1995-05-10 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AGENDA
MAY 10, 1995 - 8:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of April 12, 1995 Meeting Minutes.
4. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for March, 1995.
b. Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Report for March,
1995.
c. MASAC General Meeting Minutes from March 28, 1995.
d. MAC Dual Track Airport Planning Process LTCP Report
April 1995.
e. NOISE Newsletter for April, 1995.
f. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition Final
Ranking of Airport Related Topics - April 19,1 1995.
g. Memo on Part 150 Sound Insulation Status for St. Thomas
Academy and Visitation
5. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Discuss Draft Letter to NWA Regarding Aircraft Take -Off
Profiles.
b. Discuss Background Information on MSP Nighttime Aircraft
Operations.
c. Discuss Status of Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedure
Implementation.
d. Discuss Preparation for Upcoming Presentation to the
Mendota Heights City Council.
6. Verbal Updates:
a. Update on Federal Charges of Price -Fixing Involving
Contractors Performing Part 150 Sound Insulation Work.
7. Other Comments or Concerns.
8. Adjourn.
Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request
at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120
hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every
attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible
on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-
1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 12, 1995
_ 1
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport' Relations
Commission was held on Wednesday, April 12, 1995, in the City Hall
Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called
to order at 8:05 o'clock P.M. The following members were present:
Beaty, Fitzer, Leuman, Olsen, Stein and Surrisi. Commissioner Olin
was excused. Also present were City Administrator Tom Lawell and
Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the March 8, 1995
minutes.
Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
• ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS
REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the ANOMS report for
January and February.
1
Chair Beaty stated that operations have increased and he noted
in January of 1994, there were 25,000 operations and in
January of 1995, there were 36,169 operations. Administrator
Lawell stated that the use of Stage 3 aircraft, increased
considerably in January and February.
A brief discussion ensued regarding hushkitting of DC -9
aircraft. Commissioner Olsen suggested that the Commission
consider a field trip to review aircraft which lhave been
hushkitted.
Chair Beaty stated that nighttime carrier operations have
doubled over the past year. He inquired if there will be more
nighttime activity as a result of Federal Express and UPS
promoting more extensively overnight delivery and same day
delivery.
Commissioner Surrisi inquired why the DHC -9 (turbo prop plane)
is not included in the aircraft identifier and description
table of the ANOMS report. Administrator Lawell stated that
he would inquire with Mr. Foggia.
1
The Commission noted that the number of complaints from
Mendota Heights residents doubled from January to February.
It was noted that February was a warm month and that residents
probably had windows, doors, etc. open.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MSP Monthly
Complaint Summaries for January and February, 1995.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Corridor Gate
Penetration Analysis Report for January and February, 1995.
Commissioner Fitzer
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NOISE Newsletters
for February and March, 1995.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Comparison
Graph for March 1995. It was noted that this graph contains
information on specific airports across the country along with
contact personnel, telephone numbers, yearly operations, daily
operations and Stage 3 aircraft percentages.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Richfield Part 150
Buy -Out Update for February and March, 1995.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MAC Part 150
Community Monitor Newsletter for February, 1995.
Administrator Lawell stated that the MAC has recently asked
that the City identify eligible houses within the blocks
touched by the Ldn 65 Contour. He stated that residents
living on the St. Thomas Academy and Visitation Convent sites
have now been included within the Ldn Contour.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of MnDOT's Notice of
Adequacy for Runway 4-22 Extension Environmental Impact
Statement and Related News Article.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of a handout regarding
City of Bloomington Airport Policies. These policies are
based on an extensive review and public comment process
conducted over a 10 - month period regarding the location,
improvements and 4-22 extension of the existing airport. It
was noted that the City of Bloomington is of the opinion that
MSP should continue as the region's passenger and cargo
airport.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of articles from the
Denver Post and Wall St. Journal regarding the new Denver
International Airport.
DISCUSS MEETING OF NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY
AIRCRAFT NOISE IMPACTED COMMUNITIES
2
Chair Beaty explained that on March 21, 1995 a meeting was
held with other aircraft noise impacted cities within northern
Dakota County to explore common aircraft noise related issues.
Those present at the meeting were:
Eagan: Pat Todd, Chair of Noise Abatement Commission
John Hohenstein, Assistant to the City
Administratof
IGH:
Sunfish
Lake:
Mendota
Heights:
Steve Hughes, Member of Noise Abatement Commission
Pete Amish, Member of Noise Abatement Commission
Linda Cummings, Administrative Assistant
Frank Tiffany, Mayor
Glenda Spiotta, City Administrator
Scott Beaty, Chair of Noise Abatement Commission
Tom Lawell, City Administrator
Chair Beaty explained that the meeting was extremely positive.
He explained that they reviewed a list of possible topics for
multi -city collaboration and solicited each city's position
relative to each topic. Beaty stated that the Airport
Relations Commission needs to review possible topics and
select the top five issues that Mendota Heights would like to
collectively work on with other northern Dakota County cities.
He explained that the recommendation will be forwarded to the
City Council on April 18th for their action in time for the
next joint city meeting scheduled for April 19th. Chair Beaty
invited other members of the Commission to attend the April
19th meeting.
The following list was discussed:
1. Phase -Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft
2. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations
3. Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues
4. MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion
of Existing Airport
5. Dual Track Airport Relocation to Hastings Site
6. Remote Runway Development Option
7. FAA Airspace Usage Study
8. FAA "Close -In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures
9. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues
10. Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedures
11. Runway 4-22 Extension Issue
12. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related
Land Use Controls
13. Noise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour
14. Equity of Current Runway Use System
15. Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Homes - FAA Part
150 Program
3
16. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring
System (ANOMS)
17. Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over
Minneapolis
18. Aircraft Engine Run -Up Noise
Each member of the Commission discussed their view points and
opinions regarding each specific topic. Most the discussion
was centered around Equity of Current Runway System, FAA
Close -In vs Distant Departure Procedures and Nighttime
Restrictions on Aircraft Operations.
The Commission briefly discussed the proposed Global Position
System and how it will present more possibilities in how
aircraft will depart MSP.
The Commission discussed how ground noise and aircraft engine
run-up affects Mendota Heights.
It was noted that a joint letter to Jeff Hamiel will be sent
regarding the departure procedures at MSP. Chair Beaty stated
that MAC should be informed of the joint effort between
northern Dakota County cities impacted by MSP aircraft
operations.
The Commission was of the consensus that the following issues
be suggested to the City Council as the top six issues Mendota
Heights would like to collectively work:
1. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations
2. Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues
3. FAA "Close -In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures
4. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues
5. Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedures
6. Equity of Current Runway Use System
DISCUSS PREPARATION FOR APRIL 27, 1995
JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL
Commissioner Fitzer informed the Commission that he will be
unable to attend the April 27th workshop.
Chair Beaty suggested that the Commission review the Airport
Relations Commission's Plan of Action. He also suggested that
the Commission and Council discuss the non -simultaneous
procedure issue. Administrator Lawell stated that the
Commission should use this workshop to update the Council on
the status of the many issues the Commission has been pursuing
over the past year.
Commissioner Olsen was excused at 10:02 o'clock P.M.
4
•
DISCUSS STATUS OF ADOPTION OF MAC'S NEW NOISE
MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY FOR MSP
Administrator Lawell explained that based on the input
provided at the March 8th meeting, a letter was prepared and
submitted to the MASAC Operations Committee regarding the
MAC's plans to adopt a New Noise Management Methodology for
MSP.
Lawell explained that the City strongly suggested that the New
Noise Management Methodology be more aggressive in bringing
about the conversion to an all Stage 3 flee. More
specifically, the City requested more precise measurement of
Stage 2 aircraft phaseout, targeted efforts in thelnighttime
and "shoulder hour" time periods, stricter enforcement of New
Noise Management Methodology requirements and aggressive
interim compliance goals. 1
Lawell explained that the City's comments were discussed by
the MASAC Operations Committee on March 15th and'24th. He
explained that at their March 24th meeting, over the
objections of Mendota Heights, the MASAC Operations Committee
voted to recommend the adoption of the New Noise Management
Methodology to the full MASAC. He explained that at the March
28th MASAC meeting, over the objections of Mendota Heights and
Minneapolis, the full MASAC voted to recommend adoption of the
Methodology to the MAC.
Lawell stated that while this is disappointing, its negative
impact on surrounding communities will be slight.
DISCUSS RESIDENT COMPLAINT REGARDING AIR POLLUTION
CAUSED BY MSP AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Administrator Lawell stated that he had received a telephone
call from a resident in the Curley Addition complaining about
not only aircraft noise pollution, but also air pollution
caused by aircraft operations. Lawell explained that this
resident reported the accumulation of a petroleum based "film"
on his home and property which he attributes to aircraft
operations. This resident inquired as to what the City might
be able to do to address this issue.
In response to a question from Chair Beaty, Administrator
Lawell stated that the MPCA could be contacted to inquire if
they have done tests in the area. Chair Beaty stated the City
should research the possibility if other residents have
5
experienced the same problem.
ADJOURNKENT
There being no further business, the Airport Relations
Commission adjourned its meeting at 10:20 o'clock P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberlee K. Blaeser
Senior Secretary
6
Minneapolis l St. Paul International Airport
MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council
Chairman:
Robert P. Jobnon
Vice Chairman:
Scott Bunin
Technical Advisor.
John Foggia
Secretary:
Jean Deighton
Airborne Fs,ren:
Brian Bata
Air Transport Association:
Paul McGraw
ALPA:
Charles W. Curry Jr.
City cfBloomington:
Petrone Lee
Vern Wilcox
City cf Burnsville:
Juan Rivas
City cf Eagan:
Dustin Middle
City climes Grove Heights:
Demi, Madden
City of Mendota Heights:
Jill Smith
City of Minneapolis:
James B. Scrrin
John Richter
Joe Lee
Judith Dodge
City of Richfield:
George Kama
Don Priebe
City cfSt. Louis Park:
Robert Adrews
City cf St. Paul:
Scott Bonin
Craig C. Wrudk
Carol Ann McGrire
Delta Air Lines Int.:
Rich KIdwdl
Federal Express:
Tom Rheineck
Federal Aviation Administration:
Bruce Wagoner
Ronald Glaub
MAC Staff
Dick Keine
MEM:
Robert P. Johnson
Mesaba Northwest Airlink:
Lawrence McCabe
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Commissioner Alton Gasper
MN Air National Guard:
Major Mark R. Nem
Northwest Airlines:
Mark Saimaa
Jennifer Sayre
St. Paul Chamber of Commerce:
Jack Barkley
Sun Country Airlines:
Luke A. Gomez
United Airlines Inc.:
Allan Tomlinson
United Parcel Service:
Jams D000ho
US. Air Force Reserve:
Captain Steven Chapman
US. Supplemental Carriers:
Robert A. Mix
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state,
and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical
handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international
programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the
metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all
aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and
effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities
adjoining Minneapolis -St Paul International Airport - Wold -Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of
the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of
the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective
procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected
communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and taken to alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User
Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411.
Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes
in Airport activity, but provides a public sounding
board and airport information outlet. The hotline
is staffed 24 -hours Monday - Friday
This report is prepared and printed in house by
Roy Fuhrmann and Traci Erickson
Questions or comments may be directed to:
MAC - Aviation Noise Program
Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Tel: (612) 726-8108, Fax: (612) 726-5296
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Aviation Noise Programs
Contents
Operations and Complaint Summary 1
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
MSP March Fleet Mix Percentage
Airport March Complaint Summary
March Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
1
1
1
1
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary 2
Complaint Summary by City
Tower Log Reports 3
All Hours
Nighttime Hours 1 3
All Operations 4
Runway Use Report March 1995
Carrier Jet Operations 5
Runway Use Report March 1995
Nighttime - All Operations 6
Runway Use Report March 1995 6
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 7
Runway Use Report March 1995
Carrier Jet Operations by Type 8
Aircraft Identifier and DescriptionTable 9
Runway Use - Day/Night Periods - All Operations • 10
2
4
5
Daytime Hours
Community Overflight Analysis 11
Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (11pm - 6 am)
7
10
Aviation Noise Programs
Remote Monitoring Site Locations 12
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 13
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT 13
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 14
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT 14
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 15
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 16
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 17
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 18
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 19
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 20
Flight Track Base Map 21
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Systems Flight Tracks 22
Carrier Jet Operations - March 1995 22
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 23
Carrier Jet Operations - March 1995 23
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 24
Carrier Jet Operations - March 1995 24
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) 25
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) 26
Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
•
Operations and Complaint Summary
March 1995
04
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
386
2.0%
58
0.3%
22
163
0.9%
521
2.8%
11
9488
49.7%
10335
55.3%
29
9032
47.4%
7780
41.6%
MSP March Fleet Mix Percentage
Stage 2
Stage 3
61.6
48:&
57.9
59.5
Airport March Complaint Summary
MSP
823
1094
Airlake
1
0
Anoka
0
2
Crystal
3
1
Flying Cloud
7
6
Lake Elmo
0
0
St. Paul
6
5
Misc.
1
1
March Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
Air Carrier
715
742
Commuter
320
2%
G.A.
144
148
Military
8
7
Air Freight
38
36
=•;••
Charter
•
31
"
Page 1 Aviation Noise Programs
29
121
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
March 1995
Complaint Summary by City
Apple Valley
0
5
5
0.5%
Blaine 0
1
1
0.1%.
Bloomington
2
6
8 0.7%
Burnsville 2
35 37 3.4%
Eagan 44
290 334 31.0%
Edina
5
5 0.5%
Golden Valley 2
2
4 0.4%
Inver Grove Heights 5
117 122 11.3%
Mendota Heights 20
134 154 14.3%
Minneapolis 127
172 299 27.8%
Richfield 9
19 28 2.6%
Roseville 0
2
2 0.2%
S. St. Paul 0
13 '13 1.2% -
St. Anthony
2
2 0.2%
St. Louis Park 1
0
1 0.1%
St. Paul
48
7
55 5.1%
Sunfish Lake
0
4
4 0.4%
... , ......
• .
W. St. Paul
Time of Day
1
1
2
0.2%
Nature of Complaint
:.i : • 'f:: '....'• ..... •':•"".': ' : •••••''':': .
. U .
- , • • - • • .
'--
00:00- 05:59 50 Excessive Noise 993
06:00 - 06:59 47 . Early/Late 58
07:00 - 11:59 244 Low Flying . 10
12:00 - 15:59 136 Structural Disturbance 7
16:00 - 19:59 186 Helicopter 1
20:00 - 21:59 297 Ground Noise 13
22:00 - 22:59 85 Engine Run-up 4
23:00 - 23:59 49 Frequency 8
Total,. - : : ,
:. . . .:. .
.
Aviation Noise Programs Page 2 .
' • Metropolitan Airports Commission
Tower Log Reports
March 1995
All Hours
.:r
Nighttime Hours
04
MO a
Page 3 Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
All Operations
Runway Use Report March 1 95
• 04
A 386 2.0%
208 1.4%
11L A 4681 24.5%
11R A 4807 . 25.2%
22 A
163 0.9%
2053 13.5%
1957 12.9%
80 0.5%
29L A 4805 25.2%
29R A
4227
22.2%
5504
5406
36.2%
35.5%
1
04 D 58
11L
0.3%
173
1.2%
D 4827
25.8%
2033
13.7%
11R
D 5508 29.5%
22 D 521 2.8%
29L
D 4132
2171 14.6%
22.1%
1064 7.2% •
4693 • 31.5%
29R D 3648
19.5%
4737
31.8%
•
Aviation Noise Programs Page 4
•
Metropolitan Airports Commission
•
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report March 1 95
04 A
11L A
11R
22
29L
29R
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
A
A
A
245 2.1%
2949 24.7%
3110 26.0%
92 0.8%
2968 24.8%
2582 21.6%
1 0.0%
2787 243%
3665 32.3%
285 2.5%
2593 22.8%
2037 17.9%
114
1.1%
1137 11.4%
1197
12.1%
36 ' 0.4%
3983 40.1%
3460
34.9%
1093 11.7%
1424 15.2%
805 8.6%
3372 36.0%
2636 28.2%
Page 5 Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Nighttime - All Operations
Runway Use Report March 1 95
04
A
69
7.4%
70 10.5%
11L
A
56
6.0%
11R A
89 9.6%
28 4.2%
22 A
41 4.4%
16 2.4%
29L
A 563
60.5%
408
61.0%
29R
04
A
113
22
12.1%
6.0%
136
20.3%
24
9.7%
11L
D
50
13.7%
42
17.0%
11R
D 215 59.1%
92 37.3%
22 D
33 9.1%
51 20.7%
29L D
43 11.8%
28 11.3%
29R D 1 0.3%
10 4.0%
Aviation Noise Programs Page 6
• Metropolitan Airports Commission
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report March 1 95
04
A
44
7.5%
40
. e
9.1%
11L
A • 25
4.3%
5 1.1%
11R
A 41 7.0%
13 2.9%
22 A 19 3.2%
9
2.0%
29L
A 388
66.0%
286 64.9%
29R
04
A 71
1
12.0%
0.8%
88
441
1
20.0%
11L
D 24
20.3%
17 14.3%
11R
67 56.8%
48
40.3%
22 D 18 15.3%
28 23.5%
29L
D 8
6.8%
21
17.7%
29R
D 0
0.0%
4 3.4%
Page 7 Aviation Noise Programs
Carrier Jet Operations by Type
March 1995
B727H
DC9H
196
843
1
2 0.0%
B733/4/5 1399 6.0%
134 0.6%
1 0.0%
B757 1741 7.5%
0 0.0%
3 0.0%
DC10 1132 4.9%
DC87 119 0.5%.
EA32 2167 9.3%
692 3.0%
148 0.6%
5 0.0%
MD80 1248 5.4%
2 0.0%
10 0.0%
B727 4347 18.7%
474 2.0%
108 0.5%
25 0.1%
36.3%
FK28 54 0.2%
B707
B747
B74F
B767
DA10
FK10
L1011
MD11
BA10
BAJA.
B737
DC8
DC86
DC9
8464
Metropolitan Airports Commission
42.2% Stage HI
57.8% Stage II
Aviation Noise Programs Page 8
•
4 Metropolitan Airports Commission
Page 9
Aircraft Identifier and DescriptionTable
tdCflLtJflCiArth
J3escrptiw
B727
BOEING 727
B727H
- BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT ,
B707
BOEING 707
B733
BOEING 737-300 .
B737
' BOEING 737
B73S
BOEING 737 200 SERIES
B747
BOEING 747 i
B74F
BOEING 747 FREIGHTER
B757
BOEING 757
B767
BOEING 767
BAli
BRITISH AEROSPACE 111
BEC
BEECHCRAFT (ALL SERIES)
BEI
BEE�CRAF 1900
BE80
. BEECHCRAFT KING AIR
BE99
BEECHCRAFT QUEEN AIR
CNA
CESSNA (ALL SERIES)
DC10
MDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10
DC8
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8
• DC8S
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 STRETCH
DC86
MDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 60 -SERIES
DC87
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70 -SERIES RE ,
DC9
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9
EA32
.
AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 ' ,
•
FK10
FOKKER
FK28
FOKKER F28
FK27
FOKKER F27 (PROP) i
LI011
LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011
MDI1
MDONNELL DOUGLAS DC11
MD80
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80 -SERIES
SW3
SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3
.
