Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/1995 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS EAGAN, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING March 14,199S 7:00 P.M. L ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS . A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process IV. NEW BUSINESS A. MAC Noise Management Methodology B. Alternative Departure Profiles V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report B. Part 150 Program Update C. Runway 4/22 Update D. MASAC Meeting of March 7, 199S Vj_�TUV�k fl, L2 0l:)A:iAil ;I,] VII. ' INFORMATIVE VIII. FUTURE AGENDA A. SMAAC Common Issues DL NEXT MEETING - Tuesday, April 11, 199S NEXT MASAC MEETING - Tuesday, March 28,199S X . ADJOURNMENT The City of Eagan is. committed to the policy_ that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to mcg color, cored, religion, national origin, ses, disability, agg marital status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to public assistance Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received the City of Eagan win attempt to provide such aid MEMO TO: CHAIR TODD AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: MARCH 9,1995 SUBJECI: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 149 1"S A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be held on Tuesday, March 14, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4603, if you. will be unable to attend this meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 14,1995 meeting are enclosed on pages Y through jfJ for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval by the commission. IIL OLD BUSINESS A Dual Track. Airport Planning Process—Enclosed with separate page numbers is a preliminary packet of information relative to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, beginning with some of the background information requested by the commission at the February meeting. Three ring binders will be distributed at Tuesday's meeting to maintain these copies over the next several months as the co++++++i��+on considers this issue. Additional information will be provided to be added to the binders as it becomes available. Staff has had further discussions with MAC staff • concerning time flames for a recommendation to the City Council for a position on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Staff had previously been targeting a recommendation this summer. It appears that more appropriate deadline would be October or November at the time that the Draft Environmental Impact Study is prepared. The reason for this is that a mmtber of studies will be completed between now and then which will help inform the process, including additional economic analyses and transportation and development analyses of the kind requested by the commission. In addition the Scoping Decision document itself will primarily incorporate the previous work done on the expansion and relocation tracks and identify the environmental and other issues to be addressed in the final decision. As such, no recommendation will be made until after the Draft EIS is distributedat the end of 1995. Staff would direct your attention to information in section IV of the separate support documentation. The commission may have noted in the media that certain interests are pursuing a third alternative for airport expansion. That would be the development of remote runways in Rosemount with the terminal facilities remaining in, their current location. The two sites would be linked by high speed rail. Staff will develop support information with respect to this alternative including any environmental documentation which may arise over the next several months. It should be noted that this alternative would diminish many of the economic development impacts associated with the new airport but would shift direct environmental impacts from the northern portion of the community to the south and east portions of the City. While I realize it may not be possible for you to review all of the documents attached in detail prior to Tuesday's meeting, we do have a longer time frame available for consideration of this issue. Staff would encourage initial discussion of documents provided in the attachment, especially with respect to any new issues it. raises for which information should be gathered. Again, you will be distributed a three ring binder for this information. Please maintain the binder as a reference for future meetings since we will not be recopying all of the background information for every meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: This is a discussion item with no specific action anticipated at this time. Any new questions which may be raised by the support _documentation should be identified to allow it to be provided to the commission before a future meeting. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. MAC Noise Management Methodology—Enclosed on pages _[ through Lr is a memorandum from the MASAC Operations Committee requesting tcomments by March 10 on the proposed new noise management methodology. Due ta the time frames, staff prepared a response which is enclosed on pages through for your review. As you will note from the correspondence, it is indicated that the cpmmi¢¢ion and Council would be further considering this matter. If you wish to amend the comments which have been committed to this point, in any way, it would be appropriate to make a recommendation to that effect to the City Council at Tuesday's meeting. If not, it would be appropriate to consider endorsing the comments made to this point. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend adoption of a position with respect to the proposed new MAC noise management methodology. B. Alternative Departure Profiles—Enclosed on pages through >s information provided to the commission by Mike Schlax followingle commissidn's tour of the Northwest Aerospace Training Company last year. Since that time, members have wished to further discuss the experience and the relative affects of alternative departure profiles. Due to competing issues and some absences, the discussion has.not returned before now. Hopefully, the experience is not too distant to permit a discussion of issue at this time. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To review and discuss relative impacts of alternative departure profiles on noise impacted residents. V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report—Because of a conflict with the City Council meeting on March 7, staff does not have a copy of the January corridor compliance information at the .time of preparation of this packet. As an aside, staff has been contacted by a member of residents who have been in touch with the commission in the past regarding corridor related noise in eastern Eagan. Those individuals have indicated that conditions have not improved since the December meeting with the FAA and, if anything, they have deteriorated. You will recall that the commission requested MAC staff to prepare a document showing aircraft which comply with the corridor procedures and whether they track over the eastern neighborhoods as well. That request has been approved by the MASAC Operations Committee. Work on it is scheduled to begin in late March or early April and that information will be provided to the commission as it becomes available. In addition, the airport has begun separate work on an origination of destination study for aircraft operating southeast of the airport At the present time, they have identified that between 65 and 68 percent of the departures have destinations to the south and east of the Twin Cities and, as such, would be less likely to be turned significantly as would traffic tracking to the west This information will be studied together with the compliant tracks which the City has requested when it becomes available. The commission should be aware that residents in the eastern portion of the community have raised the issue of pursuing an extension of the corridor from three miles to four or five miles. While the City has pursued this issue before and has been opposed by the FAA and will likely be opposed by the cities of Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and possibly Minneapolis if it is brought up again, it may be worth considering an approach which would accept the lack of precision in the localizer definition of the corridor in exchange for lengthening the procedure by a mile or two. The issues are whether the City can encourage better compliance with the corridor in its current configuration, whether improved compliance benefits the residents down range in eastern Eagan and whether there is any realistic opportunity to extend the procedures to improve the circumstances for residents in eastern Eagan. At the present time, this is not anticipated to be an action item. Staff does anticipate that some residents affected by these noise impacts may be present at Tuesday's meeting and some discussion may occur at that time. & Part 150 Program Update—MAC has contacted the owners of property identified by the City for the 1995 program and have begun the design phase with many of the homeowners. The commission should be aware that staff has been contacted by a number of residents who were not included in this year's program. They have been informed of the future expectations with respect to the program In particuW, one of the individuals who was one home beyond the 1995 cut off point was very irate and felt singled out because he was not yet included in the program Staff assured him that his would be among the first homes which would be eligible in 1996 because the homes eligible in 1995 came up to the property next to his. C. Runway 4/22 Update—tine of the documents in your dual track attachment is an article from the Star Tribune regarding .the MAC's decision to move forward with the 4/22 extension. The cities of Bloomington and Richfield are contemplating a lawsuit to prevent that extension. The reports in the media made reference to possible noise benefits for northern Eagan if the runway were extended. The commission should be aware that staff does not concur that there will be any significant shifting of traffic from the southeast end of the parallel runways. The entire purpose of the noise abatement modifications associated with Runway 4/22 are to shift traffic away from south Minneapolis. Also enclosed on pages .