1994-02-09 - AirportCITY OF �NDOTA HEIGHTS
DAttOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS CObIl�iISSION
AGENDA I
FEBRIIARY 9, 1.99� - 8a00 P.M. I
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3e Approval of December 8, 1993 Meeting Minutes. '.
4. AcknowledQe Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence;
a. ANOMS Reports for November and December 1993.
b. Richfield Part 150 Buyout Updates for December 1993 and
January 1994.
c. The NOISF Newsletter for January 1994. , ,
d. Information Regarding December 14, 1993', Long Term
Comprehensive Plan Technical Committee.
5. iJnfiaished and Nev�v Businesss -
a. Presentation on Noise Abatement Departure Procedures in
Effect at Select Airports. ',
b. Discuss MSP Capacity Enhancement Plan.
c. Discuss Noise Abatement Takeoff Procedures - FAA Circular
91-53A. �
6. Other Comments or Concerns II
7.
Adjourn '
�,
Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upoa request
at least 120 hours in advaace. If a notice of less thaa 120
hours is received, the City of D2eadota Heights will make every
attempt to provide the sids, however�, this may aot �be possible
on short aotice. Pleas� contact City Administration at 452-
1850 with requests. i
CITY OF M�NDOTA HEIGBTS
DAROTA COUNT3C, MINNESOTA
AIRPOi2T RELATIONS CC}MMISSIflN MIIvIUTES
DEG�ER $, 1993
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport�Relations
Commissian was held on Wednesday, December 8, 1993, in �.he City
Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was
called �o order at 8:OQ o'clock P.M. The fol.lowing members were
present: Stein, Beaty and Leu�man. Cozt�ti�sianer Fitzer was
excused. Commi�sioners Olsen, Olin and Healey were absent. A1so
present were City Admini.stratar Tam Lawell and Senior Sec'retary Kim
Blae�er. ,
APPROVAL OF MINQTLS f.
Lacking a quaruzn, it was the consensus of thoae Commissioners
'pre�en� that �he November 10, 1993 minu�es be approved as
amendedq �
ACIQSO�QLLDGE RECEIPT QF �
VARSOIIS REPQRTS/CORRESPOND£NCS (
The Commission acknawledged receipt of the ANOMS Report for
October, 1993. It was noted that the complaints for Octaber
of 3993 were dawn significantly from the Qctober 1.992
complaints, �
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MSP jTechnical
Committee Meeting Summary from November 9, 1993.
Administrator Lawell informed the Commissa.on �ha�. staff will
be attending the December 14, 1993 meeting. (
The Commission acknowledged receipt a� the NOISE Newsle�.ter
from November 1993. Administrator Lawell stated! that the
NOI�E Annual conference will be held in Ma.rch of �.994 in
Washington, D.C. He explained that �he National �League of
Cities Con£erence will be held at that time and that �he City
may have at least one representative from �.he Council present .
. �
The Commis�ion acknowl.edged rece�.pt of a Ie�ter ta the MA.0
from the City regarding the Draf�. Al�ernative Environmental
.Document for the new major airport site. The Commission
briefly reviewed maps prepared by Dakata County showing
Parcels wi�.hin Ldn 65 Airport Noise Contour. Administrator
Lawell noted �.hat these maps repre�ent the 199�& Ldn 65
con�.our .
Airport Relations Commission
December 8, 1993
Page 2
IIPDATE ON MINNLSOTA PIIBLIC LOBBiC
LA�PSUIT AGAINST MACL AND�FIINDING REQIIEST
Administrator Lawell explained that the Minnesota Public Lobby
(MPL) recently requested financial support from the City of
Mendota Heights to help cover expenses related to an appeal of
a lawsuit against the Metropolitan Airports Commission
charging them with violating Minnesota Pollution Control
standards relative to aircraft noise.
Administrator Lawell explained that Council, at their December
7, 1993 meeting, authorized the expenditure of $10,000 in
support of legal costs associated with the appeal. He further
explained the Council directed that the expenditure be made in
two parts with an immediate disbursement of $5,000 and a
subsequent diabursement in January of 1994 of another $5,000.
DISCIISS SIIRVEY OF VARIOIIS AIRPORTS REGARDING
DEPARTIIRE PROCi3DIIRES IN EFFECT
Administrator Lawell explained that he has been in contact
� with the Executive Director of NOISE regarding the possibility
of NOISE providing information to the City of Mendota Heights
relating to FAA flight procedures utilized at other airports
across the country. Lawell stated the material available from
NOISE appears to relate more to "vertical" takeoff profiles
used by departing aircraft and less to "horizontal" fanning
�procedures used at other airports. At the request of the
Commission, staff will look into the air traffic procedures
used in Memphis, Denver, Boston, Detroit and Orlando in time
for the February Airport Relations Commission meeting.
DISCIISS POSSIBLE DAT]3S FOR CONTROL
TO�R VISIT
Administrator Lawell stated he has
Tower Chief, Mr. Bruce Wagoner, to
of the FAA control tower at the MSP
discussed January 12th at 3:30 P.M.
A.M. as possible dates for a tour.
those present that January 12th b
Administrator Lawell stated that
present tonight will be notified of
tour.
been in contact with FAA
arrange a date for a tour
airport. The Commission
and January 11th at 10:00
It was the consensus of
e scheduled for the tour.
Commission members not
the date and time of the
r
<•
;
Airport Relations
December 8, 1993
Page 3
� �•�
i
�
Commissian
Administrator Lawell s�ated at their December 7th meeiing, the
City Cauncil e�cpressed an interes� in conduc�ing a workshop
with the Airport Rela�ions Commission sometime in� Spring of
1994. �
Commissioner Beaty thanked the City Couneil for suppor�ing the
Minnesota Public Lobby and SMAAC'� e�for�.s in ta.ghting air
noise. I
Cammissioner S�ein provided the Commission with an article
from the November issue of Flight International,regarding
airport deveZopment, construction af new runwa�s at exis�.ing
airfields, new air tra�fic control procedures and innavative
technologiea which are a part of the FAA's approach to
impraving capacity at US Airports. j
There being no iurther busines�, the Commission adjourned its
mee�ing at 9:30 o'clock P.M. �
Respect�'ully submitted,
Kimberlee K. Blaeser
Senior Secretary
■ ■■ ■
■ ■ ■
■ ■■ ■
■ ■■ ■
■■ ■
■ ■■ ■
■ ■■ ■
■ ■■
■ ■■ ■
■ ■■ ■
■ ■■ �
■ ■■ ■
�
.
■
■ ■
� ■
�■ ■
■ ■
■ �
■ �
■ �
■ ■ �
■ ■
■ ■
■ �
■ �
■' ■
� �
■
i
'ti.
,..--'_"�
I.
II.
III.
IV.
v
VI.
VII.
VIII.
1X.
X.
�I.
XII.
•
: c, r. i.
November 1993
November 1993 Clperations and Complaint Summary
November 1993 Complaint Summary
Runway LTse Reports
Navember Tower Lag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent Haurly Use
i
November Tower Log - Nighttime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent Hourly Use
� November Runway Use Report - All Qps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent of Qps
a
IYoveml�er Runway Use Report - Iet L}gs . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . .Percent af (Jps
November Runway Use Report Night�ime - All Ops .........Percent of Ops
Novemher Runway Use Repart Nighttxme - 7et Ops .........Percent of t3ps
Jet Carrier Operations by Type
Aircraft '�ype Table . �
November Runway Use For Day/Night Periods ... All Qpera� tions
ANOMS Base Map - Remote Monitor Site Locations
MSP - Airport Noise Monitoring 5ystem Locations
Jet Departure Related Noise Events Far November,1993
Jet Arrivai Reiated Noise Events For November,1993
Ten Loudest Aircraft Naise Events - RMms 1 through 24
AN{)MS Flight Tracks
November 1 ta 6,1993
November 1 to 6, 1993
November 7 to 13,1993
November 7 to 13, 1993
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Dspartures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7et Arrivals
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Uepartures
..............................7etArrivals
November 14 to 20,1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7et Departures
November 14 to 24,1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Arrivals
November 21 to 27, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . .Jet Depa��rtures
November 21 to 27, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3et Arrivals
November 28 to 30, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7et Departures
November 28 to 30, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7et Azrivals
XIII. MSP Aircraft Ldn by Date and RMT - November 1993
Metropolitan Airports Com�missian - Avialion Naise Pragram
�
.,
�1
�--.
NOV�MBER 1993 OPERATIONS AND COMP.
� Table 1: OPERATIONS SUMMARY - ALL AI:
,: : : : . :.: : .: : : :: : : : : : : : . � : : ;::: : : : .:: ;.. � : : : : : ...: : :.: : .: : : : .: : . � : ; .: ;..,..: : : <.,.: : :: .. . : : : : . . . . .
�<:;�ui�zva':�����::�`>,�. ��:;.,.��� _, �..::
. .,........ . . . . :::.;..>.;.;..::..::
�:::::,..: :. �• ... . . ... .
... :..,, .:. ,.>.
. .� _A��?r�vaa::.: '�:'� � .�a��:�':� ' �.. '.�iaui�iiii�><;:
.
' �
i
... ..�. .. . .... . _......
[NT; SUMMARY
04 115 0.8 32 02
22. 156 1.0 1172 8.3
11 5962 39.8 6070 � 42.9
29 8739' S8.4 6869 48.6
Table 2: MSP NOVEMBER FLEET MIX
Ta61e 3: AIRPORT NOVEMBER COMPLAINT SUMMARY
..:.:..........::,,... .. .. .::+::: �� .:>:::.
�::.;;<::::::.<<>�;..;�� :::<..�: <::;�,.;_:.
..,.;... .:.>..::.::::;.::; .:�.:..
:<:�<:.� ;::;��ii�i�::� . 1992 �93:�;�<:;_>.; :.
t�.. :::;.;;:.:..
MSP 1351 791
Airlake . 1 0
An�ka 1 0
Crystal 0 1 �
Flying Qoud 3 9
Lake F1mo � 0 0
St Paul 1 3
l�sc. 13 2
��:�:`:>�.<� � � 1370 '��$�� .:
=�>.-:
'::��`.�>�:;`;�.. :`: .. .;.; :..:...::::::4:':�:�
Table 4: NOVEMBER OPERATIONS SUMMARY - AIRPORT
OR'S OFFICE
�
MSF NOVEMBER 1993 COMPLAINT S
�
.--�-�°'�t MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY
Arden F:[ills
Bloomington
8�;��
Caon Rapids
Eagan
Edina
Eden Prai�ri,e
Hopkins
Inver Grove Heights
.tvtayer .
Moa�tgomery
Mendata H�eig�ts
MinneaQcrlis
Muiuetanka
Flymouttt
Richfeid
Rosemount
Rosevil%
South St Paui
St� Anth�ny
St� Louis Park -
Sk Paul
Sunfish Lake
West S� Paul
t ��i, � _ r ;
QQ:00 - 05:59
06:00 - t}6:59
07:00 -11:59
12.00 -15:59
16:00 -19:59
20:fl0 - 2I:59
22:U4 - 22.59
23:00 - 23:59
51
SQ
Zoz
92
15$
172
4$
19
9
.24
20
i
95
18
1
1
0
IIi
1'
1
45
3
1
35
2
2
1
4
4
15
1
2
10
24
ao
1
I30
20
1
2
0
121
1
1
56
296
4
1
39
2
2
1
4
4
42
1
2
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
Facc�essive Naise
�ar�y/t,ace �
�w �� .
Structural Disturban�e
Helirapter
Gcound Noise
� �-�
Freque,�cy
632 �
52 �
20 �
a�
1 I
2'7 �
7�
50 �
�
1.3%
3.1%a
Z.s�a
Q.1%
16.6%
2.6%
0.1�
0.1%
0.0°!0
15.4%
0.1°l0
0.1�
7.I%a
37.8%
OS°lo
0.1%
5.{}%
0.3�
0.3�
0.1°lv
QS%
OS%
5.4%
0.1%
0.3%
�,
�.
� Metropolitan Airports Gommission
} --�`�`
Runway Use Report - AlI Operatii
For November,1993 _
Ranway
04
11L �
21R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL ARR.
U�
� , 11L
� liR
za
29L
29R
TOTAL DEP:
Monday, January 24, 1993
Coant
-
3040
2922
156
4353
4386
14,972
32
3057
3013
1172
3373
3496
24,i43
Percentage
�ns
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
��,
Runway Use Report - Jet Operati
For November, 1993
Runway
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL ARR.
04
11L
11R
22 �
29L
29R
TOTAL DEP.
Monday, January 24, 1993
Arr/Dep
A
A
A
A
A
A
Count
-
6
1876
2014
99
3177
2898
10,140
7
l808
2115
899
2349
1992
9,170
Pencentage
�
�
,ons.
.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
t -
Runway Use Report Nighttime Jet � Only
Ruuway
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL ARR
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL DEP.
Monday, January 24, 1993
For Novem6er,1993
Arr/Dep
A
A
A
A
A
A
Count
5
17
13
0
90
177
302
0
32
23 �
6
13
14
88
Pereentage
�
�
,
,
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Monday, January 24, 1993
Jet Carrier Operations By Type
November,1993
Aincraft Type Count Pe�entage
B747
B74F
DC10
1bID11
L1011
DC87
B727H
B757
B767
EA32
B733
FK10
1�ID80
NID88
1�ID87
. I?C8
DC86
DC8S
B707
B727
DC9
B737
B73S
FK28
Total
192
53
761
2
0
10
156
1843
0
2130
992
578
1214
118
0
84
2
43
39
3616
8583
261
255
57
0.9
0.3
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
8.8
0.0
10.1
4.7
2.8
5.8
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.0
02
02
17.2
40.9
12
12
0.3
38.3%
61.7%
3
2
u
ti
CQDE ,
B727
B�27H
B707
B737
B73F
B73S
B14'7
B'i4F
B74M
B7.5?
B?67
BEC
BEI .
$E4
CNA
DC10 .
DC$
DC8S
1)C86
i)C`9
DC9F
EA32
FR1Q
FE�2�
FK27
ivID80
NID$2
IvID83
MD88
Aircraft Type Table
' AIRCRAFT DESCRTP'['IUN
BOBNG 721
BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT
BOEING 707
BOEII�FG 73�
BOIING 731 FRIIGFiTER
BOEING 737 200 SERIES
BOEING 747 • .
BOIING 747 FRIIGF�IRR
BOEING 747 Iv�D FASSENGER�RffiGHTP.R
BO�TG 757
BQQNG 767
BEECHCRAFT (AI.L. SERIES) .
BEECHCCt�FC 1900 �
BEE(�-IICttAFT 99 .
CFSSNA (ALd. SERiES)
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10
MCDONINFil. D{}UGLAS DC$
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 STRF.ACH
MC�ONNELL DOUGLAS Dt� RB
MCDONfNIIL DOUGLAS DC9
MCDONNELI. UOUGLAS DC9 FRE[GHTER
� Amsus u,rous� �20
. F{}KKER I04
f�OFQCER F28
FOKKEtt F29 (PRO�
MCDONNIIL DOUGLAS DC9-$0 SF.RFF?S
MCDQNNEi:L DOUGLAS
MQ�NNEL.I, DOLiGLAS
MCDONNEL.L DOUGLAS
�,
��
Minneapolis-St. Paul International
A.irport
�
Qctober Runwav ITse Far DavlNi.�ht Periods
' Min eapolis S� Paul
1 2 '
� * g � Il �
('"'� s
4 ���
3 , ` . 10 .
6 �
(� $ . .12
V .
� 7` �.
1�5
ichfietd .
� 23.
. ?A � ig -
D
� � �.
� � i7 � 19 * � 14
Btao 'ngt� � �
� Eagan
� �
b
� �
s�rnsviue �
, \ /
; i „n„�, r � '' /
� �
4 �
�' a
i ��
. �� .
.
ppie Valley
Mendota Heig '
` 13 �
� o
• 21
.�
� In er Grove Heig6ts
«��,
db
�'
Rosemont
� _.� _ _ _ _ .� _ . .._.___ • � _,�..._. • .
0
0
�Tinne�cpolis-�'t. Paul In�e�nat�onal Ait�po�~t
Site
1
2
3
4
.�
6
7
8
9
10
11
IZ
13
14
15
Ib
17
18
19
2A
21
2�2
23
?.4
Airport Naise Monitoring System
City
Minneapolis
Minneapatis
Minueapotis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Richfield
Minneapolis
S� Paui
� St, Paut �
S�. Paul
St. Paui
Mendota Heights
��
Mendota Heights
�
Bloamington
Richfield
Bloamingtan
Richfietd
Inver Grove Heights
Inver Grave Heights
Mendota I�eights
��
Approxiarate Strcet I.ocstion
Xerxes Avenue & 42�id Strcet � ,
Fremant Aveu�e & 43rd Street 1
W. Etmwood Strcet & Y4'ent�arth Avenue
,
Oakland Avenue & 49th SMeet �
I2th Aveaue & 58th Street `
��th Avenue & 57th Sir�et �
Wentworth Ave & 64th Street , (
l,ongfellow Avenue & 43rd Street �
Saratoga S#reet & Hartford Avenue
,
Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Strcet �
F'iun Street & Scheffer Avenue �
Aitoo Avenue & Rocicwood Avenae �
SautBeast end af Mohican Caurt �
�rst Street & McKee Street �
William Court & Thresea Street �
Avalaa Avenue & Y'aIa's Lane �
&4th Strcet & 4th Avenue �
75t6 Street & 17th Avenue �
i6t6 Aveaue & 83rd Sh�eet �
?St6 Street & 3rd Avenue �
�
Barbara Avenue •& 67th Sir�eet �
Anne Marie Trail �
�nd af Kenudan Avenue �
Chapel Lane & Raiudom Raad �
Metropolitan Airports Commissian
4
Jet Departure Related Noise Evenis For November, 19
Count Of Events For Each RMT
1
2
3
4
5
�
7
$
.9
14
11
12
I3
I4
15
��
1'7
18
19
20
21
zz
Zs
24
M'inneapolis
Minneapalis
Minueapolis
M'uiueapolis
I�nneapalis
��us
Richfield
Minneapolis
S� Paul
St. Paul
S� Paul
St. Paul
Mendata Iieights
Eagau
Mendota Heights
Eagan
Bioomingtan
Richfield
Blaomington
� Richfieid
Inver Crrove Heights
Inver Grove Heights
��ao� ���
�$�:
Friday, January 7, 1993
;:';A�P�i►n�: �#�eet� Location
Xences Ave. & 42nd SG
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
W. Elmwood S� & Wentworth Ave.
Oakland Ave. & 49th 5�
12th Ave. & S8th St.
25th Ave. s� 5'7th St.
Wenlworth Ave & b4th St
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
SaraWga SG & Hartford Ave.
Itasca Ave. & Bawdoin 5t.
F'uzn S� & Scl�effer Ave.
Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave.
Sautheast end of Mc�ucan Caurt
First St� 8c McKee S�.
William Cawrt & Thresea SG
Avalon Ave. � v,a� L�
$4th St� & 4th Ave.
75th SG & 17th Ave.
16th Ave. & $3rd St.
75th S�. & 3rd Ave.
Bac�ara Ave. & 67th St. �
Anne Marie Trail
Ead of Kenndan Ave.
Chapel Lane &. Randam Road
,.
145
645
59b
za�7
3434
3$91
22t�1
1300
43
1623
294
734
1163
1937
2130
zsa,�
79I
2339
$80
979
'Tlh
1A07
z�o�
r�zs
6
ios
26
411�
1708
2056
543
282
2
5
}
1
158
388
479
s�
88
553
284
83
82
1Q8
1002
2�0
tllflriB �:'
�.�..
Q
0
0
1
106
310
1
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
6
0
2Q
1
1
0
0
34
0
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
zo
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
18
19
20
21
zx
23
24
Jet Arrival Retated Naise Events For November,
Count Of Events �or Each RMT
. . ._..... :. . ..
. .....::.::.:.... .::
.:. : ,....:
... . :::... .. .:. . . ..:...., �» ,�
;. .... ::::..: . ::. . ..:..:.:;:.. .. ,:.. ...
.... ,:. . . .:. . . . . .. ..�. . . . ... .
....;.:.. :. ., .:;..:- .. .. . . ..,.., _ ...
.. :
„ � .:: : .:.. .:.::. .. :: ::: : . ...
. .. . .... ... _ ,.,, : .
. .. .:: . iiE�`.;_ __,. _ ;;:�>'.,;..:< >: :;��:;Ap�qg�imate. �fr���I:i�cat�onE:.;`....
Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. ��: �2nd St
lbfinneapolis Fremonk Ave. & 43rd S�
Minneapolis W.� Elmwood S�. & Wentworth Ave.
M'inneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th S�
11�inneapolis 12th Ave. � 5$th St,
Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St,
Richfietd Wentwarth Ave & 64th S�
Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. � 43rd S�
St. Paul Saratoga St � Hartford Ave.
St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin S�.
St. Paul Fznn SG & Scheffer Ave.
St. Paul Altc�n Ave, & Rac}cwood Ave.
Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mducan Court
Eagan First St� & NlcKee S�
Mendota Heig,hts William Caurt & Threse,a St
Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
. Bloomangton 84th S� & 4th Ave.
Richfield 75th SG & 17th Ave.
Bloomington 16th Ave. & 83rd St.
Richfield 75#h St. & 3rd Ave.
Inver Grove Iieighis Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
Inver Crrove Heights Anae Marie Trail
Mendota Heights End of Kenndc�n Ave.
Eagau Chapei Laue & Raudom Road
Friday, January 7, 1993
1257
17C8
1241
l926
2973
2709
583
699
I11
. G39
248
457
279
3747
1471
395C
i30
730
73
217
118
2683
2676
4258 ,
47
265
2b9
626
1572
1518
lb
14
54
87
1
1
I
58
20
1679
33
41
0
1
3
2�4
60
107
0
5
4
3
652
326
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
2
j 0
! 29
�
i
1 Q
( 0
� a
� �
� 1
� 0
� Q
eri:ts;:;;- -
H�iIB.. � .
4
0
0
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
..... . .____.. __... _.....,.__......._._ .___....... , _..---#--..... ._.._..__...___....._.. .
