Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1994 - Airport Relations CommissionAuxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. If 'a notice of less than 96 hours,is received, the City of Eagan will make every attempt to provide' the _aids, however this may not be `possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 68i-4600 with requests. 0 f i • AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE EAaAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY MAY 10v 1994 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II- APPROVAL OF MINUTES III- OLD BUSINESS A. Alternative Aircraft Departure Profiles IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Engine Run -Up Noise suppression V- _ BTAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor 9. Dual.Track Aiiport Planning Process `C. MASAC Meeting'of April 26, 1994 • D. ENAC Update We VISITORS TO BE HEARD VII. INFORMATIVE VIII- NEXT MEETING - Tuesday, June 14, 1994 IE- ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. If 'a notice of less than 96 hours,is received, the City of Eagan will make every attempt to provide' the _aids, however this may not be `possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 68i-4600 with requests. 0 • MEMO TO: CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: MAY 4t 1994 SUBJECT.. AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 109 1994 A.regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday evening, May 10,"1994 at 7:00'p.m. Please contact Jon kohenstein at 681-4603, if you will be unable_ 6iiitend this meeting. Notification is necessary to insure that a quorum will be present to conduct business at the meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the committee. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 12, 1994 meeting, are enclosed on pages T through for • your, review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval Fy the committee. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Alternative Aircraft Departure Profiles --The committee and City are on record supporting, exploration of the FAA -mandated alternative departure profiles for their applicability to MSP. Commission member Mike Schlax.;has tentatively scheduled an opportunity for committee members to'see simulator o erations using both profile several m times the last week of May. Enclosed on. pages through is a memorandum distributed by Mr. Schlax at April's meeting. Please check your calendars to determine your availability on those dates. As"noted in the memo, it is Mike's desire to schedule three committee members at a time to give the best view' of .the actual operation of the procedures. While committee members have. had the opportunity to view the simulators in the past, this will be an opportunity to actually see them in. operation. Mike has indicated that he will be in a position to. firm up the schedule at Tuesday's meeting and coordinate it with membe-r calendars at that time. There is no other action required on this item IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Engine Run -Up Noise Suppression --The committee and the City have been on record in the "past supporting construction of a stationary run-up noise suppressor at MSP. In the r past, the, only technology available for quieting engine tests were noise berming and blast • walls which did not diminish the noise impact. beyond the immediate area of the airport and bush houses which the MAC has avoided building due to the $6 million price tag. Enclosed on page _& is a copy of an article from the, Airport Noise Report concerning a trademark, Westinghouse product called Q -Jet. Staff has contacted Greg Mackey at Westingbouse who will be forwarding additional information relative to the Q -Jet system. The .committee has the option of asking _MAC to investigate the system based on the information in 'the Airport Noise Report or continuing. any action until additional information fs available. 'Mr. Mackey did. indicate 'that the information in the article is generally accurate and that more detailed information would be sent to us. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED.ON THIS ITEM: To recommend or continue requisition relative to a mobile engine run-up noise suppressor system. V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor --There is no update to provide on this item at this time. B. Dual Track Airport Planning Process --Staff has forwarded the various positions of the committee on the dual track items to the City Council and the Council has approved them • for consideration by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. C. MASAC. Meeting of April 26, 1994 --At the time of packet preparation, the MASAC Noise, Operations and Complaint information is not available. It will be assembled and distributed at Tuesday's meeting. D. ENAC Update --Any member of ENAC who is present at the meeting at this time can provide an update on the group's activities. VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors present at the meeting can be beard at this time. VII. INFORMATIVE Staff has no informative items to provide to the committee at this time. