11-12-1998 ARC PacketCITY OF MEIVDOT/a HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATlOIVS COMMISSION
AGEtVDA
IVovember 12, 7 p.m. - Large Conference Room
1. Call to Order - 7 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of October 14, 1998 Minutes.
4. Unfiinished and IVew Business:
a. Appoint Alternates to December 1, 1998 MASAC Meeting
5. Updates
a. Ground Noise Study � �"''^�� '�� �`�°`"'"���` � `�'
b. Runway 17-35 FEIS �� �"�'`'�5 j�-
c. Cros�g Procedure
6. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. Airport Noise Reports for October 9, 1998
b. MASAC Agenda for October 27, 1998 and September 22, 1998
Minutes
c. MASAC Teehnical Advisor's Report for September 1998
d. MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for September 1998
e. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for November 13, 1998
f. Smithsonian Article -"The Dominoes are Falling"
g. Eagan ARC Agenda for November 10, 1998
7. Other Comments or Concerns.
8. Adjourn.
Auxiliary aids for u�isabled 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 MENDC)TA HEIGHTS
MEMO
November 10, 1998
To: Airport Relations Commission
,�
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Admi 'st to '
Subject: Unfinished and New Business for November Meeting
DISCUSSION
This memo will cover the items on the agenda for Unfinished and New Business and
for Updates.
l. A��oint Alternates to December l, 1998 MASAC Meeting - Each year, MASAC
combines its November and December meetings and conducts a meetxng on the first
Tuesday of December, in this case on December 1, 1998. This date conflicts with the
City's regularly scheduled City Council meeting, therefore, Mayor Mertensotto
(alternate), Councilmember Jill Smith (representative) and myself (representative)
cannot attend the meeting. Mendota Heights has two seats on the MASAC Board and
the Cornsnission should discuss appointing alternates to serve that evening.
2. U�dates - Each of the issues on listed under Updates on the agenda were discussed at
the MASAC and MASAC Operations Committtee meetings over the last month and
staff will provide the Commission with an update.
C
C
CITY OF MEiVDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUtVTY, MIIVNESOTA
AiRPORT RELATIOIVS COMMiSSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 14, 1998
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held
on Wednesday, October 14, 1998 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1 101
Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following
members were present: Beaty, Roszak, Fitzer and Stein. Commissioners Leuman,
May and Des Roches were excused. Also present were City Administrator Kevin
Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser.
APPROVAL OF MIIVUTES
Commissioner Roszak moved approval of the September 9, 1998 minutes.
Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
CONTItVUED DISCUSSION OF SOUIVD
ATTENUAT101V ORDINANCE
Administrator Batchelder explained that the Commission had briefly
discussed this item at their September 9 meeting. He noted that the
Commission had made some suggestions and asked that the Commission
requested that this item be brought back for further discussion in October.
Batchelder stated that the Commission has expressed concerns with not
having a Sound Attenuation Ordinance in efifect. He noted the Commission
is concerned that the City would not have the ability to ensure that new
construction (both residential and commercial}, within the air noise zones,
would be properly sound attenuated, Batchelder stated that at their
September meeting, the Commission had discussed exploring other options
to ensure the City's concerns with sound attenuation such as pursuing sound
atfienuation through developer agreement process and/or a Planned Unit
Development process as well as challenging the validity and rnethodology of
the Met Council's unilateral decision to create new air noise zones.
OCTOBER 14, 1998 A/RPORT RELATIONS COMM/5SlON MJNUTES �
........ l, �,
The Commission stated that taking a positive approach in working with the (
Met Council is the preferred option.
Chair Beaty noted his concern with fihe MAC's 2005 cantours. He stated
that if these contours are adopted, he is concerned that these will become
inaccurate in the future and that he does not want to see �the City limit its
land development based on these contours. Batchelder stated that these
contours have been created based on the use of Stage III aircraft and the
` construction of the north/south runway. The Commission discussed how
operations at MSP will most likely increase as a result of the new runway
construction and that the 2005 contours may not remain as small as they are
projected to be in 2005.
Commissioner Roszak suggested that language be added to the
comprehensive plan related to the specific air noise contours. Chair Beaty
stated that he believes the City should place more emphasis on the
established corridor. He stated that he believes the contours should be
bigger than what they are currently. Commissioner Roszak stated that he
believes the City should not commit itself to the validity on how the MAC
and Met Council project their contours by basing our Comprehensive Plan on
the 2005 Contours. He stated that he would like to see the City reserve the
right to proceed with land use planning so long as the contours are accurate.
�/.
In response to a question from the Commission regarding the comprehensive
plan amendment process, Administrator Batche�der explained that the City's
official controls, such as its zoning ordinance, will need to be consistent with
the new comprehensive plan. He stated that the Council is very concerned
with the Met Council's unilateral changes in its air noise zones and the fact
that the Met CoUncil has imposed land use restrictions on the City outside of
the accepted corridor. He reminded the Commission that the City of
Mendota Heights is the only City in the metropolitan area that adopted an air
noise sound attenuation ordinance, although Sunfish Lake has recently
adopted one.
Chair Beaty stated that there is a lot of value in the City's sound attenuation
ordinance. He stated fihat the City's residents and businesses have
benefitted from this ordinance. He stated that if there was no ordinance in
place, the quality of homes and businesses would decrease. He stated that
something is needed to help protect the community.
The Commission discussed different parameters in accomplishing guidelines
for developments within the City, such as, developer agreements and
planned unit developments. Commissioner Roszak inquired if there is a way
OCTOBER 94, 9998 A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES 2
to make a specific requirement, such as a developers agreement, an official
� requirement within the City's official planned unit development standards.
He inquired if the City is able to extend the planned unit development
ordinance to all properties that are considered planned unit developments as
well as infill developments not considered a planned unit development.
Commissioner Roszak suggested that the sound attenuation requirements be
included in the planned unit development ordinance and that it would apply
to all properties that exist within the airport noise zones including infill
developments.
Commissioner Roszak inquired if the Met Council has expressed concerns
with the inconsistencies between their contours and the MAC's 2005
contours. Administrator Batchelder stated that the Met Council is using
1996 contours and that they are aware of the 2�05 contours. He stated
that the Council is very concerned with the Met Council's methodology as to
how the contours are created.
Commissioner Roszak suggested that the City Council amend the existing
sound attenuation ordinance to reflect a"self destruct" clause pcedicated on
future air noise zone conditions and the invalidity of the Met Council's
unilateral expansion of air noise contours and the fact that the Met Council
contours are inconsistent with the 2005 contours projected by the MAC.
Roszak further suggested that in the event that the Met Council's actions are
validated by the State Legislature, the City's sound attenuation ordinance
should terminate.
In response to a question regarding the Met Council's authority,
Administrator Batchelder explained that the Met Council is statutorily
responsible for four regional systems: transportation, sewers, housing and
parks/open space. He explained fihat the Met Council reviews land use
proposals and determines consistency with these regional systems. He
reminded the Commission that the City's sound attenuation ordinance was
developed in conjunction with the southeast area development in 1985.
Regarding the suggested termination clause within the sound attenuation
ordinance, Commissioner Roszak pointed out that the termination of the
ordinance would then leave the City without any guidelines on land
developrnent within the air noise zones. Chair Beaty stated that he would
like to see the City continue operating as it has been. He stated that he does
not want to buy into either the Met Council's cantours and/or the MAC's
contours.
OCTOBER 14, 1998 A/RPORT RELATIDNS COMM/SSION M/NUTES 3
Commissioner Stein inquired as to why the City of Mendota Heights is being (
forced to comply with the Met Council's new air noise contours when other
metropolitan cities have not adopted a noise attenuation ordinance
specifically identifying air noise zones. He stated that he would be interested
in seeing how the Met Council reviews other city comprehensive plan
amendments who do not have sound attenuation ordinances in effect.
Administrator Batchelder stated that he would discuss the Commission's
suggestions with the City Council.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF GROUtVD
NOISE STUDY REPORT
The Commission discussed the September 1 1, 1998 MASAC Operations
Committee minutes in which Mr. Roy Furhmann, Technical Advisor, briefed
the Committee on the addition of Section 5(Ground Run-Up Enclosures) of
the Ground Noise Monitoring Technical System.
The Commission noted that Chicaga O'Hare International Airport will be
constructing a�3 million run up pad enclosure.
The Commission noted that the MASAC Operations Committee moved to:
�_
1. Modify MSP's aircraft engine run-up procedures field rule this year in
order ta incorporate wind conditions and changes in the nighttime
hours, and
2. To pursue in further detail in 1999 the possibility of
modifying/improving the existing run-up pad to incorporate noise
reduction technology.
The Commission noted that MASAC Operations discussed that two changes
be made to the procedures:
1. All references to the nighttime (quiet) hours in the Field Rule should
reflect the change in nighttime beginning hours from 11:00 p.m. ta
10:30 p.m.
2. Rather than indicating specific required headings when performing run-
ups, the rule 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.
�
OCTOBER 74, 1998 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMM/SSION M/NUTES 4
Administrator Batchelder stated that the MASAC will discuss constructing a
run up enclosure in 1999.
Commissioner Roszak moved to recommend that the City Council request the
MASAC to pursue and install a run-up enclosure pad.
Chair Beaty seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
IVAYS: 0
Regarding the City of Richfield, Chair Beaty stated that Richfield is trying to
stop the construction of a new runway and that this does not make sense
because the City of Richfield supported keeping the airport in Minneapolis.
He stated that Richfield is trying to generate funds to help develop the Cedar
Avenue area.
Commissioner Roszak offered a friendly amendment by recommending that
the City Council consider forwarding Mendota Heights position regarding a
new run-up pad and that Mendota Heights urges the supporfi of other cities
as a new run-up pad will benefit these cities as well. Roszak noted that the
new run-up pad should be constructed in its current location.
Chair Beaty accepted the friendly amendment.
CROSSING IN THE CORRIDOR
AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
The Commission reviewed an Operational Analysis regarding Crossing in the
Corridor.
The Commission reviswed the Section regarding Variables Affecting the Use
of Procedures. It was noted that this section explained how crossing
procedure is a fun � several determinates. It was noted that six main
categories play i t he ility to perform the procedure: runway use, aircraft
performance, we , separation criteria, pilot discretion and FAA staffing.
_._...---Th�'�omm ssian discussed the Section regarding Assessing the Use of the
�� Crossing Procedure. They noted that the Operations Committee has
embarked on an analysis to provide insight into whether or not the procedure
is being utilized. They noted that the analysis is predicated on time periods
on Monday through Friday from 1 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and on the
weekends from Saturday 3:00 p.m. to Sunday 1:00 p.m. The Commission
noted that the analysis first assessed when the crossing procedure is actually
being used during the mentioned time periods and the time of one local
OCTOBER 94, 1998 A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMM/SS/ON MINUTES rJ
controller staffing is noted during the weekend time periods providing the
total operations during that time and those that crossed out of the total. �.
The Commission reviewed Section 2- Crossing Operations Airspace
Analysis: October 1997 to March 1998 (2300 - 0600) and Weekends (1500
to 1300). The Commission noted that only 16.8% of the Carrier Jet
Departure Operations performed fihe crossing procedure in December 1997.
The Commission reviewed Section 3- Departure Operation Time Separation
Analysis: October 1997 to March 1998 (2300-0600) and Weekends (1500-
1300). The Commission reviewed the time between departures on Runways
12L and 12R.
The Commission reviewed Section 4- FAA Operational Variables. The
Commission discussed Sub Section 4.2 - Impact of Non-simultaneous Head-
to-Head Operations. Chair Beaty noted the inequitable distribution of aircraft
landing on 30L/R and Departing on 12L/R during head-to-head operations.
The Commission reviewed Section 5- Weather During the Analysis Period
and Section 6 - Summary.
The Commission discussed the major findings of the analysis:
�.
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 times between
departure operations were prevalent in the 0 to 2 min. Range with an
overall p.ercent 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 af 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.
� `,
OCTOBER 74, �998 A/RPORT RELATIONS COMM/SSION M/NUTES 6
5. There were 643 (17.2%) carrier jefi departure operations which
� performed the crossing procedure when departing runways 12L and
12R during the six month period on weekends from Saturday at 1500
to Sunday at 1300.
6. During the 572 hours of analyzed weekend time one local controller
was on duty for 416.4 (72.7%) hours.
7. During the 416.4 hours of one local controller during the mentioned
weekend periods there were 1432 carrier jet 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 mentioned weekend periods the times between departure
operations were prevalent in the 0 to 2 min. Range with an overall
percent of 57.4% and int he 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.
1 1. 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 Commission noted that there is a lot of room for improvement and that
Mendota Heights should work closely with the MAC and FAA to better utilize
the procedures. Batchelder stated that the second six month analysis will be
completed in February and the City will be able to review progress made by
the FAA.
Commissioner Roszak moved to recommend that the City Counc�l accept the
report and to direct staff to begin collaboration with the FAA to improve the
performance of nighttime standards.
Chair Beaty seconded the motion.
Commissioner Roszak offered a friendly amendment by recommending that a
thank you letter be sent to Roy Fuhrman thanking him for the well written
analysis.
Chair Beaty accepted the friendly amendment.
OCTOBER 94, 9998 A/RPORT RELATIONS COMM/SS/ON M/NUTES %
VOTE OIV MOTI()N
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
The Commission recommended that Mr. Fuhrman be invited to speak at an
upcoming Airport Reiations Commission meeting.
•�► •, • �:�
� ... . ..�
The Commission acknowledged receipt of an Advisory Circular regarding
Noise Abatement Departure Profiles which describes acceptable criteria for
safe noise abatement departure profiles for jet airplanes.
The Comrnission noted that the Noise Abatement Departure Procedures is a
MASAC goal for 1998. It was noted that the MASAC intends to verify that
the FAA did impose departure procedures over Minneapolis.
It was noted that Northwest Airlines normally uses the Distant Procedure as
a Noise Abatement Procedure.
The Commission discussed how a long term study to determine what (,
departure procedure will best benefit cities surrounding MSP. It was noted
that the Close-In procedure will greatly benefit Mendota Heights.
�
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF
VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Noise Reports for
August 28, September 1 1 and 25, 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Agenda for September
22,1 998 ad August 25, 1998 Minutes.
The Commission acknowledged receipfi of the MASAC Technical Advisor's
Report for August 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Corridor Gate
Penetration Analysis for August 1998. It was noted that the northern
excursions were higher than previous months.
�'
OCTOBER 14, 7998 A/RPORT RELAT/ONS COMMISS/ON M/NUTES H
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Public Affairs Forum - MAC
and Twin Cities Airport Rask Force.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations Committee
Agenda for October 9, 1998.
There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission adjourned
its meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberlee K. Blaeser
Senio� Secretary
OCTOBER 94, 1998 A/RPORT RELATIONS COMMISSlON M/NUTES 9
C
�:
132 Airport Noise Report
St. .L,ouis, from p. 131
Bowers 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 FA.A's decision will be reversed and
W-1W will never be built."
A decision from the court of appeals is not expected until
the summer of 1999. Bowers said that more litieation 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 o�ciais, "who are
neither elected by nor accountable to Bridgeton residents,
from taking away Bridgeton's constitutional ri�ht to
. determine 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 landing field in any city in
violation of zonin; regulations. "Since the proposed aizport
. expansion buyout area in Bridgeton has not been zoned for
(� � airport use by the City of Bridgeton, the proposed'N-1W
'— expansion plan cannot be built," Bridgeton asserted.
The lawsuit also contends that the right of the City of
$ridgeton to deternune this zoning is guaranteed by the
Missouri State Constitution and state statutes. As a Constitu-
,tional Charter City, the Missovri Constitution (Article VI,
Section 19(a)) grants the city full authority to designate
zoning within its borders, Bridgeton asserted.
"'This lawsuit will demonstr�ate that our ]aws do protect the
property rights of Americans, and that $ridaeton residenu
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 rioht to force the airport into Bridgeton 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 existin� FAA rules, W-1W 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 expandin�
Lambert Field means that the FAA has not complied with
the requirements of federal law. I am confiden[ 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 technica] 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 prodnce a worid-class airport and had the
potentia] 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
riahts, and made our legal actions necessary."Q
Homesteczd AFB
�, . . . � , ,� . � �
�, ' ;i ' � �: � � .
By Chartes F. Price — At the urging of local officials and
environmental groups, the Air Force is in the initial phases
of a study re-examinina the environmental impacts of a
controversial plan to ffansfer Homestead Air Force Base —
located near the fraaile Florida Everglades - from military
control to Dade County, FL, for development as a major
commercial airport.
Last 7anuary, the Air Force and the Federal Aviation
Administration decided to prepare a Supplemental Environ-
mental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the proposed base
transfer in response to concerns that current plans for the
projected civil airport involve a o eater number of opera-
tions than were contemplated in an original 1994 EIS and
thus will create a �reater array of noise and other impacts.
The scopin� process for the Supplemental EIS has been
completed and a draft SEIS will be circulated sometime next
year, an Air Force source told ANR.
Closely watching 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 to
advocacy and liti�ation to safeguard the environment. In a
recent-statement NRUC pledaed to monitor the Homestead
SEIS to ensure that it takes into account all relevant effects
of the proposed project and its attendant commercial
development — espzcially those impacting air, water, and
noise quality.
NRUC 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 the national
parks and the restora[ion of the Everglades." NRDC said it
is pressino "to ensure that environmental vigilance is
maintained throuaho�t the federal transfer process."
One sticking point cited by NRDC was the number of
runways to be studied. The Air Force originally insisted that
the Homestead evaluation be confined to determining the
impacts of a one-runway confi�uration; but NRDC contends
Airport Noise Report
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 scopin� 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 wil] 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 sufficient environmental and development
conditsons to protect the parks." If, on the other hand, the
SEIS proves inadequate and incompatible with the ecologi-
cal health of the sensitive areas, NRUC said it "will fight to
obtain an adequate SEIS and to ensure that [he parks aze
protected and that plans to develop an airport do not go
forward."�
Memphis, from p: 131
firm Glankler, Brown, which represents the airport author-
ity, said the airport will not accept the settlement if a
significant percentaae 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 setflement.
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 o� this magnitude has been
tried," the attorney said. He speculated that the litigation
would have died if it had not received a class desi�nation.
But he said that the class designation did aive 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 settlement,
and explaining who will be included in the class. The
attorneys for the property owners ab eed to revise the
definition of the class to exclude owners of commercia]
property and to include additional residential property
owners. The airport wants all homeowners in the 65 dB
DNL contour, especially those recently added to the contour
in an updated noise map, to be included in the settlemen[.
Suit Filed in 1989
The lawsuit, Martha Alvarado, et al, v. Memphis-Shelby
� ) County Airport Acithoriry (Civil Action No. 89-3001-
HBRO) was filed in November 1989 by approximately 27
airport area residents who alle�ed that an increasz in noise
133
and pollution from the airport had diminished their quality
of life and damaged their property values. They sou�ht
dama?es on the grounds that airport noise had caused a
tak.ing of their property or was a nuisance.
The A[varado case was certified as a class action in May
1993 despite viQorous legal opposition by the airport
authority. The class desianation in the Alvarado case is the
first ever given for airport noise litigation without the
airport's consent. Class actions have been attempted in noise
lawsuits at severai other airports — Chicago, Austin, Min-
neapolis, Ralei�h-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 �onsent of the airport
authority. That case was settled bnt has been sealed so the
details of the settlement are not known_
The Alvarado case was litigated aa�essively for eight
years. The court turned down modons from both sides
seeking summary judgment of a claim that some class
members' substantive due process ri�hts had been violated
by misrepresentations by the airport authority of the
comprehensive nature of its noise compatibility program.
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 settlement, the court noted that, if the
suit is not setded, "it will require further extensive and
expensive court proceedings involving complicated and
expensive legal issues," such as: (1) whether there has been
a taking oi properry; (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
receivina federal funds, and (4) whether the due process
claun has merit.
"If a decision on the merits is reached, the acti�n may'tie
appealed," the coart said, adding that "no one can confi-
dently predict how the various leDal questions at issue,
including the amount of damages, wouid ultimately be
resolved."
Class Redefined
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 ctass wili 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 authoriry, 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 contours 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, accordin� ro Brown. By statute,
noise contours cannot be used a�ainst an airport, he said,
Airport Noise Report
�.
�"
C
134 Airport Noise Report
notin� [hat the court agreed.
So what was used as the noise impact area in the proposed
settlement was the area earlier defined by the airport as
encompassing the nei�hborhoods that would be represented
on a Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility advisory commit-
tee, Brown said. This area is mostly within the City of
Memphis, but also includes homes in Shelby 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.�1
Research
SCHOOL DISTRICT STITJDYING
COST OF AlDEQUATE INSULATION
By Charles F. Price — A Tacoma, WA, schooi district
impacted by noise from the operation of Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport is conducting a study to determine the
effect of jet noise on teaching and ]earina and the cost of
remediating it.
Tn�the first phase of the study, the Hi�hline School District
has hired acoustical expert Sandford Fidell of BBN Systems
to measure acoustic conditions in classrooms of 1S schools,
deternune how much sound reduction each classroom needs,
and recommend the soundproofin� measures necessary to
lessen noise impacts on children.
Fidetl said his portion of the study is nearina completion
and will be forwarded soon to H3jhline School Superinten-
dent Joe McGeehan; its recommendations will then be
priced by architectural and engineering 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 upQrades.
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 recommenda[ions
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
information 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 being taken
at a baseline school far from the airport, he said. He also
no[ed that overall noise level wi11 be de[ermine by averaginQ
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 Seatde, which operates Sea-Tac, has
said it is willing to fund school insulation to the tune of $50
million, but the Highline District has argued 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 about its participation
in the study. Haif of the 32 schools in the school district are
within the 65 dB DNL and higher 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, I.��tham replied, `"That's a very good
question," and one that will be considered.�
Grants
FAA► AWARDS GRAl'�T5 �
F0�.2 NOISE P�.2.�.1JECTS
The Federal Aviation Administration recently announced
the following a ant awards under the Airport Improvement
Prob am for noise miti�ation projects:
•$500,000 to Lambert-St_ Louis International for phase II
of a project to sound insulate a hijh school;
•$270,000 to Republic Airport, Farmingdale, NY, to
update its Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Prob am;
•$1.9 million to Syracuse Hancock International Airport
to soundproof an unspecified number of residences;
•$1,000,018 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
� � . : . . . , e; I
� � j � . ' � � . `
By Charles F. Price — A classic clash between expandinQ
residential development and the need to restrict encroach-
ment of homes into noise-affected areas near airports is
shapin� up in a suburban area northwest of Phoenix around
Luke Air Force Base.
The nearby community of El Mira;e is reported�y in the
process of approving 3,000 new homes in areas directly
below the Luke flight path. Base supporters fear that it the
homes are indeed built, the new residents will soon beQin to
complain of jet noise from Luke operations, eventually
necessitatin� a curtailment of training fliQhts and impair-
ment of the mission of the base, leading ultimately to
closure. Loss of Luke, they ar;ue, would deal a heavy blow
Airport Noise Feport
October 9, 1998
to the local and reaional economy.
According to base studies, Luke employs more [han 7,800
people and contributes more than a half-billion dollars to the
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
avera�e of 600 tal:eoffs and landina per day were recorded.
Demand for New Housing
On the other hand, EI Mirage and the neijhborina
community of Surprise say they are tryina hard to cope with
risins demands for housing. A new home went up every 3.5
hours in Surprise in 1997, according to local reports. El
Mirage Mayor Maggie Reese has said she doesn't want to
jeopardize Luke's future but at the same time has no wish to
limit growth in her community, whose 5,800 population, she
claims, couid 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 property
because the base is nearby. "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 that challen�e and
asked the state Attorney General's O�ce to deternune
whether EI Mirage would be violatin� 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. AMPC members claim
the laws haven't been enforced.
Encroachment was a factor in the 1991 closure of iVil-
liarrts Air Force Base east of Phoenix, and base supporters
are womed it will doom Luke as well. While base advocates
contend the communities should follow the state guidelines,
some officials of Surprise and El Mira�e argue that if [he
military wants to prevert encroachment, it should simply
buy the land in question.
Air Force Secretary F'. Whitten Peters has said the military
might indeed consider such a purchase to create a buffer
zone around the base. State Representative 7ean McGrath,
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 �et the feelino
they're not goin� to pony up any money to solve it."
135
ANR attempted to learn the status of the AMPC request
for a le?al determination but calls to Sen. McGrath's office
and to the Arizona Attorney General's office had not been
returned by press time.�
Boston Logan Int'l
COI�II1�][UNITIES SOUT�3[ OF LOGAN
Ul'SE'I' BY YNCREASE IN FLIG]HTS
By Charles F. Price — An analysis of radar tracks by the
operator of Boston's Logan International Airport earlier this
year confirms claims by residents of the nei�hboring
communities of Weymouth and East Weymouth, MA, that
increases in air tra�c have worsened jet noise in neighbor-
hoods south of the airport, accord'ang 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 traffic
consists mosdy of night-time cargo flights stackin� up over
Weymouth and East Weymouth on approach to Logan.
Massport spokesman Jeremy Crockford told ANR the
analysis, promised last sprin� at a meeting of community
representatives in the o�ce 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 makin� that comparison Massport
did not intend to be insensitive or to downplay the concerns
of [he commun3ties. "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 Lojan. Massport's Crockford said, "'I'he
simple answer [to overall increases] is a stronC economy.
The number of operations is tied to the rate of b owth in the
economy, which has been about 5 percent higher this year in
Boston." This would be true of cargo flights as well as
commercial operations, he said. Also, Crockford pointed
out, "our spring and summer wind patterns do tend to move"
fli�ht activity in the direction of the complainina communi-
ties.
Public Affairs Officer Jim Peters of the FAA's New
England Regional Office told ANR that traffic at Loaan
generally "has been up this year," but said air traffic
controllers at the airport "can't account for what the
communities are sayina" specifically about experiencin�
new ni�ht-time noise from more cargo planes than usual
stacking up in the pattern over Weymouth and East
Weymouth. Perhaps, he said, "it's a perception." He
explained that runway assignments are made by a computer
program based on variables of wind, weather, and u-a�c
volume.
AirpoR Noise Repoet
C
�
136
A Masspor[ analysis of all Logan operations — day and
night — over the communities for the month of December
1997 showed an increase in arrivals and departures on
� Runway 4R, with "the greater impacts on the downwind
approach," Crockford said.
Petition Seeks Relief
Tt�e issue of increasing night operations arose last spring
when Weymouth and East Weymouth citizens compiained
about new noise — much of it at night — caused by what they
said were more car;o planes than usual stacking up waiting
to land. Sen. Hedlund has been trying to broker a solution
with Massport ofFcials.
Last fa11250 residents of East Weymouth signed 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 meeting was closed
ta-t�e press but afterward Crockford said Massport would
• try�to determine whether flight paths had been recendy
changed or traffic volumes had increased beyond norrnal
levels.
Crockford told ANR Desmond wanted a noise monitor
positioned in the Weymouth-East Weymouth area to
establish what noise levels there actuaily are, but Massport
refused his request.0
���� � �� Base Reloccation
CITIZEN GROUP F�I..ES �UIT
TO S'TOP NAVY �E7[' TRANSFER.
A citizens group filed suit recentty a�ainst the secretary of
the U.S. Navy asking a federal district court to block the
transfer of 156 F/A-18 jet fijhter aircraft to Oceana Naval
Air Station near Norfolk, VA, until a Supplemental Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement is done on the transfer.
The 300-member Citizens Concerned About 7et Noise
filed suit in federal district court in Norfolk in July alle�ing
that the Navy's Environmenta] Impact Statement and
Record of Decision on the transfer of jet aircraft were
arbitrary, caprieious> 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, accordin� to Jack Ferrebee, of the Virginia Beach,
VA, law firm Denton & Ferrebee, which represents the
plaintiffs. The military is not required to do any mitiaation
of the impacts of the transfer and has not estimated mitija-
tion costs in its EIS, he said. The citizens group asserted in
it ]awsuit that such an omission is in violation of environ-
mental law and Navy regulations.
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
Airport 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 wi11 be in the hijh 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 F1eet StrikelFighter Wing, be closed and
approximately 180 F/A-18 Homet advanced jet fighters be
redirected to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC.
However, two years later, the 1995 BRAC Commission
revisited the Cecil Field realiCnment decision made by the
1993 Commission and reversed it. The 1995 BRAC
Commission contained no statement of specific 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 ]itigation.
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 (National 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 Corps Air Stations — Cherry Point, NC, and
Beaufort, SC— as being the only three bases qualified to
receive the relocated jets. The Navy then conducted a
screerung 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 splittin� the Cecil Field
F/A-18s among more than two locations was unacceptable.
A third assumption was that splittina the fleet replacement
squadron away from a majority of the operationai fleet
squadrons was unacceptable.
`"The result of the screening process used by the Navy was
to unlawfully limit the [alternative realignment scenarios]
evaluated in the EIS to three sites. As a result, alternative
siting scenarios [hat 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 deprivin� the final a�ency decision
maker (and the public) of the ability to, among other things,
fairly wei�h and evaluate operationa] costs/benefits ajainst
environmental cost/benefits," the citizens' suit said.
It added, "The Navy's screening process su�gests that the
Airport Noise Report
�_
;
October 9, 1998
Navy unlawfully predetermined where it wanted the Cecil
Field F/A-18 assets to go and then designed a screenina and
alternatives analysis to support its predetermined decision."
The Navy's Draft EIS estimated that approximately
125,563 people in the Virginia Beach area would be
exposed to noise levels about 65 dB DNL from aircraft
operations. In contrast, it estimated that only 4,�00 people
would be in the high noise zone around Cherry Point if the
fighters were moved there and only 5,200 people would be
in the hiah noise zone near Beaufort.
The draft EIS identified 22 public schools that would be
located within the hi�h noise zones near Oceana. In contrast,
only four public schools woald be within the hiah noise
zones near Cherry Point and no schools would be in these
zones near Beaufort.
1fie lawsuit aiso contends that the Navy "grossly underes-
timated" the number of people around Oceana that would be
in the hi�h noise zones by using 1990 Census data rather
than more current data. It cited a memo from Daniel J.
Cecchini of the Naval Fac3lities Engineering Command,
dated Aug. 1, 1997, in which the Navy questioned whether
it would be criticized for relying on the 1990 Census data
rather than more curr�nt esdmates, but then expressed
concern that it would need to obtain current data from
Beaufort and Cherry Point as well.
Mitigation Costs Not Defined
The FEIS "does not in any way attempt to quantify or
even generally deiine 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 mitigation measures."
The FEIS failed to document the cost of sound attention of
homes, schools, churches, daycare facilities, nursing homes
and other sensitive 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 values, the suit said.
It noted that the Environmental Protection AQency
commented in a letter dated April 21, 1998, that the Navy
should evaluate specific noise mitigation measures for all
sites since the ]evel, perceived effectiveness and cost of
mitigation (whether at the expense of the Navy, locai
governments, or citizens) could influence the selection
process."
Despite these concerns, the Navy issued a ROD on May
18, 1998, approving the move of 156 fiQhter 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 leCal authority to expend federal
funds on improvements to state, local, or private property,
and that any attempt to determine the cost of sound attenu-
137
ation would only be speculative.
But the citizens �roup contended 'm its lawsuit that neither
NEPA, the regulations of the Council on Environmenta]
Quality, or the Navy's own NEPA regulations and orders
authorize the Navy to avoid estimating or quantifying
significant mitigation costs on the o ounds that the mitiga-
tion measure is outside the jurisdiction or control of the
federal a�ency decision mal:er.
The Justice Department filed an answer to the lawsuit on
Sept. 18. It denied all the allegations raised in the litiga-
tion.�
Europe
EC M(�V]ES TO BAR AI?DITI01�1
OF HUSHKITTED AIRCa2.AFT
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.
The,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 would
bar the nighttime operation of Chapter 3(the international
eyuivalent of St:ge 3) airp:a.nes if tl:e dif��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 "clearly affects U.S. manufactured
airplanes and b eatly impacts U.S. cargo operations," David
Traynham, FAA. assistant administrator for Policy, Plan-
nin�, and International Aviation, told Michel Ayral, the
EC's director for Air Transport. "Based on our preliminary
estimates, this amendment would prohibit approximately
430 currendy scheduled U.S. carrier cargo fliChts during
this time period," Traynham said.
However, 37 European countries were unsuccessful in an
attempt to amend the policy of the International Civil
Aviation Organization 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 takin�, but failed to do so at an ICAO
Assembly held in Montreal Sept. 22-Oct. 2, according to
7ames Erickson, director of the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration's Office of Environrrient and Energy.
He said the action the Europeans are contemplating would
only help about four or five larae European airpons. Only
36 hushkitted aircraft are operating in Enrope at this point,
he said, adding that there is no evidence to support the fear
that a huae influx of hushkitted aircraft wil] occur. The
Europeans, Erickson said, are responding emoaonal]y to a
political issue.
Airport Noise Report
138 Airport Noise Report
ANR EDITORIA.L
ADVISORY BOARD
Mark Atwood, Esq.
Gailand, Kharasch, Morse & GarfinMe
Washington, D.C.
Lee L. Blackman, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Los Angeles, Ca]if.
Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, AICP
Dean, School oF Aviation & Transportation Dowling
College
Eliot Cutler, Esq.
Cuder & Stanfield
Washington, D.C.
J. Spencer Dickerson
Senior Vice President
American Associadon of Airpoct Executives
Edward J. DiPolvere
- Administrator, National Association of Noise
��-{ Controi Officiais
Richard G. "Dick" Dyer
Airport Environmental Specialist, Division of
Aeronautics, Calif. Dept. of Transportation
E. Tazewell �llett, Esq.
Hogan & Hanson
Washington, D.C.
Julie H. Ellis, Esq.
Managing Director
Federal Express Corporation
Ange11YI. Garcia
Co-Chairman
Citizens Against Newark Noise
E.H. °LMoe" Haupt
Manager, Airport and Environmental Services,
National Business Aircraft Association
Robert P. Siiverberg, Esq.
Bagileo, Silveri�erg & Goldman
Washington, D.C.
Joanne W. Young, Esq.
Baker & Hostetler LLP
Washington, D.C.
Alarmed that the EC is moving to ban the addition of hushkitted
aircraft, a coalition of U.S. aviation trade b oups — including the Air
Transport Association, the Cargo Airline Association, the Airports
Council International - North America, the Aerospace Industries Associa-
tion, and the General Aviation Manufacturers 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 proIiferation 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."�
�N THE AGENDA...
Nov. 8-10 American Association of Airport Executives/American
Bar Association Airport Law Workshop, West Palm
Beach, FL (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-
on-demand: (1-8Q0-470-ARPT'}.
Nov. 16-18 IIVTER-NOISE 98, The 199� International Cona ess on �-
� Noise Control Engineering, Ctuistchurch, New Zealand
(contact Conference Secretariat, INTER-NOISE 98
Secretary, MDA, PO Box 1181, Aukland 1001,
Australia; tei: (+b4-9-379-7822; fax: +64-9-302-0098).
Nov. 20 T'he 1998 Internadonal Symposium on Recreational � i�
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�c: +64-9-279-8833).
Nov. 22-27 Noise Effects '98, the 7th International Congress on
I�7oise as a Public Health Problem, Sydney, Australia
(contact'The Conb ess Secretariat, Noise Effects '98,
GPO Box 128, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia; tel: 61-2-
9262-2277; far 61-2-9262-2323).
AIRPORT NOXSE .REPO�ZT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Char3es F. Price, Contributing Editor; Nlaria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published 25 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
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 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, Salem, MA 01970. USA.
Copyright �O 1998 by Airport Noise Report, Ashbum, Va. 20147
i ;: i � s� ,,; °�r ,,r i ;, ;, �. �. �x1 ;.
r ,, e �!r
�4 �� ij y `;, � �i; t
i u f:
S F .�y " f � . .
t 3 t 't I�'� �i �i ; ,t (�" t
�� i �F �' �`.j
's �i, �F: � � r `'
❑ Agenda for the October 27, 1998 MASAC meeting
C� 1Viinutes of the September 22, 1998 MASAC meeting with attachments
❑ Copies of MASAC correspondence noi included in the Operations
Committee package
❑ Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form
❑ A cog�y of the revised Aircraf� Engine Run-Up Procedures Field Rule
❑ An NADP Compliance Analysis cover memo
C] A Crossing in the Corridor Analysis cover memo
❑ Minutes of the October 9, 1998 MASAC Operations meeting with
attachments and cover memos
❑ Monthly Part 150 Updaie
G September 1998 Technical Advisor's Report and Noise Complaint Map
C�
�.-
e
S
���i���
M��'�O�OLI�'A� AIRCR�F�" SOUi�D A�A�'EMEtd�"
COUNCIL
General Meetinq
October 27, 1998
7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
6040 28T" Avenue Souih
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Cail to Order, Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of Nfeeting September 22, 1998
3. Intraduciion of Invited Guests
� � �� � � U�Sf
Receipf of Communications �v�,�, �, l� �t�- `-�n�'Q` `��','�� ��r �
4. Technical Advisor`s Runway System Uiilization ReporE and
Complaint Summary
5. Informational items:
a. Revised Aircraft Run-up Fieid Rule
b. Noise Abatemen� Depariure Profies
c. Crossing in fihe Carridor
6. October 9, 1998 Operaiions Committee Report - Mark Salmen
a. RMT Site Progress
7. ReporE of the MAC Commission Meeiing - Bob Johnson
8. Persons Wishing to Address the Council
9. Items Not on the Agenda
10. Adjow-nment
Next Meeting:
December 1, 1998
C
Ii��ii►li71.1��.�
1'vYEiROPOLITAN AIRCRA.FT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GENERAL Ii�1EETING
September 22, 1998
7:30 p.m.
