Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/08/1985 - Airport Relations Commission
MINNEAPOLIS /ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Analysis of Runway 22 Departures at MSP With and Without use of 180 Heading Procedure May 8th, 1985 HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF Rev. 1 1 Analysis of Runway 22 Departures at MSP With and Without Use of Procedurean Turn to 180 Heading A. General Runway 22 at MSP is used as a preferential runway for aircraft depar- tures when the capacity of parallel Runways 11L /29R and 11R/29L is not needed. During periods of heaviest use of the Runway, it accommodates 40 departures in a one hour period. This volume typically includes 26 air carrier jets, 11 air carrier propeller aircraft (from April 1985 schedule) and 2 business jets. On an annual basis, records kept by MAC indicate that Runway 22 is used by approximately 18% of all departures. Prior to 1984, aircraft departing Runway 22 were generally assigned to a heading of either 200 °, 220 ° , 250 or 350 °. depending upon their route of flight. The distribution of flights to these headings was estimated by MAC as follows: Heading Percentage of Flights 200 43% 220 34% 250° 5% 350 18% Starting in December of 1982, a "test" was conducted over a 24 month period of the effects of utilizing a 180° heading for Runway 22 depar- tures heading south and east. Air traffic control utilized the new heading in place of the 200 heading whenever it was possible to do so without restricting traffic flows. The resultant heading usage during the text period was as follows: Heading Percentage of Flights 180° 35% 220 42% 250 5% 350° 18% 100% The principal difference in the two cases is that the use of the 200 heading (43 %) in the non -test situation is replaced by use of the 180 heading (35 %) under test conditions. There is an additional increase of 8% in use of the 220 heading. The analysis that follows quantified the noise effects of the test pro- cedure compared to non -test conditions. This comparison of aircraft noise levels in the two conditions uses two different indices of noise - Daily Ldn noise contours, and single event takeoff noise contours. B. Ldn Noise Analysis An Ldn contour for 1985 traffic without the test procedure was calcu- lated using FAA's Integrated Noise Model Version 3.8. The contour includes the non -test flight track usage described in Section A above, with the 18% annual use of Runway 22 for departures. A second Ldn contour set was then generated with the same assumptions as the base case contour, except that aircraft departing Runway 22 were assigned to flight tracks according to the "test" conditions cited above. The two Ldn contours were compared with respect to the population removed from or added to the Ldn 65 contour as a result of the procedural change. Under non -test conditions, there are 1532 persons affected by the Ldn 65 who are not within the test case Ldn 65. On the other hand, 432 persons are included in the test case Ldn 65 that are not within the base case Ldn 65. The differences in these two popula- tion figures, 1100, is the net number of people which benefit by the use of the 180 turn procedure. C. Single -Event Contour Analysis A second technique utilized to measure the noise effects of the test procedure was the identification of residential population that would experience maximum noise levels of 75 or 85 dBA as a result of a single aircraft flying the non -test and test procedures. A 727 -200 aircraft flown according to the Northwest Airlines procedure (for a less than 1000 mile trip) was utilized as the single -event occurrence, being the most frequent operation at MSP. The first of the two single -event con- tour levels selected, 85 dBA, represents the area of higher noise levels, while 75 dBA represents the area of moderate noise levels but where aircraft noise could still interfere with normal conversational noise levels. An analysis of population within the contours reveals that 650 fewer persons are affected by high noise levels (85 dBA or more) under test conditions. The 75 dBA contour includes 2000 fewer residents under test conditions. 