The URL can be used to link to this page

07/24/1986 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE AGENDA THURSDAY JULY 24, 1986 4:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES • II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. League of Minnesota Cities Sound Meter Program B. MAC Survey C. Burnsville Turn III. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor - Joint Meeting IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Glumack Retirement V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. DISTRIBUTION A. Correspondence on Operational Changes B. Metropolitan Monitor - Aviation Plan C. Star and Tribune - Airport Noise Abatement Program VII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BAKER AIPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: JULY 18, 1986 SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR JULY 24, 1986 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for Thursday, July 24, 1986, at 4:30 p.m., in the Eagan Municipal Center in Conference Rooms A and B. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Thursday. I. MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee meeting of June 26, 1986, is enclosed for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. League of Minnesota Sound Meter Program - Enclosed in your packet for your review are memos to City Administrator Hedges relative to the procurement of a sound level meter. As the Committee may recall from earlier considerations of such devises, their costs range anywhere from $1,000 - $2,000 to $10,000 and more. It came to the attention of the City that the League of Minnesota Cities had purchased a number of 3M Model 3220 sound level meters which they make available to communities on a loan basis. The City Council in action taken at its July 15 meeting, agreed to borrow such equipment from the League. The equipment can be used not only for airport noise purposes but can be applied to a variety of planning, traffic, police enforcement and other uses. Staff will have the equipment on hand for a brief demonstration. City staff members will be undergoing training with the equipment in the near future. Please advise staff if you desire to be part of this training so as to better understand the equipment and its potential uses. B. MAC Survey - It has come to the attention of the City staff that the Metropolitan Airports Commission is conducting a survey through Midc- Continent Research Incorporated, a Twin Cities consulting firm. A sample of the survey form is attached. I understand certain residents of this and other communities have already been contacted in regard to this survey. If you have any additional information on this survey or insights into its conduct, you may share them with the Committee at the meeting. C. Burnsville Turn - As the City prepares to review the Environmental Impact Statement pertinent to the Runway 4/22 Extension, a certain item may be of interest to the Airport Noise Committee. Enclosed in your packet for your review are copies of the 1981 MAC report to the legislature, the Noise Abatement Operations Plan from Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, and the support maps for the Operations Plan. As Committee members may recall, during the Burnsville Turn discussions in 1985, the Airports Commission presented a copy of Exhibit 42 as proof of the benefit of the Burnsville Turn procedure. At that time, Chairman Baker and representatives of the City staff asked whether the graphic did not represent the channelization of air- craft to both the Cedar Avenue and I -494 corridors. Assurances were given that this map adequately reflected the operational realities of the Burnsville Turn procedure and that the shaded area in the middle accurately reflected the area in which there was reduction in the Ldn 65 contour. Upon the insistence of Eagan and Burnsville representatives, a new noise contour map was prepared which reflected more accurately the population growth since 1970. As you will note, in the sections bracketed in this information, the contours shown in Exhibit 42 assume that "all but about 12 (aircraft operations) per day" would be routed away from central Bloomington. As the procedure was flown, more then 50% of the traffic remained over Bloomington. Therefore, the City's MASAC representative was correct in requesting updated maps, despite the MAC's assurance that the map in question reflected the operational situation during their experiment. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor - Enclosed in your packet for your review are several items relative to the Eagan- Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. At the direction of the Airport Noise Committee, the City staff met with representatives of Mendota Heights to discuss operational procedures relative to the Eagan- Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. It was discovered that the cities share a consensus of opinion with respect to the way in which the corridor has been treated and each city was able to find that the other was experiencing a significantly heightened level of noise due to overflights. Far from one community benefitting at the expense of the other, it is becoming increas- ingly obvious that the FAA has expanded operations in both direc- tions without the consent of either city. In your packets you will find a copy of the Runway Use Program for Noise Abatement under which the MAC and FAA indicate operations are occurring. This operating language is consistent with the flight tracks which you have seen in the past as part of the MAC FAR Part 150 study materials. A copy of that map is attached as well. In order to bring the Committee up to date, I will engage in a brief synopsis of the events leading up to the current situation. In the late 1960's as jet aircraft came to dominate the fleet at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was formed. Its principal development was the Preferential Runway System (PRS). This plan routed a majority of operations over the area to the southeast of the airport between Eagan and Mendota Heights. As a result, residents in the Timberline area and adjacent neighborhoods received a dramatic increase in jet traffic fanning over their homes. As a result, Mary Green, Don Giblin and other representa -tives of the neighborhood approached the Airports Commission directly and requested relief in exchange for the large number of aircraft routed in this direction under the Preferential Runway System. At that time, representatives of the MAC and the FAA agreed to avoid the residential neighborhoods by adopting procedures that would keep aircraft away from those residential areas. There is some disagreement as to the precise nature of that accomodation. The FAA contends that the corridor was to be between the extended runway center lines. Les Case, retired FAA Manager, contends that the agreement was to say on or north of the 11R localizer. Neil Black, Eagan's MASAC representative during the PRS discussions, recalls a reference to a left turn to approximate the I -494 right -of -way. Mary Green recalls a specific reference to a 5 degree left turn on takeoff. As to the 105 degree heading, with which most of you are familiar, Les Case contends that this was an internal procedure to achieve the agreement of staying on or north of the runway center line. He says it was a convenient heading between the Eagan and Mendota Heights residential areas but was not part of the agreement. In any event, all parties agree that the accommodations were clearly intended to avoid residential areas of both Eagan and Mendota Heights and that the cities were expected to develop in a manner compatible with such operations. An indication of the seriousness with which the FAA and MAC took the departure track modifications is found in the Noise Abatement Operations Plan from 1981, a study prepared by Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff, the airport's noise consultant. As you can see in the enclosed excerpts from the plan, these procedures were supposed to provide relief for people in the shaded area of Timberline and Country Home Heights. As you will note, the Ldn 65 contour does not reach Friendly Hills or the Curley Addition under these assumptions. The procedures were very inexpensive in terms of flight time and fuel costs and were acknowledged to be easy to implement. Despite this, deviations on the 90 degree heading were a matter of debate as early as 1981 and 1982 as is reflected in the Noise Abatement Plan update page which is attached. It is apparent that these deviations became more common as a result of deregulation which made more difficult the use of the 105 headings and a nose tail configuration which minimized the need for diverging headings on the part of the FAA. During the same period of time, the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission held meetings with representatives of local communities, including Eagan, to prepare a land -use compatibility map, the draft of which is attached for your review. You will note that the LEQ 70 contour formed a northern border for Country Home Heights and Timberline under the assumptions of the 105 degree heading. This still left Timberline and Country Home Heights in noise zone 4, the same zone occupied by portions of Friendly Hills and Curley Additions to the north. The study went on to consider compatabilities of certain land uses within the planning contours. Copies of these maps are attached as well. In 1984, at the inception of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee, Les Case and other representatives of the airport spoke to the Committee with regard to Eagan noise issues. A copy of the page of minutes which covers the pertinent discussion is also attached. These minutes from the June 26, 1984 Airport Noise Committee meeting, reflect that Mr. Case advised that the City continue to support the Preferential Runway Corridor and that the 105 degree heading be supported over runway heading procedures. At or about the same time, the city of Mendota Heights prepared its resolution which is also attached, upon information from the MAC and FAA indicating that the 105 degree heading resulted in overflights of Friendly Hills and the Curley Addition. As you will see by the attachment to that resolution, it was the under- standing of Mendota Heights that the 105 degree heading began at the far end of the runway rather then the departure end. This resulted in a skewing of the 105 heading to make it appear closer to Friendly Hills then it actually would be. I doubt that this is the result of any specific intent on the part of the city of Mendota Heights but it is an inaccuracy which the FAA did not correct and, further, claims to have predicated subsequent decisions on. The new runway use program allegedly reflects the FAA response to the Mendota Heights Resolution. The effect of these procedural changes is difficult to gauge because neighbor- hood residents can attest to the significant deviations from even runway heading. However, the Part 150 study shows a graphic illustration of how the contour might be shaped if operations were capped at a 1984 level. This item is attached as well and is labeled Measure No. 3. You will note that the contour does not significantly deviate from the earlier Howard - Needles contour on its south edge but is reduced in size on its north edge while lengthening on its east. Again I would be careful about the accuracy of this information in that it bears little if any relationship to actual operational procedure. You will find in your packets, as well, the breakdowns of opera- tional limits for different runway configurations and the assump- tions which are being used by the Metropolitan Council in formu- lating their updated noise modelling. You can see the dramatic shift in percentage of time in which departures will operate to the southeast of the airport and the complimentary 41% of the time that arrivals will occur within the same corridor. This 108% of the operational time relates negatively to the 93% of the time the runways were used at lower traffic volumes in 1977. Within this packet, you will find a reduced graphic showing the LEQ contours which went into Met Council's policy contour plan in 1980 -1981. The result of these circumstances is a renewed interest in forming a unified position with our neighbor city of Mendota Heights to control operations for both the north and south sides of the industrial corridor. Pursuant to that intent, you will find in your packets a copy of a joint resolution prepared by staff for consideration by both City Councils. We are informed that the city of Mendota Heights will propose certain changes to shorten the document but supports its basic intent. Staff will be available to respond to questions in this regard. A further impact of the noise situation is the need to have development within the noise zones comply with the Metropolitan Council requirements for sound compatibility. The Burr Oaks Development at Highways 55 and 149 will be required to insulate its buildings to reach an indoor noise level of L10 55 to be sound compliant. Further, the developer will be required to inform buyers of their relationship to the airport and presence in noise zone 4. The City is reaching a point at which its development is directly affected by noise considerations within the noise zones themselves. This is an addition to the increased nuisance to in -place neighborhoods adjacent to the traditional flight paths. Joint Meeting - As a result of the developments in this regard, the City Council has agreed to hold a joint meeting with the Airport Noise Committee to be held in early August for the purpose of providing direction to staff in its dealing with the MAC and the FAA. The Council, Committee and staff are making headway in this regard but it will be important to interact with one another in formulating future strategy. Your consideration of this matter will be greatly appreciated. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: None at this time as a joint meeting is forthcoming. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Glumack Retirement - The Minneapolis Star and Tribune reported on July 11, that Ray Glumack has made his retirement as the Metropolitan Airports Commission Chairman, official as of December 31. Due to the nature of Mr. Glumack's relationship with the Commission and his strong leadership of it, the direction that noise abatement takes in the future may change dramatically although it is unclear in which direction. As you are aware, Mr. Glumack has suggested that he would retire in the past and any anticipation of post - Glumack policy changes may be premature. The Committee may wish to discuss the way in which this impending retirement will affect the City's strategies in noise abatement. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: None at this time except at the discretion of the Committee. V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. DISTRIBUTION A. Correspondence on Operational Changes - Enclosed in your packets you will find a copy of a letter from City Administrator Hedges to Jeff Hamiel. The correspondence requests that any future changes in operations which affect the City of Eagan be preceded by correspondence notifying the City of the change. This is an outgrowth of the changes that were made in 1984 of which the City was inadequately informed. B. Metropolitan Monitor - Aviation Plan - Also included in your packets you will find an article from the Metro Monitor regarding the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Plan. The Plan focuses on the Airport's environmental capacity and the potential for the noise budget to positively impact the metropolitan area. C. Star and Tribune - Airport Noise Abatement Program - The July 1, 1986, Minneapolis Star and Tribune reported that the recommendations included in the MAC'S report to the Governor have begun to be applied. Its principal focus, like that of the Aviation Plan article above, is the noise budget which is under development at this time. VII. ADJOURNMENT The Committee will adjourn at or about 6:00 p.m. A•flinis rative Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Planner Runkle City Attorney Hauge JDH /jh MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA JUNE 26, 1986 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Thursday, June 26, 1986, at the Eagan Municipal Center at 4:30 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman Tom Baker, John Gustin, Joe Harrison, Carolyn Braun, and Otto Leitner. Absent was Dustin Mirick and Carol Duzois. Also present was Administrative Assistant Jon Hohenstein. MINUTES Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Braun, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the May 13, 1986 meeting were approved. EAGAN- MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR STUDY Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that representatives of City staff has met with representatives of the MAC and the FAA to attempt to resolve issues pertaining to the Eagan- Mendota Heights departure corridor. He indicated that the FAA has admitted to switching operations to the runway heading and that the MAC intends to study the extent to which the FAA complies with that. He further stated that it is the contention of the MAC and the FAA that the shift was a result of actions taken by MASAC in 1984 in response to a motion by the Mendota Heights city council. Chairman Baker indicated that the Mendota Heights representatives did not recommend a change in departure headings and that the MASAC headings were not intended to change the procedure. Member Braun reported that an employee of the Airports Commission who was staffing the complaint line, told her that there is no such thing as an Eagan- Mendota Heights departure corridor. Member Leitner said that a control tower supervisor told him that the extended runway center line is the middle of the corridor, not its southern boundary. Members then discussed a direction for future action to clarify the corridor issue, such clarification to be the basis for the remainder of the Metropolitan Airports Commission study on corridor compliance. Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Braun, all members voting in favor, Chairman Baker and members of staff were directed to meet with representatives of Mendota Heights to confer on a mutual position regarding the corridor for a joint presentation to the Metropolitan Airports Commission, results of such meetings to be reported back to the Committee. RUNWAY 4/22 EXTENSION Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that the City Council had continued action on the Committee's Runway 4/22 Extension resolution until the MAC Environmental Impact Statement on the extension could be made available for review. Committee members expressed interest in the upcoming public hearings on the EIS and indicated that the dates of such hearings should be publicized to improve community input. Discussion was also had on the possibility of using the public hearing forum to introduce additional issues for review and debate. Specifically, issues related to the Eagan- Mendota Heights Departure Corridor were discussed. 1 Airport Noise Commission Minutes June 26, 1986 Page 2 CONTINUED PUBLICITY Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Harrison, all members voting in favor, staff was directed to continue to publicize the airport noise complaint numbers and other information to improve public awareness of airport noise issues. AIRPORT RELOCATION Member Harrison expressed concern that the proliferation of air traffic on all sides of the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport has and will continue to make the living situation in the area intollerable. Moreover, he expressed concern that increased operations may include the introduction of supersonic transport aircraft such as the Concord, in addition to the noise compliance Stage III aircraft. The Committee discussed the potential for raising the relocation issue as a part of the Runway 4/22 Extension Environmental Impact Statement public hearings. Member Leitner left the meeting for another committment at 5:51 p.m. NORTHWEST— REPUBLIC MERGER RESOLUTION Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed a resolution in support of the Northwest and Republic Airlines merger. He indicated that the city of Mendota Heights passed a similar resolution in recent months. The membership determined that they would act on the resolution as presented as a matter of other business and, upon motion by Harrison, seconded by Braun, all members voting in favor, the resolution in support of the Northwest and Republic Airlines merger was approved and staff was directed to forward same to the City Council for its approval. Chairman Baker left the meeting at 5:58 p.m., appointing Gustin to act as Chairman in his absence. DISTRIBUTION Administration Hohenstein indicated that due to the late hour it would not be possible for the Committee to review the materials on the health aspects of noise and the FAA report on fleet modernization. Members indicated that such material could be reviewed individually. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Gustin adjourned the meeting at 6:07 p.m. JDH 9 MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN t DATE: JULY 8, 1986 • = SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES SOUND METER PROGRAM Pursuant to our conversations, I have investigated the 1 availability =of sound level analyzing 'equipment. The purpose of this memo is to outline brTefly the information thaE was gathered ''and possible= alternatives for City action.e The incidence of circumstances under which a sound level meter might be used in the City of Eagan are apparently increasing. These circumstances "include a number of citizen complaints regarding the enforcement of the City's Environmental Noise Ordinance, complaints about traffic noise, requests for studies of noise compatibility for 'developments, and the increasing level of aircraft - noise. Currently, it is neccesary to request special studies of the MPCA to enforce or study any of these items. In the past, the City Council has expressed concern that the conduct of noise studies might tend to increase the City's liability to law suit. I have contacted a number of noise experts including Dave Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Tom Duffy of the National Organization to Insure Sound Controlled Environment, John Nelson of the City of Bloomington and the Metrosonics Corporation. None are aware of precedent cases which hold a city liable for noise simply because it has conducted studies about its presence or level. In fact, there is a possibility that the new state noise standards may place a liability on cities for allowing land uses which are noise incompatible with those already in place. While the League of Minnesota Cities continues to oppose this rule and lobbying efforts may result in its amendment, the City may be best served , if it is able to anticipate noise levels through the use of a meter before approving certain uses. Purchase prices and capacities for such equipment vary widely. A hand held unit from Larson -Davis Laboratories costs roughly $1,300. The Metrosonics sound level analyzer lists for $10,000. Electronic Design Company, Bruel and Kjaer and Quest Electronics all have equipment priced somewhere between. Obviously so great a diversity in equipment and cost implies a need for an expanded level of expertise in the sound analysis business before good decisions can be made on capital expenditures. For this reason, it may be advisable for the City to take part in the League of Minnesota's Sound Meter Program. The League purchased a number of 3M Model 3220 sound level meters with the intention of making them available to member cities at a nominal fee to conduct sound analysis. To date, response has been low and the League is willing to distribute them to cities on a loan basis without financial obligation except for unnecessary wear and tear. A copy of the custody agreement for such equipment is attached for your review. The City may have the equipment for up Sound Meter Program July 8, 1986 Page 2 to 18 months without charge and may renew the loan agreement at that time. The PCA also makes available training for City staff who may be assigned to conduct measurements with the equipment. The training is conducted by MPCA staff member Dave Kelso and City of Bloomington staff member John Nelson. It is conducted as a portion of the Minnesota Police Officers Skills Training program. Initial training time commitments require only a couple of hours and subsequent training can be modified to fit specific interests. Because the nature of the complaints described above varies widely, it may be advisable for representatives of several City Departments including Inspections, Planning, Police and Engineering to undertake the training. The availability of a sound level analyzer and the training in its use will allow the City staff to become familiar with the operation of such equipment and allow for more informed decisions if we were to consider purchase of such equipment in the future. Please inform me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Ad nistrative Assis Enclosure JDH /j eh MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: JUNE 24, 1986 SUBJECT: NOISE MONITOR Pursuant to our conversations regarding the budget, I contacted Mr. Dave Kelso and asked for additional information on noise monitors. He indicated that it is his feeling that we probably did not need the large Metrosonics unit and that there were a number of units better suited to our circumstances based upon usability and cost. The first of these is a unit by a Utah company named Larson - Davis. The equipment is called a Larson - Davis 700 docimeter /sound level meter which with peripherals can cost anywhere from $1300 to $3000. Other sound monitors within this price range are produced by companies such as B & K and Quest. Dave will be sending information on all of these units. He also indicated that it was his understanding that the league was no longer charging a fee for the use of their unit and it might be possible to enter into a borrowing agreement for six months to a year to develop expertise and practice with the unit. I have left a message for Ellen Longfellow of the league to contact me in this regard. I will forward additional information concerning this matter. • gay Admi ive Assistant JH /jh 0 MID - CONTINENT RESEARCH, INC. 808 Nicollet Mall, Suite 320 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 MCR4685 Hello, this is from Mid - Continent Research. We are calling on behalf of the Metropolitan Airports Commission to learn more about your experiences with noise from the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport. The results of this study will be used in developing a plan to reduce the amount of noise. Before we get started I need to ask which adult in your household had the most recent birthday? IF RESPONDENT HAD MOST RECENT BIRTHDAY, CONTINUE IF SOMEONE ELSE, ASK TO SPEAK TO THAT PERSON OR ARRANGE CALLBACK. REPEAT INTRODUCTION IF NECESSARY. 1. Are you ever bothered or disturbed by noise coming from the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport,...or not? YES CONTINUE WITH Q. lA 2. NO SKIP TO Q. 13 '/ X. DON'T KNOW la. Are you bothered by noise from the airport more on weekdays, ...more on weekends,...or is it about the same? 1. BOTHERED MORE ON WEEKDAYS 3. ABOUT THE SAME 2. BOTHERED MORE ON WEEKENDS X. DON'T KNOW 2. I'd like to ask you how much you are bothered by noise from the airport at different times of year. We'll use a five -point scale where "1" means the noise does not bother you at all and "5" means the noise bothers you very much. If you are not here during a season, please tell me (CIRCLE "0" FOR NOT APPLICABLE). First...(READ LIST) NOT Not Very APP. at Much All Spring 0 1 2 3 4 5 X Summer • 0 1 2 3 4 5 X Fall 0 1 2 3 4 5 X Winter 0 1 2 3 4 5 X 3. These questions are about the degree to which you yourself are bothered by noise from the airport at various times of the day. We'11 use a five -point rating scale where "1" means the noise does not bother you at all and "5" means the noise bothers you very much. You can use any number from one to five. If you are not home during that time, please tell me. (CIRCLE "0" FOR NOT APPLICABLE) � 1 :7 1/ Doti aw4� a. Using this five -point scale, how 0 1 2 3 4 5 X much are you yourself bothered by noise from the airport between 6:00 and 9:00 in the morning on weekdays? b. ... between 9:00 in the morning and 0 1 2 3 4 5 X 4:00 in the afternoon on weekdays? c. ...between 4:00 in the afternoon and 0 1 2 3 4 5 X 7:00 in the evening on weekdays? d. How much are you yourself bothered 0 1 2 3 4 5 X by noise from the airport between 7:00 and 11:00 in the evening on weekdays? e. ..between 11:00 at night and 6:00 0 1 2 3 4 5 X in the morning on weekdays? f. Using this five -point scale, how 0 1 2 3 4 5 X• much are you yourself bothered by noise from the airport between 6:00 and 9:00 in the morning on weekends? g. ... between 9:00 in the morning and 0 1 2 3 4 5 X 4:00 in the afternoon on weekends? h. ...between 4:00 in the afternoon and 0 1 2 3 4 5 X 7:00 in the evening on weekends? i. How much are you yourself bothered 0 1 2 3 4 5 X by noise from the airport between 7:00 and 11:00 in the evening on weekends? j. ..between 11:00 at night and 6:00 0 1 2 3 4 5 X in the morning on weekends? 4. Aircraft make different sounds when they are landing than when they are taking off. Have you noticed those differences,...or not? 1. YES HAVE NOTICED 2. NO HAVE NOT NOTICED. 7 SKIP TO Q. 5 X. DON'T KNOW - 4a. Are you bothered more by the noise from aircraft taking off or from aircraft landing? 1. TAKING OFF 3. ABOUT THE SAME 2. LANDING X. DON'T KNOW 5. Some people are bothered more by overall noise levels, others are bothered more by occasional but very loud noise. Which kind of noise from the airport is more of a problem for you -- overall noise or occasional, very loud noise? (FORCE A CHOICE) 1. OVERALL NOISE 2. OCCASIONAL LOUD NOISE X. DON'T KNOW u s , o v-er 1 -9--;6, ;-- ztrwsi tf?, 6. Assuming that o ere home at the time, whicho you think you would 7: airplane overflights limited to two hours a day but averaging one per minute,...or airplane overflights lasting eight hours a day but averaging one every ten . minutes? 1. TWO HOURS A DAY, ONCE A MINUTE rear 2. EIGHT HOURS A DAY, EVERY TEN MINUTES ‘ S Prs -»- X. DON'T KNOW 7. Do flights from one particular runway bother you more than • others? 1. DON'T KNOW; CAN'T TELL WHICH RUNWAY SKIP TO Q.7 2. NO, NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RUNWAYS 3. YES = = == >Which runway is that? (GET DESCRIPTION OR LOCATION RELATIVE TO RESPONDENT'S HOME) • 8. Now we have some questions about activities which might be disturbed by noise from the airport. Please rate each one on a five -point scale where "1" means that you are not disturbed at all and "5" means that you are disturbed very much. If any of these items do not apply to you, please tell me so. (CIRCLE "0" FOR NOT APPLICABLE) CIRCLE Q- Q . a. Using this five -point scale, how 0 1 2 3 4 5 X much are you yourself disturbed by noise from the airport while eating meals indoors? b. ...when watching television or 0 1 2 3 4 5 X listening to the radio? c. ...while sleeping? 0 1 2 3 4 5 X d. How much are you yourself disturbed 0 1 2 3 4 5 X by noise from the airport while talking to people outside at your house? e. ...during other outdoor activities 0 1 2 3 4 5 X such as yard work or recreation? f. ...while talking on the telephone? 0 1 2 3 4 5 X g. ...during quiet indoor activities 0 1 2 3 4 5 X' such as reading or sewing? 9. How would you finish this sentence? "Noise from the airport bothers me most when...." (RECORD) t� 10. Was there point in time when noise from the airport became int lerable to you? (CIRCLE BEST CHOICE) w` 1. NO, NOT INTOLERABLE c ccx 2. YES== = >When was that? (GET SPECIFIC YEAR IF POSSIBLE) 11. Which of the following, if any, have you done as a response to noise from the airport? CIRCLE YES NO DK a. Added soundproofing to your home. 1 2 X b. Limited outdoor activities 1 2 X c. Complained to the Metropolitan Airports 1 2 X Commission or MASAC d. Complained to other government agencies 1 2 X or elected officials IF YES, SPECIFY e. Attended meetings with public officials 1 2 X or citizen groups to discuss noise. f. Joined a citizen group'concerned with 1 2 X noise from the airport g. Seriously considered moving 1 2 X 12. Is there anything else you have done in response to noise from the airport? 13. Finally I need to get some information about you. What is the exact address of your residence? (RECORD) 14. Do you own or rent your residence? 1. OWN 2. RENT 3. OTHER 15. Is this a single family dwelling,...a double bungalow,... an up -down duplex,...or part of a multi -unit complex? . SINGLE FAMILY DWELLIN SKIP TO Q. 16 �2. DOUBLE BUNGALOW 3. UP -DOWN DUPLEX 4. MULTI -UNIT COMPLEX 0. OTHER SPECIFY: (ASK Q15a IF APPROPRIATE) 15a. Do you live on the top level or on a lower level? 1. TOP LEVEL 2. LOWER LEVEL 16. How long have you lived at this address? 17. During the weekend, how many of the 24 hours are you yourself at home per day? 18. During the week, how many of the 24 hours are you yourself at home per day? 19. Do you or any member of your household work at the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport or for a company closely affiliated with the airport? 1. YES = = => SPECIFY 2. NO X. DON'T KNOW • 20. How many times in the past year did you or any member of your household fly in or out of the Minneapolis - St. Paul airport? A round trip counts as two flights. 