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
� RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. (Minneapolis)
DATETIlviE �,I,� MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP
11/18P9311:32:32 FK10 89.4 A
11/10I9319:14:20 EA32 89.3 A
11/22/9317:53:27 FK10 88.9 A
11/03/9317:12:01 D.^_9 86.7 A
11�q5/93 8:3b:15 B737 85.9 D
11/04/93 8:36:29 1�ID80 85.3 A"
1127/'9318:27:00 DC9 ' 85.2 A
1123/93 8:59:17 SF34 84.9 � A
11IC)9/'93 21:29:56 DC9 .� 84.9 D
11/�03/93 8:42:46 B727 83.8 A
RMT #2: Freemont Ave. & 43rd S� (Minneapolis)
DATETIlVIE � MAXLEVII, ARR/DEP
11/l8/�9314:44:43 B727 93.3 D
11IZZI9317:17:36 B727 92.4 A
ll�l3/9311:55:28 DC9 91.5 � A
11/L4/'9319:25:22 B757 91.3 A
11/19/'9316:28:46 B727 91.2 D
11/18/'9315:38:23 B757 90.8 . A
11/09/'9311:39:01 DC9 90.7 D
11/l2/9319:14:56 B757 90.3 A
11/18/'9318:39:22 B757 89.6 A
11/19/'93 9:37:53 DC9 89.4 D
Friday, January 7, 1993
Metropolitan Airports Commission ,
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #3: W. Etmwood St & Wentworth Ave. (Minneapilis)
F7VMDJItIT1�1
11/18/9312:54:02
11/25/9310:06:59
11/04/93.15:33:54
11r25/'93 11:03:53
11/27/'9311:54:04
11/nl/93 22:41:34
11/C)4/'93 17:04:09
1122I'9313:31:18
11�25/'9311:09:27
11/Z4/93 20:58:32
Am�r
TYPE
B727
DC9
DC9
B727
B727
B727
B757
B727
BA31
BE80
. � � , . . � �.
93.2
91.5
90.1
90.1
89.5
89.2
89.2
89.1
89.0
88.9
RMT #4: Oal�land Ave. & 49th St. (Minneapotis)
DATETIlI�
llro��3 zo:2s:zs
11/14/93 21:07:32
11/19/'93 20:32:31
11I28/93 16:24:11
11/13/9319:50:22
1129/93 9:58:44
11/�2/'93 5:24:37
11I�04I9319:5'7:45
11/20/93 18:39:57
11/13I'9316:49:58
Friday, January 7, 1993
�►mc�-r
TYPE
��
� 8�2�
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B757
B747
B727
lu : .� D1t� : : : /r �I'r
101.6
99.7
99.5
99.3
98.5
97.4
97.1
97.1
96.3
96.3
�
w
Metropolitan Airports Commission
.
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. (Minneapolis) �
DAT.FTIl�IE `�.1,�� MAXL.EVII. ARR/DEF
11/18/93 20:04:42 I7C9 114,3 D �
� 11/19/'9317:17;18 • B727 . 108.8 D ��
11/L1�31'7:08:24 B727 108.4 � D �
Ilta2193 7:28:15 B'T27 IU62 - D (
. 11/ZOI93� 18:48:03 MD80 105.9 D �
. 11/20/9318:47:11 B727 105.$ D � �
� ii/121�►3 G:I�:42 B?27 I05.1 D �
� 11/C)4/93 22:16:1�9 � B727 1Q5 4 D �
11/17/�'3 7:56:38 'B'727 105.4 D .�
I1J20/93 i5:I0:43• B'727 105.� il �
RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St. (Minneapolis)
DATT'ITME, ��T MA.��.EVF..L ARRJDEP i
_ 11/q7N317:02;42 B12? 1Q8.$ D -
11/04/9319:53;25 I7C"9 1085 "D
� i 1/05J93 22:46:12 8727 108.1 D
� 11120/93 28:55.42 DC9 107.9 . D
11/13/'9313:26:12 B727 107.6 D
11/17/9313:08:49 Dt"9 107.1 D
i1116193 21:06:13 � B�27 1069 . . D
11l18I93 22:42:59 DC9 1Q6.8 D
11/q5/'9317:00:12 B'727 106.7 . D
i I!�(i7/93 16:53:Ip B727 106.7 D
Friday, January 7, 1993
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. (Richfield)
'DATETIME
11/04/9317:03:51
11I09I'93 16:45:15
11/C)9/93 7:51:44
11/09/93 20:11:50
11/14/9316:45:22
11/17/9313:16:44
11/14/93 7:44:11
11/U6�93 11:57:48
11/11/93 7:28:50
11�08/93 9:43:07
�mc.�r �,EVEr,
TYPE -
B727
DC9 99.2
B727 99.0
B727 99.0
B727 98.9
B727 98.5
B727 98.3 �
B727 98.1
B727 97.6
B727 96.6
ARit/DEP
-
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd S� (Minneapolis)
DATETIlV�
11/14/9313:45:49
11R0/'93 19:58:03
11/17I93 13:09:15
11/18/'93 21:02:14
11/02I'9315:14:23
11IC)8/93 20:10:41
11IC)8/9316:20:48
11IO2/93 7:43.22
11i28/93 13:09:11
11/14/93 17:32:21
Friday, January 7, 1993
.�c�r
�
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B?27
B727
B727
B727
MAXI.EVEC,
98.7
98.6
97.7
96.8
96.0
94.8
54.2
93.7
93.3 .
93.0
Metropalitan Airports Gommission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #9: Sarataga St. & Hartford Ave. (St. Paul)
:• r,
Ilf�}81'93 22:32:35
11/18/�3 8:59:16
11R0/�3 21:28:40
111(i71'�3 b:51:40
11/20�'93 21:26;43
11I26/'93 20:11:37
IlIl6l93 2i:5$:46
11f2b�1319:17:15
11i20/93 21:35:26
11/10193 21:18:28
a�m�r
TYPE
���
�B72�
B727
B727
I7C9
B727
B'727
B'727
B727
BC9
DC10
•� �
$9.5
89.0
89.0
88.9
$$.2
87.9
$7.1
86.8
86.7
85.8
A�tRJDEP � �
�_
�A �
A �
A �
A �
A �
A �
A �
A �
A �
A' I
RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. (S� Paut)
E►zv��_ _�1�.
il/24/'93 9.11:25
11/7,4/93 9:13:OS
11I26l9319:45:38
i1.1261'�3 I9:31:3$
11/x0/93 21:19;12
11/18/'93 9:38:41
II/18/93 I8:56:52
l lt'�8/'93 22.49:39
11/20I93 21:36:10
l 11+p8/93 22:33:16
Friday, January 7, 1993
��z
-
' B727
B727
B747
DCi4
DC10
B?27
I)C:9
B72?
DC9
B727
� t a�
43.7
93.2
92.2
91.$
915
91.3
91A
9Q.8
90.6
90.6
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. (St. Paul)
�
DATETIIVIE
11/b9/93 7:08:44
11/18I'93 18:57:10
11/18/g3 6:25:51
11/18/93 9:35:25
11I06/93 7:33:30
11/?.4%93 9:11:39
11/Z7/i3 8:13:33
11/Z8/9318:42:02
11/�5/93 9:00:18
ll�l6/'93 20:14:18
�mc�r �� ���
TYPE
BE18 87.5 D
DC9 87.3 A
SW4 87.1 D
BFAZ 84.1 A
SW4 82.6 D
B727 82.3 . D
BE80 80.3 A
FK27 80.0 D
B727 � 79.6 D
C208 79S iA
RMT #12: Alton Ave. & Rockford Ave. (St. Paul)
DATETIME �r MAXLEVII. ARR/DEP
11/24/'93 9:13:24 B727 87.6 D
11/10/'93 9:32:36 SW4 83.8 D
11/l6/93 9:41:31 BE02 83.0 A
11/J.4/'93 7:SQ:42 ' M727 82.2 D
11/l6l'93 21:26:55 : SW4 81.4 A
11�'l6/9319:54:56 EA32 81.4 A
11I04/93 7:00:17 SW4 81.0 D
lll�l/'93 9:36:13 DH8 80.4 D
11/18/'9314:32:46 BA31 80.3 D
11I�01/93 7:47:03 BE02 80.0 D
Friday, January 7, 1993
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #13: Southwest End Of Mohican Court (Mendota Heights)
�
I� : M�fMh��
iiroi�3 is:i�:�
llrol/93 9:09:49
11/n4/93 5:18:48
11/29/9316:59:42
11/n3l'9316:22:10
11/Ol/9317:00:38
11/03/93 9:?5:02
lln2/9311:29:32
11/bl/'9317:13:09
llln4/'93 9:38:47
�, «� �
• � �I � �I'
s�a�
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
DC9
92.9
91.8
90.9
90.6
89.8
89.8
89.4
89.3
88.9
88.1
RMT #14: lst St. & McKee St (Eagan)
DA'TETIlV� �� T MA��.EVII. ARR/DEP
11/02/9310:16:25
11/03I93 19:59:38
11/ti4193 8:23:11
11I13N316:19:36
l lln3/'9317:24:49
11fL4/g3 6:52:49
11/10/9316:56:04
11/+04/�'3 7:29:47
11/�09/93 9:14:22
11/?.4/9317:28:54
Friday, January 7, 1993
DC9
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
97.5
97.1
96.9
95.9
94.7
94.5
93.4
93.3
93.3
93.0
.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #15: William Court & Thresea St. (Mendota Heig i ts)
. .
DA'I�TIME �,I.�r MAXLEVII, ARR/DEP
11/15/'93 20:53:36 B727 100.9 D '
11I�01/93 9:53:03 B727 99.2 . D I
11/10/'93 20:0�:49 DC9 99.0 D I
11/10/'9318:46:46 B727 97.3 D I
11IO1r9317:12:49 B727 96.6 D +
11/10/93 16:16:02 B727 96.1 D
,11/18/9318:14:47 B727 . 94.5 D �
11/10/9313:34:25 B727 94.2 D l
" 11/10/93 22:04:20 B727 , 93.8 D I
11/18/93 6:15:25 B727 93.8 D �
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane (Eagan)
DATETIME. � T MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP
11/18/'93 8:34:35 B727 102.6 D
11l14/93 21:18:33 B727 1015 D
11/18N310:06:36 B727 101.3 D
11/n4/93 8:06:53 B727 101.1 D
11/03I'93 7:57:04 B727 1005 D
11/Z3/'9316:56:52 B727 100.4 D
11/18/'9317:09:12 B727 100.0• � D
11IU4/93 22:56:36 B727 100.0 A
11/18/9316:52:38 B727 99.3 D
11/03/'9317:24:31 B727 99.2 D �
Friday, January 7, 1993
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #17: 84th St� & 4th Ave. (Bloomington) I
DATETIlV� . AIlt� T ��.F� ��� '
llil6/'9310:11:07 B727 99.4 D I
11/17/93 9:58:15 B727 •� 98.8 D I
11/l8/93 8:27:52 B727 98.1 D I
11/Ll/'93 8:16:07 B727 97.1 D �
11/06/9317:08:15 B727 95.9 D �
11/06/9316:56:08 B727 95,4 D l
11/�07/'93 8:18:23 B727 95.2 �D I
11/ti2/9310:07:33 B727 •93.9 D I
11/17/'93 9:52:14 B727 92.3 D I
11/20/'93 14:18:45 B727 ' � 91.9 D �
RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. (Richfield)
DATETIME �� r MAXLEVII. ARR/DEP
11/Zll'93 21:45:24 B727 105.4 D
11/n6/9316:19:21 B727 102.4 D
11I08/'93 9:55:44 B727 102.1 D
11/16/93 21:44:54 B727 102.0 D
11/17/'9314:41:09 B727 l01.9 D
' 11/17/93 9:57:59 B727 101.6 D
11/17/'9314:32:56 � DC9 101.2 . D
llln7/9310:09:37 B727 101.2 D
11/13/93 21:16:11 DC9 101.1 D
11%ll/'9315:26:42 DC9 101.1 D
Friday, January 7, 1993
- ------- -- -----_---.�_. ..._.___..________..
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 83rd Street (Bloomington)
DA'TETIlV�
11/17/93 9:05:33
11/17/9311:17:14
11/14/'93 6:10:18
11I�07/93 10:14:50
11/17/�'3 9:23:07
11/Cr7/93 7:51:07
11/28/I3 7:54:58
11/17/93 9:10:1�
11/11/'93 22:08:23
11ID3/93 22:30:56
aIItc�r �;EVII.
TYPE
B727 102.6
B727 99.7
B727 99.1
B727 98.6
B727 98S
B727 98.3 .
B727 98.3
B727 98.2
B727 97.8 •
B727 97.5
RMT #Z0: 75th S� & 3rd Ave. (Richfield)
DATETIlV�
11/ll/'93 21:45:44
11/17/�'3 9:34:40
11/17/9314:41:27
11I�08/93 9:56:02
11/28/93 9:52:24
11/l6l'93 20:10:35
11/06/'93 9:13:19
11/16/93 21:45:13
11/17/9314:33:14
11/28/'93 9:33:13
Friday, January 7, 1993
�c�r �.EVII.
TYPE
B727 100.6
DC9 97.4
B727 96.8
B727 96.1
B727 95.2
B727 93.7
B727 93.1
B727 93.0
DC9 92.6
IvID80 89.6
Q
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S� (Inver Grove
1129/9318:53:00
11/04/'93 12:12:29
11/18/9314:51:32
11I01/93 21:47:44
11/Z7I'9313:44:41
11/04/93 20:33:38
11/Z2/'9313:14:53
11/29/9319:05:35
11/nl/'9318:52:12
llro4/'93 9:26:49
�IItct�r
TYPE
B�
B727
B727
Bi27
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
i� : .� �Ia : ; . �� ��
89.9
89.0
88.8
� 88.2
88.0
87.7
87.3
86.6
. 86.2
86.0
RMT #22: Anne Marie 'Ii�ail (Inver Grove Heights)
Friday, January 7, 1993
DA'I�TIME
11/�04/'93 20:32:57
11�'l4/9313:56:29
11I01/93 20:37:51
11/Ol/9311:26:03
11/O1I9313:40:59
11/10/'93 7:48:54
11fZ2193 13:16:30
11/03/9317:?5:54
11/18/9314:39:32
11/1ON310:45:21
�m�r
TYPE
B�
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
DC9
B727
� � � �
92.7
88.6
88.2 ..
87.6
87.2
87.0
86.8
86.6
86.6
86.4
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #23: Kenndon Ave. (Mendota Heights)
11/10/93 16:51:48
11/10/9313:34:24
11iZ0/93 11:15:22
11/18/9316:18:47
11/18/9318:35:30
11/10/9316:16:01
11/18I9318:45:46
11/23/9315:1155
11/09/93 9:54:33
11/nl/93 9:28:22
�m�r
TYPE
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
DC9
B727
� B727
B727
•• �.
103.6
1035
102.9
l02.7
102.6
l025
102.4
l02.3
1022
102.1
RMT #24: Chapet Lane & Random Road (Eagan)
DATETIME
11/l4/9313:40:10
l 11�3/'9317:25:10
11IOSI93 8:17:11
11lL4I93 21:40:20
11I�09/'93 9:14:36
11/10/9313:40:03
11/Ol/9311:?5:39
11/ZS/93 6:33:16
11/14/93 8:55:52
11/24/9317:29:12
Friday, January 7, 1993
��z
TYPE
��
B727
DC9
B727
B727
an�
B727
B727
B737
B727
U:.� ��� :;;���.
90.4
90.1
90.0
89.8
89.7
89.2
88.9
87.9
87.7
87.6
DATE
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
10
11
12
23
14
ts
Ib
17
18
19
�
Janusry 25, 1994
. Minneapalis-St, Paul
Analysis of Noise Events with TimelDate �
Between November Ol 1993 and November 301993
Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
Naise Monitor Locations
1
DATE
��
20
22
22
23
?d
25
26
z�
28
29
30
►
t� �
\•
T
` Minneapolis-St. Paul '
Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date
Between November 011993 and November 3� 1993
Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
Noise Monitor Locations
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #5 #'7 #t8 #9 #iQ #11 #12 #13 #14 #iS #16 #i? #18 #19 #20 #22 #22 #23 #2A
61.1 61.2 64.3 66,4 75.3 84.2 70.1 62.3 48.5 - 59.4 4S.A 51.6 62.9 66A 64.1 �92.7 48.5 56.0 ai.9 57.4 54.7 61.1 '74.9 643
58.? 58.2 59.5 b4.4 ?4.1 79.8 61.4 62.6 36A 53.'7 36,8 49.� 54.7 64.3 59.1 6$.T 6d.3 '72.d 83.0 58.5 50.3 59.4 65.1 62.8
58.3 62.3 64.4 62.'7 10.0 70.2 69.6 56.4 • 60.5 65.2 44.3 52.3 • 64.0 69.4 b?.4 ?2.2 SS.6 55.4 46.9 30.? 59.5 GiS ?6.2 6�.1
6
53.A 55.2 61.0 62.9 72.9 77,1 66,5 60.8 42.9 5$.0 SO.S 55.1 51.6 63.1 59.1 68.7 60.3 '71.7 6$S 59.2 48.0 57.1 69.4 60.7
46.4 52.4 52.4 � 36.6 59.2 70,6 63.2 42.9 35.2 4d.8 42.8 d6.9 d4.9 52.4 52S 63.8 653 92.5 69.4 S7.d 44:2 543 • 62.9 58.5
49.8 53.0 57.3 58.0 70.1 73.Q 65.5 53.6 45.8 51.6 40.1 54.3 47.8 63.2 S'7.2 69.3 59.5 '72.? 41.4 41.8 Q8.3 64.1 b8.3 5?.2
53.2 54.9 50.2 5�.2 72.8 74.'I S I.S 58.9 49.3 49.7 38.6 56.8 53.7 bU.3 6OJ 81.4 60.3 7I.5 59.8 43.9 50.5 60.3 65.9 58.0
50.6 d9.7 53.2 3I.3 7{3.! 73.t G5.7 60.3 56.1 52.3 A5.4 55.2 42.2 59.8 59.6 60.4 Sfi.8 b9.4 60.1 52.7 51.7 56.3 10.f 53.2
59.4 58.5 52,8 SA.2 69.z 7UA 53.3 b1.4 47.d SS.I �16.2 50.9 45.0 57.1 b3.7 66.2 62.4 72.5 57.5 56.4 54.8 573 92.3 54.7
56.$ 57.0 60.2 59.7 72.0 73.$ 67.5 60.9 45.6 53.8 42,7 52.6 48.2 62.� 63.5 67.6 G0.2 70.1 60.8 52.1 49.9 60.6 69.4 58.4
53.9 56.6 61.! G1.0 71.3 ?4.4 64.Q 59.9 49.9 S$.2 4?.3 51.6 47.9 66.T 69.9 b9.6 61.9 69.7 62.9 59.8 54.2 bQ.$ ?2.b 63.5
*Less Than 'I�venty-four Hours Oi Data Available
Jnnunry 25, 1994
2
�
�
�
0
�
��� � � �
.�....
1�7�-T�
n
I.
II.
III.
IV.
v
VI.
VII.
isor's R
pecember 1993
December 1993 Operations and Complaint Summary
December 1993 Comptaint Summary
Runway Use Reports
December Tower Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l
Hourly Use
December Tower Log - Nighttime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percen"t Hourly Use
December Runway Use Report - All Ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent of Ops
December Runway Use Report - Jet Ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent of Ops
December Runway Use Report Nighttime - All Ops .........Percen� of Ops
December Runway Use Report Nighttime - Jet Ops .........Percen� of Ops
Jet Carrier Operations by 'I�ype
Aircraft Type Table
December Runway Use For Day/Night Periods ... All O
ANOMS Base Map - Remote Monitor Site Locations
VI�II. MSP - Airport Noise Monitoring System Locations
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
Jet Departure Related Noise Events For December,1993
Jet Arrivat Related Noise Events For December,1993
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events - RM'I� 1 through 24
ANOMS Flight 'h�acks
December 1 to 4, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Dep'artures
December 1 to 4, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet ArrivaLs
December Sto 11, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Departures
�
December 5 to 11, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Arrivals
December 12 to 18, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Departures
�
December 12 to 18, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7et Arri�aLs.
December 19 to 25, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Departures
i
December 19to 25, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet Arrivals
December 26 to 31, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7et Departures
�
December 26 to 31, 1993 . . . . .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jet ArrivaLs
MSP Aircraft Ldn by Date and RMT - December 1993
Metropolitan Airports Conunission - Aviatinn Noise Program
;i
�DECEMBER 1993 OPERATIONS AND COMPLAINT �SUMMARY
,
Table 1: OPERATIONS SUMMARY - ALL AIRCRAFT I
>:.. : ..:.;; ... :::..::. ::::::::,.:::: ::: .:::::::.::::::._:: :::.::::...: . . ......
:.:::: .:.: . : ...:::.. .: ......::::..::: �:.: .: .: ...:: .:::::::,: : :: ... _.....
.. ... . ; . .. . .
. .. .: .
..:...:..:..... �:.::..:: :: .; . : .... :.: .....:.
;anwvaty;.:: ,; .:�?r.iwa���� :::.��� .,..`%:�:i3se::��� :A�`..:::,..,...�`;;;:>:;<;, :�.;::
:,.. .. ........:: > : :.. P�u
..; :
.. :. � :
.. .:::.: :.:....:...: :::.:...:...:::.:....:::....:...:.::::......::.........:. �
. :..:. ........:..::.:: .
......:: . ..: . �:.:
. ��>:�..
��:
04 162 1.0%. � 82 0.5% I
22 74 U.5% 376 2.5% +
11 7304 45.8% 7604 49.8% �
29 8406 52.7% 7212 47.2% {
Tabte 2: MSP DECEMBER FLEET MIX 1'ERCENTA
Table 3: AIRPORT DECEMBER COMPLAINT
Table 4: DECEMBER OPERATIONS SUMMARY - AIRPORT DIRECT.OR'S OFFICE
�
;
MSP DECEMBEI21993 COMPLAINT S
Arden Fiills
Bloomington
Burnsvilte
Coon Rapids
Eagan
Eden I'rairie
Edina
Hagkins
Inver Grove Heights
Meudota FIeights
M'inneapolis
Ii�nnetonka
Plymauth
Richfield
Roseville
Sauth St� Paul
S� Anthany
S� Anthony V'illage
S�. Lauis Park
S� Paul
Suafish Lake
West S�. Paul
MSF COMPLAINTS BY CITY
TIME OF DAY
QQ:W - 05;59
06:00 - 06:59
07:OU • 1i:59
12:00 -15.59
16:00 -19:59
20:00 - 21:59
22:{}0 • 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
63
S1
2i4
1t?5
143
145
61
35
15 . I7
i 7
12 + 12
0 1
68 99
_1 1
14 14
0 0
164 170
27 32
219 369
0 0
7 9
39 49
0 4
1 1
i 1
3 3
0 i
11 22
2 2
4 Q
�i ��$i ': , ,':�::iY?ii:#!