SW4
SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4
SF34
SAAB 340
Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Runway Use - Day/Night Periods - All Operations
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport March 1995
Runway
Name
04
Departures
Day
Daytime Hours
Percentage Arrivals
Use Day
36 0.2% - 317
Percentage
Use
1.7%
11L
.4777
26.1%
4625
25.5%
11R
5293
28.9%
4718
26.0%
22
488
2.7%
122
0.7%
29L
4089
22.2%
4242
23.4%
29R
3647
19.9%
4114
Nighttime Hours
22.7%
64168 1
Runway
Name
04
11L
11R
Departures Percentage Arrivals
Night Use Night
22 6.0% 69
50
215
13.7%
59.1%
56
89
Percentage
Use
7.4%
6.0%
9.6%
i
22
33
9.1%
41
4.4%
29L
43
11.8%
563
60.5%
• 29R
1
0.3%
113
Aviation Noise Programs
12.1%
Page 10
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Community Overflight Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport March 1995
Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours
Opetiwls
Over So. Minneapolis/ 6059
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 245
Bloomington
4630
10689
Number f
Opeiations
.. , .................................................................
45.8%
344.8
285
530
2.39 17.1
Over St. Paul -
Highland Park
92
93
0.4% 3.0
Over Eagan/
Mendota Heights
5550
6452
12002
51.5% 387.2
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (llpm - 6 am)
um
Over So. Minneapolis/
No. Richfield
66
8
74
2.4
Over So. Richfield/
Bloomington
44
18
62
8.8%1
2.0
Over St. Paul -
Highland Park
19
1 20
2.8%I
0.7
Over Eagan/
Mendota Heights
459
91
550
77.9%
17.7
..... . .... ....... .... ....
•
Page 11 Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Remote Monitoring Site Locations
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
FS#21
ve Heights
Aviation Noise Programs Page 12
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
March 1995
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT
:.:•i:•>i::: :: }i::.i::::i-i-?
:,i:.'; ::;:::n ;
vii,
:.::.i:.i:.i:-:;•i:: ;•i;•::�]- ........ .........
:; : ri ;.,: .:...: •:.... :...
,; •:::;. ..... ..; ..}•.:.. ;;•:: •: --•
....A}�y�1Af::.W.•��.:itMV."�!Ytf��:i::::::i::`.::.:5•:i•:{?:i.:.:::.i:i:::.i:•i'.}}i•.:i::
..
:I.T,• :i::
is i:il:
:i •i: fJF7 Y:'r: Y•,.� .::
•i..::.:.::.::�
;,-4.e�...:
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street
4027
81 1
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street
2731
364 3
1
3
Minneapolis
W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue
3160
1592 9
0
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Avenue & 49th Street
2871
1103 23
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Avenue & 58th Street
3690
2584 580
1
6
Minneapolis
25th Avenue & 57th Street
3627
2514 811
1
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave & 64th Street
204
39 1
0
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street
251
31 0
0
9
St. Paul
Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue
52
33 10
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street
56 •
24 12
0
11
St. Paul
Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue
24
9 0
0
12
St. Paul
Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue
17
14 3
0
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
41
22 3
0
14
Eagan
First Street & McKee Street
3173
159 11
0
15
Mendota Heights
Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue
171
37 2
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane
2604
1703 14
0
17
Bloomington
84th Street & 4th Avenue
67
49 3
0
18
Richfield
75th Street & 17th Avenue
118
83 2
0
19
Bloomington
16th Avenue & 84th Street
21
18 2
0
20
Richfield
75th Street & 3rd Avenue
9
7 0
0
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Avenue & 67th Street
97
21 0
0
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
1158
18 2
0
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kendon Avenue
1087
67 10
0
24
Eagan
Chapel Lane & Wren Lane
831
95 2
0
Page 13 Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commiision
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
March 1995
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT
- . .
.... •
- *
:
* MP ...
- :-.
..
' .
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street
218
73
4
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street
253
94
8
0
3
Minneapolis
W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue
951
242
21
1
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Avenue & 49th Street
1242
597
78
12
5
Minneapolis
12th Avenue & 58th Street
2447
1263
630
146
6
Minneapolis
25th Avenue & 57th Street
2814
1580
801
266
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave & 64th Street
1652
591
72
5
8
' Minneapolis
Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street
753
316
31
0
9
St. Paul
Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue
54
16
0
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street
47
24
13
0
11
St. Paul .
Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue
43
17
0
0
12
St. Paul
Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue
64
40
2
1
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
350
238
12
0
14
Eagan
First Street & McKee Street
2681
847
74
0
15
Mendota Heights
Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue
2470
860
95
2
16
Eagan
Avalon Avenue & Was Lane
3804
1903
456
14
17
Bloomington
84th Street & 4th Avenue
152
49
8
1
18
Richfield
75th Street & 17th Avenue
325
232
65
13
19
Bloomington
16th Avenue & 84th Street
284
160
48
3
20
Richfield
75th Street & 3rd Avenue
242
43
3
0
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Avenue & 67th Street
953
157
9
0
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
1180
152
8
0
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kendon Avenue
3873
1912
983
89
24
Eagan
Chapel Lane & Wren Lane
552
73
19
1
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 14
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st St.
Minneapolis
03/23/95 18:24:55
B727
92.9
D
03/07/95 9:42:12
B727
92.9
D
03/30/95 17:49:34
B727
91.8
D
03/10/95 15:14:50
DC9
912
A
03/04/95 6:58:27
B727
90.5
D
03/02,957:27:59
B727
89.8
D
03/03/95 16:10:48
B727
88.9
D
03/01/95 19:26:19
B727
88.8
D
03/10/95 15:14:05
DC9
88.8
A
03/13/95 0:26:49
DC9
88.7
A
RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
Minneapolis
ii!.:....:•Wi*:::,,,:,•.ON,i.::•:,,:' •:•:•' .... . ,:;• „1„„i....v*::,„r1
Date Thn
.;:: „
:.,.
M}
03/15/95 9:05:11
B727
100.1
D
03/30/95 17:49:02
B727
99.3
D
03/07/95 9:41:43
B727
99.2
D
03/31/959:43:42 '
B727
98.6
. D
03/30/95 9:44:29 •
B727
97.9
D
03/15/95 7:55:31
B727
97.7.
D
03/15/95 16:30:39
B727
97.7
D
03/23/95 20:59:35
B727
97.6
D
03/03/95 18:43:22
B727
96.3
A
03/10/95 17:10:01
B737
95.8
D
Page 15
Aviation Noise Programs'
RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
Minneapolis
03/05/954:54:05
B727
101.7
AIP
A
03/25/95 18:18:34
B727
96.9
A
03/16/95 20:06:25
B727
94.8
D
03/04/95 6:58:21
B727
94.4
D
03/15/95 6:25:21
B727
93.9
D
03/01/95 14:39:13
B727
93.4
D
03/03/95 16:10:37
B727
93.2
D
03/22/95 20:35:00
B727
93.2
D
03/25/95 18:34:54
DC9
93.1
A
03/07/95 10:32:48
B737
90.6
D
RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St.
Minneapolis
03/16/95 20:27:41
B727
101.8
D
03/15/95 13:31:56
B727
101.2
D
03/16/95 20:25:49
D
101.1
D
03/31/95 19:59:48
B727
101.0
D
03/15/95 13:33:39
B727,
100.6
D
03/15,95 21:04:25
DC9
100.6
D
03/21/95 20:11:55
B727
100.4
D
03/22/95 20:13:38
B727
100.2
D
03/14/95 12:16:46
B727
100.1
D
03/03,95 15:47:30
B727,
100.0
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St.
Minneapolis
RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
Richfield
.. ..:.:.
�:::.. n:::::::i..:::v:.y?::::::.::::''v.•j::,.:;::.v.::,:.:;::.:T::;:•:;.v:::;:
ii :::::::
::: ::::::s;:.:::; ::.:{; y::l
v:ti:i};. ;•;;i.'.:
03/03/95 11:15:25
B727
108.1
D
03/16/95 8:53:46
B727
107.8
D
03/03/95 23:55:28
B727
107.4
D
03/17/95 10:47:27
B727
106.4
D
03/16/95 8:15:12
B727
104.6
D
03/23/95 20:15:45
DC9
104.6
D
03/23/95 20:59:11
B727
104.2
D
03/07/95 13:28:59
B727
103.0
D
03/23/95 17:04:03
B727
103.0
D
03/16/95 15:32:29
B727
102.7
D
RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
Richfield
.. ..:.:.
�:::.. n:::::::i..:::v:.y?::::::.::::''v.•j::,.:;::.v.::,:.:;::.:T::;:•:;.v:::;:
ii :::::::
::: ::::::s;:.:::; ::.:{; y::l
v:ti:i};. ;•;;i.'.:
03/14/95 8:53:21
B727
103.6
D
03/31/95 8:42:05
B727
102.3
D
03/15/95 17:00:35
B727
101.1
D
03/20/95 8:22:27
B727
100.5
D
03/02/95 9:02:31
B727
100.2
D
03/23/95 19:19:18
B727
99.9
D
03/29/95 16:52:11
B727
99.9
D
03/29/95 8:42:33
B727
99.8
D
03/02/95 16:43:29
B727
98.5
D
03/21/95 15:22:09
B727
98.2
D
RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St.
Minneapolis
RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
Minneapolis
.....;:::.... .:.:.:..
.
/
03/31/95 20:13:53
DC9
109.3
D
03/16/95 20:19:20
DC9
109.2
D
03/23/95 18:23:52
B727
108.9
D
03/21/95 20:20:51
B727
108.8
D
03/16/95 19:42:04
B727
108.7
D
03/22/95 19:54:46
B727
108.6
D
03/29/95 19:48:27
B727
108.6
D
03/15/95 13:33:12
B727
108.5
D
03/02/95 12:13:26
DC9
108.4
D
03/22/95 20:12:19
B727
108.3
D
RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
Minneapolis
.....;:::.... .:.:.:..
03/14/95 13:12:38
B727
99.3
D
03/21/95 17:17:53
B727
99.3
D
03/14/95 8:14:03
B727
98.1
D
03/21/95 14:46:14
B727
97.7
D
03/3119514:51:39
B727
96.6
D
03/30/95 17:23:15
B727
96.2
D
03/17/95 17:23:01
B727
96.1
D
03/02/95 17:20:05
B727
95.9
D
03/2119517:26:39
DC9
95.6
D
03/29/95 17:12:57
B727
95.4
D
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 16
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
St. Paul
03/11/95 21:31:18
B727
94.0
A
03/12/95 23:37:55
B747
92.9
A
03/12/95 22:57:56
B727
92.0
A
03/11/95 21:03:16
B727
91.6
A
03/13/95 0:13:53
B727
91.5
A
03/13/95 0:09:14
B727
91.3
A
03/19/95 22:45:14
B727
90.7
A
03/13/95 1:22:31
B727
90.5
A
03/24/95 22:16:17
B727
90.3
A
03/11/95 22:51:25
B727
90.1
A
RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
St. Paul
03/06/95 10:47:04
B727
86.3
D
1
03/24/95 22:22:48
B727
85.0
A
03/21/95 5:56:50'
DC9
84.9
D
03/22/95 6:10:01
SW4
84.8
D
03/16/95 19:53:51
MD80
84.7
A
03/18/95 7:20:33
SW4
83.9
D
03/06/95 10:46:38
B757
83.7
A
03/05/95 9:38:22
DH8
83.4
D
03/26/95 1:10:43
B737
83.2
D
03/01/95 13:00:01
DC9
82.9
D
Page 17
Aviation Noise Programs
RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
St. Paul
03/13/95 0:26:49
B727'
1
97.5
A
03/11/95 21:58:55
B727
97.4
A
03/12/95 23:38:38
B747
I
97.1
A
03/13/95 14:29:49
DC9
96.4
D
03/13/95 0:02:19
B727I
95.8
A
03/13/95 0:14:33
B727I
95.7
A
03/12/95 22:58:35
B727
95.1
A
03/11/95 21:32:04
B727
94.7
A
03/16/95 22:54:42
B73S
94.7
D
03/10/95 14:18:54
B727'
94.3
A
RMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
St. Paul
DtTmte
03/06/95 20:50:41
B727
102.1
D
03/13/95 18:11:45
DC9.
97.7
A
03/29/95 8:43:03
B737
94.4
A
03/22/95 22:12:44
SW4
91.8
D
03/14/95 8:03:44
DC9
91.4
A
03/01/95 12:59:56
DC10
88.8
A
03/01/95 7:00:18
BE99
88.6
D
03/16/95 12:33:45
B737
88.6
D
03/01/95 8:02:45
DC9
88.2
A
03/28/95 9:21:45
DH8
87.9
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court
Mendota Heights
03/10/95 21:26:55
B727
97.4
D
03/23/95 9:37:00
B727
96.6
D
03/14/95 20:11:37
B727
95.0
D
03/11/95 7:27:56
B727
94.6
D
03/10/95 17:28:00
B727
94.5
D
03/13/95 8:27:23
B727
94.3
D
03/28/95 13:13:25
B727
94.3
D
03/12/95 7:47:54
B727
93.9
D
03/10/95 9:44:14
B727
93.8
D
03/25/95 8:11:23
B727
93.4
D
RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
03/12/95 7:47:00
B727
103.5
AiD
D
03/06/9510:38:28 B727
102.2
D
03/11/95 20:06:32 B727
99.7
D
03/25/95 16:27:04 B727
99.4
D
03/12/95 19:46:46 B727
97.8
D
03/19/95 9:57:18 B727
97.2
D
03/11/95 18:53:18 DC9
97.1
D
03/13/95 6:57:53 B727
97.0
D
03/12/95 12:14:43 B727
96.8
D
03/18/95 20:08:30 B727
96.8
D
RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St.
Eagan
03/20/95 8:00:33
B727
97.8
A
03/20/95 8:07:17
MD80
97.6
A
03/20/95 8:07:54
DC9
96.0
A
03/20/95 8:48:55
B757
95.5
A
03/20/95 7:53:40
B727
95.0
A
03/20/95 2:22:15
DC9
94.8
D
03/19/95 12:40:55
B73S
94.7
D
03/19/95 1:48:39
B727
94.6
• D
03/20/95 8:07:35
EA32
94.5
A
03/20/95 7:46:31
DC9
94.4
A
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
Eagan
03/04/95 14:09:13
B727
104.6
D
03/18/95 17:17:38
B727
102.6
D
03/10/95 21:38:30
EA32
102.4
D
03/11/95 14:34:30
B727
102.2
D
03/20/95 15:10:40
B727
102.0
D
03/11/95 20:04:04
B727
101.9
D
03/10/95 9:20:17
DC9
101.9
D
03/19/95 17:13:48
B727
101.8
D
03/18/95 17:21:21
B737
101.7
D
03/18/95 20:13:23
B727
101.6
D
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 18
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave.
Bloomington
iii:, ....... : . .. ..... .„.„: . ..,. ,..
..
li!iiiNftikw
. .... .
A11)
03/04/95 6:35:13
B727
100.8
D
03/29/95 16:16:47
B727
98.5
D
03/04/95 5:55:53
B727
97.5
D
03/31/95 15:53:20
B727
97.5
D
03/23/95 22:11:45
B721
97.0
D
03/19/95 6:13:05
B727
96.3
D
03/30/95 23:35:42
B727
95.8
D
03/25/95 22:44:00
B727
93.8
A
03/25/95 23:47:34
B727
93.0
A
03/20/95 20:17:43
B727
92.5
D
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St.
Bloomington
-.. ... - '
DatTin
.
.::::$:::.:.::. ••"-
. .... .
A11)
03/31/95 16:14:52
B727
102.3
D
03/19/95 6:15:05
B757
102.1
D
03/20/95 23:25:48
B727
100.3
D
03/17/95 9:08:46
B727
99.8
D
03/02/95 8:39:43
B727
99.6
D
03/24/95 6:21:41
B727
99.4
D
03/01/95 6:15:24
B727
98.5
D
03/19/95 6:18:05
B727
98.0
D
03/30/95 9:15:23
B727
96.8
D
03/31/95 15:03:04
B727
96.8
D
Page 19
Aviation Noise Programs
RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave.
Richfield
DatThi
.
.
A/D
03/19/95 6:12:44
B727
I
103.6
- D
03/30/95 9:09:58
B727i
103.1
D
03/31/95 15:53:04
B727'i
102.7
D
03/29/95 16:16:35
B727
102.6
D
03/19/95 6:23:07
B727'
102.5
D
03/01/95 14:31:49
DC9
102.3
D
03/10/95 19:56:01
B727
102.2
D
03/02/95 8:03:04
B727
101.9
D
03/05/95 19:15:23
B727
101.8
D
03/11/95 15:03:04
B727
101.8
D
RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave.
Richfield
.
.
03/01/95 14:32:07
DC9II92.4
D
03/28/95 22:38:34
MD80'
92.2
D
03/30/95 10:39:20
B727
91.0
D
03/24/95 6:13:03
B727
89.7
D
03/21/95 9:42:51
DC9
89.2
D
03/21/95 10:53:09
B727
88.9
D
03/20/95 21:47:24
B737
88.7
D
03/14/95 12:50:16
FK28
88.0
D
03/14/95 13:16:42
DC9
87.7
D
03/21/95 10:22:20
DC9
87.4
D
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
Inver Grove Heights
03/19/95 1:09:37
B727
92.4
D
03/12/95 6:48:28
B727
92.0
D
03/22/95 18:19:48
B727
90.7
D
03/12/95 4:48:08
B727
90.4
D
03/13/95 8:18:13
B727
90.4
D
0322/95 14:50:46
B727
90.4
D
0326/95 12:15:53
B727
90.3
D
03/05/95 20:26:57
B727
90.1
D
0325/95 18:54:25
B727
90.0
D
03/19/95 21:01:06
B727
89.9
D
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota Heights
03/12/95 14:57:19
B727
105.5
D
1
0323/95 9:36:32 B727
105.1
D
03/04/95 12:15:47 B727
105.0
D
03/11/95 20:06:27 DC9
104.9
D
0328/95 9:39:41 B727
104.7
D
03/04/95 12:00:17 B727
104.4
D
03/13/95 9:53:20 B727
103.7
D
0327/9510:15:21 B727
103.6
D
03/16/95 12:46:47 B727
103.3
D
03/18/95 8:08:52 B727
103.3
D
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
03/30/95 19:03:53
B727
96.4
A
03/04/95 20:13:44
DC9
92.3
D
03/12/95 18:45:38
B727
92.2
D
03/13/95 8:06:00
B727
91.6
D
03/30/95 18:55:26
B727
91.3
A
03/13/95 7:30:24
B727
91.1
D
03/11/95 19:07:34
B727
90.9
D
03/11/95 7:28:27
B727
90.8
D
03/04/95 18:33:52
B727
90.5
D
03/10/95 8:04:07
B727
90.3
D
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
03/27/95 1:45:32
B727
100.5
AID
D
03/24/95 10:29:26
B727
95.7
D
03/11/95 19:07:05
B727
95.6
D
03/04/95 16:20:45
B727
95.4
D
03/31/95 12:40:14
B737
95.1
A
03/04/95 15:47:30
B727
94.8
D
03/13/95 8:05:36
B727
94.4
D
03/10/95 7:46:53
B727
94.3
D
03/19/95 17:20:17
B727
94.3
D
03/04/95 20:50:40
B727
94.2
D
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 20
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Flight Track Base Map
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
Page 21 Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Systems Flight Tracks.
Carrier Jet Operations - March 1995
March 01 to 04, 1994
Of?
•EoPy "-
**'1•<P•e' tils%
r
t A
•tr' ''•••,. •
•
Ara! "••"'L'z' it•)11
NaDot
• t ' fteL1/441171..rt._,.,
c'--1,!:g%01141.-,41tfi •
••
'•"-"j11
1..111%
• •?.
`Vss'7*>•••F-"
- ..•••-sik;!4.
1514 Carrier Jet Arrivals
March 05 to 11, 1994
•
. ...,...„._.....„_-_-.,,,..7r"......1v
.• .
