ARC Packet 01-20-2021CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
January 20, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.
Virtual Meeting--WebEx
Minnesota Statute 13D.021 provides that a meeting of a public body may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a
public location is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or declared emergency.
The Mendota Heights City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic on March 17, 2020. As a part of this action, until
further notice all Airport Relations Commission meetings will be held by telephone or through other electronic means, with social distancing
measures in place. All public meetings will continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
The public may observe the meeting via telephone call. Observers wishing to make comments on any of the agenda items will need to contact
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator (651-255-1356 or cherylj@mendota-heights.com) no later than noon on the day of the meeting, and
provide their contact information and the agenda item which they want to address. Note that any applicable long-distance telephone charges
may apply.
Public Attendance is available via call-in: 1-312-535-8110
Access Code: 177 598 8660 ##
1.Call to Order/Roll Call
2.Approval of Agenda
3.Approval of Minutes
a.Approval of Minutes of the September 16, 2020 Meeting
4.Public Comments
5.Unfinished and New Business
a.MSP Operations—Departures from 12L
b.Approve 2021 Meeting Dates
c.Review of Airport Operational Statistics (link: https://www.macenvironment.org/reports/)
i.Complaint Information
ii.Runway Use
iii.Turboprop Charts
iv.Noise Monitor Charts
5.Acknowledge Receipt of Reports and Correspondence
7.Commissioner Comments
8.Adjourn Meeting
Next Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission Meeting:
March 17, 2021 – 6:00 pm
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice
of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids.
This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with
requests.
Page 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, September 16, 2020, in the City Council Chambers at Mendota Heights City Hall.
1.Call to Order
Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm.
2.Roll Call
The following commissioners were present in the City Council Chambers: David Sloan, Gina
Norling, William Dunn, Kevin Byrnes, and Arvind Sharma.
Commissioner Sally Lorberbaum participated remotely via electronic means.
Absent: Commissioner Jim Neuharth
Also present: Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson. City Administrator Mark McNeill
participated remotely via electronic means.
3.Election of Officers
Byrnes made a motion to have the existing officers for 2019 (David Sloan as Chair, and Sally
Lorberbaum as Vice-Chair) remain through the remainder of 2020, and that the elections be
revisited in 2021. Second by Dunn. Motion carried 6-0
4.Presentations
None
5.Approval of Minutes
Consideration was made of the Minutes of the November 13, 2019 Meeting. No corrections
were offered. Motion Lorberbaum, second by Dunn to approve as submitted. Motion
carried 6-0
6.Public Comments—There were no members of the public who wished to comment.
7.Unfinished and New Business
a.MSP Operations—Departures from Runway 12L—Norling reported that she has
been working from home and has noticed an increase in air traffic. When she
investigated in July, she noted that 12R is not being used, and was told that it was
due to maintenance being done on that runway. She recommended that we contact
the FAA and ask it to initiate a practice that when only one (12) runway is available,
only flights with certain headings should be directed to go over Mendota Heights.
She asked that the ARC brainstorm ways to have runways 12R or 17 used more.
Page 2
Item #3a
Jacobson said that at the NOC meeting held earlier in the day, it was reported that
the boarding gates which were being used affected which runway was assigned.
Sharma said that the number of operations has increased from its low in March, and
seems to be at 25% of what it had been. This is consistent with what is being seen
nationally. Jacobson added that given the decrease in operations, runway 17 is not
being used and the FAA has reverted to the RUS which prioritizes use of 12L and
12R.
Lorberbaum asked if the overall number of flights is reduced, and was the number of
flights coming off 12L less than it was a year ago; she thought that it was. Dunn
compared flight numbers from August and May. Norling again stated that when
runways are limited, that there should be a discussion on headings to be used.