6040 28`�' Avenue South
Minneapolis, 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 roil. The following members were in attendance.
Bob Johnson �� �
Mark Salmen �
Jennifer Sayre✓
Brian Bates
T.J. Horsager
Chuck Curry
Brian Simonson
RolfMiddleton�.. '�
Steve Minn
Sandy Colvin Roy
Dean Lindberg
GIenn Strandf'J .
Dick Saunders�',-
�
Leo Kurtz �"
Nathae Richardson �%�
Mike Cramer �/
Neil Clark �
Kristal Stokes �
Dawn Weitzel ii`
Mark Hinds ✓
John Nelson �-'
Stephen Bianchi
.�otrHohenstein Tc��� i � �--� S�„
Lance Staricha �"
Charles Van Guilder �
Jill Smith � ��
Mayor Mertensotto �: � ��
Manny Camilon ✓
Will Eginton V'"
MBAA
NWA
NWA
Airbome
Sun Country
ALPA
DHL Airways
St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
Minnea.polis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minnea.polis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Bloomington
Bloomington
Ea.gan
��
Burnsviille
Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights
St. Louis Park— �
Inver Grove Heights
September 22, 1998
Advisors
Roy Fuhrmann
Chad Leqve
Cindy Greene
Ron Glaub
Visitors
David Hofferman
2. Approval of Minutes
MAC
MAC
FAA
FAA
St. Louis Park
The minutes of the August 25, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed.
3. Introduction of invited �uests
Receipt of Communications
Manny Camiloq St. Louis Park, introduced IvTr. David Hoffern�an, a St. Louis Park resident interested in
aircraft noise issues.
The following cammunications were received:
,
. A tetter from Kristal Stokes, Richfield City Council and MASAC member, was received in person (;
regarding the "1998 Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Study" performed by staff and reviewed by
the MASAC Operations Committee. In the letter, Ms. Stokes asks members of MASAC to support the
City of Richfieid in three actions in regards to the study. (Please see attached copy.)
4. Technical Advisor's Runway Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv
Chad Leqve, ANOMS Specialist, briefed the August 1998 Technical Advisor's Repart. He noted that:
s Arrivals on runways 30L & 30R ha.ve decreased, while departures on 12L & 12R have increased over
July 1998.
. There was an increase in Stage III utiliza.tion of .3% over July 1998.
. Complaints increased by 437 over July 1998.
. Operations decreased by 67 from July 1998.
. Corridor usage increased from July 1998.
Mr. Leqve noted there was a new aircraft identifier number (B72Q), which represents a Boeing 727 hushed
aircraft. He said the ARTS.data identifies hushed B727's, -which allows ANOIvIS to identify hushed
aircraft. He cautioned, though, that the FAA and camers have not fully implemented these identifier
numbers and that not all hushed aircraft can be identified at this time in this rnanner. He said by the
beginning ofNovember 1998, all hushed DC9's, '737's and 727's will be identified with a'Q'.
Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked for clarification on the percenta.ges refened to on page one of the report. He
( �'
2
September 22, 1998
asked what the percentages represented. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said the percentages represented the
percentage of the total number of arrival or departure operations.
Jill Smith, Mendota. Heights, asked why the percentages of Available Tune for Runway Use on page three
added up to 138% rather than 100%. IvFr. Leqve explained that with the available use of essentially three
runways, rather than two, the available time for runway use can go over 100%. He said it was important
to look at them independently.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked how head-to-head operations were performed in the comdor.
Cindy Greene, FAA, explained that head-to-head operations occur when the number of operations drops to
a level that allows the tower to depart to and arrive from the soutl�east with the appropriate amount of time
and space between operations. She clarified that the each runway is used for both arrivals and departures
during this procedure. In other words, aircraft don`t depart on one runway and arrive on the other. She
also confirmed that if an aircraf� had to be turned from centerline, it would be tumed to the North.
5. Sta�e III Compliance Review
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, briefed the Stage IlI Compliance Review.
The first overhead was a review of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990. Mr. Fuhrmann
noted that:
. By December 31, 1997, all aircraft operators had to have reduced their Stage II aircraft by 50% (based
on a baseline number) or ha.ve 65% of their fleet as Stage III aircraft.
�. _) . By December 31, 1998, all aircraft operators must either reduce their Stage II aircraft by '7�% (based
on a baseline number) or have 75% of their fleet as Stage IlI aircraft.
. All ca.rriers must have an all Stage III fleet by January 1, 2000.
The second overhead showed the 1997 Fleet Mix percentage for each ca.mer operating at MSP, as well as
their total daily operafions and, of those, the percentage of Sta.ge III opera.tions. It was noted that 8 carriers
had already reached the December 31, 1998 goal of 75% of their fleet at Stage III levels. Five additional
carriers had reached the December 3 l, 1997 goal, while 3 did not reach that goal. Mr. Fuhrmann noted
that those airlines at Iess than 75% were new entrants and had to ha.ve no less than 50% Stage III airplanes
after December 31, 1996.
Jill Smith, Mendota. Heights, asked if foreign airlines were subject to the federal regulations. Roy
Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said foreign airlines had to comply with the U.S. federal regulations if they
wanted to operate in the United Sta.tes. He noted that Air Canarla is flying a Stage 2 aircraft into MSP the
majority of the time, even though their 1997 Fleet Mix Percentage was at 78.6%.
Ms. Smith asked if IYISP required a specific percentage of Stage IUStage III opera.tions by the carriers.
Mr. Fuhrmann explained that the Noise Management Methodology (NMM).agreements called for no
"backsliding" in the percentage of Stage III operations at MSP. He explained that the NMM agreement
states that carriers will not backslide on the percenta.ge of Stage III operations at the airport based on a
baseline percentage. He said the NMM is reported to the Commission quarterly, but the agreement with
the airlines is on an annual basis.
4 ... .. .. ....... ...
September 22, 1998
t.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked how the percentage of Stage III aircraft operations at MSP compared with
operations at other airports in the United States. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said that there are
airports that have both higher and lower Stage III percentages. He said the Detroit airpart is operating at
60% Stage III, which is below MSP and below the federal guidelines. He noted that the coastal states will
ha.ve more Sta.ge III operations due to the higher number of overseas flights, which normally require newer
aircraft. He said since MSP is centrally located, many of the destinations are shorter haul and don`t require
the larger, newer aircraf� that overseas flights usually use.
Chuck Curry, ALPA, asked how Miami Air was able to ha.ve a fleet mix percentage lower than the 50%
thax is required of them. Roy Fuhrmann, Technica.l Advisor, said there was no explanation in the Aviation
Noise Report that the information was taken from, but noted that they were operating at 50% Stage III at
MSP.
Mr. Fuhrmann continued his review with a comparison of Opera.tor Categories. He noted that the average
Stage III percentage fleet mix for the top 10 U.S. Major Airlines in 1997 was 78.?%. Jill Smith, Mendota
Heights, asked what Northwest's fleet mix was in 1997. Mr. Fulirmann said Northwest Airlines is
currently at 70.9% Stage III fleet mix. Mr. Fuhrmann also noted that 86.3% of the nighttime operations at
MSP are Stage III.
Mr. Fuhrmann said the FAA predicts tha.t:
. By the year 2000, the number of aircraft operating in the United States will grow from 7,172 as of
December 31, 1997, to 8,000. ,
� Appro�cimately 1,000 of those 8,000 will be hushkitteci. (,
. As of December 31, 1997, 753 aircraft remained. in the ma.jor U.S. airlines' fleet to be retired or
converted to Stage III.
. In 1997, 225 Stage II aircrafi were retired, while 554 Stage III aircraft entered service.
Jill Smith, Mendota. Heights, said she had read in an article about aircraft noise that, although an all Stage
III fleet will be helpful, an increase in the nurnber of operations will essentially nullify the positive effects.
She asked if sta.ff had any comments or thoughts about the issue. Roy Fiihrmann, Technical Advisor,
referred to the 2005 projected noise contour, which allows for an increase in operations. He noted that this
contour is sma.11er than the current contour, even though there will be an increase in operations. He noted
that Bil1 Albee, FAA Noise Ombudsman, has said an all Stage III fleet will reduce the overall noise energry
at airports. He said a higher number of operations would create a higher concentration or dispersion of
noise around the airport depending on the method chosen for noise abatement. Ms. Smith said the article
did not have the sarne conclusion and related her frustration with being unable to reconcile the varyi.ng
noise impact projections from different sources.
Jon Hohenstein, Eagan, asked Northwest Airtines if the recent strike would have an impact on their Stage II
conversion schedule. Jennifer.Sayre, Northwest, said she. didn't.believe the strike would have any effect on
the schedule, and that Northwest was predicting that by the end of 1998, they would have an 82°/a Stage III
fleet mix.
There was a brief dialog about whether or not an all Stage III fleet would provide a noticeable benefit to
people on the ground given the projected increase in the number of opera.tions. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis,
C
4
September 22, 1998
, � said he didn't think an all Stage III fleet �i�ould significantly impact noise levels. Neil Clark, Minneapolis,
said he didn't understand how the total noise energy at the airport could decrease when the number of
operations was increasing. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reiterated that the Integrated Noise Maiel
(INM) shows the contour and overall noise engery shrinking even with the increase in operations due to the
implementatian of a quieter Stage III fleet.
Jill Smith, Mendota. Heights, asked Mr. Fuhrmann if he 3mew what the fleet mix aircraft types w�re that
were included in the projected fleet mix for MSP. Mr. Fuhrniann said when the projected contours were
generated the airlines operating at MSP were interviewed as to the types of aircraft they thought they would
be operating in the future. He said, for the most part, that the DC9 hushkitted aircraft will continue to be
used heavily at the airport. Jennifer Sa}7e, Northwest, said the DC9 would eventually be replaced with the
A319, which is atso a 100-seat aircraft. She said the majority of the aircraft will be in the 100-seat range.
She also said Northwest Airlines was not predicting much growth over the next 1 1/2 yea.rs in either their
operations or in their fleet.
Ms. Smith asked how Northwest's fleet mix at MSP compared with the rest of their fleet. Ms. Sayre said
the fleet mix at MSP was simila.r to that of Detroit's and Memphis, with a majority of the aircraft being in
the 100-seat range.
Mr. Fuhrmann said there won't be much of a change in the type of aircra.ft mix at the airport, but there will
be a shift from Stage II to Stage III aircraft, both hushkiited and manufactured.
Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Studv Report
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, briefed the Ground Noise Monitoring Technica.l Study. The following
points were made:
m The study was presented to the Operations Committee in July.
. The study was the result of a directive frorr�-1VIAC's Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel, regarding the
sources of ground noise at the airport and a response to community members' concems.
. The ma.in purpose of the study was to find out what the sources of ground noise were at the airport. It
was not designed as a"low frequency" noise study.
. A and C weighted noise levels were monitored.
. There were 6 monitoring locations; 2 were on the field, 2 were in New Ford Town/Rich Acres, and 2
were in the city of Richfield.
� The loca.tions were chosen in an attempt to find the closest locations to the airfield and were not
intended to measure ground noise in Richfield only. The findings can be applied to other areas at equal
dista.nces from the ends of the runways.
. Larson Davis 870 monitors were used for the study - the same equipment used at the RMT sites.
. Two monitoring locations were manned during the nighttime - one on the airfield and one at Christian
Park in Richfield.
. Noise events were grouped into categories and enumerated. The maximum and average maximum dB
levels for each event are included in the report.
. Run up pad noise contours were developed using Noise Map soflware, which was origina.11y developed
by the U.S. Airforce.
s'The contours were developed for Stage II, Stage III Hushed and Stage III aarcraft using conditions for
a typica.l day with the aircraft at a 300° heading.
September 22, 1998
m The contours can be rotaxed at their centers in order to determine where the contours would lie if the `
aircraft were at a different heading.
e The contours were mapped out to a 60 dBA level rather than a DNL level, which represents the noise
value someone would hear when a run up is acivally being performed.
o The maximum noise level comes off of a fuselage-mounted engine at 135°, which is why the quietest
part of the contour is directly behind the aircrafi.
� One of the rea.sons for using a 300° heading is that a 300° (290° at the tune it was written) heading is
specified in MSP's run up field rule. It would ha.ve been prohibitive to run contours for 360 separate
degree headings.
. The run-up logs are included in the report. The times listed on the logs do not represent how long the
run up lasted but the time period the airline was given to perform the run up.
o The rr►aximum Lw for each run up time period is given for the runway 22 location (closest to the run up
P�)•
� T'he airline maintenance personnel survey was completed in order to find out when, how and why
aircra.ft run-ups were performed.
. The preferred time for a run up is when the aircraft is on the ground and not scheduled, which is
usualIy between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 am.
o Over 50% of all run ups are completed using idle power settings, 25% are completed using 70-80%
power and less than 25% are using a full take offthrust power setting.
m There are 10 conclusions and 2 recommenda.tions:
1. The main source of noise at the airport for the duration of the study was generated by departures
off runway 22.
2. 23% of the noise was from taxiing activities at the runway 22 location.
3. Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) do not contribute significantly to ground noise.
4. Reverse thrust does not contribute significantly to community ground noise levels, lasts about 15 ��
seconds and is more audible at night due to the lower ambient noise leveis.
5. Depariures off runways 12L and 12R can generate a constant noise in the community that sounds
similar to a run-up being performed for a long period of time under certa.in canditions.
6. Run-ups do contribute to the noise on the airport but are not being performed for long periods of
time or at a high thrust power level for any length of time. -
�. The typical community La� for the days with 24 hour monitored data. was in the mid to upper 60's
dB range.
8. The A-weighted metric is better suited for use with the frequency ranges assaciated with aircraft
generated noise.
9. As the distance from a noise source grows, the level of noise decreases, also.
10. The primary source of ground noise at the airport, as a result of the study, is the direct result of
aircraft departures from any active runway, prior to becoming airborne.
There was a discussion about the differences between the A-weighted and C-weighted scales, as well as a
discussion about whether or not "low-frequency" noise was to be monitored and how. Roy Fuhrmann,
Technical Advisor, said the purpose of the study was to identify the sources of ground noise at the airport
and not to monitor "low-frequency" noise levels. � Mr: Fuhrmann also said his staff was not equipped to
perform a"low frequency" noise study.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, said the City had sent a letter to JeffHamiel prior to his speaking at the April
MASAC meeting regarding the ground noise levels and low frequency noise and anticipated the study
would incorporate "low-frequency" noise issues.
� � ( �
0
September 22, 1998
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, complimented staff on making the efFort to study actual noise conditions but
reiterated his concern that the INM model does not tal:e into consideration "real" noise data.. He said he felt
the "real" or actual noise data that was being collected should be included in the model. Roy Fuhrmann,
Technical Advisor, said that some of the activities reported on in the study, such as run ups and taxiing
operations, are included in the INM.
Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked if there was existing data. from the INM on just ground noise and
whether or not the da.ta from the siudy could be compared to it. Roy Fuhrma.nn, Technical Advisor, said
there probably was data. on ground noise that was used in the INM but wasn't sure if it could be compared
directly. He noted that the run-up noise contour is encompassed by the overall airport noise contour.
Kristal Stokes, Richfield, distributed a letter addressed to MASAC members asking for their support of
Richfield's request to modify the study to incorporate the suggestions given by Richfield's noise consultant,
BBN Technologies, along with their review of the study.
Operations Committee Report
Mark Salmen, MASAC Operations Chairman, gave a report on the September 1 l, 1998 Operations
Committee meeting. The following items were noted:
1. Members of the committee revised the goals and objectives schedule in order to allow more time for
some of the angoing initiatives.
2. Members reviewed supplementa.l information provided by staff for the Ground Noise Monitoring
Technical Study regarding ground run-up enclosures.
3. Members also discussed possible revisions to the run-up field rule and tasked staff with drafting a new
field rule that would incorporate the discussed changes for the ne�ct meeting.
4. Members discussed the NADP implementation analysis that was conducted and briefed by staff. The
discussion of this item will continue to the next meeting.
5. Due to the lateness of the hour, the remainder of the agenda was postponed until the next meeting on
October 9, 1998.
Will Egintoq Inver Grove Heights, asked when the Operaxions'Committee would be reviewing the comdor
procedures. Mark Salmen, NWA, said the crossing in the comdor procedure would be discussed at the
next Operations meeting and that a review of the comdor in general would probably not take place until
early 1999.
Lance Staricha, Eagan, asked whether or not there would be further study on the NADP implementation
analysis. Mark Saimen, NWA, said additional information about the impact of the implementation would
be presented at the next Operations meeting and that the issue of NADP's would be revisited once there was
an all Stage III fleet at MSP.
Report of the MAC Commission Meeting
Chairman Johnson reported on the September 21, 1998 Cortutussion meeting. He said the commissioners
discussed Northwest Airline's possible cancellation of their non-stop service to Hong Kong and whether or
not the extension to runway 04/22, or the temporary ek�tension of runway 30L, would be necessary if the
September 22, 1998
service is cancelled. He said the commissioners had decided to poslpone a decision until the following
month.
Cha.irman 3ohnson also reported that Jeff Hainiel addressed the Commission about airline competition at
the airport. Fie said Mr. Hamiel said, essentially, that if Minnesotan's want to have competition at the
airport they will need to support other airlines by flying with them.
9. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council
Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, said he was concerned about the agreement MAC has made
with tfie U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service because he felt MAC was funneling noise mitigation money to
"non-human" interests. He said he would like to know where the funds would come from. He said he felt
the MAC should be supporting an increase in Part 150 funding rather than funding mitigation for wildlife.
Roy Fulumann, Technica.l Advisor, noted that MAC has requested $180 million from the FAA from the
AIP for the North/South runway but wasn't sure where the $20 million would come from.
�
John Nelson, Bloomington, said he felt there needed to be a balance of how mitigation funds are used. He
noted that the funds are being paid to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service beca.use the impacts from the new
runway will reduce human use. He said the mitigation funds are not for protecting wildlife but for
mitigating the impacts on human use of the refuge. He also noted that the agreement dces not take money
away from the Part 150 Program.
10. Other Items Not on the Agenda ,
t'
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, asked if the communities who received a letter from staff regarding the
placement of the new RMTs would like to have a meeting with the staff to help them beiter understand the
placement process.
Steve Minn, Minneapolis; said Muuieapolis would be able to choose their sites on their own.
Chairman Johnson also mentioned an article in Airport Business that feafured 3ohn Foggia (MASAC's
previaus technical advisor) and Roy Fuhrmann (the cunent technica.l advisor) and MSP's GPS system. He
also noted that the first ever passenger flight using an air-based, rather than ground-based, navigation
system flew from Newark to Minnea.polis the day before. Mr. Fuhrmann said it marked the sta.rt of a new
era in air navigation.
11. Adiournment
Chairman Johnson adjoumed the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
.
k
7
�
Q
CI'I"�I OF SAII�tT P�,6JL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
TO: Saint PauI Ci�y Councilmembers
Councilmember Jay Benanav
Councilmember Jerry Blal:ey
Councilmember Daniel Bostrom
Councilmember Chris Coleman
Councilmernber Michael Hams
Councilmember Kathry Lantry
Councilmember James Reiter
DATE:
�
Roger C. Curtis �{ �
Assistant to the Mayor
October 5, 1998
390 City Hall Telephone: (612) 266-8510
IS Wes[ 1'iellogg Boulevard Facsimile: (61Z) 266-8513
Sainc Pau[, Minneso[a 55102
1Vletropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (NLASAC)
Mayor Coleman has recommended the appointment of John Halla to serve on the
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council. Mr. Halla shall serve the remainder of
Thomas Hueg's unexpired term. Mr. Halla's term will expire on January 3 l, 2002.
Attached is a copy of the Council resolution, a copy of Mr. Haila's application and an
applicant report listing MASAC applicants on file since January 1, 1994.
Feel free to call me at 266-$531 if you have any questions or concerns.
RCC:drm
Attachments
c: Nancy Anderson, Saint Paul City Council Research
Melissa Scovroski, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Presented By
Referred To
Council Fi1e �
„
s
Green Sheet �`
RESOLLTTION
CI1�' C)F SAINT �'ALTL,IVIINI�IES�TA
Committee: Date
1 �SOLVEI), that the Saint Paul City Council consents to and approves of the
2 appointrnent, made by the Mayor, of the following individual to serve on the
3 1VYETI20POLITAN AIRC�2.AFT SOUND A�Br�'TEIVI[ElVT COUNCIL.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
�:
John �alla
���JY'�S�Iltill�
�'ubiic �'cepresent��ive
John I�alla shall serve the remainder of Thornas �I. �JCueg's unexpirzd term.
This term sball expire on January 31, 2002.
Adopted by Council: Date
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY=
Approved by Mayor:
By:
Date
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
�/ � ,� _/ _ � S
B . .� .�,,� /��
Y
Approved by M r or Submission to
Council
B � �
Y=
M° 52344
VMayor Norm Coleman's Office �10-5-98V ���t��� CJ' ��E�
� irurta��DAr� iN�Tla��paT�
CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE f� DE'ART���`!T DIRECTOR � CIT� COU�iCcL j
(�
�ger C. Curtis (266-8531) ASSIGN j 7�CITVATTG�VEY �GTYCIERK ;
� � NUMBER FOR �--�
�..�ST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA 8Y tDA7c) ROUTING � BUDG'cT D��cCTOR a PIN & 6+GT S�AVICES D�R
OROE1i � � MAYOR (CF ASSISTANT� rj
��
TOTAL # OF 51GNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) i
ACTION REOUESTcD�.
Approval of the appointment of John Hallqto serve on the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council..�'John Hallqshall serve the re �'nder of Thomas Huegts unexpired
term. -� J Q� n �'(��, � �
RECpMMEN0AT10N5 Approve (A) or Re�ect (R� pERSONAL SERVICE C NTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOILOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PtANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �� Nas this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
_ CIB COMMITTEE YES NO
2. Has this personlfirm ever been a cify employee?
_ STAFF _ YES NO
_ DISTRICT COURT _ 3. Does this person/tirm possess a Skiii not normaliy possessed by any current city employee?
SUPPOATS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE� YES NO
� Explaln ell yes answers on separate aheet and ettach to green sheet
INITIATING PROBI.EM. ISSUE. OPPORTUNITY (Who. What, When. Where. why��
IF APPROVED�
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
DISADVANTAGES 1F NOT APPROVED
I ._
I TOTAL AMOUNT Of TAAkSACTION S
FUNDI{dG SOURCE
FINANCIAL INFORHiATION (EXPIAiNI
COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE)-�-- YES NO
ACTIVITY NUMBER
i
10-05-98 COMMITTEE APPLICANTS REPORT PAGE 1
APPLICANTS.RPT
COMMITTEE : MASAC Abatement Council �,
FOR APPLICATIONS DATED AFTER O1/Ol/94
APPLICANT / REFERENCE COMMENTS WARD PLANNING SENATE APP DATE ETH GEN DI5
DISTRICT DISTRICT (PRIOR)
(OTHER COMMITTEES SERVING ON)
----------------------------------- ---- -------- -------- -------- --- --- ---
003347 Colaiace, Andre P. 1 8 09/29/97 W M
#408 •
400 Selby Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55102
Home - 293-9514
Committee Administrator
Rich Kramer
1471 Barclay St.
St. Paul
h) '774-4971
State Representative Jean Wagenius
4804 llth Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55417
h} 822-3347 w) 296-4200
Martin Kaste
400 Selby Avenue, m408
St. Paul, MN 55102
h) 293-9514 w) 290-1467
003500 Halla, John
1872 Wellesley Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105-1615
Home - 699-0955
Attorney
9-21-98 MASAC
Tim McIntee
82 N. Mississipi River Road
St. Paul, MN
h) 642-9466 w) 938-4155
Laurie Murphy
1862 Wellesley Avenue
St. Paul, MN
h) 699-7064 w) 623-1286
Dan Hogberg
1851 Wellesley Avenue
h) 690-1028 w) 921-2172
003319 Niefeld, Susan Ann
5�809 Halifax Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55424
Home - 925-6912
3 14
09/21/98 W M
08/0�/97 W F
r"��
�
�
10-05-98 COMMITTEE APPLICANTS REPORT PAGE 2
APPLICANTS.RPT
COMMITTEE : MASAC Abatement Council
FOR APPLICATIONS DATED AFTER Ol/O1/94
APPLICANT / REFERENCE COMMENTS WARD PLANNZNG SENATE APP DATE ETH GEN DIS
DZSTRICT DISTRICT (PRIOR)
(OTHER COMMITTEES SERVING ON)
----------------------------------- ---- -------- -------- --------- --- --- ---
Ex Srch Consultant
Samuel Kaplan, Esq.
55Q0 Norwest Center
Minneapolis, 55402
w} 375-1138
Donald G. Pederson
Bank Windsor
121 So. 8th Street
Minneapolis, 55402
w) 338-2150
Christopher Colestock
State Services for the Blinc3
2200 University Ave. W.
5t. Paul, MN 55114
w) 642-0881
G ,�-
�� � ��
n ` � �/
� �`�
V
Name:
OFFICE OF THE NtAYOR
390 CITY FIALL
S�,.IiVT PAUL, I�IINNESOTA 5�102
Phone: 266-852� FAX: 256-8�13
�� /�,
c�� - 2
�
�
Home Address: 1872 Welleslev Avenue St. Pau1 Minnesota 55105-1615
Street City Zip
Telephone Number: (FIome� 699-09�5 (Work) 348-7916 (FAX) 34�-9689
Planning District Council: District 14 City Council Ward: Ward 3
Preferred MaiIing Address: See Above
`�'hzt is your occupatian? Attornev
Place of Employment: Henneoin Countv Attornev's Office
Committee(s) AppIied For: Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement CommitteP
What skills, training or experience do you possess for the committee(s) for which you seek appointment? �
- Sixteen vears of leaal practice includin� fourteen vears as a prosecutor
- Member of the Macalaster-Groveland District Council (District 14)
- Oraanizer and chair of the District Council's Airport Noise Committee
- Resident of Ward 3 for over four vears durina which time airport noise has sianificantiv increased.
�-
The inform�tion included in this application is considered private data according io the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act. As a result, this iriformltion is not released to the general public.
(OVER) Rev. 8-5-9(�
Name:
' ��ddress:
Phone:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Name:
Address:
Phone: �
PERSONAL REFERENCES
Tim McIntee
82 North Mississippi River Road. St. Paul. Minnesota
Home� 642-9466 (Work) (612) 938-41»
Laurie Murphv
1862 Welieslev Avenue St. Paul. Minnesota
�Fiome) 699-7064 (Workl (612) 623-1286
Dan Hoaberff
1851 Welleslev Avenue St. Paul. Minnesota
�Homel 690-1028 (`Vork) (6121921-2172
Reasons for your interest in this particular committee: As a homeowner in �Vard 3 I have become verv
interested in the arowina im�act of airport noise on the Hi�hland, i�facalaster-Groveland. Merriam Park and other
St. Pau] neiahborhoods. Since becomina interested in this issue, I have been elected to District Council 14 and
oraanized an airport noise committee under the ausoices of the Council.
, --,
i �
Have you had previous contact with the committee for which you are making application? If so, when, and
the circumstances? - �� � �
No prior contact with M.A.S.A.C.
In �n �ttempt to ensure that committee representatior� reflects the makeup of our community, please
check the line applicable to you. This ii�formation is strictly voluntary.
X `Vhite (Caucasian)
_ Black (African American)
American Indian or Alaskan Eskimo
X Nl�le
Disabled:
Female
Yes No X
Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Date of Birth: October 1. 1954
( T`'�pecial accommodations are needed, please specify:
How did you hear about this opening? District Council
lU: 12- 98 SON 17: 20 F3� 61'L �50 250'L IN�'ER GRO�'E IITS CITi: II�1L t�D�. uol
' ° � ' �:
• � � x;
.� �
x��. r ;
j :"v E ...;+ } 7. �.
To:
Fax #:
Subject:
�Daie: �
Pages:
0
�
C1TY O� 1NVER GROVE HEIGt-ITS
IvI.A.SAC Secretary
725-6310
Request for placement of an aircraft naise monitor
October 1?, 1998
3, including cover sheet
;--�..� IVlessage: Enclosed is a copy of the NiASAC Noise �llonitoring and Informa�ion
`'� ,, Request Form. Listed on the form is the name and address of an Inver
Grove Heights resident, Fred Krueger, who wishes ta have a noise
rnonitoring device placed at his home. In the case that the address is not
legibie on the request form, it is as follows:
�r. Fred �(�ue�er
2�13 96�' �tr+�ei East
9nver Groe�� l�e�gh�s, �Ainne�o�a 55�77
Please keep rne updated on the status of Mr. Krueger's request. If you
, need any additional information, please contact me at the number or
address listed below.
Sincerefy,
Joe L.i�#le
Staff l.iaison
Aircraft Noise Abatement Commission
City of lnver Grove Neights
8150 Sarbara Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
612-450-2569
Fax: 612-450-2502
10: 12.' 98 .110N 17 : 20 F31 612 450 '2502 _ INl'ER GROI'E HTS CITl� AAL �Q.] u0:t
; ,i �'
,�;
Dat.e: j(� -, / a„ —�i � CDa whose behalf ar¢ you requesting:
Name: ourself
,� �-rrrr � — �uA� �rAFF L.�.��
Address: -r�n�-r� �.rzci��E;, ,;�.E,T�113_S_7�.?r ��`r City Council
�.Ly� %SA�c��42A ftvENi/� Mayor
-�-.. ., /'_�., �f �f.lc.,-f�T r{9i1/ Citizen .��!�----�� t'— �2
/ NJ I%4!� l Y(JLr � �,� „�
Phone: y��[i— a..��,C�' �rganization .
Other
Is this a one-time reqtaest: Ye or No
Beginning Endin�
If no, w�bae is the egpected ti�see frame fms this r�quest? to
�hich oi the follo�a+ing best describes the n�ture oiyo�ec request: (Circ�e �1t th�t �ppiy)
;rround Noise Overflights Run-Ugs Contours Part 150 Other
r
0
1
55�� �
OveP Plecrse
C
10/ 12 '98 SON 1 �: 20 F3J 612 �30 2502 INl'ER GRO1 E HTS CITl ii�1L
Please indicate the 199� �S�C objecdve� saPPa�es� by this Bhis request:
To pravide i►rforma�ion to tl�e Mt1C irt their efjorts �o commnnicate charrges in oJxrotiorrs, due m construction
to the surrounding cammunities .
Evaluate departure comptiance throug/� fhe L�agan/tl�lendola Heights Corridor arrd make any necessnry
changes to the retevant procedures.
Review the ANOMS.rystem cvrd noise monitors arrd evaluate the need and placement of additioaal remote
monitoring to�vers. Also, evolunte remote nronitoring capabilities
❑ Requesc t2ir Tra�c Control personne! to make a presentation on kow MSP operatiass� are cnnducted.
� Loak ar providing incenlives to carriers in �r�in8 �d operating factory-made Stage III aircraJt.
❑ I�rvestigate haw GPS and other NAI%Aids could help alleviate aircraft norse.
❑ R�iew the NADPs arrd compliance.
❑ Carriinue discu�rion of Part ISa canlodr generadon-
P'le�s� senr� you� �eques8 v�a �il to. MA.�.A� S�cre��a�y, 6Q40 2�t� Av��u� S,,
t�arat�,era,��das, M1V S���SO �rjc� ii r.� :(b12) 72�-631�.
Re�uest #: _
Staff Contact:
Date Receiv�d:
is this a Phone Or Wcitten Requesi?
` � Approveti By:
�� ' Appmval Date:
Availabiliry:
Start Daee:
StoQ Date:
Rnalysis Sta�t Date:
At�lysis Sto� Dat�:
Complezion Date:
F�
tg� u o 3
dditional Space if Required: ,:
Please indicate the 1998 MASAC objectives supported by this this request:
❑ To provide information to the MAC in their e,J,�'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
monitoring towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabitities.
� 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 aircraft.
❑ Investigate how GPS and other NAVAids could help alleviate aircraft noise.
❑ Review the NADPs and compliance.
❑ Continue discussion ofPart 150 contourgeneration.
Please send your request via �raail to: �SAC �ecretary, 6040 28th Avenue S.,
ltfinneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to :(612) 725-6310.
n
#:
Staff Contact:
Date Received:
Is this a Phone Or Written Request?
Approved By:
Approval Date:
Data Availability:
Monitoring Start Date:
Monitoring Stop Date:
Analysis Start Date:
Analysis Stop Date:
Completion Date:
�
��
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COIvIIv1ISSION
MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
WOLD-CHAMBERLIN FtELD
OFFICE OF THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR [Date]
NOTICE TO: ALL AIIZPORT USERS
FROM: Airport Director, Minneapolis-SL Paul Internarional Airj�ort
SUBJECT: FIELD RULE: AIRCRAFT ENGINE RUN-UP PROCEDURES
The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in consideration of aircraft maintenance requirements and the desire
to reduce aircraft noise, has revised its run-up procedures FIELD RULE.
The following new rules for maintenance run-ups are effective this date, [date] and supersede all previous
Field Rules regarding this issue. �
1. All run-ups must be scheduled in advance with MAC Operations by calling 726-5111 or A.PI 65111.
The following information is required at the time of the request:
• Type of aircraft and aircraft tail number
• Proposed start time
e Proposed end time
s Reason for run-up
2. Approved run-up hours will be from 0600 - 2230L daily. Except for the provisions of paragraph #8,
run-ups will not be authorized durin� quiet hours 2230 - 0600L daily). Any engine run for any
purpose other than aircraft movement during quiet hours will be restricted to idle power only.
Radio contact with FAA grotmd control is required for approval of movement to/from a run-up area
Aircraft shall monitor ground control at all times during the run-up.
4. In considerarion of the noise impact on neighboring communities and to prevent damage to
surrounding parked aircrafi, equipment and vehicles, run-ups in the MAC run-up pad are restricted to
specific headings. If wind canditions do not allow a run-up to be conducted, the run-up shouid be
postponed The following headings will be used according to type/size of aircraft:
o Jet aircraft:
s Winds less thcm 8 kts use 300°headin.Q
o Winds 8 kts or �reater and less than IS kts, headinQs clockwise 270°- 090°
• Winds Qreater rhan 1 S kis. headings accordinQ to manufacturer speci�ications
� � Prop aircrafi; no restriction
In addition, road guards will be required to stop vehicular traffic on the cargo roadway immediately
west of the nan-up pad whenever the following aircraft are running full-power at the indicated
headings:
• B747 aircraft; headines 070° - 09Q°
• DC I 0 aircraft; headings 045° - 090°
If wind conditions prevent the use of the MAC nm-up pad during regular nm-up hours and a
scheduled departure will be delayed, an altemate site may be requested from MAC Operations. "Che
approach end of nmway 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-ups on runway 04 will not be authorized during
quiet hours.
Note: Changes are Underlined and Italic.
6. The runway 22 run-up pad is availab(e during regular daytime hours for turboprop run-ups if runway {'
22 is not an active nmway; no heading restricrions. Run-ups on runway 22 will not be authorized �
during quiet hours.
Aircraf} "powerbacics" are pmhibited during quiet hours.
8. Absolutely no run-ups will be authorized between the hours of midnight and OSOOL daily. During
the remaining quiet hours, run-ups will only be approved by MAC Operations if a scheduled
depariure time cannot be met without the run-up. Dacumentation of the after-hours run-up must be
maintained by the su�servisor maldng the request and such information will be made available to the
Metropolitan Airports Commission unmediately upon request:
• Flight number
• Scheduled gate time
• Scheduled departure time
e Reason for after hours run-up
o Name of supervisor or manager making request
` All other requiremenis of the field rule must still be met when requesting an after-hours run-up.
This FIELD RtILE contains provisions for efficient aircraft run-up schedulinQ and safery during run-up
performance with minimum noise impact on the siurounding communiry. It is essential that each compan��
emphasize to their aircraft maintenance employees, the need to comply with the FIELD RULE.
Tim Callister, AIkPORT DIRECTOR
Minneapolis-St. Paul lnternational Air�ort
SUPERSEDES RUN-UP FIELD RULE DATED FEBRUARY l, 1942
Note: Changes are Underlined and Italic.
.1VIETIZC�I'C�LIT.�I...�T AIIZCI;.r�.FT SO?�INI7
.�.�ATE.MENT CC�i.��CIL
E N IJ �s��
TO: 1VIASAC
F'' ROlV1: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator
��.T$,j�+ CT: NADP Compliance Analysis
I)AT�+ : September 19, 1998
The issue of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs) was a topic of thorough debate and
analysis for MASAC and the Operations Committee as a means of providing another level of noise
abatement for the communities snrrounding Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Upon
comrnittee concurrence and MASAC approval, a desired NADP program was forwarded to the airlines
operating at MSP for implementation as early as possible upon reciept of the notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed two departure profiles which are available
_ under the auspices of FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A. The Close-In and Distant Departure Profiles
�/i �� 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 connpletion of substantial aircraft performance and impact analysis the MASAC Operations
Committee forwarded a recommendation to the full MASAC outlining the following procedures:
'�- Distant Profile: when departing runways, 12L, 12R, 04 and 22.
'�- Close-In Profile: when departing runways 30L and 30R.