�5-01hrougb <a is correspondence between Wendell Carlson and staff in this regard. D. MASAC Meeting of March 7, 1995—Enclosed on pages Sp7.through is a memorandum from Mike Schlax covering the meeting of March 7, 1995. Attached are excerpts from the Technical Advisor's report including operations and complaint data, showing the Eagan had the highest number of complaints in January, representing approximately 40% of all complaints received. A significant number of these complaints came from the eastern Eagan neighborhoods. Mr. Schlax will provide an update on MASAC at Tuesday's meeting. VL VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address the commission may do so at this time. VIL INFORMATIVE The City recently received an invitation for the staff and the chair of the Airport Relations Commission to meet with representatives of the other airport advisory groups in the northern Dakota County area. Additional information is anticipated from the City of Mendota Heights in the near future. The meeting would be scheduled as a breakfast meeting on Tuesday, March 21. Staff will coordinate this meeting with Chair Todd but wanted the commission to be aware of it. VIII. FUTURE AGENDA Any items the commission wishes to have on future agendas should be identified at this time.`You will recall that the commission met last summer with the South Metro Airport Action Council and suggested that another meeting be held .to discuss further common . issues at some point in the future. Given the work program of the com,nmon since that time, that meeting is still pending. It is maintained as a future agenda item to assure that it is not forgotten. IDL NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be on Tuesday, April 11, 1995. The next regular MASAC meeting will be Tuesday, March 28, 1995 at the MAC offices X ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 p.m., unless continued by a majority vote of members, present to complete business before the commission at that time. M-; _ X QL _9 .I - I 7MC1W..�M. W. , S MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION Eagan, Minnesota February 14,1995 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday. February 14, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Bob Cooper, Mike Schlax, Steve Soderling, Lois Monson, Lance Stodcha, Jonathan White and Jane Vanderpool. Absent was ANI Deadlier. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Jon Hohenstein. AGENDA Hohensteln stated that due to the absence of a Chalr,.he would facilitate the meeting until the election of a Chair. Upon motion.by Cooper, seconded by Soderfing, a0 members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. ELECTION OF CHAIR Hohensteln referred the Commisslon to the Information included in their packets and gave brief background on the responsibilities of the Chair. He then opened the floor to nominations for the office of Commission Chair. Todd was nominated as Chair. There being no other nominatlons and upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schlax, all members voting in favor, Pat Todd was elected as Chair of the Commission to serve through January, 1996. ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIR At this fame, Chair Todd took over facilitation of the meeting. Chair Todd asked for nominations from the floor. Schlax was nominated as Vice -Chair. There being no other nominations and upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting In favor, Mike Schlax was elected as Vice -Chair of the Commission to serve through January, 1996. OF MASAC MEMBER 3 ALTERNATE Hohemsteln provided background on the Rem. He noted that Mayor Egan, who Is President of the National Organization to Insure a Sound -Controlled Environment (NOISE), has consented to serve as the City's representative to MASAC. He also stated that both he and Monson had served as aflemates for the past year. Monson nominated Schlax to serve as a MASAC alternate for 1995, stating that she felt he had done an excellent Job of covering the meeting in January. She also fell that Interested Commissioners should have the opportunity to serve as atiemates. Upon motion by Monson, seconded by,Cooper, a0 members voting in favor, the Commission recommended Mayor Egan to serve as the City's representative to MASAC and Mike Schlax and Jon Holionstein to serve as alternates through January, 1996. Cooper questioned what type of feedback the Commission would be receiving from Egan regarding the MASAC meetings. Hohenstein noted that Mayor Egan will be providing staff reports and, occasionally, be asked to attend a meeting to provide an oral update. I Page 21EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS February 14,1995 MEETING TIME 3 DATES Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting In favor, the 1995 ARC meetings were set for the second Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m , with the exception of the July meeting which was scheduled for Thursday, July 13. Schlax stated that he would Ike the Commission to consider extending the meeting time beyond the two hour time restraint without requiring a motion to extend. After further discussion, it was detemdned that the 9:00 p.m. curfew would remain In place. Hohenstein Introduced the Comrrdssion's new member, Jonathan White. White commented briefly on his background and his reasons for applying for the ARC appointment MINUTES Upon motion by Schiax, seconded by Monson, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the January 10, 1995 meeting were approved as presented. Hohensteln acknowledged Mike Padden, a resident who was present in the audience, and asked H he would Ike to address the Commission. Mr. Padden noted that he was present only to observe the meeting• NEW BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process Hohenstein introduced the hem noting that although he did not anticipate any final decisions regarding the dual track process at this meeting, he did anticipate some direction regarding the Commission's expectations on the types of information they would ike to further assist them in their decision-making, the types of Issue areas they anticipate as being of Importance and the potential time frames Involved. He further stated that although a recommendation from the MAC and Met Council to the Legislature is more than a year away, the Scoping Decision Document will be considered by the MAC in July, 1995. Because the City has remained neutral on this Issue, It would be appropriate for the Commission to make a recommendation regarding a preferred alternative to the City Council sometime this spring. Hohenstein then gave brief background regarding the dual,tradc process noting the two track; as being either expansion or moving the airport He commented that because there are many Issues to be considered. the Econondc Development Commission and Advisory Planning Commission will be Included In the process with Joint meetings to be scheduled sometime in the future. He then Invited discussion and comments from the Commission regarding the types of Issues that need to be addressed and the reports they feel will be helpful In the process. Staff, In tum, will attempt to respond to these requests to the beat of their ability. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the parallel runways being considered. Hohenstein explained that the first preferred expansion of the airport would be the nort"outh runway with the ultimate plan calling for the addition of a north parallel runway. Cooper noted that a north -south runway could cause new problems In southwest Eagan. Hohensteln displayed a schematic of the noise monitor location map. He explained the configurations of the north -south runway and the north parallel runway. In answer to a question regarding why the north -south runway was preferred, Hohenstein stated that because this runway has the capacity to operate independently, it offers the greatest opportunity for treflic enhancement. He also noted that by the time any runways are built, the aircraft will be quieter. Page 31EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION February 14, 1995 Considering the economic Issues involved in this matter, Schiax questioned whether the City Council had a preference to either expand or move the airport. He also requested Information on the plans for a new terninal and whether the Council had voiced an opinion on that issue. Hohenstein stated that M addition to the runway aRematives, the main terminal would be relocated to the northwest comer of the airport. He went on to explain the reasons for this move. He also noted that the Council had officially opposed this relocation due to the greater distance the new ternlnal would be to and from Eagan businesses. Soderfing asked for the EDC and APCs help In determining the adverse effects on the City by either choice noting that he could not see much difference no matter which track is chosen. He asked for information addressing that Issue. Hohenstein responded that the Met Council Is preparing an Environmental Impact Study to address these Issues, but, unfortunately, it will not be broken down according to communities. Soderfing fell a response from the EDC. APC and Council on their viewpoints could be helpful. Schlax raised a question regarding access to an airport located in Hastings. Hohensteln briefed the Commission on the various upgrades to certain highways that would be necessary. Vanderpool suggested contacting recently moved airports for their input on effects to economic development they had experienced due to a move. Todd questioned whether an airport move could possibly have a positive Impact on Eagan. She said she would Ike to see the negative Impacts quantified, potentially from higher taxes In areas where excess noise was not planned for. Hohenstein fell this was a very good point to raise. He noted that the findings In the Minneapolis lawsuit had deterdned that property values did not diminish and that homes still ad even in nolwaffected areas. He further stated that moving the airport could possibly be economically advantageous for Eagan because the City would be at a middle point between the Twln Cities and the new airport. Furthermore, being on the some side of the river as the airport could be a positive asset Stadcha asked what types of businesses would be needed If the airport were to move. Todd suggested conducting a survey of local businesses for their Input. In answer to a question by Soderfing regarding a Joint meeting with the EDC, Hohenstein stated that both the EDC and APC had received updates on the dual track process and that neither had made any recommendations. A Joint meeting would be planned to discus: this Issue. There was brief discussion regarding compensation for noise -affected residents. White questioned the Impact of expansion on other communities. Hohensteln responded by briefly summarizing other affected aress' positions, noting that Eagan is one of a few communities which has remained neutral on this Issue. Schlex requested that staff provide further data on potential noise impacts of both a new airport and runway expansion at the.present airport. Hohenstoln noted that he would present final reports on both tracks at the next ARC meeting. He stated that a new airport would have less Impact due to Its distance from Eagan, although there would still be some noise Impact. In answer to Soderfing's question of how long a present airport expansion would meet growth needs, Hohenstein stated 25 years, through the year 2020. He remarked that the existing airport has room for only two additional runways, white the new location would have much more space to expand. The Commission briefly discussed emerging technology and Its Impact on the airport. Hohenstein noted that as long as the airport remains a hub, this Issue would remain. 0 Page 41EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION February 14, 1995 Hohensteln thanked the Commission for their good feedback He related that he would put together the reports they were requesting, noting that some of them may be reports they had already received. He also assured the ComrNssion that a joint meeting with the APC and EDC would be planned. STAFF REPORTS A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report Hohenstein highlighted the reporrtor the months of September -December, 1994. Stadche commended that the percentages were difficult to Interpret and made an observation that the data would be dearer if it were presented in numbers Instead of percentages. White asked whether sound levels were Included In the data. Hohensteln noted that MASAC data Includes sound levels. He further noted that some areas experiencing noise do not have a monitor and that when the ANOMS program was Installed, we had asked that monitors be Installed outside the corridor as the program was expanded. He noted that he would include this on a future agenda. After further discussion, Hohenstein sited noise in neighborhoods and awareness of the complaint Ane as reasons for an Increased number of complaints from Eagan. B. Part 150 Program Update Hohenstein noted that 34 homes had been added to the program for 1995. He stated that he has received many phone calls from residents with questions regarding the program. C. Runway 4122 Update Hohenstein announced that action would be taken on this item at MAC'S February 21 meeting. He Invited Commissioners to attend that meeting If possible. He stated that he would be providing an update at next month's meeting. D. MASAC Meeting of January 24,1995 Hohensteln referred the Commission to the memo from Schlax, who had attended the meeting on behalf of the City. He then directed their attention to the resolution which was handed out by Minneapolis representatives at the January MASAC meeting and which is anticipated to come back for action at the next MASAC meeting on March 7. Hohenstein stated that the resolution suggests making further use of operations on Runway 422 during nighttime hours rather than using operations over Minneapolis. As it was 9:00 p.m., a motion was necessary to extend the meeting. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, the meeting was extended beyond the 9:00 p.m. curfew. The Commission discussed the possible benefits of the resolution with most Commissioners feeling that Minneapolis seemed to be the only area to derive benefit if -the resolution were passed.. Schlax suggested supporting the bill, as it would result in some nighttime relief for some nols"Ifected sections of Eagan. There was motion by Schlax to support the resolution. After further discussion, the motion was opposed unanimously. Hohensteln informed the Commission that he had been contacted by Arial Deodhar, the Commission's newly appointed atiemate. Due to his travel schedule, Deodhar fait he would not be able to futAU his duties as a Commission aftemate; therefore, he resigned from his position. Hohenstein noted Page SJEAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION February 14, 1995 that he w@ be approaching the Council for their direction on whether to fill the second aRemate position or to allow the Commission to function In Its present capacity of seven members and one alternate. Hohenstein reminded the Commission of the retreat to be held at River Park at 7:00 p.rrL on February 15. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Date Chairperson Secretary l-0 NO OPERATIONS COMMITTEE TO: Mark Salmen, Chairman Bob Johnson Dick Kelnz Jon Hohenstein Charles Curry Craig Wruck John Nelson Jim Serrin Tom Laweli As requested atthe Operations Committee February 16. 1995, please forward your written comments on the eight Items listed In the MSP Noise Management Methodology no later than MARCH f0. Your comments should be forwarded to: Jean Deighton, Committee Secretary METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 The comments will be reviewed and finalized at the next Operations Committee meeting on March 15, 1885, 1:00 p.m., MAC Lobby Conference Room. The draft will be presented to MASAC at the March 28th meeting. l� New Noise Management Methodology The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was directed •by its Planning and Environment committee to develop a new aviation noise management methodology to contain and ultimately reduce aircraft noise generated as a by-product of operations at the Mioneapolis/ t. Paul International Airport (MSP). In response to vociferous public testimony at both a public hearing in November 1992 and a public meeting in September 1992, and with direction from the MAC Planning and Environment Committee, the following is a draft framework for a Noise Management Methodology to replace the Average Daily Noise I Energy (ADNE) tracking system and former Noise Budget Methodology. One of the most important goals for the new Noise Management Methodology is that it be straightforward and readily understandable to all interested patties, with tangible endpoints, a clear tracking me chanhim and reporting in a format using units familiar to a wide audience. With these broad concepts in mind. MAC staff developed a proposed framework for noise management through the turn of the century Based on these broad tenets, MAC Staff proposes the following framework for a new MSP Noise Management Methodology: 1. The most straightforward evaluation of the noise environment at an airport is tracking the actual number of older technology, Stage 2 operations. The proposed Noise Management Methodology uses Stage 2 operations (a landing or a takeoff) as a benchmark for impact on the community. Stage 2 reduction as a means of easing the noise burden around airports has been validated by federal endorsement of the Stage 2 fleet phaseout plan as pan of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, (ANCA). The goal of this new program is to achieve all Stage 3 operations at MSP by the year 2000. Because Average Daily Operations is a historically reported unit of measure familiar to many interested in the aviation noise challenge at MSP, the new proposed program uses average daily operations as a straightforward, direct measure of Stage 2 operations, and noise environment improvement over time. Use of percentage of Stage 2 operations implicitly allows for an incremental increase of actual numbers of Stage 2 operations at MSP. This new program explicitly demands no additional Stage 2 operations at MSP. This does not suggest a cap on operations at MSP. but rather that new operations must be Stage 3. 