Commission discussed the location of the new Light Rail Transit (LR'1� Station at the airport. The Commission decided to locate it at the far end of the new parking--r,amp. 7. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council There were no persons wishing to address the council. 8. Other Items Not on the A�enda There were no other items on the agenda. 9. Air Traffic Control Tower Tours MA.SAC members were given the oppornuuty to tour the A.ir Traffic Control Tower after adjournment. 10. Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Office Tours Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said attendees were welcome to tour the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs offices. He said staff would be available to demonstrate the ANOMS and GIS functions and that there were two noise monitors set up in the Acoustical Coordinator's office. 11. Adioumment Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary _, �; ;�' ,' ��i ` , ; . , ,:r ,,` ',. � � j: /, .f � ' ' PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FOR1VfAS ACCURATELYAND THOROUGNLYAS POSSIBLE � ame: On whose behalf are you requesting: Yourself , City Council Mayor Citizen Organization Other Is this a one-time request: Yes or No Beginning Ending If no, what is the ezpected time frame for this request? to Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other PLEASE WRITE OUT YDUR REpUESTI�EREAND/OR ATTACHANYLETTERS OR FORMAL RESOL UTIONS. Over Please � Please indicate the 19981VIASAC objectives supported by this this request: ❑ To provide information to the MA C in their e, fJ'orts to communicate changes in operations, due to construction to the surrounding communities. � Evaluate departure compliance through the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor and make any necessary changes to the relevant procedures. � Review the ANOMS system and noise monitors, and evaluate the need and placement of additional remote monrtoring towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabilities. . � RequestAir Tra�c Control personnel to make a presentation on how MSP operations are conducted. � Look at providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory-made Stage III aircraJ? ❑ Investigate how GPS and other NAVAids cauld help alleviate aircraft noise. ❑ Re�view the NADPs and compliance. ❑ Continue discussion ojPart ISO contourgeneration. Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Minneapolis,l6lN 55450 or fax it to :(612) i25-6310. For Staff Purooses Oniv: Request #: Staff Contact: Date Received: Is this a Phone Or Written Request? Approved By: ' _ _ __ Approval Date: Availability: Monitoring Start Date: Monitoring Stop Date: Analysis Start Date: Analysis Stop Date: Completion Date: � C_ � �� : �+ I$C�1VI: S�,]��T: I)r�TE: ,� ! . . . � �. : •` .. ., :I ;, ,.�� '� �; � �� MASAC Members Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Stage III Compliance Review September 14, 1998 MAC staff will present a review of the current status of the Stage III aircraft usage at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Staff will also review the national Stage III implementation levels and the A.irport Noise and Capacity Act requirements. TC): FROlO�I: SiTB,�CT: I)r�TE: ,. . � � � . . � � � . '�' � � � - 1' , MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Airport Ground Noise Study Report September 14, 1998 At the April 1998 MASAC meeting an Airport Ground Noise Study was initiated in an effort to determine the sources of ground noise on the airport and the impacts of such operations on the surrounding communities. Since that meeting a period of substantial_ data acquisition was accomplished and the preliminary methodology was developed. The monitoring is complete and the analysis and summary of the data will be presented at the September MASAC meeting. The Airport Ground Noise Study was presented to the MASAC Operations Committee in August, with a continuation to the September meeting. The report includes an Overview of the study requirements, the Study Results, an Airline Maintenance Survey as well as Conclusions and Recommendations. In addition to the above, noise contours, flight tracks and graphs were used to analyze the data. A final section on Ground Noise enclosures is also included as part of the final report. �' �� l ; , . -�:. . �� -. �h, �,�.�_ . � .- � . .� �. � , The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission No�th Star Conference Room, and calied to order at 10:00 a.m. The following members were in attendance: Members: Mark Salmen, ChaiRnan - NWA Bob Johnson - MBAA Pam Dudziak - Eagan Mayor Charies Mertensotto - Mendota Heights John Nelson - Bloomington Dick Keinz - MAC Dick Saunders - Minneapolis Advisory• Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Advisory Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory Cindy Greene - FAA Visitors• Jan DelCalzo Dean Lindberg- Minneapolis �` Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights : � � M,4SAC GOALS AIVD OBJECTNES SCHEDULE After reviewing the current 1998 MASAC Goals and Objectives schedule, members decided to slide two items foNvard on the schedule. These two items are; 1.) lnvestigate GPS Landing System Use for IVoise Alleviation and 2.) Review of Nightfime Hours. They will be discussed in late 1998 if time permits, otherwise these items will be taken up in the first quarter of 1999. (The revised schedule is attached.) RUNUP PAD ENCLOSURES BRIEFING Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, briefed the addition of Section 5(Ground Run-Up �' Enclosures) of the Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Study. The following is a summary of the section: �- There are 4 or 5 major manufacturers of ground run-up enciosures. a- A majority of the ground run-up enclosures have been instalied at military bases around the worid. � A majority of the ground run-up enclosures are in Europe. � There are four types of ground noise reducers: 1.) Earth berms, 2.) Blast fence or noise wall (such as is at MSP) that is designed to deflect debris and not for noise attenuation, 3.) Hush-house or Engine Test Cell, which is fully enclosed and used for one particular type of aircraft, and 4.) Ground run-up enclosure or pen, which is a three- or four-sided structure to redirect jet blast and to absorb noise. a- Quilite Intemational is a new manufacturer of ground run-up enclosures and has loaned one of their pens to the Albany, NY airport. They claim to reduce noise levels by 19 decibels at 2 miles from the source with turbo-prop aircraft and anticipate good sound attenuation for jet aircraft, as well. The pens are made of a poly-carbonite material. � Blast Deflector Incorporated (BDI) manufactures both ground run-up pens and blast deflectors. They are the company that has built and installed the ground run-up enclosure for Chicago's O'Hare Airport. (BDI is also the company that is completing the work on MSP's blast deflector.) Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, and Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technican, recently visited O'Hare to leam more about the enclosure. �- O'Hare's pen: � � Is a 300 ft by 300 ft(smaller than MSP's current pad) 3-sided enclosure. � Is located at the center of the airport. �- Has vented side walls, rounded tops and slanted sides, which allow wind to flow through and over the walls easily. This reduces turbulence inside the enclosure considerably. �- Has a heading of 340 degrees. a- Is made up of 7 1/2" corrugated steel panels. � Is expected to last 20+ years. '�- Is well lit. � Has a small room inside one of the walls for personnel. �- Provides a 20-decibel noise level reduction at 6,000 feet from the source. �- Was installed in the fall of 1997. '�- Was built for unrestricted use by Boeing 757's. The facility was designed for 8747- 400's, but they must use a tug. �- The cost for the pen and installation was about $3.1 million. '�- O'Hare continues to provide other airport locations for run-ups, but about 85% of the run-ups are �eing performed in the pen. � O'Hare personnel are documenting the use of the enclosure under different wind conditions. �- O'Hare bid the project with specifications for a 20 dB(A) noise level reduction. � Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, explained that, given the fact that the winds are either ' less than 10 knots or between 11 and 27 knots from 270 degrees clockwise through 090 degrees over 80% of the time at MSP, an enclosure such as the one at Chicago O'Hare could be used at MSP approximately 80% of the time. The conclusions of the graund run-up enclosure investigation follow: 1. There are four to five manufacturers world wide that have designed ground run-up enclosures or hush-houses for the suppression of aircraft noise. 2. The installation of noise walls around the run-up pad may help reduce the noise impacts of engine run-up activity in surrounding communities. Many of the companies estimate noise level reduciions of 15 to 20 dBA for ground run-up enclosures. 3. Other technologies, such as "Nush Houses" and "Engine Silencers," are not practical due to the wide range of aircraft configurations and engine types that exist within the MSP fleet. Multiple structures or numerous engine silencers would need to be available to accommodate all possible engine/aircraft configurations. 4. The ground run-up enclosure at Chicago O'Hare Intemationa! Airport by Blast Deflectors, Inc. is currently being used by their local maintenance personnel approximately 85% of the time. The use has increased since the initial opening due to excellent lighting, convenience and the apparent design benefits for wind considerations from the vented sides, rolled tops and tapered walls. 5. Costs for ground run-up enclosures will vary depending on the size and site work required for the installation. IAC estimates approximately $50 per square foot. For a 400' by 400', three-sided structure, 50 feet high, the approximate cost would be $3 million (not including site preparation). Blast Deflectors, Inc. constructed the Chicago facility for $2.1 million with a total project cost of $3.1 million. Hush-house manufacturers declined to provide estimates since the cost is directly related to the size and type of aircraft the facility is constructed to accommodate. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if there had been any problems with ice�build up on the Chicago facility. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said there hadn't been any problems. He said the sun would most likely melt off any build up and that there would be a reduction in the noise attenuation capabilities if that were to happen. Bob Johnson, MBAA, asked what work was being done on the blast walls at MSP and whether it had been finished. Roy Fuhrmann, Te�hnical Advisor, said BDI was extending the upper portions of the fence on two walls to better accommodate DC10, MD'11 and L1011 run-ups. He said staff, at this point, would anticipate (with the manufacturer's review) that any new enclosure could be built around the existing blast wall, rather than taking it 3 Mr. Johnson asked if there had been any noise attenuation testing of the current blast ( deflectors that couid be used to compare with a new structure. Mr. Fuhrmann said, to his knowiedge, there hadn't been any testing of that sort. He said the current blast deflector was not built to attenuate sound. He said, if needed, testing could be done before any enclosure was built. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the size of a new enclosure would be large enough to accommodate larger aircraft over the next 20 years. Roy Fuhrmann, Technicai Advisor, said Chicago's enclosure is 300' by 300' and can accommodate 777's (747-400's are 14 feet wider than a 777). He said the MSP's run-up pad is 400' by 400' so that it could accommodate the largest aircraft. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked how often MSP's run-up pad was used. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said in 1997 it was used an average of 4.5 times per day. He said Chicago's is used an average of 7 or 8 times per day. He also noted that a majority of the run-ups ara performed for 5-10 minutes, but are sometimes up to 1/2 hour or 45 minutes at MSP. John Nelson, Bloomington, then began a discussion regarding staffs recommendations from the Ground Monitoring Technical Study Report that was presented at the previous meeting and briefly reviewed some of the background infiormation. Mr. Nelson said he felt, given fhe legislature's decision to keep the airport at its present site, MASAC should pursue all possible aircraft noise abatement strategies. Yet, he reminded � members that the primary source of ground noise was from routine aircraft operations and not run-up activity. An in-depth discussion regarding staff s recommendation to change MSP's Run-up Field Rule to more accurately reflect actual practices ensued. (Copies ofi the Field Rule were distributed to the members.) There was also discussion about the possibility of installing a ground run-up enclosure at MSP and what it would entail. The following points were made during the discussion: �- Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted if the field rule continued unchanged and was enforced is it now reads, it was possible that more aircraft would perform run-ups at remote locations on the field rather than in the run-up pad. � All references to the nighttime (quiet) hours in the Field Rule should reflect the change in nighttime beginning hours from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (2300 to 2230). �- Even with modifications to the field rule and the possible installation of a run-up enclosure, there would still be a need for altemate locations. �- Airiine maintenance personne! have indicated that additional lighting wiihin the run-up pad was desirable. The installation of a ground run-up enclosure could provide this. a- Rather than indicating specific required headings when performing run-ups, the rule 4 should be modified to reflect favored headings (clockwise 270 degrees to 90 degrees) for jet aircraft when the winds are at less than 15 knots. �` � �- No changes to the nighttime run-up restrictions should be made at this time. MAYOR CHARLES MERTENSOTTO, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND JOHfV NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, SECONDED; 1.) TO MODIFY MSP'S AIRCRAFT ENGiNE RUN-UP PROCEDURES FIE�D RULE THIS YEAR !N ORDER TO INCORPORATE WIND CONDITIONS AIVD CHANGES IN THE NIGHTTIfVIE HOURS AtVD 2.) TO PURSUE IN FURTHER DETAIL IN 9999 THE POSSIBILITY OF MODIFYING/IMPROVING THE EXISTING RUN-UP PAD TO IIVCORPORATE NO1SE REDUCTION TECHiVOLOGY. THE VOTE WAS UtVANIMOUS. NfOTIOM CARRIED. Staff was asked to bring a modified version of the nan-up field rule to the next Operations Meeting for review. Chairman Safinen said once the Operations Committee approves the new language far the field rule the recommendation would be forwarded to the full MASAC body for a vote. REVIEW OF MODIFIED IVADP PROCEDURES Chad �eqve, MAC Advisor, briefed the MSP Noise Abatement Departur� Profiles: A Trend Analysis report. Mr. Leqve said the purpose of the report was to establish that the FAA and the ai�lines had implemented the NADP's recommended by MASAC and approved by the Commission. He =- said, using ANOMS data, staff found that the procedures had indeed been implemented. � ) � � He said staff conducted the analysis based on information extracted•from tf�e FAA's AC 91- 53A and explained how the gates were constructed in ANOMS for this purpose. Mr. Leqve noted that the analysis compared operations data from June 1997 to June 1998. He said the reason this time period was used was to be sure the airiines and the FAA had had enough time to implement the procedure fully. Mr. Leqve then described how the analysis was performed, explaining that only those operations above 4000 feet within the gates were counted. He said the expectation was that there would be an increase in the number of aircraft at higher altitudes off nanways 30R and 30L. because these were the only runways for which there had been a change in departure profiles. The anafysis showed that the percentage of departing aircraft above 4000 feet at 5 miles out off these runways had increased as expected for the four identified aircraft (DC9, 8757, 6727, and A320). He said the results indicated that the close-in departure profile was being used off these runway ends, as was directed by the MAC. The report concluded with the following statements: 1. In June '1997 the percent of departure operations by aircraft type off runways 30L and �' 30R above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates ranged from 56.8% to 1.1%. in June 1998, the percent ranged ciimbed to between 84.5% to 24.4%. 2. The increase in percent of depa�ture operations by aircraft type off runways 30L and 30R above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates increased 47.6% for the DC9, 27.?% for the 8757, 23.3% for the B727 and 40.8% for the A320 in June 1998 compared to June 1997. 3. The percent of departure operations by aircraft type off runway 04 above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates rose substantially from June 1997. It was discovered that this was due to the vast disparity of 04 departure operations availabie for quantification from June 1997. 4. The increase in percent of departure operations by aircraft type off runway 12L and 12R above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates increased 3.2% for the DC9, 3.3% for the B757, 4.1 % for the 8727 and 6.7% for the A320. The small variation in the percentages from June 1997 to June 1998 represents virtually no change. 5. Runway 22 was the only runway showing a decrease in the pe�cent of departure operations above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates decreasing 9.6% for the DC9, 11.9% for the 8757, .09% for the B727 and 1.2% for the A320. As was the case with runways 12L and 12R, the small variation in the percentages from June 1997 to June 1998 represents virtually no change. The slight decrease in the percentages can also be associated with the disparity of runway 22 departure operations available for � quantification from June 1997 compared to the number of operations in June 1998, and a small shift in operations due to aircraft performance characteristics. . A discussion ensued regarding whether or not these findings translated to actual sound reductions on the ground. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reminded the members that the purposE of the report was to determine whether or not the procedures were being followed as specified by the Commission through MASAC and not whether there were quantifiable noise reductions. He said it could be extrapolated that if aircraft are at a higher altitude, the noise levels would be lower on the ground under those aircraft. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he would like to explare further how the implemeniation of the close-in procedure over Minneapolis and Richfield has affected noise levels and suggested comparing RMT data. Mr. Nelson also mentioned that he was concemed that pilots were not performing the EPR procedure that is part of the distant departure procedure. He said based on his field experience, he didn't believe the pilots were performing this procedure. Chairman Salmen said Northwest pilots definitely adhere to the procedures and are checked on often to be sure the required procedures are being followed. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he would also like to see documentation regarding hoanr the � airiines impiemented the new close-in procedure and when the changes were made. He said he would also like documentation about the quiet EPR, where it is in the Advisory � Circular, whether or not stage 3 were required to perform it, and any other documentation pertaining to the procedure. Chai►man Salmen said he would bring documentation to the next mesting regarding the departure procedures used by Northwest Airiines. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said Mendota Heights continues to be displeased with the decision to continue with the distant departure profile off runways 12L and 12R. He said he felt those closest in to the airport should benefit first and that a close-in departure profile would accomplish this. Mr. Batchefde� asked staff if they would track do.wn a video that was produced by the San Francisco Airport Round Table to convince pilots to follow the NADPs. He said the video showed, on a split screen, of a 747 fully loaded taking off using both their "normal" procedure and one taking off using the "ICAO" procedure. He said the ICAO procedure showed the aircraft climbing much faster. Chairman Salmen said he had seen the video and explained that ICAO A and B procedures correlates with Northwest Airline's distant and close-in procedures. Mr. Batchelder asked for a summary of the differences between the ICAO procedures and the procedures being used by No�thwest Airlines for the next meeting. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked for a clarification as to why different departure procedures could not be flown off two parallef runways in the same direction. It was explained that for safety reasons, the Air Line Pilots Association and the FAA Flight Standards had asked that the same pcocedure be established for both ends of a runway (i.e., 12L and 12R). Mayor Mertensotto.said he stiil contended that all other close-in airports around the country were flying the close-in procedure because there is a definite benefit to those residents close in to the airport. Chairman Salmen reminded members that MASAC would be reevaluating the NADPs once an all stage 3 fleet is in operation. OTHER John Nelson, Bloomington, asked that a correction be made to the August 14, 1998 Operatians Minutes. He said on page 3, paragraph 3, the second to the last sentence should read, "Interpreting the graph, then, a sound that is at the 20Hz level would read 50 decibels less on an A-weighted scale." JONN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND MAYOR CHARLES NIERTENSOTTO, NfENDOTA HEiGHTS, SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MIIVUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 1998 MEETING AS CORRECTED. THE VOTE VI/AS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRlED. 7 Due to the lateness of the hour the Crossing in the Cor»dor review and Cor�spondence items were deferred until the October Operations Committee meeting. � The next Operations Meeting will be held October 9, 1998. The meeting was adjoumed at 12:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski Committee Secretary 0 � ' ` � t . � . ` ,. : � .�� ♦ _ �° � , Z'f): MASAC Operations Committee . FIZOIVl: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SU$,��T: Ground Runup Noise Enclosure IDA.�'E: September 3, 1998 At the August MASAC Operations Committee meetin� MAC staff was directed to seek additional information regarding �round runup noise attenuation technolo�y and manufacturer specifications for wind speed and direction for aircraft engine testing. y The staff has continued their investigation into possible altematives and visited the Chica�o O'Hare Ground Runup Enclosure as part of their evaluation. A complete review of acoustics manufacturers and some of the applications currently in use within the United States and overseas will be presented at the September 11, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. ; � � . � . . , , ' ., � � 1 ` � TO: �+ R(JM: SLT�JECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator NADP Cornpiiance Assessment September 3, 199$ � The issue of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs) was a topic of thorou�h debate and analysis for the MASAC Operations Committee as a means of providing another level of noise abatement for the communities surrounding Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Upon committee concurrence and MASAC approval, a desired NADP program was forwarded to the airlines operating at MSP for impiementation no later than First Quarter 1998. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed two departure profiles wl�ich are available under the auspices of FAA Advisory Circulaz 91-53A. The Close-In and Distant Departure Profiles comprise the NADPs available for airport implementation. After extensive preliminary analysis by the � MASAC Operations Committee it was discovered that prior to NADP implementation aircraft using MSP had been utilizing the Distant Departure Profile. Upon completion of substantial aircraft perforrnance and impact analysis the MASAC Operations Committee forwarded a recommendation to the full MASAC outlining the following procedures: '3- Distant PrQf le: when departing runways, 12L, 12R, 04 and 22. '�- �7ose-In Profile: when departing runways 30L and 30R. Due to the proximity of residential development, the above procedures provided the holistic best case for the communities surroundin� MSP. MASAC forwarded the recommendation to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Plannin� and Environment Committee (P&E) were it was passed on to the full MAC Commission and approved for implementation, as stated above. As a result of the pre-NADP implementation use of the Distant Profile off all runway ends the proposal represented a change in operation only for departures off runways 30L and 30R. As a result, in an effort to assess NADP compliance it is necessary to evaluate the change in profiles procedures at MSP, in this case, those operations departing runway 30L and 30R. At the August 14, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting an analysis will be presented that will review departure profiles for runways 30L and 30R. This analysis will compare today's operations with the pre-NADP implementation operations using data from the summer of 1997 and 1998. If there are any question or comments prior to the MASAC Operations Committee meeting regarding �� this topic, please feel free to contact me at 725-6328. ' I � . � , ;.' ; , ,. �, i��:. � �h ��t � 'T�: MASAC Operations Committee I�'1�01l�T: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator S�B,��T: Crossing in the Comdor Review I)A.TE: September 3, 1998 II�L�Z�1�J Since its conception, the crossin� in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate as many operations as possible in the center of the Eagan - Mendota Hei�hts Departure Comdor. Although superficially the procedure seems locical and relatively straight forward, several variabilities must be considered when assessing the use or non-use of the procedure. On March 17, 1998 a letter was forwarded to Bob Johnson from the city of Mendota Heights requesting specific airspace analysis relative to the crossing in the corridor procedure. Inquiries were made regarding time available to preform the crossing procedure and execution of the procedure during the potential time periods. At the May 8, 1998 Operations Committee meeting a scope was presented outlining the resources, methods and cooperation necessary to complete the analysis. During and after that meeting changes were made to [he original scope relative to input from MASAC Operations Committee members. The Crossing in the Corridor Review will be presented as part of the September 11, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting agenda. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-b328. METAOPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSZON MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WOI,D-CfiAMBERLAIN FIELD OFFICE OF THE AIRPORT DZRECTOR NOTICE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ALL AIRCRAFT USERS February 1, 1992 Airport Director, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport FIELD RULE: AIRCRAFT ENGINE RUN-UP PROCEDURES The Hetropolitan Airports Coaunission, in consideration of sircraft maintenance requirements and the desire to reduce ai=craft noise, has revised its run-up procedures FIELD RULE. The following new rules for maintenance run-ups are effective this date, I'ebruary l, 1992 and supersede all previous Field Rules regarding this issue. I. All run-ups must be scheduled in advance with MAC Operations by calling 726-5111 or API fi5211. The following information is requireti at the time of the request: o type of aircraft and ship number • proposed start ti.me • proposed end time s reaeon for run-up 2. Approved run-up houra will be from 0600-2300L daily. Except for the provisions of paragraph #8, run-ups will not be authorized during quiet hours {2300-0600L daily). Any engine run for any pu=pose other than aircraft movement during quiet houra wi21 be restricted to idle power only. 3. Radio contact with FAA ground control is required for approval of mcvement to/from a run-up area. Aircraft shall monitor ground control at sll ti.mes during the run-up. 4. In consideration of the noise impact on neighboring communities and to prevent damage to surrounding parked aircraft, equipment and vehicles, run-upa in the MAC ru�-up pad are restricted to specific headings. Zf wind conditiona do not allow a run-up to be conducted, the run-up should be Fastponed. The following headings will be uaed according to type/size of aircraft:- o jet sircraft; clockwiee 270°-090° • prop sircraft; no restriction In addition, road guards will be required to on the cargo roadway immediately west of the following aircraft are running full-power at • 8747 aircraft; headinga 070°-090° • DC10 aircraft; headinga 045°-090° stop vehicular traffic run-up pad whenever the the indicated headings: 5. If wind conditions prevent the use of ths MAC run-up pad during regular run-up hours and a scheduled departure will be delayed, an alternats eite may be requested from MAC Operations. The approach end of runway 04 may be available as an alternate run-up location during non-RUS (Runway Use System noise abatement procedures) hours. Any run-up on runway 04 is subject to immediate termination for operational needs. Run-upa on runway 04 will not be authorized during guiet hours. � C` _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ___. , 6. The runway 22 run-up pad ie available durinq regular houra for turboprop run-upa if runway 22 is not nn.active runwayJ no heading restrictions. Run-ups on runway 22 will not be authorized during quiet hours. 7. Ai=craft "powerbacks" are prohibited during quiet hours. 8. Abaolutely no run-up$ will be authorized between the hours of midnight and 0500L daily. During the remaininq quiet haure, run-ups will only be approved by HAC Operatione if a echeduled departure time cannot be met without the'run-up. Documentatioa of the a�ter-hours run-up must be maintained b� the eupervisor making the request and such information will be made available to the Hetropolitan Airports Cammiesion i.m�mediately upon request: • flight number � s echeduled gate time • o scheduled departure time ' • rea8oa for af�er hours run-up o name af aupervisor ar manaqer making regueet ' R11 other requirements of the field rule muet atill be met when requeating an after-hours run-up. . This FIELD RULE contains provisions for efficient aircraft run-up scheduling and eafety during run-up performance with minimuan noise impact on the $urrounding community., It is essential that each company emphasize to their aircraft maintenance employees, the need to camply with the FZELD�RULE. :� , � Tim dero , AIRPORT DIRECTOR Minneagolie-St. Paul International Ai rt SUPERSEDES RUN-UP FIELD AULE DATED JANUARY 1, 1987 k. � � 9 �' � � N � � � H � � o �; O� � �� ^ O � � � '`� f�, O � � .. V � � �� i� O O � O � � � � a. a� .� .� cn � � O � G ..� � cct .,-+ M�1 � � � U � � o � � . � r.i � � �Q� O i� � � � � � '� O • � E�„� :.Ni � •'(� „i�,� � .� 00 � � � - � � O V � �_:.�.-,�. � � U c� � � � � � � � � O � � � � � � o � �' � �� ,UQ, n � ccS � � � � 'aj N 00 .� � � � � °� �� E ,-i � � � � � � N � � � ..� O � � �� o � � O v O � � � � �'' � � Q � c.i 4� P°�'�I � � � � � � M ao h � `d' M M �N M � �1 � � cT �''ry N N 00000 00000� ., o0 ��; �� b9 �� i; O> +�.... h h O . � =.,�.. . � � O. 'ct`= � .c5 �., G9 64 !�3 6�} C�3 y 0 0 0 0� o 0 xxxxxx � M V�' � dM' N d' !P' cV �n o0 0 0o c•� ^, et v] � N M c►' v'� �O l� [-� ��rnrn�rn � �rn,rnrn�rn � F• 1 !' . . ...... . .. .. . . . .... \� 1 \.._ ,r� Nlinneapolis / St. Paul International Airport .... —z :�7 . � MONTHLY tLiEETING - Metropoliian Aircraft Sound Abaternent Council c��,,,,�: Robcrt P.Johason �s« a,a;,�,,: Ybomas Hueg Tcchnicd.idvi.w�: Rny Fuhrmann Sccrctarv: MelJ�sa Srovroaslcl A'vbarne £sprcss: a� s�� Air Tmnsport Assaciatiai: PaW McGraw A(PA: xoo Jon,�oa Cirv oj8loomingtaa• ftumn I.ee v�� wu�: Cirv of Bum.s�il(c: Ed Fbrter c;rv of�4�,: xo r�n��m lance Stxric6a Ciry aj/rrver Grove Heights: Dale Hsmmoos Cirv oJMr�om Hr;glus: . Jlll Smit6 iievin Bakhelder Cirv ajMinnrapd'u: n�n vnan�� skve Dttnn .r« r.« c,�ean su�a s�a�a cot.sn x� Mlke cramer Grv o.r��1�fr��: Kristal Stok�s Dawn wdael Cirv ojSG Louis Ptvk: Ron�n.�anWS crrv ofsf. ro�: rmmffi x. a��g Ciry ojSunfish [aFe: Giends Spioua Delta Air Unes Ine.: L,arty Coe6ring DHL r1ir�.•ms; a,-� s�� Federd Ecyrcss: Dan DeHord Federd Aviation Adminitrmtien: s�,« w�o�� Clndv GMO! MACSmff.� Dick KeSnz MB.tA.• Rnbert P. Johmnn Masalw Nonhwrsr Airfink: Phi! Burke Metropoliwn r4irpnrts CommiSsion: Canmtssnner Alton Gasper d!N Air Nafiorv�t Guart1: Na}or Roy J. SheU:a Nnrthwut Airiines: 'vtark Salmen JennUer Sarre Sleve Holme Ysncv Slnudt Sc Pau( Chamner of Cammrn�e RnU �tkidleum Sun Cnuntn• Airlinrs: Cordon Cravo Unifrd Airlinrs lnr.: Kevin Black � United Purrrl Srn�irr.� StHce Ceyer US. Ai� Fnrt•r Resrn•v: Cant:tin David J. Gerken Metmpolitan A.irports Commission Dec3aration of Purposes 1.) Promote public weifare and na[ional security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navi;ation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and internarional programs of air transportacion; and to those ends to develop the full poten[ialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the me[ropolitan area of the minunum environmental impact from air navi;ation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of auport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards azound airports. e- _. Nletropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in fiutherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; throuah 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 throuQh dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the probiem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to sugjestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Nietropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of [heir statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operadon of the airport. Such members will he called User Representaaves and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. , The Airpon 24-hour rVoise Hotline is 726-S�FII. Complaints to the notline do not result in changes rn Airpon acrivin•. but provide a public sounding board and airporc information ou[let.'Il�e hodine is staffed durin� business hc�urs, N(onda�• - Fridac. i'✓I�tropolitan Airports �ommission Auiation Noise Progrnrns This repoa is prepared and princed in house by Chad Leqve, Ai�Ipi�iS Coordinator Shane VanderVoon, ANO�IS Technician Questions or comments may be directed to: NSAC - Aviation Noise Programs Minneapolis / St. Paul Interna[ionai Airport 6040 ?8th Avenue South Minnespolis, �IIV 5a:50 TeL• (6l2) 725-6331, Fax: (61Z) 725-6310 A:ySP Home Pase: http://www.macavsa[.or� i Op�rations and C''omplaint �`u�mary 1 Operations Summary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1 - MSP August Fleet Mix Percenta�e .......................................................................•............_.1 Airport August Complaint Summary ..........................................................:........................1 August Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record .............................................. l �linneapolas - St. :�aul International �.i�or� �omplaint �'urrz�na�y 2 ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2 Available 7'znae for Runway Zlse 3 TowerLog Reports - A11 Hours.•-•• ......................................................................................3 Tower Log Reports - Niahttime Hours ................................................................................3 f�.Z� ��87'iltZOi2S 4� Runway Use Report AuQust 1998 .......................................................................................4 � �`arrier Jet Op�raiions S _ Runway Use Report Auaust 1998 .....................................................•--................................5 1Vightti�n� -14�'l �peratio�s 6 Runway Use Report Auaust 1998 ....................................................•..................................6 1�Tig�itt�me �`a��r Jet Operatio�s � Runway Use Report Auaust 1998 .......................................................................................7 �"a��r ,J�t Op��-a�io�,s by �'��e 8 �i�-c��,,�t I�'��ati,�� a�zd' ��sc�zptio� 7'ab�P 9 ��a� tls� - ��a�7t�7i��it �'erio�s - �Zl -��r��io�.� �� DaytimeHours ...................................................................................................................10 �`v�,�z�.�i� ��'lib�ii��alysi,� .�.� (\ .) Can-ier Jet Operations - All Hours ...............................................................��---......_..........11 Carrier Jet Operations - Niahttime (10: ;0 pm - 6 am) ......................................................11 Avia[ion Noise & Satzllite Proarams � I�emote 11�lonitorina Szie Locations 12 ; , �'arrier ,J�t A�-rrival Related 1i�oise �vents 13 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT C'arrier ,�et Departure �el�ted 1Voise Evenis .14 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .... �'e� .Loudest A,ircraft Noise Events Identified 7'�n Loudest �9: ircra, ft liToise .Events �clenti, fi��' �'en �,oudest �ircra, ft 1�oise E'�vents Identi, fi�d �'en Z,oudest Airc�aft 1Voise Lvents Identi�'ied - 7'en Loudest Azpera, ft 1l�oise �ven�s IclQnti, f ie� �'�n L�zadest .A�,�cra,�t 1��ise �ven�s Ir�enti,�e� Flight �'rack �ase .Mrz� 21 r _ ...........................................13 ...........................................14 , . . � / 19.irpo�-t 1Yois� and' Operatio�z� t�onitori�g �yste�n �'lag3�t �'�-r�cks 22 Carrier Jet Operations - August 1998 ................................................................................22 �..irp��-t .t�Toise �nc� ��era�ions ��nil�o�z�tg �'ys�e� �'lig�t �'�-czcks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - August 1998 ................................................................................23 �.a�po�-t 1V�is� c��ad ��'atio�s �oniiori�g �'yste� �l�g�� 'ra��s 24 Carrier Jet Operations - Au�ust 1998 ............................................................................... 24 � ��-,�art l��is� �x��' �,�eratio�� 1�o�ito�i�g �'yst��n �'�ib �t �'racks 25 Camer 1et Operations - August 1998 ............................................................................... 25 .� �rcly�i� �� j`'Ai�-��°a, ft I'��i�sP .�v��ts b .E� l�'��'tl,�'� �,dn ��1�.� ��y,��s a„��i��-�,�'� I�oise �ve��s - �i�-��-t��'t �,d,� ��{.