...r. ... •••., ...I! 4V:if 71•MMINE.
s . •.. 1p I ate jg 4 i
- .•, s\-z;..,•,....miwir giirr' ,
• -,• .,.,. .,..F.-..,-.1 i
• -1'%4i.itt'a wiiilkil
'.nr!,.•%11:13.
.--....
--.:
•
•;•••--
. 4 '
-••••
2642 Carrier Jet Arrivals
1366 Carrier Jet Departures
2455 Carrier Jet Departures
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 22
, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations - March 1995
•
March 12 to 18, 1994
March 19 to 25, 19,94
•
--••••••"0,,,••••
we,,S. •
1011'
,-,041fr.Ht•
14' AI
_
!Walt
2665 Carrier Jet Arrivals
2729 Carrier Jet Arrivals
,110,-..;1:111-11iV.*-;11.:* .
, ---,....• ? ,•,,,. ..,:.
-;',...-*': . -:
2....-
,(?;;;-
, ‘1"17111 AirX , •
.*.: ',.....;?:
OgfigirAC:
it If • • ,.. :,.....,5"3;
.'";":
2536 Carrier Jet Departures
Page 23 Aviation Noise Programs
2685 Carrier Jet Departures
Metropolitan Airports Commiskon
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations - March 1995
March 26 to 31, 1994
tviiraitai
:..."•;* --;:::-. • - '• "- •"'''',..- ''.-4:.W. telf,a.11141
-- •,••••. N.:'
• • • •.. • .
, . • • •• - '
• •t • • t ,.':•,';''-. -:: • .••••-•-•-' --""--11111
• . • , • ,:•••••‘•:: i•?;.'
,,,. • , - ",,,, . '. ' ' \ .7-511:41: :._,*L'I..
-; • -----
:...... •-,;.,..!-,-:. ,
.,....::
2396 Carrier Jet Arrivals
2326 Carrier Jet Departures
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 24
Metropolitan Airports Commission
• Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
March 01 to March 30,1995
Noise Monitor Locations
Date
............... ...
......
#Z•i:ii,.&%:i•:1,':!;
,,,.
#S
:.
MV:ii
-4:.:•:•:::::,::6i::::•
- •-•,,:
::':,:::i'i,::,:::,:',
i:',.:'g:iiiiii0iii
ii:iiiiiiiiiiiii M;
•
., , ••••,:iliii:r.i:i:i:::::::iiiiiiiii;:i•
.,:. ,
--i:::::i::.:N::.:•K:i
1
59.3
58.7
61.6
61.5
73.4
77.3
66.1
62.3
49.4
58.9
48.9
54.5
.
)
2
58.5
59.0
65.0
66.1
76.0
78.8
70.5
64.6
47.5
58.9
I
52.2
58.8
3
57.9
58.4
63.6
66.7
78.5
77.5
66.8
62.3
51.6
607
532
61.2
4
65.2
67.2
69.7
69.6
75.1
79.6
63.2
65.0
47.6
591.2
56.8
55.2
5
62.3
702
67.6
65.5
69.8
70.1
61.1
53.5
43.1
507
58.3
49.3
6
62.0
64.3
68.6
66.2
70.5
713
622
63.7
53.7
57.'P
56.7
59.3
7
60.3
57.5
63.2
64.1
73.9
78.0
70.5
63.6
46.6
56.6
45.3
54.1
8
58.0
56,3
61.5
62.6
71.4
78.0
67.9
62.7
50,1
49.4
I
46.2
47.4
9
58.0
60.9
67.5
652
70.5
733
57.1
62.3
47,4
57.4
50.3
50.9
10
58.4
602
65.4
64.0
68.2
73.5
49.4
61.8
51.7
64
55.0
58.0
11
58.7
59.7
65.4
64.0
68.8
72.0
472
61.0
65.5
68.4
54.7
57.0
12
61.0
61.7
67.6
65.4
70.6
73.4
512
63.3
66.7
70.7
55.7
56.1
13
60.0
62.7
66.3
66.6
712
78.0
61.0
61,7
65.9
74
522
59.3
14
58.3
' 60.0
65.1
66.5
73.2
79.3
67.0
64.9
46.0
581/
I
53.1
53.9
15 .
610
65.9
70.9
69.5
78.7
79.7
67.2
63.9
48.5
554
46.2
58.0
16
573
62.3
67.7
71.7
76.1
78.0
62.8
60.0
63.9
69.4
' I
52.6
56.1
17
60.7
59.4
65.4
68.9
76.6
812
70.3
69.0
39.2
55.6
51.3
49.4
18
60.8
62.5
66.3
64.4
68.3
70.2
55.4
59.4
49.6
56.6
' I
52.5
.
47,9
19
60.7
62.2
662
64.4
682
70.6
56.9
58.7
63.8
65,6
I
50.6
50.3
20.
61.0
61.6
63.1
65.5
77.3
81.1
69.8
65.7
43.2
526
I
40.5
54.1
1
21
592
60.5
63.4
67.3
73.4
79.7
67.8
65.4
46.8
57/
I
53.8
58.9
, ‘
22
58.7
61.7
67.3
67.9
73.1
77.6
62.3
59.9
50.9
58:6
, I
55.7
61,8
23
59.4
61.1
73,5
67.3
73.5
76.9
67.6
65.1
54.5
58.3
54.5
56.0
24
58.0
60.4
64.7
66.0
71.6
77.0
61.5
622
62:7
66:71
56.3
61.9
25
61.9
65.1
69.4
68.0
72.6
73.5
64.6
67.5
51,9
59.8
. I
55.9
54.3
26
66.4
66.7
73.5
67.7
75.0
742
63.4
64.1
48,5
59.8
54.9
53.3
27
65.1
67.4
72.0
673
74.5
73.3
64.0
63.2
43.3
56.2
I
47.3
57,2
28
61.2
62,7
65.8
65.6
70.5
74.8
63.4
55.8
47.7
52.8
50.6
59.5
29
61.0
61.4
652
66.6
73.9
80.0
67.8
63.7
53.3
56.5
, I
51.3
56.1
30
59.8
59.0
63.8
65.4
73.4
79.1
68.8
65.6
47.6
55.6
50.4
53.6
31
582
'4'756.5
63.9
68.3
74.6t-'?
- i
80.7
69.3
67.5
48.3 '
56.''i
50.5
56.3
.~
',t'.°t0.2
Mo. Ldn
61.1 .
67.8
67.0
f4cr
77.7
.4 ',.,
7 64.4
59.1
63.3
54.9
58.2
Page 25
Aviation Noise Programs
* Less than twenty-folur hours of data available
Metropolitan Airports Commission 1
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) •
March 01 to March 30, 1995
Noise Monitor Locations
Date*mmiggair,:isv:ipiiimtie
#14
..,.... . : .......
?...i:..::
,
:
"
..gmg:
.......:-
#20
..... i§...:
::,...if.
.:. .. :::..im
.
.,„.............
1
47.1
584
49.1
69.5
62.4
70.0
70.9
562
37,4
56.5
55.4
62.1
2
502
59.7
63.6
68.8
58.8
70.1
69.6
58.7
48.5
57.8
63.9
62.8
3
48.9 •
61.9
61.6
68.4 .
642
72.1
71.9
58.4
52.4
58.9
64.6
63.7
4
63.3
69.8
65.7
74.0
72.1
75,0
69.6
60.1
62.5
64.6
73.6'
68.5
5
62.4
67.6
65.8
73/
62.8
64.5
54.4
60.6
61.1
63.7
73.9
67.4
6
64.8
67.6
69.4
73.6
45.8
60.8
52.6
56.0
632
65.4
76.3
68.0
7
54.1
65.0
*
71.3
54.9
59.6
52.4
62.6
59.4
612
64.0
65.9
47.1
61.4
*
68.7
60.1
67.4
70.7
57.4
54,7
59.7
62.5
612
9
645
59.3
*
68.5
49.1
56.6
42.9
48.7
. 62.6
60.9
72.3
64.7
10
68.4
60.1
69.8
73.5
482
47.9
45.8
47.6
63.7
63.4
*
68.7
11
67.5
61.6
70,9
73.7 •
443
462
45.7
43.7
62.8
64.7
* -
67.1
12
70.5
67.5
71.8.
69.8
44.6
46.6
50.6
47.7
67.5
64.0
.77.9
0 65.3
13
66.4
68.7
70.0
72.1
60.1
67.5
68.5
52.7
62.9
66.7
76.1
67.0
14
63.3
68.7
64.9
72.0
62.4
69.3
68.6
56.5
61.6
62.7
73.8
66.4
15
56.1
69.4
60.6
69.1
67.8
72.4
71.3
562
56.3
60.8
66.9
•64.8
16
64.3
69.1
66.5
722
562
55.5
482
57.3
62.8
63.7
742
66.3
17
59.3
69.2
65.1
72.7
61.5
68.7
67.4
57.5
57.6
62.8
68.2
67.0
18 '
65.5
65.3
67.4
77.1
65.1
63.3
49.5
47.7
63.3'
. 672
76.1
70.3
19
66.0
62.2
68.0
72/
66.6
75.1
73.8
57.8
65.8
64.4
76.0
67.8
20
47.5
67.9
57.4
70.7
61.3
74.3
70.3
71.0
47.9
61.1
62.5
66.6
21
50.0
65.5
. 61.5
69.9
61.8
. 72.7
722
57.7
53.9
62.0
66.1
65.5
22
65.8
64.9
68.1
742
642
65.4
49.0
58.6
64,5
64.9
75.0
69.1
23
68.4
62.4
68.3
742
68.50
71.6
59/
602
65.4
65.3
77.5
67.9
24
63.9
62.8
662
732
60.5
72.8
70.7
60.5
62.4
63.6
74.3
68.4
25
65.0.
63.1
68.5
71.7
68.8
68.9 •
49.1
58.4
62.0
62.5
75.0
67.7
26
68.0
65.6
69.9
71.7
66.6
67.8
52.0
59.5
62.7
64.2
75.8
67.3
27
63.6
68.9
66.3 •
72.8
65.0
66.9
572
58.6
58.6
59.6
' 75.8 •
68.7
28
63.5
66.7
65.7
73.4
66.4
71.9
71.6
63.4
62.3
65.1
74.9
68.4
29
63.3
63.3
64.3
74.4
65.5
68.4
65.3
562
62.1
65.0
73.7
68.9
30
47.4
61.8
53.0
70.2
66.1
72.1
72.6
'57.9
49.6
61.0
59.6
64..5
31 ....,_
. 51.2
64.3
55.8
69.5 '
672
74.9
72.5
60.4
56.0
59.8
60.6
65.0
Mo. LditiT64.3
65.6
1 67.0
72.5
64.6 •
.070.0
68.0
60.8
61.7
63.4
73.7
67.1
* Less than twenty-four hours of data available
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 26
Pntst•:*z.•:>
:SP Monthly Complaint Summary
Monthly Fleet Mix Summary
I4"
MSP Arrivals - All Operations
e
WI
a•k
.. ......
100
80
60
Over-Eagan/Mendota-Heights
Over Minneapolis
ona4n ton,
...... .
• 4,'S''ke'..<
'•;;*•.14,•;••1:
....
Wet: ............
';:i•I;;;;;
AMMIN?;;:i
,x••, •Z•I•141.*:
.,;•:,;;,;•:•;,;•:•44$:,,••••:•• •
"•••••••
. . ...
iggenVE:
EHS
P Departures - All Operations
100
80
60
Over Eagan/Mendota Heights
Over Minneapolis
main ton
...
...
. .
• <::w
'444$ $r!,iFte.-TAIPR.
s.. .......
............ ..
... . . ....
• MT' : ..
...............................
:5..t.5ft4•1 „
PA:1g
grAirm:
Ng:
MSP Carrier Jet Arrivals
•
. .
: : .......
100
80
60
le, • • • • • • • •, ....
. . . ..... ..........
[5%
.t c
J-xxPMSP Carrier Jet Departures
100
80
60
Over Eagan/Mendota Heights
Over Minneapolis
omin ton
..............
SI<
At:4; .... .... .. ;;
Aktialtii:::M4ffiffi,
... .
.......... .. .
1.•,"
MSP Nightt11ne Arrivals
Ali
100
80
60
Over-Eagan/Mendota Heights _ Over Minneapolis
oxen ton
:st�kk t't7
•;[g:..fi.:.:�..r',i; l: •.{af�trat::>tsg>�p::::ks: :::;,7:" y;`#'.
.t� ' •'r..r::'�;r{•..V ;l r{; .J.'—' . ii,.�.q... rii'ii��ii{ii'i�i '�; i:'• 2kt2F^#"
v,f=: .ff .'tu-:: +#"#cykk r#`f:9::;c5.:;:::it rr,'22rr : S.#kriic q;:r it? ;3:ax•:?3,<3 3`'}3y*
...::!Vi}t �!.£�•:1^':. r.....::. a,..r..... •a.�tt..... �,.i.. ................+Y f�•%:'. :.:'S . »!t#kv . .:rS
tin,`'rr �j7
:Y.r{..x .. ....
MSP Nighttime Departures
A1j.perations
100
80
60
Over Eagan/Mendota Heights
Over Minneapolis
o 'n ton
���}•- :ar7,'ri; :'--:. y. __..,,. - ---.�: �.rro:•?<.xc;;:<::xs:.:>.r:---, :;ar.:.:::-}:;;:r•::,:>}ria...�,-....-
-r f.• '{{{: 5.: :}t .:rit, i o- r,1 t1 „h�; ,.+,q.rr rr�.::: lr r:,r .��rfi r: r 'Sr%"nJ e '
R7 rr::f:•:•n.,.n.,:...:.,vrf:n..:r,.: v.,rna:. x. .. ...... :...::.. F:x,:.:... � st <', .t •_. �.�...f ..
✓n4
;#S#t�r�ySii
P Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
100
80
60
Ov=gan/Mendota Heights
Over Minneapolis
ona'ngton :...._�............
,,.522-
.SSS S .Y} r. ;•.i:.:, •t
.1�',�-:. :.:::: ,...�.�. ;rn rn. rc.•y..:: aT;iii.8'r'{fi'•,..an.... ..!:}c..;...;..; _ ._
r.f<. r':!3% t>{'.#2>�;tr,}`r rt': ;;rr•� :':_�. i Y
!,S ! y . } -+
.y2:.::Y..:,ofi.:>?.yli!#S#'.!%iS;i.:<J:� ''f•�.•:} .fCK C y'ti *riga i2'
atttttthO
- .... .. }.....r..... ti�.,rti$.>.•��rrr..rrr.i',.-f!�'Sr, .t>t}::;.. •.t:.. -
�f... .}••::.:.• }.::;::•,;:t.;;:;:::�' :a.- •i/v�b.S�< . t:•,.s}.-t.::?{{,�{.}1r�{�::�:::iiiiii'ii:a�:'•'•i7�
?aa�:::r##aac?+:,�;iit�rob:}: v::at� .ice...
•... x;rr• ::.
i:;�2ZSL??.j *'SSI;. 4 "MiNg"
::
+Dt22k.' .:H:
carrier
f
ors
100
80
60
Over Ea
Over gan/Mendota -eights
Fr...Df Minneapolis
gton
,,^fi5titilY iYSti�:3Y.: r{: i. r3 yt..:?t$Y:V
•
$k'
2Y:
Y{`
1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
6452 Total Carrier Jet Departures from Runway 11L & Runway 11R
•
k.":
414i. --;<"----.Q--- -----,Z41. -'-----',"---.. "<'-.•;zzl.--.-..1--.>:'---,'7:-.::_.---,-N'Z'-_-,--,,Z•,;,-,...,...,=,---..,::‘,...:z...._......., ,..z,..
''',,,=-,,,:-.s-,,-,=:::1,-:.---.,:
iii --4.'k----,...4 ``.....--, .---- -'-'s'•.:--,...;.'s..--- :-..---7-- --k--..z.-.., ------ ----•=----:,'..":::: • -.‘.•,•k`-‘,
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Proposed North Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
Page 2
0.9 % (56) Carrier Jet Departures North of Proposed 095° (M)
Corridor Policy Boundary
Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
6452 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
39 ... Carrier Jet Departures (0.6%)
North of Proposed 095° (M) Corridor Policy Boundary
N)
C=D
39 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=8 (20.5%)
RIGHT COUNT=31 (79.5%)
•
.
•
.
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
. • •
•
• • •
•
• •
.
•
-6 00 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) ;
6000
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
6452 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
17... Carrier Jet Departure - Early Turnout (0.3%)
(North Side Before Three Miles)
17 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=16 (94.1%) RIGHT COUNT=1 (5.9%)
Page 4 Aviation Noise Programs
1
•
11
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
II
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
10.9 % (702) Carrier Jet Departures
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
Aviation Noise Programs
Page
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
6452 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
693 ... Carrier Jet Departures (10.7%)
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
693 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=4 (0.6%) RIGHT COUNT=689 (99.4%)
-6000 -4000 -2000
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft)
Page 6 Aviation,Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
6452 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
2 ... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (0.1 %)
(South Side Before Three Miles)
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
Page 8
2.2% (141) Carrier Jet Departures 5° South of Corridor
(5° South of 29L Localizer)
Aviation Noise Programs
CJ
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International. Airport
March 1995
6452 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
132 ... Carrier Jet Departures (2.0%,)
5° South of Corridor (5° South of 29L Localizer)
132 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
o LEFT COUNT=2 (1.5%) RIGHT COUNT=130 (98.5%)
0
ALTITUDE (ft)
1000 2000 3000 4000 50
,
.
,
r ,
.
, ,
.
,
,
•
•
•
•;
•
••...t. `-M
• • dy'
• ••
,
• ,v
, •••--z.
..• ••
•et
• •}
• •
}
i
, 1
,
-4000 -2000 0 2000 4000
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft)
6000
Aviation Noise Programs
Page 9
' Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
March 1995
6452 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
2 ... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (0.2%)
- (South Side Before Three Miles)
Page 10 Aviation Noise Programs
MINUTES
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GENERAL MEETING
MARCH 28, 1995
7:30 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order. Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Scott Bunin at 7:30 p.m. and the
asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance:
Mark Salmen
Martha Faust
Brian Bates
Peggy Hillman
Bob Johnson
Ron Johnson
John Smith
Dick Keinz
John Richter
Jim Serrin
Gordon Wagner
Scott Bunin
Carol McGuire
Craig Wruck
Thomas Hueg
Don Priebe
Jamie Verbrugge
John Nelson
Petrona Lee
Vern Wilcox
Ann Lenczewski
Mike Schlax
Jon Hohenstein
Charles Mertensotto
Juan Rivas
Jim Hollenbeck
James Kunzman
Manny Camilon
Mayor Frank Tiffany
secretary was
Northwest
Northwest
Airborne Express
UPS
MBAA
ALPA
Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
St. Paul
St. Paul
St. Paul
St. Paul
Richfield
Richfield
Bloomington
Bloomington
Bloomington
Bloomington
Eagan
Eagan
Mendota Heights
Burnsville
Burnsville
Inver Grove Heights
St. Louis Park
Associate Public Member -Sunfish Lake
1'
Advisors
Denis Cornell FAA
Steve Cramer MAC Commissioner
John Foggia Technical Advisor
Roy Fuhrmann MAC GIS/ANOMS Specialist
Traci Erickson MAC Noise Specialist
Jean Deighton Secretary
Guests
Jan Del Calzo Minneapolis
Charlie Kennedy MPCA
Borys Polec Minneapolis
2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting March 7. 1995
The minutes of the March 7th meeting were approved as presented.
3. Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communication
No invited guests.