2. Performance accounting for the new program will be based on actual aircraft operations rather than scheduled operations. The advent of sophisticated operations monitoring equipment, specifically MSP's Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS). eliminates ambiguities associated with estimating scheduled operations, and the need for cumbersome (often ignored) reporting schemes dependent on airline participation 3. 1b provide a reasonable comparison period. the -new program uses calendar quarters, s rather than months as the performance evaluation period. Evidence in tracking airline operations for the past six years indicates that a time frame as short as 30 days can be misleading due to large tna;menantr movements, weather, marketing shifts. and other transient scheduling aberrations. On the other land, an anwal evaluation period is too long a time period over which to manage adverse operational trends. Though a calendar quarter provides a large enough time block to account for scheduling aberrations, it allows for whatever action may be necessary to be taken in a short enough time frame to monitor .and evaluate the results of such an action. Additionally. qty reporting and comparisons provides consistency between this proposed Noise Management Methodology and the existing Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreements, establishing a seamless. overall program. 4. For Stage 2 reduction performance tracking, the proposed Now Management Methodology compares average daily operations of analogous calendar quarters from the current year to the part year thus moving seasonal biases. That is, to determine the change in Stage 2 operations, compare (say) winter quarter (January, February, March) of 1994 to same period one year before, i.e., winter quarter 1993. Using this technique, seasonality will not be a factor. 5. Recognizing the sensitivity to aircraft noise during nighttime hours. Stage 2 reduction performance will be tracked by three discrete time periods in addition to the quarterly comparisons noted above. These discrete periods include 7 AM to 10 PM, 10 P.M. to 11 P.bt. and 6 A.M. to 7 AM, and 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. 6. Tangible endpoints for the program lend credibility and a sense of finiteness to the process. The federal noise rule establishes a final compliance date for Stage 3 operations. Section 91.853 of Federal Aviation Regulation Par 91 states: After December 31, 1999, no person may operate to or from an airport in the United States any civil subsonic turbojet aircraft with a maximum weight of more than 75.000 pounds unless such aircraft complies with Stage 3 noise levels, as determined by the Secretary. Establishing the year 2000 as the all -Stage 3 goal complies with federal rules and establishes a tangible airport y° restriction in the event that the Airport Noise and Capacity Act is amended in the future. In order to further comply with existing federal law, valid federal waivers will be honored in the new Noise Management Methodology. 7. Because interim compliance requirements in theJede ral noise rule are not as clear'as the final Stage 3 requirement (above), your input is necessary for determining viable interim Stage 2 reduction goals that are both meaningful and achievable As a minimum, the new Noise Management Methodology establishes a policy of no increase in Stage 2 operations from one quarter to the same quarter in the following year. by time period as noted in five (5) above. This "no backsliding" concept as well as all provisions of this Noise Management Methodology will be a applied to all carriers operating turbojets at MSP heavier than 75,000 pounds. 8. Tbtal Airport Stage 2/Stage 3 Average Daily Operations by Quarter will be reported in graphical and tabular form. Attached for perspective is historical performance of carriers operating turbojet aircraft at MSP since 1986,.in.terms of Average Daily Operations by quarter (see attachment). This historical data is not ANOMS generated, but comes from Federal Department of T ransporadon records. Your comments are absolutely necessary to implement this proposed noise management tool as a voluntary agreement. The Metropolitan Airports Commission romaine commies to working with both air Carriers and effected citizens to negotiate annually agreeable voluntary Lary measures that address the difficult balance between maintaining facilities that meet the vital needs of National Airspace System users. while min;m*7*ng oil -airport impacts on airport neighbors. Please send your comments to Jean Deighton, Operations Committee Secretary. Your comments will be incorporated into a Draft Voluntary Noise Management Agreemem followed by a Final Voluntary Noise Management Agreement to be signed and executed by the Metropolitan carriers Commission and all aur ariers o Derating turbojet aircraft with a maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds at MSP. Significant interest surrounds this issue, and your prompt attention is critical to completing this process " /3 t S Wednesday September 2L 1991 Part III Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 Transition to an All Stage 3 Fleet Operating In the 46 Contiguous United States and the District of Columbia; Final Rule 14 CFR Part 161 Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions; Final Rule 1 et 173 waisera atm mel are ONOM (a) A U.S. air wrier tiny apply for a waiver from the prohibition contained In 161.663 for its remaining Stage 2 nuplanes. provided that. by July L IM ret Iaast 85 percent of the airplanes wed_ by the wrier to provide service to ar from an airport in the contiguous United States will comply with the Stager 3 noise levels do application for the waiver in paragraph (a) of this section must be filed with the Secretary of Transportation no later than January L tide. Such appficatiea most tacoda ■ plan with firm orders for replacing or and the effect an roman city air service. and any other information submitted by the applicant that the Secretary Considers mkvanL (a) The term of any waiver granted ender this secdon shall be determined by the circumstances presented In the application. but in m on will the waiver permit the operetlm of any Stage 2 airplane covered by this subchapter in the cmtig000a United States after December 22.7m0. M A summary of any request for e waiver ander this seWm will be published in the Federal lfegistar. and public wM be Invited, Unless the secretary ds that circumstances require olbmwlse. the public comment period wig be at lent la days. Item AraetsipatgnaanperI (a) EachtermMM to 1 t1190s W 101.1167 of this chapter sban submit an annual report to the FAA. OMce of Environment and Ensu, an the it bas dtha nOMPIYIM with t e Sudo reports shun be submitted no later than 10 days after the and of a calendar 1thhe amar. AD adan thruogress m g6ts6 of the calendar year. be toellSad by the carrim as tum and wmplsts (ender penalty of W USC. 71162). and ladude the (tom)wing infarmation: The name and address of the The n.me. title and telephone comber of the psrsen designated by the operator to be responsible for ensuring aanney of do iofermauan in the npmt pMM � �VUI� *0 With the of 141.883. 