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next. regular meeting of the committee is Tuesday, June 14, 1994. As noted above, members of the committee have,been invited to witness alternative departure profile simulations'at the Northwest Aerospace Training Company facility during the last week in May. .I • IX. ADJOURNMENT • 0 The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m., unless extended by a majority of the members present for completion of scheduled business. `-VA NAML _moi - MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE Eagan, Minnesota April 12, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:00 pm. Present were Chair Dustin Mirick, Pat Todd, Bob Cooper, Lois Monson, Jane Vanderpoel, Mike Schley, Steve Soderling and Alternate Lance Stiricha. Absent was Alternate Rita Younger. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein and members of the public. AGENDA Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Vanderpoel, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. R+: R'Titf' There being no changes, the minutes of the March 8, 1994 meeting were approved by PART 150 LAND USE PROGRAM PUBLIC COMMENT AREAS GUIDED FOR COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL LAND USE Hohenstein introduced the item and indicated that the City had participated in the Part 150 • program in certain areas in the past and that the area of eligibility had recently been expanded. Because certain areas which would now be eligible for the program were guided to be commercial -industrial in the long run, the committee and the City were weighing the options between sound insulating these areas and pursuing a purchase option with the Metropolitan Airports Commission. hair Mirick opened the public comment portion of the item and asked those present if they had any questions or comments relative to the program. Bob Petchel of 2882 Lexington Avenue asked if property' taxes could be capped to control additional costs associated with the improvements. Hohenstein described a state program which allowed a rapping of taxes on improvements for homes more than 35 years of age. He stated that this probably affected some of the McKee homes but that many were too new to be included in the program. Petchel asked if a new airport were possible as a means of diminishing the noise impact. Mirick explained the dual track process and stated that even if a decision were made to relocate the airport, it would take many years for that to be done and that the airport would continue to insulate homes while the existing airport was operating. Petchel asked when the issue of sound insulation versus purchase would be decided. Hobenstein stated that the Airport Relations Committee would be making a recommendation at this meeting and that the item would go to the City Council on April 19. Dennis Klingel, 2795 Linde Lane, asked if the committee had any predisposition for insulation or buy-outs Mirick indicated that the City has provided sound insulation for homes in another neighborhood before. He stated that the question before the committee was not whether to use the Part 150 program but what would be the appropriate action in the areas which are newly eligible. Klingel stated that he wanted to know what the committee intended to vote for prior to making comments Hohenstein explained the public hearing process and that the public's comments would be part of the consideration by the committee in making their recommendation to the City Council. Vanderpoel stated that the committee respects the open mceting process and that while committee members were informed of the issues through background information and previous meetings, they were interested in hearing what the residents had to say as a part of their consideration. Mirick asked if any other residents had comments. Ted Sterrenberg, 1065 Kenneth Avenue, stated that he did not want his home tied up for 15 years waiting for a buy-out. He stated that he would not • be able to sell his home in the meantime if he had to. He said if the airport changes its mind and moves, that residents would be required to move for no purpose.. He said there's only one way the City should go and that's insulation Other residents applauded Mr. Sterrenberes comment. Mirick stated that it was unusual but, based on the response, asked for a show of hands of those sharing Mr. Sterrenberg's feelings; 26 people raised their ARC MINUTES • APREL 12, 1994 PAGE 2 hands He asked if there are any that felt strongly for a buy-out; no one raised their hand. Vanderpoel asked those who did not vote in support or opposition of insulation what their comments or concerns were. Petchel stated that he was new to the area and said that if the buy-out were to occur soon, then people would support a buy-out. He said that his realtor did not inform him of the noise impact in the area. Vanderpoel stated that it is important to indicate that a buy-out could begin in the near term, but that a worse ease would place it 10 - 12 years in the future. Schlax stated that he believed that the reaction of the residents is similar to what was heard at the public open house at St. Thomas Becket Church. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Vanderpoel, all members voting in favor, the committee recommended that sound insulation be extended to all eligible homes in the newly expanded contour. Staricha stated that he is 'supportive of considering a buy-out for area with fewer homes if it could be simple and direct. He stated that the complications in those areas make it less tenable. He stated that as a consequence, sound insulation makes the most sense in all areas that are eligible. Hohenstein asked the committee to consider what criteria of selection should be used as the FAA is no longer permitting cities to use a lottery system. He said that such criteria were necessary because the City would receive more applications for assistance than each annual allocation could support. Schlax asked how many of those present would apply for sound insulation in the Cyst year. All present raised their hands. Cooper stated that he would like to we the homes done first that are closest to the airport. SoderEng asked if that should be regardless of when it was purchased or if the City's pre -1978 priority should • be considered. Hohenstein stated that the options for criteria included tenure of homeowner, distance from runway end and land use designation. Cooper stated that he agrees with the concept of giving priority to tenure. Mirick suggested that the committee act fust on the pre -1978 tenure issue. Cooper moved, Vanderpoel seconded a recommendation to base selection of homes on pre -1978 tenure and distance from runway end. Heidi Fisk, 1030 Beatrice Street, stated that if residents live at the edges of the impact area, noise levels may be less and that noise levels should be used rather than distance from runway end as a criteria. Soderling asked if the City could get a map with incremental noise levels on it. Hohenstein stated that the MAC was going to provide such a map to the cities. Mirick raised the laud use question. Schlax stated that it makes more sense to do some areas bier because they may be purchased and developed as commercial before the program expends money on them. Cooper stated that the City should 'consider noise over land use as a criteria Vanderpool stated that she disagrees with that comment because the City should base its policies on encouraging people to live in residential areas over areas to be guided for commercial and industrial. Monson moved, Vanderpoel seconded, an amendment to the main motion prioritizing residentially guided areas first, long term residential areas second and free standing areas third. Monson stated that it was important for the committee to not usurp the planning commission's role. Soderling asked if there was any sense as to how soon the area may change to commercial - industrial. Hohenstein stated that it is merely a guide designation and that some areas have been approached about industrial development in the past which has not moved forward, others have seen development appear next to them and could be developed very soon. As a consequence, he stated that development applications could conic in the short term or long term depending upon the market and a variety of factors. Vanderpoel stated that regardless of the time frame, she believes land use is -a valid criteria. Further discussion to clarify the order of the criteria occurred. Staricha stated that regardless of the order of the criteria, the City should keep its selection process simple. Monson stated that the committee is primarily recommending a concept and that staff could work out the details. .Ted Buchanan of 1069 Kenneth Street stated that the McKee Addition is inside of the 65 Ldn contour and that Highview and a portion of Country Home Heights are at the edge of the contour or outside ARC MINUTES APRIL 12, 1994 PAGE 3 of it. Cooper stated that because a portion of the block in each case is inside the contour, they are eligible for the program. Following further discussion, the committee voted with all in favor of the criteria of selection being pre -1978 tenure, distance from runway end and land use. .After further discussion, Mirick asked if there was any desire to reconsider the order of the last two criteria Soderling stated that it might be appropriate to consider noise as an alternative to distance. Tom Steele, 1045 Keefe Street, stated that the planes fly directly over the McKee Addition making it louder than neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor. Bob