NATURE OF
�:xoessive Ntxise
Early/Late
t-oc�' F1Yin8
Swcturai Discurbauce
Helacopter
Crmund Noise
EuBi�e Run-up
�i��Y
83�
191
6�
0�
2I�
2�
83 �
Y
2.I %
0.9 %
IS %
0.1 %
12.2 %
4.1 %
1.7 %
4.0 %
21.0 %
3.9 °lo
45S %
0.0 %
1.1 °k
6.0 %
0.0 %
0.1 %
0.1 °lo
' 0.4 %
O.i %
1.4 %
02 %
U.Q °la
N�tropalitan Airports Cammission
Runway LTse Report - Ail tlperations
Runway
04
lIL
IlR
22
29L
29R
TOTAL ARR.
44
12L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL DEP.
Monday, January 24, 1993
For December,1993
Count
162
3784
3520
74
4224
4I$2
15,946
82
3894
37I0
376 '
3681
3531
15,274
Perceatage
Q.
�.
, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Runway Use Report - Jet Operati�
Runway
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL'ARR.
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL DEP.
Monday, January 24, 1993
For December, 1993
Arr/Dep
A
A
A
A
A
A
,
Count
104
2190
2355
42
2981
2591
10,263
16
2225
2588
243
2552
1969
9,593
Percentage
�
�ns
� Metrapolitan Airparts Commission
I2unway T..Tse R.eport � Nighttime - AIl Uperations
Runway
�._....
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL ARR.
04
11L
IIR
. 2� •
29L
29R
TOTAL DEP.
0
Monday, January 24, 1993
For December,1993
Count
�
12
13
35
15
297
20t
573
6
81
95
22
40
4t} `
284
Percentage
si
, Metr`opolitan Airports Commission
Runway Use Report Nighttime Jet
Runway
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL ARR.
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
TOTAL DEP.
Monday, January 24, 1993
For December, 1993
Arr/Dep
A
A
A
A
A
A
Count
4
4
12
6
199
132
357
0
29
36
10
14
15
104
Percentage
�
nly
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
Jet Carrier Qperations By �pe
Decemberr,1993
s
Monday, January 24, 1993
Aircraft Type
B747
B74F
DC10
IVIDll
L1011
DC87
B727H
B757
B767
EA32 �
B733
FK10
IvID80
NID88
IvID87
D�
DC86
DCSS
B.707
B727
DC9
B737
B73S
FK28
Total
Count
156
55
842
53
38
10
218
1772
.2
2114
955
615
1191
150
2
�
2
47
33
3928
8375
262
?a9
56
�
2I?A�
Pementage
0.7
0.3
4.0
0.3
02
0.0 .
1.0
8.3
0.0
10.0
4S
2.9
5.6
0.7
0.0 •
��
OS
0.0
02
02
18.5
39.4
12
12
0.3
385 % Staae 3
61S% Staae 2
�
CODE
B727
B727H
B707
�B737
B73F
B73S
B747
B74F
B74M
B757
B767
BEC
BEl
BE9
CNA
DC10
DC8
DC8S
DC86
DC9
DC9F
EA32
FK10
FT{28
FK27
IvID80
MD82
NID83
IvID88
Aircraft Type Table
AIRCRAFT DESCRII'TION
BOEING 727
BOEING 727 - HiJSH KTT
BOEING 707
BOEII�iG 737
� BOEING 737 FRIIGH'IER •
BOEING 737 200 SRRTFS
BOEING 747
BOEING 747 FRIIGHTER
BOEING 747 MIXED PASSENGER�FREIGHTER
BOEING 757
BOEING 767
BEECHCRAFI' (AI.L SSRIES)
BEECHQ2AFT 1900
BEECHCRAFT99
CESSNA (AI.L SERIFS)
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10
MCDONNEI.L DOUGLAS DC8
MCDONNEII, DOUGLAS DC8 STREACH
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 RE
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 FRIIGHTER
AII2BUS II�TDUSTRIE A320
FOKI�R 100
FOKFF�R F28
FOKKER Fl9 (PRO�
MCDONNFLL DOUGLAS DC9-80 SERIES
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
MCDONNP.LL DOUGLAS
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
�
�
,
Minneapalis-St,.Paul International Airport
.�
December Runway Use For DaylNight Periac
� All Operations �
Ruuway
h`auie
�4
11L
11R
z�
29L
29R
Totat
Perc�ntage
.tanuary 2s, � ssa
Departures
Day
.��
76
3813
3615
354
3fi4i
3491
14990
48.0
Arrivals
Day
��
150
3111
3485
S9
3927
3981
15373
�9.2
Departures
Ni�ht
���
- 6
8i
95
22
4�
40
284
0.9
Arrivals
Night
��
12
13
35 '
15
297
. 2Q1
573
1,8
,
Mznneapolis-St. Paul Inte�na�ional Ai�po�t
. �
Airp►ort Noise Monitoring System Locations
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
�ll
�
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
City
Minneapotis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapo[is
Minneapolis
11Rinneapolis
Richfield
Miuueapalis
S� Paal
St Paul
S� Paul
St Paut
Meudota Heights
��
Mendota Heig,hrts
��
Bloomington
Richfield
Btoomington
Richfield
Inver Gmve Heights
.Inver Grove xeigh#s
MeQdota Heights
��
� Approxiraate Street I.ocatio�
i
Xences Avenue & 42nd Street �
�remout Avenne & 43rd Strcet �
W. Elmwood Strcet & Wentworth Ave
Oakland Avenue & 49fh Sbrcet
�
12th Avenue & 5$th Street �
25th Avenue & 57th Street 1
Wentworth Ave & 64th Street I
Lougfeltow Avenue & 43rd Street �
Sarataga Street & Hartford Avenae �
Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street �
�nn Street & Scheffer Avenue �
Alfa� Aveune & Rockwaod Avenae �
Sout6east end of Mohican Court �
First Street & McKee Street �
Wi�tiam Caurt & Thresea Strcet �
Avaloa Avenae & V'�as Lane �
84t6 Street & 4th Avenue 1
9;th Street & 17th Aveaue �
l6Eh Avenue & $3rd Sir�et �
'75t6 Street & 3rd Avenue �
Barbara Avenue & 67th Street �
Anne Marie Trail
End of Kenodon Avenue
Chapel Lane & Randam Rqad I
,
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
':RIVITID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1G
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
�
Jet Departure Related Noise Events For December,199
CiEy� �
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
IvTinneapolis
Richfield
Minneapolis
St. Paul
St. Paul
St. Paul
St. Paul
Mendota Heights
Eagan
Mendota Iieights
Eagan
Bloomington
Richfield
Bloomington
Richfield
Inver Grove Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Mendota Heighis
Eagan
Monday, January 24, 1993
Count Of Events For Each RMT
,.
. .. ::
:A.�tpr�xiiroate>.�t�'.ee�:I;oi�tioii:
Xerxes Ave. & 42nd Sk
Fremont Ave. & 43rd SG
W. Flmwood St & Wentworth Ave.
Oakland Ave. � 49th St
12th Ave. & 58th St.
25th Ave. & 57th St.
Wentworth Ave & 64th St
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
Sazatoga Sk & Hartford Ave.
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
Finn Sk & Scheffer Ave.
Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave.
Southeast end of Mohican Court
First St. & McKee Sk
William Court & Thresea Sk
Avalon Ave. & V'ilas Lane
84th St. & 4th Ave.
75th Sk & 17th Ave.
16ih Ave. & 83rd St.
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
Bazbara Ave. 8c 67th St.
Anne Marie Trail
F�d af Kenndan Ave.
Chapel Lane & Random Road
511
597
1275
1811
3649
4005
2370
1394
54
1805
376
896
2037
2472
2577
3320
319
1623
446
568
964
1311
3615
2383
: Evenfs: `
:.>84dB
88
117
119
421
1708
2071
642
288
2
8
3
2
309
391
597
1189
28
142
92
15
102
107
1372
264
E've�Ls
�90dB�
1
0
4
41
529
1089
75
15
0
2
0
1
7
34
39
196
4
53
21
1
2
0
562
1
Events
> 140dB
,
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For December,
.: ... ..... ... ....
Rh1TID .. .�e}Ey'� �
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
?�
Minneapolis
Ivtnneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Richfield
Minneapolis
S� Paul
St. Paul
St. Paul
St. Paul
Mendota Heights
Eagan
Mendota Heights
Eagan
Bloomington
Richfield
Bloomington
Richfield
Inver Grove Heights
Inver Grove Heights
Mendota Heights
Eagan
Monday, January 24, 1993
Count Of Events For Each RMT
�
:. .
;. :A:P�iri�at�:.�'ee�`:Location
Xerxes Ave. & 42nd Sk
Fremont Ave. & 43rd SG
W. Elmwood St & Wentworth Ave.
Oakland Ave. �& 49th St�
12th Ave. & 58th St.
25th Ave. & 57th St.
Wentworth Ave & 64th S�
Longfellow Ave. t� 43rd St.
Saratoga St & Hartford Ave.
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
Finn Sk & Scheffer Ave.
Alton Ave. & Rocicwood Ave.
Southeast end of Mducan Court
First S� & McKee St
William Caurt & Thnesea St
Avalon Ave. & V'ilas Lane
84th S� & 4th Ave.
75th St & 17th Ave.
16th Ave. & 83rd St
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
Ann�e Marie Trail
Fnd of Kenndan Ave.
Chapel Lane & Random Rosd
:Ei�eiif9.
.>�SidB': �:
3432
2318
2441
2618
3776
3462
652
1022
50
633
279
306
219
3344
772
3822
177
664
118
250
63
2424
2062
3800
�:�veiif;s
�StlifB.
42
287
947
996
2109
2104
9
25
23
41
1
0
3
57
16
1713
43
43
0
1
0
16
23
92
0
3
38
2
588
501
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
1
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Events
>1QOdB
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
� Metropolitan Airports Commission ,
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. (Minneapolis)
M7��n��i
12/29/93 16:14:27
12/30/93 19:22:20
1227/'9316:20:34
12/06/'9316:14:20
12/29/93 19:20:27
12/10/'93 20:08:21
12/�06I93 9:36:27
12i15/9311:35:14
12/Z6/93 9:30:35
12/10193 9:58:48
�cx�Fr
TYPE
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
DC9
DC9
DC9
DC9
DC9
i„: �_ ta
90.2
89.5
88.5
87.6
87.5
87.2
86.9
86.8
86.8
86.0
RMT #2: Freemont Ave. & 43rd St (Minneapolis)
DATETIlI�
12/12/93 12:07:15
12/14I93 15:3724
12/03/93 2127:10
12/14/93 12:22:04
12/15/93 20:31:02
12/14/'93 13:03:16
12/03/93 6:59:46
12�29/'9312:29:29
12/OS/93 8:13:15
12i30/9317:18:11
Sunday, January 23, 1993
�c�r
TYPE
B�
B727
B757
B727
B727
B727
B727
B737
B757
B727
��� ��__•�__�/ �
91.9
91.0
90.1
89.8
89.3
88.9
88.6
88.6
88.5
88.5
0
' Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
� RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. (Minnea
DATETIl��E �.I.�r MAXLEVII. AItR/DEP
12/12/'93 12:14:02 B757 95.7 A
12/12/93 6:27:51 B757 95.1 A
12/07/'9316:56:36 DC9 94.7 p
12/14/'93 7:59:11 B727 94.1 A
12/17/'9315:37:13 DC9 93.9 A
12/16/93 22:47:58 �B727 93.9 A
12J14/'9313:36:50 B727 93.6 A
12/30I9316:17:04 B727 . 93.5 D
� 12/14/93 17:35:25 B727 92.7 q
12/12I93 20:19:34 B72'7 92.6 A
RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. (Minneapolis)
DATETIlI� � r bZA�Q,EVII, ARR/DF.P
12/13/9317:00:15 B727 102.2 D
12J02/9317:22:39 B727 101.4 D
12/13/9318:43:28 DC9 100.2 D
' 12/13I'9318:55:51 B727 99.6 D
12J14�'93 20:09:56 B727 99.1 D
12f02�'9316:25:13 B727 98.5 D
12/18/'93 8:20:56 B727 � 98.5 D
12n2/9316:14:17 B727 98.2 D
12/10/'9317:36:08 B727 � 98.1 D
12/22I9310:04:31 B727 97.7 D
Sunday, January 23, 1993
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. (Minneapolis)
DATETIIViE
12/21/93 17:32:22
1?./02�'93 20:25:46
12�02I9316:59:36
12/02�93 11:54:42
1226/'93 9:5521
12/02/9319:45:05
12/�03/'93 7:59:37
12/02/9312:12:14
12/18I9318:36:19
12/18/93 8:09:28
�,ntc��►Fr
�
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B737
B727
B727
� �1 : : : / � �1'r
105.5
105.4
105.0
104.7
103.8
103.8
103.4
' 103.4
. 103.3
103.2
RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St. (Minneapolis)
DATETIlI�
12/13/93 20:00:54
12lZ2I93 20:06:45
12/11193 18:44:27
12J13/9316:59:53
12/18/93 9:45:00
1222/93 9:57:25
12/20/93 20:05:46
12/i02/'93 6:45:05
12/18/93 9:13:19
12/22I93 20:12:31
Sunday, January 23, 1993
�c�-r
TYPE
��
Bn�
B727.
B727
Bn�
B727
sn�
B727
B727
B727
iu� A �1/�
l08.8
ioaa
107.9
107.7
107.4
l07.3
imz
107.1
107.1
107.1
0
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. (Richfield)
DATETIlVIE `�� T MAXLEVII, ARR/DEP
12/19P9319:52:06 B727 100.5 D i
12/20/'931024:51 B727 100.1 D �
12/l5/'93 9:14:51 � B727 99.6 D (
1222/93 8:17:58 B727 98.4 D I
12i25/93 9:26:36 B727 98.2 D �
12/Z7/'93 8:34:54 B727 97.9 D I
12J20/'9313:21:42 DC9 97.8 D ,
1222i93 6:17:42 B727 97.5 D j
12/29/'9317:08:13 � B727 97.3 D f
12/Z3/9313:27:01 B727 97.1 D• ,
RMT #S: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. (Minneapolis)
DAT�TIlVIE �.I.�'� MAXLEV� ARR/DEP
12J19/'9315:09:03 B727 99.5 D {
12J10I'9313:04:02 DC9 96.5 D I
12/13/9316:05:23 B727 96.1 D l
12�30I9313:59:33 B727 95.5 � D �
12/19/9318:36:58 B727 94.5 D �
12J10/9316:12:08 B727 94.1 D l
12,/�6/9316:04:30 B727 93.8 D I
12i101'9312:12:34 B727 93.7 D �
12J19/9313:30:02 B727 92.9 D +
12/Z7/'9313:33:56 B727 92.6 D �
Sunday, January 23, 1993
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. (St. Paul)
DATETIl��E `�� � MAXLEVEL AItR/DEP
12/12I93 22:27:30 B727 94.1 A
12/12I'93 23:25:12 B727 88.4 A
12/12/'93 23:21:02 B727 86.1 A
12/12/9311:14:54 B737 84.9 A
12/12I'93 23:29:41 B737 84.5 A
12/25/93 20:51:49 DC9 84.3 D
12/11/'93 21:58:12 ', I3C9 84.1 A
12/12/93 22:53:27 L101 84.1 A
12J12/93 22:23:12 IvID80 83.7 A
12/12/93 22:56:01 DC10 83.2 A
RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. (S� Paut)
DATETIIV�
12/10/93 22:11:48
12/10/93 22:04:49
12/Z4/93 9:22:46
12/L4/93 9:07:19
12/11�93 21:38:39
12/12I93 2228:05
12l12I93 22:29:56
12/24/93 9:02:54
12/12/93 22:53:56
12/12I93 22:56:31
Sunday, January 23, 1993
�mc�r �vE[, �xitN�
TYPE
DC8 95.1 D
B727 94.6 D
B727 92.8 A
B727 92.7 A
B727 92.3 A
B72? 91.6 A
B727 91.4 A
DC8 91.2 A
L101 91.1 A
DC10 90.6 A
�
,
' Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. (St. Paul)
DAT�T'IlvIE �� � MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP
12/l5/93 20:51:32 DC9 87.0 D
12/lll'93 7:51:11 BE99 81.9 D
12/06P93 21:5'7:53 DC8 81.1 A .
12/24I93 21:31:40 SW4 80.9 D
12l1ON3 22:12:03 I3C8 80.6 D
12125/9318:15:35 SF34 80.1 D
12/Z0/'93 �5:16:34 BE80 78.5 D
12i18/9313:37:37 BE80 78.4 A
12J10/93 21:39:36 DC9 77.7 D
12/20/93 5:15:08 BE80 77.2 D
RMT #12: Alton Ave. & Rockford Ave. (St. Paul)
DATETIlVIE `�� � MA��.EVII, ARR/DEp '
12J10/'93 22:05:12 • B727 92.5 D �
12/L4I93 7:31:33 SW4 84.5 A '
12/l2/93 3:07:Q5 SW4 81.6 D
12JO1I9315:18:26 BA31 80.2 D
1?.l10/93 22:3b:31 B727 80.1 D
12/13/'93 7:52:03 DHS 79.9 D
12J16N313:29:14 B727 79.2 D
12/10/93 7:13:47 B727 79.2 A
12l16I9312:•10:42 B727 ?9.0 " D
12/08/'9312:21:43 BE02 78.9 D '
Sunday, January 23, 1993 �
�
�
Metrapoiitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #13: Southwest End Of Mohican Court (Mendata Heights)
DATEZ'TN1E
12I21!'�3 $:1b.45
12l12/9318:?A:29
12/16/9312:12:43
12/30193 9:46:32
i21041931G.30:I6
12J21/9310:09:41
12,r2AI9310:09:15
12j3�i93 6:10:39
12lQ1/93 16:25:42
12/12/'93 7:14:12
��' �,.�va,
TYPE
...��.
B727 94.&
B737 93.4
B727 91.5
B727 91. i
B727 -94.$
B727 90.6
B727 , 90.5
. B727 89.8
B727 89.$
B727 ' 89.6
RMT #14: lst S� & McKee St� (Eagan)
- DAT�'I'IN�
12i26/'93 2{}:29.33
12(ZSN316:46:09
12/14/'9317:14:53
12l16193 I7:I0:09
121(}719317:i7:47
12I28/93 3:22:19
12/l6/'93 7:45:14
1211619315:50:01
12l05/93 17.26:18
1?,/011'9318:34:47
Sunday, January 23, 1993
��r
.��
B727
B727
B727
B727
B?2?
B"747
B727
� B727
B727
DC9
MAXLEi�Z.
�_�
98.8
97.0
96.1
96.0
95.9
95.6 �
95.4
94.9
94.6
94.2
�a
ti .
` Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten I,oudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #15: William Court & Thresea St. (Mendota Heig i ts)
DATETIIVIE
12/OS/93 11:55:58
12/11/93 20:1Q:54
12/21/93 14:54:48
12/12I93 7:13:22
12/12/'93 12:59:18
12/Ol/9313:29:57
12l07/'9310:10:08
12/06/9310:?5:08
12/12/93 9:37:58
12/O1I9318:55:45
�mcx�r
TYPE
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
DCS
B727
. , �, . . . � �,.
98.2
98.1
96.7
95.5
95.2
95.1
95.0
94.7
94:6
94.0
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane (Eagan)
DATETIlV�
12,/�1/'9314:30:29
12/17/9317:06:31
12/15/9313:33:06
12/17/93 852:33
12/Z1193 8:32:57
12/15/9313:40:15
12J16/9318:49:45
12/Ol/9318:43:41
12/b8/93 7:30:10
12J17/9313:36:47
Sunday, January 23, 1993
amc�r
TYPE
B�
B727
B727
B727
B727�
B727
DC9
B727
B727
B727
i�� : .� �/� . . . � �.
100.7
100.2
100.0
99.9
99.8
99.5
99.4
99.2
98.8
98.6
>
' Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. (Bloomington)
DATETIlI�IIE
12R8/93 6:19:12
12/13I93 10:21:37
12/25/93 15:55:33
12/18I93 21:06:09
12J02/93 15:22:17
12/18/'93 15:14:44
12/l6/93 6:51:00
12/16193 6:17:44
12/15/93 22:36:32
12/z3/93 0:00:41
.,.«.. . � � ... ,�,.