�) Aviation \oi�e 8� Sate(lite Proarams � �� Nfetropolitan Airports Commission C)perat�o�� and ��aplai�t ��r�ary August 199� Operations Summazy - All Aircraft Runway Arrival % �Js� Departure % Us� 04 211 I i.l% 161 0.9% 22 193 1.0% 4204� 22.8% 12 9496 50.2% 7685 41.7% 30 9041 47.7% 6382 34.6%,_. MSP August Fleet 1VIix Percentage S�Q Scheduled Schedulezi ANOIViS ANOII�S 199'1 199� Connt 1997 Count 1995 Stage 2 40.3% 29.4% 45.6% 30.7% Sta�e 3 59.7d10 70.6% 54.4%a 69.3% A,irport August Complaint Summary - �9.irport 199'7 199� MSP 2027 2447 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 5 0 Crystal 0 0 Flying Cloud 3 0 Lake Elmo 5 0 St. Paul 7 4 Misc. 1 1 TOTAL I 2lkS 2452 August Daily Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Re�ord Avia[ion \oi�� c� Satellite Programs Pa�e 1 C� C ' ) Me�ropolitan Airports Commission �inne�polis - ��. P�ul Int�rnati��.l ��r�o�-t �o��in� ��r�rnary Aug�.st 1998 Complaint Summary by City Pa�e 2 City Arrival De artur� To#al Perc�nta e A le Valle ' 0 6 6 0.3 °io Arden Hills 0 7 7 0.3% Bloominaton 3 251 254 10.4°Io Burnsville 2 68 70 3.0% Eaaan 21 113 134 5.5% Eden Prairie 3 2 5 0.2% Edina 4 35 39 1.6% Golden Valle 1 0 1 0.0% Inver Grove Hei hts 26 156 182 7.5% Lakeville 0 1 1 0.0°Io Ma le.Grove 12 12 24 1.0% Mendota Heiahts 17 147 164 6.8% Minnea olis 318 6�4 1002 41.2°Io Minnetonka 5 2 7 0.3% Pl mouth 2 1 3 0.1% Richfield 8 208 216 8.9% Robinsdale 0 1 1 0.0% Rosemount 0 1 1 0.0% Roseville 1 2 3 0.1 % SavaQe 1 29 30 1.3% South St. Paul 0 3 3 0.1% St. Louis Patk 17 5 22 0.9% St Paul 19$ 41 239 9.8% Sunfish Lake 0 15 15 0.6% West St. Paul 0 3 3 0.1 % �'o� 639 1793 2432 100% Time of Day Nature oi Compiaint Aviation I�ioise &. Satellite Programs i � � Metropolitan Airports Commission ��ailable '�'i�e %r R��ay �Js� 'Tower Log Reports - August �998 All Hours 1% 33 % 1% 37% 37% , ..- .� ._ � . , �� t's. .r' r'� � ,- � � _' � Nighttime I3ours 0% � '13'�' 3 % _� � ' _ � 11% � 61% 67% � i ^'�`� � i �y_ r"' �_t • � 1t_ ,�viation Noise c�: Satellite Pro�•ams PaQe 3 C ��: Metropolitan Airports Commission L, I !,7 ,:',. � ' ,s,; �.. . .�? ; �t.un�ay iJse I , � ; . � 1 .' ' � � � �� _,_ = � : .�-� � � -,; ....:.� w,.o.._�_ _._�n ...._ ��..� �r}�. w �. .,.. ,_. ,�.:n ..,., _Y �_, _ ; . � � «•� _ S '� _ " . � �� ' � � � � .r - � ,...,.,._;;-_,:..._._�„�� ,. ,.,,,�,.�.,_..,.., ,�. , �� _.: �..��.,_-.. ..r,,..�... -.,... ,.n. ..._F�., .. ,:.,:. - _,��..�, ....�, �■��• ,, �;■� , � , � ■ . ; / . ' � •/ •'. I� ■�� • ,/� �� ,� 'I� � �� . • i. ; 1 �� f�l l : • .,, . �� , � �� ,- _.,.....:.� .�. ., ,.�. _ ..., � .�.. _ , . � -,. . : . � ,y,� Ltia � „ ...,a......,,..._.,,��.:..,.r. . ...�. ...H : � ..��. �.,,.�.. ......{. . .L W .. � n.x'?(�-4'"�� r �,�.�h�y .�'U+�T �+{ • � � � r i k . k � ' . � Ir � � �' 4} t 'i.C1-i' ♦ 1 • d a>�i1'�.��r}t�` {�' .�n.�..�'#.�,. ,� ....r.�:..�,�,.....,n- .,-...,-.......,..,:,�......�:,�. .....,. .,- �..,.... _:,..,_"-�-. �.az7�i1�.� . r.�_.s�'.r. ...,., .. _:,.__..0 , - � - ';" ; �I f . , � , . ��. , • � � t � � ��i • � r � i � �• �i .� , i � � "�,� • ' � �� , ,• • :n, ,� , ' • �• I ��i �: ^ �ct�r� < 5/�3.a;js��f • • t"'r , ' k ! e.., � . � ! Sq y r,�1y�.� r './....�. ��.`�'H�+�;;��i.�`��....- � /� � Paae 4 Aviation Noise c� Satellite Pro�ams r" r ; PaQe 6 Runway 04 12L 12R 22 30L 30R Tota1 Arr. 04 -----------__ ---------__ 12R --------.___ 22 30L 30R �'r�tal D��. �i�h��ir�e - .A�� Oper�� .I�unway �Jse �epog-t August 9� 3.5% 34.2 % 7.9% 27.0 0 2� �� o O� �D�°O�o 0 O�aoa . 00 D ° ooQ � o �� : �o 4.5% �° 19.9 0 �°irrivaU I�eparfure 60.6% 42.4% Cc�unt Percentage � August August 1997 Count 1� Percentag� A' S1 4.5% 2q. 3.5% A 67 5.9% 132 19.6% .A 241 21.1 % 22 3.3% A 91 7.9% 2 0.3 %a `� 1g7 16.3% 152 22.6% A 5�7 `�•3% 341 50.7% 1144 1�% 673 1(�0% D �? 3.5% 4 1.1% D �?7 28.8% 174 48.9% D �01 13.6% 66 18.5% D 295 19.9% 28 7.9% D 1=�6 9.9% 27 7.6 D 3�9 24.3�0 5� 16.0% 1�0 100% 356 �� ,ro Note: ARTS data missing for /.3 dvvs. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs ( � r Carr�er �et C.�perations Igunway LTse �gep�rt A.ugus� 9� 0.8 %'o 33,7 °I 1.0% 50.9 0 — �•.� � Mecropolitan Airports Cornmission 47.2% 41S% August Runway ��re Count Percentage 1�� nt 1�� Percenta.ge � A 121 0.9% 64 0.5%a 12L A 4�32 33.8% 2886 22.3% 12R A 2238 17.1% 3060 23.6% 22 A 138 1.0% 55 � 0.4% 30L A 240$ 18.3% 3578 27.b% 30R A 3787 28.9�'70 3313 25.6% Total Arx 13124 I l�% 12956 �pQ%� 04 D 103 � 0.8% 23 I 0.2% 12L D 3�d.2 I 2�.3% 2716 i 1.2% 12R - D 2068 16.2�a 3388 26.4% 22 D �073 I 24.Oclo 293 2.3% 30L D 17�� l�•7%a 3797 29.6% 30R D 2�64 I 20.O�o 2605 20.3% Tot� ��, 128t)5 I 1�,'-0% 32c`�22 ( ��% Note: ARTS data missing for /.3 dcrti•S. pviation Noise & Satellite Programs Pa�e 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission 1��g�ti��r�e �� Jet ��s R�n�ay I7se �epo� A.ug�s� 9� 3.7 % 35.3 % 29.0% � '` ''"� u 7.6 °Io �� `t : s � 1'•�. � � �. �•� — f �� , � � �� '• *•� x — � ti. � P_._. _ �x � r_._u...H.�,�,..... _ .. �, �.s_�x N -�..�-r, , ,, _ ,- . F, _ �.�. . �.., ,..,: t_ .� n..N �_ r _ � __ m.� W �._.� .�.,��. ,� .,. . ,. �._._ . . _ _. : � � �� . � �, � � •, � I• �� • � • 1 i''�=�� : ^� � � �� 1�1 . -, i � � � •. ' �� ' � ' � : •, �'�� - -� .. . .,, ; ,. . ; .,, ..y..r _...��_� �r . .... ..a .Y..�m �.��.w s �' �c-s,��,�bk�Ya7�'� 'h'� r'`•.. : .�...»..�. .�.. ..��...... �.�...�,.:.. ..:x,,..��..... ��...,;. z � s, i.r� r �...� pJ.'�P� 1 �,.� �� i ,:'. i ) �Y�.�.w�'-��"'Y�- s��,"��k. 9 k._,-.:.u...,,_,t.._..�..:._....n..:,v�_.�.i....i�,.,:s..-r_u.�..v..:,...�.-��. �..�..,. ....:,,,.�.L. .::..,..:_,.��„ �:,..,._..�....�,:,,m_.. .�...,....-. :,-. ...�.,...__..., ,. _. ��.�,.._..:�:.�.,... '��■ � n� i � � � � / ,II� , • i � � � � � � i I�■�■, � �, i � • i • � �■��■ � � i a � � • � i ��a�� - Y , ::.. :.�,..�,s..,=...�a'� � �t:�s,�«�,' ;;�., ,.�.._.,. .�.z, ��...,� _�,,: y_ ' .� � � �� ,��.��,� F A1-1'. $ • 1-1', . . �. ; � �-�- °�.�-��`"�''-._. �- i �c�.-�......,...,+.+•.....-::�<..:...r� -. s... iv. Y .Fi'� � .....�.....:...,.«. .. ...,.: _�-..�..,,.....�.. � s,+...., .F,-.�,.....:.-........,.,� ., ........,�:., ....,..�. +.:..�,...,,... Note: ARTS data missing for 1.3 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�rams Pa�e 7 ,j \' Metropoiitan Airports Commission C��-�� ,�� pe�-��o�s b� '�'�� A�gusd 199� Aircrait Type ( Count ( Percenta� e B777 0 I 0.0% B727H 566 22% B72Q 97 0.4% B73B 1051 4.1% B74A 196 0.8% B74B 54 0.2% B757 2840 11.0% B767 0 0.0°Io BA46 1001 3.9% C�tJ 237 0.9% DC 10 603 2.3% DC8 17 0.1% DC9H 5812 22.4% E145 212 0.8% A340 73 0.3% A310 54 0.2% A320 2839 10.9% F100 960 3.7% L101 . 2 0.0% MD 11 8 0.0% MD80 1243 4.8% H25B 87 0.3% H25C 12 0.0% BA11 0 0.0% �B727 � � 27� 10.6% B73A 1513 5.8% DC8 368 1.4% DC9 3340 12.9% F2$ I 0 0.0% Total 25929 I 1Q�% Note: ARTS data missing for 1.3 dczr•s. Paje 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�rams .< , . •• - . - ,� i: �: - /;' r ` . �r: :i r %. C- Idenfifier Metropolitan Airpons Commission A��c�a�t �d��i��' �nd D�sc�i��o�'��b�� Aircraft Descripiion BOEING 727 BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT BOEING 7Z7 - HUSH KIT BOEING 737 - 300/400/500 � BOEING 737 100/200 BOEING 747 - 100/200/300 BOEING 747 - 400 BOEING 757 BOEING 767 BOEING 777 BRITISH AEROSPACE 125 - 1000 BRITISH AEROSPACE 1�-- 700/800 BRTTISH AEROSPACE 111 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146 CANADAIR 6�0 �FALCON 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8, DC8 70 - SERIES RE (ALL SERIES) MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT EMBRAER 145 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A300 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 FOKKER 100 FOKKER F27 (PROP) � -FDKKER F28 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L 1011 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 1 I MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3 SWEARINGEN METROLtNER 4 SAAB 340 Aviation Noise & Satelli[e Proarams Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission ��.y �.T�� - I�a�/��ht ��ds - .A�l �p�ra�io�s I�i��olis - St. �aul In�ernai�onal Ai�-pQ� A.�gust 1�9� Daytime Hours Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Pereentage Total Day Name Day Use Day Use 0=l� 109 0.6% 160 0.9% 269 12L 4131 24.4% 5745 32.3% 9876 12R 2926 17.3% 34�3 19.3% 6369 22 3909 2�.1% 102 0.6% 4011 30L 2089 12.3% 38�0 21.6% 5939 30R 3788 223% 4497 25.3% $2$5 Total 16952 1Q0% 17797 l�l% 34749 Nighttime Fiours Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Night Name Night Use Night Use Q4 52 3.5% � 1 4.5% 103 12L 427 28.8% 67 5.9% 494 12R 201 13.6% 241 21.1 % 442 22 295 19.9% 91 7.9% 386 30L 146 9.9°Io 187 16.3% 333 30R 359 24.3% 507 44.3% 866 Total 14�0 100% 114�4 10�% � 2624 Note: ARTS data missing far 1.3 days. Page 10 Aviation Noise c�s: Satellite Pro�rams l Metropolitan Airports Commission Comrnu��;� ��'�ig�� An��ys�� 1i�linneapml�s - S�. �aui In�ern��ion�l A.irpo�t A��st 194� Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Number Number Total Percent IVumber of Over$ight �irea Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operahans �� P�� Operations Operataons per 2� Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 6670 4319 10989 42.4% 370.0 No. Richfield Over So. Richfieid/ 121 3073 3194 12.3% 107.5 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 138 103 241 0.9% 8,1 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 6195 5310 I 1505 44.4% 387.4 Mendota Heights Total 25929 100 °Io $73.0 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 a.m) 1Vumber Number TO� Percent I+Tumber of Overflight Area Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations �v� �p�� Operations Ogerations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 271 358 629 32.3°Io 20.6 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 4� 205 2�0 12.8% 8.2 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 71 38 109 5.6°Io 3.6 Highland Park Over Eaganl 546 414 960 49.3°Io 31.4 Mendota Heights Total 194$ 1(➢0% 63.� Note: ARTS daia missing for 1.3 da}�s. Aviation Noise & Sa[ellite Pro�rams Page 1 l Metropolitan Airports Commission R�� I�o��g ��te L��i��s_. A�rpo�� I�Io�se a�ci �pe�ai�ons 1�or�i�ori�b ��s�� Pa�e 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�rams Metropolitan Airports Commission ��r�°��° ��i A.r�°��.� ��l��d I�o�s� ��s : .,, � � �i,��;�� Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Evenis for Each R1�T �T Events Events Events Evenfs ID Cit�y r�.pproximate Streei Lt3catio�a �5� �B >g�B >1(�€DaiB 1 Minneapolis Xe�es Avenue & 41st Stre�..t ( 4795 73 ] 0 2 Minneapotis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 4483 886 11 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 2498 1402 171 6 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 4529 1663 17 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 3014 2008 300 1 6 Minneapolis 2�th Avenue & 57th Street 5142 4103 131� 12 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 19 2 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 14 3 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 145 106 4 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 1�3 135 36 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 33 2 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 13 1 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court ?9 0 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 4968 107 3 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 159 10 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Ylas L,ane 261� 1378 12 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 138 60 3 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 14� 41 I 0 19 Bloomin�ton L6th Avenue & 84th Street 41 9 1 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 9 2 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenoe & 67th Stree[ 97 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail Z119 9 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 1315 28 1 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 4�50 91 0 0 Note: ARTS data missing for 1.3 dcz��s. .- . Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Paae 13 ) Metropolitan Airports Commission ��er �� -�a��-� ��ed I�o�s� �v�� ,c�g�ast 199� Count oi I3eparture Aircraft Noise Even%s for Each RNIT �,g� Events Events Events �vents � City Approximate Street LL�ceation �65dii >$OdB >90d.B >1QOdB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Str�t 664 198 3. 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Sireet 772 33? 22 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Strert & Belmont Avenue 1145 600 88 � 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th S[reet 1732 86=� 130 3 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 3290 1537 510 72 6 Miru�eapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 3612 2496 1326 355 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 1526 621 71 0 8 Minneapolis Lon�fellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1437 594 86 2 9 St. Paul Saratoga Sireet & Hartford Avenue �2 21 10 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 99 71 47 16 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 87 44 19 4 12 5t. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 46 16 5 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Courc 2313 575 36 0 14 Eagan . First Street & McKee Street 2857 1057 143 7 15 Mendota Heights Cullen 5treet & Lexington Avenue 2529 697 71 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vlas Lane 2580 1261 300 27 17 Blaomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 2134 1024 315 25 18 Richfield 7�th Street & 17th Avenue 3045 2813 1755 329 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 2906 1938 727 44� 20 Richfield 75th S�eet & 3rd Avenue 436 111 22 3 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1229 253 1 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne iviarie Trail 13�2 120 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 3721 1960 814 72 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 2496 55� 15 0 Note: ARTS duta missing for 1.3 da��s. Pa�e 14 Aviation IVoise � Satellite Pro�rams � j Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten L��.des� A.�rcra�� oise E�e�� d��tg��d RMT #1: �e�es Ave.-& 41st St. Minneapolis Date Ti�e �� lYiax � Level 98/08/0611:5�:34 B727 92.3 D 9$/08I05 21:14:45 B727 91-.4 D 98/08/0610:27:02 DC9 90.7 A 98/08/0510:32:25. B727 90.6 D 98/08/OS 21:03:15 B727 89.8 D 98/08/1015:38:37 B727 89.8 D 98/08/2312:01:36 B727 89.7 D 98/08/1011:49:31 B727 89.� D 98/08/14 21:52:05 B727 89.0 D 98J08/2411:27:07 B727 88.8 D RMT #3: W. Elmwood Si. �'z Belmont Ave. � Minneapoiis Date T'� �� Max A/D Level 98/08/1819:12:07 DC9 104.2 D 98/08/0516:28:06 B727 1Q2.6 D 98/08/2211:56:40 DC9 102.4 A 98/08/09 20:41:25 B727 101.4 D 98/08/03 09:53:10 DC9 101.3 A 98/08/2213:30:43 B727 101.0 A 98/08/251�:19:07 B7Z7 101.0 D 98/08/1711:�1:35 B727 100.7 D 98/08/2213:34:45 DC9 100.6 A 98/08/22 08:50:51 L?C9 100.1 .4 e. RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd S� Minneapoiis I?ate Time �� M[a�t � Level 98/08/0312:00:32 B727 9�.6 D 98/08/1715:32:14 B727 93.9 D 98/08/0811:51:07 B727 93.8 D 98/08/101�:38:22 B727 93.7 D 98/08/2419:24:31 B727 93.7 D 98/08/2511:33:11 B727 93.3 D 98/08/13 09:41:08 B727 93.1 D 98l08/0� 17:14:35 B727 93.0 D 98/08/0319:56:00 B727 92.9 A 98/08/2312:18:52 B727 92.4 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis AIC Max �� °e Type Level � 98108/0917:56:15 B727 102.7 D 98/08/OS 21:19:04 B727 100.9 D 98/08/2107:25:10 B727 100.2 D 98/08/1715:31:05 B727 99.4 D 98/08/1019:54:30 B727 98.3 D 98/08/1716:47:45 I?C9 98.0 D 98/08/1719:04:12 B727 97.9 D 98/08/2419:24:09 B727 97.9 D 98/08/0819:57:03 B727 97.7 D 98l08/1016:26:II B727 97.5 D Note: ARTS data missing for 1.3 dai�s. Avia[ion Noise & Satellite Pro�rams Paoe I S Metropolitan Airporu Commission 'I'�� Lo�.�.es� A.�rc�� I�oase �v��s �� RMTi #5: 12t.h Ave. & 58th St. Minneapoiis A/C Mag �� T`ype Level `� 98/08/17 07:50:4� B727 106.� D 98/08/2013:14:55 B727 1Q6.1 D 98/08/24 07:�9:43 B727 10�.8 D 98/08/1617:44:56 B727 iQ5.8 D 98/08/23I3:13:35 B727 105.6 D 98/08/2411:57:38 B727 10�.� D 98/08/17 l I:� 1:13 B727 104.9 D 98/08/15 07:0$:52 B727 1Q�.7 D 98l08/2012:52:19 B727 104.7 D 98/0$/1� 08:18:31 B727 104.6 D RMT #7: �'entworth Ave. � 64th St Richfield Date Tn� ,�� A/D 9$/08/1714:18:28 B727 48.6 D 98/08/2812:06:48 B727 98.5 D 98/08/1617:44:36 B727 98.2 D 98/08/2513:22:44 B727 97.7 D 98/08/28 08:Ob:55 B727 96.6 D 98/08/23 08:37:57 B727 ��6.2 D 98/08/14 23:08:20 B727 96.0 D 98/08/OS 06:24:49 B727 95.8 D 98/08/2411:57:59 B727 9�.6 D 98/08/24 20:�2:38 B727 9�.3 D RMT �6: 2�th Ave. 8z �7th S� Minneapolis AiC Iv1ax �� e Type Level � 98/08/2317:31:08 B727 109.6 D 98/08/0513:46:41 B727 109.4 D 98/08/08 00:16:2� B727 109.3 D 98/08/07 23:49:20 B727 109.2 D 98/08/0811:50:08 B727 109.0 D 98/08/0815:06:53 B727 109.0 D 98/08/05 22:05:04 B727 108.8 D 98/08/17 07:19:40 B727 108.7 D 98/08/1715:00:�2 DC9 108.7 D 98/08/18 07:12:00 B727 108.5 D RMT #�: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis AIC Max �� T�pe Level- � 48/08/2317:31:42 B727 102.4 D 98/08/1312:11:43 $727 101.7 D 98/08/17 07:20:14 B727 992 D 9&/08/1311:51:58 BA4b 98.7 D 98/0&/1713:37:36 B727 98.2 D �-98f08h0-34:-t5:�1� B727 98.1 D 98/08/1312:11:43 B727 98.0 D 98/08/2017:35:26 B7Z7 97.9 D 98/08/24 07:Z5:15 B727 97.0 D 9$/08/07 23:42:12 DC9 96.3 D Note: ARTS data missing for 1.3 da>>s. Pa�e 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Progi-ams � : t Metropolitan Airports Commission ._ '�'e� �..,��c�� c�� I�� .� ��ed RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. S� Paul Date Time � �� A/D Level 98/08/24I3:5�:4-4 B74B 96.8 D 98/08/2115:02:56 B74A 96.1 D 98/08/22 20:18:09 B727 94.8 A 98/08/06 21:39:10 B74A 94.3 D 98/08/0513:27:07 B727 93.3 D 98/08/0512:07:11 B74A 93.1 D 98/08/06 20:01:53 DC 10 93.1 D 98/08/20 06:47:40 DC8 91.4 A 98/08/0615:42:38 . B72� 91.3 D 98/a8/10 00:17:20 DC9 91.3 D RMT #11: Finn S� & Scheffer Ave. S� Paul Date Ti� � M� A/D I,evel 98/08rL215:53:48 B74A lOZ:9 D 98/08/Q412:34:10 B727 100.9 D 98/08I0712:11:13 B74A 100.6 D 98/OS/0615:15:10 B74A 100.2 D 98/08/Q415:56:20 B74A 98.7 D 98/08/22 13:10:07 B74B • ��J�.� -D 98/OS/0612:01:32 DC9 97.� D 98/08/1717:17:29 B74A 95.6 D 98/08/06 07:11:08 B727 9�.� D 98/08/10 00:20:32 B727 95.4 D RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. St� Paul A/C Ma.g �� T� T`ype Levei `� 98/08/1815:30:42 , S74A 103.6 D 98/OS/2115:0229 B74A 103.1 D 98/08/0513:2639 B727 102.7 D 98/08/0515:3I:48 B74A 102.4 D 98/08/2013:05:20 B74B 102.3 D 9$/08/0512:06:47 B74A 102.0 D 98lOS/2012:02:�3 B74A 102.0 D 93/08/2413:55:18 B74B 101.6 D 98/08/0412:11:4-4 B74A 101.5 D 98/08/1513:05:20 B74B 101.1 D RMT #12: Alton St, & Rockwood A.ve. S� Paul Date TS�me A✓C M[ax � Type Level 98/08/0614:12:59 B727 94.0 D 98/08/25 00:19:36 B72Q 92.7 D 98/08/24 23:43:38 B727 92.1 D 98/08/0711:3332 DC9 91.8 D 98/08/0613:25:29 DC9 91.5 D .._-98f08ffl7--i-3:2t�:�4 B727 90.7 D 98/08/0614:49:46 DC9 _ 89.7 D 9S/08/0619:39:21 DC9 89.0 D 93/08/22 09:40:08 DC9 88.1 D 98/08/2� 01:02:09 DC9 87.3 D Note: ARTS data missing for !.3 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Prog-rams Pase 17 Metropolitan P.iroorts Commission �'�� L��s� ��c��f� �� r�� e��.�� iM'T #13:- goutheast End of I�iohican Court Mendo�a �-Ieights Date �� Max � Level 98/08/2219:51:02 B727 99.0 D 98/OS/26 09:35:51 B727 98.1 D 98/08/2711:27:49 B727 97.2 D 98/08/1911:29:10 B727 96.0 D 98/08/2615:28:47 B727 9�.2 D 98/08/15 19:12:15 B727 94.7 D 98/OS/i612:20:11 B727 94.5 D 98/08/2219:27:24 B727 94.5 D 98/08/1612:23:45 B727 94.2 D 98/08/0121:00:11 B727 94.0 D RMT #15: Cullon S� & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights Date T'ime �� Max � im Levei 98/08/0314:04:05 B727 98.7 D 98/08/0312:04:44 B727 98.0 D 98/08/0211:52:50 B727 97.9 D 98/08/2213:29:56 B727 97.5 D 98/08/0711:50:46 B727 972 D 98/08/1612:19:52 �B727 � �96.8 D 98/08/1611:58:10 B727 96.6 D 98/08/2210:1�:35 DC9 96.6 D 98/08/2712:15:53 B727 96.5 D 98/08/0212:06:26 B727 96.5 D Pa�e 18 RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St. �agan A/C Max �� e Type Level `� 98/08/1616:04:16 B727 I01.8 D 98/08/0412:21:3� B727 101.6 D 98l08/0416:32:58 B727 101.6 D 98/08/2216:39:09 B727 IQ0.8 D 98/08/2116:24:03 B727 100.4 D 98/08/0417:12:43 B727 100.4 D 98/08/0714:54:12 B727 1002 D 98/08/0416:20:14 B727 99.� D 98/08/12 18:07:�4 B727 99.4 ' D ,�. ... 98/08/0614:23:43 B727 99.0 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan A/C Max �� e 'l�ype Level � 98/08/2614:16:24 B727 102.5 D 98/08/15 09:47:07 B727 102.4 D 98/OS/1914:26:13 B727 102.4 D 98/08/2716:28:02 B727 102.0 D 98/08/1812:03:15 B727 101.9 D •-98K}811�6-i3:2�:01 B7Z7 101.6 D 98/08/2413:44:07 B727 101.� D 98/08/1518:48:48 B727 101.2 D 98/08/1$ I�:10:17 B727 I01.1 D 98/08/1210:3�:25 B727 101.0 D Nate: ARTS dara missing for l.3 da��s. Aviation Noise � Satellite Prog-rams Metropolitan Airports Commission '�� L,�a.�d�s� �ir�r�.�� o�se ��en� Id��ifi�d RMT #17: 84th S�. & 4th Ave. Bloomington IDate Ti�se �� Mag � I,evel 98/08/1111:29:08 DC9 103.0 D 98/08/OS 22:54:06 B727 102.4 D 98/08/1312:26:40 B727 102.0 D 98/08/1011:49:18 B727 101.9 D 98/08/ 10 12:08:19 B 727 101.7 D 98/08/0812:03:16 B74A 101.6 D 9$/08/09 23:13:44 B727 101.5 D 98/08/1519:19:28 B727 101.4 D 98/08/1411:59:16 B727 101.3 D 98/08/09 23:20:59 B727 101.3 D RMT #19: 16th Ave. & $4th S� li �.� u � :� � R �� Date Ti� � �� A/D Level 98/08l13 15:21:34 B727 � 1Q4.5 D 98/08/0116:52:44 B727 10�3 D 98/08/0108:05:14 B727 103.6 D 98/08/0311:29:41 DC9 103.5 D 98/08/0319:00:51 B727 103.4 D 98/08/07 17:44:13 -B72? � •102:8 ��D 98/08/0114:51:11 B727 102.� D 98/08/1319:08:50 B727 102.� � D 98/08/0211:55:40 B727 1023 D 98/08/1016:45:04 B727 102.2 D R.1�iT #l�: 75th S� & 17th Ave. Richfield . A/C Mag �� r� 'I`ype Level � 98/08/0� 22:03:14 I B727 106.8 D 98/08/0313:31:37 B727 106.6 D 98/08/0311:50:51 B727 106.4 D 98/08/1411:56:55 B727 106.2 D 98/08/0812:31:59 B727 106.0 D 98/08/0417:46:53 B727 106.0 D 98/08/OS 22:55:37 B727 10�.8 D 98/08/0107:04:57 B727 105.7 D 98/08/0716:50:40 B727 105.7 D 98/0$/1107:58:12 B727 105.6 D RIVIT #20: 75th St. $� 3rd Ave. Richfield '�-- A/C 11iax �� 'I`ype Level � 98/08/0812:32:21 B727 101.3 D 98/08/0912:08:51 B727 101.3 D 98/08/0911:34:10 B727 100.8 D 98/08/0816:23:28 B727 100.0 D 98/08/0815:49:16 DC9 99.2 D _ -�I8/08�88-��:29:?,1 B727 98.9 D 98/08/1411:57:16 B727 98.9 D 98J08/OS 09:35:11 B73A 97.6 D 98/08/0818:48:00 DC9 95.8 D 98/08/3015:27:59 B74A 9�.7 D Note: ARTS data missing for I.3 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs PaQe 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission '�'�� ..,��.�� Airc��'� ��se ��e�� c�e��i��d RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St Inver �rove �-Ieights Date Time Tr� Maz � Level 98/08/2115:31:49 B727 90.2 D 98/08/1517:03:24 B727 89.2 D 98/08/1314:00:50 DC9 88.1 D 98/08/03 21:04: i8 B727 87.5 D 98/08/1413:36:57 B727 87.3 D 98/08/ 15 13:40:17 DC9 �" 87.1 D 98/08/19 07:30:26 B727 87.1 D 98/08/0612:29:46 B727 86.9 D 98/08/2617:30:04 B727 86.9 D 98/08/1612:24:25 B727 86.7 D RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights Date Ti� � Max � LeveI 98/08/0312:04:33 B727 105.7 D 98/08/2711:32:43 B727 101.9 D 98/08/161I:57:59 B727 104.8 D 98/08/1211:47:07 B727 104.3 D 98/08/1612:23:15 B727 104.3 D 98/08/0314:03:51 �-B727 -��0�.9 - D 98/08/19 21:23:15 B727 103.8 D 98/08/26 09:35:22 B727 103.7 D 98/08/1219:20:00 B727 103.7 D 98/08/0212:06:15 B727 103.4 D Pase 20 R..MiT �22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove I�eights A/C Max �� 'I`ype Level � 98/08/0415:02:04 3727 89.9 D 98/08/12 07:15:44 B727 88.0 D 98/08/2814:10:50 DC9 87.8 A 98/08l2614:1731 B727 87.3 D 9$/08/07 21:31:42 B727 873 A 98/08/2116:24:50 B727 86.4 D 98/08/18 05:41:�7 DC8 86.0 A 98/08/22 08:09:17 B727 85.9 D 98/08/1515:09:06 B727 85.8 D 98/08/1917:16:58 DC9 85.2 D RMT #24: Chapel Ln. $� Wren Ln. Eagan AJC Max �� e T�pe Level � 98/08/04I2:21:53 B-�?7 96.0 D 98/08/2219:34:11 B727 94.8 D 98/08/041�:01:37 B727 94.0 D 98/08/12 07:15:14 B727 94.0 D 98/08/1812:07:59 B74A 93.6 D - -98f88/d6 �4:Z4�3 B727 93.5 D 98/08/2116:24:23 B727 93.4 D 98/08/2616:22:�3 B727 93.3 D 98/08/1918:02:58 B727 93.1 D 98/08/2712:13:�2 B74A 91.8 D Note: ARTS data missing for 1.3 days. Aviation Noise � Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission _ �`�i�h� �`�'�C� �aS� I��.p �.�rpo�t l�oise and �p�raiim�as 1V�o��to�-�ng Sys�er� � � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs PaQe ? 1 �� C' � C C � Metropolitan t�irports Commission �.nalysis o� A��ra�t I�ois� Ev�n�s - Aircraf� I.,d� d�(A) August Ol io August 31,199� Noise Monitor Locations Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #'RI #� #9 #10 #11 #12 �- 1 58.1 63.4 62.1 66.1 66.4 74.6 �73 59.0 57.0 63.9 51.0 57.4 � 57.0 63.2 61.5 65.5 65.9 72.5 * �23 �.1 56.9 49.1 54�.4 3 62.9 69.2 68.1 68.6 69.9 74.3 55.6 57.8 45.0 60.2 53.8 482 4 63.3 68.2 64.2 69.6 69.9 79.5 61.1 65.0 51.4 62.9 62.6 53.2 5 64.7 64.8 67.5 70.5 70.6 83.0 - 67.0 6$:5 57.7 67.6 60.0 58.6 ( 62.2 67.2 61.8 68.9 67.9 783 60.8 62.7 57.6 69.7 61.8 58.3 � 58.3 63.9 62.9 68.6 69.5 833 61.0 72.2 48.1 62.8 60.4 623 $ 59.2 64.8 59.7 69.0 66.2 82.4 59.0 68.8 57.2 65.3 58.5 593 9 63.2 63.5 66.8 68.9 66.1 80.1 54.8 65.8 503 56.3 50.9 55.3 10 61.9 62.7 65.0 68.1 70.7 80.5 64.2 69.0 65.4 74.9 6b.2 61.2 11 �• 1 65.3 61.2 66.5 65.3 74.5 50.9 * 42.4 57.3 51.3 53.8 12 . 62.9 67.3 59.9 68.6 63.3 75.4 50.4 56.5 47.7 65.9 52.6 58.1 13 61.6 63.8 59.7 67.4 68.3 * 563 64.8 46.9 60.8 53.9 61.0 14 63.4 63.9 66.7 69.4 69.0 80.7 61.6 67.3 49.6 61.5 54.7 553 15 56.6 59.2 65.4 64.6 74.0 73.2 67.1 60.1 46.4 732 53.7 49.2 16 59.1 66.8 62.8 68.8 69.6 75.9 58.3 59.1 64.7 69.0 51.5 50.7 ] � 61.4 62.2 67.9 70.9 79.6 80.7 70.6 66.6 63.0 67.6 58.3 54.0 � jg 61.4 66.0 67.1 67.5 74.7 75.6 63.2 58.9 59.1 6�.1 58.4 58.6 19 62.1 653 69.6 68.2 74.4 753 68.9 53.1 67.2 69.9 52.2 60.4 Zp 62.6 64.4 69.8 69.5 79.7 80.1 69.9 71.0 C�.4 70.0 55.0 61.6 2l 58.5 62.2 67.2 65.7 73.7 74.5 63.3 61.1 54.8 61.0 50.1 49.0 2� 613 64.6 68.7 66.4 72.5 * �6.0 �9.6 61.3 64.8 63.2 59.5 23 60.2 64.7 65.1 68.4 I 76.2 80.2 68.7 69.4 53.2 59.9 50.8 5�.9 2q. 61.0 63.0 64.6 68.6 I 76.0 50.0 69.9 69.0 5�.8 70.8 63.6 64.5 25 59.9 63.5 67.7 70.0 76.8 80.0 69.1 68.7 49.0 66.1 583 63.3 �( 57.8 60 a 65.9 64�.4 72.0 7�.� 60.4 61.2 40.2 55.2 50.2 63 a 2'7 62.1 b4.6 68.0 66.2 72.8 72•9 19.2 �6.7 40.1 56.5 45.9 5�.� 28 58.0 61.2 61.� 68.0 75.2 78.9 I 67.� 6i.8 41.2 59.0 52.7 57.1 29 60.0 37.6 43.1 >j.� ( �7.9 71.4 �t�?.7 6z1�.? 41.9 48.6 I 41.5 45.7 30 36.0 45.? �3.6 52.� 61.6 63.2 ��.7 I 57.5 43.1 * 4b.2 48.4 31 49.6 51.6 �9.7 58.7 I 63.6 6�.6 ' C�.7 I �s. l��2.1 * �3.5 I 58.4 tLlo. Ldn �.8 64.4 65.5 67.9 73.0 78.4 � C�.6 I 6�.8 �8.9 I 66.8 ( 58.1 �8.7 Page 26 Aviation Noise &: Satzllite Pro�rams Note: ARTS dt�ta missing for 1.3 days. " Less t{utn n5 enh•-%i,ur hours n(duta nrai(able Metropolitan Airports Commission l��lys�s of Aircraft I�loise Ev��s - A�rcraft L�r� ��3(�) August Ol io August 31, 1995 Noise Mozutor Locations Date #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #l� #19 #ZD #21 #22 #23 #24 1 E0.9 6�1�.9 64.4 61.3 65.5 78.2 74.9 56.9 58.4 58.7 74.4 62.4 2 60.5 66.6 64.4 62.9 69.8 792 73.