0. NONE A. SOME, BUT CANNOT RECALL HOW MANY B. DON'T KNOW IF TRIPS WERE TAKEN IN PAST YEAR +. ESTIMATED NUMBER SEX: RECORD ONLY 1. MALE 2. FEMALE CENSUS TRACT: RECORD FROM CALL SHEET Ldn Code That's all of the questions that I have. Your opinions will be combined with those of other citizens to help the Airports Commission make some important decisions. No one outside of this research company will know who we have talked to. I do need to get your name, however, for verification purposes only. And may I confirm that I reached you' by dialing.... Thank you for sharing your opinions. Name Phone Interviewed by Date Edited by Monitored by Validated by Date • Final Coding Approval by -15- .' ll //�� - Central processor, computer- controlled, to monitor, store, and Nc'?NAJ�-1QW^"v` analyze the received acoustic data to produce hourly and daily noise levels, single event levels, and plots of selected single C ` • event time histories. Other features such as audio monitoring and recording, display map, and additional memory or data storage facilities could also be available. - Future expansion of the system would be a prime feature of the design. Accommodation of up to 12 remote sites, similarly accessed via direct lines or radio, would be possible with minimal effort. Tabulation of weather data and provisions for correlation of air- craft events (input manually) with noise events could also be added in the future. The capabilities provided by this system will greatly enhance our ability to control on- airport noise. The data will include time of run -up occurrence, duration of run -up, and noise levels reached. An outstanding feature of the system will be its ability to accommodate additional remote monitoring devices. By installing other units at specific locations on the field we will finally be able to accurately determine the breakdown in runway useage. So far we have been unable to develop the statistics relative to actual use of the runways. All previous information, except that acquired through personal observation in special circumstances, has been of the hourly runway availability nature, (i.e., the percentage of time in a 24 -hour period a particular runway was in active status). With the information provided by the proposed monitoring system we will be able to make judgements about the impact of aircraft activity based upon actual data, be able to note trends or changes in runway useage and develop more concise plans for more effective distribution of aircraft noise. We fully anticipate being able to incorporate this expanded portion of the permanent monitoring system during 1983. The major factors which will determine the date of installation are the necessity to refine the capabilities of the system to match our needs, the development of a plan to most effectively use the system and acquiring the funds for so major a project. B. Runway 22 Channelization - The greatest positive effect on noise levels to occur in the upcoming year will result from implementation of part of the Ops Plan previously mentioned. This part is the channelling of departure traffic from Run- way 22 (see Attachment #8, page 47). Currently, aircraft taking off on that runway are assigned one of three basic headings, depending upon their destinations - 200 ° , 270 ° , or runway heading of 220 ° . (A heading of 180 may also be assigned, but only if Runway 29L is not being used for landings.) (See Attachment #5.) The headings of 220 and 200 result in departure traffic proceeding across the -16- ' southeast corner of Richfield and continuing through central and southeast Bloomington. Because the vast majority of departures are bound for destinations in the southeast and east, approximately 70% of them fly these two departure headings on their way to the enroute airway structure. The change contained in the Ops Plan will provide 1 for most of these 220 and 200 departures (all but about 12 per day) to be rerouted to one of two headings. Most of them will be shifted to the east of Cedar Avenue on a heading of 180 and the remainder to the 270 departure track. The eastward shift to the 180 heading will place traffic over the relatively unpopulated area of Bloom- ington which presently contains the Metropolitan Stadium Complex. This move also provides earlier access to the Minnesota River Bottom area with a consequent lessening of the noise impact. The shifting of traffic to the north to 270 will place aircraft over 494 freeway and the commercially developed properties adjacent to it. The channellization plan will also incorporate improved procedures for positioning aircraft over the 494 belt on the 270 heading through the use of Radio Navigation Aid, Distance Measuring Equipment or more proficient A.T.C. tower operations. Also part of the new procedure will be a delayed turn to the north from the 270 heading until aircraft have reached altitudes sufficient to minimize the noise levels on the ground. This will prevent the common occurrence of aircraft with destinations to the north from overflying all of central and western Richfield. This plan is, of course, dependent upon the FAA's ability to incorporate the new procedures. And recent personnel problems resulting from the August strike may slow down progress in implementation. The MAC is still confident, however, that before the summer of 1982 the new procedure will be in effect. And, although total noise levels will not be decreased by this measure, shifts in areas of impact will occur as aircraft are routed away from populated areas and into areas sparsely populated and areas typified by commercial activities (see Attachment #8, page 48). We, consequently, expect a net change of 4600 residents who will be moved from areas of noise exceeding 65 dBA (see Attachment #6). C. Relocation of Cargo Activity - In addition to these steps for improvement in the upcoming year, we hope to see some progress with Ops Plan Alt. #3 - The Voluntary Relocation of Cargo Activity (see Attachment #8, page 42). Admittedly, the success of this effort depends almost totally upon the individual operator's ability to make such a move profitably. Certain incentives on the part of MAC may become necessary. Also, much is dependent upon the capability of Holman Field (St. Paul Downtown) to accept the increased activity by the type of aircraft currently being used (i.e., Convairs, Beechcraft and Cessna cargo aircraft). 7. FUTURE NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS - SUCCEEDING YEARS Looking past 1982, the MAC is committing itself to examining all avenues for /J aws i�lo��.G: tKTh MS/ fee differentials would create considerable problems for the air- lines at MSP. o This measure would affect a small number of general aviation opera- tions, but its impact on the level of service would be minimal. Cost Factors: o This measure would likely cause a minimal increase in aircraft operating costs and in delays, though the small increases in delays during peak hours would be offset by nighttime savings and reductions in delays caused by changes in runway configurations prior to and after peak hours. o The proposed measure would not incur any capital costs. Economic Factors: o This measure could have an adverse effect on the local economy. The extent of this effect would depend on the actual degree of fee differential and the reactions by the air carriers, particularly with respect to the FAR Part 36 fees. Also, if the fee differen- tials were substantial, the measure could detract from the attrac- tiveness of MSP as headquarters for Northwest and Republic Air- ' lines. Energy Factors: o This measure would probably cause little net change in fuel con- sumption. Implementation Factors: o This measure would have to overcome significant hurdles, the most serious of which would be the questions of Federal preemption of compliance standards and of undue burden on interstate commerce (both stem from the FAR Part 36 differential fee). Substantial practical problems would likely be encountered in establishing and maintaining reasonable and flexible incentive fees to achieve the desired goals. Additional Measure No. 7 - Initiate Channelized Routing for Runway 22 Departures Description: o This measure would have all large aircraft departing from Runway 22 to either turn on a heading east of and roughly paralleling Cedar Avenue, or to turn westward, remaining over the 1-494 corridor for 2 -1/2 - 3 miles, when they would be high enough so that their noise would no longer be distruptive to residential areas below (Exhibit 41). The procedure would be utilized whenever Runway 22 was used (' for departures. -47- Noise Factors: o This measure would eliminate most departure overflights of residen- tial areas in east- central Bloomington and southern Richfield. Decreases in residential populations of 400 and 30 in the Ldn 65 -75 and Ldn 75+ zones, respectively, would result from this measure (Exhibit 42). Most of those that would be affected live in single family residences. There would be net increases of 700 and 40 daytime occupants (mostly employees in commercial areas) in the Ldn 65 -75 and Ldn 75+ zones, including the removal of a school from the Ldn 65 -75 zone, Shifts in the L 10 65 contour based on 1977 data will remove 4600 residents and 3600 daytime occupants from east - central Bloomington and southern Richfield (Exhibit 43). o The new flight tracks would minimize noise impacts during the noise sensitive nighttime period when the preferential runway system of landing on Runways 29L and R and departing Runway 22 is often in use. Airport and Aircraft Operational Factors: o This measure would create only minor additional airspace conflicts, ✓ while a small increase in controller and pilot workload would probably result. o A minimal reduction in airport annual and hourly capacities would result from this new measure. Air Transportation Factors: o This measure would have no significant effect either on the level of passenger or cargo service, the airline companies, or general aviation activity at MSP. Cost Factors: o There would only be a $40,000 annual increase in flighttime costs as a result of this measure. If an NDB was needed, approximately $15,000 - $20,000 in capital costs would be required. Economic Factors: o The proposed measure would not affect the economy of the Twin Cities area. Energy Factors: o The proposed measure would decrease net airline fuel consumption by 30,000 gallons per year. Even though more flighttime would be re- quired, most will be experienced by arriving aircraft during descent, when fuel consumption is very low. -48- Implementation Factors: o The new measure would be primarily implemented through ATC and internal FAA procedures. These changes would not appear to pose any implementation problems that could not be solved. Additional Measure No. 8 - Nighttime Ban on Aircraft Not Meeting FAR Part 36 Noise Standards Description: o This measure would prohibit scheduled and intentionally planned operations of aircraft over 12,500 lbs. maximum certificated weight which do not meet FAR Part 36, Stage II noise standards between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Scheduled air carrier (passenger and cargo) or planned general aviation and charter operations run- ning late would be excluded from the ban as would diversions. Non - revenue maintenance flights and equipment positioning flights would be included in the ban. Noise Factors: o This meaure would provide some reduction in noise, but the amount of reduction would depend upon the extent to which the airlines were able to comply with the restriction. o Assuming a "perfect" replacement with compliant types, 1,000 resi- dents would be removed from the Ldn 65 -75 zone and 10 to 20 residents would be removed from the Ldn 75+ zone (Exhibit 44). o The proposed measure would not affect daytime population. Airport and Aircraft Operational Factors: o This measure would not have a significant effect on controller or pilot workloads, nor would it change airport capacity or current aircraft operational margins. Air Transportation Factors: o This measure could result in a decrease in the quality of passenger and cargo service, although in the latter case, the impact would be less severe. o This measure would introduce a major new factor in planning airline company operations; compliance would most likely result in additional costs to the airlines. o The quality and level of general aviation service would not be significantly affected by this measure. -49- � • N O 0 lV A t a C C il rno a, 0 3 ; LL a aO1i +' d L u c a s m a a m ND .e - N I -2 1.. rn A w H • .0 1p V r Q. t m d E C O. c0 . io N /0 u_ g' LL y I- C l0 U cal • C W N o 01 Y N V - 'd Z N C1 .- s G- �` . Z = rn x G1 X V pC a N F- •0 m N (� Li W d 9 d d V !xI 1 o � N .. I i tt •asio �odJi euoileuialut fined •�S- s��odeauuiy� "` ue�d suoi�e�adp ;uawa�egd N � d � ; . ' ��`� �;lt ;�'. 71''�g� �° 1 :a. ' it .1,.. "'°�' � .._n� �� 4 QL. •i��4*�.e� •i� ini�,�i►a�iEI :r yy�� iy , 1 - e ,_ :i� •, �' ire °�'• � li, I .:: ��Y� �., y'i4A � �l�iit r ►�i[I' �' 1�[1 `� � ;' __- � 1•t 14' �i ,4v.'�`aVeeelc!� IIJ� r�rialti�litCl 1 1 (!; y•c �.f �'.'rr •• �. [� t��.R - , I j` i" 'fi: `a. f+ 1y o w, ■/1 \1112 �1 Ili�� 1r _ : �-.. ,:, r 11'�Illlllrl\Illh wY 171► � � p yf�1 .cNUg111id1Y"I Ei '`'� ..�`_t• b� ) Li' _ - �..> 7 _ -'# ,,�E�1{I[Y►ll �Ri '.•ii. u �4. `77�'� .,�� i,� >r� ! 1 _ I , u"u/ru/ e_ Illlf"■ ,, �� r1 a � ; 1 �5 i rll r IIIUO�!, 3, „ f,,,,, r 'j i�11h\y� �IYIIIIIIIIIIIIIIId1�Y.� � �� • bIIIyIa111 [ItC11111111111d111111i/ •\ 11 11 _ , • - gp71 /,.0 �uu � � I �l ewlYUmuurrrrr�uu 71 �•� ,�t , C•I F ' �nur111,�un °e =._�!� 1�� 1 • 111111111_Illfllklrll S •Y.�1"+.►11111111 1111 yf4 [ •G 1 - ?p.• �IIYIiiY1��laUllYlplp IYd�'ll�ll� 1 "' �' -y'� •••- t1 "'��1[h�Ef[Flflil�'lIIY\.SA tF, iL�1 1 1 � ..��..,,r�� 7 a - 9;Li ' IIYIIIIItf��'t[ rl ' b st � �. \ � ...�..s� _B�_ - ___'• ` lilt{ ►deli -- - - - -- --- l. I! U = - — . R � Z�Sii ��i1... -e: Joao -es �Ces i =!� .. _ 1j rESE�� l ' �j» j Y - .s.■o ■. 1 �� 11 � y�� +'� . "�- ffi ,�y ^` �E ��_ r. f■ v�� E ' 1 ``;. 7� .tw.Tw I v . 4► "'33IILiii�I' Ir ' ' 4 . z �x �i • - -o: 1� �s eItE�x -= 5 1 � f1iali�Cr ___ 1. ! .:l ' •� = .: �� iJ : Fti� 4s1[I:7aw' i' ` � ^1. �� t�i - � .� � l .r .s.F , ,: tC =� 1 Y 1e� _ �' a rrc - ° -s_, = w[`�i� p �V•.r^+ �z - . . ,}', �� ., -; � y�� # ��i i- �1� � �� `� �' �� L � I' � f � �� ,� # va r °,t 7W .•••rt�+' ._ ; E R . i { I ;` #� . r 4 / _ f�[I{ /ham' = - w o . 7 d m .o In a. V U d N d 7 '- c , in c .c ; ' E N r , -...- CO 0 c � N . - ..• W w G y 1- 0 r o G m , y 10 ,_ - W N N _ t N a) tr.: O .".. N N 0 d d o- of 2lr ,: 2 -o co et CA C ,- V c c 2 O o a d Z ,17 x. ' • O O v Z 2- E S et a¢ ?- - . W J Q __. d o Z o o ir L C '� w E a 2 a in Y to ueld suoi}eJadp luawa;egd es!oN liodJib 1euo��euieiui pled . is- sliodeeuuilN ' .. x I iii i;i ` t , I I l� I l L fl 1 ° �' 1� f . . � - 4 . . •` �• � .ii� � vr 1111W �`.- �� a !- �.��.. .J� f - r -o �y ,g . .. . . t ®- ;�. ,,'• '_i -- --:'. vA:■e1.....rYi {y�. _ - - -- .. - - . T. -- _ ' t `°i '4 �� i lovii„1ila 4 . N 1E N gr ai l ■ i ; r f F - . 1 _ C yr � Z' f P 3f fC �c `� ��!ll4t;::I11 g ;:f zm ��i� IC(1 ~' „ ti y ' ! [ ` 1' 1 "� '` �. s t�_ �" _ r31r ii 1 1 i f11 r :, it �� 1;11'1 'I , }i - y. . ,....,...._, '''' .... ' � I sr t �l : � %I� -� -r pa, , [ .gyp Iy ' .IIPIIII. t�,t IC tL� " , I � .11111111: el" �� J eA1I111r1 �; � . f_ . Illittettletrtre, i .o. „'F, ge ` l j c 1___ i 1 Ii11111111 ■IilC µ ��l.lhwA C .. Y ■' a1nu1111is111 r tmlit . D _ � � t # ttilliltt111ii10rr attl►`_ ' ' ' • �1 .., , - 1 UIIII ■ ■11ii1! lr rlel�n: `±C� ` 1i111111■1111tr 11 It6lIDkl i @ n ■ i 111111lriYi iiRo ..Jrl � v, . 1 e I" IANFFIelUllir ■.1iif,..: n �.�r M -.-+. ai�.it Dr © • E e f YIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi111Y J I f s f �`�' J L ■ � ■ �IUIt1lHY1111I11ui1r1111e1 e1 Q— � � " 7 r i . 7 _ rs S ■ � ■ ■ �Ii11 \ [ '# .�� Ili _ II■WIIIlpIIIIIeritg 1l11 1 J �. "4 1 r £ r - -- IIrIlII1111dC: P {� 0i Q I VP 1 1 %� ; ti w eelrr■rereleedC . = = =�' 1 F1 _ 1 , ,,A 11 �., , o �. \ t i , .' o '� di ' j �!�j r mune I oo}�eeellllliilrll.;IlfrF e e ^ q , u 1 v . '9::H::•� ' 11111111111i1i111=III�I�� h�� ¢ ! �r I k x a: & n. P> i 1111 inhume II t 1 `-- _ i. ),Es a.- -• tt ' • I 1 ,,,, I li Y9 ittilleh■nu111111 11 n Ir1s 1 1111" 11 • ! ! / tlre: t i ' f > ,r ., f < � � � 1r11 � 61 � e [f :9� � z ID �� ItllG ; a u icr , ■ !6A�Ierk11Itli I . 1Ef iro., .�,�. mpa 1 (�'' < ` I y �� 1111 ua a nt 6F11111 ■1 .. 1 e./ i.' - , i j r ' _ � , ` z - f min G :1 11ei•�t /RN I� r IE6F� 1 U1111111iiir111,� i!1 ■ '' , l �' ~ i 114 � al lit ''s, s li il,Y ; p k ..,.1 -cJ•'- �i 1,- 'P.� a alr9. i �� - , /1 ` 4� z .�. c ., r � 1� E 61 .' r - - -- =-u� r f .i[ 9'i i=ta=Oe1" r ' I / Y A 1 • . _ iba C • o�s.. ►� , s�ia` ., � SV �i � 7t � � { S 1 i „ {/ 1 [ P ' �� a � u' y t '; h I ., 4.? i .c.., 4, lui lh i j 111\ p .'-, , .,,,..‘ i , lip, k J.- ii i Ii i . ..... - . :. ,,, „ el - iloii - - - � - .I c . l .� u .. ,\ -! A , 11; „, \ I � ! \�� \\ \ ,� - Y i +.�. sae •. iI �.� _— - , t ` • � i E I1:aLLCC�LLLi:- �i�' ' � ! ,i •' .�iM = Y� � . 1 � ' � iL . EZIN I . , 1 � -) , ! : 1 i \ i ma us iamniffinoiMMEMI=Illiik . ra r ..... — _ . € - rti!i�� ∎ate . inl \ 11 1 :... ,11. S �s = O lu'• - = - f a 1 C. � i= W- � � P'' - Y. -_ V9 i fe ii VF = LWL �4G y - 4 -. �� _ _ ` - ' �►sI =a- ::- �r__t, ,,=e I _ 1 . 