Due to the proximity of residential development, the above procerlures provided the holistic best case
for the communities sunounding MSP. MASAC forwarded the recommendation to the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) Planning and Environment Committee (P&E) where it was passed on to
the full MAC Comrnission 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 profile procedures at
MSP, in this case, those aperations departing runway 30L and 30R.
At the September I 1, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting an analysis was presented that
reviewed departure profiles off all runways at MSP. This analysis compared today's operations with
pre-NADP implementation operations utilizing an altitude determinate analyzing data from the
summer of 1997 and 1998. This analysis will be presented and discussed at the October 27, 1998
MASAC meeting.
If there are any questions or comments prior to the MASAC meetin� regarding this topic, please feel
free to contact me at 725-6328.
`I"I'IFiI$ IS AlV INFOFtMA'TIfJNAL i�'Ei�1 ONLY, N� A�TIOI`1 12EOLTII2ED
. . � � ; ; � .: .
/ �` � :.
�i� �'� �} 1�
� �
�'� � MASAC
F'���: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator
���' ��: Crossing in the Corridor Analysis
���'�' : October 19, 1998
Since its conception, the crossing in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate as many
operations as possible in the center of the Eagan - Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. Although
superficially the procedure seems logical 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 the original scope relative to input from MASAC Operations Committee members.
The Crossing in the Corridor Analysis was presented at the October 9, 1998 MASAC Operations
Committee meeting. FAA representatives attending the meeting stated they had reviewed the analysis
and held controller meetings to discuss improving the use of the procedure at MSP. The willingness of
FAA personnel to refine the use of the procedure was a positive initiative in the ongoing teamwork
relationship between the FAA and MASAC. At the October 27, 1998 MASAC meeting the Crossing In
the Corridor Analysis will be presented and discussed.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6328.
TI-�IS I AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY NO A TION REQ RED
::. � .i . • .� . r ,� . •. ,:
• ' � � '� �. � • �; • r
� �
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Star Conference
Room, and cailed to order at 10:00 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members•
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Bob Kirmis- Eagan
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
Dick Keinz - MAC '
Ron Johnson - ALPA
Dick Saunders - Minneapolis
Advisorv•
Roy Fuhrmann - Technical Advisor
Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory
Ron G1aub - FAA
Cari Rydeen - FAA
Visitors:
Will Eginton - Inver Grove Heights
Alan Purcuss - NWA intem
:� � �� :�,
,
. �� _.
�
Mark Salmen, Chair, asked that a clarification to the September 11, 1998 minutes be made
on page 7. He said in the third paragraph the ICAO A and the ICAO B procedures should
be associated with Northwest's close-in and distant procedures respectively, rather than
how it is stated in the minutes.
RUid UP FIELD RULE - PROPOSED CHAiVG�S
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, directed the members' attention to the draft Aircraft Run-
up Field Rule included in the packet. He noted the following:
1. Any reference to the hour 2300 (11:00) was changed to 2230 (10:30) to reflect the
change in the nighttime hours. � ,
2. The primary change is in item number four. The draft field rule now includes wind speed �,
variables (see draft field nale). When winds are less than 8 knots, the aircraft's heading
should be 300°, when winds are between 8 and 15 knots, the heading should be
clockwise befinreen 270° and 090° and when winds are greater than 15 knots, the
headir�g should be according to the manufacturer's specifications.
LIICK SAUNDERS, MIIVNEAPOLIS, MOVED AiVD BOB JOHNSON, MB�1A, SECONDED
TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AIRCRAFT RUN-UP F1ELD RULE AND
TO FORWARD IT TO THE FULL MASAC BODY FOR APPROV/aL. THE VOTE WAS
UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED.
NADP CONTIIVUED D/SCUSS/Oh!
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reminded members that John Nelson, Bloomington,
asked at the last meeting if staff could investigate whether or not noise values at the RMTs
had changed noticeably with the implementation of the new NADP off runways 30L and
30R.
Mr. Fuhrmann said, there is no conclusive information that can be obtained from the
recorded noise levels at the RMTs with respect to the change in NADP procedures. He said
the only way to test how the departure profiles affect noise is to compare two exact
departing aircraft �ollowing each other; one flying the close-in departure profile and one
flying the distar�t over a predetermined RMT site �and then comparing the RMT noise levels
for both flights. `
Ron Glaub, FAA, briefed the FAA's involvement in and implementation of the NADP
procedures. Mr. Glaub distributed and reviewed two handouts:
Advisory Cir�ular (AC) 99-53A (published in July 1993):
The AC describes criteria for safe, noise abatement departure profiles for turbojet
powered airplanes heavier than 75,000 Ibs. (DC9's and larger)
2. The FAA has worked to develop standardized profiles to minimize airplane noise and
"... believes that using the two NADP's described in this AC for subsonic turbojet-
powered airplanes can provide environmental benefits to the airport communities. The
profiles outline acceptable criteria for speed, thrust settings, and airplane configurations
used in connection with NADP's." (paragraph 4 a,b.)
3. The FAA said a number of intricate depa�ture procedures had been developed at
various individual airports and felt that these "special" procedures "could compromise
the pilot's attention to .interior flight deck details, traffic avoidance, and other safety
responsibilities." (paragraph 4c.)
4. Close-in NADPs are "intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensiiive areas
located in close proximity to the departure end ofi an airport n.�nway (paragraph 5b).
2
�
Distant NADPs are "intended to provide noise reduction for all other noise sensitive
areas (paragraph 5c).
5. Paragraph 6 describes the criteria for both the close-in and distant departure profiles.
�
C/osean:
For a close-in departure profile, the pilot initiates the "thrust cutback at an altiiude of
no less than 800 feet AFE and prior to initiation of flaps or slats retraction." - And, "for
airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restoration system (older aircraft),
[the pilot should] 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." In other words, safety always takes
precedence.
Distant:
For a distant departure
thrust cutback initiation.
feet AFE.
profile, the pilot initiates the "flap.s/slats retraction prior to
Thrust cutback is initiated at an altitude of no less than 800
6. Paragraph 7c: "Each airplane operator should limit the number of NADPs for any
airplane type to no more than two." Paragraph 7d: "Each airplane operator is
encouraged to use the appropriate NADP when an airpart operator requests its use to
abate noise for either a close-in or distant community.° Paragraph 7e: 'This AC should
not be. construed to affect the responsibilities and authority of the pilot in command for
the safe operation of the airplane."
U. S. Department of Transportation - FAA Operations Specifications: Noise Abatement
Departur� Profiles (C068)
The FAA issues this document to all aircraft operators and contains almost the exact same
information that is included in the AC. The Operations Specifications document senies as a
regulatory requirement. Once a carrier has the document, they must abide by the NADPs
outlined in the document and cannot perform any other noise abatement departure profile
operation. A representative of the FAA worfcing with a specific camer and a representative
of that carrier must both sign the document.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked Mr. Glaub to clarify the differences between an
AC and the Operations Specifications document. Mr. Glaub said an AC is a suggestion or
an advisory and cannot be used to write violations from. The Operations Specifications
document is part of a carrier's operations certificate and certificates undergo a regulatory
process. Mark Salmen, NWA, said NWA was required to submit its NADP procedures for
each aircraft to their FAA Certificate Management Office (CMO). The CMO in tum revievved
NWA's procedures and, once they were satisfied that the requirements of the Operations
Specifications page were met, signed off on that partion. Mr. Salmen displayed an
3
overhead of NWA's signed NADP Operations Specifications page.
Mr. Batcheider asked if NWA's procedure specifications were the same as the FAA's
speci�cations. Mr. Giaub said that they were.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said Bill Albee, FAA's Noise Ombudsman, told him that
the "standard" departure procedure was also available to air carriers as an option. He said,
according to Mr. Albee, it is possible for aircraft to climb to 1500 feet before reaching a
°corridor" residential boundary. .
Chairman Salmen s�aid Mr. Albee's interpretation of FAR 25 is incorrect. Chairman Salmen
said NWA's standard procedure is specified as the distant NADP. He said there is not a
third departure procedure. He also said prior to 1993 the FAA's NADP AC was based on
NWA's "quiet EPR" concept.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted fihat the Operations Specifications document
states, "For the purpose of these operations specifications, NADPs shall be limited for any
airplane type, at any one time, to a maximurn of two profiles." He said many of the airlines
at MSP use the distant NADP as their normal procedure, which in essence means
continued thrust is applied up to 1500 feet before any alterations are made.
Mr. Fuhrmann reiterated that the purpose of the study for this year was to determine
whether or not the close-in procedure had been implemented off runways 30L and 30R, as
was recommended by MASAC. He said although the noise benefit was inconclusive
because of the variables, the increase in altitude for the close-in procedure does produce a
benefit. He said there is approximately a 400-foot gain in altitude at each gate for the
close-in procedure relative to the distant procedure.
Mr. Fuhrmann explained that the AC allowed the airport (via MASAC) to determine the
appropriate departure profile (close-in or distant) to be performed off each end of each
runway at the airport. The carriers, then, specify to their pilots which departure profile.
should be flown for each aircraft type off each runway end.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if there was still a"normal" procedure other than
the close-in and distant procedures that are flown today. Ron Glaub, FAA, said there may
be an airline that still flies a procedure using the 800-foot limitation to accelerate. He said
most airlines are using the procedures NWA does where clean up doesn't occur until at
least 1000 feet. He reiterated that there are only two acceptable NADPs. He said if an
�:irport doesn't specify an NADP, the carrier can fly any procedure that they want, but the
carriers and the pilots don't want the pilots leaming more than finro procedures, so they will
leam either one or both of these procedures. The Operatians Specifications document
essentially states that a carrier can develop no more than finro procedures: per eompany,
per aircraft type and per airport and fly only one per runway end.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said his number one concem is that the most possible
aircraft noise is being generated over the noise compatible areas of the river bottoms and
the industrial area with the distant NADP procedure.
4
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reiterated that the airport isn't ailowed to determine the
specific distant or close-in procedure for each carrier, only which procedure should be
performed off each runway end. He said the carriers determine the specific procedure for
each profile for each aircraft within the limitations of the Operations Specifications. He
noted that 96% of the operations at MSP are conducted by operators that have responded
back to the staff and have implemented the procedures recommended by the airport.
Chairman Salmen noted that the AC dated October 17, 1978 was based on a NWA
procedure, which was established by the testing of NWA 727's to compare the standard
procedure that was being used at the time to the NADP.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he didn't think the more noise compatible areas
were being used as well as they could be. He reiterated Mendota Heights' position that
flying the close-in departure procedure to the southeast would benefit the southeast
residences closest to the airport more than the currently flown distant procedure. He said
he wasn't sure if the close-in procedure, though, would maximize the noise compatible
areas any better than the distant.
Chairman Salmen said, although the distant procedure doesn't maximize the noise
compatible areas for a specific interest, it does maximize the noise benefit for a//
communities to the southeast.
Chairman Salmen then displayed several overheads in regards to:
�-�-�� � 1) how NWA implemented the speci�ed NADP's (flight ops bulletin)
__. 2) information about engine pressure ratios (EPRs) and
3) the difference between ICAO procedures and the FAA's AC procedures.
Chairman Salmen made the following key points
. A flight ops bulletin was issued, which included pe�tinent information for NWA pilots in
regards to flying NADPs.
� Each aircraft has its own description of how the close-in and distant procedures should
be performed for that specific aircraft.
� The 747-400 uses a flight management system (FMS), which has a camputer into which
variables are entered so that the aircraft can automatically fly the correct departure
profile.
� Pilots are trained on NADPs in simulators.
� Ron Johnson, ALPA, reiterated that pilots like to have as few altematives as possible for
a procedure, fly the specified NADPs for each runway and each aircraft, and want to fly
the procedures as perfectly as possible every time.
� NWA sends out check airmen to do spot checks on pilots to be sure they are performing
required procedures.
� The specific NADP procedures for each aircraft are performed exactly the same at every
airport. In other words, ifi the clase-in procedure is specified at another airport, the same
procedure is performed at that airport as is at MSP.
0 NWA's close-in profile equates to the ICAO A procedure and the distant profile equates
5
to the ICAO B procedure.
KEVIN BATCHELDER, �ENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA,
SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE NADP TREND ANALYSIS AND TO PRESENT THE
FINDINGS TO THE FULL MASAC BODY. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION
CARRIED.
CROSS/�/G lM THE CORR/DOR REVIEW
Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, briefed the Crossing in the Corridor report. The highiights of
this briefing follow:
. The report covers the time periad of October 1997 to March 1998 from 2300-0600 hours
weekdays and 1500 - 1300 hours on weekends (or 3:00 p.m. on Saturday to 1:00 a.m.
on Sunday).
o From discussions with the FAA, the assumPtion was made that one local controller was
on duty during the weekday evening time periods. One Iocal controller on �duty is a
necessary variabie for the FAA to be able to perForm the procedure.
. Staff reviewed the FAA's logs to determine the time periods during the specified
weekend hours when there was only one local controller on duty.
. The time between departures is a critical variable in the ability of the controllers to
perForm the procedure.
m Weather is another significant variable for the use of the procedure. Information about
the weather for each of the months studied is included in section 5 of the report.
The major findings of the analysis are as follows:
1. During the specified 6-month time period of 2300 to 0600 weekdays there were 990
carrier jet departures from runways 12L and 12R.
2. Of the above 990 operations, 357 (36.1 %) performed the crossing procedure.
3. The time periods between departure operations that were most prevalent during the
2300 to 0600 hours were: 0-2 minutes at 12.5%, 10-30 minutes at 18.9% and 1 to 7
hours at 19.6%.
4. During the specified weekend hours there were 3734 carrier jet departure operations
over the six-month period from runways 12L and 12R.
5. Of the 3734 operations, 643 (17.2%) performed the crossing procedure.
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 time, there were 1432 carrier jet departure
operations.
8. Of the 1432 carrier jet departure operations, 419 (29.3%) performed the crossing
�
�
procedure.
During the
were most
22.2%.
One of th
weekend
weskend hours, the two time periods between departure operations that
prevalent were from 0 to 2 minutes at 57.4% and from 2 to 4 minutes at
e most significant obstacle for performing the crossing procedure during the
periods is the time separation between departure operations. (Time
�
separations of 2 minutes or less preclude the ability to perform the crossing procedure.)
11. The weather for the period was variabie with thunderstorms prevailing during October
1997, snow starms in late March and freezing rain present in January 1998.
The two main conclusions are that:
1. The weekday nighttime time period represents an area of possible irnprovement in the
pe►formance of the crossing procedure.
2. The relatively short time periods between departures during the wreekend hours present
a significant hurdle to the FAA to perform the crossing procedure.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reiterated that when there are 2 minutes or less between
departures, it is considered a simultaneous depa�ture time period rather than non-
simultaneous. He also pointed out that if the number of departures that occurred during the
0-2 minute time frame during the weekend hours were taken out of the total number of
carrier jet departure operations, there would be only 610 operations available for the
crossing pr`ocedure to be performed. And, since there were 419 crossing ope�ations,
approximately 68% of the total available operations had crossed, which represents a fairly
high compliance rate for the weekend hours.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the head-to-head operations variable was
analyzed. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said the head-to-head operations variable was not
analyzed because the current version of ANOMS cannot systematically analyze that type of
procedure. He said the newer version of ANOMS may allow that type of analysis for the
future.
Cari Rydeen, Tower Operations Manager, introduced himself and briefed the members on
what actians he had taken since being informed of the concems associated with the
crossing procedure compliance. He said he has (1) re-briefed the supervisors on the exact
expectations for performing the crossing procedure, (2) re-briefed� each controller
individually on the procedure, and (3) met together with MAC staff and the tower
supervisors to discuss the crossing procedure, as wrell as the other MASAC noise
abatement procedures. Mr. Rydeen said he will also be talking with Mr. Fuhrmann on a
weekly basis regarding concems staff may have and has notified the controllers that
compliance with the crossing procedure could be considered a performance issue.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, thanked Mr. Rydeen on behalf of his community for
both his attitude and the efforts he has already made.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said he appreciated Mr. Rydeen's efforts toward opening
up a dialog befinreen staff and the tower, and said he thought it would be beneficial for both
parties.
After a shot# discussion, it was decided that Mr. Rydeen would be invited to the October 27,
1998 MASAC meeting to brief the full MASAC body on the FAA's efforts in regards to the
crossing procedure, as well as other noise abatement procedures.
7
R�AT LOCATION PROJECT UP�ATE
Roy Fuhrmann, Technicai Advisor, noted that a letter was received from ,the city of
Minneapolis (included in the packet) which identifies their chosen locations� �for the two
additional RMT sites, both of which are located at schools. He said staff is currently in the
process of performing site surveys of these locations.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reported that staff would be meeting with Will Eginton, Inver Grove
Heights, and Bob Kirmis, Eagan,. the following Monday in order to choose a location for the
RMT site in Eagan and the site that encompasses both Inver Grove Heights and Eagan.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reported that Chairman Johnson has sent a response to the City of
Richfield regarding the RMT Location Analysis. The City of Richfield, in their letter, asked
for information regarding how the locations for the new RMTs were identi�ed, what iype of
equipment would be placed at the sites, how it would be compatible with the ANOMS
system and what type of information would be _derived from the RMTs. This information
was included in the Chairman's response.
Mr. Fuhrmann said staff would continue to move forward with the cities that are identifying
their RMT sites and plan for those site locations. He said before the onset of winter, staff
anticipates specific site locations will be identified for Minneapolis, Eagan and Inver Grove
Heights.
CORRESPOIVDENCE
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said he felt the need to update the Operations
Committee in regards to the City of Richfield's letter to MASAC members regarding the
Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Report. He then reviewed the documentation included
in the agenda package in regards to the study. �
Mr. Fuhrmann reiterated that the scope of the study approved by the MASAC Operations
Committee was not intended to analyze "low frequency" noise. However, if Mr. Fidell was
evaluating the report under the false assumption that it was commissioned to study low
frequency noise then his comments would be more appropriate. He said it was staff s
perspective that the study met its objectives, as defined by Jeff Hamiel and the Operations
Committee.
Mr. Fuhrmann said he hoped the Operations Committee and the full MASAC body would
recognize that the study fulfilled its objectives.
Chairman Salmen said he agreed with Mr. Fuhrmann that the study fuifilled its objectives.
He said he was upset that this report, which was not out of committee at the time, had been
taken by a visitor to an outside consultant under a set of guidelines not associated with the
study. He recognized that the consultant had not been privy to #he Committee's
conversations and most likely had not been given documentation in regards to the scope of
�
the study.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said if the City of Richfield felt a low frequency noise
study was necessary, they could conduct their own study.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he took offense to some of the "unnecessary and
unprofessional" comments made by the consultant in his report.
The secretary aiso noted that an eariier letter was received from the City of Richfield, as
well, and had been included in the September Operations Committee package. This letter
requested staff to begin measuring both A and C weighted noise through the ANOMS
system and requested that a low frequency noise study be initiated to measure the impact
Qf the airport's expansion pians on the surrounding neighbofioods.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said in order to monitor both A and C weighted noise,
the entire ANOMS system would have to be re-scoped.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the FAA's Record of Decision (ROD) included
information on low frequency or C-weighted noise levels. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said the ROD recognized that some studies had been done regarding low
frequency noise impacts, but that the FAA does not currently have guidelines for mitigating
low frequency noise. Mr. Batchelder said the question that needed to be answered was
whether or not it was MASAC's obligation to get involved with low frequency noise issues.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he felt this decision would have to be made by the Commission.
Mr. Fuhrmann also noted that other MASAC issues had been forwarded to 1999, such as
the corridor issues and investigating the noise benefits of GPS technology. He urged the
Operations Committee to move forward with those issues that have already been identified.
Chairman Salmen said he felt that a low frequency noise study could be investigated further
when the MAC deems it appropriate and the FAA has standards and procedures
established for such a study.
It was decided that a response to the City of Richfield's letter should be drafted from the
Operations Committee that would incorporate the main discussion items included above.
Chairman Salmen said the letter should also clearly sfiate that Richfield's proposed
procedures for approval of their request are not appropriate.
The next Operations Meeting will be held November 13, 1998. Chairman Salmen asked
members to come to this meefing prepared to discuss 1999's goals and objectives.
The meeting was adjoumed at 12:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski, Committes Secretary
C.
C�
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federai Aviation
Administration
� f *�
�` r� rt .?
ivJ� s.�' � +' x "�h. v �;'.
13 .Y c r
s �
� � � �-�
z
�� � Y' h C y •" `.r.Y:
Subject: NOISE 1�BATEMEtdT DEPARTURE Date: 7/22/93 AC No: 97-53A
PROFiLES ' Initiated by: AFS-400
1. PiTRPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) describes acceptabie criteria for safe noise abatement departure
profiles (NADP) for subsonic turbojet-powered airplanes with a maximum cerrtif cated gross takeoff weight
of more than 75,040 pounds. These procedures provide the user with one means, although not the only
means, of establishing acceptable NADP's. These departure pmfiles are consistent with the airworthiness
standards required by the Federal Aviation Reguiations (FAR's) Part 25 for type certificarion and•FAR Part 91
for general airplane ogerations. This AC also provides a technical analysis and description of typical departure
pmfiles that aze consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) safety responsibilities and
have the potential to minimize the airplane noise impact on communities surrounding airports.
2. CANCELLATIUN. AC 91-53; Noise Abatement Depariure Pmfile, dated October 17, 1978, is canceled.
3. RELAT'ED READING MATERIAL.
a. FAR Parts 25, 91, 121, 125, 129, and 135.
(' ) b. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Assessment for
" AC 91-53A. Copies may be obtained from the Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. .
c. FAA. Analysis of Noise Abatement Departure Procedures for Lar,�� 'I�urbojet Airplanes. Copies may
be obtained firom the O�ce of Environment and Energy, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20591.
d County of Orange, California, Envimnmental Impact Report #546. Copies may be obtained from
Counry of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 12 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 4048, Santa.Ana,
CA 92701-4048. .
4. BACKGROUND.
a. For several yeais, the FAA. has worked to develop and standardize profiles to minimize� aiiplane
noise. As part of ihat com�mitment, the FAA has worked with airport managers, airplane ogeraGors, pilats,
special interest groups, and Federal, State, and �local agencies in numemus pmgrams for evaluating noise
levels in the airport environmen� 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
nuiways and flight tracks whenever possible can effectively supplement a comprehensive noise abatement
program. The FA.A believes thai using the two NADP's describe,�i in this AC for subsonic turbojet-powered
airplanes can pmvide environmental benefits to the airport communities. The pnofiles outline acceptable criteria
for speed, thrust settings, and airplane configuraiions used in connection with NADP's. Thesa- NADP's can
be combined with preferential runway selection and flightpath techniques t,o �m»P noise impact.
�� )
AC 91-53A ��
- 7/22/93
c. FAA reviews of various airpiane vertical NADP's indicate thaz some inu-icate NA.DP's have been
developed on an airport specific basis. The management of these intricaze profiles could compromise the
piIot's attention to interior flight dec3c details, traffic avoidance, and other safety responsibiIities.
5. DEFINITIONS.
a. NADP. Noise abar�ment departure pn�file.
b. Close-in Community NADP's NADP's for individual airplane types intendeti to provide noise
reducrion for noise sensitive areas located in close proximity to the departure end of an aiiport nui�c,ay,
c. Distant Community NAl)P's. NADP's for individual airplane tyges intended to pmvide noise reduc-
tion for ail other noise sensitive areas,
d AFE. Above field elevation
6. NADP's. Acceptable criteria have beea estabiished for two types of NADP's for each airp7ane type,
as defined for use by eacii airpla�e opex-aior These departure profiles ac� applicable to all types of subsonic
turbojet-powered airpianes over 75,000 pounds gross takeoff weight The two types of NADP's are the "close-
in" and "distant" profiles as described below.
a. Close-in NADP.
il) �niti3te thrust cutbark at an altitude of no less than 800 feet AFE and prior tA initiation of
fla�s or slats retra�tion.
i2) '�he thrust cutback may be made by manual throute 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 opezational automatic t�uust restoration system,. achieve and maintain
no less than the thrust level necessary after thn�st reduction to maintain. for the fla�s/slats configuration
of the airpIane, the takeoff path eagine_inoperative climb gradients specified in FAR Section 25.111(c)(3)
in the event of an engine failure. �
(4) For airpl�anes witi� an operat�o� ��matic thru,st restoration system, achieve and maintain no
Iess than the tf�rru,uzt level nec�ary after tiuust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of
the airplane, a takeoff path engine_inopezative climb giadient of zero perCent, provided that the automatic
tfu�ust restoration system will, at a minimum, resto� sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine-
inoperative cIimb gradieuts s�Cified in gAR Section Z5.111(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure.
(s) �uring the tiirust z�duction, coordinate the pitchover rate and tbrust reduction to provide a
d�� � Pl�h C°��� �� allowing indicated airspeed to decay to no more than 5 knots beiow the
alI-engine target climb sPeed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airplane configui-aiion, For afftomaied
throttle systems, acceptable s�ed tplerances can be found in AC 25-15, Approval of Flight Management
ystems in TransPort Category Aiiplanes.
i6) Mainta.in the spe�d and thiv.st criteria as described in subparagraph 6 a(�) thmugh 6 a(5) to
3,Q00 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route climb configuration
(whichever occurs first), tfien tcansifion to no�al en route climb pmcedures.
b. Distant 1VADP.
(1) Initiate flags/slaLs reiraction prior to thrust cutback initia�on. Thrust cutback is initiated az an
altitude no less than 80a feet AFE. . �
C
Par 4
- 7/22/93
)
AC 91-53A
(2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttle reduciion 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 initiated at or above 800 feeL AFE.
(3) For airplanes without an operafional 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.
{4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no
less than the ttuust level necessary after ttuust retiucrion to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of
the airplane, a takeoff path engine-inoperarive climb gradient of zer�o percent, provided that the aut,omatic
tlu�ust restoration system will, at a minimum, restore sufficient thrust to maintain the takeoff path engine-
inopera�ive climb gradients sgecified 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
decr�ase in pitch consistent with allowing indicated airsgeed 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, accepGable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Appmval of Flight Management
Systems in Transport Categary Airplanes.
(6) Maintain the sgeed and thnist criteria as described in subparagraph 6b(3) through 6 b(5) to
3,040 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en route climb configuration
(whichever occurs fiist), then transition to nonnal en route cIimb procedures.
7. OPERATTONAL GUIDELINES.
�'"-' a Each airplane operator may apply the procedures specified in this AC to determine the following
_. �� for each of it� 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 initiated.
c. Each airplane operator should limit the number of NADP's for any aiiplane type to no more than
two.
d Each airplane operator is encouraged to use the appmpriate 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 coinmand
for the safe operation of the airplane.
�
/
�iony J. Bro erick
Associate Admuustrator for Regulation arid Certification
Par 6 3
C
C
AC 91-53A - NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROFILES
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
7/22/93
Initiated by: AFS-400
1. PURPOSE.
This advisory circular (AC) describes acceptable criteria for safe noise abatement departure
profiles (NADP) for subsonic turbojet powered airplanes with a maximum certificated gross takeoff
weight of more than 75,000 pounds. These procedures provide the user with one means, although
not the oniy means, of estabiishing acceptable NADPs. These departure profiles are consistent
with the airworthiness standards required by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) Part 25 for
type certification and FAR Part 91 for general airplane operations. 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 have the potential to minimize the
airplane noise impact on communities surrounding airports.
4.BACKGROUND.
a. For several years, the FAA has warked to develop and standardize profiles to minimize
airpiane noise. As part of that commitment, the FAA has worked with airport managers, airpiane
operators, pilots, special interest groups, and Federal, State, and locai agencies in numerous
������ programs for evaluating noise levels in the airport environment. The research considered a variety
_.- of departure flight tr�cks and profiles.
b. From an environmenial standpoint, avoiding noise sensitive areas by using preferentia! noise
abatement runways and flight tracks whenever possible can effectively supplement a
comprehensive noise abatement program. The FAA believes that using the two NADPs described
in this AC for subsonic turbojet powered airplanes can provide environmental benefits to the
airport communities. The profiles outline acceptable criteria for speed, thrust settings, and airplane
configurations used in connection with NADPs. These NADPs can be combined with preferential
runway selection and flight path techniques to minimize noise impact.
c. FAA reviews of various airplane vertical NADPs indicate that some intricate NADPs have
been developed on an airport specific basis. The management of these intricate profiles could
compromise the pilot's attention to interior flight deck details, traffic avoidance, and other safety
responsibifities.
5. DEFINITIONS.
a. NADP. Noise abatement departure profile.
b. Close-in Community NADPs. NADPs for individual airplane types intended to provide noise
reduction for noise sensitive areas located in close proximity fo the departure end of an airport
runway.
c. Distant Community NADPs. NADPs for individual airplane types intended to provide noise
reduction for all other noise sensitive areas.
d. AFE. Above field elevation.
�
6. NADPs.
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 two types of
NADPs are the "ciose-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 initiation of
flaps or s{ats retraction.
(2) The thrust cutback may be made by manual throttie reduction or by app�oved 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.
(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/siats configuration of the airpiane, a takeoff path engine inoperative climb gradient of zero
percent, provided that the automatic thrust restoration system wiil, 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 cdnsistenf 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, acceptabie speed tolerances can be found in AC
25-15, Approval of Fiight Management Systems in Transport Category Airpianes.
(6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in subparagraph 6a(3) through 6a(5) to
3,000 feet AFE or above, or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the enroute climb
configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal enroute ciimb 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 throttie 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.
�
_ _ _
(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 ciimb 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 the all-engine target climb speed and, in no case to less than V2 for the airplane
configura#ion. For automated throttle systems, acceptabie speed tolerances can be found in AC
25-15, Approval of Flight Management Systems in Transport Category Airpianes.
(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 fully transitioned to the enroute climb
configuration (whichever occurs first), then transition to normal enroute climb procedures.
7. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES.
a. Each airplane operator may appiy the procedures specified in this AC to determine the
foliowing for each of its airplane types:
(1) Close-in communily NADP.
(2) Distant community NADP.
b. For each NADP, the airplane operator shouid 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 NADPs for any airplane type to no more
than two.
d. Each airplane 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
command for the safe operation of the airpiane.
/s/
Anthony J. Broderick
Associate Administrator for Reguletion and Certification
�, .
C
�>,. . ..,iwx�. _.�.....�, ..... ::...,o-.. . .-,-- .�..�.��, ar� �� .�,...�. ...._..���..,,� r .� ..cw�a< ,�=:.w.i_..�r ....z��:r..a7 :...v....�: �.�wi:r..r..f., ....aa,_.: ..s.n<_a.:.:�
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Operations Spec�fications
Form Approved
OM8 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 paraQraph and the procedures in the certificate holder's manuals.
The certificate holder shall use the approved NADP's for its turbojet airplanes, havinj a maximum
certificated takeoff gross weight of more that 75,000 pounds, operating from a noise sensitiye airport
within the United States. The certificate holder shall conduct all NADP's in accordance �vith 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 specifcations, 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 eaci'1 runway at each airport.
Only one NADP can be designated for each runway at each airport. The certificate holder's NADP's must
meet the following criteria:
a. For each NADP, the certificate holder shall specify the altitude above the field elevation (AFE) at which
thrust reduction from takeoff thrust (Close-In Profile) or airplane configuration chan�e (Distant Profile),
excluding gear retraction, is initiated.
b. Close-In NADP: The certificate holder shall use the following NADP criteria for individuai 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 APE.
(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 ensine-inoperative climb �radients specified in 14 CFR Section 25.1 I i(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 su�cient thrust to maintain the takeoff path en�ine-
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 allowin� 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 confi�uration. For automated throttle
systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 25-15, Approval of Fli?ht Management Systems
in Transport Category Airplanes.
C068-1 CERTIFICATE NO.:
FAA Form 8400-8 (10-90)
i,
U.S. Department
of Transportation Form Approved
Federal Aviakion Operations Specifications OMB No. 2120-60028
Administration ��
(6) Maintain the speed and thrust criteria as described in steps b(3) through b(5) to 3,000 feet AFE or
above, or until the airplane has been fully transitioned to the en-route climb configuration (tivhichever
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 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 confi�uration of the
airplane, the takeoff path engine-inoperative climb gradients specified in Section 2�.111(c)(3) in the event
of an en�ine failure.
(4) For airplanes with an operational automatic thrust restoration system, achieve and maintain no less than
the thrust �evel necessary after thrust reduction to maintain, for the flaps/slats configuration of the airplane,
a takeoff path engine-inoperative climb �radient 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 en�ine 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 belotiv the all-en�ine
tar�et climb speed, and in no case to less than V, for the airplane configuration. For automated throttle
systems, acceptable speed tolerances can be found in AC 2�-1 �, Approval of Flight Management Systems
in Transport Cate;ory 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 fully transitioned to the en route climb configuration (whichever
occurs first), then transition to normai en route climb procedures.
TEXT99
l. Issued by the Federal 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.
C068-2 CERTIFICATE NO.: .
FAA Form 8400-8 (10-90)
230 s sEP ss AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL��-- �ce��cscnl
" � � FUGHT PROCEDURES
- (DOC 8168)
�
,�,',; I' 1. 1���� 5 1
(�• �._..,'Z•;LYS� ��
; � � �;; � ;: : ;?;;: �; �:; �;;
::; ;t�:•:;:•;:,>.
.;:
., ,�:
i�i;
8 (PART � NOISE ABATEIUIENT
PROCEDURES 'Y
8.1 (3.1) AEROPLANE OPERATING
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
safety of fiight operations is maintained whilst
minimizing exposure to noise on the ground.
One of the two procedures contained in 8.1.2.1
and 8.1.2.2 should be applied routinely for all
take-offs. Data availabie indicates that
Procedure A resuits 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�aort. The procedure
selected for use will depend on the noise
distribution required and the type of aeropiane
invoived. �
8.1.2 (3.12) The foiloYvJng noise abatement
take-off procedures are recommended as opera-
tionaliy acceptable and effective in minimizing
noise.
8.1.2.1 (3.1.2.1 } Procedure A(Figure 8- y)
Take-oif to 450m (1,500 ft) above aerodrome
elevation: .
— take-off power
— take-off flap
— climb at VZ + 20 to 40 km/h (V2 + 10 to 20
kt) (or as limited by body angle}.
At 450m (1,500 ft):
— reduce thrust to not less than climb power/
thrust.
450m (1,500 ft) to 900m (3,000 ft):
— climb at VZ + 20 to 40 km/h (VZ + 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 ciimb
900m (3,OOOft) --------------------- � ----
600m (2,000 ft) � Climb at V2 + 20 to 40 km/h
tv2 + y o to 2o 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 kt)
NOT TO SCALE
Runway
NC�TE: For purposes of these procedures the heights given in metres and feet, and speeds given in
ki/ometres/hour and knots are considered to be operationally acceptable equivalents.
Figure 8-1. Noise abatement take-off climb — Procedure A -
r
m JEPPESEN SANDEflSON, INC., 7994, 1996. ALL RIGHTS RESEflVED.
���
- -�-�-►c�`�v t�in 1 flNr�'ili �..viv � nv� io iwnt y�a G.i 1
- � = � ` � FLIGHT PROCEDURES '
(DOC $168) �- ;,
8.1.2.2 (3.1.2.2) Procedure B (Figure 8-2)
- _�.g, ..
Take-off to 300m (1,000 ft) above aerodrome
elevation:
— take-off powedthrust
— take-off flap
� — 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 foilow-
�� ing:
�'���:�; a. for high by-pass ratio engines reduce to nor-
' mai climb power/thrust; �
b t
'i..ii 3}•�°ki^t.' 4 ��g.
b. for low by-pass ratio engines, reduce pow-
:. er/thwst to below normal ciimb thn�st but n�
less than that necessary to maintain the fina,
take-off engine-out ciimb gradient; and
c. for aeroplanes with slow fiap retracting reduce
power/thrust at an intermediate fiap setting;
thereafter, from 300m (1,000 ft) to 900m (3,000 ft):
— continue climb at not greater than VZF + 20
km/h (VZF + 70 kt).
At 900m (3,000 ft):
— accelerate smoothly to en-route ciimb speed.
NOTE Aeroplanes such as supersonic
aeroplanes not using wing flaps for take-
off should reduce thrust befo�e atfaining �
300m (1,000 ft) but not lower fhan 150m
(500 ft).
� Accelerate smoothly
to en-route ciimb �
900m (3,OOOft) ___________________ _______
600m (2,000 ft) Climb at VZF + 20 km/h (VZF + 10 kt}
Reduce power/thrust
Retract fiap on scheduie
I 300m -i- (1,000 ft) ----�.�— Accelerate to VZF
-4-- Take-off thrust
V2+ 20 to 40 km/h
(V2+ 10 to 20 kt)
Runway
NOT TO SCALE
Nu � C: f-or purposes of these procedures ihe heights given in metres and feet, and speeds given in
kilometres/hour and knots are conside�ed.to be operationally acceptable equivalents.
Figure 8-2. Noise abatement take-off climb — Procedure B '
8.2 (3.2) AEROPLANE OPERATING
PROCEDURES — APPROACN
8.2.1 (3.2.4) Compliance with published noise
abatement approach procedures should 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, siush, ice or
water, or by mud, rubber, oil or other sub-
stances;
�
ti
b. 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;
c. when the cross-wind component, including
gusts, exceeds 28 km/h (15 kt);
d. when the taii-wind component, including gusts,
exceeds 9 km/h (5 kt); and
e. when wind shear has been reported or forecast
or when adverse weather conditions; e.g.,
thunderstorms, are expected to affect the ap-
proach. .
C� JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC., 1992, 1994. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
, � � . , � ., . , ,
' .�,, � c: <, . :,, `
. ,
�� :
Fl$�Idi:
SZTB.TECT:
I)1�TE:
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
MASAC & Operations Committee Work Plan for 1999
October 1, 1998
l�SAC Goa�s and 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 moving forward in areas to address the overall
reduction of noise for all communities and the topics for discussion.
1998 I�SA C Goals and Objectives
w.'k,�;ir E",�. � � , "� .Fan�'.rs`. '�' s . -'•�� "v"`?z=>':.53�T'� `� ¢.sa 6�:",�--2 �:�-+�^,+ i'° -t-v'" � . `tt..,�.- ' Ss� ,�:- �,C.tF-1 ='�"ra .f'
s�..- s� a3 �'r�"�''' �4 �' uQ��' � �'.y��e�'s�q�a'� , , w�-.--^<, c�i =��`�',�,.��'�ce�y'���-r.s. � �s�`''�..+�a-w i�'^u "fi�`- "�'..,...reL' ..`�t�^"ss.`��.�5:�
�c.,,Yz� ��..��'��Yi,�:� ��N.dYD � ..nc.� xw.r � a"i'i rs��-,*�`p�...,�� "'-.,.',..e�,c:F-,_,�"��'.r...�r;''.al�'"�'�L'£�-'k'�srvS'"�6i'
W7u"L.�ai;'.+,.,-r "„'4.� �i`.4c'fsF 4y s. u;4 �p,�T"� +YT , , �. ,�, .ka„t�r � ���g�pyg� �{}s i I��i�. �..u�'�° Y--,
"�5. i "C � �� �, �'` '�T��'S y -�.'tr'M. �`�•,�� �� ixa'r..:t����'S '^� � � Yy11��n1Yd�i1Kl � r i.�.'`"�'i�'t
��,��3'.-a�-ce. .
€��:��v.,�-��1, � 3����.�'''���� „ �fi,�. ���Sx�y . t'�..sv�A,����k �,�=a'�"" ,�''�F„-" --t �r'r�.
1+.e Y. Y"���'.�` ,+.�- avc' Y� r`C.z-r • F�.-"H •'i7' '��. 3 r<: "_ ..,�
;...��.�::;h-s��.3'�+-=a.�E ,.,#�-_�,x,fi.�� c��:',�`;�..h. �.m;.t�._.,.�fa...�,r'��`.`x�c._�� � �3`���_'�.'�?�_:_���_�y �_rE-�.rc2,�_�rr;^���.�_'�io_-�--�,�i��=�
January 16 Operations Committee P� 150 Contour Generation Discussion
Goals & Objectives for 1998
January 27 MASAC M��eapolis Straight-Out Departure Procedure
Destination Study Update
Monitoring Request Forms
February 20 Operations Committee Ruriway Construction Briefing
DNL Contour Generation
March 2 �' iviASAC Receive MSP Construcfion Briefing(G. Warren)
Presentation of MASAC Audit (D. Kistel, PSB)
March 20 Operations Committee Complete Monitoring & Info. Request form
Initial Evaluation of Additional RIVYT Sitings
- aF:��:: t-4 �, �,a�'t�,�. �1 �E-' . . /2 �t- t=—i►t��'"sA—�S'!-"�'"y�,, ,. r�'' —'' � 7 � 4'� -i'a i f� f= � tt C-r�J}k��� ,.,,,.�€;�'-t� � -r {�� k "� �. � J t ._+� .�
���1V�GC.I�L'�Il.�tl.�� �g',���.O..VI� liD ��� aa';�F}-��,.�'��i p.�����ec,�; �1"Q�la�Cf P ,,-;`-� .t Y�r e,t ':
t';.'�i . i.:. t}"..r'=w�'""`4 s`� ve'9 `Y,"�.' 6"a�� :a,..-�� �.����.�� i`r�t;.-33�f'` �4.�4i9i �.LS1i.iY� i #.xxf k.
�.2"_x�`�u '-t��' �.�V �� "�'S�"==' � , �''��r'` '��"�"'��.�� � 7f 1 _,t� � �`?"`` Y y z ti u . � s s �t-'2' .'
��^c .�'`"� .� �.��.£ tr'' a a.�,§�` ��# �+yi a fi L f,}3f ( t i�' c�� t z� .�. $� 4 s�,.t�t.3�� 1 ,� � c� 3„�,.
Nv� � `N' �i_� �,...��th� =4::Fkwti. ^' ,"r`a.3 �'-t'�s� � vC.� s�ty�r-�� $ ,�{7"ti a }i`-`CL h'�c �
-, t�;- ..�` ;�v.?ki .�F.. �`"`�.,"w*,� tS'S832i�w ....�F3:.��.�,`�;h: ,r.. .P`'€'#L` .+. "iv�``,*.�i.. :,Y�'i,� .`. .ik'1. �.�' r,..'.$�,. i�t � t_r,:'�
Request for Community Support for Mpls
March 31 MASAC Straight-out Procedure
MASAC Audit Discussion/Suggestions
RM'I' Site Location Analysis
April 17 Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
Apri128 MASAC DNL Presentation by HNTB
Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC Perspectives
RMT Site Location Analysis
May 8 Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
MASAC Work Plan
May 26 MASAC RMT Site Location Presentation
ATC Airspace Presentation
Construction Update
June 12 Operations Committe� Run-Up Monitoring Update
Final MASAC RMT Analysis Update
June 23 MASAC Orientation Topics
Construction Update
July 10 Operations Committee MASAC Handbook (Draft)
EIS Procedure Brief
July 23 MASAC EIS Procedure Briefing
August 14 Operations Committee Construction Update
Review of NADP Procedures
August 25 MASAC MSP Tower Tour
NIASAC MTG in FAA Conference Room
Investigate S Use for Noise
September 11 Operations Committee �� ation
Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
Page 3
.. : f ! :'r%f.. � i'S �G i y^i'.�}.�yr 'k�{� � t� � ,'.�S S ? tx'� �. 'f ++ .. �'{' -F{L. i .. � . . . .. . .
.F.; /f1g.p� ��fa�@�����/A �- �y �� /► '/.-S�.�Jy`�'p ��•(� P � i rF" }, aM�.j�r•2xl-i .i'�"�nl��. �.P F A4. 1 ��'i'� � tur, I ,
Y �a�{r�.Y+Y4 8�fi�YVS�' �t ? '�f'�1C4s3RMJlEII�DY�Yi1I�Yg `'I3yh hr �.z.+i3Y,.�, �F'�''+"Fsa�L�K, -z'l !"� �Lt:t �-3.`�'�r� , t„a° ,`.,s ` -z � � � .
�
�.�"�'� csYu fri-v`rtr-�pf�?= �'�' �}h � �iir.,�5�,i`�P„�,rs: ?'�i;r�� � �,•• �r, ��`"� � ,s isx�tl- aaal4.aa.H�adW��i�,� s f f .� o
�-„`�� rs� ,j � xe
� ��"a ,�- � � t8'3 i7'.8� 1 ��2=„��� ., ��.'�..r`v�`..,Y t ��-�.�u....s��i r����� --� ,y� b:.)N-_�}.L �:1'a .l �:
4}`�J' j, c„�� `,�. ca�+�' }'iu �E ,�,'�a z-t 2h„ x t�..t' � "s f,'7 S d? r ? k' k r i,., i
E nti��. ,..t�m,.r _ s;., .,,�..h,. .,..�,.;.i.� 3_. �`s`^.��'intt�. r_ � �� �� � 3� � r tr.�i � alt� r-
=*; �a r�r' : -�:.�'' �-i'�.. . i" �`�S �'„�' I',��' s #..r-„�s�''",Y,.� '�A..'�'� ��-,-��'C�h?H.:i�{ .'�. �� i��tist�.:..s't��7.r" ;�t� ,� 1 rI- r z.�
September 22 MASAC Stage III Compliance Review
Review��Ni ours
October 9 Operations Committee (2 2 _23qp�
RMT Locat�on Project Review/Process Update
October 27 MASAC Orientation Topics
November 13 Operations Committee Focus Activities for Upcoming Year
December 1 MASAC Part 150 Progress Review
December 11 Operations Committee Establish Calendar for 1999
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE PROPOSED
1998 GOAi�S r�I� O�JECT�S
1. Provide f bac � � eir efforts to communicate changes in operations, due to
constru 'o s, to the rrounding communities.
2. Evaluate part ough the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor and make
any nec s s to the r vant procedures.
3. Review 1 d noise monitors. Evaluate the need and placement of
addition . o, evalua portable monitoring capabilities.
4. Request tra nel to make a presentation on how MSP operations are
conduct�i.,�
On-going Discussion Items
5. Providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory made Stage III aircraft.
6. Investigate t�ow-GPS and�other-navigational aids couid-heip alleviate aircraft noise
7. Review o compliance.
�
8. Continue Part 150 contour generation review.
Page 4
, � .
METROPOLTI'AN AIRPORTS COMIvIISSION
I��NNEAPOLIS/ST. PATJL IN'TERNATTONAL AiRPORT
WOLD-CHAMBERLIN FIELD
OFFICE OF'I� AIRPORT DIRECTOR [Date]
NOTICE TO: ALL AIl2PORT USERS
FR.OM: Airport Director, Minneapolis-St Paul Internadonal Airport
SUBJECT: FIELD RULE: AIltCRAFT ENGINE RUN-UP PROCEDURES
The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in consideration of aircraft maintenance requirements and the desire
to reduce aircraft noise, has revised its run-up procedures FIELD RIJLE.
The following new rules for maintenance run-ups aze effecrive this date, [date] and supersede all previous
Field Rules regarding this issue.
1. All run-ups must be scheduled in advance with MAC Operations by calling 726-5111 or API 65111.
The following informadon is required at the time of the request:
• Type of aircraft and aircraft tail number
• Proposed start time
o Proposed end time
• Reason for iun-up
2. Approved run up hours will be from 0600 - 2230L daily. Except for the provisions of paragraph #8,
run-ups will not be authorized during quiet hours (2230 - 0600L daily). Any engine run for any
purpose other than aircrafi movement during quiet hours will be restricted to idle power only.
3. Radio c�ntact with FAA ground control is required for approval of movement to/from a run-up area.
� Aircraft shall monitor ground control at all times during the run-up.
4. In consideration of the noise impact on neighboring communities and to prevent damage to
surrounding parlced aircraft, equipment and vehicles, nui-ups in the MA�.aun-up pad are restricted to
specific headings. If wind conditions do not allow a run-up to be conducted, the run-up should be
postponed The following headings will be used according to type/size of aircraft:
• Jet aircrafl:
o Winds less t�aan 8 kts use 300° heading
• Winds 8 kts or greater and less than 15 kts, headings clockwise 270° - 090°
o Winds greater than 15 kts, headings according to manufacturer specifications
• Prop aircraii; no restriction
In addition, road guards will be required to stop vehicular traffic on the cargo roadway immediately
west of the nui-up pad whenever the following aircraft are nuuiing full-power at the indicated
headings:
• B74'7 aircraft; headings 070° - 090°
o DC10 aircraf�; headings 045° - 090°
If wind conditions prevent the use of the MAC run-up pad during regular run-up hours and a
scheduled departure will be delayed, an altemate site 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 nui-up on runway 04 is subject to
unmediate temunation for operational needs. Run-ups on runway 04 will not be authorized during
quiet hows.
� � '
The runway 22 run-up pad is available during regular daytime hours for turboprop nui-ups if runway
22 is not an active runway; no heading resirictions. Run-ups on runway 22 will not be authorized �
during quiet hours.
Aircrafi "powerbacks" are prohibited during quiet hours.
Absolutely no nui-ups will be authorized between the hours of midnight and OSOOL daily. During
the remaining quiet houts, run-ups will only be approved by MAC Operarions if a scheduled
departure time cannot be met without the rwi-up. Documentation of the after-hours run-up must be
maintainerl by the supervisor maldng the request and such inforniadon will be made available to the
Metropolitan Airports Commission immediately upon request:
• Flight number
• Scheduled gate time
• Scheduled departure time
o Reason for after hours run-up
• Name of supervisor or manager making request
All other requirements of the field nile must still be met when requesting an after-hours run-up.
This FIELD RULE contains provisions for efficient aircrai� run-up schecluling and safety during run-up
performance with minunum noise impact on the surrounding community. It is essen6al that each company
emphasize to their aircraft maintenance employees, the need to comply with the FiELD RULE.
Tim Callister, AIRF'ORT DIRECTOR
Minneagolis-St Paul International Airport
SUPERSEDES RUN-UP FIELD RULE DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1992
C�
: I L . ;. I :. . ' �
ST.T�.�C'T:
�i��.'�:
;, ,. ', �
' • 5'
MASAC Operations Committee
Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator
NADP Compliance Assessment
October l, 1998
During the September MASAC Operations Committee, the NA.DP 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.
Although the analysis provided convincing evidence that the Close-In Procedure is fully implemented
for departures from Runways 30L and 30R, additional information from the airlines was requested. At
the October meeting, Chairman Satman will present documentation of the procedures implemented by
'��i Northwest Airlines that include how the airline implemented the close-in procedure, when the changes
� were made and documentation about the quiet EPR procedure's applicability to Stage III aircraft.
4-,
_
, L t . � ,. ` . ` ` ` ,
` ::� � �: y;1.
��:
F�tO�I:
SIT�,�+ CT:
DA�'�+ :
MASAC Operations Committee
Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator
Crossing in the Corridor Analysis
October 1, 1998
Since its conception, the crossing in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate as many
operations as possible in the center of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. Although
superficially the procedure seems logical and relatively straight forward, several variabilities must be
considered when assessing the use or non-use of the pracedure.
On March 17, 1998, a letter was forwarded to Chairman 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 perform 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 the r�eeting changes
were made to the original scope relative to input from MASAC Operations Committee mem�iers.
The Crossing in the Corridor Review will be presented as part of the October 9, 1998 MASAC
Operations Committee meeting agenda.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6328.
City of Minneapolis
Office of the Mayor
Sharon Sayles Belton
Mayor
350 South Slh Street - Room 331 S8pt8111b8T ZS, 1998
Minneapolis MN 55415-1393
Office (612) 673-2100 .
Fax 673•2305
rrY s�3-z�s� Chad E. Leqve
ANOMS Coordinator
Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Comr�ission
. 6040 2$th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 5�450
Dear Mr. Leqve:
Thank you for contactina me reQarding the sitting of iwo additional noise
monitors. After consulting with the affected Council Members, I would like to
recommend the followina locations.
l. Anthony Middle School, 5757 Irving Avenue South
2. Ericsson Elementary School, 431 � 31 st Avenue South
I have attached maps illustratina the proposed sites. Thank you for seekin� input
on this important issue. V
Sincerely,
Sharon Sayles Belton
Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Council Member Sandra Colvin Roy
Council Member Steve Minn -
www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Affirmative Action Employer
Recycled paper 3C°io post consumer waste
� I , . ' I i ,. '' .'
i.♦ 4 � :',F ,�� .' k''i e' t I
��: MASAC Operations Committee
$'' R�11'I: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
��,�' �T: City of Richfield's Ground Noise Study Review
Y�ATE' : October 1, 1998
.' ♦. - . ♦.. '.
T'he Metropolitan Airports Commission staff accepted MASAC's request to conduct a ground
noise study as a result of the visit by MAC's Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel, at the April 1998
MASAC meeting. 'I'he purpose of the study was to look at run-up noise and identify other sources
of ground noises on the airport and in the community during the nighttime hours.
Included with this months packet for your review are the comments by Jeff Hamiel at the April
MASAC meeting, minutes of the April MASAC meeting and the scope of the Run-up and Ground
f�-� �,� Noise Study submitted to the Operations Committee prior to the commencement of monitoring,
_. as well as minutes from the MASAC Operations Committee for May and June.
In April, Dawn Weitzel from the City of Richfield, contacted me inquiring about the sources of
ground noise coming from the airport. She stated on April 8, 1998, that many residents from the
city of Richfield had called the city offices to complain about long periods of aircraft noise that
seemed like engine run-up activity. Again on May 18, 1998, Ms. Weitzel relayed t.tie community's
complaints about incessant ground noise from the airport. The answers to these types of requests
for information were the impetus for conducting the ground noise study and the focus of the
monitoring efforts.
The monitoring locations were submitted to this body on May 9, 1998, along with the scope for
the study. On May 7, 1998, I contacted Ms. Weitzel to seek Richfield's approval of the monitoring
locations. Ms. Weitzel indicated no objections to the identified locations. The locations were
chosen to monitor the run-up activity, a concern of the Richfield citizens, and to gain a further
understanding of the impacts of airport ground noise in residential areas close to the airport.
As Dr. Sandy Fidell of BBN Technologies identifies in his review of the 1998 Ground Noise
Monitoring Technical StudY the report does not address the monitoring of low frequency noise in
the study nor does the report attempt to forecast the potential issues related to the construction of
Runway 17/35. 'The questions now posed by Councilwomen Stokes cannot be answered by the
data from the report, since the study, by definition and design by this body, did not include
parameters for monitoring low frequency noise spectrums or the scope of issues related to the
construction of Runway 17/35. .
.i ,i •� �i i• :� • � �.
,�.
��� Please indicate the 1998 �SAC objectives su ported by thi is equest: � �A -� —�"
�i?"L�� `�.� � i �L � %%%G�� ,�' j�7G��JL't'�.��- w' f � ���i.�,C.' � .
❑To rovide in o� to the in their e orts�f' o`
p j MAC ff o c mmunlccrte changes m operatrons, due to construction
to the surrounding cammunities.
❑ 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 additiona! remote
monitoring towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabilities. �
� Reguest Air Tra�c Control personne! to make a presentation on how MSP operations are conducted.
� Look at providing incentives to corriers in acquiring and operating factory-made Stage III aircraj?.
❑ Investigate how GPS and�other NAVAids could help alleviate aircraft noise.
❑ Review the NADPs and compliance.
��� ❑: Continue discussion of Part 1 SO contour generation. �� l,�� �/�� r�'����
�%�/..� t�l-� 6�C�� ,!%G��/`v ,f/j , u, , �
--� 1'le send your request via m�aal to: IVi�creta , 40 2�th Aver�ue �.
rY �
�Iinneapolis, M.1V 5545D or farx dt to :(612) 725-6� 10.
scaff
Request #:
Staff Contact:
Date Received:
Is this a Phone Or Written Request?
Approved By:
Approval Date:
Data Availability:
Monitoring Start Date:
Monitoring Stop Date:
Analysis S[art Date:
Analysis Stop Date:
Compietion Date:
2
�
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Memorandum
DATE: September 22, 1998
TO: MASAC Members
FROM: �jKristal Stokes, Richfieid City Council Member and MASAC Member
SUBJECT: Richfield's Review of MAC's "1998 Ground Noise Monitoring
Technicai Study"
On March 10 and April 9, 1998 the City of Richfieid sent Mr. JefF Hamie! lette�s
expressing concem about the high number of complaint cails the City had been
receiving regarding ground level noise. in April alone, the City fieided 98 phone calis
strict)y deaiing with noise from run-ups, maintenance activities, testing of engines, and
idiing of aircraft for hours at a time. MAC staff, particularly Ray Fuhrmann, was helpfui
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 additionai information for two reasons. First, to identify
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 level noise issues to help 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 ��:ie�itions of MAC, the information contained in the finaJ-�ep.ort was
ciearly not targeted ta 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 disc�assed, and the manner of presentation of information in the
report of ground noise hao little information for an informed discussion of issues of
interest to the City ofi Richfield. While we realize that many other cities have little ar 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 useful
then that we a)1 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
praposed solutions are not meaningful.
September 22, 1998 - -
Page 2 „ ;,
We've attached for your review a review of the report by noise consultant. (
We ask for MASAC to support the following actions:
• The report shouid be referred back to MAC for revisions in the areas noted in the
BBN response, including measurement methods and metrics, relationship 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
probiems identified within the revised report.
• MASAC should convene a discussion of the praposed recommendaiions 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 thai the
information provided to 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
i
c
• ._ ,,.
, , � �3 -.
•`' � � ' -
r 1
E • � � z z t
4 ,... _ , .
. ..
• , _ ;� x � .�}, � �; �,, '.. .
� :a . �
s ' i •l 4 y . �; k ~` .... 4 x t 9
.
t. � ..,� ��..1 � � �� � S.
... . .. . ._. . .. . .
. � ... �. t. i ... • � � ; .. .'. .
� � .: .
.,� � �'r ` �.,. •. •.. ,
� . . � ` ;. • e � ... -
�
' ,!
.�. 5� y • ,� •� � � � � •. ' ' , � •
�
(818) 226-0323
.� � � ; ; � �.�, i . � �, �.
� ' . � � �', � , � ,
These comments review an undated report submitted by Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, manager of
MAC's Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs, to the Metropolitan Airports Commission ar�d the
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council. Authorship'ofthe rep��' rt 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 firm of.
HM�I). The report is referred to henceforth as the "ground noise study."
, ., � ., ',, � , i: - �.! ; ' �';� ! _ �: ; ; � �•, ,;
r ,
�'
The ground noise study contains four numbered text sections, five appendices, glossaries of
terms and acronyms, and references.
' � i; ', •' I
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 i.nstnimentation, and a map showing the location �� -
of short-terrn monitoring sites. It lacks any summary ta.bles or graphics, or discussion of findings.
1.2 SECT'ION 2: I)ATA �1AL�'SIS �ID �S�T'S
This section contains various ta.bles and maps (but no other charts or technical graphics).
Descriptions of technical aspects of the study aze sometimes cursory or gazbled.l
1.2.1 Section 2.4: Monitored Airport Noise Events at ,Airport Sites
Two ta.bles surr•���zing measurements of various aircrat'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 ta�ciing operations and monitored at some locations
may not differ greatly from sound levels produced by ground run-ups.
The section alsa includes the following three-sentence rationale for measurement and
reporting of A- and C-vveighted aircraf� 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 appmximately the 1,000 Hz to 5,000 Hz frequency
1 e.g., Section 2.1, page 9, "The averaging was accomplished by using an arithmeric method of the sound level � '
decibel value in decibels:' �
d
range. This study focuses on the A-weighted monitorcd noise levels since the Federal Aviation
Administrarion has developed guidelines for mitigation thr�oughout these frequencies and best
approximates the human ear's frequency range. The C-weighted 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 C-weighted metric."
This rationale is worth a closer exami.nation 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 alsa an absolute sound pressure level.
The A-, B- and C-weighting networks were developed initiallyto permit appropriate characterization
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 that should affect selection of a freguency weighting
network for current purposes. In the present context, the audibilify, noisiness and annoyance of
sounds, as well as the need to consider structural responses of residences to low-frequency aircraft
noise, also require considera.tion.
The seemi.ng (but unstated) basis foi 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 truiy we
controlling purpose of the ground noise study, however, greater care would have been taken to
measure noise in a manner that could ha.ve permitted calculation of add.itional noise metrics more
closely linked than A-levels to audibility and annoyance? Furthermore, because A-weighted
measurements are higbly insensitive to sound at frequencies tha.t can lead to rattiing noises inside
homes, it can be argued with equal force that A-weighted measurements aze highly inappropriate
for purposes of predicting residential annoyance with low-frequency aircra.ft 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 rationale of the prior sentence. The fact that FAA has made l�own 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. FA.A regulations explicitly subordinate
the agency's policy preferences, expressed as generic "land use compatibility" guidelines, to those
z One way that this could have been accomplished would have been to design the study to focus daza collection on
broadband recordings of noise events, rather than on routine, relatively inexpensive automated mea�urements of time series
of noise levels.
� Since aircraft overflight noise generally reaches resideniial neighborhoads via air-to-ground paths, atrnospheric
absorption is usually responsible for most fi-equency-specific pmpagation losses. Runway sideline noise ofttn rcaches
residences in the vicinity of airports via paths that further attenuate high-frequency noise thmugh ground impedance effecis,
thus increasing the relatave low-frequency content of noise produced 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 near runways. Aircraft ground operation noise is characteristically described in
complainu as a dull, rurnbling sound with a slow onset time. Aircnf� ground noise may be distinctively audible at
considerable distances from airports, particularly az night, when less masked by other urban noise sources.
�
/
of local zoning authorities. MAC is not required in any event to pay for its noise-related liabilities
with federal funds oniy.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 Noise 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) aze nat directly relevant to
prediction of the rattling noises that engine run-ups may produce inside residences in eastem
Richfield.
�° : 1. �' �.. �. : •
This short section describes and interprets the findings of appazentiy informal interviews with
tt�ree airlines. The text of the section describes the inotivation for ground run-ugs, the inability of
airlines to control or schedule them, the necessity to point aircraft into the wi.nd when conducting
nui-ups, and the ai.rlines' preferences for measures (e.g., improved run-up pad Iighting) that could
encourage the conduct of even more ground run-ups. �
.; � . � ._ ; ; � - - 1 ' , � ;1,, I, 1 - � . .� , , _
1.4.1 Conclusions
The report draws ten conclusions from the measurements of the ground noise study. Most
of them aze only tangentially relevant to Richfield's concerns about noise impacts from operations
on Proposed Runway 17/35. None of them is particularly pertinent to assessment of potential
low-frequency noise effects.
1.4.1.1 Conclusiort 1
The first conclusion indicates that aircraf� takeoffs are currently the "predominant" noise
source a� measureme�t nositions on airport property and in eastern Richfield. It cannot be
determined from this observation whether departure noise will continue to domina.te the noise
exposure of eastem Richfield if and when operations on proposed Runway 1? create low-frequency
sideline noise. It is also not cleaz from this observation how faz west of Proposed Runway 17 such
noise will be audible, annoyi.ng, or capable of exciting secondary emissions in residences.
1.41.2 Conclresion 2
The second conclusion identifies noise from aircraft taxiing as respansible for nearly a
quarter of the discrete noise events measured during the study. The report provides little basis for
4 Although airgort authorities somerimes argue that federai reb lation prohibits diversion of airport revenues for � '
unrelated purposes, noise mitigation is a fully recomized and approved use of locally-genezated airport funds.
� __
applying this information to noise from future taxiways. Subsequent conclusions confirm that other
aircrafi noise sources (auxiliary power units and thrust reversal) make fiu ther contributions to aircraft
ground noise in Richfield. The report does not indicate how many such noise events and what noise
levels ma.y be produced by future operations of an airport with a modified runway layout and
operating patterns.
1.� 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 duratian, at least a mile away from its point of application.
1.4.1.4 Conclusion S
This lengthy conclusion indicates that noise produced by aircra.ft iiuring 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 lazge numbers of azrival and departure operations occur on various
runways. The conclusion also notes that such aircraft noise is readily audible in Richfield,
particularly at night, regardless of runway usage.
1.4.1.5 Conclusion 6
This conclusion notes that neazly 200 discrete run-up noise events occ�rred during the
relatively brief (per Section 1.3.3) period of the ground noise study. This suggests tha.t 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
mi.nutes each — although 16% may occur between 5:00 AM and 7:00 AM.
1.4.1.6 Conclusiore 7
Conclusion 7 concerns calculated values of time-averaged, A-weighted sound levels for the
few days during which noise measurements were made.s Long-term, average A-weighted sound
levels have Iittle to do with annoyance due to ratde or vibration produced by discrete aircraft noise
events.
1.4.I.7 Conclusion g
Conclusion 8 appears intended to reinforce the rationale of Section 2.4 (see above). In
essence, the conclusion argues that A-weighte� measurements should be preferred to C-weighted
measurements 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 in measurements.
' Airport administrations often dismiss such calculations (when made by others) as uninformative or uninterpretable
because they may be unrepresentarive of annual conditions.
4
The relative variability in A-weighted and C-weighted aircraft 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 that is insensitive to
low-frequency energy is elected to measure noise sources that differ considerably in low-frequency
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 aze 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.
1.41.8 Conclusion 9
This 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 Concltasinn IO
Conclusion 10 notes the confusability of ground noise sources with noise produced by neaz-
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 conceraing engine mai.ntenance run-ups. The second recommendation 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 conclusians of the report. Much of the mathema.tical detail is
gratuitous and may unnecessarily intimida.te 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 esca� u:�ntion.
I � '.' . 1. � 1,
a he ta.bles and figures of this Appendir. contain 32 tables and 1$ charts summarizi.ng raw
data. Apart from the captions of the charts (nnne is provided for the tables), this mass of information
is unaccompanied by explanatory or intespretive text. The. information is azguably useful for
" The effecu of wind gusu 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 pracedures, and
post-processing. Elaborate measures with which MSP's noise consultants are familiar have been taken in other field ,
measurement prograins to control such artifacts of ineasurement: �,,
S
documenti.ng a subset of the i.nformation collected during the ground noise study, although the time
history charts lack C-weighted information.
� , . .. �. ; � � ,�
Appendix C contai.ns 53 pages of weather reports and runway use logs. Appendix D presents
another 32 pages of opera.tional 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.
, , . , ; �, ;�, ; ,, � ',, ;�, . ,�. ; :�; • , :� ,..
.
This short appendix documents the settings of one automated noise monitoring inst�ument
at one site on one day of the measurement program.
� ;� . , •
The Glossary contains an assortment 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, i.n American National Standard Sl. l-1994
Acoustical Terminology.
t� . ''
� .:
(� ) The emphasis of MAC's ground noise study is misplaced with regazd to Richfield's concerns
- for assessment of the needs for mitigation of low-frequency runway sideline noise. The following
are among the inadequacies of an aircraft ground noise study intended to address Richfield's
concems for evaluati.ng needs for mitigation of low-frequency runway sideline noise.
;� . �; °,� :� � ;�; ;�; i�1 :.�
The bulk of the measurements collected in MAC's studies are derived from routine
measurements made at twelve automated and unattended noise monitori.ng sites (eight million
records, ��cording to the report of the ground noise study). Measurements of this type have no direct
bearing on analyses o� ci�e low-frequency spectral content of particulaz interest for present purposes.
�. ' �� i!: ,' ,�, `!; � '` ;�; � �- ,�,
�•• :�, •�
The report of the ground noise study makes no effort to extrapolate from current to future
conditions, or to otherwise predi�t anticipata.ble futwre noise impacts.
Figure 1 shows the poi.nts at which the C-weighted and A-weighted aircraft noise events were
monitored in MA.C's 199� graund 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
�
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 Praposed Runway 17, the
measurement sites yield little informarion about potential runway sideline noise in Richfield.
1 0 1 2 Miks
� ,,.� �A �,,....� �.,..., s...
N».-°^,
N
W E
S
Figure 1 Points at which C- and A-weighted aircrafi noise events were monitored in MAC's 1998
ground noise study. �
2.3 �t�4PPRC)�°�T'E F'�Q�TENCI' '6�EIG�ITII�TG P�20CED�S
Although some C-weighted time series measurem�nts were made during the ground noise
study, they receive short shrift in the report of the study. For example, the contention in Conclusion
$(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 misleadi.ngly limited. Useful efforts to assess
noise impacts associated with low-frequency runway sideline noise are even better served by
measurements of nois�- ie�zls in discrete one-third octave band levels at frequencies below 100 Hz.
, �; ; , . 1, , . ,�; , 1� ,
The report contains for tne most part summary and highly processed informa.tion, prese.:.�d
in a manner that permits only scant opportunity for independent analyses and verification of findings.
The report presents no detailed spectraiinformatioII�that could be used to predict audibility ranges
of low-frequency aircraft noise from present or future airport operations. 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 (rattling sounds) in Richfield residences.
7
1 0 1 2 Mibs
ar .
� TnmoosauornorLaucm�
NN�w Ru+..�Y
N
W E
S
Figure 2 Transpasition of ineasurement points from their positions with respect to Runway 22 to their
positions with respect to Proposed Runway 17 at N9SP.
Jeff Hat�iel'� �4pril 28, 1998 Comrr�ents io NIASl�C
After explaining that Bob had asked Jeff to give MASAC more noise related assignments,
Jeff said:
I would suggest that one place, or one avenue, where there might be an
oppo�tunity and was brought up eariier this evening and was in my notes,
and in fact I talked with Bob about it earlier today when I discussed
tonight's meeting, that we might find it very, very beneficial to more
formalize this whole business of run up noise and nighttime noise activity
on the airport between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
I am well aware that the city of Richfield... In fact Jim Prosser, City
Manager, sent me a letter, which incorporated all of the complaints he has
received this year from the activities. Our own complaint line does not
reflect similar numbers of calls and so forth but does identify concems by
citizens relating to nighttime activities. The real question is is it nighttime
run up noise? Roy has kind of talked wi�h me a little bit about some of the
work he is doing right now and some of the things that he has seen. While
that's good data, I think we need to formalize it a bit more and I think we
need to bring it to the full commission after MASAC has the chance to take
a look at it.
But there is also a lot of other adivity that goes on each night at the airport.
For example, APUs and GPUs (ground. power units) and so forth are
n�nning while aircraft are on the ground as an eledrical power source for
airplanes are in the gate.
[Diversion to story about how noise can act strangely.]
So when we talk about nighttime noise I remember that story. And I will
never forget it because it was a real lesson in what noise can do. I think
that things like aircraft engines idling or aircraft taxiing on the surface and
other mechanical equipment that is operating can in fact create noise that
doesn't sound bad at all when you are sitting in the run up pad or when
you are sitting in the terminal complex or when you are sitting out on the
field at the intersection of, say, 4/22 and 30. But if you went into the
neighborhood two or three blocks, or even six blocks, all of the sudden
you'd find that you have more noise than what you actually have on the
airfield itself. So I think it is worth our while to take a... look, in a more
formal manner, at run up noise and run up histories and the general noise
environment - that is the ambient noise on airport versus ambient noise in
the residential community. And there is a big difference, I think. And take
a look at what activities are happening at the airport at night. Because I
have hearc! just in the_ brief time that-I have been- here this evening, not
only Dawn [Weitzel], but I think other people have mentioned that there
seems to be some activity going on, and our own noise folks receive those
complaints. And I would like to ask MASAC to take a look at and examine
having the staff, or a consultant if you have concems about the integrity of
the staff, to take a look and see what actually is going [on] through a
survey or some sort of an analysis. I say it that way because ... I
remember when I used to sit in that seat....
In any event I think there needs to be kind of an awareness. And, I think,
as summer approaches, it would be a very good time to do, 1 think, a pretty
intense, concentrated study. And I think MASAC could heip understand �
the issue themselves, and 1 think the Commission is going to hear more
about this and they would like to have some staff work done or some
consuttant work done as well. What 1'd like to ask is that be considered by
this group as an effort, as a task.
One caution. As we are on the verge of summer, this can't take 6 months.
... We need to have some work done, I think, in a fairly short period and
intense period of time. Bui we need to have enough time to get typical
survey data that we are comfortable with. And 1 am thinking in terms of a
30 or 60 day analysis brought back for review through the Operations
Committee, possibly, of MASAC and brought to this body for some sort of
recommendation up to the full Commission.
C
1
MINUTES
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GENERAL M[EETING
April 28, 1998
7:30 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
1Vlinneapolis,lVlinnesota
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
7ennifer Sayre
Steve Holme
Dick Keinz
Brian Bates
St. Paul Chamber of Commerce
Steve Minn
Glenn Strand
Dean Lindberg
Neil Clark
Dick Saunders
Sandra Colvin Roy
Mike Cramer
Joe Lee
Tom Hueg
Kristal Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
Duane Hudson
Jon Hohenstein
Lance Staricha
Ed Porter
Dale Hammons
Kevin Batchelder
Jill Smith
Manny Camilon
Sunfish Lake
Advisors
Roy Fuhrmann
Chad Leqve
Cindy Greene
1
MBA.A
NWA
NWA
NWA
MAC
Airborne
Rolf Middleton
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis � �
St. Paul
Richfield
Richfield
Bloomington
Eagan
Eagan
Burnsville
Inver Grove Heights
Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights
St. Louis Park
Glenda. Spiotta
MAC
MAC
FAA
April"1998 ��
is complete.
� �.
➢ Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, said she had received 80 airport-related noise complaints at her office. Roy
Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff had not been able to correlate the ground noise complaints
with activity on the field. He noted that run ups are prohibiterl between 12 a.m. and 5 a.m. and that the
_.. run-up logs from the operaxions departments showed there had not been any during this time frame.
Mr. Fuhnriann said, though, that nui ups were allowed during the 10:30 p.m. to 12 a.m. time period.
Ms. Weitzel said the City of Richfield would like to request staff monitor for ground noise. Mr.
Fulumann said it could be possible that the residents are experiencing a difference in noise due to the
shift in where aircraft are taking off on the south parallel runway.
➢ Joe Lee, Minneapolis, asked sta.ff to determine how many additional night flights occuned during the
10:30 to 11:00 timeframe due to both the reconstruction of the south parallel (sprea.ding out of flights)
and the cha.nge in nighttirne reporting hours.
➢ Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked if the reconstruction plans for the south parallel runway had included
a provision to allow flights to occur later in the evening in order to limit congestion during the day.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, explained that the reconstruction plans had been completed before
the designated nighttime hours were changed from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. He also said airlines were
not prohibited frorn operating after 10:30, but that the Volunta.ry Nighttime Agreement with most of
the commercial airlines requested they not schedule passenger flights past 10:30 p.m. and, if it was
necessary, that they use only Stage III airplanes.
➢ Ed porter, Burnsville, asked staffto eliminate the water areas on the complaint map:
5. Minneapolis Strai�ht Out Anal�is Request for Community Support
Cha.irnian Johnson thanked the City of Eagan for submitting a letter to MASAC in support of the
Miuneapolis Straight-out Procedure and said it would be included in the EA report package to the FAA..