Letter received 3-24-95 from Inver Grove Heights Aircraft Noise Abatement Commission
requested MASAC recommend to MAC the use of a Distant versus Close -in departure
procedure when using Runways 11L/11R. Chairman Johnson referred this item to the
Operations Committee.
Letter received 3-24-95 from Joe Lee requested that John Richter's motion, tabled at the
January meeting, not be called off the table until the April meeting. Chairman Johnson replied
that the Runway 4/22 extension issue will not be brought before MASAC until all appropriate
agencies have completed the final environmental analysis.
Letter received 3-14-95 from John Nelson, City of Bloomington, asked that personalized
embellishment of statements made by MASAC members at the meetings should be controlled
in order to preserve the Council's credibility and influence with agencies such as the MAC and
airlines operating at MSP.
Chairman Johnson read a resolution of appreciation for former MASAC Chair, Scott Bunin.
Ann Lenczewski, Bloomington moved and John Nelson. Bloomington. seconded, to present
the resolution of appreciation to Scott Bunin with the Council's warmest regards. The motion
was passed by unanimous vote.
4. Persons Wishing to Address the Council
Borys Polec, Minneapolis, reiterated noise complaints on frequency of flights. In his opinion,
aircraft operations have doubled - there are more than 60 planes overhead per hour. Nobody
2
can live in his neighborhood anymore because of the noise. Alt the houses should be moved.
The extension of runway 4/22 should never be built. Mr. Polec's home is in the RMT #6 area
which reads 77.3 Ldn - think about that noise level.
Michael Jordan, Ed Drenttel and Tom Bjork, addressed the council on behalf of the Hawthorne
Woods area of Eagan (Diffley and Dodd Road). The Hawthorne Woods area has been
inundated with noise. The quality of life has been upset because of the frequency of flights
which did not exist 11/2 years ago They questioned what level of noise is in Hawthorne Woods
and if there is a monitor? John Foggia responded that Hawthorne Woods is 91/2 miles out -
the furthest monitor location is 6% miles. The monitors are placed in high density areas.
MAC has tracking capabilities, which is more valuable than monitors. Corridor compliance is
up. MSP total operations are up by 30 to 40 per day over that neighborhood. The aircraft are
still operating in the same manner. Ron Johnson, ALPA, added that operationally, and
procedurally nothing has changed for 12 years. There are just more operations. Denis Cornell,
FAA, agreed that increasing operations and repetitive flights are causing the problem. Mark
Saimen relayed that NWA is hushing aircraft at approximately $6 million per plane [varies per
aircraft type]. Time and production is a factor. Northwest is now at a maximum, hushing six
planes per month. Mr. Jordan asked if the Corridor will be extended. John Foggia replied,
this has already been discussed. Inver Grove Heights is against extending the Corridor, since
it would cause new noise impact areas.
5. Update on Runway 4/22 Extension Project - By Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan, MAC Airport Planner, reported on the following:
* Background and History of the Runway 4/22 Extension process - on going since 1978
* PROJECT DESCRIPTION ( latest cost figure for project is $57 million)
Structural Changes - will include 2750' runway extension, taxiways, high-intensity lighting.
Operational Changes - 1550' threshold displacement further to the SW, change in departure
headings.
Navigational - Runway 4 lighting, relocate glide slope.
Mitigation - sound insulation 1400 homes, acquisition of 75 houses.
* PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
Operational considerations - 11,000 feet of usable runway length is beneficial to heavy aircraft
and international flights; and an alternative for major and necessary reconstruction of runway
11R and 29L.
Noise Redistribution - when possible, shift operations to SW. 7000 people wil
(3000 will get more noise - 4000 will get relief).
* STATUS
The extension project is on hold awaiting FAA Record of Decision on the EIS
Proposed construction start is possible by August 1995.
A question/answer session followed.
3
be impacted
Don Priebe, Richfield, commented that the net result of the 4/22 extension will affect 3000
people in Bloomington/South Richfield in the Ldn65.
Jim Serrin, Minneapolis, asked for a description of air traffic distribution on the two runways,
and on runway ends.
Jamie Verbrugge, Richfield, asked that HNTB, or qualified persons attend the April meeting
to answer questions on operations, and the usefulness of extending Runway 4/22. Mike Schlax,
Eagan, concurred and added that operations will be increasing and he would also be interested
in this information. Staff will make a decision on these requests after the Record of Decision
has been received and after State approval. Any discussion before this time is premature.
6. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary
The reports for February 1995 were distributed and reviewed.
John Foggia called attention to the new report format which reduced the size to 26 pages. The
content of the reports has not changed.
Points of interest: Good job with Tower utilization of RUS - 11.7% departures to the SW.
Page 11 (carrier jet operations at night) shows the lowest percentage of operations over
Mpls/No. Richfield since last year. This is postive relative to the RUS. Stage 3 operations
at night (11 p.m. - 6 a.m.) are up to 75% versus 36% when voluntary Stage 2 nighttime hours
started.
7. Briefing: Operations Committee - New Noise Management Methodology (NNMM)
Chairman Johnson relayed that the NNMM is listed with the MAC full commission as the first
item to be taken care of, and to provide them with our input. The MASAC Operations
Committee members have put in much time and effort to compile the Draft Agreement. A
copy of the Operations Committee minutes of 3-24-95 and the Draft Agreement were
distributed to all members.
Committee Chairman, Mark Salmen, reviewed items 1-12 of the draft agreement. The draft
is attached to the minutes.
John Foggia displayed a graph of FAR Part 36 (Advisory Circular 36-1F) showing Noise levels
for U.S. certified and foreign aircraft - aircraft and hushkit comparison of takeoff and arrival.
The graph included Engine, Aircraft Type, Maximum Takeoff Weight, Takeoff and Arrival
noise level. The graph depicts the effect of increased Stage 3 operations.
Mr. Foggia stated that the NNMN Draft asks for year -by -year air carrier operations change.
This technique does not preclude using ANOMS - it replaces ADNE as a reporting tool.
ANOMS will be used extensively with the NNMM as a tool to monitor airlines' reporting.
4
Commissioner Cramer commented that the draft does not affect airline behavior over the next
few years. MSP should be a test case and spend some time to find the limits of what airport
proprietors can do.
John Nelson, Bloomington, relayed that ADNE (which was difficult to comprehend) has
expired. We have nothing now. Under this draft you will see a reduction earl and every year,
down to zero in five years with no -backsliding, using actual operations and not percentages.
The public members were well -represented at the Operations Committee and dominated the
meeting. Mr. Nelson feels strongly about approving this draft. The NNMM is our number
one item on the 1995 goal list for MASAC. The NNMM benefits all communities surrounding
MSP. He urged adoption of the draft and advancing it to MAC P&E Committee as soon as
possible.
Scott Bunin. St. Paul. moved. and Carol McGuire. St. Paul. seconded to approve the NNMM
Draft as presented by the MASAC Operations Committee.
A discussion session followed. Staff clarified questions.
Mark Saimen, NWA, stated that using "best efforts" in voluntary references and personalization
to MSP, are all in consideration of ANCA. If the NNMM were to be regulatory, it would be
deemed more stringent than ANCA, and therefore not legal. John Foggia added, that a non-
voluntary restriction would require a Part 61 action.
Martha Faust, NWA, commented that the NNMM will ensure reduction during
Years".
the "Interim
Mayor Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, for the record, objected to the NNMM Draft. The City
of Mendota Heights wants a more meaningful and aggressive NNMM in the areas of
measurement of Stage 2 phaseout, nighttime/shoulder hour time periods, enforceability of
NNMM requirements, and interim compliance goals. The Mayor relayed that the city will not
approve the draft NNMM. The NNMM will do nothing and MASAC is deceiving the public.
We will still have noise when aircraft are all Stage 3.
5
A roll call vote was taken. The motion was approved. 16 to 5 as follows:
YES
NO
Mark Salmen, NA
Jim Serrin, Mpls
Martha Faust, NA
John Richter, Mpls
Brian Bates, Airborne
Gordon Wagoner, Mpls
Peggy Hillman, UPS
Mayor Mertensotto, MH
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Jim Kunzman, IGH
Dick Keinz, MAC
John Smith, Minneapolis CC
Craig Wruck, St. Paul
Scott Bunin, St. Paul
Carol McGuire, St. Paul
Don Priebe, Richfield
Vern Wilcox, Bloomington
Petrona Lee, Bloomington
Jon Hohenstein, Eagan
Juna Rivas, Burnsville
Manny Camilon, SLP
8. Informational Briefing
John Foggia, Technical Advisor, presented an overview of the Differential Global Position
(Satellite) System (DGPS). The report covered GPS Basics, History, Capabilities, Accuracy
Issues, Satellite -Based Position WAAS (National Ground Station Network) and LAAS (Local
Area DGPS Ground Station), GPS Implementation MSP LADGPS Proposal.
The installation of GPS at MSP will transmit highly accurate position information from
satellites to airborne aircraft for terminal navigation, landing purposes, and also to ground
vehicles for precise surface movement capabilities. The installation will allow the first CAT -I
precision GPS approaches and assist FAA in establishing CAT II GPS precision landing
certification requirements.
MAC is teaming with Honeywell/Pelorus and NWA to develop, install, and seek FAA
certification for the first DGPS ground station in the United States. The system is expected
to be installed at MSP during 3rd quarter 1995, and scheduled for certification flights for
6
Category I landings shortly thereafter. NWA will install a number of airborne GPS receivers
capable of processing the DGPS navigation information, and is a partner in the early
certification process. MAC's Executive Director is enthusiastic about the prospects of the
revolutionary GPS landing system, and proud to help implement the next -generation
international navigation program with the initial U.S. installation at MSP.
9. City of Bloomington Airpori Policies - INFORMATION ITEM ONLY
On 3-6-95, the Bloomington City Council unanimously adopted 11 airport policies which are
based on extensive review and public comments conducted over a 10 -month period. The two-
page document was distributed to all members, and was included in the March MASAC
package.
10. Report of MAC Commission Meeting 3-20-95
Chairman Johnson reported the commission meeting items were not pertinent to MASAC.
11. Other Items Not on the Agenda
John Nelson requested the MASAC meeting time be changed from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Chairman Johnson referred the request to the Executive Committee who will review changing
the meeting time, and putting time controls on the agenda items.
12. Adjournment
Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jean Deighton, Secretary
UPCOMING MEETING DATES
Full Commission MASAC
May 15, 1995 May 23, 1995
1:00 p.m.- Room 303 7:30 p.m.
Planning & Environment Committee
May 3, 1995
1:00 p.m. - Room 301
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Developing a Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP 2
Activity Forecasts 3
Airport Facility Requirements Refined 5
Airport Development Concepts Updated 5
Concepts 1, 2, 5 and 6 6
MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Illustration 8
Recommended MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan 9
Noise Contour Map 11
Appendix 12
1
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
A Dual Track Airport Planning Process —
designed to study the region's long-term
aviation needs - was established in 1989 by
the Minnesota Legislature's Metropolitan
Airport Planning Act. The seven-year
planning process is being conducted by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
and the Metropolitan Council.
One track addresses ways to provide the
needed capacity and facilities at Minneapolis -
St. Paul International Airport (MSP) to meet
the long-term aviation needs of the region.
The other track studies the capacity and
facilities needed at a new (replacement)
airport in Dakota County.
MAC is responsible for new airport site
selection in the search area, preparing a
comprehensive plan for an airport on the
selected site, developing the MSP Long Term
Comprehensive Plan, and preparing the state
environmental documentation. The
Metropolitan Council conducted the search
area study and prepared an MSP Airport
Reuse Study.
The Airport Planning Act also requires
the MAC and Metropolitan Council to make
a recommendation to the Legislature in July
1996 on which approach should be taken for
future airport development.
DEVELOPING A LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
The Metropolitan Airport Planning Act
required the Metropolitan Airports
Commission to develop a Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for Minneapolis -
St. Paul International Airport (MSP) by
Jan. 1, 1992. The statute also required that
the LTCP be updated prior to its presentation
to the Legislature in 1996.
The LTCP for MSP provides a develop-
ment plan for 2010 and a conceptual plan for
the year 2020. The Plan, as directed by the
Minnesota Legislature, is based on the
assumption that MSP would continue to be
the region's major airport.
The LTCP's primary goal is to determine
the projected activity and passenger levels for
MSP, assess the extent of facilities required to
meet this activity, and investigate airfield and
terminal alternatives to meet these needs. In
addition to functional and operational issues,
the LTCP addresses the airport's compatibili-
ty with its urban environment.
During the initial LTCP planning
process, the three most promising airfield
alternatives and two best terminal alterna-
tives were combined to yield six consolidated
concepts for detailed evaluation. The
concepts included:
• Concept 1— North parallel runway with
additional east terminal.
• Concept 2 — North parallel runway with
replacement west terminal.
• Concept 3 — South parallel runway with
additional east terminal.
• Concept 4 — South parallel runway with
replacement west terminal.
• Concept 5 — North -south runway with
additional east terminal.
• Concept 6 - North -south runway with
replacement west terminal.
On Nov. 25, 1991, MAC selected
Concept 6 for MSP. This concept proposed
construction of a new 8,000 -foot north -south
runway on the west side of the airport, and a
replacement passenger terminal on the west
side of the airport. The selection was to be
used in the continuing dual track planning
work, and as the basis for the update.
As required by the Airport Planning Act,
the 1990 air service forecasts used in the
LTCP were reviewed and revised in 1993. In
addition, an independent Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Capacity
Enhancement Plan was developed for MSP in
1993.
The FAA plan identified several actions
that would increase capacity and improve
operational efficiency, including runway and
taxiway construction, as well as additional
navigation equipment. The runway plan
with the most benefits was a north -south
runway, the same runway included in MAC's
Concept 6.
2
.4S
The MSP Long Term Comprehensive
Plan Update was completed during 1994 and
1995. Components accomplished included:
• Update of existing conditions at MSP.
• Update for forecasts of aviation demand.
• Revision of airport facility requirements.
• Revalidation of airfield and terminal
alternatives.
• Update of 2010 Development and 2020
Conceptual Plan.
Using the revised facility requirements,
four of the six original development concepts
were revised and analyzed: Concepts 1, 2, 5
and 6. Concepts 3 and 4 were eliminated
from further consideration during the
environmental scoping process because of
significant operational and noise concerns.
Also during 1994 and in conjunction
with the LTCP Update, an Alternative
Environmental Document (AED) was pre-
pared for MSP. The AED addressed the envi-
ronmental, social, community and economic
issues of the four remaining MSP concepts.
At its Feb. 21, 1995 meeting, the MAC
determined the AED to beadequate and - -- - -
confirmed the selection of Concept 6 as the
preferred Long Term Comprehensive Plan for
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.
ACTIVITY FORECASTS
As required by the Airport Planning Act,
the 1990 socioeconomic and aviation
assumptions used in the original Long Term
Comprehensive Plan were reviewed and
revised. The review addressed industry
changes caused by airline financial issues,
aircraft fleet plans, the role of regional
(commuter) airlines, and local and national
economies.
In order to ensure that the revised fore-
casts considered all viewpoints, four "expert
panel" forecast workshops were convened in
1992 and 1993 by MAC and the
Metropolitan Council. The panels consisted
of airline representatives, economists, and
others experienced in aviation forecasting.
The revised forecast assumptions resulted
in more air carrier and regional carrier
originating passengers at MSP, while
connecting passengers decreased compared to
levels previously forecast. The forecast pro-
jects total passenger growth from 21 million
in 1992 to 33 million in 2020.
The revised forecast includes increased
operations by regional carriers, air freight
carriers, and general aviation, but fewer air
carrier operations than the previous forecast.
Total airport operations are forecast to
increase from 418,000 in 1992 to 520,000
in 2020.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Passenger Activity (millions)
1992 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Charter Passengers
Scheduled lnternational Passengers
Regional/Commuter Passengers
Connecting Airline Passengers
Local Airline Passengers
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Aircraft Operations (thousands)
1992 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
General Aviation and Military
All -Cargo Carriers
Charter Carriers
Scheduled International Carriers
Regional Carriers
Domestic Scheduled Carriers
3
ACTIVITY FORECASTS (contillued)
2020 Hourly Distribution of Aircraft Arrivals and Departures
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
O Departures
Arrivals
7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2
AM
7 8 9 10 11
PM
Future increases in aircraft arrivals and departures will occur in all hours of the day, with
peak operations occurring in the afternoon.—In the future; the total aircraft fleet mix will
include an increased percentage of large regional aircraft (30-50 seats) compared to smaller ones,
and more widebody jets.
4
1992 and 2020
Total Fleet Mix
Small regional
aircraft
General
aviation
1992
Large regional aircraft
Military
Widebody jets
General
aviation
Military
Widebody
jets
Narrow
body jets
2020
Small regional Large regional aircraft
aircraft
Narrow
body Jets
1"
.11
L
I
I
I
111
1
t
I
I
1111
1
1.`
I
1
I
t
1
'-t'i ="' L Y"
1
i''
1
7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2
AM
7 8 9 10 11
PM
Future increases in aircraft arrivals and departures will occur in all hours of the day, with
peak operations occurring in the afternoon.—In the future; the total aircraft fleet mix will
include an increased percentage of large regional aircraft (30-50 seats) compared to smaller ones,
and more widebody jets.
4
1992 and 2020
Total Fleet Mix
Small regional
aircraft
General
aviation
1992
Large regional aircraft
Military
Widebody jets
General
aviation
Military
Widebody
jets
Narrow
body jets
2020
Small regional Large regional aircraft
aircraft
Narrow
body Jets
1"
AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS REFINED
After the forecasts were updated, the four
remaining concepts were refined to accom-
modate changes in facility requirements.
While there have been no significant
changes in airfield planning standards since
1991, consideration was given to the impact
that future generation, high capacity aircraft
(like those being discussed by Boeing and
Airbus) would have on airfield layout.
Key requirements for future MSP facili-
ties include:
• An increase in passenger loading gates
from 69 to 83.
• An increase in terminal building space
from 1.5 to 2.8 million square feet.
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS UPDATED
Following the facility requirements work,
the concepts were updated in light of new
requirements and other outstanding issues.
The original LTCP concepts were refined in
these areas:
• Terminal and gate concourse layouts
• Ground access to the west terminal
• Off -airport mitigation and land use
• Functional location of facilities
A study determined the best terminal
plan to accommodate the facility require-
ments within both a new west terminal area
and supplemental east side terminal improve-
ments. Several new terminal layouts were
evaluated, building upon a 1994 MAC
Terminal Facilities Study for MSP.
Analysis of the roadway access to a west
terminal was refined to determine the opti-
mum layout to connect the terminal with
Highways 77 and 62. The previous plan of
two access points for the west terminal was
consolidated into a one access point plan to
minimize passenger confusion and provide
better traffic flows.
The north -south runway placement was
refined for operational efficiency and mitiga-
tion of off -airport impacts. Further analysis
was conducted to determine the specific
impact FAA and state planning criteria
would have on hotels and other buildings in
Bloomington. Three hotels, one office build-
ing, and two other buildings would have to
be relocated because of this runway. The air-
craft approach path to the new runway would
be east of the Mall of America. The final
runway alignment is slightly east of the
5
• An increase in total automobile parking
spaces from 21,000 to 38,000, with
22,000 public and 16,000 employee.
Other requirements include 74 addition-
al acres of cargo building and apron area, for a
total of 135 acres; and 74 additional acres of
aircraft maintenance facilities, for a total of
267 acres.
previous one. Additional airfield simulation
was also done to refine the runway use.
The functional layouts for the various
aviation related facilities in the concepts were
revised so that most of the air cargo facilities
are located along Highway 77 for convenient
access to the airfield and the highway system
(Highway 77, I-494, and 34th Avenue).