Petchel stated that decibel measurements are log rhythmic so the closer you are, the noisier it gets Soderling stated that if noise is the issue which qualifies an area for the program, it should be the criteria of selection. Todd stated that she supports using noise contours over distance from runway end. Cooper again disagreed stating that aircraft do not always follow the flight tracks used in the contouring and, as a consequence, the Highview and Country Home Heights areas receive direct overflights as well Soderling moved, Todd seconded, a motion to change the second criteria to noise rather than distance. Soderling and Todd voted in favor. trooper, Monson, Schlax, Vanderpoel and Mirick voted against. Hohenstein clarified the next steps in the process stating that the Council will consider the item at its meeting of April 19. EXTENSION OF THE MEETING Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Todd, the meeting was extended beyond 9:00 p.m. to complete the agenda. The committee took a five minute break. Vanderpoel left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. . RUNWAY 4/22 EXTENSION EIS Hobenstein introduced the item and discussed information provided by the city of Richfield relative to the impacts of the 4/22 extension, its value for operations versus the new taxiing complications it would introduce and the potential for a new flight pattern which would extend from Cedar Avenue east across the City of Eagan when landings were occurring on the two 9 runways and departures were occurring on runway 22. He stated that while overflights would occur throughout Eagan in that configuration, it would be unlikely for the 65 Ldn contour to cross the Minnesota River. Soderling asked if the FAA's sole criteria for noise impact is the 65 Ldn. Hohenstein stated that it is primarily the tool used but that even if it were not, the large amount of river valley would diminish the perceived impact even with larger contours. Soderling stated that if the City permits a fan to 90 degrees, the City will have noise everywhere. He stated that noise in southern Eagan is already significant. He asked if there was any way to encourage criteria besides the 65 Ldn. Mirick stated that anyone who is involved in the airport noise issue knows that noise does not end at the Ldn 65. Cooper stated that the City's opinion has been that we have more than our share of noise in Eagan. Sehbtx stated that S50 million is excessive for a 2,500 foot runway extension, especially if the runway congestion items diminish its ability to be used. He stated that based on the comments in the environmental documents, the FAA doesn't know how it will use the runway even if it is built. Sehb x moved, Soderling seconded, a recommendation to the City Council that the Qty of Eagan actively support the city of Richfield's position stron¢Iv opposing the Runway 4/22 extension. Monson stated that the minutes should indicate clearly and strongly that the City has been responsible in our land use planning and there is no reason to consider introducing new areas of the City to overflight. We should be emphatic about our opposition. Todd offered a friendly amendment to the motion to stress the need to evaluate all potential environmental changes. Witt those two additions, all members voted in favor of the motion. ARC MINUTES • APRM 12,1994 PAGE 4 MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL LONG TERM PLAN Hohenstein reviewed the proposed,terminal configurations recently reported by the airport for Consideration in its long term plan d4uWoos.. The committee reviewed them and indicated that they should keep them in mind as the expansion track of the dual track process moves forward. MASAC REPORT Mirick reported that he and Monson had attended the MASAC meeting of March 22, and provided a brief update on its activities OTHER BUSINESS . Schlax stated that he had observed the Advisory Planning Commission meeting and was concerned that noise not be the only reason for denial of a project. Hohenstein repeated the action of the entire committee that' the Met Council criteria be adopted as the appropriate policy for considering all developments in the policy contours and tbai the criteria uige'that other factors be reviewed in addition to noise in some cases. He stated dustm the case of. the Lone Oak Forest application, a number of issues were raised including noise which were noted by the Advisory Planning Commission for denial. Schlax then invited the committee members to view the noise abatement departure profiles in —.