Chairn�an Johnson also asked the representatives of Minnea.polis if the council could expect a letter from
the City of Minneapolis. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, said a letter of support would be forthcoming within
the next two weeks.
6. Operations Committee Appointments
Cha.irman Johnson announced his appointrnents to the Operations Committee. The only change in the
committee was the appointing of Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, to replace Jim Serrin.
7. Noise Contour Generation and DNL Development (I-II�ITB�
Evan Futterman, HNTB, gave a presentation on DNL and Noise Contour Development.
➢ DNL is a noise metric that represents the accumulation of all the noise over the course of a single da.y
with a given noise level.
9 The model reflects the fact that people are more annoyed with noise at night so it gives night flights a
l Odb penalty (DNL is calculated using 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for the night hours).
9 DNL can be expresseri in many ways, but airports typically express them in noise contours.
➢ DNL is a national standard adopted by most federal agencies and continues to be used and endorsed.
C
April 1998
are the best indicators of changes i� the number of noise complaints.
Two contours have been developed for Minneapolis for 2005. One has the baseline of 2-3% growth a year
and the other is for the high forecast of 4% per year.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota. Heights, asked if the 2005 contour includes the number of hushkitted aircraft
that will be operating out of MSP in the future. Mr. Futterman said that it did.
Jon Hohenstein, Eagan, asked if the Schultz curve would be re-addressed after there is an all Stage IiI fleet.
Mr. Futterman said that FICAN had done the most recent analysis and found that the Schultz curve was
still valid. He said that it ma.y be possible that once the Stage II aircraft are no longer being used, that
people's levels of annoyance will change.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked if the "C" weighted noise levels could be addressed within the Schultz
curve. Mr. Futterman said that there were no federal criteria to measure low frequency noise. He said that
aircraft manufacturers have made aircraft quieter by moving the threshold of noise from high to low
frequency levels. Mr. Futterman said low frequency noise has not been treated as a separate noise category
but has been included in aircraft noise levels as a whole.
Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked if the INM was accepted as the industry standard. Mr. Futterman said
that the FAA and the EPA have identified the INM as the appropriate way to model noise. He said
contours can be compazerl with monitored noise levels, but the FAA shies away from using monitored noise
data in contour generation because there are so many variables.
i r ) Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked how the FAA-approved 1996 DNL contour cunently being used for the
��' Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Progiam compares with the 1996 actual contour. Mr. Futterman
said the iwo contours were very different. He said it was mainly because runway 04/22 is not being used in
the manner in which it was believed it would be. He said in 1992 it was predicted that by 1996, 19% of the
traffic would be using runway 04/22. Yet, it is cunently being used for only 2% of the traffic.
Mr. Strand said he was concerned with the insulation program using such an outdated contour. Mr.
Futterman said those residents that are in both the 1996 and the 2005 contour would be given priority over
those who are in neither and that those residents in the 1996 contour will be insulated before anyone in the
new contour is.
Jill Smith, Mendota. Heights, asked why the Metropolitan Council's noise contour was considerably larger
than the MAC's for future planning. Mr. Futterman said he was aware of the Met Council's noise contour
map from the 1970's that was based on the worst case scenario but thought their newest map was based on
the MAC's process. Ms. Smith said their most recent was the map she was speaking of. Mr. Futterman
said he had no lrnowledge of a different map but that someone could investigate it.
JeffHamiel MAC Executive Director
Mr. Hamiel advised MASAC to formally analyze nighttime noise levels at the airport. He said an
ana.lysis should include a comparison of ambient noise on the airfield and ambient noise in the
communities, since what is heard on the airfield can be different than what is hea.rd in the communities.
He cautioned members, as well, to perform the necessary work and make the necessary
C
, ; / �, . � .'` .:
�'� :
I'RONI:
SI.TB,�CT:
D1�TE+ :
�' ���- , ;� `'��
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
Runup and Ground Noise Study Review
May 8, 1998
�
The Metropolitan Airports Commission uses many methods to minimize the effects aircraft
operations have on neighboring residents surrounding the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport. One of these methods is the use of an airport Field Rule that establishes procedures for
aircraft engine run-ups. These procedures were developed in 1976 to address the increasing
frequency of maintenance run-ups and the importance of these operations, relative to the overall
noise environment at MSP.
(� ) Occasionally, these guidelines need to be reevaluated to modify or verify the effectiveness of the
- established procedures. T'he scope of this work will include five basic elements: Monitoring and
Data collection; Contour generation; Data analysis; Evaluation of existing procedures; and
Recommendations. The goal of this study is to determine the ground and runup noise sources and
their associated monitored impacts.
Moniioring and Data collecflon
� Monitor operations in the maintenance run-up area of selected aircraft at various
locations in the airport operations area during both daytime and nighttime hours.
�- Monitor areas adjacent to Runway 04 when and where engine run-up activities are
conducted.
�- Monitor areas adjacent to the airport in the nearest residential area to the runup pad,
while monitoring the same aircraft activities on the airport.
�#- Identify potential ground noise impacts, such as taxiing aircraft, APU, GPU, engine
start, start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust activities.
Contour Ceneration
�- Development of individual run-up noise contours in dBA for 727-200, 727-200H,
DC9-30, DC9-30H, DC10, B757 and A320.
T�ata Analysis
�3- Analysis of the data to determine the effect of conducting aircraft maintenance run-
ups with varying headings.
�- Produce graphs, tables and charts that support and summarize the monitored data
Evaluation of existing procedures
�#- Evaluation of various aircraft headings and the promulgation of noise throughout the �
monitoring locations.
Airline Survey of M[aintenance Itequirements
�i�- Conduct a survey with aircraft operators that routinely use the run-up pad to deter-
mine maintenance run-up requirements, including when, why, where and how long
the run-ups are required.
�- Determine the impact various restrictions may have on overall airport operations.
Recommendations
�#- Provide recommendations and options for revising the Engine run-up procedures that
will minimize the effect of aircraft noise in neighboring communities while meeting
the engine run-up requirements of the airlines.
Evaluation of the above procedures will enable a complete analysis of the most effective and
operationally efficient methods to conduct engine run-ups while minimizing the noise impact on
the surrounding communities.
Initial monitoring activity, data collection, nighttime run-up log evaluation and coordination
activities with the airline maintenance personnel and MAC operations department can be
accomplished by our office. Contour generation, data. analysis, evaluation and recommendations
may best be served by external consultants for objectivity purposes. (�
Page 11
___
. � � �, � � �.. �,
•; � ..�
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission West Terminal Buiiding
North Star Conference Room, and called to order at 10:05 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members:
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
John Nelson - Bioomington
Kevin Batchelder — Mendota Heights
Lance Staricha — Eagan
Dick Keinz - MAC
Ron Johnson - ALPA
Advisorv•
Roy Fuhrmann - MAC
Chad �eqve - MAC
Kay Hatlestad - MAC
Ron Glaub - FAA NWA CMO
Cindy Greene - FAA
Visitors•
Jan DelCalzo
GI�'►(� :
RIV�T SITE LOCATIUIV ANALYSIS
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said staff narrowed down the possible areas for the proposed
additional 5 RMT sites and provided maps of these areas. He noted that in Minneapolis
and Richfield the RMT buffer zones were located in residential areas. The RMTs to the
southeast in Mendota Heights and Eagan, on the other hand, were located in non-
residential areas. After showing possible altemative residential sites for these RMTs, he
said the committee would need to decide whether ihese sites should be located to capture
the maximum number of flights (as was done for the initial analysis) or in a nearby
residential area. He said moving the RMT sites- to residential ��areas would increase the
number of flights passing through only one RMT buffer zone.
the procedure was not used.
It was decided the proposed analysis should be changed as foilows:
May 8, 1998
�/
1. The hours of study will be beiween 23:00 and 06:00 weekdays to ensure there is only
one local controiler on duty during the hours of analysis, which is a prerequisite for
being able to use the procedure.
2. Staff and the FAA wilf provide a list of variables describing the conditions affecting when
the procedure can and cannot be used far a better understanding of how often the right
conditions occur. .
3. The period of study will be a 6-month period prior to the start of the present construction
season and a 6-month period after construction completion because of the changes in
the operations at the airport during this time.
4. The analysis will not include information from the tower on why the procedure is not
used for specific departures.
JOHN NELSON, MOVED, AND KEVIN BATCHEDLER, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT THE
PROPOSED ANALYSIS WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO BE PERFORMED FOR TWO 6-
MONTH PERIODS, ONE COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 1998 AND THE OTHER
OCTOBER 1997 THROUGH MARCH 1998 FOR THE HOURS OF 23:00 TO 06:00. THE
VOTE WAS UIVANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED.
�, •
It was agreed to postpone the start of the analysis until September 1998.
FORMALIZE THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE'S WORK PLAN FOR 1998
After much discussion and debate, the Operations Committee approved the attached work
plan outline for 1998.
Cindy Greene, FAA, suggested that an orientation session be given regarding the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. This item was added to the list of
Operations Committee abjectives for 1998, as well.
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, also added the run up and ground noise study to the work plan. Mr.
Fuhrmann also said that staff had been working on a MASAC handbook and would like to
have the opportunity at various MASAC meetings to brief each tapic separately.
Robert Johnson, MBAA, suggested MASAC review the MASAC Assessment in order to
determine what has � been accomplished; what is being -worked on and what needs to be
done.
JOHN IUELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS,
SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REVISED OPERATIONS COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES
4
MA SA C COI'�I.AT IONS C 011�MI T�'E E
11�ElVICJ I�I)LTIYI ti�sAc
T�.): - MASAC Operadons Committee
FRONI: Chad Leqve, A�.'vOMS Coordinator
SUB,jECT: Airport Ground Noise Study
DATE: Tune 5, 1998
At the April 1998 MASAC mertinQ a Airpon Ground tioise Study was initiated in �n er"fort ro
determine the sources of �ound noise on the airpon and the resultant imnacts ot sucn opera�ions on
the surroundin� communities. Since that meetin� a period of substantial data acquisicion was
accomplished and the preliminary mechodolo�y was developed.
The Airport Ground Noise Study is in the analysis phase and approximately 1/3 complete. As stated at
the May 1998 MASAC meeting the monitoring is complete and the various sources of data have been
�/ � coilected. Data analysis and report generation will comprise the next phase of the study. The
� completed report will be presented at the July 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting followed
by the July 1998 MASAC meetin�.
A report update will be provided by staff at the June 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meetin�.
If you have any questions or comments please con[act me at 725-6328.
MINl11'ES
' \' MASAC OPERATIONS CC?Mi1111TTEE
JUNE '�2, '�998
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission West Terminal Building
North Star Conference Room, and calied to order at 10:00 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members•
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
John Nelson - Bloomington
Kevin Batchelder — Mendota Heights
Jon Hohenstein - Eagan
Dick Keinz - MAC
Dick Saunders - Minneapolis
Advisorv'
Chad Leqve - MAC
Kay Hatlestad - MAC
Ron Glaub - FAA NWA CMO
Cindy Greene - FAA
Visitors:
Bob Kirmis— Eagan
: � :
RtI�T SITE LOCATIOAI AMALYSIS V�RAP UP
Chad Leqve, MAC, said this item was initially put on the agenda in the event MASAC sent it
back to the committee. He said if there were any further questions or comments, he could
address them.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked staff to clarify what steps would need to be taken in order
to continue the process of purchasing and mounting the RMTs.
Dick Keinz, MAC, said the budget request was currently in the CIP and that the CIP would
have to be approved by the Commission. Once the CIP is approved, staff will proceed with
1
purchasing and installing the RMTs.
A/RPORT GROUND NOISE STUDY UPDATE
Chad Leqve, MAC, said all of the data acquisition has been compieted for the study and
that staff was on schedule to have a report availabie at the July Operations meeting.
Mr. Leqve gave a brief overview of the study.
➢ There were six sites selected to be monitored: fwo on the airport, two east of Cedar
Avenue and finro west of Cedar Avenue.
➢ Seven full days of data have been acquired.
➢ The sites west of Cedar Avenue were in Christian Park and at 16'h Avenue.
➢ Two of the monitors were manned during the evening hours: one on airport and one in
the community.
➢ Whenever possible, the person on the airFiefd recorded all operations on the field,
including the heading of aircraft during run-ups.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked staff what types of ineasurements had been taken. Kay
Hatlestad, MAC, said both A and C noise weightings had been monitored.
Mr. Nelson also asked how the data would be reported (i.e. noise metric). Chad Leqve,
MAC, said staff hadn't made a final decision at this point.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked how staff was distinguishing the noise associated with E._
different types of operations. Chad Leqve, MAC, said the monitors recorded continuously
and the person on the field recorded the various operations as they happened.
Mr. Leqve also reiterated that the study was not a low frequency noise study but nighttime
ground noise study.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked if it was possible that ground operations would change
because of the results of the analysis. Chad Leqve, MAC, said the Operations Committee
would have to discuss the results and, if at that point specific issues are identified, solutions
could be discussed.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked what the schedule was for the report to be corr�pleted.
Chad Leqve, MAC, said the report would be completed by the July Operations Committee
meeting.
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked what frequencies the monitors are able to pick up. Kay
Hatlestad, MAC, said the monitors are able to�measure-'A'-weightiFlg and'C' weighting and
that the C weighting picks up more of the low frequencies. She said if the difference
between the 'A' weighting and the 'C' weighting was more than 5 decibels, it could be
assumed that the low frequency noise was significant.
C
2
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about a low frequency noise study he had dated April
7 1997 and asked (1) if it had been done by the noise staff and (2) if the data could be used
in the study. Dick Keinz, MAC, said the noise staff had not been involved with any low
frequency noise study, and that it was probably part of the EIS for the north/south runway.
Chad Leqve, MAC, said he didn't believe staff would need additional data for the study. He
said the data already gathered was very robust. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if staff
had done any research into noise studies at other airports. Mr. Leqve said staff had
consulted some studies to do research on methodologies. He said, though, that staff did
not believe it was appropriate to apply the findings at other airports to MSP.
Kay Hatlestad, MAC, said contours for run ups were also being generated in orde� to
compare them to the monitored data.
Chad Leqve, MAC, said in addition to the contours, the report would include interviews with
the carriers and their maintenance crews as to their run up procedures and what their needs
are.
CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
Chad Leqve, MAC, said the construction project for the south parallel runway was going
well. He said the project was in its 9'h week and that June 15'� is the projected start date for
the first layer of concrete to be laid. He noted that the contractors had only lost 3 days and
that the project was on track to be completed by mid-August.
Mr. �eqve then referred to the weekly a�erations updates that had been included in the
packet. He used the week of April 13-19 h as an example noting that the departures off of
runway 22 were within the predicted range of 100-170 operations. He said departure
operations off of runway 22 ranged from mid 20% to mid 30%.
Chairman Salmen said NWA's pilot acceptance of the shortened raanway had been generally
good. He also noted that with the increase in temperatures, fewer jet aircraft would be able
to use the shortened runway for departures. He said in wet conditions, 727's can't land on
the sho�tened runway, as well.
Chad Leqve, MAC, said staff would continue to update the web site with weekly operational
information.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked staff if it would be possible to brief representatives on
ANOMS and how it works. He asked if it would be possible for the ANOMS computer to be
set up at one of the meetings. Ghad Leqve, MAC, said a full briefing on ANOMS was on the
agenda for the June 23, 1998 MASAC meeting. There was a brief discussion about
possibly setting up a computer in the MASAC room or-having interested representatives iour
the noise office on the same day that the tower tour is scheduled.
Ron Glaub, FAA, asked about the significant difference in operations off runway 22
between the week of May 7`h and the week of April 27'h. He asked staff if they had identified
3
C
, , �. •, •° •"
i `••:
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airpo►ts Commission MASAC Conference Room,
and called to order at 10:00 a.m.
The following members were in� attendance:
Members:
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Ron Johnson - ALPA
Brian Bates - Airbome
Bob Kirmis - Eagan
Dick Keinz - MAC
Dick Saunders - Minneapolis
1Vlayor Cha►ies Mertensotto - Mendota Heights
Advisorv:
Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Advisory
�`� Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory
�/ � Shane VanderVoort - MAC Advisory
Cindy Greene - FAA
Visitars:
Duane Hudson - Bloomington
Wiil Eginton - IGH
Neil Clark - Minneapolis MASAC Member
Jennifer Sayre - NWA MASAC Member
Mark Ryan - MAC Airport Planner
Glenn Orcutt - FAA
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
�i�t1-T!:
DRAFT' AIRPORT GRDUND NOISE STUDY UPDATE
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the draft Airport Ground Noise report has been
delayed for approximately one month. He said fu�ther analysis is needed in order to provide
the best possible representation of the data. He said staff is also waiting on information
,�>
regarding some of the recommendations associated with the study. He said staff plans to
have the report ready by the August 1998 Operations mesting. � '
EIS BRIEFING
Chairman Salmen said the EIS briefing was part of an on-going effort to provide information
on pertinent topics to the committee and the MASAC body as a whole. He introduced Mark
Ryan, MAC, and Glenn Orcutt, FAA, as the presenters.
Mark Ryan, MAC, reviewed the handout, E/S Process, included in the package. Some
pertinent points follow:
. The process is quite complex, more than depicted on the graphic. It can take anywhere
from 3 months to 3 years to complete, depending on the nature of the project.
. Any project done in the state of Minnesota starts with an Environmental Assessment
Wor{csheet (EAV1/). This is a checklist for identifying a project's possible environmental
affects. �
. The process is govemed by the state Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
. The EAW is mandatory for runway projects that are (ess than 5000 feet, runway
extensions that would allow use by aircraft that generate more than a 3 dba increase, .
and any project that is included in MAC's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), inciuding
expansion of any facility for passengers, cargo, vehicies or constn.iction on any runway.
. The EQB, over a 30-day period, will circulate the EAW to the appropriate. state
agencies, as well as through the public by publishing it in the EQB Monitor.
. Once the EAW has been reviewed by the appropriate agencies, the EQB works with �
MAC (or the appropriate state agency) to identify and respond to any questions and will
then make a determination of whether an Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) is
needed. Once the decision is made, it is published in the EQB monitor.
. If a state EIS is required, a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) is likely to be
needed. Once the EA is complete, a decision is made whether or not a full EIS is
required.
. If a federal EIS is not required, a federal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) may
be issued. Otherwise, a full state and federal EIS is begun.
Glenn Orcutt, FAA, thanked the staff and the committee for inviting him to the meeting to
speak about the EIS process. Mr. Orcutt said understanding the process will help members
have realistic expectations as to the time it takes to complete the process. (A handout was
distributed at this point.)
Mr. Orcutt said the EA identifies the people who need to be involved in the process. The
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires the FAA to analyze protected
environmental impacts and involve interested parties with an opportunity to participate. The
purpose of NEPA is ta help public o�cials make decisions based on an understanding of
the environmental impacts and take actions that either protect, restore or enhance the
environment. _
�
��� NIINUI'ES
MASe�C OPER�4TIONS COMMIiTEE
AUGUST' 14, 1998
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Star Conference
Room, and calied to order at 10:00 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members•
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Bob Kirmis - Eagan
Kevin Batcheider- Mendota Heights
John Nelson - Bloomington
Advisorv:
Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Advisory
Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory
Shane VanderVoort - MAC Advisory
Kay Hatlestad - MAC Advisory
Ron Glaub - FAA-CMO-NWA
Visitors•
Jan DelCalzo
Dean �indberg- Minneapolis
Dawn Weitzel - Richfield
. Tom Hanson - Resident of Richfield
Char{es Stamer - Resident of Richfield
John Enger - Resident of Richfield
: !� :
AIRPORT CROUND NOISE STUDY
Copies of the 1998 Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Study we�e distributed to the
MASAC Operations Members present.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, briefed the committee on the Ground Noise Monitoring
Technical Study, section by section.
�
Secfiion 1: Overview
Mr. Fuhrmann began with a brief review of the study's background, noting that during the
first quarter of 1998, Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, reported that she had received a significant
increase in ground noise related complaints from residents. Mr. Fuhrmann also said that at
the April 1998 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive Director, Jeffrey Hamiel, tasked MASAC
with investigating, more closely, the sources of ground noise at the airport.
➢ The monitoring was conducted May 11, 1998 through May 22, 1998. Seven full days of
monitoring data were collected. Although the intent was to monitor 7 continuous days,
May 15'h through May 19`h are not included in the monitoring because of the severe
storms that passed through the Metropolitan area during that time period.
➢ Monitors were set up on the field and in the community. Six sites were chosen: two on
the field and four in the community.
➢ There were finro monitors at each site: one that measured noise using A-weighting and
one that measured noise using C-weighting. Each monitor was set approximately 6
inches apart.
➢ The monitors collected data 24 hours per day
manned 24 hours per day, and the monitors
approximately 8 p.m. until 8 a.m. each night.
Section 2: Data Analysis and Results
. The monitor near runway 4/22 was
in the community were manned from
Mr. Fuhrmann said on page 12 of the report, types of events that occurred at each site were
grouped together and quantified. The Maximum, Average Maximum and Minimum
Maximum one-second levels are given in both L�, dB(A) and 1�, dB(C). Mr. Fuhrmann
noted that the A-weighted measurement metric was used for the remainder of the report.
Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed~the run up pad contours (beginning on page 20 of the report),
which were developed using Noise IVfap. He said Noise Map is basically equivalent to the
Integrated Noise Model (INM) program, but has a more extensive database for developing
contours for engine run-up activity.
He said the aircraft used for developing the contours represent Stage II, Stage III hushkitted
and Manufactured Stage Ill aircraft all at a 300 degree heading.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked why contours had not been developed using C-weighted
data, as well. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the purpose of the study was to
identify the airport-related sour�es of ground noise, and that the A-weighted noise data was
used because the A-weighted metric is the federally recognized standard for determining
noise impacts for mitigation purposes. Ms. Weitzel said •she felt using the Gweighted
measurement would be most appropriate because it better measures ground noise. Kay
Hatlestad, MAC Acoustical Coordinator, said the C-weighted scale was developed for
measuring louder noises rather than certain types of noise. She said the C-weighted
2
1
C
C
C�
measurement would be appropriate if the study was attempting to study the effects of an
engine tvn up on the human ear in the run up pad.
Mr. Fuhrmann then explained that the contours on pages 22-28 were single event, single
aircraft type contours representing the Lm�, A-weighted, fast response measurement. On
page 29 there is a yearly (1997) DNL run up pad noise contour.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked what "fast-response" referred to. John Nelson,
Bloomington, said fast response refers to how rapidly the meter processes and integrates
the signals it receives and how many signals it will accept within a time frame. He said the
integration is usually done in millisecond intervals.
Mr. Nelson also discussed Figure 3 in Appendix A: Filte� characteristics for A and C-
weighted sound levels. He said the chart shows that if someone is most interested in a
noise that is dominated by low frequency characterisfics, the A-weighting measurement is
biased toward the low frequency noise. He also noted that the graph shows that the
human ear is most sensitive to signals that come into it at 1000 Hz. Interpreting the graph,
then, a sound that is at the 20 Hz level would read 5 decibels less on an A-weighted scale.
He said, "this is why most proponents of low frequency analysis ask for the C-weighting to
be used."
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the yearly DNL contour is not based on a 300
degree only heading, as with the single event contours. He said the high bypass aircraft
engines require the aircraft to be heading into the wind. He said because run ups occur
within 360 degrees, the contours on page 29 are almost circular: He also said that the
contours were based on actual data from 1997, including actual run up data.
Mr. Fuhrmann noted the run up logs from the monitored days were included and that the
time frarnes noted were not how long the run ups lasted but the time period in which the run
up could be performed. The associated sound levels are also included.
Section 3: Airiine Maintenance Survey
Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the Airline N7aintenance Survey section. He said staff
conducted surveys of maintenance personnel at Mesaba, Sun Country and No►thwest
airiines, which, combined, account for over 90% of the run ups performed at MSP. The
following items were noted:
➢ The primary reasons for a run up are: engine changes, fuel control
adjustment/replacement, engine component changes, leak checks, troubleshooting pilot
reported deficiencies and systems checks.
➢ When an aircraft is scheduled for maintenance, run ups are performed during daytime
hours (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
� The maintenance personnel have problems scheduling run-ups during these hours
when there is unscheduled maintenance on an aircraft. The maintenance personnel
' said their best time for maintenance is during the nighttime hours because this is when
3
the aircraft are not flying.
➢ Over 50% of run ups are conducted at idle, 20-25% are conducted at 85% of total �
thrust, and only 20-25% are conducted at take-off thrust. The majority of the time a
single engine is being tested. (Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the nm up pad contours reflect
a singie engine run up.)
➢ The maintenance crews said the field rule, which prohibits n�n-ups during the 12 a.m. to
5 a.m. time frame, restricts them.
➢ The maintenance crews suggested adding more lighting and noise dampening features
to the pad.
Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
1. The predominant noise source at the airport is departure activity, accounting for over
61 % of all recorded, predominant noise events.
2. Taxi activity account for 23% of the identified predominant noise sources. The levels
recorded on the airport property for this noise source were in the low 70 dBA's and in
the community were in the 50's and 60's.
3. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) activity is not a major source of ground noise in the
community.
4. The application of reverse thrust upon landing was noticeable on the airfield (monitored
up to a mile away). In the community, the application of reverse thrust was, at times,
audible, especially during the quieter nighttime hours, but recorded noise (evels for �
these events were within one or finro dBA of the ambient levels. The duration of this
type of event is from 10 to 15 seconds.
5. Monitoring personnel in the community experienced, at times, sustained noise events
that resembled an engine maintenance run up at take off thrust. Yet, there were no run
ups being performed. It was discovered that, depending on the wind speed and
direction, departing aircraft activity from runways 12L, 12R, 04 or 22 could be heard in
the community, as well as on the airport. Although noise levels associated with these
types of activities are audible during most time periods, they are more noticeable during
the nighttime hours.
Ron Glaub, FAA, noted that when the airport operates at night in the same manner as it
does during the day (as was the case on May 18`h when the airport did not complete
recovery from a storm systern until 2:00 a.m.) the noise from the airport seems much
louder than the monitored 1-3 decibel increase in the community because the normal
ambient noise levels at night are lower than during the day. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said this was correct.
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis Visitor, asked why the monitors were placed in Richfield only
with none north of the. airport in Minneapolis. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said
because of the limited number of monitors and the limited number of personnel to man
them, it was not possible to monitor at additional sites. He said, though, that it was
4
possible to draw conclusions from the information gathered in Richfield and apply them
to Minneapolis.
6. Run up activity is a noise source on the airport, and depending on the time of day, a
possible noise source in the community. The average run-up lasts approximately 10 to
15 minutes with the majority of aircraft operate at idle power settings.
7. The DNL Average Sound Level (A-weighted) was calculated for May 121h through the
14`h. The numbers were fairly consistent for each site except for May 12'h at Christian
Park. When staff investigated further, it was found that construction activity had been
taking place in the park on that particular day. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said
this illustrated that other sources of noise, such as construction, can contribute to the
overall noise impacts in a community.
8. The "L-Value" difference between A and C weighting is approximately 12 dB. However,
for an individual event, there was less of a difference, approximately 4-10 dB. This
variability indicates that the A-weighted metric is better suited for use with the frequency
ranges associated with aircraft generated noise.
9. The attenuation for each type of event diminishes as the distance increases from the
ground noise source.
10. The primary source of ground noise at the airport is the direct result of aircraft
depa►tures from any active runway prior to becoming airbome, although overflights will
mask this type of noise.
( )
Recommendations
11. The run-up field rule should be modified to reflect actual requirements of aircraft.
Although the existing field rule advocates the use of a specified heading range, this has
not been acceptable practice for a number of years due to today's high bypass aircraft
engine manufacturer requirements.
12. The installation of noise waAs around the run-up pad could help reduce the noise
impacts of engine run-up activity in surrounding communities. This type of technology
should be evaluated if a change in the run-up field rule is anticipated to reflect the actual
environment and practices on the field.
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 structures or numerous engine silencers would need to be availabl� to
accommodate all possible engine/aircraft configurations.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the field n.�le stated any time restrictions on
run-up activity and whether or not staff was suggesting there be a"relaxation" of these
5
restrictions. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said run-ups are prohibited from midnight to (
5 a.m. He said the ai�lines would like not to have the time restrictions and hoped that if a
noise barrier of some sort were constructed, the time limits could be relaxed. Mr.
Batchelder said he thought a noise barrier should be constructed and the time restrictions
kept in place.
Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked for a description of a"hush house." Roy Fuhrmann,
Technical Advisor, said hush houses were developed for enclosing specific aircraft types
(such as those used in the military). He said the structure is usually completely enclosed
with doors and works extremely well for single type aircraft. He noted, though, that because
MSP's airlines have diverse fleets, a hush house wouldn't be able to accommodate all these
aircraft.
A discussion ensued regarding aircraft manufacturer requirements for wind speed and
direction during run-ups and how changing the heading of an aircraft in the run-up pad
would alter the. contours provided in the report. There was also discussion regarding
possibly limiting the field rule to "preferred headings."
John Nelson asked staff whether building noise walls wauld eliminate the wind speed and
direction requirements. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said it was possible but he was
unsure of the extent.
Mr. Nelson also. noted that the chart on page 39, which shows the Leq (A) max at each site
for each event type, indicates that run-ups, regardless of the fact that departures were
louder, can produce significant noise levels. He said that if the commiftee were to eliminate
moving aircraft from consideration of ground noise attenuation at this time, run-ups were the �� .
next most significant source for noise and wondered if run-ups should be addressed
specifically, taking into consideration the information found in the report.
Mr. Fuhrmann reminded the committee that (1) the average number of run-ups per day was
4.5 in 1997, (2) 50% of the those are performed at idle, with approximately 1 run-up per day
at full thrust, (3) the noise from dayiime run-ups would most likely be masked by departure
noise and (4) a full stage III fleet will alter run-up noise effects. He said he thought the
committee may want to weigh the benefits of trying to attenuate run-up noise with the
benefits of working on solutions for other noise sources.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked staff if the report's findings could be used in future Part
150 contour updates and how the information may affect it. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said the INM model already incorporates run-up activities and that, since the
impacts from run-ups are minimal compared to other activities, they don't impact the
contours significantly.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said, even though the overall-affect of run-up activity is
minimal, MASAC should still be concemed with minimizing the impacts of any type of airport
noise source and advocated fu�ther research into run-up pad noise attenuation technology.
�
C�
Robert Johnson, MBAA, reminded the committee that there have been deflector walls in
piace for a number of years already and that there are plans to add to the existing wrails this
year. Roy Fuhrmann, Technicai Advisor, said there are plans to extend the blast deflector
wail once the reconstruction of the south paraliel is complete and operations are back to
normal. He said the reason for this timing is because during the deflector wall extension
construction, run-ups will not be able to occur at the pad and will be performed at the
approach end of runway 04, which would not have been available during the reconstruction
period. He said run-ups on that end of the runway will have priority over departures. He
said the construction should begin by the end of August.
�� There was a discussion again regarding the run-up field rule and how �vind speed and
direction affect aircraft during this procedure. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said
although there is a 300 degree heading specification in the field rule, the reality is the newer
aircraft must head into the wind in order not to stall the engine compressor, and that the
ai�iines have been performing this procedure per the manufacturer's directions for many
years. He said staff was recommending that the field rule be updated to reflect this reality.
There was also a discussion regarding the differences between the C-weighted and A-
weighted L-Values.
JOHN NELSOIV, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AtVD KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AIVD TO DIRECT STAFF TO
RESEARCH INFORMATION REGARDING ('1) RUN UP PAD NOISE ATTEiVUAT10N
TECHNOLOGY AND (2) MANUFACTUER SPECIFICATIONS FOR WIND SPEED AND
DIRECTION FOR AIRCRAFT EIUGINE TESTIIVG FOR THE PURP05ES OF DISCUSSIOIV
AT THE SEPTEMBER 1998 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE N9EETING. THE VOTE WAS
UNANIMOUS. MOTIOfV CARRIED.
MADP
ROBERT JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AlVD KEV1N BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
SECONDED TO POSTPOIVE THE NADP REVIEW UIUTI� THE SEPTEiViBER 9998
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING. THE VOTE WAS UNAfVINiOUS. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, updated the members on the status of the south parallel
reconstruction project. He said a ribbon cutting ceremony was held on Friday, August 7,
1998, and that a press release was issued stating that the nanway would be open for normal
use the wreek of the 10'h. Unfortunately, the Star Tribune newspaper reported that the
runway would be open on the 10'h •and staff received a number of calls asking why airport
ope�ations had not changed.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reported that since the north parallel runway has been used heavily this
summer rubber removal maintenance on the runway is scheduled to occur over the next
7
(. j
�
�
� c�
�1 � o „�
� � H
� �
� O �
N s � u
� � � � �
� � r�' �
�
,� '� � ^, o .�
� � �
� o � o
- � '��.� �
� � � � o �
� �
� �� � � �
� O �
� � � � O
� � O � � �
�-� ��°�
� • � ,� � - � .�
�n _
�� ��o�,
o,.fl U ..�
�
� � � �� �
� �
a� �
� R� � � � ,.�
� ��� �
I� � � ~
O� � N ..N-�
� � .� .� �
� n � �
�� N ;�
� � ~�
� �
�
� � �.� .°�
� �
� � � � an
� �
� o ° � o
� � � o � �
� � � � �
� �
� �
�
M � �
P4 O '�
O `� N
'�
� M 4
�
�
o � �
�
� M N
N
a o 0 0 0 o c
O O O O O� �
V'� �+ M M`� 00 C
00 �t" r" t� rn
N N � � � M �
64 b4 EA Ff3 69 6N4 6
� � � � � � �
d; o� �h v� t� t` a
d' V'� O d' O O C
6R3 Ff? •-� .-� N N
ff3 6R b4 ER 6
�
0 0 0 0� o€
xxxxxx�
Q 1 M C T M (� V
M d' � d' N d" �
'-+ N�n oo � oo C
�
�N M d� v� �D t�- a
rn rn rn rn rn rn c
o�rnrnrnrnrnc
,� .� .� � .� r. _
. . i. �, � � . . . . .
�
— �„ ..�, l�linneapolis / St. Paul International �lirport
\-•-.�.::i� �� MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Ai�craft Sound Abaiement Council
c�,�,,,,�,.•
Robert P.Jo6nsoo
Vicr Chrurnwn:
Thamas Hucg
r«n�;�ar.-w,•rso�:
Roy Fuhrtnann
s«.�ra„•:
3telLsse Srnvronskl
Af/'hllf)iC ELnR53:
e�� aa��
Air Trunspnn At.cnrrutinn.•
Paul �1cGraw
AlP,4;
Ron Johason
Cin� of Blnnmingran:
Petrona Lee
Vem 41'ilcoz
Cin� n%Bums•il(t:
Ed Porter
cr�, ���,ew:
Jon HoheRstein
L�nce Staric6a
Cin� nf /nrrr G�m'r Hti,4hts:
Dele Fiemmons
Cin� nf Sfcrulnra Hri�hts:
JfU knith
Mvin 8atcheider
r� �f.tir„wr��rs:
Dean Clndbcrg
Steve �finn
Joe Lee
Glenn Strand
Sandra Coivin Roy
Stike Cramer
Cirr njRichfield:
KrEstai Stokes
Dawn Weitzel
Cit�• r fS�. Umir Purk:
Robert.4drews
Cin� nf Sr. Paul:
Ttam:s H. Hueg
c,n� r,%sun/i.,�n tl,kr:
Clendu Spiotta
Drlm .-0i� L�ntt lnc.:
Lxrrv Cuehring
DNL A�rHvn•s:
Brian Simoawn
Frdrru! £.rpress:
Dan DeBord
Fedrrul A��iation ,klministrutian:
Bruce WaKuner
Cind,v Gree�e
.ifAC SruB�
DicA Kefnz
,t,e�,.,:
Rabert P. Johnvon
.tlrsuh� NanhNrst Avlmk:
Phil Burke
htrirupnlitan Airpnrts Cnmmi.��.nnn:
Canmisbner Aiton t;usper
M1f,V qrr,Nurinnn/ Guurd:
StaJor Roy J. Shetl:a
NnrthH�rs1 Airlints:
�lark Sulmen
Jennifer lavfx
tilevr Holme
Sancr ti�mdt
S� P�ud Chumhrr a(Commrr�•r�
RuU >iiddle tuo.
Sun Cuw�n .qir7mrs:
<a�rtlun Cra�es
Ciurrd .ii�lmr� lnr .
lierin BIacA
Cm�rd Purt•rl Srn�n�r�
�tUe Gever
C.S. .{v Fnrrr Rrirn�r
Caputin Uu�ld J. Gerken __
1bYetropotitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, nationai, state,
and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international
programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport area ]and use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Pramote the overall goals of the state's environmentai policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities
adjoininQ Minneapotis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of sus�estion for the alleviation of
the same; throu�h initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective
procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the s� fe operation of the airport and
of aircraft usin� the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected
communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting [he
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suQgestions made and actions
initiated and taken to a(leviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
RepresentaHon
The membership shall include representa[ives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmentai bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of [heir status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will f�e called User
Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Pubiic Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The AirpoR 2-�-hour Nnrse Hnrline Lr 726-9<il l.