2 _ x _ -- _ . _ - == I LE.i ..cvW : 1 � \ � WL �' -�•', -mug _,� =: =�1 = � SE� ' • ll c�maae�om -..- t7 ��MaQ�t�ly Z�Pa @!1 =a i WINO■sli01■11111110111M 10 . I Y =iia =� = "C■�__ i Y u. I .m .trir� � 1� 1 �� fA+. 111y /_ _ = �sri�_7 S rnU1e or - I I r 1 ,W2 �_ L � 1 r,a-.r .. ' _ l .4 t . ti Ems -sw / g —ipil [ s .. it -- -- 1i % -11 %, _= t /yy .. - -- ^~ f S � r te® ".• Ir. , . 1 A t �� _ izr. =4v.- -- &!s -.�_ E. P I ,� ��1 - s i � ' s-,,1 . �! � ` - Nor .., . aw1 's.e r -.es mm! a ■ c. E 1'i- ■ \ - IYCYL enc-a YmauulFtI. -. 1 i _ , i i ' •i X , , I .. . n _i Z 1 =4 ,i UM” ^ b i .a■.. / !fie , d . - r : , , .. •- 1 o 1 r c c ., - Y r O d C ` w Im t ,, O Z •,. 'i m e. 7- :. , O d 7 E w ' 01 O N CO m E : ^ " - v im N m c Y N It CI 0 co Z C N o N I, >6 w y m I. : x; ,;- 03 U ar H F:.. =. S y j aai e Z io o 1 E L ;! a`x a in ueld suoileiedo luawalegd esloN lJodi!y Ieuoileulalul lined ••S- s!lodeeuu!V , 9� f ` „`S' ` % ; !" I ?il�lif 4� E l0lFlu' s i cz • °'r I ,k It a u ia . auar n �Me �up °a rte. )) ' wit 1 pal ` s•.- 4,N N I N� iN r; i ill ' r III > .., . ,+; 4 41... ; TANgt ....ITNUiliglirigi ilt di ' 4 ‘ . , .6 gip ' ' t --I ' - ., ..........,„ r ,,,.. ,„ _ IMI 71Si:E , A •�� It jr I' N _ . •` 1 ouLiil r " L� �^F� ` tt11 1E1i11A l illtiletlitlRr ,• "'sr�1Y■ 1 J i ' ��1 ■Its i � �'' I ,.. ur� nuu■rr11h' i� ?Y�ti., , -4 Epp r ... ■ug111t1■111e1 rY1111131 ` �`.• - • � Mi u un.itllu■II1p :... �° *.: e:�� };� 0 l t 111 ■1111 ■ ■�I6i1l,. RIM it ", �..�+� 1 i l f1111111I111rPl11�1 illt 1�4 r . ��. ■ ►� , j t i11I1111riliiilfill ..!,....41.t, Y 0.. _ ri1 �'lktrl'Ilti IFr u.�.�ta ` N '‘ . �1 JI . ..i. % I urul ��1111 `�'� .. -y■11111f111111111ii111.. � � -� P1 ., ��,, 1 }e j, Pas d 'v� �. 1111[11 -111 11111 11 1 :i 1 ` " � , seJ. ,, 3 -� ., .g tlmlouuert tI � � � � ,. -fi -3 • ... il l ,_, It1 4'# ' ,mss `►' tlrnrertltt :. a ran r - ilk f ' l ' _ l e k a \.; � - .\ C r /.: a••r■ 11�.1 .■611111111i■1111111111111 �I�I E 1 �- • • . : it-, , 11111Y11611hi1U11111111 iiil Iit►m 11 " " . ' 1 ■uu l; r uuun u - . i.simRIGII� AP :'tl t , I - 1 .F.44,:- ':■ruu� IYIIY■��'�I� E I 11111 t t , \�-- , 11" � .u.c l4 ` i t '.5.. ��!! nLAl!lti If�l Muck I V A a -I `. �, � � ` ; . n ll - ellii / ii f P iltlFf�'e . r :' IIIII rte.+ K ,- ,.t tiMurl o Ulllllli.11111 l 'r'll Er,..~ - / t `� - _ 1F6F�■I1ulllllllllllllshrleet 11 IIIII ° .w• fr t ' - �- 1 , 015 • ■ • i� Wit �� Yes", \ i �� € d-+t ^mss / • \'; �� . �� \ i orer oft .. _ =_re_ .e�, t - - ' ` �, 1 '''''''4,.. �•�:.. • • 41,14111 a..i IC °— ■.a z.. = 7 �� l � pit _ i 1, � ' ' E -. s - l IImL % �%� - - -Q_ iT�`, 1 1 11 ! y 7 \ U ' � ' � � � iii ___ ,,,s, � A: -1 ( '! • .L,�.- , mos.= f. - � a - m■mmillmem - -- _ . • L i i u F ( . 1 �i u _-� r, 11 E 6 1 . ` K�. F. 11[9__ -- ik- _ i rrs - •. g ot.,c ��=i .1 ,SPi9 16141.: M : : w a, , - �i , 1>� � E � �S# n... t min- a �_'.taU�1 Y =C - -C .r.ZGii w E i Ei a ,... _ 121 r� - _ ayz.. � _: � •= 11 - : ��, t o �I � - _ ��i = i g f eta ..� �s .- - - - c +,.w • ° `�;. =.," i tams: - - re= l 6 l -, _, = - == . l� , Ifm _ I4'E h ® �, 0 h J 1!L2LL1!IiTJ P n s "............x---- . .. C w p 1 —_ -- ,_ '1 l li■� LIL'•� I 1■ rw I .72==.44517-m — ii1M � :l.I � it !!� 1 am -‘ : , .. - rte- ■ k _ ` . • • .MSP ATCT 7110.4C 9 -30 -85 - • - PART V • - _.. RU NWAY USE PROGRAM - NOISE ABATEMENT 1. PURPOSE. To define noise abatement procedures for Minneapolis International Airport pertaining all turbojets and all non - turbojet Group IV and V aircraft. 2. BACKGROUND. The control of air traffic in accordance with aircraft noise abatement programs is secondary only to considerations of safety. Such programs developed in the public interest may, in some cases, cause operational penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement- Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration, this informal runway use program was developed in order to reduce the aircraft'noise problem in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 3. ACTION. The issuance of air traffic control instructions relating to noise abatement for all turbojet aircraft and all other Group IV and V aircraft shall be in accordance with the following procedures: a. Vector arriving aircraft at 4,000 feet MSL or higher until intercepting the glidepath unless a particular situation dictates otherwise. b. Whenever the normal landing pattern is over Highland or the south Minneapolis area, a noise sensitive message shall be added to the ATIS information. c. When the parallel runways are in use for departing aircraft, the following air carriers: Northwest, Ozark, Continental, Western, American and l Midway shall use the south parallel 11R /29L to the extent possible with existing traffic and airport conditions. • d. As traffic conditions permit and in conjunction with procedures stated below, comply with the following runway priority giving first priority or noise relief to departure noise: Takeoff Landing 11L and 11R 29L and 29R 22 4 29L and 29R 11L and 11R 4 .. 22 - Note: Changes in the nature of noise complaints dictate giving first priority of noise relief to departure noise. (1) Runway conditions - clear and dry (i.e., there is no ice, slush, etc., which might make use - of a noise_abatement runway undesirable). (2) Wind velocity does mat exceed 15 knots. • (3) Any crosswind component does not exceed 90 degrees from either side of the center line of the runway in use whenever the wind velocity is five knots or more. Page 25 • 9 -30 -85 MSP ATCT 7110.4C Note: Best discretion shall be used in determining traffic conditions. e. To accomplish the noise abatement procedures, cross runway operations are often required. However, it is not required when visibility is one mile or less and /or traffic conditions are determined by the person in charge to be heavy. f. The preferential runway(s) in use shall be the determining factor in approving or disapproving a touch - and -go, stop- and - go, or low approach. g. Requests for a circling approach, by turbojet aircraft, for training shall be denied by the controller. • h. All helicopters requesting ASR approaches shall be accommodated in accordance with preferential runway procedures. i. Mendota Heights /Eagan procedures. -- (1) Departures on 11R and 11L shall: • (a) be issued heading 105 degrees which will insure that aircraft will remain clear of the noise sensitive areas . unless minimum diverging headings are needed to separate successive or parallel departures not on the same route. (b) When diverging separation is in use, it shall be used based upon the following criteria: 1 Runway 11R - a heading between 090 degrees and 105 degrees or a track on or north of the 11R localizer. 2 Runway 11L - a heading between 090 degrees and /or a heading which will track on or north of the 11R localizer. (c) Proceed on the heading assigned until at least three miles from the departure end of the runway. (d) When requested by the pilot of a Group IV or V turboprop, be issued headings and turned which prohibit flight over these noise sensitive areas (i.e., river departures). •• (2) Aircraft south of runway 29L localizer arriving on 29L and 29R shall be vectored to at least a 4-mile final. When issuing a visual approach clearance to these arrivals, the pilot shall also be advised to make at least a 4 -mile (i.e., "cleared visual approach 29L, make at least'a 4 -mile final "). j. Aircraft departing on runway 22 and making a right turn shall: (1) be instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 feet (MSL). (2) not be issued a heading greater than 350 degrees until past the 11L localizer course. Page 26 MSP ATCT 7110.4C 5 -12 -86 Change 1 k. During quiet hours (11:00 p.m. til 6:00 a.m.) the use of runways 11L for landings and departures and 29R for departures is prohibited for all types of aircraft, unless an emergency situation requires use of these runways. _ (1) Due to the noise characteristics of the BE -18 ( "Twin Beech ") and similar "noisy" types of aircraft, apply these procedures during quiet hours. Departures with noise characteristics may be issued a heading to remain over the river basin until leaving 3,000 feet or higher before proceeding on course. Note: Examples of similar noise characteristics to the "Twin Beech" include the Lodestar, Travelair and DC -3). 1. Intersection Departures -- Turbojets only. (1) Controllers shall ensure that intersection takeoffs, for turbojet aircraft, are not initiated when the departure path is over a noise sensitive area; i.e., departing runway 4, 29L, 29R. _ (2) Controllers may approve Republic (training flights) requests for an intersection departure from the cargo taxiway and runway 11R for their DC -9's. m. Local Control shall instruct all turbojet aircraft departing runway 29L, that will make a left turn, to maintain runway heading. Local Control shall issue assigned heading after the departure is beyond the departure end of 29L and prior to transfer of communications. n. Aircraft departing runway 29L and 29R making right turns shall be instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 MSL (2000 when weather is below 1000 -7) before turning to assigned heading. o. Aircraft departing runway 4 shall be issued headings that avoid overflying the Veterans' Administration Hospital as much as possible. p. Aircraft Engine Runup Procedures will be in accordance with .current MAC Field Rules. Any deviations from these rules shall be forwarded to the immediate supervisor for follow -up. - - . q. Controllers are required to be thoroughly knowledgeable with the provisions of this Order and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not covered by it. _. _ • �.. !r - Page 27 Y I U CO N Imo 2I .. _O C u -le 0) 0 L% U • I- , a1 41 Z., y �. N 1L 1 N Z in CI M J 1- I NI i 1 ! f AlqiiPaggatirAriki ,,, , (In ' Itio:4--_,...A,,, rr„ am2,„,hwAlutloi 1 'Ir In ,ate [ ' rptL' irl ��ler iile[� ,E . • + .' Xi' 4 I an � !I ! .1•■• b tfaiu- ..740•1.•••* .. 111Mbin VP O. /I�Yr: % -4 . °_Ca i ;M1f i s u1a11 .. 1 \ r _ r • ' E }+ 1 11/ w ` I t s • , _ 1 L• Ift � � " c 1 i es ild Q. IIIuuSUIu /btl! 11 . - :`--: ' _ rr11HrN/1n4� ..e1.. ``. • r "" , u .� t ►Ninil�elrra ..x:rr_ -ae� cw•,._ •,,", i, " - .r �:'II a • 1 � , m111ru e�� IIII •.�.4 \ \ N1', !�F Q ' rllenel,r-i_.u..W.M._ ) 1 HI. .�auD1111entussm.. 1 � El II��NeIIIBr- IIIIIIIIIIYYI1111� ' �` . i i 1. i. � � 1! i � I /.Ielruuuiuu►Leea•IU 1.` � �. - r .i=tt e r11'frrrrrscr. -- 1.1 ;`, iQ;� �' Stimm. r_ � I %m !*, r 1111111111111:1.= w .g1 rrrrwm p r i ; 1. � 1 C : [ �� 0 ' � ir t 1Mr n ` 11 11 F �r,� � _ • I iiiurldl.nlu1 N tinniii ii * !� — 1 !� .— l a !rfI �'• r •' / �" �i 1 1. �.+ . �. Ir11r.11'llfllIU� . �� cu L; e rrI 1rrr1111 I�r� "`� ��, ,i C • •V 1:'u.° erra SH!Ii111 filIlvz. Ev #1{ ' 1 4 -.1 C ii i uuu II u .�1 j f _\ , , , ' rt o + { J' fr ■IIII rH1 . • 1 a [ F °r , 11 �u�Wr, �` ` 1 �. c'lu'b 1m` u._.D i ►..� arr."10041 • , fir-- 1 1W W A,aC__- �� . . ol i ^ v , : \ (rtF �� .1.I 1- ; .� 0111 . �• „ ' 6 -,;` ' ` � ' . � t � 0.'d _ 1.- , �:...�C � 'i - C -IAS - i , . 0 ) . �� 1 ' `i .� -'--"T - =..i / cr zEgaz I o o ; I r . 1 ■fi...4 HAmmaammml au ° —i ce YIS' --�M. / 4 ' gg L. t O .! C GE-- --..=„zr, ,., .. s N-.1 M , ' \ \ '\,, �/� - Sri, - - -• 1 1 -m9 cif i -[, i - .-. r.R"L' W . ' carp— i-: C _ IAA sglii •a rs•j= - 1 qv ' i 1 1 _111 N Eii ° iy�� _ IN../wY� ..p 3= - }- �"^ = = z F .-.S• f + 1�•uo�fi-r� = , 1 O - - _, :- " - • i-' ;y 1 o12 <� e.. ® \ • �. rum -1?� =" C --3 jvast. I � � I 1. - 5k k- � ; i ,- ,T = 111 = , I . p 0�, ' ` \\ )1N 1 �VVN Existing Measure No. 4 - Departure Track Modifications 1 1 8( tAi7 Description: o Two procedures for large aircraft have been established which affect flight tracks; a minimum altitude for turns by was*, north- west and northbound departures from Runway 22 and a vectoring limi- tation for departures from Runways 11L and R. Aircraft turning right, departing Runway 22 are instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1,500 ft. MSL (660 ft. AGL). This is aimed at minimizing overflight of the residential areas of southern Rich- field. p tir,piY•t.ui 8F> on Runways 11L and R are issued overflight of residential area in Mend :ta Heights and Eagan. Specifically, controllers are instructed to issue initial, vectors of between (N.;0' and 120° to departures on Runway 11u and be7;ween 090° and 105° departures on Runway 11R. These headings are to be maintained until at least three miles from the end of the riiru,iu. Large turboprop aircraft can be vectored at the pilot's request along routes which do not overfly noise sensitive areas. Noise Factors: o The Runway 22 departure turn restriction results in significant shifts of the Ldn contours to over more compatible areas in the I -494 corridor. The resultant changes in the contours southeast of the airport, off Runway 11, are also appreciable (Exhibit 13). o A net decrease of 3800 residents in the Ldn 65 -75 zone and 200 residents in the Ldn 75+ zone result from this measure. Daytime occupants in fine Ldn 65-75 one are Uecteaeeu icy d ueL vita people and within the Ldn 75+ zone by about 300. o With the turn restriction removed, the L contour for Runway 11L and R departures would shift and shorten. However, the present t measure reduces residential population within the contour by about 4;0 p with wit the daytime pomilation reemaining approximately r - - the same (Exhibit 14). o The number of peak hour operations affected by tits Ructway 22 turn procedure is not sufficient to result in a change in the Runway 22 contour. Airport and Aircraft 0p,=,rtional Factors: • Th f.... .i. .-ne ,- ne..lt 4 a,nr c.n.11 noel pcfsont inrraacoc in / controller and pilot workload. Also, there is a small decrease in the airspace acceptance rate for departing aircraft because of the slower dispersion of aircraft, particularly with the Runway 11 pro- cedure. 1 ATC Groups IV and V aircraft as noted in footnote to Measure No. 1. -27- o The measures have had no significant effects on operational margins or the surrounding airspace. Air Transportation Factors: o The procedures have had no significant impacts on passenger and cargo levels of service nor on general aviation activities or air- line company operations. Cost Factors: o The costs of extra flight time to air carrier aircraft have been very small, about $80,000 annually. o No capital costs have b?en associated with the two measures. Economic Factors: o The two procedures have not affected the local economy. Ercrgy Factors: o The increase in annual fuel consumption by air carrier aircraft has / been relatively small, approximately 70,000 gallons, for the ✓ combined procedures. Implementation Factors: o These procedures have been successfully implemented by MAC and ATC with the cooperation of the airlines and other large aircraft operators. Existing Measure No. 5 - Noise Abatement Departure Profiles Description: o ,fir carrier and military aircraft at MSP uti.1.'i.7.0, rnw=kni prod.