141908 or 41967. For airplanes an USoperatlots spedncatlwa. each apsmtar shall Ideatfly the airplanes by IM. model series. and serial number. (0 Each Stage 2 airpiam added or removed from operation or US. operations spedncatiow (grouped modifying all airplanes to comply with Stage 3 noise levels at the raciest practicable time. �i 0/ 613 t3har Cove ' (c) To be eligible to apply for the waiver —I this seeioa a now entreat airplanes ; U.S. air carrier mud initiate service no apt as provided In 162.673, after later than January L 1666. and moat December 3L 29M no person shall comply fully with an provisions of that Operate to or from any airport in the ContiguouUnited Biases my a socumL The � walm � �ry subject to subject to 142902(e) of this subpart. bparL ender this u � unless that airplane has been ahown to that grooming such waiver is in the public comply with Stege 3 noise fevels IntemL In making each a finding. the Secretary &hall indnds consideration of 1 et 173 waisera atm mel are ONOM (a) A U.S. air wrier tiny apply for a waiver from the prohibition contained In 161.663 for its remaining Stage 2 nuplanes. provided that. by July L IM ret Iaast 85 percent of the airplanes wed_ by the wrier to provide service to ar from an airport in the contiguous United States will comply with the Stager 3 noise levels do application for the waiver in paragraph (a) of this section must be filed with the Secretary of Transportation no later than January L tide. Such appficatiea most tacoda ■ plan with firm orders for replacing or and the effect an roman city air service. and any other information submitted by the applicant that the Secretary Considers mkvanL (a) The term of any waiver granted ender this secdon shall be determined by the circumstances presented In the application. but in m on will the waiver permit the operetlm of any Stage 2 airplane covered by this subchapter in the cmtig000a United States after December 22.7m0. M A summary of any request for e waiver ander this seWm will be published in the Federal lfegistar. and public wM be Invited, Unless the secretary ds that circumstances require olbmwlse. the public comment period wig be at lent la days. Item AraetsipatgnaanperI (a) EachtermMM to 1 t1190s W 101.1167 of this chapter sban submit an annual report to the FAA. OMce of Environment and Ensu, an the it bas dtha nOMPIYIM with t e Sudo reports shun be submitted no later than 10 days after the and of a calendar 1thhe amar. AD adan thruogress m g6ts6 of the calendar year. be toellSad by the carrim as tum and wmplsts (ender penalty of W USC. 71162). and ladude the (tom)wing infarmation: The name and address of the The n.me. title and telephone comber of the psrsen designated by the operator to be responsible for ensuring aanney of do iofermauan in the npmt pMM � �VUI� *0 With the of 141.883. 141908 or 41967. For airplanes an USoperatlots spedncatlwa. each apsmtar shall Ideatfly the airplanes by IM. model series. and serial number. (0 Each Stage 2 airpiam added or removed from operation or US. operations spedncatiow (grouped *dtV. of codon THOMAS EGAN February 22, 1995 Mo1w - - PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN JF%N DEIGHTON THEODORE WACHTER METROPOLITAN' AIRPORTS COMMISSION Coum6M.rrroa.a 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH THOMAS HEDGES MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 City Ad7WWTWW RE: MAC NOISE MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY E.J. VAN OVERBEIE CNV Clerk Dear Jean: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed noise management methodology, currently under review by the MASAC Operations Committee. Given the deadline for response, it will not be possible to review the methodology with the Airport Relations Commission or City Council prior to March 10. Please accept these comments as a preliminary response. Any additions or modifications to these comments will be forwarded to you after Commission and Council review and prior to the matter coming before MASAC. The proposed methodology responds to the MAC charge very well. It also responds. to the competing needs to provide complete, yet comprehensible reports to the interested parties. The comments below are intended to be constructive and to provide some perspective on those competing needs. 1. Tracking the Number of Stage 2 Operations - While this strategy is extremely effective in the short run, and it is measurable and achievable as described, it does not take into account the effect that a growing number of Stage 3 operations will have on the community. As described, the proposed methodology has an effective life of five years, after which noise management by definition will involve only Stage 3 aircraft. The industry and noise -interested groups around the country have begun to discuss the feasibility, of Stage 3.5 or Stage 4 standards recognizing that even quiet jet aircraft create noise. The current political environment suggests that fewer resources,, not more, will be available for noise mitigation. As was the case with the Stage i to Stage 21conversion, one generation's solution is the next generation's problem. I would suggest that a new noise, management methodology have both short term strategies (reduction of Stage 2 operations) and long term strategies (further reduction of aircraft and airport noise at its source). MUNICIPAL CEN TET!MAINTENANCE THE LONE OAK TREE FACILITY 8850 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN. MINNESOTA 66122.1897 THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH U6 OUR COMMUNITY .5601 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 PHONE: (612) 6614600 . PHONE: (612) 681.43M FAX (612) 6614612 EgY01 OPpoM1mMY/AH8R afire Action Employer FAX (612) 681.6160 TDD. (612) 456.8555 I _ TOD:(612) 4544555 Other measurable and reasonable noise management benchmarks might be monthly or quarterly average noise levels at the ANOMS monitors and the number of aircraft not complying with corridor procedures. Goals for reductions of each could be established at reasonable intervals. 2. Actual Aircraft operations - This is a reasonable and effective approach. 3. Quarterly Reporting - The rationale for this approach is reasonable. It is essential that the current monthly reports be continued for MASAC purposes, but the new noise methodology reports can be quarterly. 4. Comparison by Quarters - This is a reasonable approach. It .may be worthwhile over time to compare to more than one previous. year as this will also demonstrate trends and diminish overreaction to aberrant quarters. 5. Tracking by Discrete Time Periods - This is' extremely important. 6. Tangible Endpoints - The Stage 2 deadline is one .reasonable endpoint. others are necessary as well because there will still be aircraft noise after December 31, 1999 and as operations increase, the noise impacted areas are expected to grow again after the phaseout. It is important that there be interim deadlines as discussed below and longer term objectives and deadlines so that the noise management program is more than one dimensional. 7. Interim Reduction Goals - At a minimum, there should be no backsliding in compliance and it seems that the FAA could interpret the interim compliance requirements it will enforce with sufficient clarity to adopt them as part of the MSP management program. The primary, question is whether the FAA will permit individual airports to set standards at or above the fleet reduction standards. If so, perhaps a viable alternative would be to calculate the allowable numbers of Stage 2 aircraft using the current fleet mix and the interim phase out percentages. The Noise Management Methodology could then. identify each airline's interim maximum in the voluntary agreements. This would not prevent a different number actually being in a fleet in the future, it would simply set a ceiling for the Stage 2 operations at MSP. 8. Historical Performance - As my review copy did not include the attachment, I am not able to comment on it, but the reporting concept outlined seems reasonable. 0 Again thank you, for this opportunity to comment. If you have questions, please let me know. Sincerely, on chenstein City of Eagan TO: Chair Mirick and Members of the Airport Relations Committee FROM: Mike Schlax DATE: 8-25-94 SUBJECT: NWA Background on Distant Community Noise Procedure John has been kind enough to put the following three NWA Flight• Standards.Bulletins in your September packet. If you read *3-70 followed by *75-7 and 47-76 you'll have a pretty good notion of how Northwest arrived at its 'Quiet EPR' departure procedure (nov referred to as the Distant Community Noise Abatement Departure Profile).. Some of the material is very technical (especially in bulletin *75-5) but I hope.you'll come away from the reading with the idea that Northwest has spent a lot of time and money on this Procedure and that the Company feelsq and the Aviation Industry confirms that the Distant Community provides a very effective way of controlling noise in their DC -9 and 727 fleets. I hope this will be of some help in understanding the situation. Mike Schlax 612-686-6208 cc: J Hohenstein NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. October b, 1970 Flight Standards Bulletin No. 370 TO: ALL FLIGHT CREWS C FROM: DIRECTOR OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS -TECHNICAL SUBJECT: REVISED STANDARD NWA TAKE -OFF - General . From my observations in -the New York Area—at the departure position in the New York Common IFR Room -1 noted after a few hours of attentive C observance, and' for several days thereafter, that one '. major airline (Northwest Orient Airlines) exhibited the most consistent and operationally most efficient climb management.. It became notably apparent to ( me that Northwest departures consistently required only a minimum of control coordination, since they attained specified altitudes at the expected places; concurrently, their occupancy of airspace and alti. tudes during departure climbs appeared to be noticeably less than that of other carriers. My interest having been aroused, I re-routed my return trip ... and stopped over in Minneapolis on August 16th (to visit) Northwest Orient Airlines. Here I found, . upon perusal of NWA flight -test data and pilots' handbook material, that the climb practices of NWA aircraft which 1 had observed In the NY CIR with.the aid of alphanumeric ground. speed and altitude readouts are not attributable to random pilots' judgement or inclination, as cur- rently practiced in general, but are the result of a rational