Chair Sloan asked what was to be accomplished by this discussion. He felt that Brad
Juffers of MAC should be invited to the November meeting to present, and
questioned whether or not the change is a blip, or what can be expected over the
next five years. He and Dunn didn’t think the numbers are worse than what they
have been previously. Lorberbaum said that this was an issue of fairness—even if
the number of flights coming off 12L is reduced, it should still be fair and
proportionate.
b.Update on Eagan Flight Procedure Change—Jacobson reviewed the day’s prior
discussion at the NOC, regarding Eagan’s request for changes, and the FAA’s
response. She said that the FAA rep had reported that they cannot test for impacts
until traffic returns to at least 80% of pre-COVID volumes. The FAA rep had said that
if the results of the change were “de minimus”, the FAA would not approve the
change. However, the rep didn’t identify what that would be.
c.Flight Procedures Change Request Guidelines—Jacobson reviewed a form which
has been drafted for use by MAC, for people who are asking for flight procedure
change requests. She felt that it is a starting point and that it would provide some
transparency. Minneapolis didn’t like it, and felt that it was a barrier and unfriendly.
Brad Juffers revised the language for the MAC staff to use i.e., NOC “criteria” were
now “considerations”. The NOC had voted 11-1 to adopt its use, with Minneapolis
voting in the negative.
d.Review of Airport Operational Statistics
i.Complaint Information-- Lorberbaum noted that the number of complaints
were down, but so were the volumes of flights.
ii.Runway Use—In the absence of Jim Neuharth, Byrnes reviewed. There were
no comments.
iii.Turboprop Charts—Turbo prop complaints were down. Dunn noted that
because of the reduction in overall flights, the turbo props didn’t need to turn
as quickly to get out of the way of commercial jet traffic.
Page 3
iv.Noise Monitor Charts. Dunn said that there were no noise events in Mendota
Heights, but that a single C-130 might have triggered reports from three
monitoring stations.
e.MAC Meeting. Sharma reviewed a presentation which had been discussed at the
most recent MAC meeting; it was a Board Air Service Update dated August 17, 2020.
The study had looked at the impacts of COVID on air operations, and that in March,
use of MSP was down 95%. Air traffic has since grown, but now has plateaued at
about 25% of normal. That is about what is being seen on-average nationally. The
study showed that previously slowdowns led to an increase in the number of low
cost carriers, and that it is expected that business travel will continue to be hurt.
Almost all international travel is now shut down. In summary, he said that the study
predicted that recovery will be slow and uneven, and that it will take years to fully
recover.
8. Adjourn
There being no further business, Chair Sloan adjourned the meeting at 7:03 PM
Minutes Taken By:
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
Page 4
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 20, 2021
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
MSP Operations – Departures from 12L
At the September, 2020 meeting, the Commission discussed departures from runway 12L and
the differences noticed during COVID-19. An outcome of that discussion was the establishment
of a list of follow up questions and a request to MAC/NOC staff to attend a future meeting.
Attached is the list of the questions submitted to Brad Juffer, Community Relations Manager with
the MAC. Mr. Juffer worked with the FAA to provide answers which are included in the handout.
Mr. Juffer will attend the January meeting to further discuss the Commission’s concerns about
increased departures from runway 12L during COVID-19 and what the future may look like for
runway 12L operations.
Requested Action
Informational and discussion.
Page 5
Item #5a
1. What headings are available for departures off of 12L and 12R when 17 is not in use?
Assuming turbojet aircraft, 090 degrees through 230 degrees following noise abatement
procedures, i.e. runway heading until 3 miles off the departure end, then a turn on course.
2. What was the percentage of use for each heading for what period of time? Last two
months? Other? Can the information be broken out into 2020 pre-COVID and 2020
COVID?
There is no recording system to determine what heading an aircraft was assigned by air traffic
control. To analyze flight activity by heading, MAC staff will typically use actual flight track data and
compare it to AEDT Model Tracks by assigning the actual track to a model track using a best-fit
methodology. For this analysis, model tracks with similar location are grouped together. For example,
in the map below tracks D12LDL are symbolized in dark blue and consist of 9 individual tracks. Tracks
D12LF are shown in red and include 6 unique tracks. All tracks are labeled with the prefix ‘D12L’ to
signify a departure from Runway 12L. MAC Staff labeled every Runway 12L departure from January 1,
2018 through October 31, 2020. Flights before April 1, 2020 were considered a pre-COVID flight,
while flights on or after April 1, 2020 were labeled as post-COVID. The use of these tracks is shown
the following table. The gray tracks represent all track groupings that accounted for less than 5% of
the Runway 12L departure usage. Overall, they represented 8.8% in the pre-COVID time frame and
13.4% in the post-COVID time frame. All track groupings shown in the blue shaded tracks saw a
decrease in usage, while the single track grouping that increased is shown in red. That track grouping
that increased would be flights that were generally consistent with the Crossing-In-The-Corridor
procedure.