--simulation-at-the-Northwesf Aerospace Training Company in late May. He stated he will be firming up these plans at the May 10 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Todd, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:48 pan. - Date 0 Secretary TO: CITY OF EAGAN, AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE • FROM: MIKE SCHLAX DATE: 4-12-94 SUBJECT: NWA NOISE PROCEDURES DEMONSTRATION FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS Attached is a copy of. the Northwest Airlines 'Close -in' and 'Distant' Community noise procedures. The one I have given you is for the Boeing, 727 aircraft (others differ only slightly) and I hope you will find it informative. In talking with several of you, I got the distinct impression that these -procedures would make more sense if you could see them demonstrated. I have tentatively scheduled the NATC0 727 -simulator from 6 P.m. to 10 Rm. on MAY 24, 25. 26. and 27 and I would like to try to get as many of you as possible into the simulator for a series of departures and arrivals so you can see first hand how these noise procedures are used. It would, work best if no more -than three committee members/City staff are on each ride to maximize viewing of and participation in • the procedures. Sorry I can do no more than 'tentatively' schedule the rides at _this time and I'm.also sorry for the Memorial Day weekend timing, but the 727 is one of our bottle -neck training areas at the moment and that was only time available. I'll.be able to confirm the times at the ARC May meeting, but for the time being please check Your schedules and if any of those four nights are open set aside the time. 0 zpl _ -0 RETRACT RAM r wTRACT RAW so— so TF RETRACT RAw Ii— P .. • LOrrr Tw row Aro ACOOLERM Low BBV • OMART RM AM �M ri , u mr wlwom ` Ai°RUUNK .0TrACT RAM war AA°- m° N 4W NAA. COrTgw CLIMB - TO T,Otf RAA AT to r M0 ' ovo�-auuL T m cr A C" N —+ J O .....•. • AAoou TxxUAT NECESIART AAeuec rrccx Ao NTeruANT tow To YAMM III +to dAA • CNAATCN . rA + u • maN wAraAUAo Ar° 1U�nTu UACOR MUNTRAMiOd AA°- W At 4W NAA. COOTME CLOD To UW NAA ATS +III avos-atAUA 0 v m m a z z 0 ou N y . • • • NORTHWEST AIRLINES OPERATING PROCEDURES General B-727 i Northwest Airlines takeoff profiles are designed to satisfy the requirements for a normal takeoff and produce the minimum amount of noise consistent With safe and simple operating procedures. Effective January 1, 1994 the FAA does not allow air carriers to operate more than two noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs), nor is any airport allowed to dictate the vertical profile that an aircraft will fly. Northwest Airlines has established two NADPs, Identified as Close -In Community and Distant Community. The Distant Community profile is used for all departures unless the appropriate Jeppesen (-7) pages identify a runway as Close -In Community (e.g., 29L, Close -In Community). The preferred takeoff configuration for the B-727 is 5° flaps with reduced thrust. 150 and 250 are also approved flap settings for takeoff. However, reduced thrust takeoff will be made whenever possible, and the flap setting chosen is considered secondary to the use of reduced thrust, unless required for takeoff performance. Additional information is contained in chapter 5 of this manual. Takeoff Roil Make a rolling takeoff whenever practicable. Application of thrust should be made by advancing the thrust levers to a vertical position (approximately 1.4 EPR), pausing for the surge bleed valves to dose, and then smoothly advancing the thrust to the takeoff EPR setting by 60 KIAS. Do not reduce EPR during the takeoff roll unless it Is necessary to avoid exceeding EGT or RPM limitations. The Takeoff EPR values are valid for static or rolling takeoffs. A static takeoff thrust application may be made when the airplane is at or near the maximum weight for the conditions (allow the engines to spool up to approximately 80% N, before brake release). 4.120.3 Feb 16, 1994 During the takeoff roll, the second officer will notify the captain immediately if the auto pack trip armed light does not illuminate at the proper time. In that Instance, the first thing that the pilots should check is the proper extension of flaps, as the system cannot be armed without the flaps extended. The failure of the light to illuminate may be an indication of improper aircraft configuration. If the aircraft is not properly configured, an abort will be executed. Hold the wings level by gradually displacing the wheel, into any crosswind and apply adequate forward pressure on the control column. Use rudder pedal steering for directional control. Crosswind Takeoff If any significant crosswind exists, it will usually be advisable to make a "rolling" takeoff. In a crosswind, airflow at the engine inlet is such that compressor stalls may occur if high levels of thrust are applied with the airplane standing still or moving at a very low speed. During a crosswind takeoff, the upwind wing will have a tendency to rise. Keep the wings level by smoothly displacing the aileron into the wind. Large aileron inputs can have an adverse effect on the V=G due to the additional drag of the extended spoilers. Track the runway centerline and maintain directional control with rudder input. Hold a slight forward pressure