M �'
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
DC10
DC9
B727
92.7
91.5
90.9
90.4
89.1
88.5
88.3
86.8
86.8
86.8
RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. (Richfield)
DAT�TIl1� � MA��FVII. ARR/DEP
12/19/93 7:50:11
12/02/'9314:34:54
12/L4/'93 6:28:43
12�23/93 11:04:33
12/ll/93 5:37:03
.1221/93 6:Z2:13
12/l8/93 6:06:40
12/02/93 22:59:10
12I25/93 15:55:12
12J18/'93 14:51:39
Sunday, January 23, 1993
B727
DC9
B727
B727
B727
B727
B727
DC9
B727
DC9
103.3
100.8
100.3
99.6
99.5
98.5
98.0
98.0
97.5
97.3
1
' Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 83rd Street (Bloomington)
DATETIIvIE �,I,�T MAXI.EVEL ARR/DEP
12/18I'9315:12:42 B727 100.9 D
12/13/'93 9:09:09 B727 97.3 D
12j30/93 22:29:31 B727 96.2 D
12/L4/'93 6:18:21 B727 95.6 D
12J02/9316:07:33 B727 94.7 D
12/19/'93 7:12:38 B727 93.6 D
12J23/'9315:31:35 B727 93.6 D
12/ll/93 6:13:21 B727 93.0 D
12/11/93 6:06:08 B727 93.0 D
12/19I'93 6:10:50 B727 93.0 D
RMT #20: 75th S� & 3rd Ave. (Richfield)
DATETIME �� r MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP
12/13/'93 9:30:39 B727 90.1 D
12i14/'93 6:11:46 DC9 89.9 D
12J02/'9314:35:12 . DC9 86.8 D
12/18P9316:12:00 B727 86.2 D
12/13/93 9:25:21 DC10 85.5 D
12/02/'9313:37:43 DC9 84.4 D
12r23/'9311:04:56 DC9 84.0 D
12/26/93 9:23:09 DC9 83.9 D
12/13/9310:34:01 DC9 83.4 A
12/10/93 6:12:32 B727 82S D
„
Sunday. January 23, 1993
' Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St. (Inver Grove H
DATETIIV�
12/26/93 13:20:21
12/14/93 7:41:48
12J14/'93 15:05:10
12/26/9311:46:07
12/04I�9310:01:47
12I�7/93 9:2,4:19
12/16/9313:58:37
12/15/'9314:46:40
12l26/93 20:57:09
12IZ4/93 13:19:03
Amc�r �.Ev�r. �xx/nEr
TYPE
B727 93.7 D
B727 90.5 D
B727 88.8 D
B727 88.5 . D
B727 � 88.4 D
B727 87.8 D
B727 87.8 D
B727 87.5 D
B727 8'�.4 D
B727 ' 87.2 D
RMT #22: � Anne Marie 'IYait (Inver Grove Heights) �
DATETIME �r � MAXLEV� ARR/DEP
12/30I'93 7:48:18 B727 88.3 D (
12/16/'93 9:4b:34 B727 88.0 D J
12/14/9314:39:28 DC9 87.8 D I
12l12I'9318:57:45 B727 87.4 D ,
12/12/9316:58:48 B727 ' 86.7 D I
12/Ol/9311:18:49 B727 85.7 . . D +
12J12I'9318:17:38 DC9 85.6 D �
12/13/93 7:49:17 B727 85.5 D �
12iZ6/93 5:39:27 B727 85.2 D �
12/11/'9311:19:52 B727 85.2 D �
Sunday, January 23, 1993 �
0
� ,
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events
RMT #23: Kenndon Ave. (Mendota Heights) �
DATETIIVIE �,� r MAXLEVEL ARRNEP
12/Ol/'9313:12:06 B727 103.8 D
12ro5/'93 9:52:54 B727 103.4 D
12/OSI'9316:57:24 B727 103.1 D
12/17/'9313:13:12 B727 102.7 D
12/17/9312:15:29 B727 102.7 D
12J17/93 10:03:05 B727 102.0 D
12i211'9314:30:18 B727 102.0 D
12f01/9319:52:36 B727 101.9 D
12/30I'93 9:10:12 �B727 101.8 D
� 12/30/93 9:45:59 B727 101.8 D
RMT #24: Chapel Lane & Random Road (Eagan)
DATETIlI� �.I.�r MAXLEVEL ARIt/DEP
12/30/'93 8:24:42 B727 � 90.1 D
12J30N313:39:22 DC9 89.9 A
12/Z3/'93 9:53:03 B727 88.5 A
12J12/9316:58:22 B727 88.4 D
12f21/'9315:46:Z5 B727 88.4 D
12/14/9311:11:01 B727 87.7 D
12/12J93 11:28:31 B727 87.7 D
12/16/9310:05:56 B727 87.3 D
12/12/93 9:53:00 B727 86.9 D
12/13/'93 6:46:16 B727 86.8 D
Sunday, January 23, 1993
DATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1R
I'1
Jwary 25, 1994
. Minneagolis-St. Patil
Analysis of Noise Eve«ts witlx Time/Date
Between December 021993 `O:OO:Od and December 311993 23:59:00
Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
Noise Monifor Locations
0
DATE
?A
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
'�ess than twenty-four hours ot data available
Juxwy 25 t994
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Analysis af Noise Events with TimelDate �
�3etween.December 011.993 0:00:00 and December 31.1993 23:59:QQ
Aircraft Ldn dB{A)
Naise Monitor Locakions
2
H
•`
�
#24
62.4
63.3
60.7
60.1
62.3
58.3
63.2
58.8
61.8
61.7
65.0
62.0
11�1118.�i111111111111111111111111111111l1111111111111111111
DECEMBER 1993
,
� � . ,
, � .
-,��€.,
BUYOUT `� '
UPDAT E M3P LAND ACQUISITION~& RELOCAT
A newsletter by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
Company, Inc., containing information on the MSP Land Acq
Relocation Projects.
�����������������������������������������������������������
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
NEWSLETTER TURNED OVER TO W.
D: SCHOCR COMPANY .
Th�is Newsletter is a continuation of a
previous Newsletter issued by the Homeowner's
Aseociation. At the last meeting of W. D.
Schock Company (WDSCO) with the Homeowner's
As�sociation on November 11, 1993, it was
requested that WDSCO take over responsibility
for the newsletter since they now have the
latest factual information on the status of
the buyout process and progress that is being
made. Mrs. Cheryl Weiberg of the Homeowner's
As�sociation assembled the previous
Newsletter. The Association, MAC, and WDSCO
would like to express our gratitude for her
efforts in keeping the homeowners informed
while the project was being developed and
funded. • � •
1
The "Buyout Update" will be published and
mailed on a monthly basis or when important
news is available that affects the
hoineowners .
NFT/R.A MANAGEMENT CON�IITTEE
FORMED �
F
A Management Committee has been established
with representatives from the Homeowner's
Association, the City of Richfield, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission, and W. D.
Schock Company, Inc., to coordinate
management of the Part 150 Land Acquisition
and Relocation Project.
I
The Committee initially met on Friday,
November 9, 1993, and will continue to meet
every Friday morning. Topics of discussion
at�the initial meeting included status of
hardships, processing selection of Title
Compani�es, Appraisers and "Environmental
Inspectors, and interrelationship,of MAC and
the City. of Richfield. Relocation,
continuing community services, and
Homeowner/Tenant concerns will be the focal
point of future Management Committee meetings
as Phase I progresses.
FLASH 2 UPDATED NOISE E�XPOSURE
III11111111111111
ON SERVICES
D. Schock
sition and
�����������������
Standing +members of the
Committee are: Jim Fortman
and Dick [Keinz with MAC;
Jim Prosser and Byron
Wallace with the City of
Richfield;l and Ralph White
and Bill Schock with WDSCO.
Bill Schatzline will
represent �the Homeowner's
Association.
H A R D S H I P
�PROCESSING MAKES
PROGRESS
The City of RichfieTd is
a s s e m b 1 i n g t h e
documentation needed for
all hardsYiip applications.
As of December 10, 1993,
approximately 55°s of the
hardship applications have
been proce'ssed. The entire
�list of applicants should
be processed by early
January, 1994. Applicants
that have been approved
will receive priority
processing' of appraisal
work, offers, closirig
a c t i v i�t i e s, a n d
relocations.
Homeowner) notification
letters will be sent, by
certified �mail to those
initiall.y. approved
hardships, in January,
1994.
Bruce Pal�nborg, City of
Richfield,'land Kelly Hauch,
W. D. Schock Company, Inc.,
are the contact people
regarding all hardship
cases.
MAP ACCLPTI3D BY FAA !
This means that MAC can file for an amendment to?the existing
g=ant to include the Rich Acres hardahips in Phaee I. The
hardship applications for Rich Acree are being'processed at
the present time and thoae that are approved will be ready
when the grant aatendment is approved. ' �
SEAS0I�S GREETII�GS
ACCOMPLISFIIKENTS DURING
OCTOBER-DECEI�ER 1993
From October through mid-December, 1993, W.
D. Schock Company, Inc., has made a great
deal of progress in establishing the services�
needed for the Part 150 buyout.'
TITLL COMPANIBS SELECTED
W. D. Schock Company, Inc. has selected
Equity Title Services, First Securit.y Title,
and Northstar Title to execute the required
title work and close the acquisitions in
Phase I. All preliminary title work has been
ordered for each property address in Phase I.
If you are located in Priority one (1) - six
(6), please begin to locate your abstract and
mortga3P �.nf.�r_m�ta.on for the title company.
Your property has been assigned to one of the
three title companies chosen, and you will be
contacted by a representative of that
company. If you think you may have a
possible title problem involving your
property, please contact Kelly Hauch with W.
D. Schock Company, Inc., as soon as possible.
APPRAISAL FIRMS
The appraisers, back-up appraisers, and
review appraisers are targeted to be under
contract for the Phase I acquisition by late
December. W. D. Schock Company received
qualification's statements from nineteen (19)
local firms who expressed interest in doing
the required appraisal work. The material
was reviewed and a rating system was used to
select the most qualified firms.
Negotiations are underway with the selected
fi�+s and conrr��r� �re. hPan.a prc��Pssed. - To
. ,�..rr:T�. 4
provide the consistency:�;=,,•esired in the
appraisal work, MAC and WDSCO have decided to
hire one large firm, assisted by two
subcontractors to perform the appraisals.
The homeowner may choose to have a second
appraisal on the property. The homeowner may
select his/her appraiser from any source
desired. WDSCO will have a list of qualified
appraisers (from the Metropolitan area)
available to the homeowner. MAC will
reimburse the homeowner up to $500 for the
appraisal, provided the appraiser is licensed
by the State of Minnesota in Class 3 or 4.r,�
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING FIR�3S
The selection criteria has
been finalized and the
Environmental Inspection
firms are anticipated to be
in place by the end of
December. Negotiations are
proceeding. with several
firms who will inspect the
homeowner's dwelling and
grounds. The inspection
will be conducted at the
same time the MAC appraisal
is done, so the homeowner
will have minimum
disruption.
TARGET DATFS FOR THE
� FIITUR$
* Complete Title work -
Late December, 1993
* Complete hardship
application process -
Early January, 1994
* Start Appraisals and
Environmental
Inspections -. Early
January, 1994
* Notification letters -
January, 1994
SUYOIIT FSSDBACR
MAC and W. D. Schock
Company, Inc., have setup
the t3�i�out Feec�back to
answer your questions,
re�eive your suggestions,
�
1�1111^�IIIIIIi111111111i111i1111��1it11111i111iIi1111i1111
— JANUARY 19 9 �4 "�.
• • • � f � � ``�.
�..
� ��
��
� � �h�. :�
111iitlilliillil.l
��a�. � :.!" I `�" SLTEa' ?.
-t t � r
.;, x: r�: .
:J ���iT �i� MSP LAND ACQUISiTIQN & RELOCATION SERVICES
A new�Ietter by �he Metropo3itan Airpor�s Commission and W. D. Schac;c
Company, Inc., cantaining inrormation on the MSP Land Acquisiti.on and
Reloca�ion Prajects, "�
1111��illllll�llt11111111t111a1111l�f�llllllll!l11111111111111!!1!1!!llll!!1!
. �
TITLE COl�iITMENTS RECEIVED LOCAL NEWSPAPER
-FOR PHASE = P►ND HARDaHIPS ARTICLE CLAR=FIED
W.D. Schack Campany, Inc. has received and A recent� articie in the
reviewed the preliminary title commitments �or Richfield • Sun Current�
the hardship cases and all properties�located in {December�29; 1993; °Year in{
Phase I of the Buyout Projec�. - Review") �led some homeowners�
• • ta believe �hat 28 homes in!
A capy of the title commitment will be given to the New Ford TownjRich Acres
each homeowner during the offer meeting with W.D. area would not be bought out,
Schock Company, Inc.. If there are property ar but would instead be
persona7, tiC1e problems within the commitment, s o un dp r o a f e d. T h e�
the homeowner must resalve all title problems Metropol�itan Airports
priar to the acquisition closing. Commissiori and W.D. Schock�
Company, Inc. would li}ce to!
EI�fVIR4i�tMENTAL CC}NSULTING � can�irm th`at all propertzes in�
New Forcl �Tawn/Rich Ares are
FIRMS UPDATE � s�.ated �or buyout and that
` • none of the homes will be
soundpraafed as an alternative
W.D. Schock Company, Tnc, is currently finalizing �
con�racts between twa { 2} Twin City £irms . The t o b u y o tz t.. T h"i s
misunderstan.ding was a con.cern
environmental inspection.s will occur ,
simtzltaneatzs2y witii the real esCa�e appraisal. for several homeowners, and
W.D. Schock Campany, Inc.
The reason for this is to cause as little ,
disruption as passible for �he homeowner. The �PP�"�ciates the apportuni�y to
inspectian wili be brie� and performed on bath ��arify the issue.
the interior an,d exterior of the home. The please see the "Buyout
inspector wi11 have a few simple questions abaut �eedback"i section of this
the history of the home. The inspec�or will be newsletter far further
looking for underground tanks, �.he presence of
asbestos and lead paint as well as the lacata.on i2omeowner �cammen.ts regarding
of any wells. NO tests will be performed during the Buyout; Program.
the inspection. If the inspeetor finds a suspect �
material, it will be written in a report, then an APPRAISAL UPDATE
engineer will determine if further acCion should �
be �aken. I� yau have any questions ar concerns W.D. Schock Company, Inc. has
about ailything within your hame, do not hesitate selected Marquet�e Partners as
ta ask �.he inspector. the primary appraisal firm.
Capi�al Appraisals and Herman
HARDSHIP UPDATE Appraisal Services will act as
subconsultan�s �o Marquette
The City of Richfield is in the final s�age of partners �ta complete the
completing the assembling of all hardship �PPraisal in.spec�ians for aIl
documentatian. As af January 19, 1994, �f Phase II of the Buyout
approximately 92� o� a21 hardship applications Praject. � Lyle Nagell &
have been processed. W.D. Schock Company, Inc. Company has been selected as
has received several new applications since the review,_appraisal firm.
January 1,�1994. The remaining hardship files � '
should be proces'sed by late January or early zn your cer�ified Homeawner
February. ' � Notzfication Let�er, you will
• be given $the name of your
Hardship applications will contirzue to be assigned appraiser. Tha�
accepted throughout the Buyout Program. If a �PP��iser will be contacting
hardship develops for a hameowner, please contact you by phone and/or mail ta
set up the appaintmen� ta
Kelly Hauch at W.D. Schock Company, Inc. far ,
additional information and/or guidelin,es �.nspect your home. 2� is very
regardirzg the hardship pragram. impartant to work with your
assigned appraiser to have
Homeowner notificatian letters will be sent by your home inspected a� soon as
certified mail or hand delivered, to those Possible, � It is also very
importanC. that you {or your
iniCi.ally approved hardships, in January, 1994. ,,
We will be calling �he approved hardshap representative) be presenC
applicants to arrange a date and time £or th,e during.the inspection.�
� ,
initial interview. t ! !
I�, ,
You have the choice t�o order a second appraisal
on your home. You may choose any appraiser you
wish; however, to be eligible for reimbursement,
the appraiser MUST hold a classification (3) or
(4) License from the State of Minnesota. Your
selected appraisal will also be reviewed by the
Lyle Nagell Company, for certification of value
and to insure it meets all required appraisal
standards. The homeowner will need to notify
W.D. Schock Company, Inc. within five (5)
business days after the receipt of their
certified Homeowners Notificatiori letter, if they
plan to have the second appraisal completed.
This notification is crucial for the time frame
of the review appraisal process and its
completion.
You are not obligated to have a second appraisal
done. However,,if you do choose to have a second
appraisal, DO NOT ORDER this appraisal until you�
have discussed this item with a representative
from W.D. Schock Company, Inc. during your
initial interview.
APPRAISAL "COMP-BOOK"
The most acceptable method of performing a
residential appraisal to determine market value
is to find recent comparable sales in the project
vicinity that are as similar as possible to your
property. The initial work of Marquette Partners
will be to develop a"Comp-Book" that will
contain all recent sales in the vicinity that can
be used by all appraisers to do the comparable
sale approach. The Comp-Book will be updated as
new sales occur. Preparing this book will
slightly delay starting the actual appraisals in
Phase I, but will materially speed up the process
once it begins. The MAC and W.D. Schock Company
apologize for the delay in beginning the
appraisals, but feel that the time used to get
the Comp-Book in place will assure the
consistency and uniformity that is necessary in
a large buyout project.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding
the appraisal process, please contact Ralph White
or Kelly Hauch with W.D. Schock Company, Inc. at
612-724-8898.
FUTURE TARGET DATES
PHASE I - HARDSHIPS
* Notification letter for hardships -
Beginning late January
* Initial homeowner interviews - Beginning
late January and early February
* A�praisal and Environmental Inspections -
Beginning early February
* Appraisal sent to review appraiser -
Beginning late February ,
* Offers made to homeowner - Beginning March,
1y94
NOTE: �riority blocks 1 and 2 will begin as soon
as the hardship cases are completed.
W.D. SCHOCK COMPANY, INC.
5844 28th Avenue South
Minne�apolis, NaT 55417
PHONE: (612)724-8898
.�' � �UYOUT FEED�AC�
Homeowners have responded ve�y
•positively to the first issu�
�of the Buyout Update, and they
look'forward to future issues
'of the newsletter. Thre�
questions have been raised by
several homeowners, and we
will address them here.
Q: If I wish to order my"own
appraisal on my property,
when should I order it?
A: Do not order your appraisal
until you have completed
your initial interview with
W.D. Schock Company, Inc..
Due to the real estate
market's constant changing,
it is important that your
appraisal reflects current
value. '
Q: When should I contact a
Realtor to look for another
home? ,
A: AFTER you receive the offer
price for your home and the
detailed relocation benefit
package. The homeowner
needs to know the amount
available to them before
they look for a replacement
home.
Q: Will there be a problem
obtaining financing once I
find a replacement home, if
my past credit history
reveals late payments, a
bankruptcy, or a
foreclosure?
A� Please be aware that we
will do everything possible
to help you obtain
financing on your
replacement home. However,
seyere credit problems are
very serious. We will help
you explore every option
available, but we cannot
guarantee you will obtain
new financing from a
mortgage company.
we encourage your continued
responses and questions by
phone (724-8898), FAX (724-
8894), or by mail (Buyout
Feedback, c\o W.D. Schock
Company, Inc., 5844 28th
Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN
55417). We will be pleased to
keep you well-informed of the
progress of the Buyout
Project.
City of Mendota Heights
Tom Lawell
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN
55118 �
�� s� �
��" :
;.,' ;�
� r usn10
�
�. �
THE NOI�E NEWSLETTER
- PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE �
NATIONAL QRGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED
I
Volume IV, No. 1
ANUARY 1994
�
NOISE BOARD TABLES AIRPORTS COMMITTEE PROPOSAL
by Charles F. Price !
Executive Director ,
The Boazd of Directors of the �National Organization
to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE) has
tabled until its meeting next March a proposal to establish
an advisory body consisting of airport operator represen-
tatives.
Acting at its meeting in conjunction with the National
League of Cities' Congress of Cities and Exposition
December 4 in Orlando, FL, the Board set aside the
proposal after bringing it up for discussion and amend-
ment. A formal resolution opposing the proposal, passed
,lovember 22 by the City Council of long-time NOISE
member Thornton, CO and read to the Board by Council
Member Jo Thorne, raised concerns among other Board
members that they should also submit the measure to their
governing bodies for review.
Before tabling the proposal, the Board adopted a
number of amendments. The name of the proposed body
was changed from "Airports Advisory Committee" to
"AirportOperatorCommittee". Theadoptionofcommit-
tee rules, procedures, and organizational arrangements
was made subject to Board approval. Proposed bylaw
language establishing the committee was changed to
require separate bookkeeping for any revenues received
from the committee and a vote of the Board approving
any expenditure from such a source.
In other business, James P. Muldoon, Special Assis-
tant for Environmental Planning from FAA's Office of
Environment and Energy, received comments from the
Board as input to the F�'�A's new Study Group on Land-
Use Compatibility. Ir, his opening remarks, Muldoon
mentioned that apurpose of the Study Group is to identify
Zcentives that might encourage localities to adopt land-
..se policies that would prevent encroachment on air-
ports.. Sharon Barbosa of Irving, TX responded that FAA
should "stop assuming that communities are encroaching
on airports" and recognize that airports often encroach on
communities. She stated that it was important to deter-
mine the responsibility for any encroachment hefore
deciding what remedies were �needed. Also important,
she said, was the need to "look at the standards used in
mitigation" and asserted that th�e DNL 65 dB metric is an
inadequate standard. i �
Roger Rolfes of Florence, KY stated that FAA needs
to enforce preferenrial flight tracks where they have been
adopted for noise-abatement purposes. President Conrad -
Bowers of Bridgeton, MO •expiessed agreemen� Rober-t
Mikes of Dania, FL pointed out that municipaliries need
to be involved earlier and moie directly in the airport
� master planning process and in� Part 150 planning. Tho-
mas Woods of Baton Rouge, LA said that when buyouts
occur, there should be no spot buying; purchases should
respect existing neighborhood boundaries.
. �
Tom Eagan of Egan, MN reinforc�d Sharon
Barbosa's contention that;airports frequently encroach on
�
communities without adequate consultation, citing the
Minneapolis-St. Paul experience where, he said, "we
have had procedural due process but not substantive due
process." Ms. Barbosa concluded the discussion by
warning against achieving compatibility in ways that
irremediably dislocate local tax values.
NOISE representatives oni the FAA Study Group
include First Vice President Sharron Spencer of Grape-
vine, TX; Charles Scaggs of � Loudoun County, VA;
George Nichols, staff planner, Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments; and Executive Director Price
(See relat�d story on the December meeting of the Study
Group elsewhere in this issue).� .
In other business, Shanon Spencer formally noti�ed
the Board that the 1995 N01SE Conference will be held
in Grapevine, TX. +
J + I
. . �.
January1994 Page two
FAA'S McDANIEL RESFONDS TO NC)ISE
CONCERNS ABOtTT FUBLIC ACCESS
TQ DECISI()N-IYIAKING
The Federal Aviatian Administration's strategic
planning process and the actions that flow from it "will
shaw conclasively" that FAA is listening ta public con-
cerns as well as those af the industry, according to a letter
ta NOISE fram Dale E. McDaniel, Acting Assistant
Adminsitrator for Policy, Planning, and International
Aviation.
McDaniel's comments came in a letter he wrote
November 22 to Execudve Director Charles F. Price.
Price had written Deputy Administrator Joseph Del
BalZo reminding him that the agency is accountable to
communities and cidzens as well as to the industry (see
the 4ctober 1993 N4ISE Newstetter}. Concerns had
arisen when Price, representing NOISE as a participant in
FAA's strategic ptanning process, repeatedly heard
agency officials refer to the industry as FAA's primary
customers.
McDaniel assured Price that FAA "recognizes. that
cflmmunities have full standing as legitirriate parties to�
the debate over aviarion system �apacity and airport
noise."
"You ehallenge FAA ta'grant' legitimacy," he wrote,
"but you have it already. FAA wiIl certainly work with
and Iisten to communities as we joindy address capacity
and noise issues. Nor does FAA consider the peaple -
either those affected by aircraft noise or the flyir�g public
- ta be the'enemy'. In addition ta yourself, people at the
{strategic pianning} session who represented other than
'the industry' included shippers, representatives of other
gavernment agencies..., Congressionai staff, and both
aviation and government employees... The people are
FAA's ultimate custamers."