$ �9.1 54.6 58.5 72.� 60.8 3 63.5 67.4 67.2 66.3 69.5 79.9 75.0 60.1 60.9 59.0 74.9 63.1 4 60.1 72.2 * 68.9 70.0 78.7 74.0 58.6� 61.3- � 62.2 74.2 67.0 5 42.5 662 51.7 64.8 75.3 82.3 75.2 652 43.8 57.9 61.9 62.9 6 60.2 72.3 62.5 70.9 70.7 75.5 67.7 583 602 60.9 74.4 67.3 7 60.2 67.8 66.5 67.5 73.0 80.2 73.9 62.0 5�.1 603 73.9 64.5 $ 59.1 62.9 61.3 63.4 74.7 82.4 76.5 67.7 59.9 56.8 72.4 61.9 9 48.1 63.2 54.9 66.1 75.1 80.7 73.9 65.6 54.5 56:6 "333 62.0 10 43.8 63.6 5�.5 65.0 75.8 80.4 73.9 63.4 4b.2 57.0 563 60.5 11 66.9 68.3 67.3 6�.2 703 80.7 76.1 59.8 63.7 59.8 77.8 63.9 12 65.1 70.0 67.0 653 69.8 $0.2 75.8 59.3 61.9 59.6 75.9 65.1 13 62.9 672 65.3 63.5 71� -s - 80.7 75.9 60.5 59.9 60.3 75.4 64.8 14 48.0 67.4 53.3 66.9 73.3 79.2 73.6 62.4 47.6 59.9 65.7 65.4 15 62.5 67.8 63.2 73.0 61.4 63.5 50.6 45.9 60.0 60.0 72_6 64.1 16 64.5 73.3 66.8 74.4 54.7 59.7 48.2 43.1 59.7 62.0 74.9 66.7 17 46.5 63.9 59.5 69.0 5�.0 62.7 55.9 52.7 55.2 58.9 61.6 63.9 18 64.7 69.8 673 73.8 58.4 66.2 61.5 52.7 C�.9 61.9 763 65.3 19 66•2 68.9 68.9 73.5 66.2 74.1 64.6 �8.4 61.1 59.6 76.1 65.1 20 4b.9 67.4 60.4 70.7 �7.7 69.7 62.9 �8.7 49.7 59.7 60.6 642 2 1 65.5 68.9 66.4 74.9 55.6 66.6 65.6 4b.i 63.0 59.5 76.9 65.1 22 64.1 69.1 69.0 74.1 57.8 623 51.4 5�.8 58.9 60.6 7�.8 65.4 23 �.5 6�.0 58.7 68.0 69.9 72.0 72.6 �.0 43.2 58.4 63.7 632 24 58.3 63.8 58.4 69.3 63.2 61.0 57.0 51.1 59.0 57.3 67.0 62.0 25 54.6 67.9 56.3 68.0 67.7 66.3 �6.8 �8.3 55.4 53.7 62.3 60.3 26 66.0 70.9 67.7 73.1 67.� 71.8 � �7.3 62.4 62.6 7�.7 67.3 27 6�.5 71.8 67.3 752 �9.6 67.2 �2.7 60.7 62.1 62.� 76.7 67.2 2$ 48.1 65.9 5�.6 63.2 * 70.0 69.2 48.8 48.3 59.8 64.1 64.3 29 * 5�.2 49.4 54.4 63.8 69.7 67.3 43.� 46.8 48.8 60.4 53.4 30 * 61.8 46.1 �8.9 67.7 ( 74.7 67J 59.6 45.3 49.0 �8.7 57.8 31 50.9 62.1 56.7 60.6 68.7 76.9 7?.2 61.0 4b.I I 55.9 I 62.0 I 61.0 �YIo. Ldn 61.8 68.2 64.3 70.0 ( 69.9 77.2 I 71.9 60.2 58.8 59.5 73.1 Ev�.2 Note: ARTS data missing for 1.3 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro� ams Page 27 ` Lr.s.r lhun nrenrc-/iiur huun njdufu availahle �� C C. C Metropolir�n Airports Commission :r , � ,�, � . ,� , t. , � � � .., : �, f :� . .' , . .� . , ° . i ` ' .� ; • . °I ! -� .; ' ` • , . . , ' . ' t ,t; ;. , � 11i 5.0 %(267) �arrier Jet Depart��-es 1Vo�-th of Propos�� 095° (Ii�) Corr�do�° �'olicy �o�ndary Pa°� ? Aviation Noise t� Satellite Pro�!-ams. � > V � Metropolitan A.irports Commission � �m�e�.polis - St. P�ul In�ernation�� A�r�ori r�ugust 199� / E.. � ,� ' . . . t.�, . ; � : . . ; .. ' ,. � . �; � � •I ', ♦ � �' i �. , � ;� � . � .' �: :: • � �, � ; , � i '�` '. � s ' 216 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �, �EFT COUNT=192 (88.97) RIGHT CODU I=2� (11.1 %� � � �l��A � iQ��i YJi4i �_i�i !_ � ti" �n � C ��fi �U Avia[ion Nois� & Satellite Provrams PaQe 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission � 'nneapolis - Sta Paul �niernational Airport - August 199� 531 D... T'otal 12L, anci 121� Carriea- ,�et I)epartua-es 51 0.o Carri�r Jet I)e�arture - Eariy 'I'�r�oui (0.9% (l�ort� Side �efor� Tl�ree IVlil�s) ___, � ------------------------------------------------------------------------------: -------------------------- o; , ; , ; � . : _ ' � n � � _ �,� (� .; (? r ^ ; (�; '�J '�� ti v .i U�J C � J J L� v �ii r 'l , 11 � t! \i ' � V ,r � _ `� _ 1 V _ . � _ ' i , / Page 4 Aviation Noi�e & Sateflite Programs C. C Metropolitan Airports Commission _1,,' • i:,,.1 �• ; � �.t�` _ ,: . '� • . • , � �� . ;r . , � . � � � .�;�.�, � . . � ��• 2.7 % (145) ��arr�er� �� OL Lo��lizer) South of Corri�.or (�o� A�•iation I�oise c3� Satellite Pro�rams Paae � Metropolitan Aiiports Commission Souihern �oundary Co�ridor G-at� P��ratio� Ar��lysis I�nnea�olis - Si. Paul Ir�tern�tion�� Air��rt A�gust 199� l.�% (96) Caa-rie� ,�et I)e�a�t�res S° Souih of �o�-r�€�or (5° South of 30I� I,o��.lizer) F'a°z g Aviation Noise &: Satellite Pro�-rams � C Metropolitan Airports Commission � I�I:inneapol�s - Si. Paul In�er�ational �ia-�ort r�ugusi 199� 53I D... 'Total 12L and 12�.2 �arrier J�i Dep�rtures 49 ... Carrier Jet Iiepariures (0.9 % S° South of �orridor (5° So�th of 30I� I,ocalizer) 49 TRACKS CROSSFD P-GATE o LEFT COUNT=29 (59.2�) RIGH1 -£OUNT=20 (40.8�) 0 � e � . , , . , . , , � . � . . , -----------------; - , , . , . �, --------------------------------------------- �------ � :e �---------------------------------- � ; �,... s, e � e �� p � „� � O � � � + O '� 0 � O • e � o � d o e°' e� e • e 4 �—� � ; • � � -"'----'---'--'-ir------------'--'�'-----"--- � ----'-------g -------------'---= � � i"--' '-"' s ""'-'--"-----' `�„ n.-� • • • W � C. � ''-- t"� ,., ____i Q � , , , , � , � C "-'-'--`-'--'-'-='--'---'-"-""'_-""--- • O' ""'""""""' _""""' _"""' _ """"""' _' C�! """""""' OI. �------------ � i -----------------------------------------------------------=--- a � � ------------------------- ^ I -------- j � � � � ; � � � n -�� -�u�C _,,,� ,� 2GG� '��'� �� c000 � �1- �` -„ P- --�, ,- ,- ,�.. ;iCV�hi v ; ___ , „_ „_„ v- 1;-. � �; Aviation tioise & Satellite ProUrams � paa� 9 C. Metropolitan Airports Commission �nrne�polis - St. Paul Internati�nal A.irport August 199� 531 D..o �otal 12I, and 12I� Carrie�r Je#_ �e�art�ares 4i ... ��rrier Jet De�ariures -�ariy Turnout 0.9 % (South Side �efo�e Three l��les) �. 47 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE �. LEFT COU�VT=12 (2�.5�} RIGHi COUNI=3� (74.5�) 0 � � . � s O , � � � � ' """' _ "' """""""".""""""' """"'""'"^"' _""'_"' _""""""'^ G e """"""_"s" _ _""' � • e • � • • • • s e; • • • • e j' e � • o � � � . e o • � s� � , -^� O ' • . • _, "_'""_'_"'_'_"""_"" ' _"""""' _""""".�'_'"'"""'� _'"""' _"""'""""""""_ _"""""' �, r- . ` �,, ^ e . e e � . , r � I — O � � � � � , _; � � � � . ""' � Q �""""'"""""""""""""_'_"_"""'_""";"""'_"""""""""':'_""'_"'__""""'- I �� , � I i � i � O i ' d .�."""""""""""""c""""""""""_"""""""_""""""""""�' � . """""""""""""' � �I t � � ( I i I r. n -'�G�� -�0�� . �0�� C�� ,,- ,- � =-"1� _ �-r _ V -- .,:�: U: � .'r, v` .. � _ � _ _ _ ; Pa�e 10 Aviation Noise �. Satel(ite ProUrams C. T �J� S. �,I INE �Y� E ° � � M �.� �: :Z��:��►i�i �� m � �� .:� �� Public Af�airs Fo�um Sponsored by '�'VVIN CI'I,IES A�OR'I' 'I'ASK �'C�R�E and T'�-iE IVIET120POL,I'I'Al�t AI�OR'I'S COlVIIi�IISSIC)IiT Monday, October 19, 1998 � Thunderbird Motel � - I-494 and 24`h Avenue South, Bloomington,lVIN _ � 7:30 a.m..�.2egistr�#ion, nna.Contenental Brpakfast _ . 8:15 —10:00 1.m. Program Fec�ticred Speakers � Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, MAC �. Cong. James Oberstar, (D., MN) Ranking Minority Member, House Transpor-tation and Infrastructure Committee - •- Patrick Mtirphy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Transportation ,_ For Policy and International Affaars � Richard B. (Ben) Hu-st, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Northwest Airlines • Moderator, Irving M. Stem, Chainnan, Twin Cities Airports Task Force Hectr this outstanding vanel address tlze st.atus anrX implications of tl�e J�IT's,�roposQd guidetines on competition at airports: �11 tlzey r�ise of loiver fares? Increase competition at hubs? Provitle better service to rural communities? RSVP ��' OCTO�ER 12th 'I'C) I1�15�.T�2E �'Ot.TI2. SEA7[' Only �20 if you RSVP. �30 at the door. Call today! (612) 794-4444 Return registration form with check or credit card number to: Steven Anderson, 6040 28`h Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55450 - Please reserve seats for me and my guests. Endosed is my Check or Credit Card: Visa ( ) M.C. ( ) # Exp. for � @ $20 each. j (Tickets fvill be l�eld at tlre door) Name: Affiliation: Address: FAX: City/State/Zip: E-mail: �, .. � I�`� �� C lY�.��.5. �.''a��3:113157 ��'y.J�r�� '1.�19.�.173��1'tl °°` ' S° ti: Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport � 3- t'� 60�0 - 28th Avenue 5outh • i�iinneapolis, MN 55=�5D-2799 � Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fa� (612) 7'L6-5296 ' y P J! ; � ec .l.qo�N•.;. t�fEETI�G NOTICE t�ASAC OPER�4T�O�S COMMITTE� The Operations Committee will meet Friday, October 9, 1998 — 10:00 a.m. at the MAC West Terminal Building of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, North Star Room, 6301 34th Avenue South, Minneapolis. If you are unabie to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 726-8141 with the name of your desig�ated altemate. OLD BUSINESS Run Up Field Rule - Proposed Changes NADP Continued Discussion NEW BUS1fVESS Crossing in the Corridor Review RMT Location Project Update Correspondence MEMBER D15TRIBUTION Mark Saimen, Chairman, NWA Bob Johnson, MBAA Bob Kirmis, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne John Nelson, Bloomington Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Mayor Charies Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Dick Keinz, MAC cc: Kevin Batcheider, Mendota F��ights Ci�aries Curry, A�PA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Advisorv: ATC Tower Chief, FAA Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Chad Leqve, MAC Shane VanderVoort Ti�e \letmpulitan rlirpr:.: :-emr.:i�:ion is ar �.,,..::sti�:�: aciiun r.:uplucrr. Ralir:cer :lirpor;s: AIRL.-�:�E � i\NO�.�i COI'`;l"i BL'.;::_ � CR`.:'�.=.!. = I�L'i:.`:l� t:L(7i'IJ • 1..�!:i! i?�.>.!t'i ., ti:ii:';'i' I',\l'L lii )t\'\"1'f)1\'\' 'j �� C �� t+�INUTES ; ; NIASAC OPER�4T10NS C0�J9MITTEE SEPTEfi�BER �99, 1998 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Sfar Conference Room, and called to order at 10:00 a.m. The foliowing members were in attendance: Members: Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA Bob Johnson - MBAA Pam Dudziak - Eagan Mayor Charles Mertensotto - Mendota Heights John Neison - Bloomington Dick Keinz - MAC Dick Saunders - Minneapolis Advisory: Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Advisory Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory Cindy Gre�ne - FAA Visitors: Jan DeiCalzo Dean Lindberg- Minneapolis Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights AGENDA MASAC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES SCNEDULE After reviewing the current 1998 MASAC Goals and Objectives schedule, members decided to slide two items forward on the scheduie. These two items are: 1.) lnvestigate GPS Landing Systern Use for Noise Aileviafion and 2.) Revie�.v of Nightfime Hours. They will be discussed in late � 998 if time permits, otherwise these items will be taken up in the first quarter of 1999. (The revised schedule is attached.) RUNUP PAD ENCLOSURES BRIEFING Roy Fuhrmann, Technicai Advisor, briefed the addition of Section 5(Ground Run-Up Enclosures) of the Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Study. The foliowing is a summary of the szction: � There are 4 or 5 major manufacturers of ground run-up enclosures. a- A majority of the ground run-up enclosures have been installed at military bases around the worid. ' �- A majority ofi the ground run-up enclosures are in Europe. �- There are four types of ground noise reducers: '1.) Earth berms, 2.) Blast fence or noise wall (such as is at MSP) that is designed to defiect debris and not for noise attenuation, 3.) Hush-ho�se or Engine Test Cell, which is fuily enclosed and used for one particular type of aircraft, and 4.) Ground run-up enclosure or pen, which is a three- or four-sided structure to redirect jet blast and to absorb noise. �- Quilite Intemational is a new manufacturer of ground run-up encloswres and has loaned one of their pens to the Albany, NY airport. They ciaim to reduce noise levels by 19 decibels at 2 miles from the source with turi�o-prop aircraft and anticipate good sound � attenuation for jet aircraft, as well. The pens are made of a poly-carbonite material. �- Blast Defiector Incorporated (BDI) manufactures both ground run-up pens and biast deflectors. They are the company that has built and instalied the ground run-up enciosure for Chicago's O'Hare Airport. (BDI is also the company that is completing the worl< on MSP's blast deflector.) Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, and Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technican, recentiy visited O'Nare to leam more about the enclosure. - ( i �- O'Hare's pen: �- Is a 300 ft by 300 ft(smalier than MSP's current pad) 3-sided enclosure. �- Is located at the center of the airport. �- Has vented side wails, rounded tops and sianted sides, which allow wind to fiow through and over the walis easily. This reduces turbulence inside the enclosure cansiderably. a- Has a heading of 340 degrees. �- Is made up of 7 1/2" corrugated steel panels. �- Is expected to last 20+ years. � Is well lit. �- Has a small room inside one of the walls for personnel. �- Provides a 20-decibel noise level reduction at 6,000 feet from the source. �- Was installed in the fall of 1997. �- Was built for unrestricted use by Boeing 757's. The facility was designed for 8747- 400's, but they must use a tug. �- The cost for the pen and installation was about �3.1 miilion. ~�- O'Hare continues to provide other airpor� IocGtions for run-ups, but about 85% of the run-ups are being peRormed in the pen. �-}- O'Hare personnel are documenting the use of the enclosure under dirferent wind conditicns. � O'Hare bid the project with specificaiions for a 20 d8(A) noise leve! reduction. 