Aircraft maintenance facilities would be
located outside the runway system where
building heights will not affect control tower
line -of -sight to the runways. The area in
Concepts 5 and 6 between the new runway
and Runways 4-22 and 11R -29L would be
developed with some cargo facilities, MAC
facilities, and other related facilities that
would not obstruct the view from the control
tower to the new runway.
MSP AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
Concept 1
• New 7,700 -foot north parallel runway
• Additional passenger terminal east of existing terminal
• New satellite concourse on the west side of the airport
• Additional facilities on south and west sides of the airport
Concept 2
• New 7,700 -foot north parallel runway
• Replacement passenger terminal on west side of the airport
• Realigned concourses in the existing terminal area
• Additional facilities on south and west sides of the airport
...--
*
ie•ii.--
=1-s•
Future
Aircraft
Maint.
A
CP
44••
1 Future Remote
• Auto Parking
P
ot
,499,16's
'no -0/
/?ock7
• 0
• k
• ,5 cg
• << I,,
0
.*4, VZ4ke,
N.\\704
ore
• 410
• ilk,
.• efr
• 4,
.... . /,,...,
'A
.. ..-
(4110"
AbyPoto -'II? VO
wa. re ,
7- it/
0/. oi) 44-4 -
tiv,? Of
0/ 3.1i
it
• ...!
•I''
.—..-:.-
r
,
. r
.F.
AI i
OA,
Tit
_Amm
!Pr
1
0 1:f
• New 7,700 -foot north parallel runway
• Additional passenger terminal east of existing terminal
• New satellite concourse on the west side of the airport
• Additional facilities on south and west sides of the airport
Concept 2
• New 7,700 -foot north parallel runway
• Replacement passenger terminal on west side of the airport
• Realigned concourses in the existing terminal area
• Additional facilities on south and west sides of the airport
Concept 5
MSP AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS (continued)
Concept G
New Airport
Entrance
Future West
Terminal
• i ,,
■rt,
•,
•
■
•0
0
■ •• e
Ga
SI, • 4
o •
■
■
•
■ Future
■ Aircraft
: Maint.
Future
Aircraft
Maint,
• New 8,000 -foot north -south runway
• Additional passenger terminal east of existing terminal
• New satellite concourse on the west side of the airport
• Additional facilities on south and west sides of the airport
7
• New 8,000 -foot north -south runway
• Replacement passenger terminal on west side of the airport
• Realigned concourses in the existing terminal area
• Additional facilities on south and west sides of the airport
11131 RECOMMENDED MSP LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
At their Feb. 21, 1995 meeting, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission selected
Concept 6 as the preferred alternative for the
Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.
The concept was selected because it offers the
best balance between operational features
(such as airfield capacity and expansion
opportunities) and environmental impacts
(noise, historic properties, wetlands).
Airfield Features
The new 8,000 -foot north -south runway
would be used predominantly for departures
to the south or arrivals to the north. The
runway provides significant capacity
enhancement during 90 percent of all
weather conditions, and provides the highest
capacity of all runway options. Use of the
runway to or from the north would severely
limit use of the parallel runways and therefore
would reduce airport capacity. This use
would be limited to periods when it is
required due to wind or weather conditions,
which is less then 1 percent of the time.
The FAA Capacity Enhancement Plan
also indicated that a new north -south runway
would provide greater benefit than a new
north parallel runway (the airfield improve-
ment in Concepts 1 and 2). According to the
FAA analysis, a new north -south runway
would provide an additional $4.6 million of
delay savings annually compared to a north
parallel runway when operations reach
520,000, as forecast in 2020.
With a new west terminal concept, the
cross taxiways that could be provided east of
the gate concourses would enable circular
flow of aircraft around aircraft boarding gates
and would greatly enhance ground traffic
flows. This was confirmed by computer sim-
ulation.
TerminailRoadway Features
The goal of the terminal development in
Concept 6 is to first utilize all the capacity
available within the existing terminal area.
Then, when required by demand, to transi-
tion to a new west terminal that continues to
use gates on the airport's east side.
9
The west terminal will have shorter
passenger walking distances for both origina-
tion/destination and connecting passengers
than other alternatives. An underground
people -mover system is required to reach the
aircraft loading gates. The west terminal
alternative is designed for the best hub airline
operations with consolidated domestic,
international and regional airline operations,
and a single central parking area.
This consolidation of operations would be
more convenient for passengers.
Construction of the west terminal would
be accomplished more easily than building a
second supplementary east terminal. Finally,
the west terminal has significant gate and
terminal expansion potential.
The LTCP would require a new inter-
change at Highway 77 and 62 and support-
ing access roadways. The west terminal
would slightly reduce overall ground travel
times to the airport for airport users, but does
require major new roadway and interchange
improvements compared to the east terminal.
Access from the east is maintained in the
west terminal alternative with a remote park-
ing/drop-off facility. Users could ride the
people -mover system from this facility to the
gate area or back to the west terminal.
RECOMMENDED MSP LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (continued)
Environmental Issues
The north -south runway will direct many
flights to and from the south, over less
densely populated areas. This new runway
use will provide a significant increase in the
capacity of the preferred (noise abatement)
runway use system.
The LTCP will have 2,250 fewer persons
within the DNL (day -night level) 60+ noise
contour than alternatives with the north par-
allel runway (Concepts 1 and 2). However,
use of the new runway will create additional
impacts over part of the Minnesota
River National Wildlife Refuge.
Construction of the north -south runway
will require filling five acres of wetland in
Mother Lake for runway safety zones. It will
also require acquisition and removal of
structures (including three hotels) south of
1-494. The interchange and supporting
access roadways for the west terminal could
adversely impact 12.1 acres of wetlands
(Mother Take) and would displace 62
households.
Development Costs
Preliminary costs, in 1994 dollars, were
identified for airfield, terminal, roadway and
support facilities for each of the four concepts.
These cost estimates represent the direct costs
ofacquisition and construction of major
facilities and do not include on-going airfield
and terminal maintenance projects.
In addition, costs for noise mitigation
options were identified. The estimated
development cost for the selected concept,
over the 1995-2020 time frame, is $2.3
billion.
Cost Smnmary (In Mims of UN dollars)
• &PON WHIN
Airfield
Teminal
Roadways
Support
Design and Contingencies
Total Development Costs
Concept 1
$ 223
$ 1,012
$ 31
$ 468
$ 434
$ 2,168
CO1Sept?
$ 231
$ 1,083
$ 101
$ 461
$ 469
$ •2,345
Concept 5 Concept 8
$ 127 $ 135
$ 1,048 $ 1,119
$ 31 $ 101
$ 502 $ 494
$ 427 $ 462
$ 2,135 - $ 2,311
Noise Mitigation
within DNL 65+ $ 11 •p:
within DNL 60+ $ 174
11
174
$ 13 $ 13
$ 167 $ 167
10
YEAR 2005 LTCP NOISE CONTOUR MAP
ist- iiiiiiiiii11111111114111111111111111111111111111in v‘
111 11M11111111111 1111111111111111111111•111111111111 U1.11111111111* '
PirP 111111111114NA11111111111111111111111111111111111 1%1111111111M
tit
r lip 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 1111111111111W ,
4111111111111M/4111111111111111111111111111111111171111111111W
111111111111swr111111111111111111111111111111M111 \\WHIM:hi;
1111111111111111111.11111111111 r y 11111111 W1111111111 ,
' INA 111111111111111111111111=1101111111 ‘; 111111111M1111111/9
. M1111111111111111( 111111111111111111• '. laIVIJM‘Slly' 4,
illiwm/IrlI11111111111111:=:: 111111111111111-7\111Tiiiiiiiiiln‘
41111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111111 _111m1mv1111A. - 1n
1111111111,1111111111:111•111 11111,1_111111Wr11111
IIIMIIM,IP.M11111101S011 .11/f Mi.....0.:: 411IM ; , 111111111111111 ilt
/11111...1111111111.\
1
MIstrIliVIIM.16,40g, Ala 1111111M11111111 (' ri11111=M11111Mil
111141.....- ''......._7, 4 II 1111111111111174' 41111•111111!19!!1!1511-,
rr1111111111111110111,'"' ff/ Id 1111111112/gpV . .eolimmvaiiiilhaillimitA.
7i.iiiiiiiiemmurinicani,11111__ 111111111111M• ':-i,':, 0,1110113111111=.4:1111
111111111111111111111:111111111'! \1111111111 I\Vizs,,;.,2,r411;1111111111111111111111
111.11111111111111,1111111111 711:11111111t11:76):' 771117,1.:3,9111111111111
11111V1111,M111:2 11111 1_. l 1111111MTr,I.,,%%,,,--:-..,- * 11,P
f
•
I" jr,,,,,,...„2, kaimogmfrA,
11111111M/A111/7 Md. .•-.1111111111Wfr-:o rikit..
i11•1111111p111111/h1111111111 , 44411/12e71111.-. 111n.p.C.:::.>
1111111iiillemy ...iv imimiiiimo..4 ,...,,,,A„,1?„.. !
minim -p-;-.Iirlitimiliii "illi-Aii
I
1... "min loumniiiva rump - „
IMI11111111 1 4111111,' IIIIIM . •-•4t
11111111111 irflipq/11M1111111111111111111111141 ", 45.
111111,Tm11 Ii,- 1111M41111111111111111111111111 *3
111111111117
1111111111111 11111MilM111111111111141111 • '
jIiiII• um_ 1 , i '''....N.,
Minim'
imml ismilitimmiimmiliwit 1 '
.11111.11111millimmilmil .1 *
1111111MM i -.111111:11111.11ill iii timmiram 7'
mmism ummimionmimmitimidisn
liwimr_ammikiiiiimmilimailimmihimil
immiNiviimmlummunimilimmin
mimik,„iimiummilmmr,..,,milmir
1...Iiwamit•=rcmoommem,„.—Irmwie,;,. ,.. _ ..
i al IM,21-iiiiefilisminik.WAIIININZvall,in:P(7,11.
vialirsi llommillmii-imirs
..111a, ,
,„umi.... i......,.........11 Hifi 1111
mr r.11„
liamoi Inierium..... iniinunij,_„,, ,,.
.11043111.1 FAIP111111111111111111110-11/r2,,4,
!Mr Iii111ni iiiiiiiimilii
1W111111111111111.11Fr
!Lim miiiiiiiiimiiim :, *9.1.
,,....,,
naketunimeigwpiji„
kiwEINIM r ar 04
Mr
maine„,kla. iiiiiiiiimyini
irlAirgir"J
IlulliTil ilL41111 I's
P' mirmnimir
mgriil ‘x.....
Hinlist-41 -v.
,....
licr=-773iii1171112....,,r„,„11"--
-.fat
LIE_ --61---Cja 111MJI:
EEE:m0=7.11- Film...
,.•'.= '' '''
m:Itimilli
I Efh,
AW31.1.41
4101M-_,
raseZz i rill arApOIP
1 ITO: ..111 Mad"' 4.1.1
11
131 APPENDIX
Metropolitan Airports
Commission
Pierson "Sandy" Grieve, Chair
Mark Brataas, Vice Chair
Steve Cramer
Laurel Erickson
Edward Fiore
Alton Gasper
John Himle
Darcy Hitesman
Daniel Johnson
Nick Mancini
Tommy Merickel
Louis Miller, Jr.
Patrick O'Neill
Paul Rehkamp
Georgiann Stenerson
Dual Track Task force
Patrick O'Neill, Chair
Dick Anfang
Gregory Boyle
Alice Clausing
Tom Crowley
Bud Erickson
Paul Farmer
Joseph Finley
Kathy Gaylord
Don Groen
Edward Gutzmann
Joseph Harris
Tim Hoffman
John Kahler
Andrew Lindberg
Myra Peterson
Gloria Pinke
Ray Rought
Mary Hill Smith
Michael Werner
Lyle Wray
MSP Technical Committee
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
Minnesota Air National Guard
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Business Aircraft
Association
U.S. Air Force Reserves
State Historic Preservation Office
City of Minneapolis
City of Eagan
City of Mendota Heights
City of Bloomington
City of St. Paul
City of Richfield
City of Burnsville
City of Inver Grove Heights
FAA Air Route Traffic Control
Center
FAA - Airports District Office
FAA - Air Traffic Control Tower
Environmental Quality Board
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
12
Minnesota Department of
Transportation:
Office of Aeronautics
Metro Division
Intermodal Policy Section
Environmental Services
Office of Transit
Office of Railroads &
Waterways
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Mesaba Airlines
Air Transport Association
Federal Express
Airline Pilots Association
Dakota County
Minnesota Department of
Agriculture
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
U.S.-Army Corps of Engineers
THE NOISE NEWSLE ITER
APRIL 1995
PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND -CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT
Volume V, No. 4
NOISE SUPPORTS NEW 150 POLICY
BUT ASKS WHY FAA DEVELOPED IT
IN A VACUUM
by Charles F. Price
Executive Director
NOISE has forwarded comments to the Federal Avia-
tion Administration generally favoring the agency's
proposal to prevent the use of Part 150 noise mitigation
funds in areas where new noncompatible development
has been allowed to occur around airports.
It NOISE also chided the FAA for fashioning its new
proposal without input from its own Study Group on
Land Use Compatibility although that panel was in
operation at the time the policy was being developed.
The study group consisted of multiple interests includ-
ing airlines, airports, communties, and academia.
NOISE was a participant.
The comments were made on a propgsed revision of
the FAA policy governing approval and funding of
projects under the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility
Program, as published in the Federal Register of March
20,1995 (See the March NOISE Newsletter).
Following is a partial text of the letter forwarded to the
FAA:
"The National Organization to Insure a Sound -con-
trolled Environment (NOISE) is an association of local
government officials whose communities are impacted
by noise from commercial airport operations. Conse-
:ntly the mayors, city councilpersons, county super-
..sors and others who are members of NOISE art
vitally concerned with any contemplated revision in the
federal government's only program designed to reduce
noncompatible land uses around airports.
"NOISE is particularly interested in this matter since
we have long questioned the effectiveness of the Part
150 program as an inducement to more compatible
land -use planning in the environs of airports. NOISE
has believed for some time that Part 150 has proven far
more useful in treating the consequences of
noncompatible development after it has occurred than
in preventing it in the first place. Over the years we
have put forward a number of suggestions intended to
strengthen Part 150 and make it as much a force foster-
ing compatible new development as it has been a force
for remediation of noise problems in development that
has already been permitted in noise impacted areas.
"Heretofore, FAA's Part 150PocY
li made no official
distinction between new and existing development and
thus permitted scarce federal dollars to be used for
remediation in areas where new noncompatible devel-
opment had occurred. NOISE applauds the distinction
FAA now proposes to make between existing and new
development. We believe such a change will mean that
the government will no longer be `subsidizing'
noncompatible development at time when federal
funds are more scarce than ever.
"NOISE has argued for quite a long time that the
government's policies regarding airport noise should
recognize a distinction between existing and new
development. As a member of the recently disbanded
Study Group on Land -Use Compatibility, NOISE
strongly advocated a lowering of the threshold for
April 1995
r 4
Page two
determining the adverse effect of noise on residential
living from DNL 65 dB to a lesser level in areas subject
to new development. We continue to believe that
different thresholds should be set for different types of
development. It is to be hoped that the proposed
change in Part 150 policy represents some movement
by the agency in that direction.
"We take note of the fact that there is in the March 20
notice more than a whiff of a suggestion that local
communities are not to be trusted to do the right thing
when it comes to planning for compatible development
around airports. Communities are sensitive to such
innuendos in appmximately the same proportion that
they have been trespassed upon by unplanned airport
expansions or by unilateral changes in airport opera-
tions that caused new noise where none existed before.
Yet this is not the place to point fingers of blame.
NOISE has never insisted that all communities have
behaved responsibly in zoning around airports, any •
more than it has claimed that all airports have been bad
neighbors. NOISE wishes to take this opportunity to
applaud the FAA for what appears to us to be a for-
ward-looking and reasonable step.
"However, we also feel bound to mention our puzzle-
ment as to why this proposal was developed `in a
vacuum' when a perfect opportunity existed to refine it
in consultation with the Study Group on Land Use
Compatibility. Inexplicably, the FAA seems to have
run the two processes on parallel but unconnected
tracks, although they are clearly related. It seems to us
that input from the various interests represented on the
study group, including communities, might have re-
sulted in a richer and more broadly-based proposal, and
one more likely to receive wide acceptance."
NOISE BOARD MEETING
TO LEAD OFF SUMMER CONFERENCE
ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 26
In a reversal of past scheduling policy, the summer
meeting of the NOISE Board of Directors will be held
at the beginning of the July conference rather than at
the end.
The change is being made in hopes of boosting atten-
dance at the important mid -year Board session. In
recent years attendance has sagged in the traditional
Saturday morning time slot, when the conference itself
is over and some Board members have already returned
home.
This year the Board meeting will be held from 3 to 5
p.m. on Wednesday, July 26 at the Mariott Key Bridge
Hotel in Rosslyn, Virginia. Wednesday is the tradi-
tional arrival day for many attendees, and the late
afternoon meeting time is intended to permit Board
members to arrive, get settled, and attend the Board
session prior to an evening reception to be hosted by the
Committee on Noise Abatement for National and Dulles
Airports (CONANDA) and the Metropolitan Washing-
ton Airports Authority.
A CONANDA meeting is scheduled to occur immedi-
ately following the NOISE Board session and before the
reception.
Among the items of business expected to be transacted
by the NOISE Board in July is the matter of arranging
management services for the association after the
expiration of the agreement with its current management
firm and the question of whether to expand the focus of
NOISE from airport noise concerns alone to broader
environmental issues associated with airport operations.
FAA BARS AIRCRAFT -SHARING
IN PHASEOUT COMPLIANCE
(Due to space limitations, a brief summary of this story
appeared in the March 1995 NOISE Newsletter. A
fuller account is published below.)
The FAA has prohibited aircraft operators from continu-
ing to use a loophole in the rules implementing the
Stage 2 phaseout which allowed double counting of the
same Stage 3 airplane in recording compliance with
fleet mix transition rules.
Announcement of the policy change was made in a
Federal Register notice March 14. Although the new
policy was made effective on the date of publication, the
FAA will accept comments on it through Septemberl 1.
April 1995
Page three
The change was necessitated, said the FAA, because
some airplane sharing arrangements have been used by
operators "solely or primarily for the purpose of
achieving compliance" with the first interim compli-
ance date of the required phaseout, directly contradict-
ing the "intent and objectives" of the law and the rules.
The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 mandated
the retirement of all Stage 2 aircraft by the end of this
century. In order to govern this change in fleet mix, the
FAA promulgated implementing rules establishing a
phaseout schedule with interim compliance dates. The
first such interim date was December 31,1994. By that
deadline, an operator of Stage 2 planes must either
have reduced the number of Stage 2 aircraft by 25
percent from its base level or achieved a fleet mix that
is 55 percent Stage 3.
By the next interim complance date - the end of De-
cember 1996 - the formula in the rules requires a 50
percent reduction from base level in Stage 2 planes or a
fleet mix that is 65 percent Stage 3.
R its notice the FAA said its experience with the first
.ieadline "has raised a serious concern involving air-
plane interchange agreements and other arrangements
that result in an individual airplane being enumerated
on the operations specifications of more than one
operator." The new policy statement is intended to
ensure that the Stage 3 transition is not compromised
during the interim compliance period, to ensure that the
benefits of the phaseout are fully realized, and to
` prevent foreseeable future difficulties in compliance."
The airplane sharing arrangements which have led to
the double counting take several forms, the FAA notice
says, including formal interchange agreements between
operators and instances of two or more operators
leasing the same plane from a lessor. "This results in
the same Stage 3 airplane being counted for compli-
ance by two or more operators, depending on the
sharing arrangement," according to the notice.