In response to a concern expressed by NOISE that
FAA and the industry often argue that, the issues in
aviation are too technical for the people to grasp,
McDaniel asserted that the agency "does not intend ta
hide behind technolagy. If there is a good, technical
reason far something FAA does, we think we shauld be
able ta communicate the reason in understandable lan-
guage and discuss it with thase who might disagree. FAA
certainly recognizes that knowledgeable people will
sornerimes disa,gree. Indeed, we see part of our role as
bringing together communities and the industry when
they disagree and seeing if there is a solution th� t mee:�,
the needs of aIl parties," �
WELL-ATTENDED NOISE �VORKSHOP
AT NLC CUNFERENCE EXPLORES
LAND-USE COMP'ATIBILITY
Over 140 municipal afficials from around the nation
attended a warkshop enritled, "Planning for Compatibie
Land Uses Around Airports: A Challenge for Cities in the
1990s", sponsored by NQISE an December 4 during the
Natianal i,eagae of Cities' Conference af Cides and
Exposition in Orlando, FL.
The panel discussion, maderated by N4ISE Presi-
dent Canrad Bowers, featured Robert H. Pawer, special
caunsei far the cities of Grapevine, Irvi�g, and Euliss, TX
iri the controversy over expansion of Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airpart; Peter J. Kirsch, attorney, Cutler &
Stanfield, Washington, DC; and Jarnes P. Muldoon,
Special Assistant for Enviranmental Planning, Cfffice of
Environment and Energy, FAA.
Power, speaking in the wake af the November 19 U.S.
Caurt of Appeals decision denying a petition by the cities
he represents to review the final Environrnental Imgact
S tatement on the expansian of DFW, asked the somew�at
melanchoiy 'qiaestion"; �'�"C�h airp�rts- do�"w�iatever � th�y
want?" and then disconsolately suggested that perhap;
they can. However, he implied that airports and cammu-
nities should srill he able to resalve conflicts through the
kind of good-faith caliaborative planning that marked the
cammunity-DFW relations in the early years. Prohlems
only arose there, Pawer said, aFter a unilateral decisian
was made by DFW to expand.
"The human mind can't really plan effectively for 30
years in advanee," Power conceded, but said a wiiiing-
ness by all parties to plan on a continuing basis, with
periodic revisians by mutual cansent ta reflect changed
circumstances, can perhaps yield positive results.
Muidoon described the background and purposes of
the FAA's Study Group on Land Use Compatibility (see
related stary in this issue} and pointed out that, with
implementation of the Stage 2 phaseout and the limits an
local noise restrictions imposed by the Airport Noise and
Capacity Act af 1990, the issue of land-use compatibility
around airports is the largest� remaining noise-reIated
policy problem requiring attention. He said the goal of
the Study Graup is to identify incentives which can be
used ta encaurage airports and co::�munities ta pla
effectively for compatibility.
Kirsch discussed "how an airQort and zts neighbors
(Continue on page three)
;, �
1994
NLC CONFE1tENCE EXPL()RES
LAND-USE COMFATABILITY
(Continued from page two)
can live effecpively together so that both can prosper an
so tliat the growth af one does nat occur at the expense o
the other." He discussed the purposes and shortcomings
af the Part 150 process as a tooi for ac;�ieving this goai.
In that process, he said, airport forecasts of future air
tra�fic, used by conununities as a basis far land-use
decisions, can change, and when this happens it is the
communities wha must bear the brunt of the� changes. A
better approach, he proposed, wauld be for aperatars and
airport neighbars to use a noise exgosure performance
standard as a means af "imposing upon an airport propri-
etor the risk of unreliable forecasts and the rate af
ensuring the future naise environment in its vicinity."
The four key eiements of such a perforn�ance .
standard, as oudined by Kirsch, are: An enforceable
intergovernmental agreement among the proprietor arid
all affected neighboring jurisdictions; de�nition of
�cceptable rroise�ievels a�� �;�ar,ir.��a� g�;,g�a�;7,�µ� .
►undaries far those noise levels; a permanent proce-
dure for noise monitoring and data coIiection; and
creation of an enfarcement and penalty mechanism.
FAA ADVISQRY CIRCULAR
ON NOISE ABATEMENT TAKEnFF
PROFILES IS AVAILABLE
F,AA has published the final version of its Advisory
Circular 91-53A which mandates standardized noise
abatement departure procedures at all U.S. airports,
The AC requires each airlirte ta . develop takeoff
profiles designed to reduce noise in areas both close to
and distant fram the airport. A set af profles must be
developed for each aircraft type the carrier operates and
foreach airportrunway. In preparing theprofiles, airlines
are encouraged to consult with the airport operator but the �
consulta.tion is not mand�::�ed. • .
NOISE lobbied harc� out unsuccessfully to �require
sucb consultatian not ar�y with che airport aperator but
'1 sunounding communities as well. NOISE has also
..r�,osed the newpoiicy because it imposes a new nationaI
policy withaut adequately assessing it for its likely opera-
tionai and envir
anmental impacts.
The new AC was devised chiefly to salve a problem
�
I __, �'a�e three
at a single airport, but NQISE hlas re eatedl ex re
P Y F ssed
concern that it might have unforeseen consequences at
ather airports as well. � �
Capies of the AC may be ordered fram the NOISE
national office. �
d ;
f� FEDERAL Nt}ISE METRI�S BODY
LIMITS PUBLIC ACCESS
;
Despite recommendarions fr� m N�ISE that tfie new �
federal interagency committee on aircraft noise involve !
citizens and cammunities in the�design of its work gro-
gram guiding government research on noise impacts, ihe
body has met behind clased daors, unilateraliy agreed an
an approach, and announced a program that limits public
input to a single meeting and ari oppartunity to snbmit
written comments. �
The Federat Interagency Comrnittee an Aircraft
Naise (FICAN) decided at a meeting November 19 to
convene twice a year, once to review work pragress and
once to hear public comment. The annual public meering
wouici be preceded and succeerJed by a period durin,�
which FICA�V will accept written comments.
NOiSE and ather community�graups have long bee�;,, �
critical of the government's proprietary atritude about �
naise metrics and its apparent unwiIIingness to throw the
subject open to unrestricted debate. Cornmunities sus-
pect tiie adequacy of the DNL metric and the DNL 65 dB
threshold the government ' uses }ta define the adverse
impact af noise on residential iiving.
Cansulted some rnonths ago by Lauise Maillett, Di-
rectorof FAA's Office of Enviranment and Energy, about
how best to invalve the public iri the work of FICAN,
NQISE Executive Director Charles F. Price strongly
urged that the process be as open and unfettered as
possible, that communities be invited to help design the
FICAN work pragram, and that they be given frequent
oppartunities to participate in the deliberarions af the
bady.
Anyane wishing ta be placed an FICAN's rnailing list
should submit a request in writing ta Tom Connor,
Manager, Technical Division, Office of Enviranment
and Energy,�ederal Aviation Administratian, AEE-100,
800Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC20591;
FAX 202J267-5594}. � ,er formally notified
::::;.::;.>�....����'onference will be held
. . .. �
:;:{::'`�:
.. � �
. _ ��
January 1994 � Pagefour
NOISE PARTICIPATES IN DECEMBER
MEETINGS C}N FAA STRATEGIC PLAN-
NING, LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
NOIS� actively look part in two FAA-sponsored sessions early
in December deaiing with the subjects of iand-use compatibitity
around airporls and FAA slrategic planning in the arca of cnviron-
mentai protection.
On T.aecember 6 and 7, NOZSE parlicipated in a mceting of lf�e
FAA Study Group on I,and-tlsc Campatibitity, which heard presen-
tations fram planners representing L.oudoun and FairFax Counties,
YA abouE thcir goticies around Dulles Intcrnaiionat Ai�ort; from R.
Bruce Mandy, chief of the State of Maryland's aviation division
about the land-use policies of lhat state; and from Dr. Pcter Byrne.
law professar at Georgetown University, aboui fetieral, state, and
local powers of land-use regulation.
Aitending on behatf of NflISE were First Vice Presideni
Sharron Spencer of Grap�evinc, TX; Execulive Direclor Charles F.
Price; anti Trcvis Markle, planr�ing director, Metropolitan Washing-
ton Councii of Gavernments.
On Decembcr 6 Executive Director Priee also gariicipaled in a
speciai seminar associated with FAA's strategic pl�tnnin�; process,
involving !hc sctting of agency goals in the arca of enviromcnt��l
�}iOiCCitOti.
-�;' ��� �'�.
NOISE . , ,�, �.v, o ' � � � ----.�
�� �y ''-- `sxl arljrpn
r - C%•
�^ :"� 91'i•.; ' • :.n�u+.4." r.'. ..L �., _ ` r} "'^. '
i.i ca—�a y_ _ �,. •.,
National {�rganization ta Insure a Sound-c�ntroiied Environment � � � ;J. :;� � . . � �
1225 Eye Street • NW • Suite 304 • Washingtan, DC 20005 � � � `' � �-� . .
. . .. ...1? • � .
�uu�,.
certainly recogcu.
sometimes disagree. �„`
bringing together communit�t_
they disagree and seeing if there is'a �
the needs of all parties.,,
�
�
Charles E. Mertensotto
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendata Nnf 55118
�
A }��a�t��t�c�ts�4ti:�lle:'��;is�Fas€�a=''•s�s�::�'F:=s�t:���sfa11
~1
J
�
Niget Finney� MAC� catled the mee#ing to order at 2:05 p.m.
Heights; E. Futtemtan, L. Dallam, G. Aibjerg, HNTB; M. Ryan, L.J: Fortrnan, N.
MAC � , _ . .- � , - � - _
Mr. Finney indicated that the agenda for the meeting included a discussion o!
the; Long Term Camprehensive Ptan Update (C.TCP} and a review { of tt
Environmental Assessment WorksheetlDraft Scoping Decisian Document!befar
#he MAC for fhe forma! comment period. - ' 1
inney, J. Unnah,
. ,o
ttis schedule for
3 Draft Scoping
it is reviewed by
Evan Futisrman* HNTB, gave an overview of the scizedute for fFie remaining etemen#s ai the Dual
Track Planning Process. The facus of the discussion was on the LTCP Update, indicating the �ole
af #Eze Techriical Commit#ee and #hase poin#s in ii�e process where inpuf and �review woutd be
most relevant and necessary. The LTCP p�ocess for the new airport was alsa �eviewed since it
is esssntially camparable in process to the wark at MSP; the major difference lies in the facf that
the MSP work is an update of an existing pian, whereas the new airpart wark is the initial plan
developmen�. @oth activities witi be on reasonabty similar schedutes, v+r�th the wa€k at MSP a few'
monfhs ahead of the new airpart. The final step in this discussion was a review of the EIS to be
prepared at the end of the process; this document will compare the twa optiorts iar meeting €uture
a'rc fravet demand, and witl set t�ie stage far the �ecammendation ta the feg;stafure io be made
in July� 1996. Mr. Prosser requested clarification of the approach being taken in the analysis
reQardina future needs and facilitiss. �
Evan Futterman artd Larry Datiam. HNTB, gave an averview a# fhe environme
fallowed to meet the �equirements af the Minnesota ECt6. The role of the Sco
Qraft Sc:oping Decision Document { DSDD } in �this process was described,
Decisian Document is a key facto� since it will act as a blueprint for prepa�ati
MSP develapment. The DSDD identifies those issues thaf wiEl be evatuated in
and also indicates those factors that are not felt to require detailed analysis. A:
is presenfed* and the proposa! to eliminate those altematives related io the so�
is stated. Mr Tocho indicated that the issue of grave sites seems to be an impc
south parallel runway, however it was less so in discussions of the new airport.
�
I
I pracess being'
g EAW and #he'
: Oraft Scaping`
af the AED fa��
tail in the AED, I
imary of issues�
para!!e! tunway
nt factor for the;
suggested that
., �.
�'�'` - �
���
� ?r
o�
'+°.�oroaa
c
METRCJP{�LITAN AIRPGtRTS COMMISSION
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fa�c (612) 726-5296
PUBLIC NOTICE
M#NNEAPO�fS-ST. PAUL lNTERNAT#ONAL AtRPORT
LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN�UPDATE
ALTERNATlVE ENVIRONfVIENTAL. DOCUMENT �
SCC�PING ENVIRQNMENTAI. ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT
�!
�
An Aiternative Environmental Document tAED) will be prepared by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission for a Long Term Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis-St. Paui International Airport
to satisfy the air transportation needs through the year 2020. The Long Term Comprehensive
Plan is �one etement of the Dual Track Airport Ptanning Process ,mandated by the Minnesata
Legislature; the AED is being developed under the Alternative Environmental Review Process ,
approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quaiity Baard in March, 1992. The Scoping
Environmental Assessment Worksheet {EAW) and the D�aft Scopictg Decision Dacument are
designed to develop the issues that witl be addressed i» the AED. �
. . ,
A public_meeting to discuss the Scaping EAW and Draft Scoping Decisian Document will be �
hetd on�Tuesday, February i 5, 1994, at 7:04 p.m: at the_.Washburn_High School Auditorium,
z2tJ 1"�V1lest�49�Street, -(Vlinneapolis, MN. � Y .. , - �'
The Scoping EAW and. Draft Scoping Decision Document will be available for review after
January 31 at the foAawirig locations: Minneapolis-Washburn Library; 5244 Lyndale Avenue
South; Hennepin County�= 4xboro Library, 8$01 Portland Avenue South; St. Paul - Highland
Park Library, 1974 Ford Parkway; Dakota County - Hastings Library, 830 Vermillion; City Ha11s
of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Blaomington, Richfield, Eagan, Mendata Heights, and Inver Grove
Heights. � ' • . � � -
Copies of the document are available upon request. Comments are due by March 2, 1994.
Please direct all comments and inquiries ta Jenn Unruh, Metropalitan Airports Commission,
6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapoiis, MN 55450; {612} 726-8189.
The Metropolitan Airports Cammission is an affirmative action employer.
Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE + ANOKA GOUNT'Y!$LAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO + SAINT PAUL DOWNT()1� �
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 4 , 1!
Airport Relations Commission Members
Tom Lawell, City Administ
Description of Noise Abatement Aircraf
Procedures at Select Airports
DISCIISSION
�94
Departure
At our December meeting we discussed the need to�investigate
FAA flight procedures utilized at other airports lacross the
country. More specifically, the Commission was primarily
interested in aircraft departure procedures, utilize�d at other
airports of similar size to MSP. I
Originally we were hopeful our membership in the National
Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled £nvironment (NOISE) would
prove to be a fruitful source of information on this topic.
Unfortunately this was not the case as NOISE is primarily a
lobbying organization and as such, does not devote much effort
towards research. �
In the alternative, FAA control tower personnel were contacted
at four airports which were found to have airtraffic levels similar
to MSP's 1992 level of 413,502 operations. ,The selected airports
include Boston, Memphis, Nashville and Detroite
l.
Attached please find a one page fact sheet and an airfield map
for each airport. The fact sheet describes the various operational
procedures in effect at each airport along with their�applicable
noise abatement procedures. �
Analysis of the data reveals some interesting approaches to
noise abatement. Although most are airport specific and perhaps
are not directly applicable to MSP, they are educational
nonetheless. It is suggested we discuss �ach airport in detail at
our February 9th meeting.
a
BOSTON - LoQan International Airport
General Descriptioa:
Airport located two
runways total (see
developed except on
Bay.
miles east of downtown B
map), Land abutting airp
east which is adjacent to :
Total annual operations approximately 487,000.
carriers - USAir probably largest jet operator.
IIse of Parallel Ruawayss
iton. Five
�t is fully
ssachusetts
Many air
Principal parallel runways are 4L/22R and 4R/22L.I Centerline
separation is 1500 feet. Parallel runways are frequently run
independently by two local controllers, however two jet
aircraft are never released simultaneously because runway
4L/22R is reserved for prop aircraft.
Noise Abatemeat Proceduresa
Jet aircraft are restricted to only one departure heading for
each runway. Headings are as follows:
Runway 22L - turn left heading 140 degrees
4R - runway heading 4 DME then right to 090 degrees
33L - runway heading to 2 DME then left to �315 degrees
15R - runway heading to 1 DME then left to�120 degrees
27 - runway heading to 2 DME then left to�250 degrees
9 - maintain runway heading �
Nighttime Noise Abatement procedure is to use 15R/33L between
midnight and 6 a.m. {
Contact Person:
Patricia Polenta, FAA TRACON (617) 561-5901
BOSTON - Logan In�ernational Airnort
or si5' N
N ,��,� 880'
�l 1�,v
Int'I � K Q N
Term �
� � N �N c
Term-- �� Q
�-- Y � a a F�
X� oTWR S} C H
SW W OO T �
�o ��R
0
^� �
v ,�
N 12�
h
'VR o�,h DT
�v ,� 1199
!?
�a �jss�
0
c, � ,���
j0
�F '
f jsO�j DI
, G
Term � 0 m P " p
a E
� c�
S Term � B X �50 „ 'Za„
w� �7�°° a
�' O Oo � GN
Stpwy �"
1770' q� � B 1 �55 �
Stpwy 1886' QR
�
NASHVILLl3 - Nashville Interna�ional Airgort
General Descriptions
Airport located five miles southeast of downtown Nashvillea
Four runways total (see map). Land abutting airport is fully
developed, less so on south and southeast. i
Total annual operations approximately 340,000.� Major air
carrier is American Airlines. Approximately nine,arrival and
departures pushes each day between 7 a.m. and 9:30 p.m.
IIse of Parallel Runways:
Principal parallel runways are 2L/20R and 2R/20L.� Centerline
separation is 5,800 feet. As traffic dictates, parallel
runways are run independently by two local contr�llers.
Under a waiver granted by the FAA, aimultaneous j et departures
on runwaye 20R and 20L may climb out with no divergence for
one mile under VFR conditions. Jet departures ori runways 2L
and 2R must diverge immediately.
Noise Abatemeat Proceduress
Nighttime Noise Abatement procedure is to use runway 13/31
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Lack of navigational aids on
13/31 sometimes makes this procedure difficult to use.�
Other Informatioa:
A new runway is currently being built in Nashville. The
runway will be located between 2L/20R and 2C/20C. When completed
the new runway will carry the designation 2C/20C and the old runway
by the �ame name will be decommissioned to serve aa a;taxiway.
Contact Person:
Roger Anderson, FAA TRACON (615) 781-5460
NASHVILLL - Nashville Interaational Airport
1� �� ` A7 ?pR
C2 � � `s�� A6 � Q5
� �j q a � T1 f'�
C �� so �z ��'�-�.J
� � L �� 72
� Gf
R5 � C4 �3 B
C5 1
��� L
c 2°�
R3 �L
� TPA
MSC:1600 �
�
H5
�,,, C7
o" Td +�
RZ � �`�. LS �^j1T5 ,� H4 �
a¢ UA �c � C � s
R1 o Q E L4 `� T6
A4 ^ Stpwy C8 L5 �O�I
p � 345' E4 � L6 Q o�
B2A E �� � Gg L"�`� "
�
� �� c� �G5 ''�� !
o � �c
� �
� � �s
A3 ey Q �� `'E3
2'� ° � � `� � �SS F!2
f� D p �''�,,�
BNA E1 OO T1NR
1t4.1 � � E2 H�
. F � �r
G9 °� ..� Nat'I �R
2� � Guard
DT
I,��
�
O
�
MEMPHIS - Memphis International
General Descriptioa:
Airport located three miles south of downtown Men
runways total (see map). Land abutting airpo�
developed, less so on south.
is. Five
is fully
Total annual operations approximately 406,000. I, Major air
carrier is Federal Express, specializing in overnight parcel
delivery. Between 11:00 p.m. and 4:30 a.m. they�run 300-350
operations.
IIse of Parallel Ruawayss
Principal parallel runways are 18R/36L and 18L/36R.
Centerline separation is 3,400 feet. Use only single
controller, simultaneous jet departures are not common.
Standard procedure is to stagger them to maintain a three mile
separation. �
Noise Abatement Procedures:
Jets departing runways 18L and 18R are to maintain runway
heading for one and one-half miles or until an altitude of
2,000 feet is achieved. Turboprops free to turn �to headings
between 150-220 degrees. �
Jets departing runway 27 shall not turn south� of runway
heading for at least three miles of until an altitude of 3, 000
is achieved. �
Nighttime Noise Abatement procedure is to prohibit�departures
on runway 9 between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6;a.m.
Contact Persoa:
Dick Childress, FAA TRACON (901) 345-3235
;
MEMFgIS MemQhis Internat�oaal
D$TROIT - Metropolitan Airport
General Description:
Airport located 15 miles southwest of downtown D
runways total (see map). Land abutting airp
developed.
Predominant air carrier is Northwest Airlines.
IIse of Parallel Ruaways:
:roit. Four
�t is fully
Three of four runways are parallel. Centerline separations
are 2,000 feet for runways 3R/21L and 3C/21C, 3,800 feet
between for runway 3C/21C and 3L/21R, and 5, 800 for 3R/21L and
3L/21R. Various combinations of these parallel{runways are
used to accommodate arrival and departure pushes�
Dual local controllers are frequently used to ,accommodate
simultaneous jet departureg. The "Eagt Local"� controller
directs operations on 3C/21C and 3R/21L. The "West Local°
controller directs operations on 3L/21R. �
Noise Abatement Procedures:
Prefer to route jet departures on runways 21C and 21R.
Departures on runways 3L/C/R are discouraged due to
residential development in nearby Deerborn. �
Neighborhood group in Deerborn �uccessfully sued the FAA
regarding air noise impacts. FAA must now periodically change.
assigned departure tracks off runways 3L/C/R in an attempt to
equalize noise exposure. I
A second lawsuit is currently pending which would force all
departures off runways 3L/C/R to turn right to Or60 degrees.
FAA strongly opposes due to impact on airport capacity.
Nighttime noise abatement procedure is to depirt runways
21L/C/R and arrive runways 3L/C/R as much as possible.