on the control wheel to provide more effective nosewheel steering. Smooth, positive application of thrust, aileron, rudder, and elevator will result in a stabilized rotation and initial climb. Avoid oscillating control inputs. As the airspeed increases, the aileron required to hold wings level will diminish. Caution: Antidpate a slight decrease in performance due to cross -control forces and use a slower than normal rate of rotation. I Rotate cross -controlled and smoothly ease out the aileron and rudder deflections. After liftoff, continue with the standard takeoff procedure. NOATHWESTAUIUM ES OPERATING PROCEDURES Rotation And Lift Off B-727 During the takeoff roll, the pilot should hold a slight forward pressure on the control wheel to provide better nose wheel rudder steering. As the speed approaches VR, the forward pressure should be reduced so that upon reaching VR no forward pressure is being held. At VR, smoothly rotate the.aircraft to the desired pitch attitude.. Proper. rotation is essential to attain the required performance from the aircraft. Early or late rotation, as well as improper rate of rotation, is detrimental to this performance. Proper rotation is done with "feeling" so that the aircraft flies off the runway. A 2 to 3 degrees per second rate of rotation is appropriate for most takeoffs. However, a rotation rate closer to 2 degrees.. per second will work well for 5' flap takeoffs. This will help avoid tail strikes. Resist making this a mechanical maneuversince the range of weights, engine types, reduced thrust, density attitudes, loading, and'flap setting will affect Ithe required rate of rotation. Once dear of the runway, an increased rotation rate may be required to maintain V2 + 10. Litt off will occur prior to reaching the charted attitude.. Allow the airspeed to stabilize based on .charted pitch attitude and make small adjustments as required to maintain V2 + 10. However, pitch should not be Increased, once stabilized, If the 'resultant airspeed exceeds V2 + 10 with all engines running- V2 + 10 speed should be padded only if significant wind gusts or windshear are expected or encountered Using a;iesser flap setting for takeoff requires higher V -speeds and thus more runway is used prior to rotation..Care must be taken to ensure that the rotation begins at the proper speed and rate and continues to the proper pitch attitude. The published ALL -ENG. pitch attitudes are higher for 50 flap takeoffs than 150 or.250. Once rotation has begun, do not pause. Doing so may cause the main wheels to remain on the runway too long. 4.120.4 Feb 15, 1994 • During takeoffs at high altitude, consider performing a static takeoff (allow the engines to spool up to approximately 800% N, before brake release). First Officer Takeoff When the first officer is making the takeoff: • The first officer will remove his/her hand from the thrust levers after initial thrust application. • The captain will place his/her hand on the thrust levers and retard them in the event that it Is necessary to abort the takeoff. • The captain will make appropriate speed and rotation call -outs. • The captain will leave his/her right hand on -the thrust levers until reaching V,NR and then remove the right hand to prevent an Inadvertent abort after V,. This shall be done • even though the first officer is making the takeoff. Note:. The decision to abort and the abort Itself will be made solely by the captain. The captain must be prepared to move the thrust levers to idle without delay. • 0 ,. Q OPERATING PROCEDURES E1=727 Tail Clearance During Rotation The following diagram shows all engines operating and one engine inoperative takeoff rotation body Iattitude and tall clearance profiles. The diagram is based on a "worst case" scenario (struts fully compressed, etc.). Tail strikes will not occur if rotation is made at the proper speed,at the proper rate, and to the proper pitch attitude. Rotating too last for existing conditions and/or an early rotation (below VR) can result in a tail strike. T L 10 BODY 9 ATTITUDES — DEGREES S `] 6 5 4.120.5 Feb is, 1994 Note: Experience has shown that the -2 aircraft, in particular, requires special attention as to rate of rotation when the following conditions exist: • high gross weights, • high density altitudes, • significant crosswinds. Additionally, the possibility of a tail strike is greater during a 50 flap takeoff than when using 150 or 250 for takeoff. SKID 1XIL SKID b 15 25 MWOFF RAP SETTING — DEGREES /3 NOATHWESr HULL Svc OPERATING PROCEDURES Initial Climb B-727 Initial climb should be at VZ + 10 and padded only if significant.wind shear or gustiness is expected. Use the charted All -Engine Pitch Attitude as. the initial target attitude, but monitor airspeed. Note: When using reduced takeoff thrust, avoid abrupt rotation. Reduce target pitch attitude by one degree for each .10 EPR below full takeoff EPR. Do not retract :the landing gear