"Under such arrangements," says the FAA, " a single
' tage 3 airplane could be used to support the presence
,f an almost limitless number of Stage 2 airplanes.
Allowing a proliferation of such sharing arrangements
for the purpose of noise rule compliance can be ex-
pected to result in the delay of tage 2 airplane retire-
ment or modification by the participating operators.
Such delays not only reduce the anticipated benefits of
the Congressionally mandated interim compliance
period, but have the more insidious effect of operators
further delaying the business and financial decisions
and actions necessary to achieve full compliance by
1999. If these paper -only compliance situations are
allowed to continue, the FAA foresees that the underly-
ing delays and failures to plan and implement real
compliance may easily result in an unacceptable level
of actual compliance and a large number of waiver
applications based on arguments of financial hardship,
and airplane and hushkit unavailability as participating
operators are forced into compliance at the last
minute."
Under the new policy, the FA/tills notifying operators
that an individual Stage 3 planmay only be counted in
the fleet of one operator for purposes of compliance.
The single counting does not affect the actual use of
airplanes under interchange agreeements.
The new policy is being published now, said the FAA,
to give all affected operators the maximum amount of
time to achieve the next interim deadline without the
plane -sharing device. "However," said the agency in
its notice, "the FAA determined that, in the interest of
fairness and the lack of a formal. written policy before
this date, such agreements that were used to comply
with the 1994 compliance date would not be disal-
lowed retroactively. This policy statement is intended
to prevent the further use of such agreements for noise
compliance manipulation and preclude the proliferation
of such agreements as the perceived `benefit' is real-
ized."
Not affected by the policy are shared Stage 2 airplanes.
The FAA says that to further the goals of the law and
rules, a Stage 2 plane will continue to be counted as
part of the fleet of each of the operators sharing it.
Comments received about the new policy may be used
by the FAA to refine it at a later time.
Any comments should be sent to: Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn:
Rules Docket AGC -200, Docket No. 28134, 800
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591.
April 1995
1995 CONFERENCE TO EXPLORE
THE NATURE OF AIRPORT IMPACTS
ON COMMUNITIES
Is there still a noise problem? Increasingly the airline
industry and the FAA are taking the position that
adverse impacts from airport noise are dwindling by
virtue of the Stage 2 phaseout and the consequent
shrinking of the DNL 65 dB contour. More and more
we hear the argument that anti -noise agitation has
become an activity of marginal importance, and that
those who persist in it are beating a dead horse. Many
argue that problems of air pollution, hazardous waste
disposal, stormwater runoff and noncompatible land
uses permitted by localities have far more significance
than airport noise.
Furthermore, the argument is often made that achieve-
ment of an all -Stage 3 fleet will be the be-all and end-
all of noise abatement Technology has hit the wall
when it comes to further noise reduction of conse-
quence, and besides, the perilous financial condition of
the airlines makes any further; investment in noise
reduction both wasteful and economically dangerous.
Pressures from overseas to more strictly regulate noise
are resisted on these grounds not only by the airline
industry but by the federal government as well.
Yet the opening of the new Denver International Air-
port has unleashed a torrent of noise compliants from
people living in areas of low ambient noise now being
subjected to overflight noise far quieter than the sup-
posedly sacred DNL 65 dB. Also, reason tells us that
an all -Stage 3 fleet, when we do achieve it, will not be
silent. Not all Stage 3 planes are equally quiet many
will be hushkitted and re -engined and, while technically
meeting the Stage 3 standards, will not be as quiet as
new Stage 3 equipment; and some Stage 3 planes are
louder on approach than some Stage 2 aircraft. •
Perhaps most significant of all will be the increase in
operations which virtually everyone predicts for the
period after the year 2000: With many more planes
overhead - even be they quieter than before - what will
be the effect on those living beneath them? Again,
reason suggests that there will be effects - perhaps not
f
Page four
what we have been accustomed to call noise effects,
but effects having to do with concerns about the
heavier traffic overhead: Safety worries, for instance,
environmental concerns, or resentments about disrup-
tions of life quality.
These penetrating issues will be explored at the 25th
annual NOISE conference set for July 26-29, 1995 at
the Key Bridge Marriott Hotel in Rosslyn, VA just
across the Potomoc River from Washington, DC. The
NOISE national office and representatives of the hosts
of the conference, the Committee on Noise Abatement
at Dulles and National Airports, and the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, are putting the
final touches on a program agenda that should prove
exciting, challenging, and informative.
Watch for the conference mailing, scheduled to be sent
out after Memorial Day. Rates at the hotel will be $95
single or double. You may call the Key Bridge
Marriott directly for reservations at 703/524-6400 or 1-
800/327-9789, or call Marriott Worldwide Reserva-
tions at 1-800/228-9290. Be sure to identify yourself
as a registrant for the NOISE conference.
The conference will begin with a reception at the hotel
on Wednesday night, July 26. Conference sessions
will be on Thursday, July 27 and Friday, July 28.
Saturday will be a free day for excursions in the
nation's capital.
NOISE
National Organization to Insure a Sound -controlled
Environment
1225 Eye Street • NW • Suite 300 • Washington, DC
20005
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY
AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION
RANKING OF AIRPORT RELATED TOPICS
FOR MULTI -CITY COLLABORATION
APRIL 19, 1995
1. Phase -Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft.
2. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations.
3. Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues.
4. MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Planning Issues -
Expansion of Existing Airport.
5. Dual Track Airport Relocation to Hastings Site.
6. Remote Runway Development Option.
7. FAA Airspace Usage Study.
8. FAA "Close -In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures'
9. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues.
10. Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedures.
11. Runway 4-22 Extension Issue.
12. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and ;
Related Land Use Controls.
13. Noise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn65
14. Equity of Current Runway Use System.
15. Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Homes -
Part 150 Program.
City
Interest
Contour.
FAA
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
4
2
4
0
1
1
2
0
16. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring 3
System (ANOMS).
17. Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over 1
Minneapolis.
18. Aircraft Engine Run-up Noise. 0
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
TO: Planning and Environment Committee
FROM: John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise Programs
SUBJECT: Part 150 Sound Prioritization for Schools Inside the 65 Ldn Contour
DATE: March 24, 1995
Four schools inside the 1996 5 -Year Forecast 65 Ldn Contour are eligible for sound insulation
modifications under the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Part 150 Implementation
Program. These schools are programmed for funding under Part 150, and are considered
separately from the Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Implementation Program.
An objective, impact -based process was developed by MAC's Aviation Noise Programs office, to
determine the priority ranking of the four schools for sound insulation treatment. Based on this
objective determination (described below), the following prioritization is suggested for your
approval:
1. St. Thomas Academy
2. Visitation Convent and School
3. Keewaydin Elementary
4. Minneapolis Lutheran High School
To fairly assess the order for sound insulation modification, Aviation Noise Program staff
considered an impact -based prioritization methodology using inputs from MAC's Airport Noise
and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), and the analytic capabilities of our Arc Info
Geographic Information System (GIS). The underlying principle is that schools (or residences)
enduring the highest aircraft noise impacts should be treated first. An intuitive axiom of noise
abatement techniques is that the closer the noise source to the receiver, the greater the impact
from a given event. Clearly, another measure of impact is how often noise events occur, or the
frequency of noise event occurrence. A number of other parameters influence an area's overall
noise impact, such as time of day, aircraft type, and whether an operation was an arrival or
departure.
A sample of 31,000 actual radar flight tracks from operations at the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport, was selected randomly during 4 separate quarterly periods, to account for
seasonal weather effects on airport operations. After selection, MAC's ANOMS system exported
the radar data to the Aviation Noise Program's GIS, where spatial analysis could be accomplished
relating aircraft overflight to each school's actual geographic location. A circular area of radius
1
mile was constructed around each school, and the number of aircraft operations passing over
the defined areas was determined. For each aircraft overflight passing over a school's circular
area, the aircraft's point of clostest approach (PCA) was calculated. The noise impact of each
individual aircraft overflight is inversely proportional to its distance from the receiver. In this
case, overflight impact is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the PCA distance. Overall
school impact therefore, is a function of the frequency of overffight and the inverse of PCA
magnitudes, with additional appropriate weightings for time of day, type of aircraft, and type of
operation. The result of the above analyses is an index value for each school, the so-called
Foggia Impact Index, which determines the above rank ordering by impact.
COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED:
TO APPROVE ! FOR PART 150 SOUND INSULATION TREATMENT THE
FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGICAL ORDERING, BASED ON ACTUAL AIRCRAFT
• NOISE IMPACT, OF THE FOUR SCHOOLS REMAINING IN THE 1996 5 -YEAR
FORECAST 65 LDN CONTOUR:
1. S'T. THOMAS ACADEMY
2. VISITATION CONVENT AND SCHOOL
3. KEEWAYDIN ELEMENTARY
4. MINNEAPOLIS LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL
Page 2
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 5, 1995
TO: Airport Relations Commission Members
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administr,
SUBJECT: Discuss Draft Letter Regarding Aircraft Take -Off Profiles
DISCUSSION
In working with the newly formed Northern Dakota County
Airport Relations Coalition (NDCARC), one the of the first issues
chosen for joint action was the "close -in" vs. "distant" departure
procedure issue. At the NDCARC meeting held in April, those
present discussed the idea of sending a joint letter to the MAC and
Northwest Airlines asking to be involved in defining and choosing
between the two procedures. Mr. Jon Hohenstein, City of Eagan,
volunteered to draft the letter which is to be signed by the Mayors
of each of the five represented communities (see attached) .
The draft letter was reviewed at our recent workshop with the
City Council and a number of revisions were suggested. At our
upcoming meeting we should work to finalize the revisions so that
they may be presented at the next NDCARC meeting scheduled for May
17th.
04-24-95 10:OOAM FROM CITY OF EAGAN TO 94528940 P002/003
May 8, 1995
MARK SALMEN
NORTHWEST AIRLINES
N7100
5101 NORTHWEST DRIVE
EAGAN, MN 55121
RE: DISTANT AND CLOSE IN DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
Dear Mr. Salmen:
As communities located southeast of the airport which receive well
over -11ftlf of all noise impacts from Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota, Mendota
Heights and Sunfish Lake have chosen to cooperate on issues in
which we have a common interest. The first of these is the issue
of distant and close -in departure procedures, the development and
implementation of which are required by FAA Advisory Circular No.
91-53A.
We understand that Northwest and the other airlines are in the
process of developing these procedures and that they will be
brought to the MAC and, presumably, MASAC for implementation at
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport by runway erid. we also
understand that, for purposes of this effort, Northwest is
considering the current noise abatement departure procedure as the
distant procedure and that a new close -in procedure is being
developed for each aircraft type.
We earnestly request that the current noise abatement departure
profile be designated as the close -in procedure and that a new
distant procedure be developed for each aircraft type whicr would
better utilizePnoise-compatible areas near airports such as the
- river—va-l-leY and corridor southeast of MSP.
The current procedure was developed to spread out noise in areas
where homes are close to the runway end. Under this procedure,
power reductions are often achieved before the aircraft•actuaily
leaves the airport property. Therefore there is less need to have
another.. procedure for the same purpose and a greater need to
develop one which will permit aircraft to climb higher over noise
compatible areas so that they will be less intrusive when they must
ultimately cross into less compatible areas.
The cities southeast of the airport have done their best to provide
an. area of noise compatible land use which is considered to be a
benefit to the other communities in the region. ( This,lbeing the
case, our residents who live outside the compatible area should not
bear a disproportionate level of aircraft noise impact as a
consequence of our cities' effective planning.
04-24-95 10:OOAM FROM CITY OF EAGAN TO 94528940
P003/003
Too often, the consequences of noise sout east of the airport are
viewed horizontally, that which does not ffect the sides of the
corridor affects the end and vice versa. With the FAA's action,
vequiring that two standard procedures developed for each
rcraft type for use throughout the county , the airlines have the
�•portunity to provide a vertical alternative to areas where homes
are in fact distant from the runway end. The corridor at MSP is
one example.,
For this reason, the five cities unanimously request that Northwest
define the existing noise abatement departure procedure as the
close -in procedure and that a distant procedure permitting greater
climb before power reduction be developed+ w 11 nefit
Sincerely,
Tom Egan
City of Eagan
Charles Mertensotto
Jim Toye
City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota
Joe Atkins
City of Inver Grove Heights
cc: Robert Johnson, MASAC
Frank Tiffany
City of Sunfish Lake
ANOMS02 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
C:\123DATA ANOMS Aircraft Operations Data
January 1995 to June 1995
January Percent February Percent March Percent April Percent May Percent June Percent
1995 of Use 1995 of Use 1995 of Use 1995 of Use 1995 of Use 1995 of Use
ALL OPERATIONS
Departures
04 43 0.24% 62 0.40% 58 0.31% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
11L 2,978 16.78% 2,294 14.74% 4,827 25.82% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
11R 3,054 17.21% 2,428 15.60% 5,508 29.46% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
22 774 4.36% 601 3.86% 521 2.79% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
29L 5,558 31.31% 5,316 34.16% 4,132 22.10% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
29R 5,343 30.10% 4,860 31.23% 3,648 19.51% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
Subtotal (Departures 17,750 100.00% 15,561 100.00% 18,694 100.00% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
Arrivals
04 227 1.23% 196 1.21% 386 2.02%
11L 2,741 14.88% 2,185 13.48% 4,681 24.55%
11R 2,908 15.79% 2,156 13.30% 4,807 25.21%
22 66 0.36% 74 0.46% 163 0.85%
29L 6,643 36.07% 6,152 37.95% 4,805 25.20%
29R 5,834 31.67% 5,449 33.61% 4,227 22.17%
Subtotal (Arrivals) 18,419 100.00% 16,212 100.00% 19,069 100.00%
Total (All Operations 36,169 31,773 37,763
JET OPERATIONS
Departures
ERR 0 ERR ERR
ERR 0 ERR ERR
ERR 0 ERR ERR
ERR 0 ERR ERR
ERR 0 ERR ERR
ERR 0 ERR ERR
ERR 0 ERR ERR
0
04 0 0.00% 6 0.06% 1 0.01% 0 ERR 0 ERR ERR
11L 1,694 16.20% 1,291 13.77% 2,787 24.52% 0 ERR 0 ERR ERR
11R 2,014 19.26% 1,623 17.31% 3,665 32.24% 0 ERR 0 ERR ERR
22 535 5.12% 346 3.69% 285 2.51% 0 ERR 0 ERR ERR
29L 3,324 31.79% 3,401 36.27% 2,593 22.81% 0 ERR 0 ERR ERR
29R 2,888 27.62% 2,711 28.91% 2,037 17.92% 0 ERR 0 ERR ERR
Subtotal (Departures 10,455 100.00% 9,378 100.00% 11,368 100.00% 0 ERR 0 ERR ERR
Arrivals
04 108 0.96% 114 1.14% 245 2.05% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
11L 1,677_14.89% 1,302_13.00%_2,949=24.69% 0 ERR 0 - ERR 0 - ERR
11R 1,789 15.88% 1,352 13.50% 3,110 26.03% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
22 14 0.12% 33 0.33% 92 0.77% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
29L 4,145 36.79% 3,835 38.29% 2,968 24.85% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
29R 3,533 31.36% 3,380 33.75% 2,582 21.61% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
Subtotal (Arrivals) 11,266 100.00% 10,016 100.00% 11,946 100.00% 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR
Total (Jet Only) 21,721 19,394 23,314 0 0 0
Mendota Heights 64
Air Noise Complaints
139 154 0 0 0
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 5, 1995
TO: Airport Relations Commission Me�nbers
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administr�`i"11
SUBJECT: Discuss Background Information on MSP Nighttime Aircraft
Operations
DISCUSSION
The subject of Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft, Operations
was identified by the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations
Coalition (NDCARC) as one of our top three priorities for joint
action. This issue has also be chosen by the MASAC Operations
Committee as a topic which needs to be addressed during 1995 and
discussions related to this topic began in April.
Attached please find the background information which was
provided at the recent MASAC Operations Committee meeting on the
subject of nighttime aircraft operations. The material consists of
three separate documents, as follows:
1) Voluntary Nighttime Agreements - Excerpt from the MAC
State Report from 1994.
2) Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID) - Excerpt
from the MAC State Report from 1994.
3) Memo on Crosswind Runway Use - Excerpt from SMAAC
Requested Information.
Although some of the material is not specifically related to
nighttime operations, it is possible that some procedures could be
combined to forge a workable nighttime restriction. For example,
a proposal to route more nighttime traffic off of Runway 22 over
Bloomington may be made possible if combined with the adoption of
tested Runway 22 SID. The memo on crosswind runway use serves as
a good primer on the weather dependency of aircraft operations and
shows how skewed the current Runway Use System is due to politics,
not wind and weather.
ACTION REQUIRED
Review the attached material and offer any comments or
suggestions you would like to have presented at the next meeting of
the MASAC Operations Committee. This information will also be
shared at the next meeting of the NDCARC scheduled for May 17th.
An Introduction:
Nighttime Noise Issues
MASAC Operations Committee, Apri11995
MAC Aviation Noise Program
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Standard Instrument Departures
(SIDS)
Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID).
In April, 1990, the City of Burnsville requested MAC to permanently implement a
Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Procedure for Runway 22, when feasible, to
help alleviate aircraft departure noise for Bloomington and Burnsville. The proposed
SID procedure would shift departing Runway 22 aircraft over the Minnesota River
corridor, thus avoiding high density residential areas in south Bloomington and
Burnsville.
The Operations Committee of MASAC was designated by MAC to begin the review
process for the feasibility of a Runway 22 SID permanent implementation. The
Committee's review resulted in a unanimous approval of a preferred second heading
of 245°(M), and recommendation of the Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure
procedure to the MASAC full body.
The group reviewed minutes of' the 26 September 1991 meeting detailing specific
concerns raised • regarding the tested procedures. The simpler of the two tested
alternatives, requiring a turn as soon as safe and practical to a 180°(M) heading, was
deemed the best alternative.
Various heading alternatives were discussed including second ' turns to 230°(M),
240°(M), 245°(M), and 250°(M). The 230°(M) heading was tested in flight
simulators and in actual Sight, and the MASAC Operations Committee previously
expressed interest in exploring benefits of other heading possibilities. Graphic
representations of the headings and associated 75 dBA 727-200 single event contours
were discussed. Advantages of the "early" 180°(M) turn coupled with the 245°(M)
second tum included removing residences from the single event contour in Richfield
and Bloomington, and containing most of the impact in the Minnesota River Valley.
A discussion of associated environmental issues followed including review of the
environmental evaluation process, and a list of potential environmental assessment
topics. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) explicitly requests evaluation of
delay issues, and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) requests investigation of bird
strike potential and application of weather minimums at 3000 ft. ceilings and
visibilities of 5 miles (3000 & 5).
The MASAC Operations Committee unanimously approved recommending the
following 22 SID procedure to the MASAC full body: 1
As soon as practical after departure, turn left to a 180°(M) heading. At 3
DME from the MSP VORTAC, turn right to a 245°(M) heading, thence
vectors on course.
Use of the 22 SID was envisioned as often as possible as long as any additional delay
caused by use of the procedure was avoided. Unconstrained, mandatory use of the SID
while on runway 22 is not the intent. Therefore, the SID should be used only when no
additional delay will result from its use.
With respect to the above statement of avoiding delay, the 22 SID should be used for
all aircraft, as long as delay is not incurred because of mixing jet aircraft and
Runway 4-22 Extension EIS
Alternative B
Figure 2-3
departures per hour. This is the maximum
capacity using Runway 4-22 under the RUS.
Total use of Runway 4-22 could increase
up to a maximunim of 8 hours per day in 1996,
depending upon wind conditions. This
alternative is currently the one preferred by
the MAC.