Coatact Person:
A1 Burt, FAA TRACON (313) 955-5000 ;
DBTROIT - Me�ro�olitaa Airport
CUStOf11S
226-3140 �
..� - -
�
4
W2 04
i► � "'—{�
\
,OOOI
uln�} �i�� O�i X
� PNJ ` bOp`OI�Z
�9Z _
�—
iO �9Z �C�
008 �Z '�1 X ��L$b
UJAp
�Sti -
uanp
��e�
0
aos
����
ea/� �c � at — _
4l
■ 21S£ i dwe�
� n6�e�
04ti � 4£ 40G
ujnp eZ ti[� tt u�np
�' ❑ � .QSZ!-
Q �Z � � 1�
f W ll r„
! � v
v
sZ ,06£ ' � o 0
r- � U1Ap a- x �
!� �� Et o ra
o g� d ��
�
X � fr? y� j O
o �' o in bl d
� �.r� � N3a ��# � °
��14Z
ll! � � p
.. -.. -. . .. _ ._ M•
:.r N
-�
DENVER - Stapleton International Airport
Geaeral Description:
Airport located four miles east of downtown
runways total (aee map).
Total annual operations approximately 450,000.
aircarriers include United and Continental.
IIse of Parallel Ruaways:
r. Six
Predominant
Two sets of principal parallel runways. North/South runways
are 17L/35R and 17R/35L. Centerline separation is�1,600 feet.
East/West runways are 8L/26R and 8R/26L. � Centerline
separation is 900 feet. Simulataneous departures are rare due
to closeness of runways, but is possible under VFR.
Noise Abatement Proceduress
Jet aircraft are restricted in their ability
departure. Headings are as follows:
to fan on
Runways 35L/R - 350 degreea to O10 degrees
Stage II may turn at 8,500 ft. alt.
Stage III may turn at 7,500 ft.jalt.
Runway 17R - Runway heading
17L - Left to 180 degrees to avoid apartment bld.
All jets may turn at 8,500 ft. alt.
Runways SL/8R - 065 degrees to O80 degrees I
Stage II may turn right at 8,500 ft. alt.
Stage III may turn right at 7,500 ft. alt.
All jets may turn left at 7,500�ft. alt.
Runway 26R/L - 260 degrees to 275 degrees �
Al1 jets may turn at 7,500 ft. alt.
Nighttime Noise Abatement procedure is arrive runways 17L/R
and depart runways 35R/L after 10:00 p.m. �
Contact Persoa:
Ken Hukriede, FAA TRACON (303) 355-1641 ext. 129
e
ORLANDO - Orlaada Internatioaal
Ovrn 1000'
.
■�
�
A
Ovrn
250'
18L �
,s� �E!
O 81 �`
� �. �
sie� � I
a3 ""
i
�� �
g� �R55 I
� O Term c2o�f
BN gN — � �
86 �e� CeS TINR G��
el�0 n R65
� R58 23
= fl64
r' 88 e'� /59 OR61 R62 R63 �G24Q
N ���� F��F15�
� r F13 f14 G2
O I
O o
x � �
o O ,o � cz
_2 2.� G2I
Ovrn x N Inner G
905' a o
0 0
� A Outer H
36R G28
17 j
r
O
O
O
O
x
�
0
�
n
35
CITY OF NlENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
February 4, 1994
T0: Airport Relations Commission Me ers
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ
SUBJFCT: Discuss MSP Capacity Enhancement Plan.
DISCIISSION
As part of the Dual Track Airport Planning Proce;
Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP is currently be�
The intent of this update is to define the beat approac]
allow this airport to handle the air traffic volumes �
the future. As we have previously diacussed, the currE
calls for the future construction of a new North/Sout
the west side of the airport property, roughly parall
Avenuee
3 s , the Long
ng updated.
� which will
roj ected in
nt MSP LTCP
z runway on
sl to Cedar
Approximately a year ago, the FAA regional office in Chicago
was contacted by the City of Richfield relative to the MSP future
expansion scenarios. As you can imagine, the construction of a new
North/South runway along Cedar Avenue would likely have negative
impacts on Richfield. Richfield suggested that the FAA become more
involved in the�expanaion issues at MSP by having �one of its
Airport Capacity Design Teams visit the airport and�review its
LTCP.
The FAA Team identified and assessed various actioris which, if
implemented, would increase MSP's capacity, improve operational
efficiency and reduce aircraft delays. The purpose of�the process
was to determine the technical merits of each alternative action
and its impacts on capacity. The Team did not� study the
environmental, socioeconomic or political issues associated with
the various expansion alternatives. l
i
Attached please find selected pages of the Team's report which
was published in January 1994. At our upcoming meeting it is
suggested we discuss the findings and recommendations contained
within the report. ,
�A ;%��.' Intcrnational c�l'irport
�/vc77T71ClJfJG%i.i—��%"��• .
Figure 1. '•' '• neapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
�,� -,neapolis, Minnesota
��
�
; •,•ut liwest
, .u;�,� npron
�
� _ us� n� N
Enhancement �Plan
c�2
I 5ite oF fuwre
iurminal apanebn
a
O O O
I
i
� /�// ry�?
// // gO �� �c�'
/�/// \ �y �
� O
r
M�
��
�� � // ��'
O �`� � ,
1,000 fG.
5�000 ft.
- Existing Runway - Proposed Runway/IZunway Extenyion
- ExiSting Taxiway r__ � Proposed Taxiway/Taxiway Extelnsion
��� Buildings ��� Location of future terminal5 �
!
. I
1
' c�linneapol,
Figure 2.
`Paullnternational
v Enhancement `Plan
Capacity Enhancement Alternatives and Annual Delay Savings
Alternatives
Airfield Improvements
1. New N/S Runway 17/35 on west side •
of airport, south of parallel runways
2. New Runway 11N/29N 800 ft. north
of Runway 11L/29R
3. New Runway 11S/29S 1,0(}0 ft. south
of Runway 11R/29L with threshold
staggered 3,000 ft. to the west
4. New Runways 17/35 and 11N/29N
(combines alternarives 1 and 2)
S. New Runways 11N/29N and 11S/29S
(combines alternarives 2 and 3)
6. F.xtend Runway 4/22 2,750 ft. to SW with
Taxiways C, D, and M and a queuing taxiway
7. New full-length pazallel taxiway 60U ft.
south of Runway 11R/29L
8. Dual crossover taxiways between
Runways lli✓29R and 11R/29L
9. Departure sequencing pads on
Runways 29R, 11L, and 11R
10. Additional exits on Runways 11R/29L and 11L/29R
11. Additional exits on Runway 4/22
12. Aircraft hold areas (penalty boxes)
Facilities and Equipment Improvements
13. CAT I ILS approach lights on Runway 29R
14. CAT II/III ILS on Runway 29R with RVR
15. CAT II/III ILS on Runways 11L and 11R with RVR
16. Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)
17. Doppler VOR installed at MSP
18. Runway centerline and touchdown zone
lights for Runway 4/22
19. RVR for Runway 4/22
Operational Improvements
20. Reduce in-trail separations to 2.5 nm
for like classes of aircraft in IFR
21. Converging IFR approaches
22. FMS transirions to existing approaches
23. Continue enhancement of reliever airports
23a. 25% of small/slow aircraft
23b. 50°�fo of smalUslow aircraft
.
�'
�6�
Estimated Annual Delay Savings*
(in hours and millions of 1992 dollars)
Baseline Future 1 Future 2
(420,390) (530,000) (600,000)
6,534/89.5 20,757/$30.0 f 43,677/�63.2
4,051/�5.9
4,127/�6.0
8,438/�12.2
7,190/�10.4
927/� 1.3
2,084/53.0
868/51.3
864/� 1.3
3,182/84.6
1.4
2,655/�3.8
3,617/85.2
17,526/�25.4
20,147/�29.2
26,296/�38.1
24,904/�36.0
t
1,147/�1.7
3,294/54.8
t
t
t
t
2,405/�3.5
2,402/E3.5
13,822/�20.0
�'
1'
t
530/�0.8
�'
t
4,466/�6.5
8,868/512.8
The savings for airfield improvements are in addition to the savings for PRM at all demand 1
for facilities and equipment and operational improvements are in ac�dition to the savings for
and Future 2. The savings benefits of these alternatives are not necessarily additive.
These improvements were not simulated. Therefore, no dollar figures are available. There is
each of these items in Section 2-Capacity Enhancement Alternatives.
38,741/$56.1
44,936/�65.0
56,548/$81.8
54,542/�78.9
2,340/�3.4
3,787/�5.5
3,486/�5.0
3,520/$5.1
45,834/�66.3
7,304/� 10.6
19,275/�27.9
The savings
at Future 1
description of
�
`Paullnternatzonal
y Enhancement `Plan
Recognizing the problems posed by conges- , Qne track focused on plannzng for the pro-
tion and delay within the National A.irspace posed developrnent oia new�airport. The other
System, the Federal Aviation Administration track focused on possible ways to improve the
(FAA), airport operatars, and aviation industry capacity of the current airpor`t an.d developed the
groups have initiated,Joint Airport Capacity Lon,g-Term Comprehensive Plan for Minne-
Design Teams at variaus major air carrier air- apalis-Saint Paul International Airport. The
ports throughout the U,S. Each CapacztyTeam Plan pravzdes a blueprint forjdevelagment
identifies and evaluates alternative means to en- thraugh the year 2020 and is�based on the as-
hance existing airport and airspace capacity to sumptian that MSF v�rill continue to be the
handle fizture demand, decrease delays, and inn- region's rr►ajor airport,� 1
prove airport efficiency and warks ta develop a Based on the results of tlie Long-Term
coordinated actian plan for reducing airport de- Comprehensive Plan, which was developed by
Iay. C3ver 30 Airpart Capacity Design Teams the Metropolitan Airport Commission, the MSP
have either cornpleted their studies or have work Capacity Team identified and assessed various
in progress. actions which, if implemented, would increase
The need for this program continues. Min- MSP's capacity, imprave operational efficiency,
neapolis-Saint Paul International .Airpart (MSP) and reduce aircraft delays. Tlie purpose of the
is one af the 23 air�orts that exceeded 20,004 grocess was to determine the�technical merits of
hours of annual aircraft delay in 1992 and, ac- each alternative action and its impact on capac-
cording to FAA forecasts, one of the 33 airports ity. Additianal studies will be� needed to assess
that could exceed 20,000 haurs o£ annual delay env%ronmental, socioeconomic, ar political issues
in 20Q2, if no improvements in capacity are associated with these actions.�
made. Steady growth at MSF has made it one of Selected alternatives iden#ified by the Ca-
the busiest airports in the country. Activity at pacityTeazn were tested uszng a computer
the airport has increased from 5,909,OOQ pas- model developed by the FAA �o quanrify the
senger enplanements zn 1983 to 11,377,873 in �enefits provided. Di£ferent levels of acrivity
1992, an increase of over 90 percent. In 1983, were chosen to represent growth in aircraft op-
the airport handled 300,35$ aircraft aperatians erations in order to connpaxe the merits of each
(takeoffs and landings), and, in 1992, 413,502 action. These annual activity levels are referred
aircraft operatians, an increase of 3$ percent. to throughout this report as: �
The results a£ separate studies conducted by • Baseline-420,394 operations;
the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the • Future 1-530,000 operations
Metropolitan Council have shown that addi- • Futuze 2-600,000 operations
tional airpart capacity will be needed in the fu- �
ture to meet the long-range aviatzan needs ai
the region. In response to these studies, the Figure 3, on the following page, shows the
Minnesota Legislature's Metropolitan Airport capacity and delay curves far MSP. These curves
Planning Act of 1989 established a dual-track were developed for the e3usting airport confxgu-
planning process designed to preserve the ration and for a future airport�configuration
region's m.ajor airport options for the future. �th the new north parallel Runway 11NI29N
;
l. The Lang-Term Camprehensive Pfan far MSP inctudes only a new'northlsauth Runway 17135 an the west side of
the airport in its configuratian for the year 2020. Development of a new Runway 1].N/29N or� 11S/29S would anly
accur if the northlsouth Runway 17135 were not possi6le.
r��
: �_. -----
c�l'linneapo
Figure 3
`Paullnternational
8nhancement `I'lu��
Airport Capacity Curves—Hourly Flow Rate Versus Average i elay
Vitual Fliaht Rules (vFR) Instrument Fliqht Rules (iFR)
�9 _..�i'.N`� �.i-y - ��^ 19
C 8 _�,:�5.�.,r� F�''.. .. . e. A,:�, -
.�
� 6 ..,� ..v�:.,r,•1k�K. .. � si.
N "�;�sy.:`.:.'H�':�";, , � .. . . .r o.. .
Q 5 r. e
� 4 ` ` :��. 5.,, -� _ . . •,, ;
CI a �'�t:i •. .. o. _ �""a''�"'SF
•�.. � �'�� ��+�.� :y�,-.1�' ' 9 'r:"� . . �•y n
� 3 �!}i., t���. ' . _ '_ . i3'.4'�zw�'+R
�
¢
2 :i '. '4 "'"`"c�= ' 1 V
i.#�iv:�2� {.t�'.'.i: .r��, '{.n:` ' fy.L. .7,3"ry'{_f�.ii°,%1is.
� ��I�'�4a�:.�i�.l�M'•� n,�' . a1iv�K`�e�'fii^1'
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Total Flow (a/c per hour)
— 60% Arr/40% Oep Baseline vFR
— 4096 Arr/60% Dep Baseline vFR
— 60% Arc/4096 Oep 11 N St 17 VFR
— 40% Arr/6096 Dep 11 N& 17 VFR
8
C �
�E
T 6
a S
O
p� 4
L
� 3
¢
2
1
0
Total Flow (a/c per hour)
I
— 60%Arr/4096 Dep Base�ine IFR
— 4096 Arr/6096 Dep Basei nC IFR
— 6045 Atr/4096 Dep 11 N+Si 7 7 1FR
— 40% Arr/60% Dep 11 N�& 171FR
Figure 4. Profile of Daily Demand—Hourly Distribution
-- ,�� .BaselineArtivals . �':.'��z;,2,���`
140 =�,>Baselin,'eDePartures:�,;�Ya;�;.�;'s�?�
— Baseline ToWI
720 — Future 1 Total
.. .�.. •.
� ,�,, � ' Future 2Total; ' - y;;�;�'' .��r�
p _ . ,.::':? ',, �;: ° .';i�+•5�s'pc
= 1 p� : • . . . _
ai
a
o$� _ •'� `J'
i, ` , y `.2:- 1, , f •Y:il �.
� 60 � ' -'
a
� 40 ..4 .
__ . . . .I �.� �i
0
og0000$gogg$$og$oo$$g$oo
O N M V� �/1 �C 1� 00 Q� O fV M ? �/1 �O n GO O� C N t+i
O O O O O O O O O O � .- � �.- '- � � � � N N N N
Time of Day
and the new north/south Runway 17/35 in
place. They show the airport under visual flight
rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR),
with a 60/40 and 40/60 split of arrivals and de-
partures. These curves show that, for the exist-
ing airport configuration under IFR, aircraft de-
lays will begin to escalate rapidly as hourly de-
�8�
5
mand exceeds 80 to 105 operations per hour.
Figure 4 shows that, while hourly demand ex-
ceeds 80 operations only during certain hours of
the day at Baseline demand levels, 105 opera-
tions per hour is frequently exceeded at the de-
mand levels forecast for Future 1, and Future 2.
,
int `Paul Xnternational
Figure 5, on the fallowin,g gage, shaws how
delay will continue to grow at a substantial rate
as demand increases if there are no improve-
xnents made in capacity, i.e., the Do Nothing
scenario. Annual delay cost will increase from
21,440 hours or $31.0 millian at the Baseline
level af aperations to 62,4Q3
lion by Future 1 and 137,92�
million by Fut-�zre 2.
Figure 5 also shows the c
ment alternatives that provid
cant delay-savings benefits.
Major Capacity Enhancement Alternatives
" ..�.+: , _ ., • ,
C::' : �
� ,..Alternatives - . . ` . • :.
• Precision Runway Monitor {pRM}
• New Runways 1�'/35 and 1].N/29N
• New Runways 11NI29N and 21S129S
• New Runway 11S/29S 1,000 feet
sauth of Runway 1.1R129L�
• New Runway 17/35 on west side af
airport, south of paraltel taxiways�
• New Runway 11N/29N 8Q0 £eet
north of Runway 111J29R�"
ity £nhancement `Plan
�ours ar $90.3 miI-
hours or $199.6
pacity enhance-
the most signifi-
�'r Annuai Delay Savings
`, Futare I • � Future 2
t Hours 1992 $ M Hours � 1992 S M
13,822 $20A
26,296 $38.1
24,904 �36.0
20,].47 $29.2
20,757 �30.Q
17,526 �25.4
45;834 �b6.3
,
56;548 �81.8
54,542 . $78.9
44,936 �65.0
�
43,677 �63,2
I
38,741 �56.1
�
Note: The annual delay savings far airfield impravement alternatives are in additian to the savings for
PRM at all demand levels. - �
�'. This is an alternative ta the new Runway 1�/35 in the Metropolitan �.irport Cammission's
Long-Term Camprehensive Plan far MSP, if Runway 27135 cannot bE constructed.
$. This is the prefered option identified in the Metropolitan .Airpart Cornmission's Long-Term
Comprehensive Plan.
�9�
`Paullnternational
Figure 6 illustrates the average delay in min-
utes per aircraft operation for these same alter-
natives. Under the Do Nothing alternative, if
there are no improvements made in airfield ca-
pacity, the average delay per operation of 3.1
minutes at the Baseline level of activity will in-
crease to 7.1 minutes per operation by Future 1
and 13.8 minutes per operation by Future 2.
Figure S. Annual Delay Costs—
Capacity Enhancement
Alternatives
Baseline Future 1 Future 2
140 s200
•••• Do Nothing •
130 — Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)
— New North Parallei Rwy 11N/29N 5180
120 — New North/South Rwy 17/35
— New South Parallet Rwy 115/29S
5160
110 — New Rwys 11 N/29N and 11 S/29S
New Rwys 17/35 and 11 N/29N
1 � 1140
� 90
� � S�Z� C
s gp -
0
O
0
A 70
m
v
0
R 60
�
C
C
Q 50
40
30
zo
�o
froJ
0
.�
5100 m
a
�
m
p �
SY� �'
Q
S60
S40
-�r, , �T� � � �-{- SO
420 440 460 480 500 520 540' S60 580 600
Annual Demand (000 operations)
ity 8nhancement `Plan
Figure 7, on the following page, illustrates
the annual delay-savings benefi�s for each of the
improvement alternatives modeled at each of
the three activity levels (operations per year). It
serves to highlight the alternatives that will pro-
vide the greatest savings in delay costs.
Figure 6. Average Delay's—
Capacity Enhancement
Alternatives �
Baseline Future 1 i Future 2
15 I 15
•••• Do Nothing •
14 — Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) 14
— New North Parallel Rwy 11 N/29N
13 — New North/South Rwy 17/35 � 13
!
— New South Parailel Rwy 11 S/29S
12 -- New Rwys 11N/29N and 11S%29S �Z
I
New Rwys 17/35 and 11 N/29N
11 11
.�.
10 10
N
�
c 9 9
.�
v
� 8 8
0
� 7 t• 7
R
L
d
Q
6 6
S 5
4 . , 4
3�' / /•i� !%" I-3
z��-��~ I I-z
i . . ' i
420 �d0 460 480 500 520 540i 560 580 600
Annual Demand (000 operations)
r
c�linneapol�
Figure 7.
f�0
�Paullnternational cRi.
Annual Delay-Savings Benefits—
Capacity Enhancement Alternatives
��
�
�1S
1�,��''�,'� � ,
�t�0'"�pa� P���ar� �,d�� ��1PI�' fv� �l�t
�' r�''��+ ��s�� P� rv�� ��� �,>>�`�' �o������ �ft aft
� �t1 �1�111�°�,. R��1�1��yna�'- ��5�''�N�
� R� R�cate � a�e S0�'
R�
420,39p
Major Capacity Enhancement Alternatives
• Precision Runway Monitor (PRM)
• New Runways 17/35 and 11N/29N
• New Runways 11N/29N and 11S/29S
• New Runway 11S/29S 1,000 feet south of Runway 11R/29Lt
• New Runway 17/35 on west side of airport, south of parallel taxiways$
• New Runway 11N/29N 800 feet north of Runway 11L/29Rt
5
�'. This is an alternative to the new Runway 17/35 in the Metropolitan Airport Commission's �
Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP, if Runway 17/35 cannot b� constructed.
$. This is the prefered option identified in the Metropolitan Airport Commission's Long-Term �
Comprehensive Plan. �
r Enhancement �Plan
S9p
S80 h
c
0
S70 =
F
S60 �
v
S50 �
C
�
S40 C1
C
S30 y
a
szo �
�o
�
sio N
W
SO
600,OOp
.a
�00 �
�
rrr�
�Vlinneapalis �aint `Paullnternationalcfl'irjrari (,'apacsty tnhancement �Plarr
. - :
Capacity Enhancement Alternatives Studied and Recommended Actions
Atternatives
Airfield Improvements
1. New N1S Runway 17135 an west side
of airport, sauth of parallel runways
2. New Runway IIN1291�t 800 feet
north af Runway 111./2912
3. New Runway 11S129S 1,00Q feet south
of Runway 11R/29L with threshold
staggered 3,000 feet ta rhe west
4. New Runways 17135 and 11N129N
(combines improvements 1 and 2)
5. New Runways IiNI29N and I1SI29S
(combines irnprovements 2 and 3)
b. Extend Runway 4122 2,750 feet Lo southwest
with Taxiways C, D, and M and a queuing taxiway
7. New fvtl-Iength para.11ei ta7tiiway 600 feet
south af Runway 11R/29L
8. Dual crossaver taxiways beiween
Runways 1].L/29R and 11R/29L
9. Departure sequencing pads an
Runways 29R,11L, and I1R
10. Additional eacits on Runways 12Rl29L and 11L/29R
11. Additional eacits on Runway 4122
12. Airczaft hold areas (penalty boxes�
Facilities and
13.
14.
I5.
ib.
17.
18.
19.