until the IVSI and altimeter show a positive rate of climb. Due to an Increase in drag during gear retraction, it may tie necessary -to slow the rate of rotation slightly as the target pitch attitude is approached. The initial climb should be straight ahead to 500.feet HAA unless- an ..ATC clearance, non-standard dean -up altitude, or circumstance requires otherwise. If a tum is necessary, limit bank angle to 150 during flap retraction -until the bug speed appropriate to the existing flap position is reached. If bank angles greater than 15' are required prior to flap retraction, additional speed must be added to preserve the desired stall margin. Asa guide, increase speed above the reference bug for the existing flap position 1 knot per degree of bank angle above 150 (e.g., if 30' of bank is desired, maintain the reference bug speed + 15 knots). From this point on follow either the Distant Community NADP, or the Close -in Community NADP. 4.120.6 Feb 15, 1994 • Distant Community Noise Abatement Departure Profile Flap Retraction At 1,000 feet HAA, lower the nose to a pitch attitude approximately one-half the V2 + 10 value. This will provide a suitable climb gradient while allowing the speed to Increase for flap retraction. The flaps may then be retracted on schedule. Thrust Management As the speed approaches Vg upon dean -up, reduce to quiet EPR. Ideally, Vg speed, final flap retraction, and achievement of quiet EPR should occur simultaneously. If V¢ is reached while the flaps are still retracting, reduce the thrust to quiet EPR promptly. Remain auquiet EPR and continue to climb at or • slightly above Vg until 3,000 feet HAA. Upon reaching that altitude, call for or set climb thrust and begin accelerating to 250 KIAS. If an engine should fail before the flap retraction is complete, do not reduce,to quiet EPR. If an engine fails during the quiet EPR segment, select maximum continuous thrust. Note: Use of quiet EPR may be restricted at some airports, as noted in the Jeppesen 10-7 pages. • • NORTHWESTAnUJNES OPERATING PROCEDURES B-727 fClose4n Community Noise Abatement Departure Profile The major difference between the - Distant Community NADP and the Close -in Community NADP is that the order of thrust reduction and flap retraction are reversed. The aim is to provide a steeper- departure profile and reduce the noise for communities very close to the airport. Thrust Management Do not use reduced thrust for takeoff. The thrust reduction altitude Is 1,000 feet HAA. At this altitude, promptly reduce the thrust to climb EPR. Caution: Do not reduce to quiet EPR. Reduce pitch approximately two degrees to maintain V2 + 10 KIAS: Climb to 3,000 feet HAA at V2 + 10 KIAS using climb. EPR. At 3,000 feet HAA,begin acceleration for flap retraction. Flap Retraction Begin flap retraction at 3,000 feet HAA by lowering the nose to a pftch attitude approximately one-half the V, + 10 value: This will provide, a suitable climb. gradient while apowing the speed to increase for flap retraction. The flaps may then be retracted on schedule and the aircraft accelerated to 250 KIAS. l3 4.120.7 Feb 15, 1894 Flap Retraction Schedule The following list indicates the speeds at which flap retraction should be initiated (see also, 4.102): 25' to 15 V2 + 10 at 400 feet HAA (or higher if specified in Weight Manual). 15' to 5' VF. 5' to 2' One-third the distance between VF and VZF. 2' to UP Two-thirds the distance between VF and VZF. F Takeoffs When. using 5' flaps for takeoff, no call will be made at VF during flap retraction because the flaps are already.at 50. The first call will be "FLAPS TWO" at the normal one-third point between VF and Vg. Then proceed with a normal clean-up. 25' Takeoffs When using 250 flaps for takeoff, retract the flaps to 15° at Vz + Vend 400 feet HAA or the published non-standard cleanup altitude noted in the Weight Manual. As flaps retract from 250 to 150, raise the nose about 30 and maintain VZ + 15. V2 + 15 should be maintained until the flap retraction altitude. This will be either 1,000 feet HAA or 3,000 feet HAA, depending on whether a Distant NADP or Close -in N.ADP is used. At the appropriate flap retraction altitude, lower the nose to a pitch attitude that Is approximately one-half the V2 + 15 value, accelerate, and retract the flaps at the normal speeds. 