Comp(uints to the hn�line d�� nut result in chunges
in Airpon uctii�it}•, but provide a public sounding
board and airpon intbrmation outlet. The hotline
is stat7ed durin� husiness hn��rs, �'�lnndu�• - Fridu�:
This report is prepared and printed in house
Chad Leyve..4NOM5 Coordinator
Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician
Questions or comments m�y be directed to:
MAC - A��iation Noise Pro�rams
Minneapolis / St. Pau) International Airport
60�10 38th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55-�i0
TeL• (61?1 7�i-6331, Fnx: (612) 725-6310
AiYSP Nome Pase: hltp://www.macavsst.or
NTetropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Progrnms �.
C
C
�rffi�. ;R 5 �f�' fi
� � x ti.. /~ Y t �
a� '+ 1 t � �j � -Z 4
�`/,i � �. , /,,/ ` �'. / / /..
Operations Summary - All A.ircraft .....................................................................................1
MSP May Fleet Mix Percentage ..........................................................................................1
Airport September Complaint Summary .............................................................................1
September Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record ........................................1
tllinneapolis - St.1'czul Interna�ional Aitport C`omplaini Summary 2
Complaint Summary by City ................................................
Availabte Time,�or Run�ay TJse 3
Tower Log Reports - All Hours ............................................
Tower Log Reports - Ni�httime Hours .................................
AllOperata'ons 4
Runway Use Report September 1998 ......................
�'���;) C"ar�ier Jet �peratio�s 5
Runway Use Report September 1998 ......................
1lTighttime - .�.11 Ope�-cz�ions 6
........................................2
.......................................... 3
..........................................3
....................................................4
......................................................5
RunwayUse Report September 1998 ..................................................................................6
1Vighitime Car�ae� ,Jet O�eratz'ons 7
Runway Use Report September 1998 ...............
.........................................................7
�'a�-r�e�- ,Jet Oper°ations by �'ype �
.A.i�-cr�a, ft Iclenti�e�- and 1)esc�iption Table 9
l�u�way lJse - I�ay/l�ig�ht 1'e��ods - All Ope�-atio�cs �0
DaytimeHours ................................................................................................................:..10
C"�a��ar�nity O�e�-,�light�4nalysis �1
( i
-` Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours ..................................................................................... l 1
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30 pm - 6 am) ......................................................1 1
Aviation \oise & Satellite Provrams
C.
C:.
Re�raote 11lonitoring S`ite Locations .12
�� C'arrier ,Jet Arravcal I�elated 11�oise �venis 13
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................13
C'ar�-ier ,Jet Depcz�tu�e I�elczted 1Vois� �vents 14
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14
7'en Loudest �4.i�-c�aft 1lToise �vents Id'enti�ed
7'en Loud'est �4i�cra,�'t 1Voise Eve�ts Iclenta ze�'
�'era L�ucle,�t 14zrcraft 1Vai�e Events Id'enti��d'
7'en �,oudest Ai�cra,�'t [�7oase �vents Ic%nta�ed
�"en .Z,oudest Ai�craft Noise Events Identa�eci
Ten Loudest Aircraft .Noise Events Identi�ed
�'light 7'rack �3�zse 1Vlap 21
� irpari liloise and Operations .�lonito�ing �Sysie�a �'laght �'racks 22
Carrier Jet Operations - September 1998 ...........................................................................22
�irpo�-t 1�Toi�e cznd ()peraiions 1�lo�azioring ,System Flight �'�°czcks 23
Camer Jet Operations - September 1998 ..............................
.....................................
�irport 1Voi,�e and' Ope�-ations l�lanitorin� Sysie�c �'light T'racks
Carrier Jet Operations - September 1998 ...................................................................
Air-�o�-t 1Voise cancl Operaiions tiYon�torin�- S,ysiem Flighi �'racks
Carrier Jet Operations - September 1998 ....................................................................
Analy,si� a,�'�9.ircra,�'t 1Voise Eve�ais - Air��°a,�'t ��n ��(�4)
�nal�s�� o,f'�ir-c�-aft 1Voise �'ve�ts -14irc�-�,�"t Ldn d1�(14)
Aviation :�`oise & Satellite Proarams
�
�
.......23
24
...... 24
25
...... 25
Mevopolitan Airports Commission
��' �I ' . 1 '' l . : ; 1' ' 1 ii .
,
. . � . ' �., , i,;i►
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
Runway Arrival % Use I�parture % ilse
04 539 4.2% 165 1.3%
22 648 5. I%a 1523 12.3%
12 4963 39.2% 5498 44.3�10
30 6510 51.5% 5224 42.1%
MSP September Fleet Mix Percentage
Stage �cheduled Scheduled AI�IOIVIS AI�10MS
1997 199� Count 199i Count 199�
Stage 2 39.9% 28.5% 43.6% 33.3�Io
Stage 3 60.1 °!0 71.5% 56.4°/0 66.7�Io
Afrport September Complaint Summary
tlirport 1997 199�
MSP 1280 1149
Airlake 0 0
Anoka 4 1
Crystal 0 2
Flying Cloud 9 6
Lake Elmo 3 0
St. Paul 6 3
Misc. 5 0
TOTAL 13ff1 1161
September Operations Summary - FA� Airport Traific Record
A��iation tioise & Satellite Pro�rams PaQe 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Page 2
. '�� , . ' .
,,: .1 � .: , �, .: : 1' 1 1- 1 r .
�epterr�ber 199�
Complaint Summary by City
City Arrival Departure 'Totai Percentage
A le Valle 0 3 3 0.3%
Arden Hilis 0 1 1 0.1 �I'o
Bloominaton 7 82 89 7.9%
Burnsville 0 10 10 0.9%
Ea an 13 63 76 6.7%
Eden Prairie 0 1 1 0.1 %
Edina 2 16 18 1.6%
Excelsoir 1 1 2 0.2%
Golden Valle 5 1 6 0.5%
Inver Grove Heiahts 3 91 94 8.3%
Lakeville 0 1 1 0.1%
Ma le Grove 5 7 12 1.0%
Mendota 0 2 2 0.2%
Mendota Heiahts 2 40 42 3.7%
Minnea olis 88 288 376 33.4%
Minnetonka 5 1 6 0.5%
Pl mouth 2 0 2 0.2°Io
Richfieid 1 100 101 9.0%
Savaee 2 7 9 0.8%
South St. Paul 0 2 2 0.2°Io
St. Louis Park 4 0 4 0.4%
St Paul 247 11 258 22.9%
Sunfish Lake 0 9 9 0.8%
Wa zata 1 0 1 0.1 °Io
W '
Total 38� 738 1126 100%
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
Aviation Noise & Satellite ProQrams
� =`
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
L`. : ,�.''� • � • _'i ,� ' q •
�: ' s i
1 1� �. i �' . 1 .r :1' 1 i`�.
�
1'. `
�
%� r �`�
,
{,,
.
,�Y � I
�%
��, �� 63%
i 59%
�%
Note: For 19°Io of the time available, simultaneous departure operations occurred
2�% off the parallels and nti.v 22 rnsulting in an overall use greater than 100%.
g%
6%
Nighttime Hours
0%
4%
�
�,
: , • . �"�'� �' °
'� 3
e g` s .t� J,. �', 4
� �
h i � 1 / 5+�
�.e
c,.� i
Note: For SCJc of the time a��ailable, simultmieous departure vperations occurred
ofjthe parallels and rtir�• 22 resufring in an o��erall use greuter thun /00%.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
All �perat�ons
Runway �Tse Report Septer�ber 199�
�
1.3%
42.1 %
5.1 %
39.2 I
C�l r-�_ ,, `� `�
�
�� ��" 51.5%
�.�%
4.2%
12.3 0
•� ��
.�. •� ��• ��
• �'.�, � � �. .� — �� �
, � . .' , '
� _..,.
. v„_, _ . _,. .s _ ��,_ . �.._�._._ _.:� �_,. ._,_ r�.�.� a t� .:�� .._.d__ � „_ � ,.. .. ��: , � u __„ �.. .� ..__ , . , . _. _ . _ � _�,., _„ _ ..r_.
_ � ���� ' � � � �' � , ��
'�� � � � �Ii •I� ;�' • � �,•
. � , � , � � .�� " , • , , .��
i
��.� � II � ■ �' .��■�� '.
1 :: :'. � 11 �'.
■ � � ,�.iiii�,� _»..�.. _ , � �.,�..., �ii�i?�'i�'
� _.._�._._ ...;.... � -
, ,v�_, w.
' � � xt�,�t «
� �y3 '-t 1 �.. � � �'� . '...' , I � ,'' ' /
� • T � i � 1:.,- I
':> .,.a.. �„� ti 'r _....,.. .:-, r, `E`�.. - .�
.., . ., .. .:.:..� . ., _, . ..,.. . .:. _... ..._>.,., , , , , ,,,,,, ; , , < .. .., .. �., ..... ..,." .:. „ -. ,., _�....�::,. ..o _........., �..,.�, .... _. �.,..- :.. ..... _:.,.,..,.
■ ,• ■ , ■ 'I' ...,.. �I 1� � �, 1,�', ..
II�■ � , ' / � , • � • � /
� • I�. • • ■■��! , • • � • , ,
�.�� �I' ■ ,, '�, II ,, .
, �I .���. � II'/ � �' I � � / /
����.�' , . . . _ • � � � I
„ ... . . :. ...,�.,�_.�.._ . ,,... �. � - ,
% l4 . .� � �_.:.. ,..,.., ��.. ..�n ».. . .+ wu�r. ..
� fi.�tW �.-� �,r4" „a�rci; �...� ... . .. �:-.:,, ... ....
�$ i �-'� `2T 3rv�+ ^^ t�i
i �. , . � � '' � ya�Y"� �d7� � 4r'w � i i r i � i
� ' � �� ��
� �.�-? �
�:..,.n....,...,.....�.,-�,.�.,,. ... ..�,s.-`_?'�-�k�ls.�r�'��i",«�,..SE�.,�._.�„�_..,�, .«�. �:,�...,,._,.�:,,.,,. ,�,_:<,...:,.,..,�,�...,,,.:.. ,k...�»._.�,....,.�...... _
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.7 ciays.
Paee 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
........ l�.
Carr�er Jet Op�rations
Runway I1se Report Septernber 199�
0.$%
44.0 %
37.9
4.7%
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
. , ,�;
�.
�
- F. � . �`_.
„v � -
. � ., !.
. ., .�. �� i�• ��
1-�. � � - ; �� �
z � •. .� , i
.
� , .,.. �
.,.,.,r. ,.. .. ._...,, ..,,.., _�, ...., .
_ ...,.��,.e ,_.�,.w .�,,..�.. ��.....:: w.,,.. _. �_,�� � �,..:,.o.. �,. r:.�:.�: ..�
� �I,�� ��������� � � ��' ' � �' �
. • ' ', ; � � . •,
1 � ' ��l� �''�i� � "' ��� �' 1� "-
: • �, � . •,
�� � ��� ' � � • �' ��� �' � � • 1 ' . �
1' '
• 1 :'. ;" : : � •,
_.,. �,
��i � '�� � �.�� 4x��
�k��� �L� � ��� T SJ.w'»x�h '. .�' � � . 1,�' I/I � t �■� � ..' � I :.
t.. rv l "tr'I R.h .�yNSF,�'rr.t'+h. X.l P
..., . ,. �..;..-.v. .r, ... .�„� ....
... .... ... . ,. _. �...c .r v. .. .n. v.. � +_...,.. �.. .. . i..�..�..�
,, , , ' •'/ ���■�� �x..-....�..�:
, , , ,/ � • � � ,/
�■, II, , •,• � � ', '■ • I ,. • III
1
, • � !� � / �I •�I
��, ���� , • I/, �� � �,�
, � � • � • / • • �/
-.._.. . . ...
����� � ��� 2 '�4 ��
i1�� / / � �,Y�.��'»;,'� �'�f� �3 � �� II ^
�... . � . .. . ,
' ....:........�,..»,:.1F,-..._ .,..::�_..,., jt�r� T�?�'���-�ii�u,"tr��.,.,_,.,.,,.,- • u�.,w.-.....�..-. � ( � i � �
.m.
��� ��
Nnte: ARTS data missing for OJ davs.
�lviation Noise & Satellite Programs Pa�e 5
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�. ��� . ,�, >��. .� . � ,�
Rundvay
Use �eport �eptember
2.4%
, �;,t,.
•� •� ��
.�. �� i�• ��
� I••�. � ' � ' �� � �.
,,.
. .._,�r.=,.rtz�,. �_. � ..�.,,..� 4.z...,. .,2:.,, „�� �,. .� ,.,,��, . . :: ,. ,...:.,.. N� ..M �.. , ..T .._. .,.. ., r_ ,..., .. , ,__
�'I ■'�.■���' ;�� ,,,_ . ., .:
. .� . , �,;,�
' : , ','� '_; , � �•
• 1 '. >': • • � � '.
1 ' � : � . ;' : i �: G',
,
� � . . . � , ': 1 ' ,
�.,.r_ r.�,_._ .:_ ,�. � ��,.�_ti.
,., _. .. :... N
�l"*C'�i',�xr�' F `�Y zl�t �y C� .. _
� ' k 7if���' a`c ,,.r + . � " � • 1 " ,I,.�. , i .. ' .'�:,,,
.
-> . .::...:..:. .. .....:...:... ...�.�`�;%:r,+.{r��?:��,..... �..�,,...:.,,.:,,.,..:��... .......�.<..
.�.,.. .,..,,, ..�.n.. .�::,��,,.r ,.� ........ .. ..:..::... >._.:.:_:. .,..,.,...,.,:
� .-��,�/� . � ���i i��
, � � 1 � i: � � � I
� , � ��� ',• � I � � ��I
1 ,� � • 3 � � �� II
, , � , � ; • � ��I
�..� - . �... � ...::.�, •....�,��•�, • • ,/• 5����/,
..�, -�..� �� � ,-.. ..�L .� d. a.:.
<-..w.
i
� � � � ��'.�'�t`��,� �`T�7� "�`R''-.�T°� i i
-�++. k • '' 1 / . . . ..
�,�,....,.,._..,...`.,_.-»W.,,.,..,,, ��i�'L��;;1��`u"!�'z�4�-...�.,�.,:.��,.. ......:.. ........,.... .�.u..,,,.,,........a..�,,,..,...�..,:.,...�..-�..,.,..�.. i.r.,.,..,.v ..,....... �i
� � i
Note: ARTS dara missing for �.7 davs.
Paoe 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�
,,' . • ,� �• 1
��! �r.'
I�unway LTs� IZeport Septerr�ber 199�
1.4%
�}� ,,.'..._ ,`.`+ 3�
• /E
}�
r � , �.
11.9
,�•ja:y
�
Metropo(itan Airports Commissi�n
69.9%
55.7%
� m��.., .,. -m:fl� �n ��,_. , �. x:.� . �. .x_,MK,,,��r.a..,,.�r..
:, ..a,=n._, � ,.,,..�.� a., ,� �� .,. ,, .. .,,. , � ._..r_. .._ P...�v , 4
4 t
i • ' • , , • �
� t
� � , ,� ' � 1 �, t , .., �
��'1. _ �� i
a ��'• ,.•
� � - '�
� , n ..Nr,. �,.. _�.�v: .K.e , _ . �.._.. , ,_,�.r. � .. .,_,.., �.�-,,,,w ,r �,..,� ,.�..,�,. ,.��,. , w,
• .� .. ..R �., .� _� �, �..�__
� �..w ._. _ ,.....
���■ i� ,�., � �,�r���:; ��,
• '. � i . •,
��'��� � ��"iil.■ '.
;
. •., � ,�
iii"�'�■�. � � � ����■ � �'
� � ' � " • • '.
f � y�.N , �r ��, ,.�
� w-.�
�����a ��
. � ' yf � �� � ` ��) � �� �
� � � � � �.
:�II��4't 3.�'ed°+^`��.;5 �'��'�'` �.'S3r1t�.., . , . .
.. . ... I , , . . ....�etr:
.... �.�u�..,�., _,._.,.,.__...,a,a—,....-_._.,.�.�2.�.�a'M ......�.,,..,.,,, ,.....,u.,....-.. �..»,..,.�« ' i I
,.�K �
', , . ....�,/ � .,«.�..�,...-�......b.._,.
� , I � � � 'I � I��■
� � • • I �� • � � � � � �
, � ' / F �� ��
, , • / ` � ���
1j
' � , ��/ �rt � � �,
.4..+ell�' .'.....a... ���`]s^.��A�}�.������..-.. • �,,� ; r.. . �.� /I,, , � i .. . .' . �'. .., II' �, �'
' '
`�.'h-.4.,�...�'.'*_'. -
Note: ARTS datn missing for 0.7 da.vs.
Aviation tioise & Satellite Programs p�ae 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�, . : ' . �� � ,• .. " '. 1 �� �; .
, � . , � . 1, 1; �.
Aircrati 1`ype Count Percentage
B777 0 0.0%
B727H 185 1.1%
B72Q 165 1.0%
B73B 1021 6.2%
B74A 102 0.6%
B74B 13 0.1%
B757 1303 7.9%
B767 0 0.0%
BA46 611 3.7%
CARJ 224 1.4%
DC 10 464 2.8%
DC8 3 0.0%
DC9H 3211 19.5%
E145 214 1.3%
A300 55 0.3%
A310 37 0.2°Io
A319 14 0.1%
A320 1453 8.8%
F 100 885 5.4%
L101 2 0.0%
MDII 11 0.1%
MD80 859 5.2%
H25B 141 0.9%
H25C 10 0.1%
B A l l 3 0.0%
B727 l 847 11.2%
B73A 1558 9.5%
DC8 405 2.5%
DC9 1661 10.1%
F28 0 0.0%
Total 16457 100%
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.7 cfa��s.
Page 8 Aviation Noise & Sa[ellite Programs
y, ,�; , � _ ' � � • ' t'
��� ` . .. :yl :!_:' � ;' ��
�
Metropo(itan Airports Commission
.; � � ,�, . . .� �I� :�° ' 1 ' .
� '�1 . `I-
Identifier t�ircraft Description
B727 BOEING 727
B727H BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT
B72Q BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT
B73B BOEING 737 - 300/400/500
B73A BOEING 737 100/200
B74A BOEING 747 - 100/200/300
B74B BOEING 747 - 4d0
B757 BOEING 757
B767 BOEING 767
B777 � BOEING 777
H25C BRITISH AEROSPACE 125 - 1000
H25B BRITISH AEROSPACE 125 - 700/800
BAl l BRITISH AEROSPACE 111
BA46 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146
CARJ CANADAIR 650
FA 10 FALCON 10
DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10
DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8, DCS 70 - SERIES RE (ALL SERIES)
DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9
DC9H MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT
E145 EMBRAER 145
A300 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A300
A310 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310
A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A319
A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320
F100 FOKKER 100
F27 FOKKER F27 (PROP)
F28 FOKKER F28
L 101 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L 1011
MD I i MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC I(
MD80 MCDONi�1ELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES
SW3 SWEARINGEN �4ETROLINER 3
SW4 SWEARINGEN �tETROLINER 4
SF34 SAAB 3-�0
Aviation tioise & Satellite Programs p�oe 9
Metropolitan A.irports Commission
,, `� , ' • , '�,�� • � 1,�� , • �'
�! )`'' �. ��
� .• /� ��� ,� .•'. � �� .�: . , �, ; �: �. ;, .'. .. ., • :' • � ��. .',� • '. �' �. ;.
Daytime Hours
Runway Departures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Day
Name Day Use Day Use
04 152 1.3% 460 3.9% 612
12L 2423 20.4% 2519 21.3% 4942
12R 2760 23.3% 2366 20.0% 5126
22 1417 11.9% 545 4.6% 1962
30L 2672 22.5% 2734 23.2% 5406
30R 2438 20.6% 3187 27.0% 5625
Total 11862 100% 11811 140% 23b73
Nighttime Hours
Runway Departures Percentage �irrivals Percentage �otal Night
Name I�iight Use Night Use
04 13 2.4% 79 9.3%. 92
12L 197 36.0% 40 4.7% 237
12R 118 21.5% 38 4.5% 156
22 106 19.3% 103 12.1% 209
30L 33 6.0% 148 17.4% 181
30R 81 14.8% 441 52.0% 522
B'otal 54� 1Q0% �49 100% 1397
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.7 days.
PaQe (0 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� ,�,� ,��i . �� � ♦
,,
.�•��' �. r''� .. r, �� .� �,. /:i�,
Carrier Jet Operadons - All Hours
Number I�umber `�'otal Percent Number of
Overflight Area A�V� �P�,�� Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations
Operations Operations per 24 Hours
Over So. Minneapolis/ 3109 3628 6737 40.9% 229.9
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfieldl 327 929 1256 7.6% 42.9
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 387 70 457 2.8% 15.6
Highland Park
Over Eagan/ 4391 3616 8007 4$.7% 273.3
Mendota Heights
Total 16457 100% 561.7
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am)
Number Number �O� Percent Ivumber of
(��� Overflight Area Arrivals ]Departures Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations
Operations Operations per 24 giours
Over So. Minneapolis/ 62 56 118 12.5% 4.1
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 56 71 127 13.5°% 4.4
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 77 4 81 8.6% 2.8
Highland Park
Over Eagan/ 452 165 617 65.4% 21.3
Mendota Heights
Total 943 100% 32.6
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.7 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Proarams Page 1 I
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Rernoie �onitorin� Site I.ocati�ns
Airport Noise and Operations 1V�onitoring Systerri
% ' �
i �
` ' 1
i �� 1N1mn�apotis j � i �� �
,
i rs#� ' '
; . '
� F #� F��9 � �
0 o i
; F �Z O F$� 11 � r . /�/ `
! FS�4 �
e
� i
� � I
; F5�3 e.F tp i �
e FS�6 o I �
! � m I FSr`�r � i j I
� FS' ^—
� I
� � C-;^ I�i �
i �S"� �' � FS{{1
� �23 ° en ota Heights
Richfield �s#��B � ,��!' .rs�,3 �
' m 4 �
_ I �
� O
� i F�16 • �• F i4 FS�2t
i
i e'�r�?� • i
� �; r S� ; � �� � Inver Gr ve Heights
, ( � • ` S t'r 4 �
B�oorr,�'ngton ,/�` ` � Eagan
i v
i s
; � � F y gz
� , �' o o�
; � , �
, � .
I
���co �� : � ��5 w �
' �i
� '. � � �
PaQe 1? Aviation Noise &: Satellite Programs
\
<
Metropolitan Airports Commission
.i' .• .�. t4 ,�� J�� �a� j •�� � ;��i �; • •
.,. :� i' ; • , '' .• . ; '�: ':{I :.
1 Count of Arrival Aircraft Iaioise Events for Each RMT
�T Events Events Events Events
� City Approximate Street L,�cation �5� �� �g�B >100dB
I Minneapolis Xences Avenue & 41st Street 1749 16 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1545 102 0 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Beimont Avenue 1488 966 39 0
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1478 351 2 p
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & SSth Street 1632 1406 186 0
6 Minneapolis �th Avenue & 57th Street 1826 1489 271 0
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 6 2 0 0
g Minneapolis Longfeilow Avenue & 43rd Street 4 1 0 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 362 216 10 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 372 349 94 0
11 St. Paul Finn Streei & Scheffer Avenue 29 2 1 0
r.-,,
12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 12 4 0 0
� � 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 36 3 0 0
14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 2249 45 2 p
15 Mendota Heighu Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue i 12 3 0 0
16 EaQan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 2064 11 I 1 21 0
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 321 150 4 p
Ig Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 331 I 18 0 0
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 38 3 0 0
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 5 1 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 121 0 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne i�tarie Trail 1300 5 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 1445 17 1 0
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 3046 52 0 0
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.7 davs.
Aviation ;�oise & Satellite Proerams Paae 13
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Carrie�° Jei Departure Related Noise Events
Sepiember 1998
Count of Departure A,ircraft Noise Events for Each �2MT (
�21YiT Events Events Events Events
� City Approximate Sireet Location �SdB >80dB >90dB >100dB
1 Minneapotis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 430 147 4 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 480 220 19 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 809 464 90 3
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 860 396 59 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2502 1427 475 37
6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 2651 1548 689 1�2
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 1623 727 79 0
8 Minneapolis Longf'ellow Avenue & 43rd Street 950 417 6� , 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 18 4 1 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 60 36 17 3
11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 31 20 8 0
12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 46 16 3 0
.
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1320 205 7 0
14 Eagan First Street & McKea Street 1701 715 120 2
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 1330 280 20 0
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 2060 1023 249 8
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 507 213 52 1
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 897 719 348 24
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th S[reet 815 485 136 3
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 201 48 15 I
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 782 153 . 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1192 180 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 2336 967 3 I 1 16
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 2005 574 24 0
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.7 days.
Page 1� Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest A�rcraft 1�loise Even� Identified
RMT #1: Xerxes r�ve. & 41st St.
Minneapolis
Date Time � Maac �
Level
98/09/2711:38:30 B727 91.9 D
98/09/2311:54:06 B727 91.8 D
98/09/2111:44:23 B727 91.5 D
98/09/2514:14:24 B727 90.6 D
98/09/26 12:06:26 B 727 89.8 D
98/09/2711:23:57 B727 89.7 D
98/09/2515:01:59 B727 89.6 D
98/09/2611:23:47 B727 88.9 D
98/09/26 20:54:32 B727 88.6 D
98/09/29 20:32:21 B727 88.4 D
RMT #3: W. Elmwood S� � Belmont Ave.
Minneapolis
Date Tima �C �� �
'I`ypc Levei
98/09/2515:01:29 B727 102.6 D
98/09/21 11:43:40 B727 102.3 D
98/09/O1 14:44:12 B727 102.0 D
98/09/0719:56:19 B727 99.7 D
98/09/2310:02:33 B727 99.7 D
98/09/ 1 � 09:59:5 I B727 99.6 D
98/09/21 16:27:28 B727 99.0 D
98/09/0716:26:04 B727 98.6 D
98/09/2? 14:26:13 B727 98.0 D
98/09/21 13:2?:37 B727 97.9 D
RIti1T #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd S�
1�linneapolis
Date TSme A/C Maac �
Type Level
98/09/2311:53:43 B727 95.2 D
98/0912018:32:29 B727 94.3 D
98/09/2214:26:30 B727 94.3 D
98/09/2711:38:06 B727 94.1 D
98/09/29 20:28:53 B727 93.9 D
98/09/2711:23:34 B727 93.3 D
98/09/29 20:47:57 B727 92.8 D
98/09/30 20:58:04 B727 92.8 D
98/09/2111:44:00 B727 92.1 D
98/09/26 20:54:09 B727 92.0 D
RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St.
Minneapolis
Date 'I�me �C Max �
Type Level
98/0912120:02:49 B727 99.6 D
98/09/2018:32:07 B727 99.2 D
98/09/29 20:28:30 B727 98.4 D
98/09/2916:15:19 B727 98.2 D
98/09/3012:13:44 B727 96.7 D
48/09/30 20:57:30 B727 96.1 D
98/09/15 07:0638 B727 96.0 D
98/09/2216:16:11 B727 95.8 D
98/09/29 I(:?3:31 DC9 95.4 D
98/09/2109:36:02 B727 95.0 D
Nnte: ARTS cluta missing for 0.7 dnt�s.
�viation '�oise & Satellite ProQrams
Page I S
Metropolitan Airports Commission
. . 1 1; • ' , . i ` . . � � . . :��
RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St.
Minneapolis
Date Time �� Max �
Level
98/09/251�:Ol:OS B727 104.9 D
98/09/Ol 14:43:47 B727 104.8 D
98/09/1516:10:09 B727 104.7 D
98/09/2610:20:41 B727 104.6 D
98/09/2311:50:59 -DC9 104.3 D
98/09/2514:09:58 B727 104.2 D
98/09/2612:05:19 B�27 104.1 D
98/09/2919:15:48 B727 104.1 D
98/09/2114:22:43 B727 103.9 D
98/09/2916:15:09 B727 103.8 D
RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th S�
Richfield
Date Time ,� � M� A/D
Level
98/09/2015:27:43 B727 96.8 D
98/09/15 07:59: l 1 B727 96.7 D
98/09/2210:�0:50 B72� 96.7 D
98/09/02 08:06: l5 B727 96.6 D
98/09/2610:12:02 B727 96.4 D
98/09/0714:18:16 B727 963 D
98/09/2108:4�:?6 B727 96.3 D
98/09/03 08: (3:30 B727 95.7 D
98/09/30 31:�3:55 B727 95.4 D
98/09/IS 1�:��:31 DC9 95.1 D
RMT #6: 25th r�ve. & 57th S�
Minneapolis
Date 15me �C Max �
'I`ype Level
98/09/2310:01:55 B727 109.1 D
98/09/2120:48:24 B727 108.7 D
98I09/2311:20:04 DC9 108.3 D
98/09/2311:52:45 B727 108.3 D
98/09/27 20:50:46 B727 108.1 D
98/09/15 09:59:16 B727 108.0 D
98/09/2716:52:20 B727 107.5 D
98/09/2911:52:23 B727 107.2 D
98/09/15 07:06:10 B727 107.0 D
98/09/2216:19:43 B�27 1Q6.9 D
RMT #8: Longfe�iow Ave. & 43rd St.
Minneapolis
Date Time �C Max �
Type Levet
98/09/25 07:33:54 B727 97.9 D
98/09/2319:01:09 B727 962 D
98/09/30 22:13:33 B727 95.2 D
98/09/27 22:49:26 B727 94.7 D
98/09/2106:26:20 B727 94.3 D
98/09/27 i6:52:53 B727 94.0 D
98/09/3014:20:07 B727 93.9 D
98/09/2311:51:21 DC9 93.7 D
98/09/ l8 06:12:29 B73A 93.6 D
98/09/20 08:03:45 B73A 93.6 D
Note: ARTS ciata missing for 0.7 davs.
Pa�e 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�
Metropo(itan Aitports Commission
. � ,� �j .. i � • . � � . . �!
. 1 1:
RibIT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
S� Paul
Date Time T � �� AJD
Level
98/09/OS 09:15:53 B727 97.1 A
98/09/0510:03:38 B727 95.8 A
98/09/09 05:09:17 B72Q 95.8 D
98/09/19 00:00:58 B727 94.4 A
98/09/27 05:54:45 B707 92.8 D
98/09/10 05:36:32 B727 92.3 A
98/09/1315:�0:43 DC8 91.6 A
98/09/0514:46:00 DC8 912 A
98/09/10 06:53:22 B727 912 A
98/09/1318:58:39 DC9 90.8 A
RMT #11: Finn 5� & Scheffer Ave.
S� Paul
Date Time � �� A/D
Level
98/09/2115:20:11 B74A 99.4 D
98/09/3015:44:48 B74A 97.3 D
98/09/1219:44:58 B727 96.9 D
98/09/2915:11:35 B74A 96.9 D
98/09/0619:47:21 B727 96.6 D
98/09/0615:37:02 $74A 92.7 D
98/09/0616:09:53 B73A 92.7 D
98/09/0619:51:04 B73A 91.0 D
98/09/2416:31:10 B727 90.6 A
98/09/12 07:35:15 MD80 89.8 D
RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
St. Paul
Date Time �C Max �
Type Level
98/09/09 05:08:46 B7?Q 101.8 D
98/09/1216:22:10 B727 101.8 D
98/09/27 05:54:15 B707 101.8 D
98/09/2915:11:19 B74A 100.6 D
98/09/13 07:08:35 B727 99.1 D
98/09/2115:19:55 B74A 99.0 D
98/09/3015:44:32 B74A 98.5 D
98/09/1215:31:48 B74A 98.3 D
98/09/1318:59:17 DC9 97.0 A
98/09/02 09:58:20 B727 96.9 D
RMT #12: Alton St, & Rockwood Ave.
St. Paul
� Date Titne �e Level `�
98/09/1210:38:38 B727 94.3 D
98/09/12 09:51:50 B727 912 D
98/09/09 10:0 f:21 B737 91.0 D
98/09/0617:23:03 MD88 87.9 D
98/09/02 09:58:42 B727 86.4 D
- 98/09/07 09: �8:39 DC9 86.3 D
98/09/0617:03:03 DC9 85.8 D
98/09/0615:23:45 B737 85.7 D
98/09/ 19 I 2:01:58 DC9 85.2 A
98/09/0617:01:?7 MD80 85.1 D
Note: ARTS data missing for OJ days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 17
Metropolitan Airporu Commission
� • - ,� �, .• .,, ,� . .�, : ., . . ; �': •� • ,�;
RMT #13: Southeast End of IVlohican Court
Mendota Heights
Date Time , �� �� A/D
Level
98/09/2811:52:21 B727 95.4 D
98/09/1915:01:03 B727 92.0 D
98/09/18 07:36:04 B727 91.7 D
98/09/1912:13:47 DC9 91.3 D
98/09/25 20:57:21 B727 90.4 D
98/09/23 20:42:51 B727 90.3 D
98/09/16 06:13:22 B727 90.1 D
98/09/28 22:22:05 DC8 89.7 D
98/09/17 07:13:24 B727 89.6 D
98/09/1816:18:46 B727 89.2 D
RMT #15: Cnll�n St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
Date Titne � M� A/D
Level
98/09/?5 20:31:05 B727 95.2 D
98/09/19I5:00:43 B727 94.9 D
98/09/23 13:55:13 B727 94.8 D
98/09/24 22:11:08 B727 943 D
98/09/25 21:03:18 DC9 93.7 D
98/09/17 07:13:06 B727 93.5 D
98/09/23 21:30:09 B727 93.0 D
98/09/23 22:03:18 DC9 93A D
98/09/24 22:07:48 DC9 92.6 D
98/09/28 07:33:51 DC9 92.6 D
RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St.
Eagan
Date �me T � M� A/D
Level
98/09/1008:1539 B727 101.9 D
98/09/0416:28:27 B727 100.3 D
98/09/06 08:12:14 B727 99.7 D
98/09/1214:31:26 B727 99.6 D
98/09/1216:06:39 B727 99.4 D
98/09/2316:19:19 B727 99.4 D
98/09/0815:06:49 B727 99.2 D
98/09J0319:51:03 B727 98.8 D
98/09/0416:24:09 B727 98.1 D
98/09/13 08:17:57 B727 97.9 D
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
Eagan
Date �me 'vC Maac �
Type Level
98/09/1616:16:27 B727 102.4 D
98/09/08 16:15:22 B727 102.1 D
98/09/07 07:47:45 B727 102.0 D
98/09/2517:52:50 B727 101.2 D
98/09/07 07:13:52 B727 100.5 D
98/89/17 09:42:32 B727 100.5 D
98/09/2416:26:32 B727 100.2 D
98/09/2616:51:50 B727 100.2 D
98/09/2616:40:42 B727 100.0 D
98/09/2413:27:14 B727 99.9 D
Note: ARTS data missing for OJ da��s.
Paae 18 Aviation Noise & Satel(ite Pro�rams
Metropoliran Airports Commission
'�'en Loudest A�rcraft Noise Eve�ts Identified
RMT #17: 84th S� & 4th Ave.
Bloomington
Date Time � M� �
Level
98/09/1414:39:17 B727 103.3 D
98/09/2715:24:41 B74A 99.8 D
98/09/2215:23:28 B74A 992 D
98/09/1915:14:15 B74A 98.6 D
98/09/1715:28:06 , B74A 98.0 D
98/09/04 07:43:�3 B727 97.8 D
98/09/1116:25:58 B727 97.5 D
9$/09/1414:31:21 ,B727 97.3 D
98/09/1419:12:19 B727 96.8 D
98/09/1116:19:33 B727 96.7 D
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St.
Bloomington _
Date Time
98/09/O 1 14:08:00
98/09/12 07:28:17
98/09/12 08:20:01
98/09/OS 11:13:20
98/09/ I 0 14:32:14
98/09/ 10 I 8: 29:31
9$/09/14 f2:58:58
9$/09/ 10 I 6:37:0?
98/09/ 14 16:03: 36
98/09/10 20:43:33
A/C
�'Pe
B727
B727
B727
B727
B 727
B727
B 727
B727
B 727
B 727
Max
Level
��
RMT #18: 7�th S� & 17th Ave.
Richfield
Date Time �C �� A/D
T�pe Level
98/09/1419:51:37 B727 103.7 D
98/09/1316:19:31 B7?7 103.4 D
98/09/02 06:10:51 B727 103.2 D
98/09/1010:04�:35 B727 103.1 D
98/09/19 21:21:55 B727 102.7 D
98/09/1107:10:58 B727 102.5 D
98l09/1112:44:25 B727 102.3 D
98/09/2315:04:16 B74A 102.0 D
98/09/1416:25:38 B727 101.7 D
98/09/1915:13:50 B74A 101.6 D
RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave.