CAT I ILS approach lights an Runway 29R
CAT II/III ILS on Runway 29R with RVR
CAT TT/III ILS on Runways 11L and IlR with RVR
Precision Runway Monitor {PRM)
Doppler VOR installed at MSP
Runway centerline and touchdown zone
lights for Runway 4/22
RVR far Runway 4/22
nts
Action
Recammended
Alxernative to
Airfield Improvement 1
.Alternative ta
Airfield Improvement 1
Recommended
Aiternative to
Airfield Improvennent 4
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Further Study
Further Study
Further Study
Recornmended
Recannmended
Recomrnended
Recommended
Time Fr,ame
Future 1
Futuri 1
Futuz� 1
Future 2
Futur'e 2
�
$aseiine
I
Baseline
1
Baseline
I
Baseline
+
Baseline
�
Baseline
:
20. Reduce in-trait separations to 2.5 nm Recomnnended Basei ne
for like classes of aircraft in IFR
21. Converging IFR approaches Recommended Future 1
22, FMS transitians to existing apprpaches . Recommended Futu're 1
23. Cantinue enliancement of zeliever airparts Recommended Base}line
Note: "Study suggests that a specific study be conducted ar that it become part of a lazger pla { ning effart, such
as a Master Plan Update or a FAR Part 150 .Airport Noise Compatibility Study. These individual proposals
require further investigatian at a level af detail that is beyond t13e scage o£ this effort. �
�zol
r
�.
c�
�Paullnternational
Airfield Improvements
1. New north/south
Runway 1.7/35 on west
side of airport, south of
parallel runways.
Estimated Savings in Delay
�'" "��;
:.rDemand . Baseline i Future 1 >Futtire2, ,
:=.�;�Hts 6,534 20,757 43,677
:. �....
"=;> �'SM � t9.5 830.0 863.2
2. New Runway 11 N/29N 800
feet north of Runway 11 L/29R.
Estimated Savings in Delay
"'Demand Baseline Future 1 Future 2
-= Hrs � 4,051 17,526 38,741
$M �5.9 . �25.4 �56.1
(221
`Plan
The new north/south Runway 17/35i would be used
primarily for departures to the south and arrivals to the
north. In both cases, the new runway wo�uld supple-
ment the existing capacity of the parallel Runways
11R/29L and 11L/29R since they can be � perated inde-
pendendy of the new runway under most visual flight
rules (VFR) conditions and some instrument flight rules
(IFR) conditions. I
During peak departure periods in a north flow traf-
fic condition, the new runway would be used for arrivals
from the south, thus allowing intensive use of the paral-
lel Runways 29R and 29L for departures � During an ar-
rival peak with a north flow of traffic, the new runway
would again be used for arrivals along with Runways
29R and 29L. The limited number of departures that
occur during an arrival peak would use the parallel run-
ways. J
During departure peaks in south flow conditions,
the new runway would be used for departures, in con-
juncrion with departures on Runways 11L and 11R,
with arrivals also occurring on Runways 11L and 11R.
During azrival peaks in south flow, the new runway
would handle all departures, freeing up all of the capac-
ity of the parallel runways for arrivals. �
Estimated 1992 project cost is $116 million.
Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would
be 6,534 hours or �9.5 million; at Future 1, 20,757
hours or $30.0 million; and, at Future 2�activity levels,
43,677 hours or $63.2 million. i
Constructing a new parallel northwest/southeast
runway, Runway 11N/29N, 800 feet north of Runway
11L/29R would provide for an additional independent
parallel arrival and departure stream under VFR. Parallel
runways separated by distances of less than 2,500 feet
are considered dependent under IFR. Urider IFR, these
two runways must be treated as a single runway for ar-
rivals and departures. However, the ability to segregate
arrivals and depar�aires to two runways does provide
some capacity benefit for dependent par�allel runways.
A ` c%Vlinneapolis Saint `Paullnterna[ional c.4�irport ('apacity Enhancement �Plan
3. New Runway 11 S/29S 1,000
feet south of Runway 71 R/29L
with threshold staggered
3,000 feet to the west.
Estimated Savings in Delay
�. � , :. u
��Demand `Baseliner'� :Futui�el:�; =`.'Fiiture��;��
X�: V"
3t.;��i:s •„;w " 4,127 20,147 f 44,936
;�=':�*$M �� 56.0 829.2 865.0
4. New Runways 17/35 and
11 N/29N.
(combines alternatives 1 and 2)
Estimated Savings in Delay
"':Demand Baseline�: ".Futu"rel� Future2�"
::� ��Hts `:i�e� 8,438 26,296 56,548
=�r�;�1,VI;::�: Y12.2 838.1 $81.8
5. New Runways 11 N/29N and
11 S/29S.
(combines alternatives 2 and 3)
Estimated Savings in Delay
�r;D "emand Basel'uie ;. �. Futuie 1 Future 2�»
»;;;�'Hrs , ` 7,190. 24,904 . 54,542 '
{• . r
�,���$M • �10.4 i36.0 �78.9
Estimated 1992 project cost is $191 million.
Annual savings at the Baseline a� tivity level would
be 4,051 hours or $5.9 million; at Future 1, 17,526
hours or $25.4 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels,
38,741 hours or $56.1 million.
Constructing a new dependent parallel Runway
11S/29S 1,000 feet south of the existing Runway
11R/29L would provide for an additional independent
parallel stream for arrivals and departures under VFR.
Under IFR, these runways would be dependent since
they are separated by less than 2,500� feet. However, the
ability to segregate arrivals and departures to two run-
ways does provide some capacity beriefit for dependent
parallel runways. The 3,000 foot stagger between the
thresholds of Runways 11S/29S and 11R/29L may cre-
ate wake vortex avoidance problems for some aircraft.
�
Estimated 1992 project cost is $82 million.
Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would
be 4,127 hours or $6.0 million; at Future 1, 20,147
hours or $29.2 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels,
44,936 hours or $65.0 million.
Estimated 1992 total project cost is $307 million.
Annual savings at the Baseline aetivity level would
be 8,438 hours or $12.2 million; at Future 1, 26,296
hours or $38.1 million; and, at Future 2 activity levels,
56,548 hours or $81.8 million.
Estimated 1992 total project cost is $273 million.
Annual savings at the Baseline activity level would
be 7,190 hours or $10.4 million; at
hours or $36.0 million; and, at Futi
54,542 hours or $78.9 million.
ture 1, 24,904
2 activity levels,
� �23�
♦ { ' ,�,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
i ��
February 4, 1�
T0: Airport Relations Commission M ers
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administra
SUBJ£CT: Discuss Noise Abatement Takeoff Procedurea
Circular 91-53A
DISCIISSION
i94
FAA Advisory
The Commission has in the past discussed the important role
aircraft departure profiles play in the mitigation of noise
impacts. Clearly an aircraft at a higher altitude will cause less
noise than one at a lower altitude. The "profile" �or vertical
track an aircraft follows as it departs is therefore of particular
concern to us. I
Recently the FAA issued an Advisory Circular on the aubj ect of
Noise Abatement Profiles. A copy of the Circular is attached for
your review. The information in the circular has�yet to be
i.mplemented at MSP but probably will be in the near future. The
MASAC organization'was scheduled to receive a presenta�tion on the
subject at its last meeting, but due to illness, the presentation
has been rescheduled for later this month. �
Also attached, please find a copy of a letter sent to the FAA
by Mr. Charles Price, Executive Director of NOISE, relative to this
topic. Mr. Price does an excellent job removing theI,FAA veneer
which is evident in the Circular. The new procedures will severely
limit the authority of individual airports to negotiate the most
unique and effective noise abatement profiles for their local
conditions. Other onerous aspects of the Circular are'detailed in
Mr. Price's letter and will not be belabored here. �
I have asked Councilmember Jill Smith, the City's MASAC
representative, to keep me informed as the implementation of the
Circular is addressed as MSP. The Commis�ion Members will be kept
up to date as this issue progresses.
::�; I�f,:�:
�
�.
�
U.3. Dtpartmant
ot Tr�r�ortaVc�
Flyd+�ral AYEafion
�dt»Ittt�trat(ot1
Subj�d: NCiSE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE
PROPILES
Advls+�r
Y
�i rcu I�r
� •
Data: 7J2�193 AC No: 9t-53A
lniti8ted by; AFS-44Q
�
!. PiJRPQSE. 'i'his �tdvisory circvlar tAC} descz�bes s�cc�gtabie cdterle fvr safc �+ois�e abatemcnt dopamue
pmfilcs tNA�DP} for snbsonfc tiurbojet-powercd �irpian�s with a maximum certi$catcd gcoss takwff weight
of mot+e thah 75.000 paunds. 'Pttcse procedw�es provide the uscr wich on+c moaris. nithou,gx► aot 'tl�e �nly
meuts. of establashit�g scceptable NADP's. 'i3iese departur� pr�$les a� cansisteni with the �irworE%itiess
st�ancla�+ds raquired by t� Fodcca! Aviadan Regutations {FAR's) PaR 25 for type c�n3ficaxion aUd FAR Part 92
for general airplane oper�tiona. This AC eIso prnvidcs a technic�t anslysis �nd descrigdoA of typicat depatt��
prnfilcs that aze consistent vrith the Federai Avlation Adiuinistraiion's {FAA's) �a,fety r�sponsibiiities sad
haYe the potential w minimtu the a3ipla�ac noise impact on commwudGs surroua+�ir�g airpozis. ,
�. CANCELLATIQN. AC 41-53. Noise Abaument Dcpartarc ptuPile, datat C1ct�ber i�� 1S?7$� is c�aztcelcd.
3. RELATED READING MATERIAL.
a FAR F'�rts 25, 91.12I,125,129, and 135.
b. U.S. Deparwent af Trarrsgonation, Federa2 Aviation Administcadvn E��rironmenc�al Assessment for
AC 91-53A. Cogias may bc ob�iaed fivm the Offtce of Envir+onrnent anQ Enetgy, FAA. 84(3 Independeace
hvcxtue SVi�.. washingtan. DC 2t�59i.
c. FAA Analysis af Noise Abaumen# Ikparture Pnncedurts for Large 7tiuriaojet Airplanes. Copies may
be obtain.eci fmm the Office af Enviranment anci Encrgy. FAA. 804 Independence Avet�ue SW,, 'Washingt�n,
I?C 24591.
d County of Orange, California, Eavironmenta�i Impact Rcpan �546. Copies may bc obta�z�ed fivm
Cvunty uf Qcange, Environ�menral Management Ageacy, 12 Civ�c Center Plaia, P.d. BoX 4048. Santa Ana,
CA 92�Oi-�40�48. .
4. BACKGRt�UNL1.
a For severat years. the FAA has worked to devetop and standardizc profiies to minimize airplane
noise. As part of that commitment, thc FAA has worked with airp�art managers, airplane operuors� pilots.
special interest graups. and Feder�I, State, a�ui loeal agencies in numemus pmgcams for evaivating roise
levels im the ai�port environment. 'Ii�e res�earch cansidered a variety of depara�re iTight vacks and pmfites.
b. From an environmontat sc�ndpoint. avpiding noise serrsi�ve areas by using preferenaal r�oise abateme�nt
runways and fTight tradcs whenever possible can effectively supglcment a+rAmpr�hcnsive noise abatement
program. The FA.A believes thaz using the two NAI?P's described in this AC for subsonic tnrt�o,jet powcted
airplanes can pmvide envirr�nmentai benefits to the airport communides. The profiles outline acceptable critena
far sgeed, thnist settings, and airplane configurations used in connection with NADP's. These NADP's can
be combiried with preferential n+nway selection and flightpath techniqu�s w mirumize noise impact
�r
AC 91.S3A
7122/93 �
_......_.�.
� FA�► nviews of variaus aifpiane, verticai NADp's ttdicate t�at some inuicate NADP's i�av� been
developod on ati sirport spectfic bassis. "The managecaent af these intricau profilcs could; campromisC tt�
pilot'g atten►tton w interior fl�ght deck details, aaffic avoidstt�. attd oi�tter safcty responsibiHtl�.
3. DEFIMTIUNS.
a� NMP. Nafse abitttsment de,�araue pm�e. �
b. C&1t+�-�Gt Con�urett�tfQ► N,�lI?P';, N1►DP'a for trWividuat alcplaac types intended �W pm��de naise
ted�ct%n far ncisc sensitive �eea�s 2ocar�ed in ciose praxlmiry to the depar[urc ct�d of an` �irport xuaway.
t t?ismat Comm�uiti V�1DP's. NADP'a for Utdividuat airplauo typcs intendcd W prot�+i'de lloiso ce�iu�-
tion for atl otiseer noise sensluve a�aa.
d AFB. Above fieid elevation.
• � .
6. NADP': Aocepteble cr�tetla htive beea �stsbli.shod for two types of NADP's fot za�Ch $irptatx Lype,
as dtflned fvr uac by each aitpiat�c opeta�ar.'fhese +dapart�u'e profUCS �uC appl3Cabte t0 81t types of subsonic
�airbajat-pawete�i �irpl�es tw+ar TS.t100 pounds gzvss tskeaff wcight, ?he two cyp�s 4f NADP's �ne dx "close-
in,• a�d ••dtstant•, pmflles as descxibed betow.
a, Clare-� NADP. �
{t) taio� tbrust c�tbadc st aa. aldwde o! no kss ti�en 800 fact hFE and prior;W inicla�tion of
ilaps ot sl,am teuaction
r
(2i The thn�t +wtbsdc may be m�de by manual thmttle raduction ar by apPprovcd automazic mea�is.
Tb�c auwmaiic m+csas may be uzned prioT to taictaff for wtback at or above 8d8 fr.�t AFE oc may be �
pilot initiazul �t or �bovc 800 feet AFE. �
{3} Frn airplaaes wltbout an vpora�ional automatic tt�rrust rrstaration syst�m, achieve ar�d maiinta�xt
no tesss than ttre khzust l�vel ncckssazy aRer duust �uc�on ta maiatairt, far the flaps/slazs configurazion
of thc ais�sia�rre, the ta�reoff p�th m,gine-incf�xrative climb gadients specified in F,AR Section ZS.111(cx3}
in the evetrt of a� engine fai%irG. i
(4j For ai�plarscs with an operadonai auwmatt� tiuust restocatian system, achieve aad ma�inrain no
less than t�e rhrust levcl n�ecessary af%er ttwst reductioa w maintain, for ihe flaps,/stats coufiguratioa of
the airplaae. a take�ff p$th angu�e-inoperaHve climb gtadient of uro per+cent, provided ti�at � the aub�mstic
thiust m.s�oration sy�um wiIl, at a miRimwan, rGstore sufficiem � tn maintaic� the cakeoff path eugine-
inoperativ� climb gr�ients specifidd 3a FAR Section 25.111(c}(3) in thc event of an engi�e failu,r+e.
(S3 DsuanB rb�e tl�uust xeductian, coa�lin�ta the gitct�over rau and Ltwst rtduc�iron La ptovide a
ckereasz in pitcl� coc�istent wzth �ttawing indicat,e.d aiispeed to decay to no more than S iayots below the
all-engine target climb � and, in no case ta lcss ti�an '�� for ttic sitglaz�c canBguradoa For a,uwmatai
tiuvule &y�tems, aca�p�able a�ad tnte�nces cati 'be found in AC 23-IS. Approval c�f Fligiuf Macr�g�mer�t
sys� �.�s�ncc�g+�y a�►�- �
t6i Ma#�uain tiye speed and thxttst criteria as describect in subpar'agxaPh 6 a(3) throuPh b�i5) o�
3,U00 feet AFE ot �bt�ve. or untii the airpiane has been fuily transiqoned to the en rout� climb'cvnfigur�uion
(wluchever occurs firsE). then transitian Go nOtmal e[� tr�tzte climb pmcedures.
b. Dl,f�rnt NADP. • .
�
{I) 1nit3a�c Ilaps/�iats retractlon pdor w tiuusc cutb�ch initiada4�. Thrust cutba�ck is inisiatcd at an.
$�titucie na tess ttu�n 8t�0 feet AFE. � ,
. ,,;,�.
1 `
.
i%22/93 AC 92-S3A
1': f
(2) Thc thrust cu[ba.ck may be made hy manua! thr�aNe redetcuiQn or by apgroved aotamaiic mcans.
The automatic means may be armed grior to takeoff for cutback at nr abt�vc 800 faet AFE or may be
pitot inidated at ar above 800 feet AFE.
(3) For airpl�nnes wirhout ar� aperatianai automatic tlu�st testaraLion systcm. achieve and maint�ir�
no less than the thr�ust tevoi necessary after thn�st reducdon to mairntain, for the ftaps/s1a1,5 sonflgut'alian
af th� airplane, the takeoff path cngine-inaperatiYe ctimb gradients speclfled in FAR Se�tion 25.311(c}(3}
in ti�e event of an engint faileue.
t4) For aiiplanes with an oper8#ional autom�t�c ttwst ccstoradan syst�m. achieve sr�d maintain rw
tess than the tiuust levei neccssary a�ter #iuust reductiost to maintain. for chc flapslslats conflguration of
the airplane� a takeolf path englne•tnoperadve climb grd►dient of zeno pctcent, pivvided thaz the automatic
ttwst �swration sys�em will, at a minimum. restare sufflcient tiu�ust to maincain thc taicevfi path en,gir�e-
it�ape:atiYc cllmb gradients specifled in FAR Section 25.11 t(c}(3} in the event of an engine failure.
{S) During the thrust reduction. coordinate the pitchover rate and thrust t�duction to provide a
decrease in gitch consistent with allowing indicated ait�sp�eed ta decay to no mote than 5 icnots bcic�w the
atI-cnginc targct cIimb speed and, in n4 case to less than V2 far thc aicptane configurasion. For auwmaicd
thrattle systems, acceptable speed tQlerat�ees can t�e fc�wtd in AC 25-15. Approval of Fiight Managemeat
Systems �tt Transport Categozy Airp�anes.
(6} Mai�c�in the speed and rhrust critcsia as described in subpaaagraph 6b(3} throu,gh 6 b(5) to
3�UOp feet AFE or above, ar unti2 the airptane has been fulty cransitior�ui ta the en route clunb configuration
(whichever occu�rs first}, then transition ta notmal en rc�ute climb pmcedures.
��� ?. OPERATiONAL GUID�LINFS. '
a Esach airplane aperator may a�ply thc proccdures specified in this AC ta dctermine the foliowitig
for each of irs airpiane types:
�
(1} Clasc-in commwuty NADF.
(2} Distarit Commwnity NADP.
b, Far each NADP, the airpIane o�erator should specify 1he altitude AFE at which rh�st reductian
from takcoff thrust ar airplane cc�nft�uration change, exciuding gear retraction. ic �nitiated.
e. Each alrplane operatcn shouid limit the number of NADP's fot any airPlane type tcs no more thari
two. .
� Each airplaz�e a�erator is encouragcd m use thc appropriate NADP when an airpan operator reyuests
its use tp abate noise for either a close-in ar dlstant community.
e. This AC shouid not t�e consxrued to affect the tes�nsibiiiucs and authority of rhe pilot in comma�xi
for the safe operation of the airplane,
f
ony J. B erick
Assaciatc Administcator for Regotation and Cenification
Per 6 ,�
��
N()ISE National Cfrganizatzon tu Insc�re a
Env�ronment
1225 Eye Strset • 1Y.W. • Suit� 3D0 • yi'ash�ngton, AC 2lIQaS • Z02/682-9386
Sepuml�r 14, 1992
Federel Aviadon Adaiinistration
Atm: Technicat Progrems Divisit�a
APS-40Q
8a0 IndependencG Avenvt, S.W.
Washington, D.C. ?A591
� : 1
This laoer of comment on the proposed Advisory Cicculaz 91-S3A, Noise Abatern�nt
Departure Profiles, is submiaad in respanse w the Fedcsal Aviadon Adnvnistration request
for cornment puhiishad in thc August 7, 1992 FGdcml Registcr. �
lt is submiaed on behalf of tha Board of Directiors and Trust�es of the Naaonal �
Organlzadon to Insure a Soand-Controlled Environment (NQISE), �n association of lacat
gOYC2Tii2'i�r1tS 1iri�acted by a,irpOrt noisC, I+tUISE is a member af FAA's Aviation �
Rultm�lang Advisory Committce (ARAC) and of ARAC's Air Cairicr Operauan$
Subcommictee, In the latter capac�ry N(?ISE was a1�o a mernber of tbc: Noise Ab�en2ent
Working Cmaup which devcIoped chc pro�sed AC and af the Noise Assessment Working
Group which evaluatad its Iikely impacts. �
Co�seqaently we bring w aur cammencs a well-informed view crf the dcv�Iopment of the
AC. We also clearly undetstand its intended �ffect (as oppt►sed to its stated pnrpose},
which is to prohibit the lc�w•�tittldS pOw�T Ct2tb�CkS i�ui� fOT nOi� 21b�tem�ttt �urpOS�S
at John Wayn� AirpArt in Orange Cc�unty, CA which FAA previousiy approved but now no
longer considers co be a safe procedure. �
Safety is, of course, the pre-eminent concern. In a1) deliberations relati�tg to this ma«er,
NOISE has consistently maintained shat safety should never be compromised. No noise-
abatement measare, regardiess af how wel2-intended, shouid be pemuu�d to degrade flight
safety. Hawever, ta a grcat extent the c�t��stion of safery is a technical on�, and in, thc:
deliberations of the two warkirtg groups N(JISE ha+d little chc�ice but ta defer tc� the
represencarions macie about safe�y hy tlic s�ecialis�i from FAA and the Air Line Pilots
Associarion {ALPA�. �
�
Neverthcicss, w� confess that we have remained somewhat equivocal abottt these �
representadans be�ause we knew that the Jahn Wayne pra;edures now declared unsafe had
ance been pronounced safe by FAA. Nor did we ever hear a canvincing reason why FAA
had rev�rseci itsetf an this question. The aneccic�tal answer was that former Administratc�r
Bus�y had been riding in a plane that executet� che procedure, arbitrarify declared ii unsafe,
and insisted thac ic be temunaced. �
ALPA representatives have insisteci from the aut�et that the procedure was risky and should
be abancioned. Their verbal ar�uments in suprarc of this posi�ican are quite persuasive, but
tt�ey liave offered licde abjective cvidencc to suppc�rt it. On the ath�r hand, they have been
quite outspoken in theu des�re to prevent aitp�rt-specific departure proceciures for naise-
�
�
I
�
-.
abatement putposas, such as those at John Wayne Airpon, fmrn being imposcd on airlin�s
at other airpozts in the country.