Following the information for Runway 12L is the data for Runway 12R. Similarly to the Runway 12L
graphic and table, track groupings that saw increases are shown in red shaded colors and track
groupings in blue shades saw decreases. Also similarly, the southern tracks saw an increase in usage
and the northern tracks have been used less often after April 1, 2020.
Page 6
RUNWAY 12L DEPARTURE TRACK USAGE
Departure Track Usage Time Period
Tracks pre post Change
D12LA 0.73% 0.57% -0.16%
D12LB 0.71% 0.29% -0.42%
D12LC 0.67% 0.22% -0.45%
D12LD 4.87% 2.17% -2.70%
D12LDL 24.93% 17.78% -7.14%
D12LEC 23.68% 16.47% -7.21%
D12LEL 20.29% 19.71% -0.59%
D12LER 9.58% 4.59% -4.99%
D12LF 12.70% 28.04% 15.35%
D12LJ 0.44% 2.70% 2.25%
D12LL 0.64% 2.61% 1.97%
D12LP 0.76% 4.86% 4.09%
Grand Total 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%
*Pre-COVID = January 1, 2018 – March 31, 2020; Post-COVID = April 1, 2020 – October 31, 2020
Page 7
RUNWAY 12R DEPARTURE TRACK USAGE
Departure Track Usage Time Period
Tracks pre post Change
D12RA 2.58% 1.87% -0.71%
D12RC 1.15% 2.72% 1.57%
D12RD 2.16% 2.53% 0.37%
D12RE 9.91% 5.37% -4.54%
D12RF 23.71% 13.22% -10.49%
D12RG 27.98% 25.72% -2.26%
D12RH 1.46% 0.78% -0.67%
D12RJ 14.99% 23.49% 8.50%
D12RK 0.19% 0.19% 0.00%
D12RL 0.23% 0.27% 0.04%
D12RM 0.14% 0.20% 0.06%
D12RN 6.18% 9.12% 2.94%
D12RP 8.97% 14.10% 5.14%
D12RQ 0.12% 0.18% 0.06%
D12RR 0.23% 0.23% -0.01%
Grand Total 100.00% 100.00% 0.00%
*PRE = January 1, 2018 – March 31, 2020; POST = April 1, 2020 – October 31, 2020
Page 8
3. What headings were available for departures off 17 pre-COVID?
In a South configuration (12s/17), Runway 17 serves aircraft departing to destinations that are
generally west, southwest, south, and southeast of MSP. This covers a broad range of geographic
locales. To accommodate that traffic, FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) assigns a broad range of headings
from 095° to 285°. While there is a range available to ATC, the FAA uses primary headings for
departure. These headings are chosen after considering numerous criteria including the aircraft’s
destination, routing, aircraft type, weather conditions, other air traffic and airport configuration.
Since using primary headings improves consistency, repeatability and safety.
4. What is the utilization rate of crossing-in the corridor when 17 is not in use? Can the
information be broken out into 2020 pre-COVID and 2020 COVID?
The following table identifies jet departures that flew the Crossing-in-the-Corridor when the airport
was in a Straight South Flow configuration (arrivals and departures only on Runways 12L and 12R,
without Runway 17 used). Partial hours and hours with Runway 17 departures were excluded. As
with question 2, flights before April 1, 2020 were considered a pre-COVID flight, while flights on or
after April 1, 2020 were labeled as post-COVID. During the pre-COVID time period, the FAA Air Traffic
Control would only use a Straight South Flow during periods of low demand, such as nighttime hours,
or when weather conditions would require that configuration, such as during strong northeast winds.