This set of flight headings would direct
more departing aircraft along and east of
Cedar Avenue. The areas affected contain a
mix of residential and commercial uses.
Alternative B
As shown in Figure 2-3, this alternative
has four departure headings. It is the current
system for Runway 22. These headings are
200°, 220°, 290°, and 350°. Under this
alternative, the hourly capacity of Runway
22 departures would be the same as in
Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID)
Initial Heading
1
14.
Figure 2-4
Alternative A. Maximum use of Runway
4-22 under the RUS could be up to 8 hours
per day in 1996.
•
Runway 22 SID
The Standard Instrument Departure (SID)
procedure ' would direct aircraft departing
Runway 22 to fly a heading of 180° to the
east of Cedar Avenue.' At 3 nautical miles
(DME) from the Minneapolis Saint -Paul
International Airport (MSP) VORTAC, a
radio navigation aid located on the airport,
aircraft would turn right to a heading of 245°
to overfly the Minnesota River valley (see
Figure 2-4).
Runway 4-22 Extension EIS
alternatives shown below indicates that an
additional 138 homes will require mitigation
under the No Build alternative.
MSP Scenario Mitigation Areas Workscope
4-22 Build South Richfield.
Mitigation Bloomington 1.122 homes
4-22 No Build North Richfield,
Mitigation (Part Minneapolis 1,260 homes
.150)
Consideration of Noise Abatement
Measures
The corrective measures described above
are restricted to areas within the DNL 65
noise contours, in accordance with the
MAC's FAR Part 150 eligibility criteria.
The sponsor has decided to evaluate
mitigation options addressing noise sensitive
areas between DNL 60 and 65. Therefore,
noise abatement measures having the
potential to address areas experiencing noise
levels between DNL 60 and 65 were
considered. Noise abatement measures must
be consistent with the purpose and need for
the proposed action, must be operationally
feasible, and must provide noise benefits to
areas impacted by the proposed action. The
following summary evaluates the potential
for noise abatement measures to mitigate the
noise impacts of the proposed action.
Runway Use Programs. The proposed
action will enhance conformance to the
MAC's established Runway Use System
(RUS), which has been part of the MAC's
noise compatibility program for many years
(see Appendix A). Reduction in use of
Runway 4-22 to reduce impacts associated
with its use would not be consistent with the
purpose of the proposed action.
Flight Track Management. The
concept of flight track management was
extensively investigated through
consideration of the Runway 22 Standard
Instrument Departure (SID). This SID
would have directed aircraft to fly over less
populated areas to minimise the increase in
noise levels associated with increased use of
Runway 22 for departurs. While this
procedure slightly reduced noise levels
associated with the proposed action (see
Section 4.2.2), FAA Air Traffic Control
determined that the procedure was infeasible
due to the limited number of departures
which could be accommodated (see the
discussion of the Runway 22 SID in Section
2.1.3). Accordingly, this option is not
proposed as mitigation for the proposed
action.
Noise Abatement Arrival and
Departure Procedures. Recently, the FAA
published Advisory Circular 91-53A, Noise
Abatement Departure Procedures,
recommending two noise abatement takeoff
profiles: one to minimize impacts on close -in
noise sensitive areas, and one for more
distant noise sensitive areas. The dominant
carrier at MSP, Northwest Airlines, has a
long-sta iding noise abatement departure
procedure which is . similar to the FAA
recommended close -in procedure. In
addition, the adopted Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Program for MSP recommends
continued sensitivity training sessions with
aircraft operators on noise abatement policies
and procedures. Additional measures are not
required.
Use Restrictions. Limiting use of
Runway 4-22 by time of day or by type of
aircraft would be inconsistent with the
Nighttime Operations
i.
and
Shoulder Hour Considerations
Scheduled and "Un -scheduled" Operations
10
6 11
10
t5.222
9 4
9
4
7 10
3 4
6
1 4
1 2
1
2 2
0 4
15
0
0
0
0
1
0
0 1
0
0 1
0
0 1
2
2 2
0
0
4 1
0215.0229
0
3 1
0
1
30043
......... .
1
2
0
6
1
0
0
0
21
1
, 04co.o41.4
1
59 0
31
2
2
2
0
_2
2
.11
0
I
3
41
4
9
41
11
t :
4
41
5
6630-0644 16
211
17
26
141
27
22
. . ... .....
The above.table represents operations between 9:45 P.M. and 7:15 A.M. over a "typical" night in
September 1994. The "ANOMS" column represents actual flights occurring over a single
September night between 9:45 RM and 7:15 A.M. The "HHH & Schedule" column represents
OAG Scheduled activity plus Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal proposed activity for 1994 and
1995. The HHH Proposed Activity was merged with OAG data, and no "duplication" of flights is
represented. The data include all operations - prop and jet.
"Shoulder" and Night Hours
i
20
g
h
15
t
H
10
0
5_
M
IN
1
-I
r
■
O
N
CV
N
c4`
it
N
III Departures Arrivals
Voluntary Nighttime
Restrictions
Voluntary Nighttime Agreements.
On March 15, 1993, the Metropolitan Airports Commission directed staff to execute
the necessary documents to implement previously negotiated "Voluntary Airline
Agreements to Eliminate Stage 2 Operations at MSP During the Nighttime Period".
The perseverance of the all -cargo carriers, coupled with actions of MAC staff resulted
in a voluntary 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. Stage 3 -only agreement rather than an ordinance.
MAC staff continue to believe that cooperative, voluntary partnerships can result in
the same meaningful noise reductions attainable through the more protracted
regulatory process. Clearly, cooperation by the airlines is an absolute necessity.
Background
On January 17, 1991, the Stage 3 Utilization Working Group recommended to
MASAC and MAC a freeze on Stage 2 operations between 11:00 RM. and 6:00 A.M. at
then -current (Fall 1990) levels. The timing of the institution of the Airport Noise and
Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) cast a logistic ambiguity on airport authority,
procedures for instituting local rule making, extensiveness of the federal Stage 2
phaseout policy, etc. MAC's Stage 2 nighttime ban moved forward as a draft
ordinance, in spite of significant controversy, with the public hearing on the proposed
ordinance delayed until more than a month and half after the final rule was due to be
released.
Because of the controversy surrounding a mandatory Stage 2 ban, and the difficulties
being experienced at both Los Angeles and New York over similar mandatory noise
rule tests of ANCA, the comment period for the Proposed Stage 2 Nighttime
Ordinance remained open well into 1992, and paved the way for exploration of
implementing the proposed ordinance as a voluntary measure. By late 1992, six all -
cargo and charter carriers had signed voluntary agreements to fly only Stage 3 aircraft
between 11 RM. and 6 A.M. at MSP beginning in 1993. Northwest Airlines had also
agreed to Stage 3 -only between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M., through a separate instrument; loan
covenants and agreements with MAC.
By March, 1993, the necessary paperwork was signed by both the Airport and
carriers, and the agreement started with second quarter 1993 reports. Actual ANOMS
data would be used to determine carriers' compliance with the nighttime agreements
in conjunction with a quarterly activity report supplied by the carrier to avoid
confusion over Stage 2 airframes retrofitted to meet Stage 3 noise standards.
The table on the following page is the 4th Quarter 1994 report of compliance with the
agreement. Information in the body of the table represent the airport's counting of
operations, after allowances were made for retrofitted Stage 2 aircraft. In the
Exception Notes below the table, information specific to each carrier is included. Part
of the agreement was to provide explanations when compliance with Stage 3 -only was
not possible. In the interest of completeness, when discrepancies between carrier -
reported activity and airport -counted activity exist, both sets of data are included for
comparison.
R US Considerations
and
Crosswind Runway Usage
TO: Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director
FROM: John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise Program
SUBJECT: • (Excerpt from) South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC)Requested
Information
DATE:
23 June 1994
(Excerpt) ...
A number of requests for information and questions regarding crosswind runway use have
surfaced. Most recently, wind data and its effect on Runway 04/22 utilization have been
requested. Basically, the question asked is: How often could the crosswind runway be used?
Though the question is straightforward enough, researching and answering it is fairly
complicated. Fortunately, the Aviation Noise Program bas compiled hourly weather data at MSP
for a number of years. Wind rose information is not the way to answer the question. Wind rose
data represent annual distributions of wind direction versus wind speed at a particular airport site.
The graphs do not take into account daily (or hourly) variations in wind speed and direction.
Unfortunately, it is the hourly to daily variations in wind that determine active runway selection.
Wind rose data is for planning purposes only, and for applications with time periods greater than a
year.
Because Aviation Noise Program staff have entered actual hourly weather observations into a
large database, I was able to analyze actual wind conditions for nearly a four-year period.
Analysis is still tricky, because very specific questions must be asked, and the large-scale database
manipulated accordingly.
As you well know, wind is only one of a number of parameters considered when selecting active
runways. During daytime hours, air traffic volume is an overriding factor, but wind speeds greater
than 8 kts do dictate theflow direction; i.e. whether the airport operates to the northwest or to the
southeast. Because traffic volumes at MSP are low over night, and Most of the requests for
information regarding crosswind runway use are targeting the night hours, most of my analysis
focuses on the 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. time frame. During these hours, traffic volume does not dictate
runway selection, but rather, the Runway Use System (RUS) agreements prioritize runway
selection, along with wind considerations. Naturally, other conditions impact night operations -
runway closures for maintenance and repair, for instance. However, the nighttime hours, more
than any other time period at MSP, allow for the combination of wind and preferential runway
selection.
We began collecting weather data for computer entry on 10 September 1990. Between September
1990 and May 1994, 23,377 hourly weather observations have been collected, representing 72%
of all the possible record hourly observations. During the nighttime hours (2300L- to 0600L) 8,645
hours were entered by Aviation Noise program staff, representing 92% of the possible 9,442
hourly observations between 10 September 1990 and 18 May 1994. This large sample provides
excellent representation of wind conditionsat MSP.
less, and during nighttime ttime hours, 54% of the observations had wind speedsof 7 kts or less. In
other words, more than half the time during nighttime hours, wind is not a factor in determining
active runway.
Wind -favored runway assignments in the above tables combine the highest headwind component
and lowest crosswind component to determine the most "favorable" conditions. These tables do
not address how often the airport could operate on the crosswind runway.
To determine how often the airport could have aircraft operating on the crosswind runway, we
must establish a few assumptions. Under certain conditions of weather, aircraft loading, and
critical field length, jet aircraft can accept tailwind components of 7 to , 10 kts. However,
depending on final approach speeds, a 10 kt tailwind can increase ground roll 10% to 20% on
takeoff, and up to 30% on landing rollout. Additionally, most jet aircraft can operate with a 25 kt
crosswind component. For the purposes of maintaining a safety margin, and reflecting the most
conservative runway selection, Tables 6 and 7 assume that any tailwind component precludes
selection of that runway for use. Also, three crosswind conditions are displayed- 17 kt, 20 kt, and
25 kt crosswind components on Runways 04 and 22. Table 6 shows the number of nighttime
hours that Runway 04 had a tailwind component, and runway 22 had crosswind components of
greater than 17 kts, greater than 20 kts, and greater than 25 kts. Table 7 illustrates the number of
nighttime hours with a tailwind component for Runway 22, and crosswind components on
Runway 04.
The last wind condition of interest is when no tailwind component is present on either Runway 04
or Runway 22, and the crosswind component is greater than 17 kts, 20 kts, and 25 kts, on both
runways. Table 8 provides of a breakdown of these conditions.
On each of the following tables, the number of hours (and percentage of nighttime hours) for
winds 7 kts or less are displayed. This represents the wind condition where any runway could be
selected.
Table 3: Nighttime Hours* with Runway 22 Crosswind Component as Indicated
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway
22 Crosswind > 17 kts
66
0.8%
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway
22 Crosswind > 20 kts
34 1 0.4%
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway
22 Crosswind > 25 kts
8 1 0.1%
Hours with 7 kts or less
4665
54.0%
Hours with 8 kts or greater
3980
46.0%
Total Hours
8645
'Nighttime hours are 2300L to 0600L (11 P.M. to 6 A.M.)
Tables 6, 7, and 8 allow an explicit counting of specific wind conditions relative to MSP's
crosswind runway. If 25 kts is determined to be the limiting crosswind component for selecting a
runway as active (and no tailwind component is acceptable), then three conditions exist where the
crosswind runway cannot be used - a tailwind on Runway 04, and a crosswind component on
Runway 22 greater than 25 kts (8 hours), a tailwind on Runway 22, and a crosswind component
on Runway 04 greater than 25 kts (12 hours), and a crosswind component on both Runways 04
and 22 greater than 25 kts (10 hours). Out of 8,645 nighttime hourly weather observations
recorded, wind precluded choosing the crosswind runway a total of 30 hours. In other words, with
wind as the only factor, MSP's crosswind runway could be used during nighttime hours 99.6% of
the time. If 20 kts is chosen as a limiting crosswind component (and no tailwind component is
acceptable), then Runway 04/22 could be used 98.8% of the nighttime hours. Similarly, allowing
17 kts of crosswind component or less, and no tailwinds, the crosswind runway could be selected
as active 97.9% of the hours between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M.
Again, nighttime runway use is often impacted by conditions other than wind and weather.
Runway closures for maintenance, repair, reconstruction, snow removal, FOD, etc., can preclude
use of the crosswind runway and one of the parallel runways a considerable number of hours.
However, the wind analysis allows the conclusion that, assuming all runways are available for
use, virtually all operations at night could be conducted using head-to-head operations in the
Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor, and the crosswind runway. That is, with the crosswind runway
fully available for use (i.e. 04/22 not NOTAMed down, and St. Paul Downtown Class D Airspace
not protected during non -tower operations), from 2300L to 0600L, departures on Runways
29L&R and, and arrivals to Runways 11L&R could be could be discouraged, with aircraft
operating head -t6 -head in the corridor and on the crosswind runway when tailwinds preclude use
of the head-to-head procedure. This action would strengthen existing provisions of the RUS.
s
PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES
1.10 Voluntary Nighttime Agreements.
On March 15, 1993, the Metropolitan Airports Commission directed staff to execute the
necessary documents to implement previously negotiated "Voluntary Airline Agreements
to Eliminate Stage 2 Operations at MSP During the Nighttime Period". The perseverance
of the all -cargo carriers, coupled with actions of MAC staff resulted in a voluntary 11 P.M.
to 6 A.M. Stage 3 -only agreement rather than an ordinance. MAC staff continue to believe
that cooperative, voluntary partnerships can result in the same meaningful noise
reductions attainable through the more protracted regulatory process. Clearly, cooperation
by the airlines is an absolute necessity.
Background
On January 17, 1991, the Stage 3 Utilization Working Group recommended to MASAC
and MAC a freeze on Stage 2 operations between 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. at then -current
(Fall 1990) levels. The timing of the institution of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of
1990 (ANCA) cast a logistic ambiguity on airport authority, procedures for instituting
local rule making, extensiveness of the federal Stage 2 phaseout policy, etc. MAC's
Stage 2 nighttime ban moved forward as a draft ordinance, in spite of significant
controversy, with the public hearing on the proposed ordinance delayed until more than a
month and half after the final rule was due to be released.
Because of the controversy surrounding a mandatory Stage 2 ban, and the difficulties
being experienced at both Los Angeles and New York over similar mandatory noise rule
tests of ANCA, the comment period for the Proposed Stage 2 Nighttime Ordinance
remained open well into 1992, and paved the way for exploration of implementing the
proposed ordinance as a voluntary measure. By late 1992, six all -cargo and charter
carriers had signed voluntary agreements to fly only Stage 3 aircraft between 11 P.M and
6 A.M. at MSP beginning in 1993. Northwest Airlines had also agreed to Stage 3 -only
between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M., through a separate instrument; loan covenants and agreements
with MAC.
By March, 1993, the necessary paperwork was signed by both the Airport and carriers,
and the agreement started with second quarter 1993 reports. Actual ANOMS data would
be used to determine carriers' compliance with the nighttime agreements in conjunction
with a quarterly activity report supplied by the carrier to avoid confusion over Stage 2
airframes retrofitted to meet Stage 3 noise standards.
Table 5 is the 4th Quarter 1993 report of compliance with the agreement. Information in
the body of the table represent the airport's counting of operations, after allowances were
made for retrofitted Stage 2 aircraft. In the Exception Notes below the table, information
specific to each carrier is included. Part of the agreement was to provide explanations
when compliance with Stage 3 -only was not possible. In the interest of completeness,
when discrepancies between carrier -reported activity and airport -counted activity exist,
both sets of data are included for comparison.
44 Metropolitan Airports Commission - State Report 1994
Voluntary Nighttime Agreements.
Table 5: Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreement ... 4th Quarter 1994 Report
Total
Exception Notes:
Airbome Express
Federal Express
Ryan International
Sun Country
4c
17
7
8'7`
843
690
153
0
Q..
N/A
a
4%
:1!
•
17%
Stage 2 DC -9s were utilized only on occasions when Stage 3 DC -9s were unavailable and
system capacity required that the second Airborne Nightly ffight to MSP utilize these aircraft.
Unexplained Stage 2 -17.
Nite Ops St. 3 Ops St. 2 Ops Nite Ops %St. 2 %St. 2 Total Nite Ops
309 302 7 2% I%
As reported by Ryan International. Unexplained Stage 2 - 37.
*
Nite Ops St. 3 Ops St. 2 Ops Nite Ops %St. 2 %St. 2 Total Nite Ops
186 121 66 35% 7%
Sun Country's performance if empty "ferry" flights are considered to meet Stage 3 noise
criteria. Of the remaining Stage 2 Night Ops, reasons for Stage 2 use: Weather Delay - 4,
Payload Restrictions - 14, Maintenance Delay - 4, Aircraft Swap/Stage 3 Not Available/Long
Route- 31, Stage 3 used for Military - 3, Unexplained Stage 2 -10.
UPS Unexplained Stage 2 - 1.
With the program in its infancy, compliance is clearly not perfect. However, thanks to an
open dialogue between the MAC and the six participating nighttime carriers, nighttime
Stage 3 usage at is 63%; higher than it would otherwise be if no agreements were in force.
However, MAC desires significantly better compliance levels than those indicated in
Table 5. One way to achieve greater compliance is to extend this agreement to all carriers
operating at MSP at night. This goal is part of the new Noise Management Methodology,
to be negotiated during 1994 and 1995. With Stage 3 -only agreements applied to all
nighttime carriers at MSP, discrimination against participating carriers is eliminated, and
compliance efforts will be far more productive. Ultimately, Stage 3 nighttime usage will
increase, reducing impact on surrounding neighborhoods through a combination of
Voluntary Stage 2 Nighttime Agreements and Runway Use System operating procedures,
packaged under the negotiating umbrella of the new Noise Management Methodology.
Metropolitan Airports Commission - State Report 1994 45
25
20
15
10
5
0
NIGHTTIME CARRIER JET OPERATIONS PER NIGHT
3.4
2.1 2.1
1.
• • •
132
13.5
Mar 1994 May 1994
Feb 1994 Apr 1994
1.5 1.5
0.3
112
Jun 1994
1.7
17
13
11.7
ISA
Jul 1994 Sep 1994 Nov 1994
1.4
153
23
el •
153
7
Jan 1995
L3
Er10.1
*1.4.
Aug 1994 Oct 1994 Dec 1994 Feb 1995
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 0 So. Richfield/Bloomington 1 St. Paul/Highland Park ,s Eagan/Mendota Heights
- Pst•-)OtAAZ. eov..02A-e
Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID).
1.10 Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID).
In April, 1990, the City of Burnsville requested MAC to permanently implement a
Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Procedure for Runway 22, when feasible: to help
alleviate aircraft departure noise for Bloomington and Burnsville. The proposed SID
procedure would shift departing Runway 22 aircraft over the Minnesota River corridor,
thus avoiding high density residential areas in south Bloomington and Burnsville.