=:_ ores on takeoff which attempt to minimize noise on the ground. The airlines have developed a procedure in which the aircraft climbs as quickly as possible to 1,000 ft. above ground legal (AGL) and t'len accelerates at a reduced climb angle until the flaps and mats used for takeoff can be safely retracted. Once the flapc and eats arc retracted, power is reduced during the continued climb to 3,000 ft. AGL. In 1979 Northwest and Republic Airlines were using a mui,h reduced "Quiet Thrust" while the other airlines at MSP were using a rcduct" on to nin^:" 2" c! irnb thr"et . Thogo prnncrluro.a ro,n1,nr!ed an older procedure which utilized a climb directly to 3,000 fr. g ^f at which time the aircraft was accelerated and cleaned up. Upon reaching 1,500 ft. AGL, engine power was reduced to maximum climb thrust. -28- • o There have been no capital costs associated with this measure. Economic Factors: o The departure procedures have not affected the local economy. Energy Factors: o The procedures are estimated to have reduced 1979 airline fuel consumption at MSP by 1.8 million gallons. Systemwide, the fuel consumption savings was very major. Implementaton Factors: o These procedures have been successfully impiemeni.ed nailonwlde by the airlines serving MSP with the cooperation of the FAA, and on a local basis, with the cooperation of MAC. Existin g Measure No. 6 - Four -Mile Runway 29 Arrival Track Description: o Large aircraft arriving on Runways 29L and R are instructed to fl,v, a minimum four -mite (straight - in) final approach to the runways. / When operating in an IFR environment, the controllers are to vector l/ the aircraft onto at least a four -mike final.. When making a visual approach, the pilot is advised to make at least a four -mile final. o Within the high profile descent environment presently existing at M.4P, few large aircraft operations are materially affected by this procedure. Practically all aircraft are on or are very close to the final approach course at a point four miles from the runway end. The only exceptions would be occasional CV 580/FH - 227, DC - and 727 type aircraft approaching from the west that, under visual . conditions and traffic permitting, may turn onto a one -or -too mile final. Noise Factors: o The purpose of this measure, like that of Existing Pleasure No. 4, is to minimize overflight of residential areas in Mendota Heights and Eagan, channeling traffic over the more compatible commercial and industrial corridor southwest of Runways 11L/29R and 11R /29L. o It is unlikely that there would be a sufficient shift from existing arrival patterns to appreciably change the Ldn contours if the measure were removed. • 1 ATC Groups IV and V aircraft as noted in footnote to Measure No. 1. -30- f o It is unlikely that early turns onto final approach would occur during the landing peak hours used for the L 65 analysis and therefore no change in this contour would be antic {pated. o This measure reduces disruptive nighttime overflights over the residential areas of Eagan and Mendota Heights since Runway 29 is often used for nighttime arrivals, and close -in turns to final approach are more likely to occur in the low aircraft activity nighttime hours. Airport and Aircraft Operational Factors: o This measure has increased ATC workload slightly by limiting the f controller's flexibility in maintaining or achieving adequate air - ✓ craft separations through the use of vectored dog -legs or clue - tn visual approaches. o It also has slightly decreased the airport's arrival acceptance rate for Runway 29 landings because of the larger period of "in- trail" separations required on approach. o This measure has had no significant effect on airspace, operational margins or pilot workload. Air Transportation Factors: o This measure has had no significant effects on the quality of passenger and cargo services, airline company operations or general aviation. Cost Factors: iM o This measure has resulted in a very small increase in annual air- ✓ craft operating costs (about $40,000 to airlines in 1979). o No capital costs have been associated with this procedure. Economic Factors: o The local economy has not been affected by this measure. Energy Factors: / o This measure has resulted in a small increase in annual fuel con - �// sumption (about 30,000 gallons to airlines in 1979). Implementation Facers: o This measure has been successfully implemented by MAC and ATC with the coopertion of the airlines and other large aircraft operators. -31- r 0 t''' C :1"7,...‘,..,:,,,.1;,,,,...;:11:1- CC 0 Y P (ti Q fl a N k . 1. - i '; S ;es;Y- sa-•-- ueld suogeJadp luawa a Oslo t/ I 3 l i l d '3S I ' qy N ��od�1 euoi eula u ne si odeauy`� • A. r FF A tm.& i . ∎�� °.j' 7 r _ � •' .A.-. - _ ..3 ,„ . Amo.tz. r k � _e 7 ,- j i `- -_ 4 ) f r.�p rr �� Q_ II - ---" Ab ...... / TIP ' a ii' . 1 !'6� C G 1� ii 1 i' \ _ _ i fe ta 1 � � ! 4' E I i��l 1 �.� tit � /1111 X 1` 1 1 ■�EE1p1` • YYYl 7 =� , I „, 4 ofit I �4 �� s r J . i1111 I L �•� Cn. d!• d r ■11.nY■u1m !IRO � � I 7 ~::n1n11 Ilt ' _` .411/1 N '' + 1. , "'ail Z{11111011r1111! IN M` I j . o � 1' _ c,,e 111111 011FI11 1F6'IF � � � � .?' r it, I c ' � AItlII��YIIIII RjP 9 I \, '] I': tlA / x.,, !r, r . „� • — — T Ii-,-- . © _ _ ' t � V I '� 1Y '1 11 11/1/1111 •� ] J a p , c 4 il� } 111�e 111 1 _I _ � I ' _ {I :: � 1/� i =G ` 1 �, ,� � , id ; r , ; r 1.;,__t o rs • il 1 viii rir7ri � r1 c: . _ _ P f .F r�` ? ., '. , La: I . .G I. ' I • vt. , C' { • / 1 '' f a i- a � r. �� ` "�2 j y mmil 1 1 ..,;„ . f ., , • -...... .1116, t.-z---,';7-s!...:, Al) ti Zs'e 7 - - -- . - :_;-,, z •- .,,,-,,, 1 V -- :;::::" 1 ::, - 1 - Ei'''' = -ri m EIS') lgiamii:1 '" t Wi ' %. -- — ILI,�Ei -Ei z , + z , " ,R , I I :B y ri \ 1 0 1 ''''. ES - .EliblEin ti—��._ r . .. � � t `ti j \,. k I- -: 11 a _ -3 } � B?B G _ — N � _ t•. 1 - ' 1 2 2 ". - P :14 - •-- ,==j imEts= Itiliffiq--- -,!), .'„' 'II "II M - ,;=9 � i ii i _ sfeG r , ., t ■CO C N• i' ; _ 111="'E, - -�''r - I � Y , 5 __m 1 :0,19-1 ! j , ! , 3 i \ . 1 7 - .u— a T .1 , �` i.y Y"if '_ G _!. J. i 1 ate.. � � �� _ 1 . ` ' -, ` . T a r = � t , �r,_ g al : \ ' /- - - lav 1 \-,� _ - _G - _ 2 " .1 ` 11�z/ .S li -' = =4 1+ 2 . ,. g_ :: - =2 - ELT.: Will - 1 ,,,,e4 I 1- , i . "1._,,-_, —. - e.--__: "F ,-,- o °A .0 4) . 0 "6 la C - o.) co '_ -. •;. '....,-. i 7 €n 0 M >. .0 7 I... - • ' - i . " -,:. 7;t:t • - 0 10 >. 17 to c tt) 0 w ioa co co --- 2 > b... C.) 1 > *.' 1:1 0 C 3 0 3 4) 0 .. 0 ° 2 ow E - ^ on . . . x . c ' .c g 0 a 6 E . . >o. c 1 0 c .- co i- to - 2 v) .- 0 3 0 0 I • • la 0 0 - 0 - tO CO (..) I.. C ca . 7 V .. ... CO 7 0 M 3 Q 0 0, '15 0 i- 0 1 ... 0 .... 0 0 3 2 ao. tu w o 0 -- c o . o c - 10 - 0 . - 0 0 0 .0 ., .0 .1) 2 63 '' 2 (..) c cc ° . z g ... 0 ..... . C.) 0 .0 0 5 . .... 1 tl ii E 5 .- -0 i <1 a) o ...a c ca• , C/) k . (I) :.,:, ci: x 1 ui -4 CI 2 ueid suoneiedo luaLueleqy esIoN 1Jod.i!y ieuoneuielui pied •ls-suodeauunig ,‘, ,_ •,,,- 7" . ::: - ‘ 7 * - -- r i '--. 7 ' ..t , .,.:1,,, r. ,...., i - ,_ j.: : r--... , . 1 ts. ,, , , , 1 . ,...........,.:.- ' 2 1 -f .:•-••••• 7- :•:.: • , .:•a,S1 : ! ,..•.‘ -r. ,• :•'•-, t „iv :I ..--.. . • . r prolMiffilE "1.- . ,.., \ _ _ -. : - . II! t 1 ... ,..k 1.;„ ,----y :_, 1- _.....,,(..,------.)• .. / . s.:,,7,••k.-••:,;,;,-,:-..... i 1 I .:'• ' ,.." .." 1%., . : k1 4 1 ti ' Z : -: ;■ 4 -! - , ''I ' --'-- ,'. ' '. ' : , ..., ' • • . - ' ' • I • . ' ' - 7` • ....• .11 \ •*" "44 1 -"". .-- , ,,7'. .f. ;••( - i'-•.".c__ . / j . , :•. „..•- 1 -', / __ ; -1 f,_.\ ..-.-0-27,- 7,tz. -: - .. -i'c'-' - •: - -• :-;",‘ 1 ) :-" ' ' ( ' - .. " 7--- " '. . 7- - ' ''''' . - . • - .. -- 1 - -,,, .. .1,--.. .." 7‘.J \i •-• ` - -7 ;11: .-U; r l'. :1 .".":72:::',‘,-,1'....'1'.`:!: I N.. .`.''.•.-.•,..-.•-',;•.•;-.•=; • • .- . • • ,..:..•• I 4 ; • ',-..„ „.... )..,,, 4 )..,? . - 1 ; ;. -. . 1 :-... -, : r i t_'••`, \ .V ; ,: ;., \• • . ;1, ":-, fi _ _ : <7 , , ,....- ' .' =: I. . ''..i... ,.. %:•.." -..,.. i t '1- --- , - : ) 1:, , ; : • . i I !, ';'•••• • '1 ; ---P:IT , • ,.•-.,,,,,,,,,-,. ,. s.., ..,-,,, ,,,..• ,.,,,.. 1. • .. .•.. ., 1 . , .. .-`1.,-11 : 1_7' ••'';'-‘4•%' 1 ., , . , -- .., . , - I_ - L ir - ••■ 4. 'N I, -, • N.'7 ;■ • --- -.- 1 , :... -1',== r .,____.• :, • ......:. .... - _ .__.- !, • .,,--...,,. ..1....,;.',, , , i.;,.....:,, , . 1,, I • " \ .,__.... J- , : • : .17'iii,J,..1 ; 1-1•N ''' g ,- - 1 ''.'"•• •-• 4 .....: - 4, - ... -_ ,: ; ,4, , ••:;: 7 •.:;, •• ,-:•, Fr - i , , ,.•...----;__-.--.---:-..-::-. ' . ../ - . .',$c - ' • 1 1 t , - • , ' - -- 4P 1 - - . - N.," ---.......: ''' •.'s.'' ' - • ' ' • •_ - ,..- j-,1 l'I`iir.1 ',"•-., \ , , ;„.' N \..k.'`,,. . 1 , ,, eb`', '..T.. l i - - • • .11 r - - 1 7 'tit l'. 1 li - '. H .;, ,..". , J.I ......- Jil :"'-' . *N. . !. ,. ' • 1 [ '''''' - .mitt ,4-t-'4-4.-- ...17 ,_ . ....... ‘ , r AIL t ,a,13 ) ,....,t1 . -- .-:--- t; f' •• ' •-''•••!`• ••' L • • '7:"•••■ \ •.•,' . ••:,•.• • i ; ''') \ , ' N ''',/ , „,, a ;41 1 ;;.1;;,, ,„.. I, - N.,...o \ : I • 7.., 'L ,, ,(). N n t :..,,,- ,,y , - :,• :: t di, L .. ... -,4 I- .. ,. . ‘ , ,;■.,:,.. - 7I - . ,._( ,, : .. - i l 7419, '.11_1_411 ,'-ii 41- +1-±-"'-'• • --, 2. :-, .., 4 ,7' Jt."-•\ • - .--••••, . • . . • : i^ •• • - ; •••' , cli,"?'. .,_ . • _it- ... ..,......:.fli.;:, ,.i..• 1- . • i : ■.! • -, i .4 I t, 1 .;-.; ,,. : 1 . .1; ' ..*., ..\ 1 \ 4, i -- '::: • - L., - 1 - 4 --", :ti. -...:.,",_• s'-'7:i';fit';'';--44A' • ____L_____-:- ; , 1 ,. TI ,) , • .....\ NA - • -...', ' { q . ' li ' 4:•".t. - 1 1 • . , 1 1 . ----' ■ I •-i l• ' 1 ' •i" - r ': ' • • • )v . ),., • . • t7-• :: :: ... :::::4•:: .. _ •.`Z • :: .. : .- -• I ' " :!: . ' I' i : I 1 : t i i '1 ' bl jN " . -''' - '--'-'-''•';•• ■'. Atiiii:;: '. ' p.::.: - , ,J, ,' . - 7 , 7.*7',.,-4•,•T• '• : :',.•.; ..., . • ! , - ..,, , J!•:-;;*• :: 't 'I ' ''-'' ' • •-•"'" ' . ; • :;:•::;::'' ' .r - ' , ': ' '',;>„:: - `,: , '" ,. •.-Y ; . ,,, 11,.. , , - ., , 1,,,,i, . ,. ,, . ,,,,-„, .■ , . ,. :;;;:tiii.:11,1,1.d - ,i,„--.1Ni„'.. t ; -• s • •,, „;•:::;:;;;;r. ••••• ) 1 I , . .. ---.. • ;;;;',!-HI.i:11•!!'1.7 1 . 0 P 1 ' 1 ,.t.j..,•••'-;=:. ; ',-,t 77 :•">"i i:',(•' ' ) % ' t ,:g!::::: 1= .,; ...:,:-;''' `'• ;,,,.- i • ; .--;....-1.;-:,,„,..-0,-..1. ; ; ._ ; .: ; ....• •,! : 1 I .,, ,1.1 fiit'2. '."-,.a./ ;/ :, , ,i.r '‘ • „,,,, ,' ','; . • :. Ar" : k.., .; ' ,), r rt .: . f ,.'1.„ '" ii.,...-;.,41';'.;$ . "" l'• ' 1 ..iirj '..T.":".- ' -,-.-)'/, --., - ‘- - .. ' ::g:''' ' ... ',,, ij %., - ,.,• ,-- 1.14 ; ;„,..,;,;, . - 4_____ .4,:J.::-.-,7,-.7,...,„:-:x. • 'w Hitc.11111 -,---•-•>- - • .,' ,,• ,;••• ,. •':-,-,., , ...s..- .. :::::.• . , -•••••••'-t;-, •.,••••.,..;. -.•.:,• ::. !. „/ t?) 1 ' :'' f ' , . y , • . • :,!..t 4 . , .. i• • .-) ' ti`,.:::-v:-,-.,";•-•$....:- gg.;''.;. 1 ";-_.,• : , J-1 1_:•-•-• - ----- 1, , ,/ '''' •''-' ,..2 ''' ' \ •,--i ••• '''...', • IL.- - = I - •• ,--,------. 2 - '" 2 _ -- '. t< '.., ---I ' k..! ‘..,,,,; ...... .. ,4 . '7:ti•-`Y`';',..-14, ...i ---_'.--...- „. „ ,•,..., - .,.;:, ---,';'• ;',f • . , . -r -4 •••••• 7 ; I .,-41 -I_ •T-,--,•:17.:-.:-.."-i':,•.r7.-,., 1 `. r. , -' ,.; . , \-• . •,. . .,,,x -kv.,.7f ..z.-•• ... X...„ - N , - . . ' 1 '-'''-; Ill 1 `11-4 f ....o.---.• ,}' -I ■ t - 0.1 ,. . , ...,.. .., ' ,:. .---.. - - - 1 . . . , . ..., . ,- ; : t - I t - .1 ; 2 , ... ' ■.1 -;.; \ ... : .,..:\ ' :-.,,..:„. T..;;:....„, ,. I .. , i .. 1.47 i ■ : ;._ . . i .. ,:,.• . ■ L - -r- : , . - f - !i 11'.'■,;,6 .i' ' .... • kiiiii4.7** j, : I ,z.17 i_ 1:1-1ri.:11.14•,.::,:7;4;*'-ul--:::.,--, ..:: .i :. T,I. _ z \I., .:-. 1 .{ .1- - 1 --- -rD 7- 1 -- -17... -: ',",.. , LULI: : - . ,- . -..• - • -- ' • _-_;!. „A , ,, - - • , - : - . . 1 . . . , . ,. • „ . -... .... , . •11L":!: r j- 1 --T:. - -i - . 3 , " .%'. ....7..r ::: . j i.:f 1 -- \ 4,!` .t i 1 i IA 1,.. .., : 1: - • :.• ;11 J. : ' ' ''• • • \'' -I: ' j'' -, , ,.', .. :::. -:'. ,, ' .1_ ._ , , --;_--1,,,- , . , ,---- -, .- , .,!. 4 • I, ,,„ .t1 , ,,,, 6._ iy , \\ .,. .. . , ;Y . _ .:', z.. , .. .,.„ *: , . .,c1 I: 1- ••., . : -.-1: •, _ 1 : Ci ! i I ti ..'. ' • ..-:' 1-t 1 .. .\ ,_, '1"1 i .'' - '--'11 - _, 7 1 7 . . ,, , - _,.,.71.. - IT:1 , , .. ,, i . = : 1 ■ k' ; . \\ ,zi '; -- ..' 7 = ,'' s' \ , . • ',./ -,..-:-%, . . -. I i i..1 , ' i ::- ; 1), -! ' ■ Fl -• \ - ' '/.". . ( ' ' IF, r ,.,t ) .,,- I r . n l..? :I 1 .1 , - \ ''' - -- 1- t• , . ... 1 '. 1 '''.,--, - I • ' ' .. .• I .. --•- r - I • ',,, ' I • .• . . hi, . (-I.,. - 1 fi. .,,,-, I , t__ . . ..1 -_ I. i_'.. : ;--_, -., -,-- , - : , ii -; 1 -;,-, rj 1. .,-, . „,-,41. , • i _ , . , ' -..-: ...4...... - -= - - --' - • ' - . : , ' ' . .; - i 1,.-.1-._:- -_, :i 11 -1 .1 r : -1, • ; '‘ -- 1•:::.,.. 1- - 17, ' . . . L - i'71 - 5.-'3- -',-,: . \t As , : : fl\L 1 1 r.• '-' - - -1 ' I 1.-i . -1 .:-., L - • - I ( : i • :", _I `-'-:- r _ ____,i..„_,..,__,:_, , '2., . _ ci":' s ' '\ '. . : ' I - . 1-- --- • I - - 1 ' t_ 71-- .1-1 . i 1 l''''''' 1-j-- ' 1 * . - - -, :---:rt - • ----:----- - • -f-,t- ••. '‘,, - . _•.,:_;„ : ...t..• •, -4- , ;.-- , ,..,__,..., __-,..i. --- ,. . , _t_ , 1. , ,. - i ,.. i_._,__ .,-- - , .. , : . , , .- •,,,,,,,,,,, [ . , -1, •71-_-L.--_-_,- ,:-_,_,.. ,-_-_,..., - - -,.. ,,,,,, , ._, \ - , , . -,,.,.. . , ; , 1 ,• .,.., •._,,..-_:. 1...1J __, ,...,.. • i - i .. 771s;g .- -- .: - r-i7.• --- ; , ; : --..--;-' ,,_-:,•,-: • ".••• I -= '''• tt ' ; ;. . l' Lt Zi ' .7 : I .1 1 1 L ; ',1 I: VI; :. __J- - = -1 , 1` ,:, L _2, I .4 ,,,- . ...T....__ .__,.: ,:.„,,.. , , . %,. , --- - - 1r ' .77:2_ • 1, • i 1 . •:-.. :: 7 . 714- " I - !' 1 -17 . - '•'• ' ' ' :-/ . '''('' :1_- ;k: [-: :..- t_ ,,__:. , 1 . , - :. 1 . '.:.':- - - i il- -. 4 , 1 • 1- •:.' . 1 4 :-.1 r : . '- : I : - 7.- H' ' ' ' ' I-71- ' 1 . 1 %., - ( 1.-' , :::, 7 .1 ._ : 1 1 .Q . _,. affiliti T • _ -i. ...--:_i,1.4•.__- J 1 - i I. ,! , , ' 7 it' , i ge:::=4 : i i .1 ',..,1_1 ..,_ - i 7. -1- ,....• . 1 1:1' • , r•.!,;•'.% t 1 i •,- , ; ; XI . - . . .. •":44,44; - - • - - : . -. ,-- ,--- - 7. _,,..--- ` . • -:.-_'.- : - 7.." '_:..1. :::: : - ': A ".,1 _7 F., _J-.1,-.' L - - -,,, -,,,,,,,,,,A.,,,,,, ,,..1-.-... .. - • - • .,... r......1-: ' 1 1-'. ?•:-.t :... :-. i -- LI 1 ; . l'IT.; t''7;:i .'1:- ! ( I., C :' \ ; f A :17---",,.11 - 1 ' • ! . .: -:. : 1 :... . •' ' : 4 4 -. ,I r -4'1 I ; 1 . r' I >,..,-. .• • •' -..'•• '''ti "•:•:-.'•-;-;•.■!:'..■•‘:'' \ ' 1 . • -. F - .. ----- = ,-:. • -, - i -- '-'- • . t ',.. :. . ' • ' ' , ... i i .. t .- • ; t , 1,1 1 : , tt • t ..:- t - i : : -- - ...1 ,t.:-.,-;t.'' ' ; - - ••-• kr t- -.-_-- -- f : t: ;--r 7 - . ; ----•-• 7 NT T • 1- -"- - '....-: &I'D , , ..-,-., • • ' ' • - 1 : '''''' . ''''''',-,,- j Til .. - 1 , 1 ":''''';', ''.'' • ' .-- '' .1_ . ' I t,, - 1-41-.`t k.__4_1„: ,_,, , 1., , I r r ** - - 1 T i - ‘' I ■: : r; ; 1 • ' 11 . r • . ' -.T.t1: . -'1 27 .r. ' '" ' * • f ••-.• i ---, ' ' i ' i-t • 1. -- -: ; _•,1i.1 - 1: ; ,;__4,::" -.1-__-_ ..--.._ ' .1 1- -, 1 1, ,- ‘-- ■ .., _. ..t.-1-.4,_„.1...,. „4- . _,,-._ ., ,.... - L 4 1 • -, --, - HI , -• I" .1 ., - - -T---;,- - 4 •., .-•."-- - , ..1- .', .7., • .,., r • • F.:- - \ .,-•'.. , 1 1 - .:i_.. . _f_ i - - ,-,-- ii ., . .. t, , .,, 1 ., r (... LI --c-. -3 -N- MITT . s - -- 1.--..- - • - 4 : - , ' ' " -' - -.: - : • :_r • - 1 : • I ' ' - ", - i -. A - -:-.. .... 1 1 LI . - • ' * C - '' ' . • ---. ,n- ..-, • , . l -,- . 3 . . ..T. • ' '7: i ti_,17 II .,.. II 1 !IFEti-Fr..--,-,,-1.....-__.-.-;-_--" ••• .. .....-_,- • % ....._;:4 11 .. - .4:. 7.'.. . '• • - i -..„ ,-,' ' ' ;-: -1 4-1 .- • ‘-,) ..71 .. - I' , 4 ,. : ' . :1,- ,'`,7..,-1 • ,t, i ,'`. .'• - . ■ . __--, 1.:, : i • .. . • ,‘• -, 1 NaA , The FAA has incorporated this procedure into its ATCT order #7110.4 (see 'att. 3, p. 3c) and the results show improvements have been made to the `previously stated 5% shift from the north parallel (see 1981 report, p. 6) where its close proximity to residential areas makes the noise problem most severe. (The installation of the permanent monitoring system, described earlier, will allow accurate recording of this process.) s - Discussions with the FAA have led to improved departure procedures from :runway 11 L. Prior to this change aircraft were given headings on departure that regularly took them near and over pockets of residential areas in Men - �/ !dote Heights, specifically the Curley Addition and the "Friendly Hills" area, east of Rogers Lake. Although there exists a need for turns toward these areas on headings of 090 upon occasion to comply with FAA aircraft separation criteria, most of the time these turns were being given for controller conven- / ,ience and ease of handling, not because of a need to separate runway 11 L traffic ✓ from that departing on runway 11 R (see att. 1). As a result of discussions in the spring and early summer of 1982, the FAA has agreed to limit headings of 090 to those times when aircraft separation is a factor, and have aircraft fly on runway heading whenever possible. This pro- cedure has also been incorporated into ATCT order #7 (see attachment 3, p• 3i). romplaintc . from the affected area have dropp -d fr -n '1 d j the July - October, 1981 time -frame to nine in the same period in 1982. Although complaints are a poor measure of the actual noise impact in an area for many reasons, they are oftentimes the only estimate of the severity of the problem. Taken with other information, such as conversations with residents of the affected areas and increased complaints from areas along the extended centerline of the runways, the MAC has reason to believe that the procedural change has resulted in a significant, positive shift in noise. - As a result of a complaint voiced by a member of the public at the August Metropolitan Aircraft Snimd AhatPmPnt (.niinri1 (MASAC) meeting the MAP hac made a change in ruciway closure procedures. The complaint involved the problems that result in nearby communities when a runway is closed for an extended period of -4- ~ ` Ig11111 1 'rr .^ ' ; . . • IBIII "'i E a , *, 4 e 'l lv f / :.■ - .4" milli L Al •,,,. :1, ri `tom is : ■ ♦ ��1 + %` i • V n0 s w.uW -qua cI- MR i.•-1 4 j of I� EE l �'._ i j �� j . � d cr . r ING. L , e ' .r i 4 ... ate: - - 1C. ' • ' F -- a `-/ t _ - _ - -- y �� ►� c ..� ��i 11 a ��.. ..._ pl i I L. Ir . e . W y. � , \ . �,. a !. : im ? Z 1� �1 ni11Wq I - 7 J 1 I I I I�uN�, i s ! �� r � I; •. W° Z Albs_ nrN11 IY111�u1 - ! ;1 ;, � \ i 1 I � � " 11111110111111111 , •, ?' In1II'Igeaffer tEh ` iM N i g a 1 = O 111puN. lili111111rIr I ' . �r N Iii - t� N u Jr r+..ur.L . cc , .�..►. `1 1►— • . 5 „ �'� �`' . ::_ . z ^, 1 {• 1-- n• 111111 W nimum : ^..:`-` 4 � " -'� o - w a ' iu rn 1 1 111H1g i w 1111 1 0n. _ } cr•yi -. tt11�{ •' �` ■ 11 IIIIUIIIIIIIo erw eK. _ I� ' • '- +�r ;r ' • z g — Q W Iu /IIIlnui/ititIUIt - .- z :.,.. I •� `. � 1 o $ W m N N turn II I IIlu1 , V � ,�� o E� t{ i N d = I- G o n NI ; bY �� + � � v W i u ¢ Z . ua+a�Ii iuuuuamin::elrrr11w ♦ a ,. F L.L. L.L. It MI 4II lr unnll�arr.�evl �� `_::) c:,-- c e,1 l�e u swuun� • a!!�n` [ � ` . ' ,� z a l l fE eR� 6 A' (.0 �e r. 1 1 W O iris n. u►1 /uH�111 . , :. �I f ..• z i . ; :�.,. 2Iwut,urrrr1ld�lll��'.I� �; I I \ • i .. ° te r .. 11 i�ry { � - ss � t '' W�1Y�p:anuinne rirl ® 1 ! -: , ` ' _ 7 1 z �ii ii 11 UI ...=, 1110,111/4. i � 0 , Q V' � _'\. 1 ! { ' a : , � / / am. - � - Y _.e�� r�1�cr �I '�6� = � yq . y� L�� - . 