1 ' � ��` ��1 ®� VI 11 j - 1 - �. .a sfltO.rpAao..._ fit 'l : . f : i® \ . 110.6. Par El lannibMigiNIMIglinn III '' "11 Lt • \ -- P 1 4,WE't . '01 1 -PArt i l '.;ii - IM !it( • `p \ • llFA:„..:-. f '' s iri ►y • � _ lei ' j 0. loi it IN , A ' ‘ uurno , :- - .r,r , .;. 0. .. : Akar . N ,.. Li / ■ S i ti IFEri Cii11li 1if ?I�R: 1� I K !�IBm 11f ilik j„ , - ,-..... 1 . li lt ■ ■■. w �, " \ % k ,\ • Att. .. , t. >... i 1111 '4 ®r > .s � . �� , � I�IIIfI111111111II illld■ 4 --. i r iii. .,.-, IIEIE!IIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIl © e _ = F 11111111111111111111111111111 -; ..i ,, ' IMIIIIII!I�IINEIIII v �� yik' o F ■m_fii�__ y , a , & �s`� > . 1 ��+ ® e F � � ' � > � i ��� a i Alo �. a ` ` ° , I x I ► ®1 I \ _ . _ . . '_ �; '' . ,. l 11111 11 _ 8111 Irrilnii .ENPl - E �►o ' 0C _ _ ' `o 16® f111111i1 IIIII i�i�t ���. IIII ilflll AE1111 Iiiii piniam'w-oww.MERIE .. + v ilmiliir-__:__ - , ii.... . i l - . •i . - Cf . f' .411111 r 4 1 1 dorof . _ _, _ , __`.......,,, ./' : - ! iilefaild ailliMaligsallyAsm; .11L, 4 . & i ii mi■ImmialammimImmialk e AZIMIIIMMIIIIIIMIll .1111 IN \ 4 ._, A, mil ___, •6s 5 e •M.E__� I �i® ' '/ .Ns ® Q Iv =_ ® ���m v ��� �� . � _i . ICE 7 :, INIIIIMMIMMIGIMMINMIIIM t 2 �___ ® - ^ ..i £ S P , � � `•rte 1 w - - • _ate___ _ �_ ! _ \r dl':•'.•.•. O i�Plt__ ®__- ? a $ � _ _ \ .. • a te_ ® ® f ••• � _,___ _ ,:::,„,,,, XmoniewilamiellEMMINIEUEIIIIIA 4113101111EIMMIGNIII HI in mommomeaumommoommump61,0,16=666646411.63, am *. % /7. Sal■momilaml•N•1•Normillie -- Ma ? O ' • • ilimi•wmataMmirainlina ria=11119:212:0111412111 &," 1 ___,. -. GIMIIIIIIIIIMIMFOV,00,00111 Ellammll=10•=11, MEM , • AIZ---" .' .' . . ..2=..1 0 , 1111Mirmomiorattl,....001.41 MB IMIIIIMMEMB=Nri AIM= j •• 1111=1111. pr imi=smonammommi Imo___ _ - . a . � a l& ,aF3m— sea®_ - -_ ®I d_® __ ® k f._ /� 4 / �� % /r / / /.•. MEG II�___�_____�■_11 _®_�► ..® • _r.___. =+ =�• �, 1 � �___a._______NE_ a _ �__ m ___ _ _ _ ___® GIIIMMUMMINIIININIIMM CiMOMMIMIGIIIIIMININUM ® . _® • ©__Ei ®�Ei -�__- -_1317 �__ . e ___ ®m____ ®_ ®_ - •. • �•■ / �r - �_II o t ® I�1�_____�_ __GAS -I�_ _ ®_MM____ ®__�� �► at Pte,' ___ ®___ ® __ Imo_ ® _ _..® .�i =11143l��- ■■__■■ ®_iC� r 1 I ii. '� ., monOMIlliallIMI iIE�te)•�__- ___�_�� Ii a ss _ ®�s .. ITi,.�..o_-_® II\®'i®lY ..s . ca SIMINIINIMIIIPIIIMMINSOMMENIMMIEF v �� Y I ism • � � � _to_ I� � iu � -- --------.---u- � F I��aT� : 'nII a ;4 ® �����lai ���' `_ W ® ©11H1111111►' NC" "' / 1111111: /1 1 ■111!1111®' ! / t R11111111111� A. —mg. u 5 nE[D 1111111�i a '111111111® FANII � ®11®1 f+QSP m .w[rD X11 ` � , � � . � • • 11111111fr 1■ 1 ®®®1511 P. ■■■ .— � � k111111111O I EENI11111 z . 11 rtS 11 ■ -� � ; ,� 11111 \ ;oR III © 11!11 . 111110 © © / �� /' ` , `, ` d , I oO Ae � 11rm 111 o '111 ®��1 1 ®11! IgpuIIIn'II ,� 0 0 i ♦ 111111111 1111 / ® ®11� d11 0 111111111 ®1 i 11111/1111 1111,x` ' �• 4 , ' M mneop01i5 S +F'OU � -EiN � 4l 11 Q 111 11111u i111L� 1,I Int�e`D tonal ETEQT l b °O� I � RIR 111 . •1111111 11 ' `ti / I1T11 � /111 - , �,� X1111111111111 � � � A'' ,� mining 11► V ii11 La 11111 ®111 ®1 ® ®1 X111 1 a _ ! 111!U111111111111i 5 ' 1111111111011 !! �� � —1� __ _ `�` ? - ill iiiii■ wirrAftipAriliw15.--- ...... iiilI S POA T`_ CF M11111 ' �� • ;• •r . • Q` 11111WW•,. / r •••• ••. •• "' V 11111111:In /tii ' • r , � 0, �� • • J •• � � i � L°"7 + y j '1 ��\ \ \ \ S(( • OM ro eoao z �`\�`t \. 1 1 y • i• .• • • BLO i9T0 ING P OP Bi,9 I � � Z � , ti Q !ii4 1.'riiis..s:.- `__ _ , Coke // ,, ' II „, , • , . E., fi• law a. wAris 11::::::i - 4: /// - ?i ,_, to ST \' � i• !.::. / J lr , 4il Imp :::: dilip .-A.z.....:, /,,,/ ,,, /•• 7 , - . .,_., / or 1 .w,.... A-„ ::::: /„.,„ __— I MF ;%Z;''a igresi - •::. 3: lir mai Foirp li ti . r . ... ., I it. .:... ..■` A 4 5 ' "T" ILL ....-. — " / ``.� ��� i l•i DOL Q' - /� AsO 1. .0 .- � O ' .:011 :: . „. 111 ®# +� idaritilL " ' i .e /7•5'' F , . &P.M%