Richfield
Date Time �C Max �
Type Level
98/09/ 19 21:52:13 B727 1 Q0.1 D
98/09/1416:25:59 B727 97.0 D
98/09/0� 16:24:30 B727 96.0 D
98/09/19 O5:10:26 B72Q 95.5 D
98/09/0109:�7:48 B727 95.3 D
9-8/09/OS 19:45:43 B727 95.0 D
98/09/ I 3 16: ! 9:54 B 727 92.9 D
98/09/19 21:2?:15 B727 91.8 D
98/09/27 09:00:54 B727 91.4 D
98/09/0108:�6:25 B727 91.1 D
Note: ARTS c�ta missing for 0.7 cf�i��s.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Prosrams
PaQe 19
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�� � �; .� :�� � , ��; ; _ � • ��, . . �;
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S�
Inver Grove Heights
Date Time Ty� M� A/D
Level
98/0910318:33:49 B727 89.6 D
98/09/25 22:10:16 B74A 89.0 D
98/09/23 21:31:09 B727 88.4 D
98/09/2519:07:39 B727 87.6 D
98/09/2314:11:25 B727 87.I D
98/09/2813:28:58 DC9 86:1 D
98/09/28� 13:21:44 DC9 85.9 D
98/09/1815:16:28 B74A 85.6 D
98/09/2416:47:23 DC9 85.6 D
98/09/2314:1$:21 B727 85.5 D
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota Heights
Date Time ,T c L� A/D
YPe
98/09/2418:38:48 B727 102.2 D
98/09/23 21:30:00 B727 102.1 D
98I09/28 11: S 1:50 B 727 101.4 D
98/09/24 20:47:55 B727 101.3 D
98/09/24 22:10:58 B727 101.2 D
98/09/23 20:42:22 B727 1{309 D
98/09/2413:04:28 B727 100.8 D
98/09/2315:09:32 B727 100.7 D
98/09/28 13:17:13 B727 100.6 D"
98/09/2416:�3:20 B727 100:5 D
RMT #22: Aru�e Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
Date Time �C �� A/D
. 'I`ype Level
98/09/06 08:13:05 B727 89? D
98/09/2810:02:15 B727 87.9 D
98/09/2315:22:35 B7�7 87.5 D
98/09/0315:04:37 B727 86.8 D
98/09/23 21:30:09 B727 86.5 D
98/09/0814:28:17 B727 86.4 D
98/09/13 08:18:42 B727 86.2 D
98/09/0814:�7:47 B727 859 D
98/09/2816:20:49 B727 85.7 D
98/09/2813:50:56 B727 85.6 D
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. � Wren Ln.
Eagan
Date 'Iime �C Max �
Type Level
98/09/06 08:12:35 B727 96.0 D
98/09/1310:02:40 B72� 94.4 D
98/09/19 09:58:48 B727 94.0 D
98/09/2616:41:18 B727 93.9 D
98/09/0416:28:48 B727 93.1 D
�8109/28 10:0 L•46 B727 93.0 D
98/09/24 21:55:34 B74A 93.0 D
98/09/I104:57:20 B72Q 929 A
98/09/26 07:26:03 B727 92.8 D
98/09/16 (4:22:54 B727 92.2 D
Note: ARTS data missing for OJ dati�s.
Page 20 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�".
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Fl��ht �'�rack ��se �ilap .
A.irport I�loise and Operations Nloa�itoring Systerr�
Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�rams
Paee 21
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Analysgs of Aircr�.fi l�o�se Even� � Aircraft Ldn d�(A)
Septerr�ber Ol to �eptember 30, 199�
Noise Monitor Locadons
Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #'7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12
l 47.0 4b.1 60.1 56.5 69.3 68.0 60.0 55.4 48.8 57.4 52.9 49.0
2 49.0 52.0 59.5 57.3 66.9 67.5 61.0 56.7 59.2 65.8 51.3 523
3 54.2 57.8 603 62.7 64.6 67.1 51.1 51.9 53.0 62.0 50.1 53.6
4 51.0 52.0 58.1 5�.0 63.6 64.7 52.5 49.5 43.8 53.6 52.2 52.4
5 40•8 46.2 45.9 46.4 50.5 55.2 43.1 50.2 62.3 65.6 53.8 53.9
6 50.0 58.6 42.5 47.3 55.6 58.1 47.8 49.6 45.2 60.5 59.5 55.1
7 46.5 47.0 61.0 57.4 70.0 69.1 62.1 56.5 47.2 49.9 48. t 4b.5
$ 48.5 41.6 50.9 57.4 65.4 67A 60.1 55.3 47.4 56.3 56.0 56.3
9 52.4 53.8 59.6 583 65.8 66.9 46.0 53.1 66.9 70.8 55.2 57.8
10 45.9 54.4 49.6 57.9 59.9 65.3 489 � 51.8 * 72.9 49.7 53.1
1 T 433 46.4 513 49.7 62.2 57.2 55A 42.5 56.3 60.7 51.5 56.4
12 53.0 34.2 43.1 42.0 53.0 57.0 46.1 48.3 48.7 63.4 58.7 62.2
13 48.0 60.0 57.4 46.5 48.5 50.8 48.4 52.4 60.0 65.3 50.9 49.1
14 56.6 48.8 44.5 48.6 54.6 63.5 45.6 42.6 58.9 * 48.8 48.6
js 51.0 49.7 61.3 60.9 72.7 74.3 64.7 60.5 43.0 * 492 44.3
16 b�•7 57.3 62.3 60.3 66.9 6$.5 51.8 49.3 4b.0 54.0 46.5 51.8
17 63.0 62.1 62.7 62.8 66.8 69.4 45.2 453 592 642 49.0 47.2
18 56.6 61.2 64.1 62.9 712 75.0 61.2 64.8 53 A 61.8 49.7 54.3
19 56.9 61.2 62.0 62.5 66.8 69.6 57.0 52.6 63.9 64.2 49J 54.9
20 58.0 61.5 63.3 64.9 71.9 73.2 65.8 63.7 49.1 51.7 51.4 54.6
21 62.3 64.1 68.1 69.2 76.7 80.1 70.8 71.6 49.3 57.9 57.8 48.7
22 61.6 643 67.7 69.5 753 79.3 69.9 68.3 53.1 55.3 55.2 55.3
23 60.1 63.8 67.5 * 74.2 78.1 643 66.7 59.0 60.7 54.8 58.1
24 58.8 623 ' 65.6 64.3 70.3 73.4 44.9 54.I 65.0 67.1 54.0 54.0
25 59.7 61.8 67.1 75.6 75.0 77.1 66.4 65.7 52.7 60.6 57.1 55.7
26 59.8 61.5 66.5 64.8 7?.9 74.2 64.0 62.6 57.9 62.0 49.5 47.5
27 61.1 64.1 64.5 67.3 73.6 79.1 69.3 68.6 62.5 69.4 553 49.6
2$ 58.4 61.1 66.2 63.6 70.5 71.3 43.7 57.6 6�.1 67.5 55.5 58.1
29 62.5 64.5 67.2 70.6 773 * 69.5 68.2 63.4 68.5 56.5 52.4
30 61.0 62.9 66.3 67.9 7�.0 78.? 71.4 69.7 42.3 59.5 57.9 58.3
Mo. Ldn 58•2 60.0 63.3 65.5 71.0 74.0 64.0 63.3 60.9 64.7 54.6 55.5
No�e: ARTS data missing for 0.7 ciars.
Paae 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�rams
u � ' Ler.s rhu�i ��+enn-(nurtli,urc n(dutu uruiluhle
C�
C
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Analysis of .A��rcraft No��e Even� ��irca°afi Ldn d�(.A)
September Ol to Septerr�ber 30, 199�
Noise Monitor Locations
Date #13 #14 #15 #16 #1� #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24
1 50.8 60.3 59.9 60.9 64.9 75.0 72.3 59.0 50.1 52.1 57.8 60.2
2 56.2 68.2 58.2 65.0 67.4 73.9 69.7 54.4 53.1 57.2 67.0 64.0
3 53.0 71.6 57.5 72.1 63.1 62.3 49.3 52.1 55.6 61.2 64.8 67.4
4 53.4 66.6 54.8 64.5 66.6 73.1 69.7 54.1 57.2 56.0 62.1 62.3
5 50.7 63.3 49.8 65.5 63.0 71.3 65.4 59.2 47.0 56.2 63.2 61.1
6 47.3 66.2 52.4 67.0 65.1 64.1 58.8 43.4 4b.3 5�.0 58.1 62.5
% 42.8 66.6 50.2 69.3 66.2 52.5 42.8 42.9 48.9 57.7 58.4 62.5
$ 54.4 67.8 52.6 70.2 67.0 68.4 68.9 54.5 56.4 58.2 60.9 E�1.,p
9 62.4 69.9 62.4 69.4 58.8 56.7 47.6 45.7 59.2 61.8 69.9 66.0
10 53.3 70.0 55.1 70.9 58.7 70.3 67.1 49.9 52.3 61.7 64.5 66.$
11 54•2 64.6 53.6 672 66.1 74.0 69.5 61.6 53.0 56.4 63.2 64.6
12 47.2 67.2 53.2 65.5 65.1 71.6 69.3 50.9 51.8 56.9 * 62.5
13 56.0 67.7 55.9 64.2 60.4 68.3 62.6 52.4 55.4 57.4 66.1 *
14 50.0 60.7 43.2 60.8 67.3 73.2 68.2 58.7 45.8 49.0 51.7 *
15 46.0 64.1 52.3 65.9 652 70.7 67.1 54.5 49.1 53.9 57.1 60.0
16 64.1 69.4 63.9 69.5 57.8 57.4 42.3 49.4 62.2 60.6 72.3 66.2
17 62.0 69.7 62.8 70.7 55.8 57.8 48.9 40.2 61.3 61.8 72.9 66.9
1$ 61.9 68.0 63.5 70.7 49. I 56.4 46.2 42.9 60.6 60.6 71.8 64.7
19 61.8 67.2 63.3 68.7 61.3 72.6 59.5 65.3 57.2 60.2 71.4 64.3
20 49.9 66.0 51.2 69.3 63.7 74.2 70.0 59.0 53.2 57.8 59.5 63.6
21 47.8 62.3 53.1 67.6 63.9 69.4 66.0 58.0 45.4 55.5 55.1 61.7
22 45.7 66.2 53.0 67.2 64.9 69.9 66.4 55.9 52.1 58.0 61.1 63.1
23 6�.4 69.7 67.0 71.1 6�.3 70.1 63.7 55.1 64.8 6�.1 74.9 67.0
24 64.8 * 69.2 74.1 57.3 61.6 54.0 47.2 62.6 65.1 76.9 67.9
25 61.4 * 65.3 71.4 63.9 67.8 66.5 58.3 61.6 61.9 72.2 64.9
26 58 _4 63.8 59.0 70.8 61.4 64.9 61.8 56.9 55.5 56.9 69.0 64.4
27 56.1 59.2 47.2 68.5 64.8 72.0 68.2 59.6 45.2 58.4 60.0 63.1
28 bb•8 64.4 69.0 71.4 57.3 68.8 60.8 * 63.9 64.6 76.9 68.7
29 40.5 66.7 55.2 67.4 61.6 69.0 6�.5 58.0 4?.9 54.9 58.0 61.3
30 50.5 61.5 59.6 68.1 60.4 67.� 66.8 60.5 49.0 58.1 6(.6 63.1
Mo. Ldn 59.0 67.3 61.4 69.1 63.3 69.6 65.3 56.9 57.9 59.8 69.3 64.5
Note: ARTS datu missing for 0.7 davs.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs p��e Z�
` Lecc �hcut n� ente�(nur hnucc n�duiu u�•niluhlr
_ _ C
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Proposed 1Vo�th �ounda�°y Corr�dor Gate Penetrai�on An�lys�s
°nneapoli� - Si. Pau� Internat�onal t�irport
Septerriber �99� ��
•, � , . .. ��.�. • � � =' r�:� •r .1�-•
r � r '' r ',: � , � . ,
PaQe 2 Aviation Noise & Sate(lite Programs
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
• .: ;t ,1 '�' . ' � , � . '°� ;1 ;1,
' :1 • ' � • 1. ,�; �
F � ? � � ' � 1 ' '�' .: � ,. ; . :�� ' ;i . , .
— • • " �� • `� � • ; �� r
s: g e t i
,' ,.. • 1, ? ; :r. . �:
� I � � i �: � 1 1�� �i� � ' l �� 1� � ; �f; <i � ; �/ � ��� �1' �� �, 1' .: �� _
' D�VIA v'V ���� ;,_�:-�� �- �a. �; fi
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
'�ne�p�lis - St. Paul Internaiional A�rport
Septerriber 199�
��
, , � , , ,, , ,, . . �;., , .
•' ,,,. .. .. � �,:. . ':'. .. �• . ,1� �i�' L � .
,� ,,�� �� ��, ,• .� • a • �
14 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
�EFT COUNT=10 (71.4%) RIGHT COUNT=4 (28.6�)
��
-10
D�Ulai iCN � R�ti� �'�� i`; �= G- �(f I;
Pa�e 4 Aviation Noise & Satelfite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� �� ,� . ?�`.. . C E
� ' :�. �,�: ' _ � /' . � > 1; � ., ' ! . �' � .'
� ' . 1. ,1' � .; ` .�, t ; , : t, 1.
� • � ' • 1,, r ' '�; '�; �
(; li I . . ' ;�" . !1 r .
♦ .
� ��,, �, ; „,�, � �� �� �� r� � �i ..: .
Avia[ion :�oise & Satellite Programs
Paae 5
Metropolitan A.irpor[s Commission
IVl�nneapoii� � Si. Paul International r��rpor�
Sepiernber 199�
�.
�
�
i� �
�_ �
,� �
;� �
1=
��
f— �I
Co i---"-----"'----4---""""""""""---'-'-'---- :-----""'----"- �-'---------"'---� --'-"""----•
�i
i , , -
i
o �
,
o� � �
�
------------------ --------------- '----- ------------------ --------------
o� � -- -------------- - ' -----------
I
I'
I
i , , ,
3616e.. Tota� 12L and 121� Carrier �ei I�epartures
24 sso Carrier Jei I)epartures (0.7 %
South of �orrid.or (Souih of 30L I.ocalizer)
24 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
�EFT COUNT=O (0.0%) RIGHI COUNT=24 (100.0�)
��
� v 'J
��U��?.i Oti =-��,� C_\Ttrt �= Ga�E �ffi
Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satelli[e Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� IVl�nneap�l�� m�t. Paul Interr��tional Airport
Sepie�nber 199�
,
��� ;., .- . .
� �� ' �� �� .: � . , �� .� r .�
�
.; ; . . e�; ,. �; , . . � 1 ' .
,�, , . _,� . ; ,� .. k . ;. .
� TRACKS CROSSED P-GATF
c, LEFT COUNT=1 (14.3%) RIGN1 COUNT=6 (8�.7�)
0
�
�
C
C
C
r�-;
��
-10
0
s
•
•
� �
""""""""""_""'i""""'_""""_"_"_"'�""""""""'_""""'�'""_""""" �
•
e
0
""""""""_""""' {"""""""""""""�"""""""""""""'�"""""""""""""
-5DG0
0 �D�O
DEViAiiOti -��.�� ;,F�'V'ER �= G�-t j(f;
11
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� . ;;, � ;�� . �; � �` ;� ., ; . ►� . . �. � ��
.
,., �.,� �,: • �. � .: �. �;�:
. � . . � . ,. ,� ;
1: �� ' , . , . ; . �i. . � , . • i ,r : �, ��'� ��, ;
. � , �; �: : � . ,
Page 8 Aviation Noise & Sate((ite Proerams
��
Metropolitan Airpons Commission
°nneap�lis � S�. Paul Intern�tional ��rport
Septerr�ber 199�
�� � �, ° i� � ,� �� t , ; i �f �� ��� :. . . ,•. ,�, . � �, � � .
.; � . . �f�. . � ,.� �. • ��� � �
�
�� ' � 1 ; �i, ; t' ,i, ,, ' > 1' � i' .' � � ,�; �. ... , � �• i
4 TRACKS CROSSED P—GATE
�EFT CO�NT=O (0.0�) RIGHT CO�NT=�, _(100.0%)
�=
�`V'A�Iv� "��'; C���ic� �� GR�� (f��
0
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 -
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
°nneap�li� - Sio Paul Int�rnat�onal A.irport
Septerrflber 199�
Page l0
�=
���
_1r
� � � ,, . � . . . . ��.�, .
,.; . . �.�, . , � 1 ',
�; � ,• ;. . ,� . . . .
7 TRRCKS CROSSED P-GATE
�EFT COUNT=6 (85.7�) RIGNT COUNT=1 (14.3�)
.
0
.
, . ,
, , , ,
'________________����������1����_��_____���������_�_��J�������___��������______���1�����__________�_�������_�
•
O
9
"""""""""""""' i """""""""""""�"""""""""""""'� _ _ _ _ _ _'"_ _' _ _' _"""""'
-�n�
i ��ViA vN - v� ���+. _ v- vhT_ � ��
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
C_
;;
1'�'.��:a S1. ������1�� .1������ �����.�����1
�,°`'S Sq,ti. Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
>t
� t � 6040 - 28th Avenue Sou[h e Minneapolis, N1N 55450-2799
z Phone (612j 726-8100 m Fax (612) 726-5296
t o
Z _ 1 f UI
p v�
o � F
° � s
. + °
l'L Q�Raptz<9G
r� : ° � �
; ; �. .; �� �-
. . , _...� jj�
�`' t
� � "�3
c�; ' � . :;�
� ���._
.... �"i.... . __ -� .j� �_ _
The Operations Committee wili meet Fridav, November 13, 1998 — 10:00 a.m. at the MAC
West Terminal Building of the Metropalitan Airports Commission, IVorth Star Room, 6301
34th Avenue Soufih, Minneapolis.
If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 726-8141 with the
name of your designated altemate.
NEW BUSINESS
-- ..} '1999 Goals and Objectives Discussion
Correspondence
OLD BUSINESS
RMT Site Update
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION
Mark Salmen, Chairman, NWA
Bob Johnson, MBAA
Bob Kirmis, Eagan
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Brian Bates, Airborne
John Nelson, Bloomington
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights
Dick Keinz, MAC
cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Advisorv:
Keith Thompson, FAA
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
Chad Leqve, MAC
Shane VanderVoort, MAC
The �letropolitan Airports Commissiun is an affinnative actiml emplo}�er.
IZeliever Airports: AIRLAhE • ANOKA COUN'I'Y%BLAI\E > CR�'STAL � FLI'I\G CI.OUll � L.-lhfi EL�(O � SAINT PAUL DOl\'N1'0�;1'�7
, ° � , �; , . , ' / . ' i . ` ` � -�
�'K ` �, ,�� � +'; ti a
� � ' y -
1 �:
�+'�CiIV�:
S�.T�,�CT:
DATE:
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhzmann, Technical Advisor
MASAC & Operations Committee Work Plan for 1999
November 5, 1998
l�Sr�C G-oals and Objectiv�s
'', ` ':
The following table lists the proposed dates for the MASAC Operations Committee and the
MASAC meetings for 1999. Additionally, staff has added specific discussion items for various
meeting dates that may be of interest Finally, the following list of activities have already been
identified during 1998 as topics for consideration and actions that must be completed during
1999:
1. Develop specifications for Investigating GPS Landing System Use for Noise Alleviation
2. Review Nighttime Hours
3. Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
4. Evaluate departure compliance through the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor and make
any necessary changes to the relevant procedures.
5. Evaluate and investigate the benefits of a Ground Run-up Enclosure
6. FAA tour of the Farnungton Air traffic Control center
7. Continue Part 150 contour ceneration review.
8. Providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory rnade Stage III aircraft.
9. Provide feedback to the MAC in their efforts to communicate changes in operations, due to
construction schedules, to the surrounding communities
Staff will also coordinate the following activities throughout 1999:
10. Installation and upgrade of ANOMS to version 6.3 (Our current version is 4.2).
11. Write Request for Proposal (RFP) for the installation of five additional RMTs
12. Coordinate and supervise the insta]lation of the RMTs and the integration of these sites
into ANOMS.
13. Complete Year 2000 compliancy for all Aviation Noise Program applications.
14. Enhance noise hotline inforrnation dissemination options and publish various
construction updates via the Internet.
Many of the staff iter�s must be completed during 1999 for obvious year 2000 compliancy. The
installation of additional RMTs and the uparades to ANOlY1S will require staff to dedicate
�, '� considerable time to the process for a successful installation process.
Please come prepared to consider the above items as wel] as other issues that will help MASAC
focus on the overall reduction of noise at MSP.
Proposed 19991VIASAC Goals and Olbjectives Calander
�'va �,tlr6.��ilt �CL�L�.,� ;' L�91�.VHAl�aB�].dHlIIl� cC� x'� � i �'"�� Tl .� � t . � � Z ' �. -. t s
. «.z'��L.J-i,� '.r„'.., � ,b'�f" '�.��"�-� �'�. Lc+ �t'L �j�L 'y �� f- .. ,�� �." �c�k�� �L-; �Or�0818 �.1SYL81W r
r ��t�' i� y�-c �'�-°��t ty� .���"� '�'�� '�- '�' .�-;�g,#Y �-�**�� � � '' �.r � f
J
�,��y rF•,�t �, . . ,�--.r � * z �' y,+}.fy�.� �.� ,�7n,�+'',t �.p. k �' �] �.TZ�. t �.S �-mr�.,�y�TF '
�,''. '�`� ^ t� ,�._2__.�' -z ���., '�..,,.c�' z�:�i�.�^�,�`r�' :µ;=�'�.._k._,�. �.� -+�.: ,�: ,,:.��. -! i....,..�r"p`^ �.-.� , '
Goals & Objectives for 1999
January 15 Operations Committee Develop specifications for Investigating GPS
Landing System Use for Noise Alleviation
January 26 MASAC Orientation Topic - Jet Engine Noise Sources
February 12 Operations Committee RMT Installation Update
February 23 MASAC FA.A tour of the Farmington Air traffic Control
Center
March 12 Operations Committee
March 30 MASAC Receive MSP Construction Briefing(G. Warren)
April 9 Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis
April 27 MASAC Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC
May 14 Operations Committee
May 25 MASAC RMT Site Location update
June 11 Operations Committee Construction Update
June 22 MASAC Orientation Topics
r�a�e z
(
�
' �jecte�l D�te 1��e��rpflish� �1 ��,: k � � s �rs � :��
�+ � � -i � i`Kwa t rti. �c! < s "� �tr �, � � �ct ' �����ffi���
�;� � �f�� jY�L< �� T� +F h �� �C-�'�F�-„�-1-1 fi . K.F �' ls. '4 � .' t '
t.l.. �" '"'.. z �'�rF`�..t r < J{a�u Ey. .�+'"i �a '"_r. '�3� �5�`� �. .� � �.
r. .�., ,\ .:"# .*""".: L��Fr _��#. .-{k-F +�'��7}'""'�t.i vc`.• trr.:' "
July 9 Operations Committee Construction Update
July 27 MASAC
August 13 Operations Committee Construcrion Update
August 24 MASAC
September 10 Operations Committee
September 28 MASAC Stage III Compliance Review
October 8 Operations Committee
October 26 MASAC Orientation Topics
November 12 Operations Committee Focus Activities for Upcoming Year
November 30 MASAC Part 150 Progress Review
December 10 Operations Committee Establish Calendar for 2000
Pag_> 3
L �' � � �'� ���
..q F M1,� ':� : �.:,,�: :> Tiu t•
t
�'�: MASAC Operations Committee
FR�IVI: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
ST..T�,�+ C'T: Correspondence
IL)t�TE: November 5, 1998
At the October MASAC meeting, Joe Little, Inver Grove Heights ANAC Staff Liaison, submitted a
request by Mr. Fred Krueger to have MAC conduct noise monitoring at his residence. Mr. Krueger
lives approximately 8.5 miles southeast of Runway 12R, just south of the centerline. Staff has spoken
to Mr. Little about Mr. Krueger's request and has asked Mr. Krueger to contact MAC staff to discuss
the purpose of the monitoring. As of this date, staff has not received a call from Mr. Krueger.
The closest ANOMS RMT to Mr. Krueger's residence is site 22, approximately 1.5 miles from his
�-- address. Staff will attempt to contact Mr. Krueger before the operations meeting to gather additional
{ � �} background to his request.
/
t
10.`12%98 �10N 17:20 F:�1 612 450 2502 INl'ER GROVE I3TS GIZ'� IL�L (7j001
S .� � ft"' ,r'�
�n y �
� �1
[\ � '�� .�y��
.�"j S
fi i �
5
4.+ .:x�;.Y""n^4fG„��•�'.^ di "t ,S�n
a tj �:�' /1; � �S � � D �. 4 � : ,L
_. . _
. .- _ ___ .. . ..... ... . ... ..
. d� _._.__- —_..._, _ ' i
_ . . n. .._ .. • ..
To:
Fax #:
Subject:
Date:
Pages:
MASAC Secretary
725-6310
Requesfi for placement of an aircraft noise monitor
October 12, 1998
3, including cover sheet
NVlessage: Enclosed is a copy af the MI4SAC Noise �llor�itoring anc! ie�formation
R�quest Form. Listed an the form is the name and address of an (nver
Grove Heights resident, Fred Krueger, who wishes to have a noise
monitoring device placed at his home. In the case that the address is not
legibfe on the request farm, it is as follows:
�ir. Fred �{rueger
25'9 3 9�th Str�et E�s�
A���� G���� t�e�c�hts, tl�inn�sot� 55077
Please keep me updated on the status of Mr. Krueger's request. If you
need any additional information, please cantact me at the number ar
address listed below.
Sincerely,
Joe �ittle
Staff Liaison
Aircraft Noise Abatement Commission
City of Inver Grove Heights
8150 Barbara Avenue
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
612-�450-2569
Fax: 612-450-2502
10��1.2%98 liON 17:20 FA� 612 450 2502
� ` �� � � `�,�
INi'ER GROS'E fl7'S C1't'i�' HAL
;:' r
1; t. "
�
Date: �(� --- ( a„ -�( � On wieose behalf ar� you res�uesti�ag:
Name: t� f -rrr/ � - �+��A� �I'AFF �.�x��'ourseif
�
Address: -r��, �:.r� G.ncr+�F �et�"„�HTS ��t' ��� '��tY Cc�uncil
�L41.� l�A�2t��92A !�-t��i1J�L�. _ Mayor
�.tV.�c,� !'� �a��� � �r{ ___!�__ Cit�zen �, .�� /E -� �
�i{�s�.S.�'i� �l 55077 Ocganization
Phone: -
Other
Is this a one-time request: Ye or No
Bcginning Endin�
If no, vvhat is the ezpected time frarne %� this rec��est? to
___.-
Which oi the %Ilov�ing best describ�s tbe n��are of yaur requcst: (Cirr3e �11 thgt �ppiy)
G nd Noise Overflights Run-Ups Cantours Part 150 Other
r
�
1
5��� �
�'6��3' �i��3'2
r..�
10:12i98 �ON 1i:20 F�1 812 4a0 2502 INl"ER GROPE HTS CITI� $.�L
Ple�se indic�te the 199� �St�C objectives sup�aortec� by this this request:
To provide information to the MAC in lheir eff'orts to communicate chmiges in operations, dae ta conshvction
to the surrounding communities .
Evaluate departure conrpliance rhrough !he Ea�an/Mendola Heights Corridor mrd maJ�e airy necessary
changes ro the relevant procedures
Review the ANOMS system and noise nronilors, arrd evalnate the need arrd placemen� of additional remote
monitoring rowers. Also, evaJraate remote rriositoring capabilities
❑ Request.�ir Tra�c Control personnel to rr�dce a presenta[ion on how MSP operations are cvnducted.
� Look at providing incentives �o cnrriers rn acquiring-orrd aperatirrg jactory-made Stnge III aircrafl.
[� I�rvestigate how GPS and other NAT�.4ids could help a/levra�e aircraft noise.
❑ Review the NADPs and compliance.
❑ Corrtinue discussion ofPart ISO contourge�er'ation.
1'lecase ser�d your �equest via �al ta�: I�A�AC S�ret�r�, b0�0 2�t� Av��aae �.,
tYflnr�eupmlas, M.1V SS�S'0 or J� i� �:(61�} 7�5-b310.
#:
Staff Contact:
Daee Received:
is this a Phone Or Written Request7
�� _ � Approved By:
_. APP�val Date:
Availability:
Start Date:
Stap Date:
Ana}ysis 5tart Date:
Analysis Stogr Date:
Compietion Date:
2
� 003
� STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPiN ) ss
)
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
1, Thomas P. Ferber, being the duly qualified and acting clerk of the City of
Richfield, Hennepin County, Niinnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true
and exact copy of
Resolution No. 8635
and that the sarne is on file and on record in my office.
Given under my hand and seal
this 2�th day of october � �ggg.
�
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
City of Richfield
Hennepin County, Minnesota
- � �'- • :.
RESOLUTION REQUESi'i1VG THE iViETROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT
SOUND AB,ATEIIAEPlT COUNCIL TO DEVELOP A nlI1TlGATION
STUDY FOR LOW FREQUENCY NOISE 1�l1PACTS
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was
formally incorporated in 1969 with the goal of reducing aircraft noise, as well as-
increasing public knowledge and awareness of the issue; and
VVHEREAS, MASAC is responsible for the study and evaluation of existing noise
abatement policies and the proposal and initiation of new programs, thus requiring that
all council members be well informed on a wide range of noise abatement procedures
and plans; and
WHEREAS, the current levels of ground level noise (its majar compcnent being
low frequency noise) account for over half the complaints the City receives on a
monthly basis; and
�
VUNEREAS, Richfield has repeatedly requested that MASAC address impacts of
low frequency noise on communities; and
�� �
WHEFiEAS, studies have proven that construction of a new North-South Runway
located two blocks away from dense residential development will have a significant
adverse low frequency noise impact on Richfield; and �,
WHEREAS, this runway will be located closer to residential �roperty than any
runway recently constructed in the United States; and
ViIHEREAS, several independent studies support the need for rnitigation of low
frequency noise; and
llVHEREAS, studies have demonstrated that low frequency noise produces
levels of annoyance which require mitigation; and
1lVHERE.AS, the Baltimore-Washington International Airport has included
mitigation of moderate levels of low firequency noise impacts into its Sound Insulation
Program; and
ViIHEREAS, at high levels of impact low frequency noise cannot be mitigated
using noise insulation methods currently utilized for protection against overflight noise.
NOV1l, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counci! of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Mitigation measures be developed for protection against low frequency noise.
2. That residents are provided protection against impacts of low frequency (ground)
noise.
3. That the remote monitoring sites in neighboring communities measure C-
weighted, as well as A-weighted noise scales and are included with monthly
informational reports. �
4. That low frequency (ground) noise impacts are studied and mitigated on the
same level as high frequency (overflight) noise.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of October,
..;
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Name:
Address:
Phone:
�
1
On whose behalf are you request6ng:
Yourself
City Council t/�
Mayor
Citizen
Organization
Other
Is this a one-time request: Yes or No
�g -rr�
If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? (`fiy�_G�-�
�J ���
Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply)
Gro d Noi e Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other
PLEASE WRITE OUT YDUR REOUEST HERE AND/OR AT?'ACHANYLETTERS OR
FORMAL RESOL UTION.S
- -. _ . ,� a , � , .,, , .� � �, 0 � � � _ r m .
r�
�
A
Sj!il.�i�����i � �.iZI�'.�i
, _
� �'1�% � Li.�� . 1►�� %
r i � �� I�i[�
���:. 1 �/�•, l i1� �/ '����i►�t�
�� - - . . . _ <
r
1
�
�ver 1'lease
� _ (
�
. � , , ;. ` ` .` ,. ; :
� F ,
� ;', l,� • �h� ,,��
}3` rl `�i i � G
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
RMT Update
Novemb�r 5, 1998
�fi
� ♦... .... �. �;
MAC staff has visited four potential sites for additional RMT installations scheduleti for 1999. On
November 2, 1999, staff ineet with Councilwomen Sandra Colvin Roy, 1Vlinneapolis, to discuss the
Ericsson Elementary School placement. Fulure meetings are being scheduled to work out additional
issues. A meeting with Councilrnan Steve Minn is also scheduled for November 16, 1999 to discuss
the Anthony 1VIiddle SchooUKinney Park location.
Two potential site locations to the southeast of the airport have been identified as well. Eagan city staff
has selected a location just south of LeMay Lake in a park, and MAC staff was asked to identify the
;;� l location for site 26. At this time a location by Argenta Trail, in Inver Grove Heights, appears to best
- suit the criteria set forth by the Operations Committee for RMT placement.
Staff will provide additional information, as well as detailed site maps at the November 13, 1998
meeting.
C
�0�����
� �/�S�C oPE�Tfo�iS C���'�E�
OCTO�ER 9, �9998
The meeting was heid at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Star Conference
Room, and cailed to order at 10:00 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members•
Maric Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Bob Kirmis- Eagan
Kevin Batchelder - Mendota Heights
Dick Keinz - MAC
Ron Johnson - ALPA
Dick Saunders - Minneapolis
Advisorv•
Roy Fuhrmann - Technical Advisor
Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory
Ron Glaub - FAA
Cari Rydeen - FAA
Visitors:
Wiil Eginton - Inver Grove Heights
Alan Purcuss - NWA intem
: - � :.
Mark Salmen, Chair, asked that a clarification to the September 11� 1998 minutes be made
on page 7. He said in the third paragraph the ICAO A and the ICAO B procedures should
be associated with Northwest's close-in and distant procedures respectively, rather than
how it is stated in the minutes.
RUN UP FIELD RULE - PROPOSED CHAAIGES N
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, directed the members' attention to the draft Airc�aft Run-
up Field Rule included in the packet. He noted the following:
1. Any reference to the hour 2300 (11:00) was changed to 2230 (10:30) to refilect the
1
change in the nighttirne hours.
2. The primary change is in item number four. The draft field rule now includes wind speed �
variables (see draft field rule). When winds are less than 8 knots, the aircraft's heading
should be 300°, when winds are between 8 and 15 knots, the heading should be
clockwise between 270° and 090° and when winds are greater than 15 knots, the
heading should be according to the manufacturer's specifications.
DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED
TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AIRCRAFT RUN-UP FIELD RULE AND
TO FORWARD IT TO THE FULL �iASAC 80DY FOR APPROVAL. THE !/OTE WAS
UNANIMOUS. MOTIOfV C�4RRIED.
NADP CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reminded members that John Nelson, Bloomington,
asked at the last meeting if staff could invesfigate whether or not noise values at the RMTs
had changed noticeably with the implementation of the new NADP off n.inways 30L and
30R.
Mr. Fuhrmann said, there is no conclusive information that can be ob#ained from the
recorded noise levels at the RMTs with respect to the change in NADP procedures. He said
the only way to test how the departure profiiles affect noise is to compare two exact
departing aircraft following each other; one flying the close-in departure profile and one
flying the distant over a predetermined RMT site and then comparing the RMT noise levels
for both flights.
Ron Glaub, FAA, briefed the FAA's involvement in and implementation of the NADP
procedures. Mr. Glaub distributed and reviewed firvo handouts:
Advisory Cir�ular (AC) 91-53A (published in July 1993):
The AC describes criteria for safe, noise abatement departure profiles for turbojet
powered airplanes heavier than 75,000 Ibs. (DC9's and larger)
2. The FAA has worked to develop standardized profiles to minimize airplane noise and
"... believes that using the two NADP's described in this AC for subsonic turbojet-
powered airplanes can provide environmental benefits to the airport communities. The
profiles outline acceptable criteria for speed, thrust settings, and airplane configurations
used in connection with NADP's." (paragraph 4 a,b.)
3. The FAA said a number of int�icate departure procedures had been developed at
various indivir�ual airports and felt that these "special" procedures "could compromise
the pilot's attention to interior_ flight deck details, traffic avoidance, and other safety
responsibilities." (paragraph 4c.)
4. Close-in NADPs are "intended to provide noise reduction for noise sensitive areas
located in close proximity to the departure end of an airport n.inway (paragraph 5b).
F�
5
Distant NADPs are "intended to provide noise reduction for all other noise sensitive
areas (paragraph 5c).
Paragraph 6 describes the criteria for both the close-in and distant depa�ture profiles.
Close-in:
For a close-in departure profile, the pilot initiates the "thrust cutback at an altitude of
no less than 800 feet AFE and prior to initiation of flaps or slats retraction." And, "for
airplanes without an operational automatic thrust restoration system (older aircraft),
[the pilot should] 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
25.11 �(c)(3) in the event of an engine failure." In other words, safety always takes
precedence.
Distant:
For a distant departure profile, the pilot initiates the "flaps/slats retraction prior to
thrust cutback initiation. Thrust cutback is initiated at an altitude of no less than 800
feet AFE.
6. Paragraph 7c: "Each airplane operator should limit the number of NADPs for any
airplane type to no more than two." Paragraph 7d: "Each airplane 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." Paragraph 7e: "This AC should
not be construed to affect the responsibilities and authority of the pilot in command for
the safe operation of the airplane."
U.S. Department of Transportation - FAA Operations Specifications: Noise Abatement
Departure Profiles (C068)
The FAA issues this document to all aircraft operators and contains almost the exact same
information that is included in the AC. The Operations Specifications document serves as a
regulatory requirement. Once a carrier has the document, they must abide by the NADPs
outlined in the document and cannot perform any other noise abatement departure profile
operation. A representative of the FAA working with a specific carrier and a representative
of that carrier must both sign the document.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked Mr. Glaub to clarify the differences befinreen an
AC and the Operations Specifications document. Mr. Glaub said an AC is a suggestion or
an advisory and cannot be used to write violations from. The Operations Specifications
document is pari o# a carrier's operations certificate and certificates undergo a regulatory
process. Mark Salmen, NWA, said NWA was required to submit its NADP procedures for
each aircraft to their FAA Certificate Management Office (CMO). The CMO in turn reviewed
NWA's procedures and, once they were satisfied that fhe requirements of the Operati.ons
Specifications page were met, signed off on that portion. Mr. Salmen displayed an
3
overhead of NWA's signed NADP Operations Specifications page. (
Mr. Batcheider asked if NWA's procedure specifications were the same as the FAA's
specifications. Mr. Glaub said that they were.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said Bill Albee, FAA's Noise Ombudsman, told him that
the "standard" departure procedure was also availabfe to air carriers as an option. He said,
according to Mr. Albee, it is possible for aircraft to climb to 1500 feet before reaching a
"corridor" residential boundary.