'r- ' :� -. : �" : , , pi I . I � M.1�i /�Y. o Wd ..s ' '' L � v - 111 �1NIN110 111/17 �.....,�, f Q .•,. 1Fr� `;� I re— LS • _ — r • , .... ‘,... ':11 .i•-• ---,w-___.....1.------z. .-.... "pkAr ar Aft. ..... ......:-... ,. .. .,./....:,..._ ,-,....:__...,_ _....z... . .. . . , • , , . • ..... ....„., , .. . I , _ .A.—..............._......._ 0,1000.......ea....., aiif ............... .....:. • , \ . , .. • .��oir.a� * ^ rw.r.« .ti r \ •,; �� o•i,. �, .. fi r � um �u —�° O �.if LttG�� • � '-"-.."1 ' �'. ---- T— ro.. rte.. � S c . 11 i� Nib . ; \ . � rr�� . ....r te • y s �� r.� sue, t °• . • = 1 - te r r " - +rxy 1` • 6 wow 3 L .4. - M=11.3464MIIMINIIIMINIIIMIOank o, -- � ..rs..� ,.•• jl _ �kT'i�� _ la. ��i.' - AMORRams, rr..:""7.lh,=7•.11• - .=. - r- -�+ -,-r —� : • 9 =, � ■rr/ar� � �3 - x �_�� i '• .:„,.4 mad l 6 I r-•++- O ff, , _ ,� t _ ° " _ • .. j t .. !� h+ ? may = � I - ' � y c � . r - �' -=1 ei ,' .4 7 4. _.t .. .... 4 -4-..4 ._ . % \* ''''''''""'-‘="• ..... 1 ' •....., ' _ , , ! i ! 4 "' ' . .r • * •■ ■ ..A. 1 : - . 4_ ,.. ---. 7 1--- s �' r 1 1 ....., :• c .� _ ` � . • �- . 1 '; a f''''‘ � 16-8!x 3, ro 1 E .. >. :a_ iplin -ig!g; 111"111111 - w ._ 4.., sira , i , ...7, ..,.., fa E LL :1 . ....,/, g4 ...4111 OLV:. ' VII 1. / k • - %\ \ \ \\‘‘‘' 161 " LNN ‘ \ t s : \ 1161r-'.1.1a1 l' '‘ 7 \ 0- c: ' (V-,••___........': .., , ..... i O O i': U r t ! _ N VVV ��/ s al , 0 , . ■■.ii I ® W \ / ‘ e ›. - '.... - 7 ''; L 'I lr l int r ir .I • ? V . ,.. A N P •-\ i . F. c I..,::, it . 1. ___,,, 7 ..- ,,,. i t %. 1 I a 1-1-1 A .1... w Ste. ` „. • L ^ ® , C 5 a W L f/ � ��j f , Y t "1.: to L G a u. >- Z ly 'i \ , bJ 1 - 1 . . � . I i t ��i L 17L \ �� ` • ar iv _ „ ,._, ,_ LI Lai —� i Z . J .. `%\ T'• N - a ]�- Q ©,\ Z tn 4 s ■ \ � II \ ,, , . : A I I. . ...i t.. ,�_, i 6 . J 0 I N . r L . yea ... . k,„„. i 0 Cli . ' ,.. . • I I A ... 1 • 1 111 ® ® ��: E At-. ' r g p . I • I . .16, 07:00 (,,r - .%• • *Z,‘„\ '. '\,‘ ',- $rb's7r ..4rN ii ... a - iiiiiAligil -1 ..,.. , - t...„._, ..,... ',..\\ es ''' f - _ ,. \ N i‘. .... Ai It . / . . :t..... .i p 2 , :ja • ... i.T . ' I II �11 ,. ��. :- ' .. • IMS i • .110 I -...--.....„. 7 i �= - rill t 11 ®1� ' �� t •' " - ■ ; 'il , mini / ,._ ./------- - ■,• ,. 4/ i._ 11 .... ihN_A- - - 7) NM + / � n { /� /►\ ter' J ``t .Lrc, � -� •: " ,7 : r / , '' N E E � ••wr■sy31 — ...„ ..,--l'F-'--Hrit : .-.' :, . , .. in �� I I K =LI IZ� 1 le.-: y ; ! / _ - ! ----1,\ X N�� ®AIM 0� Y .2 .1 . ( - ,i,,,,,,. mo l � 112�1 ■die,:. >, /,, . \ !; = g „..,/,, I_ ® �® 0, ',, :., d lit . -gm -- III ® . r 0 u ., r i /II iim_ i. : --.,:.,;„ __I'ili ,\,, , - --:,,-, woman= s,, ,-----__, ...: t ' '-'• \Ilia.- : I ....:. 1011=111111 1 . ! ” > ammo . . n A 'A ° a iii .. _ 1i i _ j r�lta _ ` • / I r , .,\ + — 1--- Y'-1 - -r. ._! 1 ` \ � - 1' _1. _ '' r I "1 •+ ' •7 - -r'=- J. --'. . .. • $,...1.......,. , -- T .1 ) ■eee.. 4 - • n > =, C: .,* - _5 • (., , - , ., .- /7 '17- ' • ,..„, . I a c) LI! 8 ,, ,... 4S .•• .i.\., .0 --, ...., • ,,,!.. 1M r ‘. X 4 C \'`' / '''' 1111 ''''''" ( • .cn ye • •-•• 4••• ,9 4- ...... n, .:- a — = ..3 h1 1 f. •••'. 1-- - f1 1 • ‹- ,. -.,....- 1=1- 0 . • ,.... osb ca. -) c r- IR 40 12k . • 5 kilia ■ 7..,•„ /.:_-',.• , • ••:IFE:i , u.a ..4.•• ° ;/ ; / i CO .a-_, 1 a i @ .- - •,:---- "lir... .....01 •■••••••••• • ...... ea S. ..... to ... . wl 7■•••• - ,..' ..".'''....'... , )r-r• ... _ca : (1) ...... , a 1 • ; \ ! 1.,..„ OP 's 1. filli • ..': • • / .1. t • , .,.. , ,- • :-.4• - : . . '. ' ' ' N 4.,tH1 1 n .i.f n) a. -4 ; c.9 _; 3 . -.• ___„4 4.., .... - _._ 1 - E . ---.- / •. — ....r ----- ......, 4 c •...) ! ..= 12 : ,, : a III , = . , , : ..- ,... •-• •-. ! . • • - ,_- E i , , e, 1 • K. I 0 0 . .7; e „ I $ E , : '- - • : / 1 •,. :.= iiiii - - • , pooh' • . i •,. / ."' - .,,...• La! 0 • 0 1 _- - / a r-- .---, z •• ,..,N;) 4.1 F. • • i 2 . A :-• z, '...,., W L.Lil ,., • . CI cm . 0 I ''' -4. \ ..." M._ ..,, • ...._ ..„ ...,/_, ,., ._.„ . _ ,, - • CI --. . 5`• 9 w ....-.. /- • .'-. . . i ' '. - \‘-‘-.7' ' S • CD •'.5 OWE e l''s ,. ill f ., . , -N ix% an Lc\ • :,.. • , • •. . a _, r•-• . I . II WOO F I, \ , LC ‘ CL < j, \ am ,arrsrt • ‘....., . „mg -,..._____,.., t . , .. t -T-LI ° CL ''' \ l'I' ' - ' : .,.: ;;;4 1 ,I t 4 :1,to w ••• , A ."' I wil .1: ." , Ili N '■... = La.i . , \' 'I\ . \ - ' < tii . I : TT . - — ° — —' , •.',, ..... !. . . 1 ,, , ... . I : -4 :•,....• ... " 4'.g' i . .._ , . i i__ !.. . 1 ____• ( _ i, \z - — -'.-- .- --- — .1* — o ft* - !) - •,t, a Rali • = Ca . • C , ,....., A ol ! ' I . . ...... ■` i t Liir . ... . _ :, • ..1 . .., . .,.. ....,:.. ........ . . ,_, c •,.....,,..\ ,-,..:-..\,../. 0 .4 , es , L.: :.: 11 . ,.,,:. , _,.. :. . 77- 1111111 W , ....&0... 0 41111righ_ :: I 1 I ., T. I . 11 . •'..I.11 .. ; IL:7 - 'v . i, : ..- i i i , , , II * ' 1.-t_ i •• • ' 1 -I. ' „ , • 1 , I - ! ' 1 i : . i • i I I ; , • .4 .!.'t,,, •i .... ..... -- — .., • . fr . ,, e -..,. ,. —, "- - ' e . ' _ ■ A-1 '5 '. •: , . ,. . '•,•- ( ! ri 1 i i ,' Al • ---- - . - f ., . • , . . '1"T ) \,.......r ,0- - - _,, \,* . # . , - ,, - _ ._ _a___,...,- . ,-.- , La .. , emit e --...--' a 1 miria . ; • - : .--,,-- -- ar mr....:( si• ' '•-• 4 •• VN\ _ , ,. "'N.,, — i - L. • .,„ , - ----, ,,,!, . , \ .. .t , ..,,... ' k\ j __J . l ' ''''-- -----7::::-- ... - ' •'" ) -" M-1 _ ,.,--..=-% -, 4 I , - r ,_-- 1, • ., .... .• . t ,,, ( , . . 0 •,, .. • , r . . k 0 • ------• '. --- N. 41114 c / .... 1 1 A .„ ,..,7 "1- • ' ( , •._, / ! , . ' ; / - '' \•\.< • V‘S.. 1 •-;c7N...... r.. ---........4 _ • • • I ••••• ' ' ■-. 1.-:-.- - ...',: . , ' ''. .1 \ ' . . , . ■•:::" '- ' - ..V 0 ht,7 -F , • -' \ ---. -:.--. 1. ,.',/,, .•!'. .„ . i - ' . . .---. -•:-._... • t 1 r . . --.,:,'•'\ s ' . ..,,,..,_,/ ... ..,. ....- ,_ , , t: . ,,, L__.__ ,_7 , 4' ...' / 7 • .,/ , li; , .. -. -- : v ..."---- ININIIIINNII r• ;, , 11,1 r--- -- ---'-- _, ,\..- ■ ' / 411111111111111EINE1111111112=11 I 1 ‘‘,,-'• '/'' . - r' ' `--„--., (•` 1.'' // 4-:: • -.\• -; a, ; - • -' 1 ./,' I , E ra=11 - ' :I (':•••:, - --- • ; g - • • . - ( _._ .. I ". . --- (ni (I • MNIEMMI It :•-■ - 1 . . i ul. . . or samaim i . . •..: . :, MI, ....,17,...,-5_,, --.._-__. ,., .S • 1 &".....-_,. ....:. ,,,... j_i.i:..r.t .........7, ,:ii ' -.. \ _._:-.A: .' .,,,,i•- ..-----, , 2. •---'" -. /,/,' \'`..--- -"" --""-....-:„.: ' • 4 ' •/____,' . = 1111= - ... --! , ..-.., ....,.-.. , i r ' ,, , =wiz . ' • ,. ) -• f''' ' ,., . ,, lild § P a • .."-- ,■., ,,. ....... \,....,_,,...... . , ,,... ,,,,,, -' , 2"-. .-, , ---;-*. 111111=INISSIIIIIIIIMMIIIII rr ,) ., -; '. 9 ---77-. .04181.11 ' " 1 (1 ------._---..., . NIIR -..."-.1 -:. 1 I 3 ,?, - 2 \ ' ' - itill•. 17 - , ; ....„,c ,...,„.....\ _ 3 : . i i . i : 1.4t,' • v . =r-r-° '".0 ; • i ,* • ••`:'.._ , ... .- SEM \ ( \ I mignlifill / • ,^ 4 ••; `J= - el Mihail .... / . •.• "., - 7 9 a 7 : ''.' • ",---. ..-- ...; -; .: . .., , l• -.7 Mann. I_ • " :SE ' ' -.../ 1 • - -1 s. " -- - - -: f - .,.. \ 1 1 u11=111Mil . -; ..., .... ..-- , IN • 1 _ .'.. •, ,' \ 1 -•-l-r- - -:4'> .... monr...----1----M._ r..-.) (1,-) . ,.. .... . , „- • . ----n-- , , - - ---••:.:-_ - v-t - - . '-'-'- -.-- - - - - 177' . - . r- 1 '-----=---- , . • 14. - 1 i - 'i • 1 _7' ... - 4 - - - 1 - . , • "_ 7 . N, - — -- -- • CITT OF EAGAN MINUTES OF AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE JUNE 26, 1984 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Tuesday, June 26, 1984 at 4:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center. Those present were City Administrator Hedges, John Gustin, Carol Dezois, Bob Swenson, Dave Randall and City Attorney Paul Hauge. Also present were Les Case and Robert Botcher from the FAA, David Kelso from the MPCA and Darrel Weslander of the MAC. Mr. Case, the Air Traffic Manager of the FAA and Robert Botcher, the Assistant Manager, appeared and discussed the role of the FAA, the air traffic and the noise generated from the air traffic at the Metropolitan Airport. He indicated that the air space allocation has been given by Congress to the FAA and the objective is for safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. In addition, they now have acquired the noise issue and there was discussion concerning complaints that have been received in the Eagan area. He indicated the Cedar Avenue departure has resulted from the Howard - Needles report, but there has been no decision on the experiment at this time. Eventually, it will be an FAA decision whether to make the experiment permanent. Mr. Case indicated that the FAA has jurisdiction over any aircraft below 3,000 feet. He indicated that the preferential runway system on the north end of the City of Eagan has not changed since 1972 and that there is no pilot discretion as to procedures to follow. He admitted that Eagan has a dispro- portionate amount of the traffic and that volume of traffic has increased dramatically because of deregulation, although the number of passengers has not increased substantially. He further stated that air carriers create the most noise. His suggestions as far as the Eagan City Council is concerned is a joint committee with Mendota Heights and also that the City insist that the preferential runway corridor be adhered to. Also, he suggested that eleven left and right flights run at 105 degrees rather than straight out runway heading. Darrel Weslander, the MASAC Noise Coordinator, indicated that the heavy traffic is during the busy hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He further stated the Supreme Court has given MAC jurisdiction over sound abatement procedures in the area noting the proprietor has the liability for the noise. There were objections by members present concerning the run -ups and it was noted the FAA controls run -up procedures with the policy being that air- craft are to use- the run -up pad. Eleven percent (11 %) of the newer aircraft include the state's three quieter planes, according to information received. Dave Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Noise Section, indicated the MPCA standards do apply but that the standards are difficult to enforce and that the attorney general's office has chosen not to do so. 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA C ;.'. RESOLUTION NO. 84 RESOLUTION REGARDING AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights, through Land Use planning, has provided a corridor through the southern area of the City for the safe and unobtrusive operation of aircraft arriving and departing from the Twin Cities International Airport; and WHEREAS, during the past three years there has been a continuing and increasing movement of the departing tracks of aircraft over well established residential neighborhoods, located to the north of the compatibly zoned land; and WHEREAS, the operations of departing aircraft on runways 11L, due to heading turns out of the provided corridor, have resulted in an intolerable situation for the residents of the City; and • WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the City that at least a part of the condition is a result of the designation of a small residential area (specifically the Timberline Addition in the City of Eagan) south of the flight path by the FAA as a no overflight area; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has been provided with noise contour maps from the MAC and Metropolitan Council which indicate field operations should be conducted in a manner that restrict the excessive noise to the non - residential corridor provided; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the MAC and the FAA Air Traffic Control be required to maintain all departing aircraft on Runway 11L to a compass heading of no less than 105 degrees or such heading as is necessary to maintain all traffic in the corridor provided and shown in exhibit A attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event that such operations cannot be accommodated and effective on or before July 10, 1984, that the MAC close Runway 11L to all departing turbo jet traffic on a 24 -hour a day basis until such time as operations can be maintained in such a compatible manner. _ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this Twentieth day of June, 1984. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By ATTEST: Robert G. Lockwood Mayor Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk f jj., 1 gre 1!;i1), - itl r 0 .... . . _ -1"1 I ' p ---'. --- t - - - -- - , . . _. , 1.16,41i ... I:Ft:pi f''', „.....>- '. —74 sl - =-.‘k i' ;`:: - Vc - ".\:'"------‘- ' '' ''''' A ' ..' N : ' .:.--7-t.;‘ hi ' 1:: ' ' " '.): ' - - 4 ' - I: :it c. [ 1='1' '',- \k 1 --, lq -- l' ::- 1 ' . , ....:--- : .L _ ": :. ....I.1,, ;17 A � 1 11 . 11 •r_ l ::N. 1 + - " ' '.•. E 1 '-'---'7 '1 t - ?� _ , '•i, � ; / / r r i ' 4 \\/.T';'' / _ .- \�\ ah :.-14.:1::1-1-1:- 1 -i - - ` •-t . _:l _ ± 1. f{VVV s ] / • 111,.4 1 _ 1 C .ft -- 1 _„s � -a..� 1 11 ��'U +Y ; • S Tr ' I r I \ �1 � \ a ° f J i , f' r' �� 1 � ` ■ " i1 I, ;rr .- S = [ 2, a - - -,- _ :. Sip I -- .0 _ _ r Y .. _"�_ - , - r ,- 1 t r ; � : . I , _ ] i . '.. ` � up .4 Lilo � - ' t 1 + F . / L.9 _ , _ - E :. :\ ,:iii.),. 1� 1\' � 1 1 1 11 1 \ .` \ ?i� 1. . ; f' 1 ! ! i I - I 11 1�1 1 w �] ! i r ) , I 111 7 :,,• 7 : , , N �, {d 1 41 c 11 11 y \ 1t{,t, i ' ; :� ,.., - 1 tl_ �. u / ter,. � ��1{ _ I J/' A `1 t _ , '1 ` �� , t , I 11 LI :.� ,. 1 .,, \ F • , 1!„1 . ;,-1() 1' i m .ate �= •K, y �. ' 1 N6: :.: .%, N - - , . / - / Ar c •-■ 1 1 , 19 if! /1 ,, , gliiii , 1 1 ibl 1 1 1! ! ✓ 11 `1 I Yybl \� � �' Ic 7 � 1 _ I � r' �- i% `'=/ . `�� -- r_ ::.t _ - " . 4 q. , 1 ', ; r+'_°I . ` ` l J.1 \ � < < . ,' . - - N 1 , - � � r 1 11. ; ' I : -'' I11 11h vl j ` , - G� --= i t oil" ` �� 1 � ! > ` > ' • �/ fi t ~. J : ,� 1 5 .i i ` t i 3 1 ` � I IE 1 � 1 u f � �` j i � � `�r� ' L., ' " ' • I }- 8 J. 111 "1 1 C' I� •-. = ro / fibs � .' i s i 1 11 . ' ~ r � � � , t s ` 1 . :jµ 11 1 i ::. ,_ ►ICI , '-'''.5'e ! 5 :. F . ,:::::,7),I0-„,, 7 l . ; -- r,} 11 y 111 1' ii.,.' 11 �� / (, - - , rl t n'i � A rT• . `- i 1 a 1 1 _ 9 • ` - -- 4 t( ! a(„ ` 'r\ �^ "' I ' r u I - u ,y ° / :7:,,12_,_,_____.r- � � it ` — -' �� iy, Ci 1-74:,"1 ,1.• —2 ,,...i _. 1 . ...,.... ( — 14,,,i n . r'''' .; it, .... ... .. , • . _:,., __,,,:,,,„, I :, . ,,_ . I , : .- 4} . 7. 1.--- ‘:, -- '--- i -.:M1,.„ ___• _ ••• 4 ..4:4, { . + 1 , - . i ; f. lb I Ili ., . , � .,-.:71 ; i ......_.,,;____" . ..1: ..... ,),P.; --- i \ \7 e ; . :1 . - • !i-I ;;:...:'..El'" , . ----- -,..,.--) i''''' 'D - 1 ef."- _ 1 P ` 1 -. _ z � - .\ , � � { /+�q " 6 t ' ;: •L 1, i E.:..,, l // , .['. �-� p J) q r'.-J •,-- ' .r.. • AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS till • U 0) W r C ad^+ { y i .t : • U. N N V :Js 7 .*;;;''.5 L U 1-- L CO �:'�`Y p CC (0 — 3 (D • CI c0 CI _ o - 1 0 co O } _ • CD c0 a� 10 L1 CC Cr) L I: _ I } MI :, irri IIII — 0.,.. ;;44 li Kati 1 F f a � c . ■ Ylib lili111 _ - ?�\ '✓ i AIt �3s ��i v�o f /' itt ,� t o i0•ieeew:eelilt ith1�E1� •1 _ «z '- :�' +� 1j �_ = = elY ®r. Imo■ 1 /AIM 1 „... L a .. ,,... i iiil aim .,,.. - . °I . A . - ‘---------- -' 77: ;.s:',-:.-::- a. Ina Orliligt. \ \ %.1 . itlirs ir e11n111 a ° r . �. . t [wpra lir .1 ® : , '" 1ltrerrlltltr:reii i - •� g 11111111111/IIL11 Z r 7c'�il!ii v i �`a - - ! 4) i 1 ikdit l T . E i iiu22Mi11f11 ,[12 °11,11► ' ,ti ' /� , . 1.11111./1 ii1 ,i11.Y vlim., ' " 1 / J o■u ..... 1�ur1 iuru 1, L IIIIIRrallIkei IL1M -o p ,i. w .. ' ZEN � �' ' ��I a a ! r • arinlru 111111[ wss u■ asp, I, 1111 = r . 1 / /YU1c11C1ullulullill \� (, 1 _.. _ � '' •• a . �' I �, 1011111111111111011111111111111W=1111 !�' a� r . - nr _ al 1 ■NI /YIIIlIIIIIRrtJe�llii t � + c * !` 'T�i�� .. 1 n11rnlnls:� �� C rlrn�ereler- �� ® EE rrr�l i � " �5 < A . �. f 1 .'� • / rrr11111111i11t:11R a �! t o IIIIIIIIIIII �� l LAS • iY •I w1 •• •1111111 1111 �� 1 O itliiimpl/01161 marairrim ur ird 1• r iarti% a ••" 11111 =uy� / 1111° 11 l �iii,iii re /i r;. . - ► • 1 ,, , , • vow.. 111 1111' ��I !i 1 �� • i DRa { ` h �� + - 11 e-p -- - R Y . - ii� i� y � ■ C ' y `V ■.ril atl neeN 111 yJUi$A R@i' iielr*' - .,/ • ° ' ,' N C _ . -' I ''-.-' . _ ∎I 111 IIMIII111111N11 l r MED I '"� 1 to 1e� /11111111111111t1�llreel �� , ; l r ''�V _ c� a � L :J1�iiW�' 1 r r ,y /�,.. ' _ �` / � � _ . �� ,fir' 1 ' F J °4';4444.--, • - --- - O- DS i ii i� /[ ' I / `�eQ - e �S Q I f s."...4,-...... , \ ' ks I �`!`�/r_Q '� `.�Y =- id ° '�� : °- ' �� ! .may `_ .I-/ 1'.@@- m amma - v - l �.- . r �� - ••' 1111 v t \ h _ Fop i ■-- L�1111C" di M �'�i - ''S @3 - i t � ... ,... . 4 1 . .... h t '; ` i C : __JC -` .4 4 . 1 .1 � 11" =1 ' ' ...... Z - - BMIEI - - twit MML1 � °524 .. i, ) s C p . ? ` °. Cr �C@ �- - q �.. Yom .�� r A SS® i l \/! sag=== - Oii _ = = @■ ibis 1 s � = m -`• Fi -a. ` _ - a=a = 5 sasei as�• - - =� / S = � � �. emaa i pA 3�Imi - � y � r, a~� ltiila°L�; S � - j '9 E _ � ■/T -r � 4 LC • a ww.A �encac SS∎•∎• i�� t �Y■ H WA ■ri 11... . E@ Y�ii i '� � � -1 = \ : i - Std �� ,,..°ri- r : - o■ - 01�� .r S I i-T ,1, s 11 3 ii I .4-1 � = � -am W .1vA �. z . `V ■ ii: ®rl °S x /17 E L! Pip - r` �� , 5 - - ■ - ■G Elio -` il': i l ' � ..� 1:11.: e1t: .- _a. @e'��LC■ - lflr>1 : _ 1'a kls�l _r►th.