engineering approach, systematic flight am. and the promulgation of practicable instruc- tions to PROM" TSB No. 3-70 —Z— October b, 1970 These words, from a letter to the FAA Administrator, are those of a Private aviation consultant. The project he was engaged In when the observations were made was unknown to NWA, and the com. menti were given entirely on his own Initiative. His comments demonstrate two things. That: —the standard NWA take -off procedures are sound and effective, and — -discipline �r —pilot in following the procedures is good. Although we knew this long before the above comments appeared, It is gratifying to have it discovered by an "outsider", and. solely as a result of comparing our performance with that of others. The standard NWA take -off procedure was deveioped in 1960 for our first jet operation. Although noise was a relatively small factor then, it was realized that It would become more and more Important as time went on. Because of this, the desire to mini- mize noise played an important part in the design of the original procedure. - It is interesting to note that this procedure, developed over ten years ago, has given Northwest the best take- off anti -noise record In the industry. Although the procedure has been effective in reducing noise, It did not Include a thrust reduction to any,level lower than normal climb. So that we will be doing everything possible to further reduce take -off noise, the thrust reduction procedure we have used on the .747 is being extended to all other NWA jet types, { _ The revised procedure is set down below with reasons for each step then being discussed In some detail. -The_ P= The procedure applies only to thiLell-eiVnes case, and is as follows, see Figure 1: a� •� Yt'• FSB No. 3-70 —3— October 5, 1970 —Make initial climb at V2+10 (no change from prior procedure). —At 1000' above airport level, lower the nose and accelerate to allow flap retraction. The only change here is In the start -of - acceleration altitude, from 12' to 1000'. Flap retraction speeds and procedures remain exactly as before. —As the speed approaches ZERO FLAP MANEUVER and the flaps approach zero, lower the nose to maintain VZF while gradually reducing to QUIET EPR. Continue climb at or slightly above VZF. —After passing through 3000' above airport level, gradually apply normal CLIMB thrust, accelerate to 250K and continue as in the past C' The "Why" Of The Revised Procedure `l There are oniy two ways—as far as procedures are concerned— to reduce noise: (1) increase the distance between the noise source and the listener, and (2) reduce noise at the source. Our prior procedure did everything that could be done about the first the revised procedure will also do the same for the second. c Why V2+107 The distance between noise source and listener will be at a maximum only when the highest practicable climb angle is used. V2+10 meets this objective admirably while still pro- viding adequate maneuver, gust, and shear margins for all but unusual cases. A detailed discussion of V2+10 Is contained in FSB No. 1-67 which you should reread at an early date. Why a thrust reduction? Once you have accomplished the first objective (increasing the distance), you can do only one other thing to reduce noise—reduce the thrust. The farther you C reduce it the quieter you. will be, but there Is a reasonable . level below which you should not go. QUIET EPR is this. It was chosen to provide the • required final segment climb gradient with an engine out. With all engines operating this will produce a� FSB No. 3.70 October 5, 1970 a. rate of climb of about 1000 FPM in the typical cow. If an engine fails while at QUIET EPR, you will still have an adequate climb rate (about 350 FPM), even If you do not advance the thrust (if the engine failure occurred before reducing to QUIET EPR, you would not make the reduction). - Why 3000' AGL for normal CLIMB thrust application? When the airplane has,reached this height, noise on the ground will be minl- mal, and it is then reasonable to apply CLIMB thrust 1 Flying The Revised Profile . The following will help in flying the profile. 1. Although_ the initial climb Is unchanged from the prior pro- t cedum, these things should be emphasized: —Be sure rotation is started in (not after) VR. Late rotation i badly degrades performance. —Rotate continuously to chart V2*10 pitch attitude. Although airspeed must be monitored, pitch attitude should be the primary guide. If other things are within reasonable limits,, maintaining the proper chart pitch attitude will result in an IAS very close to the desired vaiue.- 2. When the nose is lowered at 1000', lower it to one halfthe Initial (V2+10) pitch attitude plus 10. That is, if the V2+10 _.. pitch attitude was 180, lower the nose to 100 at 1000'. This provides an optimum. balance between acceleration and C_ climb for the flap retraction segment. 3. Redaction to QUIET EPR should be started slightly before VZF and the zero flap configuration are reached. Only experience will leech you the optimum point As the thrust reduction Is started, the nose should be lowered to the QUIET EPR climb attitude. This will always be the same for a given airplane type regardless of weight it will be 70 nose up_ for both the 727/1 and /2, 80 for the 320B/C, and 90 for the . 7209. It will be up to 10 less in a tum, the amount depend- ing upon bank angle. .v,.. FSS No. 3.70 —5— October 5, 1970 4. It Is better to start the thrust reduction a little too late rather than early. The ideal. is to reach -QUIET EPR at the some r time the flaps reach 00, and the IAS -reaches VZF to VZF+10. l Maintaining an ,IAS slightly above VZF is desirable during the QUIET EPR segment since speed stability will be better and speed easier to hold. • 5. Do not hurry applying normal CLIMB thrust after passing through 3000' AGL. Maintain the same pitch attitude used during the QUIET EPR segment. This will normally be an optimum attitude for accelerating to 250K. When 250K is reached, the nose will then have to be raised slightly to main- tain 250. f When The QUIET EPR Take -Off Procedure -Is To Be Used ,( The above procedure, thrust reduction and all, .Is the standard NWA take -off procedure for all normal )et take -offs, regardless of location. The only allowable exceptions are as follows. The QUIET EPR segment shall be skipped only:. 1. When compliance with a SID or other traffic clearance requires a higher climb rate (this will be. rare). 2 If significant wind shear or turbulence is forecast, expected, or encountered below 3000'. 3. When taking off at night, or under reduced ceiling and visi- bility conditions, at mountain stations such .as BTM, MSO, HLN, or BZN, or taking off east at HNL or ANC, etc. When there 1 Is 10 doubt about terrain or obstruction clearance, the QUIET EPR segment should be skipped. Now the above are not to be stretched into "escape clauses" letting you skip the QUIET EPR segment at other times. It of course should be skipped at any time other conditions (e.g., emergency) make it desirable to do so. _ But other than the above, such cases should be rare. The procedure is specifically applicable to all stations whether there appears to be a local noise problem or 1 V ••�.� FSB No. 3.70 —a— October 5, 1870 \ not You may annoy fewer people taking off NW at BIS than you do at MSP, but they have just as much right to their solitude as anyone else. A minor exception to the basic procedure is necessary at DCA be- C cause of the fixed FAA reduce -thrust points. The procedure used at DCA should be exactly as spelled out above, except that thrust reduction must be started at 2 DME (Memorial Bridge) on north take -offs, and 3 DME (Marbury Point/Goose Island) on south take - oils. Further, normal climb thrust Is not to be applied until reaching the 10 mile DME arc. in other words, the DCA procedure remains as before except: (1) the start -of -acceleration altitude will be 1000' instead of 1200'; (2) QUIET EPR Is used instead of 150; and (3) normal climb thrust is reapplied at the 10 DME am The QUIET EPR tables will be incorporated in the TAKE -OFF numbers cards for all airplanes in an early revision. Meanwhile it will be necessary to carry at least Figure 1 from this FSB ro you will have the QUIET EPR values available. 1` r The above revised standard jet take -off procedure is the result of many efforts including many flight test take -offs. The ALPA Safety Committee has participated in its formulations, and fully supports the procedure as established. With the new procedure, we can say In good, conscience—and what's more we can prove—that we have done everything humanly possible in developing cockpit procedures to reduce take -off noise. The procedure is simple, effective, safe. But a procedure is no good unless it is followed.' You will be expected to follow It religiously. Our community neighbors deserve it. And further, _ If we do not do everything reasonably possible to reduce noise, h will sooner or later hit us where It hurts. Both you and me. PAS/mms Attachment - Figure 1 Paul A. Soderlind, Director Flight Operations -Technical n 0 .