0 Roy Fuhrmann, Technicai Advisor, explained that, given the fact that the winds are either less than 10 knots or between 11 and 27 knots from 270 degrees ciockwise through 090 degrees over 80% of the time at MSP, an enclosure such as the one at Chicago O'Hare could be used at MSP approximately 80% of the time. The conclusions of the ground run-up enclosure investigation fi3"9tow: There are four to five manufacturers worid wide that have designed ground run-up enclosures or hush-houses for the suppression of aircraft noise. 2. The instafiation of noise wails around the run-up pad may help reduce the noise impacts of engine run-up activity in surrounding communities. Many of the companies estimate t�ois� level reductions of 15 to 20 dBA for ground run-up enclosures. 3. Other technologies, such as "Hush Houses" and "Engine Silencers," are not practical due to the wide range of aircraft configurations and engine types that exist within the MSP fleet. Multiple siructures or numerous engine silencers would need to be available to accommodate all possible engine/aircraft configurations. 4. The ground run-up enciosure at Chicago O'Hare Intemational Airport by Blast Deflectors, Inc. is currently being used by their local maintenance personnel approximately 85% of the time. The use has increased since the initial opening due to excellent lighting, convenience and the apparent design benefits for wind considerations from the vented sides, rolled tops and tapered walls. 5. Costs for ground run-up encfosures will vary depending on the size and site worfc required for the installation. IAC estimates approximately $50 per square foot. For a 400' by 400', three-sided structure, 50 feet high, the approximate cost would be $3 million (not including site preparation). Blast fleflectors, Inc. constructed the Chicago facility for �2.1 million with a total project cost of $3.1 million. Hush-house manufacturers declined to provide estimates since the cost is directly related to the size and type of aircraft the facility is consfructed to accommodate. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if there had been any problems with ice build up on the Chicago facility. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said there hadn't been any problems. He said the sun would most likely melt off any build up and that there would be a reduction in the noise a�fenuation capabilities if that were to happen. Bob Johnson, MBAA, � asked what work was being � done on the blast walls at MSP and whether it had been finished. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said BD1 was extending the upper portions of the fence on two walls to better accommodate DC�O, MD11 and L1011 run-ups. He said staff, at this point, wauld anticipate (with the manufactarer's review) that any new enclosure could be built around the existing blast wall, rather than taking it 3 down. Mr. Johnson asfced ir there had been any noise attenuation testing of the current blast defiectors that couid be used to compare with a new structure. Mr. Fuhrmann said, to his knowledge, there hadn't been any testing of that sort. He said the current biast deflector was not built to aftenuate sound. He said, ifi needed, testing could be done before any enclosure was built. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the size of a new enclosure would be large enough to accommodate larger aircraft over the next 20 yea�s. Roy FuhRnann, Technical Advisor, said Chicago's enciosure is 300' by 300' and can accommodate 777's (747-400's are 14 feet wider than a 777). He said the MSP's run-up pad is 400' by 400' so that it could accommodate the largest aircraft. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked how often MSP's run-up pad was used. Roy Fuhrmann, Technicai Advisar, said in 1997 it was used an average of 4.5 times per day. He said Chicago's is used an average of 7 or 8 times per day. He also noted that a majority of the run-ups are performed for 5-'10 minutes, but are sometimes up to 1/2 hour or 45 minutes at MSP. John Nelson, Bioomington, then began a discussion regardir�g staff's recommendations from the Ground Monitoring Technical Study Report that was presented at the previous meeting and briefly reviewed some of the bac4cground infiormation. ._ Mr. Nelson said he felt, given the legislature's decision to keep the airport at its present site, �� MASAC should pursue alf possible aircraft noise abatement strategies. Yet, he reminded members that the primary source of ground noise was from routine aircraft operations and not run-up activity. An in-depth discussion regarding staffs recommendation to change MSP's Run-up Field Rule to more accurately reflect actual practices ensued. (Copies of the Field Rule were distributed to the members.) There was also discussion about the possibility of installing a ground run-up enclosure at MSP and what it would entail. The following points were made during the discussion: ~�- Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted if the field rule continued unchanged and was enforced is it now reads, it was possible that more aircraft would perForm run-ups at remote locations on the fieid rather than in the run-up pad. �- All references to the nighttime (quiei) hours in the Field Rule should reflect the change in nighttime beginning hours from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (2300 to 2230). �- Even with modifications to the field rule and the possible installation of a run-up enclosure, there would still be a ne�d for alternate locations. � Airline maintenance personnel h�ve indicated that additional lighting within the run-uo pad was desirable. The installation of a ground n.�n-up enclosure could provide this. �- Rather than indicating specific required headings when performing run-ups, the rule 4 � should be modified to reflect favored headings (clockwise 270 degrees to 90 degrees) for jet aircraft when the winds are at less than 15 knots. � � '} No changes to the nighttime run-up restrictions shouid be made at this time. MAYOR CHARLES MERTENSOTTO, MENDOTA HE3GHT5, MOVED AND JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, SECONDED; 1.) TO MODIFY MSP'S AIRCRAFT ENGlNE RUN-UP PROCEDURES FlELD RULE TH)S YEAR 1N ORDER TO INCORPORATE W1ND CQNDITiONS AND CHANGES IN THE NIGHTTIME HOURS AND 2.) TO PURSUE IN �URTHER DETAlL IN 1999 THE POSSIBILlTY OF MODIFYING/iMPROVlNG THE EXISTING RUN-UP PAD TO INCORPORATE NOISE REDUCTI�N TECHNOLOGY. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOT10N CARRIED. Staff was asked to bring a modified version of the run-up field rule to the next Operations Meeting for review. Chairman Salmen said once the Operations Committee approves the new language for the �eid rule the recommendation would be forwarded to the fuli MASAC body for a vote. REVIEW OF MODIFlED NADP PROCEDURES Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, briefed the MSP Noise Abatement Departure Profiles: A Tr�nd Analysis report. Mr. Leqve said the purpose of the report was to establish that the FAA and the airiines had implemented the NADP's recommended by MASAC and approved by the Commission. He ( �� said, using ANOMS data, staff found that the procedures had indeed been implemented. He said staff conducted the analysis based on information extracted from the FAA's AC 91- 53A and explained how the gates were constructed in ANOMS for this purpose. Mr. Leqve noted that the analysis compared operations data from June 1997 to June 1998. He said the reasan this time period was used was to be sure the airiines and the FAA had had enough time to impiement the procedure fully. Mr. Leqve then described how the analysis was perrormed, explaining that oniy those operations above 4000 feet within the gates were counted. He said the expectation was that there would be an increase in the number of aircraft at higher aititudes off runways 30R and 30L because these were the oniy runways for which there had been a change in departure profiles. The analysis showed that the percentage of departing aircraft above 4000 feet at 5 miles out off these runways had increased as expected for the four identified aircraft (DCS, 8757, 8727, and A320). He said the results indicated that the close-in departure profiile was being used off these runway ends, as was directed by the MAC. Tne report concluded tivith the following st�tements: 5 1. In June 1997 the percent of departure operations by aircraft type off runways 30L and , 30R above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates ranged from 56.8°/o to 1.1 %. In June 1998, the percent ranged climbed to between 84.5% to 24.4%. 2. The increase in percent of departure operations by aircraft type off runways 30� and 30R above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates increased 47.6% for the DC9, 27.7% for the 8757, 23.3°/o for the B727 and 40.8% for the A320 in June 1998 compared to June 1997. 3. The percent of departure operations by aircraft type off runway 04 above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates rose substantially from June 1997. It was discovered that this was due to the vast disparity of 04 departure ope�ations available for quantification from June 1997. 4. The increase in percent of departure operaiions by aircraft type off runway 12L and 12R above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates increased 3.2% for the DC9, 3.3% for the 8757, 4.1 % for the 8727 and 6.7% for the A320. The small variation in the percentages from June 1997 to June 1998 represents virtually no change. 5. Rur�way 22 was the only runway showing a decrease in the percent of departure operations above 4000 ft MSL at the specified gates decreasing 9.6% for the DC9, 11.9% for the 8757, .09% for the B727 and 1.2% for the A320. As was the case with runways 12L and 12R, the smali variation in the percentages from June 1997 to June 1998 represents virtualiy no change. The slight decrease in the percentages can also be associated with the disparity of runway 22 departure operations available for quantification from June 1997 compared to the number of operaiions in June '1998, and a smail shift in operations due to aircraft performance characteristics. A discussion ensued regarding whether or not these findings translated to actual sound reductions on the ground. Roy Fuhrmann, Technicai Advisor, reminded the members that the purpose of the report was to determine whether or not the procedures were being followed as specified by the Commission through MASAC and not whether there were quantifiab(e noise reductions. He said it could be e�rapolated that if aircraft are at a higher aititude, the noise levels would be lower on the ground under those aircraft. John Nelsan, Bloomington, said he would like to expiore further how the implementation of the close-in procedure over Minneapolis and Richfield has afrected noise levels and suggested comparing RMT data. Mr. Nelson also mentioned that he was concerned that pilots were not perr'orming the EPR procedure that is part of the distant departure proc�dure. He said based on his field experience, he didn't believe the pilots were perorming this procedure. Chairman Salmen said Northwest pilots defar�itely adhere to the procsdures and are checked on orten to be sure the required procedures are being followed. John Neison, Bloomington, said he would also like to see documentation regarding how the 0 airiines implemented the new close-in procedure and when the changes were made. He said he would also like documentation about the quiet EPR, where it is in the Advisory � Circuiar, whether or not stage 3 were required to perform it, and any other documentation perkaining to the procedure. Chairman Salmen said he would bring documentation to the next meeting regarding the departure procedures used by Northwest Airiines. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said Mendota Heights continues to be displeased with the decision to continue with the distant departure profile off runways 12L and '12R. He said he felt those closest in to the airport should benefit �rst and that a ciose-in departure profil� would accomplish this. Mr. Batchelder asked staff if they would tracic down a video that was produced by the San Francisco Airport Round Table to convince pilots to follow the NADPs. He said the videa showed, on a split screen, of a 747 fully loaded taking off using both their "normal`' procedur.� and one taking off using the "ICAO" procedure. He said the ICAO procedure showed the aircraft ciimbing much faster. Chairman Salmen said he had seen the video and explained that ICAO A and B procedures correlates with Northwest Airfine's distant and close�- {�rocedures. Mr. Batchelder asked for a summary of the differences between the ICAO procedures and the procedures being used by Northwest Airlines for the next meeting. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked for a clarir�cation as to why different departure procedures couid nat be flown offi two paralle! runways in the same direction. It was explained that for safety reasons, the Air Line Pilots Association and the FAA Flight Standards had asked that the same procedure be established for both ends of" a runway (i.e., 12L and 12R). Mayor Mertensotto said he still contended that all other ciose-in airports around the country were flying the close-in procedure because there is a definite benefit to those residents close in to the airport. Chairman Saimen reminded members that MASAC would be reevaluating the NADPs once an all stage 3 fleet is in operation. OTHER John Neison, Bioomington, asked that a correction be made to the August 14, '1998 Operations Minutes. He said on page 3, paragraph 3, the second to the last sentence should read, "Interpreting the graph, then, a sound that is at the 20Hz level would read 50 decibels less on an A-weighted scale." JOHN NE�SON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND MAYOR CHARLES MERTENSOT?0, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 1998 MEETING AS CORRECTED. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRlED. 7 C Due to the lateness of the hour the Crossing in the Corridor review and Corr�spondence items were deferred untii the October Operations Committee meeting. The next Operations Meeting will be heid October 9, 1998. The meeting was adjoumed at 12:45 p.m. RespectfuUy submitted: Melissa Scavronski Committee Secretary � � 1��iA.SAC OPEI,ATIC�NS C01i�II11�I�'T�E 1�E � � �JI�I ^ �sac TO: MASAC Operations Committee i' ROM: Roy Fuhrmar�n, Technical Advisor SZTB,JECT: MASAC & Operations Committee Work Plan for 1999 DAT7E: October 1, 1998 lYIASAC Goals anci Objectives The following is a list of the approved MASAC objectives for 1998. Additionally, the MASAC Operations Committee Goals and Objectives are included. As the Operations Committee considers the 1999 objectives, please consider movin� forward in areas to address the overall reduction of noise for all communities and the topics for diseussion. 1998 3VIASAC Goals and Objectives ` � ��l.�+�. ��1.��. t'.. �' .s'F+,b/-��^ nsC'�^ . r� �� +��'„ � �.c.�a�.��-._.a'� � �� s fi'�r- Fti � � :L. :.� . �i�i :i , � �l3a.LolaxPliilil111� i � ,�G..., , a.i�- �a-�' yp�� l,� `—��'�� . p7. 11-,�p _¢ ,�. � ..t'1� w'� � �' �,;F-.�!!V � ..� A _. � a-av �c^S> ..J- �..x . '�' ...ri� T . `3._ ..HY4�W1 V.+s4/1iJ � �} a. s. r j- , �, `�'y t�';f �%t� �j.�� ;. ,•,i.� .! 1 � W � t ?,_ ��a '��.--y.� 'S Glj {,Y.� �.. +--��=. ...�? . -c K �^'.. .aa�. '.� . .r::_r._-�.: :i�_�> .'•.�^�'m �s - . . d . _ . .' . _ . . .. . .. . � ayb� _,,.s+-�.:._..,.,.e_ : —:..�.. .r �- �u. . -x- �.. � -��, �' �...r._ �. _ � : r :r � .. � �' ,� ^': .. -: .._.: :�.:: ..�> `� ""' � ]. 4 � G.,',". January 16 Operations Committ� P� 150 Contour Generation Discussion Goals & Objectives for 1998 January 27 MAS�C M�nneapolis Strai�ht-Out Departure Procedure Destination Study Update Monitorin� Request Forms February 20 Operations Committee Runway Construction Briefin� Di�tL Contour Generation March 2 � M�,S�C Receive YISP Construction BriennQ(G. Warren) Presentation of �1ASAC Audit (D. Kistel, PSB) Nlarcn 20 Operations Committ� Cor�a�i�ete i�ionitorina & Info. Request form Initial Evaluation of Additional RNIT SitinQs C - r " s� t }� �r , - :��e�ie€i I)ate , Accoffi�ll�shu� .�� . L `-r -:� 3 = s .. i - v1998 `� ' � s '' �' � ' Iteqnareme�� : ; , . �' .�, .�Y _ -.. _,� � :.-. �- . �.. , - _ � � .�.._;. , �LY 'sy .��. Request for Communiry Support for Mpis March 31 MASAC Straight-out Procedure MASAC Audit Discussion/Sug�estions April 17 Operations Committe� R-MT Site Location Analysis Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis Apri128 MASAC DNL Presentation by HNTB Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC Perspectives RMT Site Location Analysis May 8 Operations Cor�mitte� Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis MASAC Work Plan May 26 MASAC RMT Site Location Presentation ATC Airspace Fresentation Construction Update June 12 Operations Committee Run-Up Monitorina Update Final MASAC RMT Analysis Update June 23 MASAC Orientation Topics_ l`'�"�""�onstruction Update July 10 Operations Committe� MASAC Handbook (Draft) EIS Procedure Brief 7uly 23 MASAC EIS Procedure Briefing August 14 Operations Committe� Construction Update Review of NADP Procedures MSP Tower Tour Au�ust 25 MAS�C ;�ASAC MTG in FAA Conference Room InvestiQate PS T�a �t m Use for Noise 5eptember 11 Operations Committe� � ��i�n Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis C� � September 22 MASAC � � Stage III Compliance Review Review��NiQ ours October 9 Operations Committee (2 2 _23pp� RMT Location Project Review/Process Update October 27 November 13 December 1 December 11 MASAC Operations Committee MASAC Operations Committee MASAC OPERATIONS COMMI�fiEE PROPOSED Orientation�Topics Focus Activities for Upcoming Year Part I50 Pro�ess Review Establish Calendar for 1999 199� GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide f bac ��,�t�eir efforts to communicate chanaes in operations, due to c�nstru 'o s, to the;�rroundinQ communities. Evaluate partu 1�� hrough the EaQan/Mendota Heiahts Comdor and make any nec s, s to the r vant procedures. y Review AN ��d noise monitors. Evaluate the need and placement of addition�:.�� . o, evalua portable monitoring capabilities. Request tra nel to make a presentation on how MSP operations are conduct�,(�� On-goin� Discussion Items 5. Providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory made StaQe III aircraf[. 6. Investi�ate how-GPS and other naviQational aids cou3d help alleviate aircraft noise 7. Review o � ��compliance. � �� 8. Con[inue Part I�0 contour s�neration review. C ' IvfETROPOLiI'AN AiRPORTS COMI�fISSION MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATTONAL AIRPORT WOLD-CHAMBERLIN FIELD OFFICE OF 1'T� AIIZPORT DIREC"I"OR [Date] NOTICE TO: ALL AIRPORT USERS FROM: Airport Director, Minneapolis-St Paul International Airpon SUBJECT: FIELD RULE: AIRCRAFT ENGINE RUN-UP PROCEDURES The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in consideration of ainzaft maintenance requirements and the desire to reduce aircraft noise, has revised its run-up procedures FIELD RLTLE. The following new rules for maintenance nui-ups are effective this date, [date) and supersede all pretizous Fieid Rules regarding this issue. 1. Alt rur►-ups must be scheduled in advance with MAC Operations by calling 726-5111 or API 6� 111. The following inforn�ation is required at the time of the request: e Type of aircraft and aircrafi tail number • Proposed start time • Proposed end time • Reason for ivn-up 2. Approved run-up hours will be from 0600 - 2230L daily. Except for the provisions of paragraph n8, run-ups �vill not be authorized during quiet hours (2230 - 0600L daily). Any en�ne run for any purpose other than aircraft movement during quiet hours �vill be res[ricted to idle po�ver only. 3. Radio contact with EAA ground control is required for approval of movement to/from a run-up area. Aircraf� shall monitor ground control at ali times during the run-up. =�. In consideration of the noise impact on neighboring communities and to prevent damage to surrounding pari:ed aircraft, equipment and vehicles, run-ups in the MAC run-up pad are restricted to specific headings. If tivind conditions do not allow a run-up to be conducted, the run-up should be postponed. The follo�;•ing headings i�ill be used according to npe/size of aircraf�: • 7et aircraft: e Winds less than 8 kts use 300° heading 0 Winds 81.rts or �-eater and less than 15 k-ts, headings clock��ise 270° - 090° o Winds greater than l� }.�is, headin�s according to manufacturer specifications • Prop aircraft; no res[riclion In addition, raad guards tiviil be required to stop vehicular traffic on the car�o road��ay immediately �i�est of the run-up pad whene��er the follo«�ing aircrafi are running full-po�cer at the indicated headings: e B747 airCraft; he3dinas 070° - 090° e DC10 aircrafi; headings 0-��° - 040° �. If wind conditions pre��ent the use of the bi.AC run-up pad durin� rewlar run-up hours and a scheduled deparriue ti�zll be dela��ed, an alterna[e site ma�� be requested from �•L=�C Operations. The approach end of nuititiav 0-� ma}� be al�ailable as an altema[e run-up location during non-RUS (Run��av Use System noise abatement procedures) hour. Any run-up on rumti�ar• 0-� is subject to immediate termination for operational needs. Run-ups on rumti•a}� 0� «�iil no[ be autllorized durin� quiet hours. 6. The rumvay 22 run-up pad is availabie during regular da}time hours for turboprop run-ups if run��a}• .. 22 is not an active iumvay; no heading restrictions. Run-ups on rumiay 22 ti�ill not be authorized during quiet hours. Aircraft "powerbacks" are prohibited during quiet hours. 8. Absolutely no run-ups will be authorizerl between the hours of midnight and OSOOL daily. During the reIlLninb quiei hours, nui-ups «�il only be approved by NiAC Operadons if a scheduled departure time cannot be met without the run-up. Documentation of the after-hours run-up must be maintained by the supervisor malar►g the request and such information �tiill be made available to the Metropolitan Airports Commission immediateiy upon request: • Flight number • Scheduled gate time • Scheduled departure time • Reason for afier hours run-up e Name of supervisor or n�nager making request All other requirements of the field nile must still be met when requesting an after-hours nu�-up. This FIELD RULE contains provisions for efficient ain~raf[ nin-up scheduling and safety during run-up performance with rrunimum noise impact on the surrounding communitc�. It is essential that each company emphasize to their aircraft maintenance emplovees, the need to comply «�th the FIELD RLTLE. Tim Callister, AI�tPORT DIRECTOR Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport SUPERSEDES RUN-UP FIELD RULE DATED FEBRUARY 1. 1992 I��ASAC OPEI.ATIONS CO��IIVIITTEE MASAC Operations Committee Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator NADP Compliance Assessment October 1, 1998 �� During the September MASAC -0perations Committee, the NADP Compliance Assessment was reviewed with respect to the scope of the analysis: As you will recall, the purpose of the analysis was to verify that the FAA and the airlines had implemented the NADP's as recommended by MASAC and the MAC Commission. � Althouah the analysis provided convincin� evidence that the Close-In Procedure is fully implemented for departures from Runways 30L and 30R, additional informatifln from the airlines was requested. At the October meeting, Chairman Salman will present documentation of the procedures implemented by Northwest Airlines that include how the airline implemented the close-in procedure, when the chan�es were made and documentation about the quiet EPR procedure's applicability to Stage III aircraft. 1��9. S.�1.0 OP��,ATI D.NS C011�.IVIITTEE �� { �'Q: MASAC Operations Committee I+'R03�V�: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUB,jECT: Crossin� in the Corridor Analysis DATE: October l, 1998 Since its conception, the crossing in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate as rnany operations as possible in the center of the Eagan-Mendota Heiahts Departure Corridor. Although superficially the procedure seems loaical and relatively straight forward, several variabilities must be considered when assessin� the use or non-use of the procedure. On March 17, 1998, a letter was forwarded to Chairman Johnson from the city of Mendota Heights requestin� specific airspace analysis relative to the crossin� in the coiridor procedure. Inquiries were made reQardin� time available to perform the crossinQ procedure and e;cecution of the procedure during the potential time periods. At the May 8, 1998 Operations Committee meeting a scope was presented outlining the resources, methods and cooperation necessary to complete the analysis. During and after the meetin� chanQes were made to the original scope relative to input from i�i,�SAC Operations Committee members. y The Crossina in the Corridor Review• will be presented as part of the October 9, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting aQenda. If you have any questions or comments please contact mz at 725-6328. ' City of Minneapolis Office of the Mayor Sharon Sav(es �elton Mavor 350 Soufh �Ih Sireef - P.00m s3� September 28, 1998 Minneepolis +riN �5415-1393 0'rfica !6t21 073-2100 Fax o73-23Q5 rrv s;3-zis� Chad E. Leqve ANOMS Coordinator Aviation Noise and Satellite Proarams ` Nletropolitan Airports Commissic�n 6040 28th Avenue South i�linneapolis, IvIN »=��0 Dear ti1r. Leqve: Thank you for contactina me reQardinQ the sitting of ttivo additional noise monitors. After consultina �vith the affected Council Nlembers, I would like to recommend the follo�vina locations. l. Anthony �fiddle School, �7�7 Irvina Avenue South �" � � 2. Ericsson Elementar�• School. �31 � 31 st Avenue South I have attached maps illustratina the proposed sites. Tha.nl: you for seekinQ input � on this important issue. Sincerely, ^ �~�''-�-•�...-.- �haron Sayles Belton� ivlavor Enclosure cc: Council �Iember Sandra Colvin Roy Council �Iernber Ste��e ��Iinn � ) _ ;�m;�r�.ci.mir,neacclis.mn.�s Aifirmative �c;;cn =^+;,iover h,cC%�Ic� DdG=f ��' „i �.�(i�u(fl:. ..2SI