The Operations Committee of MASAC was designated by MAC to begin the review
process for the feasibility of a Runway 22 SID permanent implementation. The
Committee's review resulted in a unanimous approval of a preferred second heading of
245°(M), and recommendation of the Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure
procedure to the MASAC full body.
The group reviewed minutes of the 26 September 1991 meeting detailing specific
concerns raised regarding the tested procedures. The simpler of the two tested alternatives,
requiring a turn as soon as safe and practical to a 180°(M) heading, was deemed the best
alternative.
Various heading alternatives were discussed including second turns to 230°(M), 240°(M),
245°(M), and 250°(M). The 230°(M) heading was tested in flight simulators and in actual
flight, and the MASAC Operations Committee previously expressed interest in exploring
benefits of other heading possibilities. Graphic representations of the headings and
associated 75 dBA 727-200 single event contours were discussed. Advantages of the
"early" 180°(M) turn coupled with the 245°(M) second turn included removing
residences from the single event contour in Richfield and Bloomington, and containing
most of the impact in the Minnesota River Valley.
A discussion of associated environmental issues followed including review of the
environmental evaluation process, and a list of potential environmental assessment topics.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) explicitly requests evaluation of delay issues,
and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) requests investigation of bird strike potential
and application of weather minimums at 3000 ft. ceilings and visibilities of 5 miles (3000
& 5).
The MASAC Operations Committee unanimously approved recommending the following
22 SID procedure to the MASAC full body:
+ As soon as practical after departure, turn left to a 180°(M) heading. At 3
DME from the MSP VORTAC, turn right to a 245°(M) heading, thence vec-
tors on course.
Use of the 22 SID was envisioned as often as possible as long as any additional delay
caused by use of the procedure was avoided. Unconstrained, mandatory use of the SID
while on runway 22 is not the intent. Therefore, the SID should be used only when no
additional delay will result from its use.
Metropolitan Airports Commission - State Report 1992 21
PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES
With respect to the above statement of avoiding delay, the 22 SID should be used for all
aircraft, as long as delay is not incurred because of mixing jet aircraft and turboprop
aircraft. However, if use by dissimilar aircraft types generates delay, the MAC is most
interested in applying the procedure to jet aircraft, thereby reducing the greatest possible
amount of noise.
The MAC is assisting the Federal Aviation Administration in conducting the
environmental evaluation process for the SID in conjunction with the Runway 22
extension project. 1
Included in the SID environmental evaluations will be noise analysis of the proposed 180°
(M) turn followed by the right turn to 245° (M), and a base case assuming current, non -
SID departure operations from runway 22. Analysis of impact on the bird sanctuary, and
potential for bird strike are also be 'addressed. This proposal was determined by the FAA
to require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and thus, has now been incorporated into
the Draft EIS preparation for the runway 4-22 extension, scheduled for completion in
January 1994.
22
Metropolitan Airports Commission - State Report 1992
Runway 4-22 Extension EIS
Figure 2-3
departures per hour. This is the maximum
capacity using Runway 4-22 under the RUS.
Total use of Runway 4-22 could increase
up to a maximum of 8 hours per day in 1996,.
depending upon wind conditions. This
alternative is currently the one preferred by
the MAC.
This set of flight headings would direct
more departing aircraft along and east of
Cedar Avenue. The areas affected contain a
mix of residential and commercial uses.
Alternative B
As shown in Figure 2-3, this alternative
has four departure headings. It is the current
system for Runway 22. These headings are
2000, 2200, 290°, and 350°. Under this
alternative, the hourly capacity of Runway
22 departures would be the same as in
Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID)
Initial Heading
Figure 2-4
Alternative A. Maximum use of Runway
4-22 under the RUS could be up to 8 hours
per day in 1996.
•
Runway 22 SID
The Standard Instrument Departure (SID)
procedure would direct aircraft departing
Runway 22 to fly a heading of 180° to the
east of Cedar Avenue.l At 3 nautical miles
(DME) from the Minneapolis Saint -Paul
International Airport (MSP) VORTAC, a .
radio navigation aid located on the airport,
aircraft would turn right to a heading of 245°
to overfly the Minnesota River valley (see
Figure 2-4).
2-5
Runway 4-22 Extension EIS
This procedure would direct aircraft over
less populated areas. Since the procedure
provides only one departure heading, use of
this procedure would be limited to periods of
relatively low traffic volume. See Appendix
C, Section C.2 for a detailed description of
operational assumptions.
The Runway 22 SID was evaluated in
combination with the No Build and preferred
alternatives. FAA analysis of operational
constraints indicates that use of the SID is
not feasible from an air traffic control
perspective.
Summary
Alternatives consist of combinations of
runway threshold location and flight heading
management subalternatives Characteristics
of the various runway threshold and ffight
heading subalternatives, in conjunction with
the "Build" alternatives, are summarized
below:
Landing Threshold Locations
Runway 22
Alternatives 1 & 2 1,000 ft. from end of
pavement (present
location)
Runway 4
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
1,550 ft. displacement
2,750 ft. displacement
Flight Headings
Alternative A
Alternative B
Runway 22 SID
165°, 180°, 200°, 220°,
290°, 350°
200°, 220°, 290°, 350°
180° (initial)
The proposed action is1 Alternative 1A:
extension of Runway 4-22 "by 2,750 feet to
the southwest; displacement of the Runway 4
landing threshold by 1,550 feet; and flight
headings of 165°, 180°, 200°, 220°, 290° and
350°.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED BUT
DISMISSED
Other alternatives identified were
considered during the Federal and State
scoping processes. In addition, the initial
DEIS and the SDEIS considered several
additional alternatives, as indicated below.
Upon further study, these were found to be
impractical or unfeasible, and so were
eliminated from further study.
2.2.1 Runway 4 Landing
Threshold Locations
The following runway threshold
alternatives to the 2,7507foot southwest
extension of Runway 4 previously considered
in the initial DEIS, as modified by the
SDEIS, have been dismissed from further
study as a result of public comments or
operational concerns.
Initial Alternative 1
This alternative proposed to displace the
Runway 4 threshold the full 2,750 feet of the
2-6
Runway 4-22 Extension EIS
;ates that an
:e mitigation
under the No Build alternative.
MSP Scenario Mitigation Areas Workscope
4-22 Build South Richfield,
Mitigation Bloomington 1,122 homes
4-22 No Build North Richfield,
Mitigation (Part Minneapolis 1,260 homes
150)
Consideration of Noise Abatement
Measures
The corrective measures described above
are restricted to areas within the DNL 65
noise contours, in accordance with the
MAC's FAR Part 150 eligibility criteria.
.The sponsor has decided to evaluate
mitigation options addressing noise sensitive
areas between DNL 60 and 65. Therefore,
noise abatement measures having the
potential to address areas experiencing noise
levels between DNL 60 and 65 were
considered. Noise abatement measures must
be consistent with the purpose and need for
the proposed action, must be operationally
feasible, and must provide noise benefits to
areas impacted by the proposed action. The
following summary evaluates the potential
for noise abatement measures to mitigate the
noise impacts of the proposed action.
Runway Use Programs. The proposed
action will enhance conformance to the
MAC's established Runway Use System
(RUS), which has been part of the MAC's
noise compatibility program for many years
(see Appendix A). Reduction in use of
Runway 4-22 to reduce impacts associated
with its use would not be consistent with the
purpose of the proposed action.
Flight Track Management. The
concept of flight track management was
extensively investigated through
consideration of the Runway 22 Standard
Instrument Departure (SID). This SID
would have directed aircraft to fly over less
populated areas to minimize the increase in
noise levels associated with increased use of
Runway 22 for departures. While this
"Procedure slightly reduced noise levels
associated with the proposed action (see
Section 4.2.2), FAA Air Traffic Control
determined that the procedure was infeasible
due to the limited number of departures
which could be accommodated (see the
discussion of the Runway 22 SID in Section
2.1.3). Accordingly, this option is not
proposed as mitigation for the proposed
action.
Noise Abatement Arrival and
Departure Procedures. Recently, the FAA
published Advisory Circular91-53A, Noise
Abatement Departure Procedures,
recommending two noise abatement takeoff
profiles: one to minimize impacts on close -in
noise sensitive areas, and one for more
distant noise sensitive areas. Theaominant
carrier at MSP, Northwest Airlines, has a
long-standing noise abatement departure
procedure which is similar to the FAA
recommended close -in procedure. In
addition, the adopted Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Program for MSP recommends
continued sensitivity training sessions with
aircraft operators on noise abatement policies
and procedures. Additional measures are not
required.
Use Restrictions. Limiting use of
Runway 4-22 by time of day or by type of
aircraft would be inconsistent with the
4-69
MEMORANDUM
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
TO: Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director
FROM: John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise Program
I
SUBJECT: (Excerpt from) South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC)Requested
Information
DATE: 23 June 1994
(Excerpt) ...
A number of requests for information and questions regarding crosswind runway use have
surfaced. Most recently, wind data and its effect on Runway 04/22 utilization have been
requested. Basically, the question asked is: How often could the crosswind runway be used?
Though the question is straightforward enough, researching and answering it is fairly
complicated. Fortunately, the Aviation Noise Program has compiled hourly weather data at MSP
for a number of years. Wind rose information is not the way to answer the question. Wind rose
data represent annual distributions of wind direction versus wind speed at a particular airport site.
The graphs do not take into account daily (or hourly) variations in wind speed and direction.
Unfortunately, it is the hourly to daily variations in wind that determine active runway selection.
Wind rose data is for planning purposes only, and for applications with time periods greater than a
year.
Because Aviation Noise Program staff have entered actual hourly weather observations into a
large database, I was able to analyze actual wind conditions for nearly a flour -year period.
Analysis is still tricky, because very specific questions must be asked, and the large-scale database
manipulated accordingly.
As you well know, wind is only one of a number of parameters considered when, selecting active
runways. During daytime hours, air traffic volume is an overriding factor, but wild speeds greater
than 8 kts do dictate theflow direction; i.e. whether the airport operates to the northwest or to the
southeast. Because traffic volumes at MSP are low over night, and most of the requests for
information regarding crosswind runway use are targeting the night hours, most of my analysis
focuses on the 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. time frame. During these hours, traffic volume ;does not dictate
runway selection, but rather, the Runway Use System (RUS) agreements prioritize runway
selection, along with wind considerations. Naturally, other conditions impact night operations -
runway closures for maintenance and repair, for instance. However, the nighttime hours, more
than any other time period at MSP, allow for the combination of wind and preferential runway
selection.
We began collecting weather data for computer entry on 10 September 1990. Between September
1990 and May 1994, 23,377 hourly weather observations have been collected, representing 72%
of all the possible record hourly observations. During the nighttime hours (2300L to 0600L) 8,645
hours were entered by Aviation Noise program staff, representing 92% of the possible 9,442
hourly observations between 10 September 1990 and 18 May 1994. This large sample provides
excellent representation of wind conditions at MSP.
Table 1: All Hours Wind -Only Runway Assignments
Runway 04
Runway 11
Runway 22
Runway 29
Any Runway
Total Hours
2439
3513
3193
4355
9877
23377
10%
15%
14%
19%
42%
Hours Since 10 Sep 90
% Hours Sampled
32372
72%
Table 2: Nighttime Hours'` Wind -Only Runway Assignments
Runway 04
Runway 11
Runway 22
Runway 29
Any Runway
Total Hours
Hours Since 10 Sep 90
% Hours Sampled
798
1050
896
1236
4665
8645
9442
92%
9%
12%
10%
14%
54%
*Nighttime hours are 2300L to 0600L (11 P.M. to 6 amt.)
Tables 1 and 2 above represent the runway assignment if wind were the only factor. According to
the Air Traffic Controllers Handbook, wind speeds less than 8 kts allow any runway to be selected
as active. With wind speeds above 8 kts, wind must be considered when selecting operational
direction. Interestingly, 42% of the hourly weather observations recorded wind speeds of 7 kts or
Page 2
less, and during nighttime hours, 54% of the observations had wind speeds of 7 kts or less. In
• other words, more than half the time during nighttime hours, wind is not a factor .in determining
active runway.
Wind -favored runway assignments in the above tables combine the highest headwind component
and lowest crosswind component to determine the most "favorable" conditions. These tables do
not address how often the airport could operate on the crosswind runway.
To determine how often the airport could have aircraft operating on the crosswind runway, we
must establish a few assumptions. Under certain conditions of weather, aircraft loading, and
critical field length, jet aircraft can accept tailwind components of .7 to 10 kts. However,
depending on final approach speeds, a 10 kt tailwind can increase ground roll 10% to 20% on
takeoff, and up to 30% on landing rollout. Additionally, most jet aircraft can operate with a 25 kt
crosswind component. For the purposes of maintaining a safety margin, and reflecting the most
conservative runway selection, Tables 6 and 7 assume that any tailwind component precludes
selection of that runway for use. Also, three crosswind conditions are displayed i 17 kt, 20 kt, and
25 kt crosswind components on Runways 04 and 22. Table 6 shows the number of nighttime
hours that Runway 04 had a tailwind component, and runway 22 had crosswind components of
greater than 17 kts, greater than 20 kts, and greater than 25 kts. Table 7 illustrates the number of
nighttime hours with a tailwind component for Runway 22, and crosswind components on
Runway 04.
The last wind condition of interest is when no tailwind component is present on either Runway 04
or Runway 22, and the crosswind component is greater than 17, kts, 20 kts, and 25 kts, on both
runways. Table 8 provides of a breakdown of these conditions.
On each of the following tables, the number of hours (and percentage of nighttime hours) for
winds 7 kts or less are displayed. This represents the wind condition where any runway could be
selected.
Table 3: Nighttime Hours* with Runway 22 Crosswind Component as Indicated
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway
22 Crosswind > 17 kts
66
0.8%
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway
22 Crosswind > 20 kts
34
0.4%
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway
22 Crosswind > 25 kts
8
0.1%
Hours with 7 kts or less
4665
54.0%
Hours with 8 kts or greater
Total Hours
`Nighttime hours are 2300L to 0600L (11 P.M. to 6 A.M.)
Page 3
3980
8645
46.0%
Table 4: Nighttime Hours* with Runway 04 Crosswind Component as Indicated
•
Runway 22 Tailwind and Runway
04 Crosswind > 17 kts
79
0.9%
Runway 22 Tailwind and Runway
f 04 Crosswind > 20 kts
45
0.5%
Runway 22 Tailwind and Runway
04 Crosswind > 25 kts
12
0.1%
Hours with 7 kts or less
4665
54.0%
Hours with 8 kts or greater
3980
46.0%
Total Hours
8645
"Nighttime hours are 2300L to 0600L (11 P.M. to 6 A.M.)
Table 5: Nighttime Hours* with Runways 04 & 22 Crosswind Components as Indicated
Runway 22 Crosswind > 17 kts &
Runway 04 Crosswind > 17 kts
Runway 22 Crosswind > 20 kts &
Runway 04 Crosswind > 20 kts
Runway 22 Crosswind > 25 kts &
Runway 04 Crosswind > 25 kts
35 0.4%
27. 0.3%
10 0.1%
Hours with 7 kts or less
4665
54.0%
Hours with 8 kts or greater
Total Hours
3980
46.0%
`Nighttime hours are 2300L to 0600L (11 P.M. to 6 A.M.)
Page 4
8645
Tables 6, 7, and 8 allow an explicit counting of specific wind conditions relative to MSP's
crosswind runway. If 25 kts is determined to be the limiting crosswind component for selecting a
runway as active (and no tailwind component is acceptable), then three conditions exist where the
crosswind runway cannot be used - a tailwind on Runway 04, and a crosswind component on
Runway 22 greater than 25 kts (8 hours), a tailwind on Runway 22, and a crosswind component
on Runway 04 greater than 25 kts (12 hours), and a crosswind component on both Runways 04
and 22 greater than 25 kts (10 hours). Out of 8,645 nighttime hourly weather observations
recorded, wind precluded choosing the crosswind runway a total of 30 hours. In pother words, with
wind as the only factor, MSP's crosswind runway could be used during nighttime hours 99.6% of
the time. If 20 kts is chosen as a limiting crosswind component (and no tailwind component is
acceptable), then Runway 04/22 could be used 98.8% of the nighttime hours. Similarly, allowing
17 kts of crosswind component or less, and no tailwinds, the crosswind runway could be selected
as active 97.9% of the hours between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M.
Again, nighttime runway use is often impacted by conditions other than wind and weather.
Runway closures for maintenance, repair, reconstruction, snow removal, FOD, etc., can preclude
use of the crosswind runway and one of the parallel runways a considerable number of hours.
However, the wind analysis allows the conclusion that, assuming all runways are available for
use, virtually all operations at night could be conducted using head-to-head operations in the-
Eagan-Mendota
heEagan-Mendota Heights Corridor, and the crosswind runway. That is, with the crosswind runway
fully available for use (i.e. 04/22 not NOTAMed down, and St. Paul Downtown Class D Airspace
not protected during non -tower operations), from 2300L to 0600L, departures on Runways
29L&R and, and arrivals to Runways 11L&R could be could be discouraged, with aircraft
operating head-to-head in the corridor and on the crosswind runway when tailwinds preclude use
of the head-to-head procedure. This action would strengthen existing provisions of the RUS.
Page 5
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 5, 1995
TO: Airport Relations Commission M
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ
ers
SUBJECT: Discuss Status of Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedure
Implementation
INTRODUCTION
For many months the Commission has discussed the pending
adoption of the non -simultaneous departure procedure promised by
the MAC but, as of yet, undelivered. Many attempts have been made
to jump-start this process over the past several months and
ultimately it was discovered that the implementation process had
stalled due to the failure of MAC Deputy Director Nigel Finney to
authorize the release the MAC's consultant, HNTB, to undertake the
necessary environmental review work.
At a meeting on Wednesday of this week I spoke to Mr. Finney
about this matter and was informed that he had finally authorized
the environmental work to be done. More specifically, he had
instructed Mr. John Foggia to contact HNTB to set up a meeting to
discuss the type of work to be done and to get the process started.
In follow-up, I have sent the attached letter to Mr. Foggia
confirming his commencement of this work and asking to be included
in the process. Hopefully, by the date of our next meeting I will
have heard from Mr. Foggia with more up-to-date information on the
environmental review process and the projected implementation date
of the procedure.
City of
Mendota Heights
May 5, 1995
Mr. John Foggia
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear John:
Over the course of the past several years you and I have had
periodic conversations regarding the implementation status of the
non -simultaneous departure procedure approved by the MAC in January
1993. The slow progress in getting this procedure implemented has
been particularly frustrating to our City, as you know. In a
recent conversation you indicated that the reason for the delay was
that Mr. Nigel Finney had not yet formally approved the hiring of
HNTB to conduct the necessary environmental review work.
On Wednesday, May 3, 1995 I spoke in person with Mr. Finney
who indicated he has now formally given that approval and that the
work is now authorized. This being the case, we are extremely
anxious to have this process proceed as quickly as possible.
Please let me know the schedule of the proposed work and the
tentative date we may expect to have the already MAC approved
procedure implemented. Of course, we would like to be included in
the meetings MAC has with HNTB relative to the environmental review
process of this procedure. Please let me know when the first
meeting on this subject is scheduled.
Now that the ball is rolling, we look forward to the rapid
implementation of the procedure, and thank you in advance for your
assistance in seeing this matter through to its successful
conclusion.
cc: Jeff Hamiel
Nigel Finney
Jon Hohenstein
Sincerely,
CITY OFMENDOTA HEIGHTS
Tom Lawell
City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850