�s _. .x.1 ; � ro -p--x - _vs MC !C@@. i�r____ _v ,rip 7 4 ! r , s , n . MSP HOURLY RUNWAY LIMITS (arrivals & departures) 1981, . ' . LANDINGS TAKEOFFS LANDINGS TAKEOFFS ` \ VFR 60 -66 40 -60 VFR 60 -66 40 -60 IFR 42 -45 28 -35 IFR 42 -45 35 -40 it / - • N .............. . / LANDINGS =DOFFS \ LANDINGS TAIEOF FS VFR 60 -66 20 VFR 30 -32 23 -32 IFR 42 -48 20 IFR 24 -28 20 i / / LANDINGS TAKEOFFS LANDINGS TAK FFS VFR 32 30 VFR 32 30 rpm 24 -30 9g —ln IFR 24 -30 25 -30 - • • • • Airtort Configuration . - As used for both Ldn and Leg (L analysis: - Runway Length,.(Ft.) - Runway Orientation Takeort Landing Existing: NW -SE 11L -29R 8,200 - 8,200 •- 11R -29L 10,000 10,000 . NE -SW 04 8,256 . ' 8,256 - 22' 7,256 7,256 - Future: NW -SE 11L -29R 8,200 . 8,200 11R -29L 10,000 10,000 NE-SW 04 10,000 8,256 - 22 10,000 8,256 Runway Utilization . Annual Average Utilization for.1977 Ldn Runway. Traffic Flow Operating Mode Designation. Direction Toward Takeoff Landing . percent . ILL & R - • Southeast 34' 18 29L. & R Northwest 25 59 04 Northeast 3. 19 -- 22 Southwest 38 4 . Annual Average Utilization for 1990 Ldn assumes maximizing preferential runway use system Runway Flow Operating Mode Designation Direction Toward Takeoff Landing percent p & Southeast 43 4? 12 3q ''t 29L & R Northwest 15 Z. 47 41 � All — 04 • • Northeast 6 2 38 a► 22 Southwest 35 11 4 li • ight Tracks and Use - Detailed data regarding the flight t=acks and their utilization as incorporated for this noise study are available in the working files for the project. 17- I G \ • • • C`t•ur. . 71 ; Praceaur?s . Modified approach procedures for various weather conditions include: . • 1 :171 Eiger Profile Descent - V1 6 Glide Slope unciL 21 -3 miles out with t_arsic_oa . Co 3z Glide Slope thereafter _. _ _ . Ai__raf_ Ope=at_cns and Flee= `tic • • . 1977 Aircraft Ac_iv -icy at MS? rtt a - er t ,_ t_ota? err z:at _ and Ave Daily by Type Aircraft 'rune 1ct :v=1r 1= -� =- average Daily 0peraciers /.�_ c _ Annual. Op e - r ^r_s Dav :N sc:-e ec __ ? �_es . 3707 144aO L 3727 67,963' L70 t5 3737/Dc -9 - 4L,464 5 B7G.T LOG. 6 .... Z,5 3 4 • • DCl0 13,797 • CV 530/= = 227 1-2,264 28 t� 28 • In - . .7477 IT :44 . L i :.a --r 6,250 _ 8 -- Genera? A7iacion Bus. Jec L3,1 • 15 • Other L0A, 761 -- .r- 243,109. N.7,-.A.- : ;• *Nighttine = 220a cc 0700 hours *' *Average (..i.2.7 "ocher" ceneral iv aL'_On, i.e.. S% % Lizhz Tr:=_: ?I-0P not incor7oraced since noise contr Cucio:Z is i:sipli_icanc• • g -z , :} 1 T / • 1990 Forecast Aircraft Activity at MSP International - Annual and Average Daily by Type Aircraft _ . Average Daily Operations Tyne Activity /Aircraft Annual Operations Day Night • Scheduled Airlines 206,000 DC -9 -50 30,900 . 78 - 8' 3727 -200A 92,700 229 22 DC -10 30,900 ' . . . 61 5 B747 .6,180 10 6 - New Technology* 45,320 113 12 Military • 4 eng. turbo -prop 6,000 16 .- General Aviation • Business Jet 21,000 53 . 6 Other 93,000 ** ** • 1990 Total. _ 326,000- 560 . 59 *New technology aircraft include DC -9 -80, A -300, B -767: Aircraft . • noise characteristics. and flight profiles developed based upon information from BBN and aircraft grufacturers . . ;.:Not included in noise analysis. Note: All other jet aircraft are assumed to meet FAR Part 36 noise requirements. . 1977 Busy Hour Scheduled Aircraft Operations by Type Aircraft - Landings 4 -5:00 P.M., Takeoffs 5 -6:00 P.M. - Aircraft Tyne ) Scheduled Operations Landings Takeoffs B -727 13 14 DC -9 8 8 DC -10 . 2 2 . _ C -580 1 1 B -737 1 2 . _ . " Light Twin 3 2 - Bus. Jets 2 2 - D - 3 • L990 Busy Hour Scheduled Opera: ions by Type Al=c_a =t Ai c. a 77 D et ar== a s B 727 L6 ' • ' • 16- DC" 9. • 6 6 B 747 L L Da LO 5 g New TaciI oLog* 8 8 ?.op Tcrw 2 2 • BLS=ihess Set 2 - 2 4a 74Tew cecbr.oLogy i^..clu.des DC- 9 -80 B 767, h -300 • • • • II - 4 • /.. ' • 7, -_ . • . / . • 1 .� r ` - _ L 0 r. . ' 1 �� jw.� /J/ ( CS L as L 1 / 1 - v.., .r ■ as L — _ a7 �r C G 1r ! 0 Lt C 7 l D OS C7 11 Ti }..1 1 � �� ` j ' — _ 1 - m a m u ` 1 !J r y l ! = ,-4.u., 4 cs 1 I 1 m um -GIc `? 1 F 11 c cac� j g " 4 1141 \ I Z. 4 i . G • 1 . . 1 i 1 -.._____ _ c..- - .., d ,.... . * 4 p., •C c:1 .... 43 min ca I i 1 4" \ s - m' 7 .4 __ { 1 i `Y� ` \ T /1 ; - , •� • ili a lit LI X1 1 1' ` : \ — -. — ! —► y Y ! -.�. cc „it -1 J ` ik `\ \\ .. cc , . • i ` F- iii 1 I . ,..... , . „\ , 1 L.7.1 ....1 0 d C 7. " l 14 N.-, N z _ = I i c,.. ? \\.____) � ' �_.�.. =f �_ _r;— j _.1 \ ` I \ z • . c_.- \ ci. ......,_ , .T 1 a r-- 1 r ; fi � :, - i- J �� il n \ .t ""'? • � .\ ; -� � j I 3 - \ . - fi � - • / 1977 1986 1990 1990 (9) 125(new tech.) (11) B 747 7 5 '16 15 B 757 30 77 B 767 30 25 DC 10 -10 2 DC 10 -40 41 } 42 66 48 DC 8 B 707/720 1 4 B 727/100 60 78 43 B 727/200 126 197 (A) 251 293 B 737/300 30 B 737/200 10 16 15 B 737 7 3 DC 9 -80 23 8 DC 9 -50 30 64 86 113 DC 9 -30 61 159 19 DC 9 -10 9 43 4 CV 580 59 F 27 } 32 25 F 28 2 Beechcraft 20 Beech 99 12 Metro 34 Shorts 360 6 Saab- Fairchild 18 Jetstream 31 75 Airline Subtotal 382* 945 544 780 G.A. Bus. -Jet 30 1 42 59 71 -Other 287 140 ** Military 8 14 16 Total OPS 707 1,131 1] Total average day OPS. -MAC Adv. of Noisemap for Base Case, MSP OPS ", Plan 2] Summary June Consol. Sched. -MASAC Mo. OPS, RPT. 3] Noisemap Proj's. 4] MSP - Far Part -150 Study * 345 Day, 37 Night ** Not Inc. in Noise Analy. IE: Acoustic Contribution Considered Insignificant MC101A Comparison of MSP Annual Operations 1977 0PS. 1990 (High Range) 1990 139,503 Sched. Airline 252,122 206,000 256,000 6,260 Mil. 14,000 6,000 5,000 117,946 G.A. 106,715 114,000 74, 900 • 263,709 372,911 326,000 335,900 1] Noisemap 2] 1985 Actual 3] 1977 Avia. Chapt. Forecast M .� �„ 4] MC 1986 Aviation Guide Forecasts .-- `O Q_ MC101A 1 • 1 • 7 t 1 1 a V' j , N i i j 1 ; r � CA' i ] { N Z , I 1 I ' N 7I a J . I 1 . . , ,o C1, p >y i + 1 N1 i T ' d I N U;Q } j r �0. ;ni i j s 1 O • Or S 1 I 1 i I j 00 Z: to I _ i VI / \ i ■ I i 1 1 C. I M ' i i ir- t N _ -.. _ __ _ N 2 8 ° o- Q -- - -a - -- ° _o - -° o RESOLUTION CITIES OF EAGAN AND MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NO. JOINT RESOLUTION TO REQUIRE PARALLEL RUNWAY OPERATIONS CONSISTANT WITH THE EAGAN- MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have provided a corridor of land uses along their mutual boundary which is largely compatible with overflights by turbojet aircraft operating at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights are required by the Metropolitan Council to plan and execute their comprehensive land development on the basis of the noise zones contained within the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide (see Attachment I), said zones have been prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation using operational assumptions, projections and presentations provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC); and WHEREAS, the corridor defined by those noise zones was created and is maintained to accomodate the disproportionate amount of turbojet traffic operating southeast of the airport under the Preferential Runway System (PRS); and WHEREAS, a concerted effort is being made to maximize operations southeast of the airport to reduce the noise impact on more densely populated communities also adjacent to the airport; and WHEREAS, the MAC has expressed a commitment to the maintenance of the corridor as a part of its historical and long -term noise abatement strategy; and WHEREAS, the FAA has repeatedly stressed the need for noise compatible land -uses as a means of accomodating operational noise generation; and WHEREAS, the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor provides an adequate area of compatible land uses for operations, even when diverging separation is in use; and WHEREAS, there has occurred in recent years a progressive and intolerable pattern of deviations from the operation headings on which the corridor was based, under operational and weather conditions for which their use was prescribed, severely impacting the residential neighborhoods which were to be protected by the development of the corridor and the accomodations of the PRS and its noise abatement measures; and WHEREAS, deviations to the north and south of the corridor create the greatest nuisance under visual flight conditions (VFR conditions) when noise abatement procedures are to be practiced, and further, that aircraft may deviate from the corridor for safety and operational reasons under instrument flight conditions (IFR conditions) or when wind or weather conditions affect flight patterns; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have supported the PRS as a means of providing noise relief for the rest of the airport's neighbors and consider compliance with the corridor to be a means of enhancing the viability of the PRS and in no way intend to restrict or impair the capacity of parallel departures on 11L and 11R; and WHEREAS, changes in operations have a broad impact on the planning assumptions of the regional system and should not be undertaken without first assessing such impact in concert with the council of the affected communities and the Metropolitan Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights that the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Federal Aviation Administration, and Air Transport Association be required to maintain all arriving and departing aircraft on Runways 11L and 11R on compass headings consistant with the ground tracks used to formulate the noise zone planning contours of the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide and cease all deviations from such headings under VFR conditions except as necessary for reasons of safety; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Cities hereby request that the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Federal Aviation Administration provide written notice to the respective Cities and the Metropolitan Council whenever operational changes of a permanent or extended duration are under consideration that would act to shift operations to flight tracks that alter the noise zone boundaries on which the communities' land uses are based. CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: By: Its Mayor Its Mayor Attest: Attest: Its Clerk Its Clerk Date: Date: MOTION MADE BY: MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: SECONDED BY: THOSE IN FAVOR: THOSE IN FAVOR: THOSE OPPOSED: THOSE OPPOSED: • • • v i La r• �--"' Roseviiis ci I dale F a i_ c �� F-- ------- ---------- is a en Valley Figure 0.1 MINNEAPOLISST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL. AIRPORT AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONES s s ,.......41 ti, Saint Paul St. Louis Minrle polls / t,.. - a - . . . ii 1 . / • . C o ' .........) , v, .., . . ..,....r_r„............. . ` - / `� � ; � w est r i C __ Wi �f %iilydale • SL Paul - Edina I ---- �� ndota • t / /. �� 1 ` O19 I fishit 413 2l i /� - -�1 �,-- 0 )/ fil ........ Bloom• o I , ` ✓� Ea 1 — 4 Noise Zones ammo Existing Runway • Existing Airport Property 1 e • • 61 Ck. • LI e . 7 / / //g • Develop to insulate to muffle jet noise by Aniy O'Marro water and wildlife. About 200 houses may be built Before construction can begin under a Minneapolis -St. Paul In -. on Bur Oak Hills. the developer ternational Airport flight path, ' will have to specially insulate but the Metropolitan Council the homes to muffle airplane said those homes must first be noise. the Metropolitan Council insulated to lessen the impact of said. The developer must also airplane noise. alert home buyers about the Home construction is planned noise, in the Bur Oak Hills addition by The homes will have more in the Harstad -Todd Construction sulation, said Ken Briggs of Co. The site, about 111 acres, is Harstad -Todd Co. - There will southwest of Highway 55 and 4 not be a change in the develop - miles from the airport. ment. It is under the flight path The Metropolitan Council and has a noise impact of 75 to 80 studied the problem of the addi- decibels, putting in more insula- tion's proximity to the airport. tion will adjust that." he said. as well as its impact to the land, . .4- .J `Piovke_ar "Press - %S pa.4 L. /a/ Project must meet noise rules -0_1% D - i. Air Eagan addition planned to hold 205 homes under the flight path to Minneapolis -St. Paul Inter -. national Airport must meet anti -noise require- ments before construction proceeds, the Metropoli- tan Council has decided. The 111 -acre Bur Oak Hills addition is proposed in eastern Eagan on an irregularly shaped site southwest of Highway 55 and the city border with Inver Grove Heights. It is 4.5 miles from the air - Port In an environmental review completed last week, the Metro Council said the developer will have to respond to the jet noise problem by special- ly insulating the houses to muffle the sounds and by alerting home buyers that outdoor activities could be impinged by the noise. *iffy t TY iIto..t _ . _ .71 iinto 1 Gl umack to retire • r D ec. Dec...34 as chair o • A irports Commission By Wendy 5. Tai consultant for the commission after'. . Staff Writer . : retirement. • .` 'Ray Glumack, chairman and former Yet, " noise activists say the gruff,: (:' director of the Metropolitan Airports imposing chairman is seen as a sytii.- : : ,1, Commission, said Thursday he will bol of commission resistance to ad°`' retire when his term expires Dec. 31. aggressive program to reduce air- plane noise, one whose direct styli :'a "r think there's a time in everyone's and quick reactions have made h1nT 'I, life when you have to move aside a natural enemy of residents who `: and make room for others who are live under the plane's paths. He also ""'coming up 'the line," he said. "The is regarded as a leader who has;" time is here for me to bow out. " - wielded more power than an aver - :: age chairman because he also was . Glumack, 68, says he wants to spend . the commission's director from 1976 more time with his family, hit the ,. to 1983. • road with his new motor home and • write a novel on aviation and a text - While his retirement may be w -`.I book on airport administration. The comed, it will not solve the noise:; controversy over finding a solution problem that has spawned protests'` _ to airplane noise is not forcing him from residents under the flight path,::; out after 15 years with MAC, and especially those in south Minneapo .:1 neither is Gov. Rudy Perpich, who lis, noise activists said. : y : . ; appointed him in December 1983, -r Glumack said. `: But it could. hold - d greater promise •.1 • fora quieter sky, said Minneapolis ";; "I'm not being" chased out of my - -City Council Member Steve Cramer. ',:.1 job," he said. The chairman's tion always is an _easy target for It the gdvernor picks a chairman.'!: criticism, even though "we didn't in- who places noise high on the agenda~ : vent the noise issue,' said r .. i •f •t• _ Glumack, who wants to work as a Glumack continued on page 12A .:::''. f 1, • • Minneapolis Star and Tribune e t ty a j Paz »:c a y f . rtlyo44,it't.INIPV. ~ s. 2A • • F July 11, lim � t om �c ,*,y yy f f a us r 2 , ,,, 4• ..x , 4:34,0,t.V' c„, t.:.., � � ., i < i s.,.1 v a' $ � � �4 :.S{�I i � j°s" },�"` $�v�'a r°'�,° ;` �t " <x � K � `+�'Yt ` � f Glumack ` ° < �P Nd r �R�C,.v ::t ,,, rv. , ., ° � , £ 4 , J a ' .1 • a , t o 1 n . ere? a a : 3 1 :, a' `L 1 I r, ti t>i} Y , 5 , ° 4 :.4 >. @ \ �' t : s` r s s t► 1 �Y s Y, a .. t � ., Continued from a I A 41'':‘ T - 1 t es ry .w t ';''...-‘!::.,\ 4 ' Li A k a s h a e sE .t. P « ' � f� >Y,.,, 4 Y: a.' i } ri z ` . '} � � ' ". • 1 .r .ts r '1s. ±q,y „f, l 'aaa �'y; r f ' and who then sets the tone for the , . ` = r t t . commission, "there Is hope for more c s t „ r 4 M d ..4'i F r # a T �•• ••V 'i I+� aggressive action," Cramer said I r r t ^i a ,r,. y,a r J` x • perceive Ray Glumack as a barrier i� E. � �i f , ; t\ ,r < ts; .. ' 4: f taY �' E - a E to a more effective noise -Program tS ° y ' t - ,..t„.,,s?S s ''s" ' * 44,A,..1 �"°�, y ' tY•', f 1� d Pr t' st f v t • ti 3 • � . He exerts a Whsle. jet Of lmtlu• � °i ' t � '� �+�t �i � ! e ;,1:-„...1.-A4., i 1 X � ° +; ' ` t; a ence over the co whol on. He really •!... * c •,Q 'N i tin s+r a l +4 i a E >s r \„ ` } t + ♦ �' sets the tone for the caion. He and „ 1 3 f a }i = ' r , 'v +„ ` a t i . staff, and I don't tills* the tone In the - lid ' + . +s3� years 'Let's Ri.:A O a 4 :i .+*+ t Q41 ? •.; recent ears has been, Let go out n there and really solve , - ' problem. r i , ' ,. t , its a ,, r ” ) ..i , .... A �; s `, t - 1 ''^1, h 4 y _ Y a _ •• ; � �. r � % � er�.y ` ltl: E`i'S.�.s a .' ` +f r h a f S• �' q f: - Y+ I a ^"A� - : v : � 9. ti "Ira -: . 1 1� E � !x � ! � � °` { Y� iL 1°` " �k `a L .RV"' 3�vx� +: +`b 56 �'t ad � . � P yg i � � >`E � been, 'Gee,. We've done a lot on s fi �, �° r *. x� 1 � w ; t " noise to the 1° � e ; t X r .t'=. : : ?,deft" �`��.•6 �� , E � Yi v t : past Who are these Ax ` 3 !,, i; lV .4 a',' a ,4 y °p '24; t t : ." People to tell us how to solve the s ' ti ` OA � • .'i•* ii, 1 st .. } : i i . z « �: ,t tf P r R f, .� p . '4vd� Innovations. developed � i�- � � r '� � �� ~ � > ,,� . � I ":1 • � r " in the 18 are Outdated for prob• ` h 4 '"' a } .gy t ,r X� , i _` f lets of the s ar x, Cramer Bald. , q . t; � ? `'� r . fir t i "" �,i;, l 1 7 s ' x 4 ,. ye . ,,,,...