52 Airport Noise Report Technology NEW MOBILE SYSTEM ABSORBS RUN-UP NOISE Westinghouse Electric Corp. announced that it has designed and built the fust mobile system for reducing aircraft engine noise produced during ground run -ups and engine maintenance operations. WetTm is a new venture for Westinghouse's Naval Systems Division in Cleveland, which has expertise in quieting torpedoes under water, and was looking for a way to transfer that technology at die end of the Cold War. The new mobile system will give airports an alternative to dragging aircraft to distant comers of the airport to mitigate engine rue -up noise or building barriers or earthen berms to try to deflect the noise. The military uses hush houses to enclose aircraft during engine run -ups, but they ate not used at commercial airports, according to Brian Johnston, senior communications specialist at the Naval Systems Division, and Greg Mackey. sales and marketing representative for the Q-JeP". The mobile system would work well at airports in urban areas with communities located close by or at airports with airline maintenance facilities. they said. Ground noise is already the subject of some noise com- plaints at airports but the Westinghouse officials predict that it will become more of a problem in the future as the commercial fleet becomes all -Stage 3. That will result in _ flyover noise becoming less intrusive, which will make the ground noise stand out more, they explained Also, the Increase in the size of the commercial fleet will result in more maintenance operations being performed, they said 'The ability of Q-JetTr to reduce noise at all acoustic frequencies helps promote better community relations with airports and jet engine maintenance facilities and can expand the number of hours per day that testing can be performed." Wayne Snodgrass, general manager of the naval Systems Division said in a company press release. The base price of the Q -Jet?" is $650,000, but Federal Aviation Administration officials said that, if they saw it recommended in a Part. 150 Airport Noise Compatibility study, they would possibly approve it, Mackey and Johnston said. They noted theteanhen berms can cost from a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million and need constant maintenance because the ja exhaust blast hits the berm. The Q-JetTrr does not take up the space that an earthen beim or a harder does, they said, and absorbs rather than deflects'sound. They noted that deflecting sound can simply send it to new parts of the community. Westinghouse has patented the noise absorption technology of the WetTM, and Mackey and Johnston declined to discuss it 20 dBA Noise Reduction Tests of QdetT" indicate that it reduces engine noise by an average of 20 dBA in the 50.250 Hertz low -frequency band and 17 dBA in the 50.2,000 Hz frequency bend. The Q-Jet7w has been tested on a Gulfstream 11 business jet, but • ' not yet on any larger commercial jets. Noise levels produced by aircraft engines during run -ups are extremely high. The G-11 produced noise levels above 132 dBA at a distance of 100 ft and was over 95 dBA at 1000 meters at full throttle, they said. The Q-Jet^r is a free-standing, cone-shaped mobile stmctum made of steel, that is placed behind an aircraft engine to absorb noise. Engines can be run at full throttle for 30 minutes in front of it It is weatherproof and does not need to be stored, and is moved by a gasoline -powered generator. It moves at 3.5 miles per hour, and is positioned by using a small hand-held controlling device. Two versions of the Q-JetTm can be manufactured: one for general aviation aircraft and narrow -body commercial aircraft that is 17 ft high and 35 ft long and weighs 35 tons; and another for wide-body aircraft that is 50 ft long and weighs 50 tons. But, each order must be tailor-made, so no Q-JeFms are pre -manufactured and put in inventory. No Q-JetTMs have been sold yet, Westinghouse said. For further information on the Q-1etTm, contact Greg Mackey at Westinghouse Naval Systems Division; tel: (216) 692-6970.A San Francisco BCDC, FAA, AIRPORT REACH AGREEMENT ON ALP REVIEW After getting assurances that new runways into environ- mentally -sensitive San Francisco Bay we not planned at San Francisco International Airport, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) withdrew its assertion that it has authority under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act to review the revised airport layout plan for the airport's $2A billion expansion. The action is the outcome of negotiations between BCDC, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the San Francisco Airports Commission. In February, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which enfbr= the act, gave the parties one month to try to informally resolve the issue of whether BCDC, a watchdog agency for the bay, could review the airport layout plan before it made a formal ruling on the matter. BCDC contended that the Coastal Zone Management Act required the airport to submit a "consistency certification" to it for the revised airport layout plan indicating that the airport's expansion plans conformed with BCDC's goals for the bay. The airport contended that BCDC had missed its opportunity to review the revised airport layout plan because its request to conduct the consistency review came after the 30 -day deadline provided by law, it followed the wrong process, and it failed to provide notice or opportunity to the public or airport to comment on its decision to Ahport ►Moire Repan E • I-