Chairman Salmen said Mr. Albee's interpretation of FAR 25 is incorrect. Chairman Salmen
said NWA's standard procedure is specified as the distant NADP. He said there is not a
third departure procedure. He also said prior to 'i993 the FAA's NADP AC was based on
NWA's "quiet EPR" concept. ._
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that the Operations Specifications document
states, "For the purpose of these operations specifications, NADPs shall be limited for any
airplane type, at any one time, to a maximum of two profiles." He said many of the airlines
at MSP use the distant NADP as their normal procedure, which in essence means
continued thrust is applied up to 1500 feet before any alterations are made.
Mr. Fuhrmann reiterated that the purpose of the study for this year was to determine
whether or not the close-in procedure had been implemented off runways 30� and 30R, as
was recommended by MASAC. He said although the noise benefit was inconclusive
because of the variables, the increase in altitude for the close-in procedure does produce a
benefit. He said there is approximately a 400-foot gain in altitude at each gate for the
close-in procedure relative to the distant procedure.
Mr. Fuhrmann explained that the AC allowed the airport (via MASAC) to determine the
appropriate departure profile (close-in or distant) to be performed off each end of each
runway at the airport. The carriers, then, specify to their pilots which departure profile
should be flown for each aircraft type off each runway end.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if there was still a"normal" procedure other than
the close-in and distant. p�ocedures that are flown today. Ron Glaub, FAA, said there may
be an airline that still flies a procedure using the 800-foot limitation to accelerate. He said
most airlines are using the procedures NWA does where clean up doesn't occur until at
least 1000 feet. He reiterated that there a�e only two acceptable NADPs. He said if an
airport doesn't specify an NADP, the carrier can fly any procedure that they want, but the
carriers and the pilots don't want the pilots leaming more than two procedures, so they will
leam either one or both of these procedures. The Operations Specifications document
essentially state� that a carrier can develop no more than two procedures: per company,
per aircraft type and per airport and fly only one per runway end.
Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, said his number one concem is that the most possible
aircraft noise is being generated over the noise compatible areas of the river bottoms and
the industrial area with the distant NADP procedure.
4
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reiterated that the airport isn't allowed to determine the
specific distant or close-in procedure for each carrier, only which procedure should be
pertormed off each runway end. He said the carriers determine the specific procedure for
each profile for each aircraft within the limitations of the Operations Speci�cations. He
noted that 96% of the operations at PVISP are conducted by operators that have responded
back to the staff and have implemented-the procedures recommended by the airport.
Chairman Salmen noted that the AC dated October 17, 1978 was based on a NWA
procedure, which was established by the testing of NWA 727's to compare the standard
procedure that was being used at the time to the NADP.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he didn't think the more noise compatible areas
were being used as well as they could be. He reiterated Mendota Heights' position that
flying the close-in departure procedure to the sautheast would benefit the southeast
residences closest to the airport more than the currently flown distant procedure. He said
he wasn't sure if the close-in procedure, though, would maximize the noise compatible
areas any better than the distant.
Chairman Salmen said, although the distant procedure doesn't maximize the noise
compatible areas for a specific interest, it does maximize the noise benefit for a//
communities to the southeast.
Chairman Salmen then displayed several ovefieads in regards to:
- 1) how NWA implemented the specified NADP's (flight ops bulletin)
`�'_ � 2) information about engine pressure ratios (EPRs) and
3) the difference between ICAO procedures and the FAA's AC procedures.
Chairman Salmen made the following key points
� A flight ops bulletin was issued, which included pertinenf information for NWA pilots in
regards to flying NADPs.
. Each aircraft has its own description of how the close-in and distant procedures should
be performed for that specific aircraft.
o The 747-400 uses a flight management system (FMS), which has a computer into which
variables are entered so that the aircraft can automatically fly the correct departure
profile.
o Pilots are trained an NADPs in simulators.
o Ron Johnson, ALPA, reiterated that pilots like to have as few altematives as possible for
a procedure, fly the specified NADPs for each runway and each aircraft, and want to fly
the procedures as perfectly as possible every time.
� NWA sends out check airmen to do spot checks on pilots to be sure they are performing
required procedures.
o The specific NADP procedures for each aircraft-are performed exactly the same at every
airpo�t. In other words, if the close-in procedure is specified at another airport, the same
procedure is performed at that airport as is at PUISP.
m NWA's close-in profile equates to the ICAO A procedure and the distant profile equates
0
to the ICAO B procedure.
KEVIN BATCHELDER, iUIENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSOfV, MBAA,
SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE NADP TREND ANALYSIS AND TO PRESENT THE
FINDINGS TO THE FULL MASAC BODY. THE VOTE WAS UNAfVIMOUS. �IOTION
;�T1:7:71���
CROSS/NG lN THE CORRIDOR REVIEW
Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, briefed the Crossing in the Comdor report. The highlights of
this briefing follow:
. The report covers the time period of October 1997 to March 1998 from 2300-0600 hours
weekdays and 1500 - 1300� hours on weekends (or 3:00 p.m. on �aturday to 1:00 a.m.
on Sunday).
� From discussions with the FAA, the assumption was made that one locaf controller was
on duty during the weekday evening time periods. One local controller on duty is a
necessary variable for the FAA to be able to perform the procedure.
� Staff reviewed the FAA's logs to determine the time periods during the specified
weekend hours when there was only one local controller on duty.
. TMe time between departures is a crifical variable in the ability of the controllers to
perForm the procedure.
. Weather is another significant variable for the use of the procedure. Information about
the weather for each of the rnonths studied is included in section 5 of the report.
The major findings of the analysis are as follows:
1. During the specified 6-month time period of 2300 to 060Q weekdays there were 990
carrier jet departures from runways 12L and 12R.
2. Of the above 990 operations, 357 (36.1 %) performed the crossing procedure.
3. The time periods between departure operations that were most prevalent during the
2300 to 0600 hours were: 0-2 minutes at 12.5%, 10-30 minutes at 18.9% and 1 to 7
hours at 19.6%.
4. During the specified weekend hours there were 3734 carrier jet departure operations
over the six-month period from runways 12L and 12R.
5. Of the 3734 operations, 643 (17.2%) performed the crossing procedure.
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 time, there were 1432 carrier jet departure
operations.
8. Of the 1432 carrier jet departure operations, 419 (29.3%) performed the crossing
procedure.
9. During the weekend hours, - the two time periods befinreen departure operations that
were most prevalent were fram 0 to 2 minutes at 57:4% and from `2 to 4 minutes at
22.2 %.
10. One of the most signifiicant obstacle for performing the crossing procedure during the
weekend periods is the time separation between departure operations. (Time
�
[:l
separations of 2 minutes or less preclude the ability to perform the crossing procedure.)
11. The weather for the period was variable with thunderstorms prevailing during October
1997, snow storms in late March and freezing rain present in January 1998.
The finro main conclusions are that:
1. The weekday nighttime time period represents an area of possible improvement in the
performance of the crossing procedure.
2. The relatively short time periods between departures during the weekend hours present
a significant hurdle to the FAA to perform the crossing procedure.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reiterated that when there are 2 minutes or less between
departures, it is considered a simultaneous departure time period rather than non-
simultaneous. He also pointed aut that if the number of departures that occurred during the
0-2 minute time frame during the weekend hours were taken out of the total number of
carrier jet departure operations, there would be only 610 operations available for the
crossing procedure to be performed. And, since there were 419 crossing operations,
approximately 68% of the total avaiiable operations had crossed, which represents a fairly
high compliance rate for the weekend hours.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the head-to-head operations variable was
analyzed. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, said the head-to-head operations variable was not
analyzed because the current version of ANOMS cannot systematically analyze that type of
procedure. He said the newer version of ANOMS may allow that type of analysis for the
future.
Carl Rydeen, Tower Operations 1Ulanager, introduced himself and briefed the members on
what actions he had taken since being informed of the concems associated with the
crossing procedure compliance. He said he has (1} re-briefed the supervisors on the exact
expectations for performing the crossing procedure, (2) re-briefed each controller
individually on the procedure, and (3) met together with MAC staff and the tower
supervisors to discuss the crassing procedure, as well as the other MASAC noise
abatement procedures. PVrr. Rydeen said he will also be talking with Mr. Fuhrmann on a
weekly basis regarding concems staff may have and has notified the controllers that
compliance with the crossing procedure could be considered a performance issue.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, thanked Mr. Rydeen on behalf of his community for
both his attitude and the efforts he has already made.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said he appreciated Mr. Rydeen's efforts toward opening
up a dialog between staff and the tower, and said he thought it would be beneficial for both
parties.
After a short discussion, it was decided that Mr. Rydeen would be invited to the October 27,
1998 11�ASAC meeting to brief the full MASAC body on the FAA's efforts in regards to the
crossing procedure, as well as other noise abatement procedures.
0
�
Rl�IT LOCATION PROJECT UPDA7'E
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, noted that a letter was received from the city of
Minneapolis (included in the packet) which identifies their chosen locations for the two
additional RMT sites, both of which are located at schools. He said staff is currently in the
process of performing site surveys of these locations.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reported that staff would be meeting with Will Eginton, Inver Grove
Heights, and Bob Kirmis, Eagan, the following Monday in order to choose a location for the
RMT site in Eagan and the site that encompasses both Inver Grove Heights and Eagan.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reported that Chairman Johnson has sent a response to the City of
Richfield regarding the RMT Location Analysis. The City of Richfield, in their letter, asked
for information regarding how the locations for the new RMTs were identified, what type of
equipment would be placed at the sites, how it would be compatible with the ANOMS
system and what type of information would be derived from the RMTs. This information
was included in the Chairman's response.
Mr. Fuhrmann said staff would continue to move forward with the cities that are identifying
their RMT sites and plan for those site locations. He said before the onset of winter, staff
anticipates specific site locations will be identified for Minneapolis, Eagan and Inver Grove
Heights.
CURRESPONDENCE
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said he felt the need to update the Operations
Committee in regards to the City of Richfield's letter to MASAC members regarding the
Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Report. He then reviewed the documentation included
in the agenda package in regards to the study.
Mr. Fuhrmann reiterated that the scope of the study approved by the MASAC Operations
Committee was not intended to analyze "low frequency" noise. However, if Mr. Fidell was
evaluating the report under the false assumption that it was commissioned to study low
frequency noise then his comments would be more appropriate. He said it was staffs
perspective that the study met its objectives, as defined by Jeff Hamiel and the Operations
Committee.
Mr. Fuhrmann said he hoped the Operations Committee and the full MASAC body would
recognize that the study fulfilled its objectives.
Chairman Salmen said he agreed �with Mr. Fuhrmann that the -study fulfilled its objectives.
He said he was upset that this report, which was not out of committee at the time, had been
taken by a visitor to an outside consultant under a set of guidelines not associated with the
study. He recognized that the consultant had not been privy to the Committee's
conversations and most likely had not been given documentation in regards to the scope of
�
— _ the study. � :�. _ �-_--- . . _
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said if the City of Richfield felt a low frequency noise
study was necessary, they could conduct their own study.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he took offense to some of the "unnecessary and
unprofessional" comments made by the consultant in his report.
The secretary also noted that an earlier letter was received from the City of Richfield, as
weil, and had been included in the September Operations Committee package. This letter
requested staff to begin measuring both A and C weighted noise through the ANOMS
system and requested that a low frequency noise study be initiated to measure the impact
of the airport's expansion plans on the surrounding neighborhoods.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said in order to monitor both A and C weighted noise,
the entire ANOMS system would have to be re-scoped.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the FAA's Record of Decision (ROD) included
information on low frequency or C-weighted noise levels. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said the ROD recognized that some studies had been done regarding low
frequency noise impacts, but that the FAA does not currently have guidelines for mitigating
low frequency noise. Mr. Batchelder said the question that needed to be answered was
whether or not it was MASAC's obligation to get involved with low frequency noise issues.
Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he felt this decision would have to be made by the Commission.
Mr. Fuhrmann also noted that other MASAC issues had been forwarded to 1999, such as
the corridor issues and investigating the noise benefits of GPS technology. He urged the
Operations Committee to move forward with those issues that have already been identified.
Chairman Salmen said he felt that a low frequency noise study could be investigated further
when the MAC deems it appropriate and the FAA has standards and procedures
established for such a study.
It was decided that a response to the City of Richfield's letter should be drafted from the
Operations Committee that would incorporate the main discussion items included above.
Chairman Salmen said the letter should also clearly state that Richfield's proposed
procedures for approval of their request are not appropriate.
The next Operations Meeting will be held November 13, 1998. Chairman Salmen asked
members to come to this meeting prepared to discuss 1999's goals and objectives.
The meeting was adjoumed at 12:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary
�
�
C
�;
`I�.e first
domino f ell
in a cascade
t(I.CZt lUCIS t0 picture oi all traCfic in U.S. a'
space. Hunched over the compt
Ll1Sl`1,1�7t t(L2 zrs, stud}ring the sereens, air n•aE
specialists set che daily fli�hc ru
T1Cltl01`lGt� Gi1.7" 1nd help coordinate the �vork
zi regional en route centers, �
�1'd ff 1.0 C01'1.t1'0� departure and approach faciliti
and �6� airport to�vers.
From every vanta�e point,
SyS�2111. looked like a bad da}�, for Atla�
and else�vhere. On a clear d
�vhen you can see forever, and gilots can see each oth
the Atlanta airport can land gz to 96 planes an hour: c
every �S or �g seconds. Today, it could mana�e only c
every 6o seconds. It was the harro�ving job of Air Tra
Control �<4TC� to sort ouC suppl}� and demand.
1'ou might think thac �ti-inter, «�ith its bli=_�u-ds, �vh
outs and icing, would be air travel's biggest headac
Wrong. Air traffic control mana�ers like Harten dr�
rnuch more the sava�e, unpredictable thunderstorms
spring and summer. In July, says Harten, there are L__
a�ain as many delays as in February• Spring 1ggS had bare-
ly arrived, but it had come in with a vengeance.
When, in ATC jargon, severe ��veather or some other
problem "impacts" a major airline hub like Hartsfield
International in Adanta, the Command Center has three
basie «�ays to ease the pressure. The least draconian is to
len�then the prescribed disrance that must be mainrained
between planes headed in the same direcdon—inereasin� it
to ij miles, say, instead o£ the srandard 5. Or, in the most
severe cases, ATC can initiate a �round-delay proaram,
which pushes back departure times for all airlines' fli;hts
to the impaeted airporc, so thac tlie planes arrive at sys-
tematie intervals and do not over�vhelm rhe faciliry. "It's a
�vay of spreadin; the pain," Harten says. A middle choice
is a temporaiy "ground stop," keeping flijh�s destined for
the impacted field on the �-ound for a specified period of
time to allo�v those ah•eady in the air to land. A ground
stop usually is limited at First to airporrs «�ithin i'/, hours'
flight time of the impacted destinarion.
At S:�S A.rt., Eastern time, while the passengers on Fli�ht
�ii were do�ing or finishing their breal:fast, ATC had
�ound-stopped Atlanca. The first domino fell in a cascade
that was to disrupt the national air traf�ic system—not to
mention the c�-avel plans of hundreds of thous�nds of u-av-
elers—as far away as Los Angeles.
Some �i,000 commercial fli�h�s are seheduled daily tivith-
in the Unired States, �vith no more than j,000 planes to fly
them. The result is an intricately cadenced shuftle that Jack
Kies, program manager for the Command Center, calls "a
mul�idimensional chess game." The average airliner flies
National operations manager Pat Harten talks on the telephone at
the FAA's Air Traffic Control center in Virginia. Behind him, from
more than four flijht s�°ments a day; on smaller airlines,
rhe avera�e is more than seven. All these flights must be
�voven into a traffic pattern that ineludes roughly twice as
many military and piivate flights, so that some 70,00o indi-
��idual flights crowd the sldes evezy day.
When the weather, airport operations and the meehan-
ical whims of aireraft cooperate, this exquisitely timed bal-
let can �vork. But each day begins an elaborate dance in
�yhich ATC, the airlines' o�un operations centers, cre��•s
aloft and cre�vs on the �round stru�le to get passen�ers
and planes to their destinations on cime �u�d then onward
to the ne�t stop. "Ob�iously, we can't bat i.000 every day,"
I�ies says. On a perfectly ordinary Tuesday three days ear-
lier, ATC—which keeps track of the fli�ht delays it has a
hand in—had congratulated itself �n only S� dela}=s across
the system. (A fli�ht is considered late when it ai��ves ij
minutes or more afrer the scheduled time.� I��fore chan
ao,000 hirs in �i,000 times at bat iiiight seem an impressive
battin� a�°erage, but it is not inuch consolation to the busi-
nessman sictin� on his accache case in Phoeniti, impaCient-
ly ��:'aiting tu board a�� still on its �j�ay fi-om Dallas.
��hen Fligh� ��� cook off fi�om O'Hare at 6:�}7, Central
time, plane, pilots and fli�ht attendants had a typical full
day of l,opscotching ahead. An hour zifter arrival in
r�tlaiita, the L-loii �vas to transform itself inco Fli�ht i�y
and Icn}• some �To plssengers to Los �'ingeles, arri��ng at
A1 1 'f N S �t .1 1 :� �
. E�=.i:-:a
C
�.
__ full complement of nearly z,; oo flights a day �vorld���ide.
�.� Under airline i-ules, a dispatcher notifies the bridge when
� i t %1� a flight ��-ill be more than ij minures late or is holding, or
� �•• ,(./- �vhen connectin� times «ill be less th�in 3o minutes. At
��� _ g:�o .a.M., dispateher Marlc Hopldns told the brid�e that ju,
- ���hose an-ival time had already been pushed back, was still
behind schedule and holding. "With that one keysu-oke,"
said Caisse, "he puc dozens of people to work."
The impact at Atlanta ��as snowballing, Pat Harten was
� �-• to esplain later. "If you have go planes scheduled to land
'-��`'� ' chaC hour, but you can only land 60, then iF you stick to
k ~' rhe schedule, the ne�-t hour you may have another 60, plus
the �o left over from the first hour. I�tow you have go
�oain. And in the third hour, you may expect yet another
60. You have to do something to smooth out the demand."
"Collaborative decision-making," says Keith Iviorris,
',,,�.s-' , assistant manajer for quality assurance and uaining at.the
._ „ m�':�_ FA.A's Command Center, "that s the wave of the future
left, are Don Bringman, Jim Grimm and Mark Libby. Right: One of
the center's many screens displays storms across the country.
ll:�.:} A.M., Paeific time. At i:oj P.rt. Flight i;y-, no�v desij
nated Fli��'lC 2�0, was to return Co Atlanta �vicn another z.}o
passengers, then go on to Tampa as Fli�ht S�, «here it
«�ould remain overnight before beginning a ne�u round
next morning. After complering the fli�ht from Chicago co
Adanta, Captain Lang's cocl.-pit crew was to take Flight
T� at io:zo �o Orlando, return to Adanta, then �o on to La
Guardia in New York, while the eighc flight attendants
«�ould transfer to Flight z6g for Los Angeles, return co
Atlanta on Flight z:}o and then bacl.-track to O'Hare.
From his eonsole, Caisse could alread}' see that Chis
ambitious timetable could hardly be fulfilled. Like the
Herndon eenter, rhe Delta Operations Control Center is
dominated by huge video screens; rhat morning, one
showed radar pictures of the storm patterns around
_ Adanta, and another, with a camera trained on rhe airport
itself, displayed w-ind-�uhipped rains lashin� the rum;�a�s.
The center was abusde as flight dispatchers tried to keep
up with one of•the worsr stolzns of the year.
As do licensed dispatchers at other airlines� operadons
L centers, Caisse and the other Delta dispatchers on duty
share responsibiliry «-ith the pilot throuJhout each flight,
- � malcing joint decisions about such matters as takeoiF and
�� � - route. The dispatcher also reports the flijh�'s prom-ess co
- � the "bridge," the unified ffi�hrconcrol command post
- G �t•here broader, sa-atej c decisions are made about Delta's
for us." In a series of daily teleconferences, beginning at j
�.r�., that link the Command Center, the en route traffic
control centers and the major airlines, the day's oudook is
discussed, including rhe ���eather, the potentially impacted
airports and the constraincs on traffic. "Eveiyone has
input, we listen to them, see if their �veather forecast dif-
fers from ours," Morris says. "Basically we tell them the
situation and our proposed response to ir, and they �vork
out their responses based on that infoimation, the go or
no-go. We let them run their o��rn airlines, althou�h we
make the final call."
For eaample, when an airport can only accommodate a
limited number of an-ivals, the airline may decide whi�h of
its flighcs receives prioriry: a plane that is lo�v on fuel, one
conneccina to interna�ional fli�hts or one �vith a full load
oE passen�crs �vith tight eonnections. Many decisions once
�vere made unilaterally by the F�1, but airlines are
5 �I i T H S ll :: I :\ \
�
Cy
Hc�rtsfield';
ctccepta��ce
rc�te 2vcc� now
1_�)0,�� �U increasin�ly gaini�lg conCrol over
U 4 their o«�n destiny, i�forris says.
lCl1't�ill.�� �Gl" Recently che FAA t�as rela.led its
rules that all flights must follo�v a
�lOLl1", Ui.lt prescribed route, allo«�ng the indi-
vidual airlines, ��ith ad��ance nodce
11101"2 tl1.C111 to the FAA, to choose a route that
guarantees better ride and greater
��� Llll"Cl"GI� fuel economy.
"Yesterday we had z7 requests
LUG'1�2 Et"1. 1"OLlte, for route change. We approved aq.
of them," R�forris says.
Three hours before Fli�llC jll's
takeoff, midnight-shifc dispatcher Charles Plunkett had
filed its fli�ht plan, a fairly direct south-soud-ieasterly route.
He concluded that hea�ry �veather might dela}r landing, so
he had ordered enough additional fuel for about an hour
and ij minutes of holding time. He designated an alternate
airport—Columbia, South Carolina, some Zoo miles to the
east—in ease of problems in Adanra.
Now Lang, the pilot, was reporting that after holding
for :}o minutes, he was getting lo«r on fuel. "If I'm �oing
to hold much lon�er, I'll have to go to Columbia," he told
Hoplcins, the Delta dispatcher, "Or, how's Birmingham?"
"Noc Birminjham," Hopldns said. "Maintain Columbia."
"I'll head for Columbia in the ne�.rt five or ten minutes,"
the pilot reported.
��'ith 6�� Delta flighcs scheduled to arrive in AtI�nta that
day. :ind an equal number of departures, Flighr �u was by
no means the Delta Control Center's only problem.
AnoCher Atlanta flight, for instance, had leFt O'Hare an
hour after ju. It had followed a more westerly route but
«�as no�� also holding short of Atlanta, and its pilot was
aslcin� about �veather conditions at his bacl.-up airport,
Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina. Hartsfield's aceep-
tance rate was now below 60 landings per hour, but more
than ioo aireraft �vere airborne, holding en route to
Atlanta, having taken off before the ground stop �jent into
effect. Along �vith ju were flights from Air Canada, Con-
tinenta.l Airlines, Bridsh Air, U.S. Airways, Atlantie South-
east a.nd American Airlines.
Under the �videly used hub-and-spoke system, Atlanta is
Delta's major hub. Flights eonverge in waves, or "banks' ;
afcer an hour or so, to allo�u connecting passengers to
s�i-itch planes, a wave sweeps out a�ain, after which there
may be a long lull before the next wave. "It's enormous
peal: and valley time," ATC's Jack Kies says.
The i�6 passengers on Flight 5n who had e�ected to
take eonnecring flights after reaching Adanta �vere visual-
izin� missed business appointments, missed family
reunions, shortened visits. But no�� they were a ven a faint
glimmer of hope. Studying his cocl.-pit weather radar, pilot
G. T. Lang had spotted a break between the red, yellow
and green of the thunderstoims on his radar. After check-
C�
C_
ing in ���ith Adanta, he �vas given the OK to approach.
Caisse ���atched admiringly as Lang left his holding partern
above Rome, Georgia, and carefully threaded the L-ioii
throu�h the nano�v gap, a direct path to�vard Adanta. "He
can see the «�eather iinmediately in front of him better
than ��e can do��n here," Caisse said. "He's coming right
throu;h that nice little eorridor. He's down to i�,000, and
he's out of the li�htning and the heavy precip. BuC if he
gets do�vn here and can't shoot the approach, he still may
have to divert."
Caisse had been through this many times; as recently as
t��o nights before, when he was workin� the Northeast
con-idor, a series of savage thunderstorms had hammered
airports in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Wash-
inb on. At one point La Guardia had approached �-idlock:
the airspace was so saturated with planes unable to land
that planes parked on the ground could not depart,
because there was no room in the air.
One traveler bound for Atlanta that nijht had spent
three hours on the tarmae at the elosed Fionald Reagan
I�Tational Airport in Washington, D.C. �uhile thunder-
storms and high winds rocked the plane, and his e�-peri-
ence was repeated all over die Northeast. Caisse had been
obliged to divert four Newark-bound flights on his wateh
alone, because of weather—"I don't normally have more
than one or two diversions in a month"—sending one as
far as Pittsburglz and another to Newburgh, New York. In
the midst of these maneuvers, a southbound aircraft had
reported rhat a child passenger was havin� a sei�ure; while
ju�ling Che other fli�hts, Caisse had ai-ran�ed for a diver-
sion to Knohville for medieal aid. By 1:j0 A.M., all the
delayed flights had landed safely, some of them three hours
late. "The passengers w�ere fine," he says, "but I definitely
earned my pay that ni�ht."
On the � ant screen, it �vas now clear that the storms
had moved right over the au-port. That was not good news
for 5u. "He's turned back to the northeast, trying to go on
the backside of the weather," Caisse said, studying the riny
icon on the screen. "He can't do that very long. He's
Delta Air Lines dispatcher Steve Gaisse works with pilots in the
air to suggest altemate fiight paths around storsn cells.
going to need fuel. I think he's going to have to divert."
An airline is required to carry enough fuel to reach its
scheduled destination, plus enough to proceed to the des-
ignated alternate field, holding when necessaiy, and stiIl
land ��ith a prescribed reserve. In ju's case, the alterna�e
airfield «-as Columbia. But Colunibia lay to the east, rhe
direction the storm ��as headin�. "I don't see ho�� he can
;et there," Caisse said. "They're already getting clobbered.
He can't go back throu�h rhe weather to Birmin�ham. He
can't go norch to Kno�:ville, because there are thunder-
stonns there, too. He has to go south."
�s ii readin� Caisse's mind, dispatcher Hoplcins no�v
focused on a more southerly fallback—Augusta, Georgia.
Augusta �t�as also �o miles closer than Columbia. Headinj
for that airport «�ould help �u conseive its d�vindling fuel
supply and buy holdin� time. An L-ioii (a "gas hog"
among jets, says Hopkins� must l�ave ii,z7o pounds of
reseive fuel on landing, enough for :�j ininutes' more hold-
ing time. Flight jii �vas not goin� to be able to keep hold-
. A1 I 7' II 5 O � 1 A K
�
i
� ing much longer near Atlanta ���thout tappin� into that
!i reserve. At about io:io, Hopk-ins diverted 5ii to Augusta
i� to refuel. The announeement on the plane's intercom
Ii brought �m-oans fi•om the passengers.
:�j The dominoes were fallin�, one l�y one. Fli�ht i7�a7, the
� L-iou's nest hop, had already been rescheduled from io:io
�� to io:jj. "Tha� s in jeopardy," Caisse said. Delta w•as to
� cariy ��,000 passengers that day, but a display sho�ved
�� that only 6G percent of flights could be completed on time.
:,� It was not a happy dme to travel. At the Hartsfield �ates,
�1) Flighc ��;7 s customers were already grumpily �vaiting.
!i Some of them, in �olo�ful shirrs, had planned to go on to
�j Hawaii; their vacation plans were already dented.
;Ii On the bridge Ron McElroy, a sector manager eoverin;
the Southeast that day, shook his head at the havoc
I� wrought by the weather, the ground stops and �u's diver-
sion. He began to rearrange the dominoes into a malceshift
, I schedule. "Some steps had to be tal:en," I�icElroy under-
stated. "For Flight iT� to Los Angeles, I had a crew but no
plane. For �L:�. to Orlando, I had a plane but no ere�v. So
I deliberately delayed i� unril I could call a cre�v, and I
` J cook its crew and put dlem on :}�:a.. The flijht was still an
� hour late, but that was better than three hours; any�;�ay, I
couldn't have let 4�.'s plane tie up the gate for that lon;.
;�� The plane that had been 5u was supposed to go to LA. as
; flight i��7, then back co Atlanta; before uldmately heading
;j; for Tampa. But it was running
''' hours behind schedule. I didn't
�' On landin�
:>; b� «ant to e�tend che delay all the
� the �ane�S �vay to Tampa, «'hich �vould
�;`; p sno�uball the problern inco. tomor-
;;i row, so I arran�ed to steal a later
'! fue� load inbound plane that �vas to
� overnight here and sent d�at on the
was down to route of I'li�ht S�� to Tan�pa. We
' i; 1'T .3�� OUrI.�S call that `stubbing.' The Tampa
� � p � flight was an hour late, but, a,;lin,
l�St 3 �00 at least not three."
� � Hoplcins' "single keystroke" had
'�" ounds above �lvani_ed passen�er seivice, too.
pThe ij6 connecting passengers on
"' Sil were headed for 37 different
the mi�iimum. aestl,�arlons �ro„Jhout the South,
�i West and Caribbean. Ten «�ere
j; headed for Hunts�rille, Alabama, alone; zo �vere on their
���ay to the beaches at Panama City, Florida. The sraif
scrambled to find seats for the displaced on later flights.
; "We have to follow a prioriry s5�stem," said customer-ser-
� vice specialist tvtelanie Landruin. "Special needs passengers
"� j first, then full-fare passenaers, then our i�tedallion passen�
� jers, then the ochers. Sometimes �ve call ocher airlines that
might have open seats. Our goal is to have every passen-
ger at his or her desanation within cwo hours of the orig-
inal time. Sometimes, with diversions and traf�ic loads,
that s a hard ca11."
On the bridje, Delra's flight control had now cal:en 7
flijhts completely off d�e schedule. Managers �vere debat-
in� more cancellations. "Canceling is a ticlrlish business,"
I�•iatt Fron=ak, a seetor manager, was to say. "I used to
�vork closely with passen�er service, and I shudder ever5r
dme I push that caneellation button, because there's going
to be a lot of unhappy people on both sides of the
counter." Recently, Pron�ak had canceled flights in and
ouc ai Colorado Springs �vhen a bli__ard threaCened the
airporC. One set of flights had been ii-om Dallas to Col-
orado Sprin�s and on to Cincinnati, and the reverse order.
"Thin�s have to balance," Fronzak says. "1 ou want to
ha�-e the plane in the right place to comple�e ics rotation.
�Vhen I c�-uiceled the flight out of Cincinnati, I still had
a plane chere to fly the ne�;t day. Same thin� in Dallas.
1'ou don't ��-ant to send a plane off and not be able co
land in Co1orado Sprin�s and get it hung up in Farm-
ingron, ?�Te�v ��fe�ico, or someplace �vhere you have no
facilitics for plane or passen�ers and it's t�aro or three
days beCore you can �et it back in the loop. Be�ter to send
the passengers �a-aiting in Colarado Springs Co Denver c�r
some�vhere, �vhere ��.�e or �'Y?• airline can cake them on
c �I I T H 5 p � i .'� ��
t�n-,
��.
C
�-
C.
suppose you can't. Suppose it s the laLst flijht of the night.
The other night, when the flights �vere delayed from Che
north, we held the shorrhaul flights—Eirmingham, A�1onC-
gomeiy, Auwsta, Savannah—to accommodate connecting
passen�ers. Suppose you �vere a i��fonC�omery passen�er
who eame to the airport on time and leamed your flight
«�as delayed an hour waiting for these connecting passen-
gers. You'd be annoyed. Then suppose the plane departed
for Montgomeiy an hour late;-and chen you were told,
`I��font�omery's now below landinj limirs because of fog, so
we're turning baek to Atlanca.' You'd be more than
annoyed. 1'ou'd be mad. You'd be ri�ht back where you
started, hours later, and throujh no fault of your own. It
doesn't mal:e people happy, and iC certainly doesn't do
anything for our business.
"On the other hand," Caisse notes, "the people �uho
made their connections be-
eause ��e held their flights
would be delighted."
It was i:io in the afternoon
when Flight 5ii's passengers
finally n-udjed down the jer
way in Atlanta. Thou�h �ii
had been forced to hold short
of Atlanta, it was then ,�ven
prioriry by ATC's diversion-
reeovely pro�ram, allo�ving iC
co land ahead of other �vaitin�
flights. Some e�hausted pas-
senjers greeted fi-iends and
relarives, ��hile others rushed
off to rhe customer-seivice desk
to see what arrangements had
been made for their outgoin�
flights. It was still raining heav'
ily in Atlanta and throu�hout Che Southeast, but delays
had been reduced, the ground stop had �een lifted, and
despite weather and the beleaguered air craffic control sys-
tem, they had arrived, if not at their ultimate destination.
The day was not over for eitl�er the Herndon ATC Sys-
tem Command Center or the Delta Opera�ions Concrol
Center, however. A net*� line of se�-ere �hunderstorms
swept in after � P.M. H1il, torrential rain, lightninj and
sava;e ��inds lashed the rum��ays. Arrivals and deparn�res
��ere completely shut off for half an hour during the
Hartsfield airport's busiest cime. ATC ordered a;round
stop, eltended the ground stop, �hen made the ground
stop nation�L�ide, keeping all Adanta-�ound n'aiiic on Che
ground at every airport in che countr�-.
The ground stops �t�ere no� lifted until g P.r+.; fli�h�s
were continuing co anzve long aEter midni�ht. The "mess,"
"Eve� y day I
come to wor1Z
and I'm
handed a box
wi.th a jigsaw
pu?71e in it.
2"here's a
picture o1i the
box o f how
the puzzle
should look."
in Caisse's word, ��.�as not straight-
ened out until the follo��ing day.
More dzan a doaen additional flights
had been diverced and "countless
others" had been canceled.
NaCionally, the Command Center
reported i,390 delays, double its nor-
mal number. The cost to the air-
lines, in dollars and in the inconve-
nience and frayed nerves of the
passen�ers, was stiff. The delay and
diversion of �u alone had eost Delta
sioo,000 in fuel, additional wages,
p`�ound cre�v overtime, hotel ex-
enses and fees to other airlines,
according to Ron McElro.y:� "con-
servacive" escimate. Delays
are now costin; airlines sz.j
billion a year, according to
the Air Transport Associa-
tion, and the costs are
e�:pected to rise. Delta offi-
cials have su�ested that if,
over the ne�t deeade, its
average flight is delayed by
just a few more minutes, it
will no lonjer be able to call
itself a scheduled airline; air-
ports and airspace «ould be
so over�vhelmed that it
could no longer meet sched-
ules. South«�est decl�u-ed that
inereasing airport delays
threaten to reduce the num-
ber of se�mencs flortTn by
each of its planes by one flijht, enough of a di%rence to
mean thac rhe airline would no longer be able to o%r the
low Fares that make it competitive.
"� multidimensional chess game," Jack Kies had said of
the man}' moves and .countermoves that had to be made
by an air n�`�f�ic system stressed and stressed again. Sector
mana�er Fron_ak had a di%rent analogy. "Eveiy day I
come to �ti'ork and I'm handed a bol �vith a ji�saw pu�-
=le in it. There's a picture on the bo� of ho�= the final
pu__le should look. But «�hile I'm trying to assemble it,
people coine around, things happen and pieces disappear.
Then I have to fit things togecher as best I can, «�ichouc all
che pieces. Usually it comes out all right." =
On a night when the weather has won, airport managers nave
one last play: wheel out cots for st7anded passengers.
Edwin Kiester, )r., who last year wrote on jet Ing, flies often from
Caiijornia to both Europe and the Pliilippines.
. U I "( H 5 U � I A �
�
C
i�'� r--
i• /,.�..,.,,.,...' ;:.,�,�. ; •';�,---,
(,I ��'J� 1 `'`li}>
AGENDA � ` ? ;� , ; � ;
CITY OF EAGAN �� KF ;-� ��� � ��
j:/ �� ..... � �
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIOl�t``�� ��L�;��"'i';- -. ;` �
]EAGAN, MINNESOTA '' ' �" ��
... �;
� �.
EAGAN CI'I'�' COUNCIL CgIAIVIBERS
NOVEIYIBEIZ 10,1998
7:00 P.IVi.
I. ROLL CA�I., r�,ND �.DOPTION OF AGEN7DA
II. APPROVE9.L C?F 1VIINU'I'ES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARI)
IV. UN�'INIS]E�ED BUSTNESS
A. Request for Additionai Remote Noise Monitor Location
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Position p2egarding Waivers for Stage II Phase Out Requirement
B. lYIASAC Representative Recommendation
VI. STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
B. 1VIASAC Update
VII. INFORIVIATIVE
VIII. NEXT MEETINGS
A. Regular Commission Meeting — Tuesday, December � at 7:00 p.m.
B. MASAC Meeting — Tuesday, December 1 at 7:30 p.m.
_ _` . 1� .� '
Azailiary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 Izours.
If a notice of less than 96 hours is receivecl, the Ciry of Eagan will attempt to provide satch aid.
�
C