Day Usage 12L 12R Total
pre 42.8% 14.4% 27.7%
post 38.1% 13.3% 25.8%
Night Usage 12L 12R Total
pre 69.3% 36.1% 45.5%
post 86.5% 44.7% 55.4%
Overall Usage 12L 12R Total
pre 45.2% 18.4% 30.2%
post 38.3% 13.8% 26.0%
In both time periods, several conditions need to be present for the Crossing-in-the-Corridor
procedure to be used. These conditions limit the ability of air traffic controllers to use the procedure
often. Traffic demand on the airport and FAA staffing are two of the main conditions. That is why the
procedure is used more often at night, than it is during the day. At night, the demand on the airport
subsides to a level that allows more flexibility from ATC. While aircraft utilized the Crossing
procedure only 46% of the time at night prior to April 1, 2020, that usage has increased to 55% since
that time. More specifically for Mendota Heights, 87% of all Runway 12L departures at night flew the
Crossing-in-the-Corridor procedure in 2020 after April 1st.
Page 9
5. Is the crossing in the corridor procedure still emphasized in controller training?
Yes, this is a part of our initial qualification training as well as reviewed periodically for all
controllers. Noise Abatement Procedures were reviewed by controllers as recently as the last
week of Oct into the first week of November in our annual Refresher Training.
6. What are the daily departures currently at MSP?
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2019 496 499 569 549 549 590 598 608 556 561 524 529
2020 505 513 467 173 142 172 288 345 330 343
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
MSP AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURES
2019 2020
Page 10
7. What is the 2020 average hourly traffic operations for departures currently? What was
it last year at that time?
The following chart provides the average departures at MSP by hour for the time of January 1, 2018 –
October 31, 2020. All time before April 1, 2020 is considered pre and is represented in blue bars and
bold text. The time from April 1, 2020 – October 31, 2020 is displayed in orange bars and italicized text.
For every hour of the day with one exception the average hourly departure in the post time is lower
than the pre time period. The lone exception is the 8:00 AM hour where there has been an increase in
5.5 hourly departures. This is due to subtle changes in the scheduled times of departures as the 7:00 AM
and 9:00 AM hours have experienced a 24.6 and 29.5 drop in average hourly departure respectively.
Overall, there has been 290.8 fewer average daily departures when the two timeframes are compared.
8. At the November listening session, we were told that tower staffing has changed to
keep employees safe. Can we get better insight into these changes?
We are staffing to traffic demand and the needs of the operation. This includes running at a higher
staffing level during inclement weather or as other needs dictate such as training. To keep the
National Airspace functioning and to keep our controllers safe, we are separated into distinct
crews. We are not allowing controllers to change to different crews to ensure we can control rapid
spreading of the virus. We segregate crews as much as possible. Working in close contact as our 1.50.60.20.20.86.321.740.320.445.736.240.223.634.329.544.322.925.333.120.652.922.519.84.10.10.10.10.00.72.68.515.725.916.218.720.711.320.27.323.86.912.316.99.027.110.81.30.30
10
20
30
40
50
60
AVERAGE HOURLY DEPARTURESMSP AVERAGE HOURLY DEPARTURES
PRE POST
*PRE = January 1, 2018 –March 31, 2020; POST = April 1, 2020 –October 31, 2020
Page 11
controllers need to do, increases the risk of transmission so we’re doing all we can to keep the
National Airspace running.
9. Can tower staffing levels be mapped to the average hourly traffic operations?
Yes and no. Yes in that we staff to what’s happening in the operation at the current time. We will
have more controllers in the operation when it’s busier or more complex and less when it is
not. No in that with our current staffing plan, we staff as appropriate to the traffic for the day
depending on a multitude of factors. This is generally discussed in a tactical manner in the days
prior to be able to remain fluid in a constantly evolving environment.
10. What fixed points (departure gates?) do 12L and 12R serve, ie COLT?
This is very dependent of traffic volume, weather conditions, runway closures, etc.
12/17 Configuration
1. 12R: OPERATIONALLY NEEDED
2. 12L: LEINY, DWN, SMERF, KBREW, DLH, BRD, WLSTN*
3. 17: COULT, ZMBRO, RST, ORSKY, SCHEP*
Straight 12s
1. 12R: ZMBRO, RST, ORSKY, SCHEP*
2. 12L: LEINY, DWN, SMERF, KBREW, DLH, BRD, WLSTN, COULT*
We will adjust this when one runway looks like it will be overloaded based on the makeup of the
bank. COULT/DLL can be moved between the two runways to fix balance. Air Traffic is a very
fluid environment and must remain that way to be safe and efficient.