It was to avoid chis so-called "proliferacion af nartstandard airpvrt-specific departure
pmcedures" for noise-abatcment purpc�scs that ALPA advocated cxpanding the prvposed
ban on specialized procedur�s to cvery airport in the iJ.S. It has alw�ys seemed to N(?ISE
that if there was a n�ed to eliminate low-altitudepawcr cutbacks at a given airpcsrt for
tea�ns of safety, this did nat necessariiy mean that there was also a need to prohibit all
noise abatcment depanure procedures evcrywhere,
Noise abateamenc departare prroccedures have always been among the taals available for use
by airpartfi tc� help minimize the impact of air oper�.dons on surraunding t�csidential
communiriec_ '�'hey have long been recognizui as useful noise-abatcrnent measur�s by
FAA and the cansulring cornm�anity engaged in hclping airpotts do m�.ster planning and
FAR Part l SU planning. it did not seem wise �a us to el�minate thcm without maldng a
reasonahly accwrate deternunation that such action w�s in fact n�ccssary for reason� of
flight safety. We cantinued to believe this even aftcr being assured by airlinc;
r+epresentatives serving �n the Noise Assessn�ent Working Group that onty a very few
airports - perhaps as few as two or thrc�� - actually employ such proccdures (Na dat�.
abst�lutely verifying this assurdnce 13as ever hecn made available, however}.
Certa�inly Nt3ISE, while serving as a mcmber oi" che working graups, dic! not want tcr be a
pazty tc� removxng fmm use a naise-abatement ta�l that had laeen traditic�nally availat�fe to
aur rnember ec�mmunities, unless coitt}�etlirtg safety considerations required �t. Nt�r was
our c+�nfidence in ,ALPA's intentions improved by h�aring their spokespersons sug�est in
variaus formal and inf�rmal settin�s that the safety arguencnt miglit alsr, �e useful in
eliminatin� preferen�i�1 flight tracks, curfews, ai�d c�ther mc�snres airports rety an to abate
aircr�ft noise.
N4ISE coutd nat help but be concerned that it was the inconvenienc;e, c�ot the safety, of
noisc�-abateFnent mea.sures that trot�b3ed the pilots. ff the safety argument were t� he used
as a"cover" to knock off a"hit iist" of noise-abatement measures pilc�ts consid�red
incvnveiiicnt or annecessary, NUISE co«ld hardly be ex�ected cheerfi�lly eo acc���iescc i�r
che process.
Notwithstandin� these concerns, NQISE in che end w�s forced t� hc�w to exper[ opinian
and accepc the safety �rgument put fonit by AI.PA and FAA. But we did n�t the�i, and we
do not now, belicve t,�at any policy �ffe�ting every air c;arrier airpnrt in the counuy shouid
be im�temented wit��out comprehensive testing nf i�s likely naise, enviro��mental, �nd
operddan�l impacts - unless the ciac�ger of permitting tlie exis�ing prcx.edures tc? cai2tinue is
:sc� s�vere ttrdt they c�ught ta be terminated immediatcly in ordc;r tq protect imperiIcci Iife and
�roperty. FAA has never cate�oricaliy scated that the hazardti assc►ciatai wit1� noise
abatement departure proc:edt�r�s are so great. If chey are no�, thet3 NQIS� does ncx
nndcrstand the ur�ency FAA �ems to feel about implemcnting th� prUPosed �C without
compFehensiwe testing.
We conccde that a cescing pragram is currently n�der way at John Wayne Air�on and that
FAA has commissior�ed its own compi�ter analysis of the "standardia.ed" prcx:�dures the
pmposed AC would establish. Yet ncither oP these initiatives - n�r even ttic twc, af them i►z
cambinacion -�re the �uivalcnt c�f cornprehensive testing.
By comprehensive testing, we mean a systematic pracecs by which the proposed new
system is implemented at randamiy-selected major ur�arts thrcaugh�ut tt�c cat�nrry,
2
��
involving all affxted aur,rr�fc types, far a periad af timc sufficient co yield resuTts that may
ba meaningfully evaluatui and campared. �
By conttast, che John Wayne tests involve only $tage 3 cquipment (Stage 2 pianes are
hanned there} operating in a very unique environment whare me�ch of the dcpar[ure flight
psth is ovet water. The final rtsulcs of tl�,is partial t�sting pra,gtam wiu not be availahle
unril next Deccmber, yet FAA, has resolvod ro pr+occad with implementarian of the AC
hefore t2te findings af the Jahn Wayne demansiratian can be disseminated. Consequendy
the public is being asked to carnmenc on the proposui AC without the bencfit of any
omgirical data at a�l on its nQi:se impac{s. This is hazdly a si�uanon canducivc ta informed
cammon�. j
1
It is true that FAA, consuitaincs heve prcpared a draft neport summarizing the findings of a
c,amguteriud noisc impact anatysis of the dcpa,rt�ut: grofites. 'Ii�is document wilt be
avaiiable to the public during the camment petiod But thc Federal Register natica dxs not
say when the final reporc - exp�cted co conca�n revisions based on FAA revicw� � weli as
an additional nvise sensirivity analysis • will k�c released. If it is nat available dtlring the
commcnt period, the ftnat re�rt will af caurse be useIess fc�r purp�ses of public input.
Thc draft r�p�n is said to document a ec�n�pu�ation�I analysis of the praposed pr+
relativ� to rhe bascline pmfiles in FA�'s Integrateri Naise Maiel (INM}, which ;
"re#Iect rhe eurrent acruai pmf ies flown by m�sc air e<uriers." On the conu�a�y, +
deliberaaans of the Noise Assessment Working Groug, it was lcarned that most
not in fact fly the baseline procedures ponrdyed in the Il'1M.
��
Obviousiy, if the INM does not accurately disglay existing noise patterns, it cart h�trdly be
relied on to predict the naise impact� of pc}tential ch�nges ta c�rertt practice. i�t4iSE has
maintaix�ed since the c�nvcning af the fir�t Noise Abatement Workin� Group thar
computerized analysis of the noise itnpacts of the proposed AC would be insafficiern. This
fundamencal flaw in the INM shc�ws why. �
The attempt by FAA to solve a problem ac a singte airpart by invendng and irnposing a so-
calted "standardized" set of noise-aba�ement profiles c►n every airpc�rt in the c;ountry str'tkes
NOISE as ludicmus. Rather than admit ic may have made a mistake in approving the iow-
altitude power cutback at John Wayne Airpart, FAA has instead Iaunched an elaborate,
costly fifteen-month process invc,lving two warking graups consuming unt+�Id haurs of the
grQfessional dme of agency staff, representatives af the air carrier and airframe �
manufacturing industry, officials c�f variotis interest groups, and consulcancs, not t�
mention computer time, travel c:�sts, and the consumptian af other adaunistrative iesour�:es
in both the public and private rectan. The c�utcame of ail this toil is a new operatianal
policy pmg�setl to be impiemented nationwide, whose impacts na one can predict with any
canfidence at all. This is the ec�uivalent +�f tasing nuclear wcapc�ns to kill a mQsqe�i�o.
Because of this ridiculously overblown appmach, members of the twa warking groups
were forced ca take seriousty the statui purpase of the AC and ga�ple with its fendishly
complex array of poteaaal implicatians. Partici�ants sgent couniless h�urs dchatin� sach
mind-i3ending issues as the follawing: �
- If each cazrier cauld ehaose be[ween the c2ase-in and discant procedure for each ainraft
type on each runway at a given airpor�, and if each carrier was free to choose differently,
didn't this mean that in the name af tir carrier standardiZ�don ;�,n airport cauid bc: �
confronted with a hash of inconsistent takeaff profiles - iranically intposing ot1 the airpt�rt
the proliferadon of nanstandatd �rpcedures the pilots wantc:ci ca avoid nacic�na]ty? �
Wouldn't this be an aperatioaal ntghunare'? j
- If' an AC is advis�or�+ in nature, how can it mandate standaniited depsutare pz�afiles
nadonwide7 Tsn'c this a rulemaking by anothor name? Why not mandate the pmfiles by
mea�ns of a nile in the Federal Ragistcr? Or is ihe AC iaeing us�ed as a vehicl� to avoid the
mare rigoraus environmemal and pubiic-cammenc raqairements associaced with a
rulemaking? (In the end, FAA legal counsel rukcl that an AC, in fact, could not be
mandatory. Accardingly, a convotuced procedure wus deuised whereby a carrier dasiring
to depazt &am the suggested profiics in the AC would havc ro get spproval fram FAA. I�
was mutually andersccxyd that such appnovals wauld not bs graated.)
- If implementing rhe ncwgolicy meant chan,ging ta�kevff patterns at a!I the nadon's
airpc�rts, what did this imply abauc changes in noisc im cts on the ground? Logic
atrpc
suggests that each airpart generates a cenain amaunt o nct noise, and that chang�ag rhe
takeoff patterns would sirttply causc shifts in the tocation of that given quantit� of noise,
As a result, neighborhoods once free of noise would begin ta be impacttd while other5,
accustnmed ta noise, might bt freed of it�
NOISE azguec3 that arty change in accuscr�med pacterns of noise exposure would cause a
public outery from newiy-impact�d citizens which airports, carriers, and FAA would have
to be prepared to answcr. In the absence of camprehensive noisc tescii�g, there wa,s no way
of predicting whac the aoise impacts would be.
- What proccdures are the cartiers actually flying today, and what would be the effect of the
praposed AC on thase prc�cedures? This pmved to be a harder qaestiou io artswer tttan 4ne
might expect, since airports do noc gener�ily irnow for sure what procedures cazriers are
flying, the INM d� not portray them �ccurately. and no sin�te source of inFonna.tion
abouc existing prvicedures seems t� exist. Eventually the Chairman c�f the Noise
Assessment Working Groap collec:ted this intelligence from sorne of the rnajor carriers.
Computer analysis saggested thac therc; was relativeIy litde difference beeweeri the
pra;�dur�s carriers are currendy flyin� and the procedures in the propos�d AC. The
Chainnan of the work,ing groug then dec�u�d that implementation of the AC would not
rnaterially change what air�ines are currently doing; cansecluendy, the n�ise impacts of che
AC on cammunities surmunding airparts w�uId be negligible. This, of course, is anly an
opinion, and in the a�isenc+e of cc�mpr�hensive testing it cannot be verified.
- In practice, how would choices be made at a�iven airport betwec;n the AC`s scandardized
c2ose-in and distant prucedures, and what wouId be the noise imgacts of thasc Gf�oices on
the graund? Ti�e original draft �anguage af the AC left the choice entirely ta tke casrier,
NGIISE insisted that the airport and ity neighbaring communities be parties to the dec:ision.
The present language anIy ene�urages cansultarit�n with the airpon o}�erator. While the
official rhetoric surrounding this issue during working graup detiberation� was desigaed to
reassare loc:alities that ttte decision would in fact be the airport's, the warding of the AC
still leaves the dec;ision squarely in the h�nds �f the carrier. Technic;ally, then, the potential
exists for �. carrier to make rhe chc�ice withous lacal coasultarion and witho�t re�ard ta the
actual distribudc�n af land uses and noise sensitivities in che area arounc� the airport.
Months of wrestling with these and other problems could have been avoided had FAA
simply swallowed its pridc and addressecl the 3'ahn Wayne problem head-on. NOtSE stitl
betieves chis is zhe prcferab�e solud�n • axsuming the actu�I :�afe[y cc�nsiderdcions pennit it.
Ptcssing ahead with implementation c�f the propt�sed AC in the facc; of all it� unanswe�,d
questions and unevaluazed implicatic�ns seems ta as as unwise�as it is proha6Iy
unneccesary. If airport-speeific takeoff procedures are indeed unsafe, then hard,
convincing evidence to that effect needs �a be mad� public and ail uncertainty and debate
�
�
,.
will ccase. But as lang as doubt remains, the stzvng suspi�ion wiIl linger that the AC is an
unwarranted intrusion on the ri$hts af Iocatities ta pmvide for naise abatement �
All this is not to deny that the�e might bc a posidv� advantage to a sitc3acion wh�reby each
airpart might sit dawn wich its caniers flnd ncgod�te degartu� pmfiles best suit�d to laal
conditions. But whcthGr this can in fact accur in tho context of the proposeci AC is
impossible to �ay. The initiativC remaitt5 With thG c.82tiCi5, nOt ih� AlfpOit. The,iwo
"standardized" procrdures may ar may nat suic thc unique charactcr of the developmenc
surmunding thc airpart And therc is no way vr �uar�rr►tee tho participation of citixens and
etec�ed afficiats frorn the surmunding cammuniuos in the rnaking of those choi�ts.
Still, dialogue and murua� decisian-making ara much to be desira3, and if impIementation
of the praposed AC were to promote chcse outcomcs, �lcar2�r all gartics would b� b�tter oti.
The difficulty is thac the Ianguage of ehc praposed AC prondes no such assurancz,
�
As s membet of both worldng groups, NQISE diligendy atucmpted to influence the cr�fting
of the AC in ways cansistent with the concerns txpressed in this letter. Dcspite �
resezvations� we acceptcd the safzry ar,gc�mcnt and then bcnt all our effort.� towatd making
the AC clear in its, intent, accouncat�le in its pmce�eir�, and as respancive to environmental
xnd operational considerations a�c possible. Alchou�h w� dissented str�ngly from the repart
of the Noise Abatement Working Gtoup (See attachment), we endorsed the r�eport of the
Noise Assessmenc Working Group as che best prociuct that could be gotten unde= the
prevaili.ng cincumstanc:es. That body remains on active scatus and NQISE will maintain its
invo]vement in the eontinning ho�e that this proposed pc►licy can be refined, adeyaacoly
evaluated, or ev�n discarded, as filture developments warrant. i
Followin� are spec�c c.�,amments NUISE wishes to make abant the cont�nt c�f the Aug�st 7
Federal Register notice. (It is unclear t�a us whcther the preliminary matter put�Iished on
August 7 4nt1 be ineluded when the final AC is issued after the c:lc►se of the carnnienc
period, or whether anty the text of the AC itseIf will appear. But since NQiSE feels
strangly ahaut mvch of th� reasorting and language in the preliminary matter, wc ;hdve feI�
compelled to commenr on it a.5 we1� as on the drafc text of the AC.) 1
I
In che second paragraph of the Summ�ry, Page 3494(}, FAA cites the need to �.void
"proliferadon of noise abatement departure pmcedures tailt�red for u�sique �
airparVcommunity environments." This language propagates thc fals� notion that ihere is
an exisang probiem with proliferation. We suggest that FAA be as fracilc as pc�ssibk in
stadng the rca..u�n for the AC, by using the fol]owing wording beginning with the'third
sentence of the second paraga�sh and replacing ait that fallows in the para�raph (nc;w
langctage in italics):
"The FAA hos detern�ned that in at leucr one irzszance ru�ise abaterrr��nt departure �rr�, fc'tes
tailored fnr a uniqu� air��rticammunity envirnnment tended ro cr,m�ramise safety, by
diverting pilot attenrion from ather vital flight deck deta�ls during takeoff. In order r�,
mnximize flight safery, it is the FAA's ohjec�rive t�, avoid a pr�l:fercui�in ��f such pr"���edures
in the future. To achieve this objective, the FAA proposes a means, buc nat the c�n1y
means, af avoiding pmiiferation while providin� no�sc� r�lief rv cnmmunitic.�s" �
In the rhird paragraph of the S�mmary, Fa,�e 3499p, the nc�tice says that AC 91-S3A
"recommends that a�rplane crperatars select one" of thc two standarri procztiures, "�eplacing
the variety of pracedures no�rv planneci or in use," The "impo�tant role of air�c�n �
pmprietors in deternnining the most beneficial prc►cedure" is alsa recogniced. We are
grat�ed to see th�t much of this Ian�;uage t�eflec:ts changes NOISE requested during -
working graup review of the �rafc AC. Hawever, it also continues to hint at the phany
prabtem of exisdng proliferatian end co rnakc oondngent the tvle of the airpc�rt in clraysing
pmcedures_ NOISE ttcommends the following, to r�place the r�mainder of that paragraph:
"It recbmmmends th�at airline operatars and atrport proprierors, togtther wich represerttatives
of noise-im�acted comrnunities .rurroundin,� the ait'ptart, select one of these two procedures
for each noise sensitive deparcure."
In the fourth paragra�h of thc Backgrour� soctioa, Page 34991, thc norice refer3�again to
"the lack of standardizadon in noise abatement doparture pmfiles". NC.�ISE recommends
that the second sentertce of the fourth paragraph be am�nded as follows:
"Of the inidal safety-related pracede�res chat surfac�i in an cazly m�eting of the
subcommittee, ane was a cancern rhar airpnrt spec%,f�c notst abtue�nenr procedu�es might
��atz"ferare ar many airports art�und rhe nc�tion iR ri:e furclre. Although som� wark had been
accomplished on this isstu, the matrer was fonmaliy assigned to a working group,
appmpnately named the Naisc Abatemcnt Takeoff Profile Working Group. Wtthin zhis
gmnp were the representatives of variaus aff�cted aviation intcrests."
In pazagraph five of the Background sectian, P�ge 34991, thc nc�tice describcs how the
working group "farnially presented its recammendations to tite subcommitt�c in a public
hearing" bt�t omits any mention af the important fact that two memb�,�-s of ttic working
group, NOISE and tF�e Airport C�eraec�rs Cauncil Intematianal (naw the Airgc�res '
Associadon Cauncil International), formally dissented from the recoma�ndaaons anct
offered mincrrity repons which were di�ussed dc�ring the subc;ommitte� meeting,
Leaving unmendoned a fvrmal dissent by the natic�na! asstx;iations representin� airport
pmprieears and noise-impacted cornmtinities, who wcr� not only Ieading mem%ers of the
warking grvup but alsa agents for two of the consdn�encies mc�st dirc:ctly affc;eteci by the
proposed AC, is a scrit�us and incomprehensible laps�. Thc imgression left is that of
unanimous consenr, wh�n in €'act there was strong and vigorous dis�ent,
NOISE insists that mention be made of its minority regart and that the report itself �copy
actached) be included as an appcndix to the final Federat Re�ister notice, The fallowing
language should be insert�d in paragraPh five, after the words, "C.}n Augu�t 12, i 991, the
working gmup formally presented it�; recommendations to che subcoinmittee in a public
hearing :
"`Also pte,sente�i were minn�iry reports hy twa memher.s of tfie wprking �rt�up, the National
Organization ro Insure A Snunr!-canrr��lled Enviranrr�nt {NC?ISF}, r��res�nTirt� raJise-
afjec'red enrttmun�ties, ttnd the Att'J�c�rt D�ertttnrs Cottnt'�l lniertuttinnu! {A{�Cl},
representing uirpnrt prr�nrietar,s. Both �rnu/�s dissenred strongly frorrz thE�
recvminendarions af the warking �raup arui src�r�d nc��r the AC shcrtslci nnr b� implemetued
until it could be cc�mprehen.sivPly t�.rsted fnr its likely nnise, erNirvnrrr�ntnt, rllitL Op�r[litonGtl
irrr,�aus. The mi�tority repr��r of N�3/SE is attrzched to thts nr�ticc� cz., Appenctix A. Boih
groups were alsa trr�mber,c of the sttbc�mmittee, arui in that capczc.ity A�C! vntec� against
accenting the workitt� group recomrnendati�tes. Nevertiteless, the reccmunendatians wer�
forw�rdeci to the FAA Adminisvator." {While we cannot s�eak for AAC1, we ix�Iieve their
minority report shottld aiso be puhlished as an appendix to the norice.} The recn��inder of
the Background section would remuin unchanged, except zhat the folic,wing worciing
should be insened after the third ser�tence c�f the t�ird ful! para�raph on Pagc; ;�4�32:
"In determirun� which p�o�le is t� he irry�l�merzt�rl, the uirp��rt prv�lri�rvr i.s �rrvngly
en�ouraged ta �ortsult by meurts r�,f ptdilit� heczrings wirh th� c:itizenr and el�cted nfficials of
ihe cornrnunities around rhe airpnrr suhje�:t tc� existin� or tikely nvise impacts."
0
•.✓
In the accuat text of the Ih�ft AC 91-53A on Page 34992, Paragaph 4.c., NOISE
recommends thc foltowin,g change to the first and sccond sen[ences: �
"FAA r�views af various airpiane vercicai noise abatcment pmiilcs indicate that in at least
vne instance, intncata noise abaternent departurc profiles have been developed'on an
airport specific basis. The managerncnt of such intricate profiles cart comgroniis� the
pilot's attentiaa to interiar flight deck details, orafiic avoidance, attd ather safety! -
responsihiliaes and, shautd they ��atiferate, could have an adverse e,,�`'ea vn s�'ery
rtatianwide." �
Under Paragraph $, Operatianal Guideiines, on Pa e 34993, the follawing Ianguage
shautd be subsdtut�d for the prescnt wording in su�paragraph b.: {
f
"An airplane operator may fr,sp?ernenr a NA13P onTy � fter securi�g fn wri ttng the agreement
af the air�rnrt praprietur us ra rhe appr�priate NADP fvr each alrplane ry�e arul ri�rnwuy ir
will be using ar thar airport. In making rhis derernelrration tlze airnla�� upc'rutor is Str�ongly
erecottr�aged zn consult wirh the cirizens a,ut elecred �r�ciuls af ri� Gvmmunities arvunr! the
airparr suhject ra ezisreng or likcly noise impacrs."
This change makes the language c�f the pmposed AC consistenr with the pracess described
in the prelitninary matter in the third full para�raph of che Aackgmund Scction ori Page
349�2. Without this change, the process set Fc�nh in the text of the proposed AG, wauld noc
incorporate a wriuen agreement from che pmpc�rietor regarding the NADP{s} to be
employed. �
In advancing these rec�mmendations, Nt?ISE has cast them in �ermissiv� rdther than
mandatory form, accerting tc� the advisory nature af an AG. Buc if this �oticy is g�ing co be
implemented regard.tess of it� merits �r impacts, the �cave parcicipation of airport i
proprietors, lc�cal �lected officials, and �itizens is essential rather than sii�:ply d�sirable.
Anc3 we condnue to question whecher an AC is the proper v4hicle for putting irit� effect a
policy meant w be mandatary. The broader and mc�re searching rulernaking pra:ess is a
preferable means of nat only mandating the pc�licy, but af thoraughly evaluaring i�.
In closing, we feel compelled to rcmark that - due to the compiexi[y of ti�is issue, the
unavailabiIity of naise tesdng da[a, and a near total lack af publi� aw�irencss abou;t the
contemplated new pnlicy - FAA can expect to receive reladveiy Iittte comment on %ts August
7 notice. We eaution the agency not to mistake a light responsz for public acquiesence ar
approval. I
�
We appreciate your attantion to onr comments and loak forward to cheir incorporatian in the
finai Advi$ory Cir�cuiar announcemenc. �
Sinc ]y
,
Charles F, Price ~
Exccutive I}ire�:tor �
Encl
7