*•*. " % is '' t M . J 1 ` . a fz 4,,,',.141-:: . <'K ..,.‘...i.=,.�t t . Ct Ya , "` + ` t� *t However, critics and supporters ' (�' j a b i'`47 1 � . t 9 � t,, �D i e t a � , ° et<Y' }'� F alike give Glumacic p s e !� w l a -yY,.r, 9 1 £ i .4*''' f re, Bl credit for run- • ` , ?, ,t et} : ,.i 4. ning a safe and profitable airport, •'"4.440,,.7.1„,, { " : z which under him has - .f;;,'3.-2---.'":.'.: , ` + ` Deer brought t ri. >• r � , �} : � ,,,? %, Y to national and international proml t t •t,..1‘.,,;• y r f , T 4; r: Hence for its safety record and Irmo- 1,...., } a 4, ' ` ` ' " �, v , r t ° _ ` " 4 , ' vative mobs reduction measures In � • ._ • . the 18809 and 1870x. r, r? t. ' . 4x °;� ` " ` . : a' Glumack was elected president of - t i C afy �/ e s : a tt •'zr R the Airport Operators Council Inter- } a ,,,;,',....A‘ : .'„;1 " C 1I t i ,i , , , ,, . ,, t a * t , . . . .1 the Air In 1882, as Int ncil o r ,., ` ! t ,;7..,...„,,,„,-. ' , a:, °' , ' a ` group of professional airport ne "" - '- •!•'�.'.. i .. ...', Staff Photo by John Gott "I think he's one of the best in the ' country," Perpich said yesterday. . Ray Glumack: "I think there's a time in everyone's life when you have to move aside... r "He knows the business= Our air- _ . port's one of the best. You get your it was back to 93 percent because he Glumack said that now Is a abatement program bags; they don't get lost. He's work - sald he would stay on as chairman' .lime for him to retire, fie' because the ' P ' he said. , • . Ing hard on the noise (problem),. after the new year If no successor airport Is on the ri t co there's no doubt about that. Yqu're .: has been picked. But it would be on a • has accomplished sey end lie . him a pro - irline bs h busin ve c ese s, aid, going to see some results.". monthly basis and only for a "rea-= has amassed a capable, professional .MAC- underr him ! has balanced its sonable" amount of time, he said. staff, the airport is financially sound dual role of promoting airport com- Perplch said Glumack had wanted to • without the use Of any tax money merce, as well as protecting its cart- retire sooner, but he didn't want the "At this critical time, they nee 1970, and it is a safe airport.. ronmenL The airport, he argued, chairman to leave when it might someone With the background. and ° . appear as if Glumack was bet a had been a leader In noise- abate- forced out because of the noise con- I �'t do it with g ood consci encce..' n �.•.. wed t a� an �a ea also h melt programs deregulation of troversy. Y Pparan of We Industry la 1978. . ;• . conflict of interest. A legislati e f ve au- (The governor b Later, he would like to MAC as a ' ditor's report last year found that For example, be coined the phrase expected to an- ' consultant to help Jeff Handel, MAC Glumack created a potential ob conflict • •• environmental capacity," envlron- nounce appointments today to till , executive director, and the new by accepting apart e ) a mental factors airports must ad- two MAC seats that expired July 1. chairman, should they need it, Gin- airport- industry consultant. But s n o • dress. The airport here also was the They were held by Vice Chairman J. mack sald. . conflict actually existed, the report first In the country to adopt a prefer - Robert Stassem, whom Glumack said . '• • • .. ; ; has resigned, and Robert S. Peter - .. It's easy to see ht. devotion to avla stated �• • p lane over runway system, Which during sends son, who said this week that he Is tiers in 6b record. He began .,. .. , . { � ,; : . B his fly- He also defended MALI previous , off-peak hours. It was also a leader seeking reappointment.) .. , sing career at his boyhood home In practice of requiring commissioners In adopting nighttime !light reatric- Virginia, Minn., where he started a' : to fly first-class on Commission bust- Uons. Glumack, a U.S. Navy pilot In World : 21 -plane airline con t War II, concedes it will be hard for tually Py and even- Hess, saying that n avoided a potea- Di to keep his hands out of the Airport managed the Vlrglnta'EveleUt teal problem whew airlines upgrade • "The guy's pretty innovative, far- airport kee hi that has out of the o atter World War II. commissioners' seats from coach to sighted," Hamiel said. "Ray's been most u i life. Even In c lu p of 'After he left V first - class. That practice also has painted over the years as a bar' lrglal In 1838. he tsars dbcoaUnu he xa{d. nosed, Insensitive guy, (when) retirement, he waves between a 93 went Into aviation sales In January . percent certainty and 100 percent 1971, he was hired as MAC opera- One disappointment wo opposite b true." bons director, and in 1978 be be- retirement, he said` that nth...:, . He Wax 93 percent sure Wednesday came executive director. Seven be around to _ "share the victory' 1 that he would retire by the end of years later, Perplch appointed hew over the noise issue, but or" ' : the year, and by yesterday morning chairman. for lb solution has been groundwork with It was a certainty. But by afternoon, MACS adoption of a 27 -point noise qt LL'.: `� u« city of eagan 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.0. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH JUNE 24, 1986 VAC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Council Members • THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator JEFF HAMIEL EUGENE City Clerk EKE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 Re: Operational Changes Affecting the City of Eagan Dear Jeff: Our conversations in recent weeks have highlighted the need to maintain a high level of communication between the MAC and the City whenever a substantive change is anticipated which will affect land uses within the City of Eagan. While the City is ably represented at MASAC meetings by Mr. Baker and Mr. Mirick as well as members of our staff, they are only able to express their interpretation of the various decisions which are made. Moreover, they are only empowered to represent the interests of the community and in no way may they bind the community to any accomodations without the approval of the City Council. Obviously, we will continue to utilize the channel provided by MASAC, but we must request that additional effort be made to correspond directly between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City Council so that misunderstandings may be avoided and our positive working relationship maintained. Please consider this to be a formal request for notification of our City Council at their City Hall address whenever substantive changes in operations or capital improvements will result in a shift of the LDN 65 or LDN 75 noise contours within the City or will substantially increase air traffic activity over the City. We appreciate the fact that this will add additional effort to the conduct of airport business, but it will substantially improve the understanding of the community when changes occur which affect it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, ( --161 ‘ --- Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator TLH /JH /jh THE LONE OAK TREE ...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY / " ' -e4vra 1 v- (4g Effects of future airport `. expansion 'to. be assessed , • New regional ional aviation plan emphasizes • zes ai rport no Ne g p innesota's two seasons — "winter and road _ assessing the noise implications of proposals for future The plan also requires the Metropolitan Airports Com, • repair" —may still apply. But some people airport expansions. mission (MAC), which owns and operates the regions • would substitute "airport noise" as The new plan, called the aviation chapter of the publicly owned airports, to determine the social and • Minnesota's second season. Metropolltan Development Guide, was adopted by the economic costs of aircraft noise. They're the folks subject to intense noise from jets `. ' • Council in May. It replaces a 1977 plan that was The plan also says the MAC should explore the landing and departing at Minneapolis -St. Paul Inter- . prepared when airport noise was far less severe around • ' concept of a "noise budget." Under that concept, . national Airport. The noise problem has gotten markedly International Airport than it is today. , individual airlines would be assigned a fixed amount of worse in the last several years, and was a big influence Among other things, the new plan requires an • requires to page 8. as the Metropolitan Council recently revised its plan. evaluation of the "environmental capacity" of Inter, for the region's airports. national Airport. Environmental capacity refers to the The new plan calls for much more emphasis on airport • amount of noise that areas near the airpo can tolerate ,. " �; .: -,� w ii a rt e La save ` + I ,1 . T t o , . ° � ` 4 . Y �c as _time,. sle . r 11. • .ft , • , 1. . . 1 � 1 hat funny 1i highw icknamed the "Sane I ; i f 1, s + `,t ••• . , Lane' on Hwy. • raining converts. It now .. r L s t ti • 1 -1 ' ' • T carries more pe. an a regular Hwy. 12 . • � ` r lane does, an 's saw • people money, time ' s r,�� i 11 , 'i .` y ta +� � and rush hour aggrav on. t. �; , ' ► ' • /+ j l j� + •'' • ., I , , The sane lane i single lane, four les long. In the • {3 i " t t ,.1 "morning, it care eastbound traffic int. • inneapolis, '3} �1 • a a '• r > � I and in the ev logs it carries westbound tr. is out of . 1 3 >y. _ 3� ` + , the city. flanked by two eastbound and t • west- {�� . t I rt, . - •: i : ` C' -° ` ` bound es of Hwy. 12. , • - '1 r "' tr.`"4 -X. ■ t' a-•x i . r ' eally like it," said Tom Arbogast, who uses' in r 4_ . a ** f ° W ' 3-mile drive from Mound to work in downtow 1, • h' s 'Ae `•` , •� ' . • Paul. "It saves me about 10 minutes each way." H _ can use the sane lane because he has another passenger By the year 2003, the numbers of airplane passengers, takeoffs and landings at regional airports are forecast to more • than double over 1983 levels._ The figures, in a new Metropolitan Council aviation plan, do not Include possible,:. p , - • Sane Lane to page 8. restrktions on flights. - • , -. . , . ., : . , . • from page 1. . _ The new says more studies are needed to ':;i• , determine whether a new small airport will be needed in _ western Hennepin County. Currently, general- aviation ,_ noise —or "budget" —each could generate annually. - : • aircraft in that area fly out of airports in Crystal, Blaine (The MAC, at the urging of the Council and others, -- noise budget idea.) ea.) - or Eden Prairie. Those airports' current use and future ' • recently decided to draft an ordinance based the , ,. capacity will be studied to determine whether a new - airport. is needed. o: a • current Cities air port system consists of . Under the plan, the MAC is required to prepare new, The urnt Twin itir comprehensive. plans for all its airports. Those plans for Minneapolis-St. Paul International, iesairport St. Paul Downtown— .. long -term development must incorporate noise consider- an "intermediate" facility that handles larger business ations, as well as safety concerns and size limitations at s the airport sites. The MAC has several studies under way jets —and 10 "minor" airports for use primarily by small; • - that relate to runway extensions and the Tong -range general-aviation aircraft. av New facilities at the 12 air airports will depend on the development of Minneapolis-St. Paul International. _ outcome of the comprehensive a studies under way or The new plan urges cities around both the region's planned. But the Council plan estimates up to $475 •-major airport and its smaller airports to use the Council's = — . " ,million_ might be needed for facility improvements and land -use corhpatibility guidelines in planning for future anew minor airport in the next 15 years or so. development, and uses will'be consistent with the Under state law, the Council provides policy and up to 54,000 takeoffs a fore and landings, c ompared the year presence cp o of airports. • . - - ' planning direction to the MAC. A 25- member task force, The plan ai rp is based made up of citizens, airport users and affected interests, f compared with ith of 20,900 in 1983; and up to 29 million passengers, . helped the Council develop the plan. • • compared with 11.5 million in 1983. The forecasts do - •^ . Ken Reddlck not include the possibility of restrictions being placed on flights. 1l ll% • Air port: noise- abater�nent .e ffort be �n �. •.. •,:- �.. • ..: - - , �a y a -- ♦ i l � F ,✓ ....�' � •'�•� :. ,. •' By Wendy S. Tal include F_ pilot sensitivity training,''• scheduled to take effect until next The study group is composed. of 11 Staff Writer negotiations with charter, corpo-, summer ,t • .. members representing the MAC, • • ..1 rate and air cargo operators to re-' ,Y , r Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Although residents near Minneapo- • duce night -time flights and initiat That could limit noise at the airport ,Pollution Control Agency, the Met - lis -St. Paul International Airport Ing an off - airport, .24 -hour noise. by requiring; airliner, to operate 5 ... ropolltan Aircraft Sound Abate =- probably don't notice any differ- monitoring system within specific noise limitations, ment Council (MASAC), South Met ence, many of the noise - abatement X , :: ;.' ; Airlines could,meet those noise Lev- • ; ro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) programs adopted by the Metropol- These measures come as airport; els by running fewer flights or qul ":and Minnesota Business Aircraft 'tan Airports • Commission (MAC) noise reached a new peak in May, ..' eter airplanes. Association. two months ago are underway . • _ when daily.'. landings and takeoffs , . • '" ' averaged 1;131; the previous rec.' ; Without it, the entire. noise-abate- Members. must draft a noise - budget • Of the 27 short- and long -term rec ord was 1,110 daily operations last ment program lacks teeth, say sev- ordinance by Nov. 1 and the MAC ommendatlons that the MAC ap- October Finney said.. ; eral members of a noise- budget is scheduled to vote on it April 1, proved, one is finished and most of '' �:; study group. `.• ;: ; 1987- If adopted, a pilot program. the others are in progress, accord- But near the airport - -' ' " would take effect June 15, 1987. : ing to Nigel Finney, airport Bevel- s ably won't notice any difference . "It still represents the best hope for _ • • opment director - until all measures are in place,, _ getting a handle on the (noise) In addition, the working group will' airport officials say: That's mostly problem," said Bill Lester, special study the noise problem surround= A program to hold noise - sensitivity because a key step in the noise - assistant to Metropolitan Council Ing the airport and noise-abate- sessions for air traffic controllers is abatement plan, the so- called Chair Sandra Gardebring. , • . finished. Other steps being taken "noise budget," if adopted, isn't ' Noise continued on page 2B j ,l r Nose Continued from page 1B •' ;0 . _.• <. ..:f� ter'. - • � -..� inent plans at other alrports4.3 M s., i the 3M Co:, Minneapofls City Council '•: Member Cramer''and ::Doak • It is starting a random survey of • Priebe, . all of MASAC; Finney and residents in south Minneapolis, Rich- Torn W. Anderson of the MAC; Bill field, Bloomingtatr'St -Paul, Eagan= Nimmo, attorney for Minnesota bust•; ' and Mendota Heights to try to define ; ness aircraft' association, and } • the noise problem, said Finney. The i Koehser; of ' .: survey also will Compile . .. noise con -,, '.: ; :, ::: „ .:. ?;; .'; i ; ;:•, ,raga:..: .'.Q 7 :tour” maps of affected areas from Northwest and Republic Airlines,. -MSG-through the 1990s and project which together operate about 80 per- ▪ noise levels. 1f . no- irestricllons: are :;is cent of airport ;. activities• here, are : adopted,: ! ` -. ■. r not voting Members • of the study,. y ,. -. • '.... ,• group The same holds true for the The group. wilt, study the impact of', Federal Aviation Administration ' • • noise budgets.: on;:lnterstate corn (FAA). •Spokesmen. for Northwest merce, air service and competition, and FAA say they are taking a wait- i • in an attempt, to avoid charges of'i and-see. attitude .. on the proposed discrimination 'and • "undue- resMc -:; plan. •.'tion ". to, new . airlines wanting to come into the airport. i "WG ;` have to, look • ' at it," said Benja ,,�.+•'�;; -. , >,_ ' min Griggs, executive vice president) 'Study group member are David I {el of Northwest operations. A similar. ; so; 'of: then- MPCA's. air quality:'d1vt -'t. plan at Boston's. Logan Airport has' lion, and. JoCelya Olson, special. as-. resulted in no reduction In North- sistant in the attorney general's of west operations, he said. "It turned Tice, both representing' the, out to be livable, ". he said. "Some - • '' Lester ant Heffern; chief coup k times we're sel, both of the Metro Council; David -'1. ' •: , c _, .• M. Woodrow, aviation • director for t • 1 t: •, ; _ -