> � QNM RFONCINO TO QUIET THRUST TIIr TAKE -OFF TNRUST i STANDARD ALL -EM MI TAKEOFF* , • AMISS TO ALL TANEORI ENCEFT WNW: - TERRAIN CLEARANCE REQUIRES OTNEKNIM - COLWLIANa OM A NO OR AR CLEARANCE REQUIRES OTNEROM 00 • rana errs Nr. r iroN raRr �UVATO NOMNAI MRM ATTITUDE FOR TO OORT am UM SEONEMT FIGURE 1 -,AMY am TMRLIIT - ACCELERATE TO 25811 REAL II: - VZF - FLAPS 0 - QUIET THRUST a=111110{1 — NMET TNROR DR AIA MM NT EFR EMI 1N I.N I.N IN 1.51 .R 1N I.41 RATT IM 17S I.N 1.N 118 .78 . 1.S FATT-7••• r•• S7N1C TIED RT EMP Q - EMI 778IV- ZN 1.7C 7N ZtI 1.71 M M 10 1ZN77/ZEEAATT QNM RFONCINO TO QUIET THRUST TIIr TAKE -OFF TNRUST i STANDARD ALL -EM MI TAKEOFF* , • AMISS TO ALL TANEORI ENCEFT WNW: - TERRAIN CLEARANCE REQUIRES OTNEKNIM - COLWLIANa OM A NO OR AR CLEARANCE REQUIRES OTNEROM 00 • rana errs Nr. r iroN raRr �UVATO NOMNAI MRM ATTITUDE FOR TO OORT am UM SEONEMT FIGURE 1 -,AMY am TMRLIIT - ACCELERATE TO 25811 REAL II: - VZF - FLAPS 0 - QUIET THRUST a=111110{1 — c Plight Operations Ray las 1975 Bulletin No. 75-7 'los All Pilots FAM. Director - Flying operations 30=1 Noise Abatement Noise complaints escalate as to the square of the temperature it some. As people take to the outdoors again,it behooves us to fly our aircraft as quietly as possible; by that we man rotation to the proper pitch attitude, clean up and reduce to quiet NPR in as precise a fashion as possible to extract maximm performance out of the airplane. It has been a long time since Noise Abatement procedures have been discussed. We recently wrote an article for Shell viationNews, ens of the trades best Aviation Publications with world wide dis- tribution. It will refresh your mmuicry on the subject. Note carefully the effectiveness of a thrust reduction in lowering noise which is graphically displayed on the last page. Northwest Airlines pilot group has gained a well deserved reputation in the industry, with the FM and our airport neighbors as a group who flies their airplanes bystrict standards and with precision. We enjoy some good old fashioned pride in that fact and trsst that your feelings are the same. No should also emotion "Quiet NPR" saves fuel and -anginas. Your conscientious adherence to noise abatement'procedures are Basch appreciated J. Predrickson VXX a� Shell Aviation News CAPTAIN J. T. Fredrickson, Director - Flying Operations NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES Noise Abatement Takeoff Procedure Sack in the planning days of Northwest Airlines first jet operation (the DC -S in 1960) the Airline decided some worth- while improvements in takeoff methods could be made. -Captain . Paul A. Soderlind, who then was Director of Flight Operations - Technical, set out to develop a single, standardized procedure that would take care of all practical and regulatory require- ments. while there is no such thing as one method best for all conceivable situations, it seemed feasible to develop one that would be good for the majority of foreseeable circum- stances. Many gains wculd come from such an all -embracing procedure, for with it habit pattern could be made to work for the pilot in the critical case. The procedure developed remains essentially unchanged to this -day, a tribute to the thorough work of Captain Soderlind. It -bears some discussion as it relates to the problem of takeoff noise. As far as performance requirements are concerned there are four basic types of takeoffs. There is (1) the all engines, obstacle limited takeoff, (2) the all engines, non -obstacle limited takeoff, (3) the engine out, obstacle limited takeoff, and (4) the engine out, non -obstacle limited takeoff. If a single procedure is to work it must take care of all of the above kind of takeoffs, and it must provide: adequate stall margins adequate controllability margins adequate maneuvering margins adequate gust and wind shear margins comply with anti -noise requirements be economically feasible and practical from a fuel consumption and engine performance view point. Such a procedure is not developed overnight. It requires hard work and study of climb gradient curves, stall and maneuvering speeds, regulatory performance requirements, etc. Then flight test work had to be done followed by a good shake down in actual practice. A good procedure cannot be derived without such preparation. All of the aforementioned preparatory work was done.. A lot of effort and money was expended. The procedure that resulted is basically: Rotation to, and initial climb at, a predetermined pitch attitude. No configuration change (except gear retraction) until Teaching the acceleration altitude. Acceleration always,iniit'iiateed at the same height. Lens discuss the above in reverse order so as to save the controversial one until last. _In what follows we are dis- cussing the regulatory performance requirements for the ease where an engine is lost at V1. . As far as the performance regulation is concerned, the take- off extends to where a height of 1500 feet and the final takeoff segment climb speed is attained. Beyond this the airplane is legally considered to be enroute. Since under the regulation this is all conducted at takeoff thrust, the and of the takeoff segment must be reached within the five- minute Takeoff Thrust limit. Because of this, a first look suggests that 1500'. would be the best acceleration height to standardize on, but there are complications. tinder the high weight/temperature/altitude combinations, the airplane cannot be climbed initially to 1500' and reach the end of the takeoff segment within the five-minute Takeoff Thrust limit. You can however, reach 1500' and the end of the final takeoff segment within the five-minute limit by choosing a lower initial acceleration height. Since the lower acceleration height becomes necessary as the weight/temperature/altitude conditions become more limiting, this could result in different acceleration heights for every takeoff. The fact -that these various acceleration heights would have to be used when an engine was lost further complicates the picture. The regulation permits selection of an acceleration height as low as 4001, thus any height between 400' and 1500' would be acceptable as long as the above performance conditions could be met. Four hundred feet (4001) would obviously be a poor height to standardize on for there are many takeoffs where obstructions would make it folly to accelerate level at 400' on instruments. The logical choice is the highest acceler- ation altitude at which the end of the takeoff flight path can be reached within the five-minute Takeoff Thrust limit under the most limiting conditions. This height is approximately 1000' for our operation, and the choice allows use of the same number on every takeoff. The second basic part of the standardized takeoff --no config- uration change other than gear retraction before reaching the acceleration height --needs little discussion. Since the regulation permitted use of an acceleration height as low as 400'r some operators used this figure as the point at which acceleration was started and/or flap retraction to an inter- mediate position was initiated. Our choice was to avoid configuration changes in this segment. The remaining part --rotation to, and initial climb at, a ( predetermined pitch attitude --warrants considerable discussion for it involves the V2+10 climb, something that some do not like. -3 - In this day of technology that can put men in space .and bring them back safely, it is rather sad fact that the typical industry insatrumentation/procedures combination used resulted in the initial climbout being flown essentially by trial and error. The typical method is to rotate to the estimated attitude that will result in the desired climb airspeed, -the airspeed indicator being the primary determinant as to whether the attitude selected was the right one. If the airspeed then does not settle on the right value, then a different pitch attitude is tried, and so on. By this time, of course, the initial climb segment is usually over, with the hunt for the sight attitude/airspeed seldom being quite satisfied. A good part of this trial and error can be taken out of the initial climb segment by using specific predetermined pitch attitudes, and this was accordingly made a part of the standard takeoff procedure. While use of precomputed pitch attitudes is by no means foolproof, it is a large step in a good direction. All well and good you say, but why the pitch attitude that produces V2+107 If a single method is to be chosen, it must be the one that satisfies all of the various requirements. One of the more important has to do with noise, but'this is by no means the only one that argues for V2+10. Among other things,'it is better for getting the best performance out of the airplane, some- thing you will almost surely need very badly someday. V2+10 is the speed which will. produce near optimum climb gradients. On the fast side of. the speed for minimum drag, most of the drag is parasite drag which increases as the square of the velocity. Double the speed and the parasite drag is four times as great. Thus for every knot above. V2+10,, you pay a disproportionate amount and much of the extra is forever wasted. The fact that you may "like" V2+30 better will not erase this fact. When you sit at the end of the runway waiting for takeoff,, ►ou have in your throttle hand a certain amount of thrust to spend." To get off the ground you must spend it first for speed, but you then can spend it for'speed, for altitude, or some combination of the -two. If you waste part of your available thrust