*The following maps by MAC staff are added to provide context regarding the fixes included above.
The actual location of the departure fix is quite different from one procedure to the next. The actual
procedure often includes several interim waypoints to get the aircraft successfully to the listed
points. That means greater dispersion as aircraft depart the airport. Additionally, MAC staff included
a month of departure tracks from all runways to allow for a visualization of how tracks depart the
facility and transition to the enroute airspace and eventually the listed departure fix. MAC flight
track data is only available within 40 nautical miles of MSP, so the tracks appear to end abruptly.
Page 12
Page 13
DATE: January 20, 2021
TO: Airports Relations Commission
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: ARC Meeting Dates-2021 Schedule
BACKGROUND
The Commission is scheduled to meet the third Wednesday of odd number months. The
Commission is asked to review and approve the 2021 schedule of Airport Relations Commission
meeting dates as listed below.
January 20
March 17
May 19
July 13 (alternate meeting date joint meeting with the Eagan ARC)
September 8 (alternate meeting date due to a religious holiday)
November 17
Some of the regularly scheduled meeting dates have been changed due to conflicts and are
noted.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Commission should motion to approve the 2021 schedule of Airport Relations Commission
meeting dates.
Page 14
Item #5b
Complaints by Location—By Month
(2019, 2020)
Location = Complainants
2019 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
January 91 40 15 9 6
February 51 28 4 4 3
March 91 42 17 11 11
April 133 38 19 21 12
May 136 53 17 15 8
June 218 89 20 31 12
July 271 67 28 26 16
August 242 96 32 30 21
September 231 80 18 23 14
October 135 60 18 13 8
November 71 53 13 10 6
December 62 45 13 8 5
2020 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
January 62 53 10 12 1
February 65 41 8 10 3
March 78 51 11 9 4
April 37 23 4 5 2
May 61 26 4 11 0
June 107 22 7 9 3
July 124 24 10 13 4
August 162 32 14 22 3
September 140 38 13 16 3
October 81 28 10 7 2
November 97 22 7 9 2
December 68 31 10 4 3
Percent of All Departures by Location
(2019, 2020)
2019
Mpls/
Richfield
30R
Eagan
12R
Edina
30L
MH
12L
Blmgtn
17
January 28% 17% 33% 15% 8%
February 21% 12% 28% 14% 24%
March 26% 5% 31% 9% 29%
April 21% 11% 24% 15% 29%
May 17% 11% 19% 19% 34%
June 18% 8% 19% 19% 36%
July 18% 23% 22% 27% 8%
August 21% 6% 25% 15% 34%
September 17% 8% 16% 20% 40%
October 25% 6% 26% 13% 30%
November 25% 7% 32% 11% 25%
December 21% 7% 24% 14% 35%
2020
Mpls/
Richfield
30R
Eagan
12R
Edina
30L
MH
12L
Blmgtn
17
January 20% 6% 27% 13% 34%
February 28% 3% 34% 8% 28%
March 19% 10% 24% 17% 30%
April 31% 18% 32% 17% 1%
May 27% 20% 21% 31% 1%
June 26% 28% 17% 28% 2%
July 22% 27% 22% 28% 2%
August 23% 28% 23% 26% 0%
September 26% 26% 22% 25% 1%
October 35% 18% 31% 15% 2%
November 31% 19% 30% 20% 0%
December 28% 20% 31% 15% 7%
Page 15
Item # 5c.i.
December Complaints December Night Departures
2019 2020 2019 2020
Minneapolis (30R) 3,502 2,762 173 12
Eagan (12R) 2,860 1,072 204 53
Edina (30L) 243 629 252 90
Mendota Heights (12L) 399 108 138 39
Bloomington (17) 165 104 7 4
Total 7,169 4,675 774 198
62 45 13 8 56831104 3
21%
7%
24%
14%
35%
28%
20%
31%
15%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
December Complaints by Location and Departures by Location
Complaints 2019 Complaints 2020 Departures 2019 Departures 2020
Page 16