for excess speed, then you have done exactly that. Wasted it. That part can never be turned into either altitude or speed for you have poured it down the drain to pay for useless parasite drag. Excess altitude can more profitably be turned into speed than excess speed into altitude. Some rationalise that "I'll climb out at V2 plus 20 or 30 normally, but when I lose an engine and have to, I'll climb out at V ." All well and good, but it.doesn't work that way. Make 99 Takeoffs atyour "normal" y plus 20 or 30 and when trouble comes on the200th, habit will work badly against you. 5 C) -a - If a pilot is so habituated to avoiding "•steep" pitch attitudes �.. on the normal takeoff, will he be able to use the now necessary •steep" attitude after an engine failure on a limited takeoff? If VZ+10 is "too slow" on a normal takeoff, how will he react when he must use a speed 101( lower? He may well be different than the average man, who'Lends to•revert to habit when under stress. But this phenomenon will work for him if he has developed the good habit of following a standard takeoff procedure. In show business when something goes wrong, there is always someone who pops..up and says, "The show must go on." One day someone asked him "Why?", and he had no answer. You say V2+10 is too steep? Why? Does it put you too close to the stall? Is it too close to minimum control speed? You can't see where you're going? If thought through, none of these reasons hold water. _ V2+10 pitch attitudes vary from about llo when heavy to about 23o when light, depending on airplane type. The heavy end doesn't generate any of the "too steep" complaints, but the light end does. Let's take a close look at the difference - between the two. V2+10 gives a margin of about 259 to 359 above the stall* i V2+10 is not too steep because of inadequate stall margins. Minimum control speed? V2 itself can never be less than 109 above minimum control speed, and it is usually appreciably. more. V2+10 is not too steep because of inadequate Vmc margins. V2+10 is too steep because you can't see where you're going? Not so. You can see exactly where you're going. In any climb the nose is inclined above the flight path by an angle equal to the angle of attack. Since the angle of attack in the. light weight V2+10 case is more often.than not less than for the heavy V2+10 case-, visibility along the flight path is usually better, not worse than, in the latter case. Sure aos►eone could climb into you from below, but they could do to regardless of the climb attitude used. It is quite obvious this factor could not be allowed a strong voice in establishing a standard takeoff procedure, or the procedure would be good for little else. V2+10 is not so steep you can't see where you're going. But isn't V2+10 too slow when it's gusty? The answer is "Yes, it can be.",'but the margins are greater than. you might think. At typical weights, V2+10 is about, 1359 of the stall speed. At this value, it will take about an .8 "g" load increase to at -all the wing. It takes turbulence In the severe category to produce .8 "g" load factor .. increases. In any event, good judgment calls for an increase in speed if there is turbulence of significance. It is expected that V2+10 will be padded a case. *This will vary between airplane When strong wind shear conditions exist, V2+10 will also need to be padded., but direction of turn will be a more important factor than will a speed pad. In summaryt If a pilot develops the good habit of following a standard takeoff procedure, that habit will help him meet the more difficult and demanding performance situations. Northwest Airlines insists its flight crews follow the above discussed procedure to the letter. In the year 1970 after much time, money and effort were expended researching contemplated procedure improvements what we tail the "Quiet EPR" program was put into effect. It was realized the noise factor was becoming more and more critical. The desire to minimize noise was an important factor in the original procedure, the "Quiet EPR" procedure was added to do.everything possible to minimize noise. The procedure applied only to the all -engine case and is as follows. !lake initial climb at V2+10 (no change from prior procedure). At 1000' above airport level, lower the nose and accel- erate to allow flap retraction. It is pointed out here that one of the additional reasons for cleaning up the airplane was that the forward speed of the aircraft lowers the jet velocity relative to the airstream and therefore reduces the noise level. Flap retraction speeds and procedures remain exactly as before. As the speed approaches ZERO FLAP MANEUVER (V F) and the flaps approach zero, lower the nose to maintain VZF while gradually reducing to QUIE: EPR. Continue climb at or slightly above VZF. After passing through 3000' above airport level, gradually apply normal CLIMB thrust, accelerate to 250R'and continue as in the past.. The "Why" of the Procedure There are only two ways --as far as procedures are concerned -- to reduce noises (1) increase the distance between the noise source and the listener, and (2) reduce noise at the source. Our prior procedure did everything that could be done about the first, the revised procedure does the same for the second. 3a, -6- why V22+10? The distance between noise.source and listener will be at a maximum only when the highest practicable climb angle is used. V +10 meets this objective admirably while still providing aiequate maneuver, gust, and shear margins for all but unusual cases. Why a thrust reduction? The level of jet noise is primarily determined by exhaust velocity. Once you have accomplished the first objective (increasing the distance), you can do only one other thing to reduce noise --reduce the thrust. The farther you reduce it, the quieter you will be. The Northwest procedure reduces thrust proportionately.to gross weight. There is a reasonable level below which you should not go and QUIET EPA is -this. It was chosen to provide.the required final segment climb gradient with an engine out. If an engine fails while at QUIET EPR, you will still have an adequate climb rate, even if you do not advance thrust (if the engine failure occurred before reducing to QUIET EPR, you would not make the reduction). Why 3000' AGL for normal CLIMB thrust application? When the airplane has reached this height, noise on the ground will be minimal, and it is then reasonable to apply CLIMB thrust. (Consideration is being given to raising the thrust re-application point to a higher altitude.) ! It should.be pointed out that early flap retraction reduces non -propulsive or airframe noise. Some knowledgeable sources have in fact concluded this type of noise could be the limiting factor in reducing noise in the future after substantial engine noise treatment has been accomplished. When the QUIET EPR Takeoff Procedure is to be Used The above procedure,.thrust reduction and all, is the standard NWA takeoff procedure for all normal jet takeoffs, regardless of location. The only allowable exceptions are as follows: The QUIET EPR segment shall be skipped oniys 1. when compliance with a SID or other traffic clearance requires a higher climb rate (this will be rare). Z. If significant wind shear or turbulence is forecast, expected, or encountered during initial climb out. 3. When taking off at night or under reduced ceiling and visibility conditions at mountain stations. when there is any doubt about terrain or obstruction clearance, the QUIET OR segment should be skipped. 4. A minor exception to the basic procedure.was necessary at Washington, D. C. because of the fixed FAA reduced - thrust points, 33 -7 - The above revised standard jet takeoff procedure is the result Of many efforts including many flight test takeoffs. Aside from the Safety and Economics standpoint; has the program been successful in reducing noise? Test results can be summarized as follows; Takeoff Typical industry standard procedure 95* Northwest procedures 49* *dbA decibels measured on the "A" scale Although the correlation of decibel measurements with the annoyance factor is a very complicated matter, noise experts tell us that a reduction of 10 dbA amounts to cutting the annoyance factor in half. Thus the Northwest procedures make a substantial reduction in noise. And of equal importance, the Northwest procedures reduce the area --thus the. number of listeners --over which a given decibel level is reached by some 508. The noise -values in the above tests were measured indepen- dently by three different parties. The measurements were made at a point 1.67 statute miles from the and of the runway. It is obvious that significant benefits are currently enjoyed by airport/community residents affected by NWA operations. Comparable benefits can be made available to all airport/ community residents. It appears possible that procedural improvements requiring minor alterations and/or additions to existing airline equipment, can achieve noise reductions equivalent to those believed attainable through acoustic retrofit at less cost and at an earlier date. In conclusion, power reductions result in reduced noise levels on the ground compared to those associated with a full -power . takeoff climbout. Further, the amount of noise reduction attained depends upon the amount of power reduction and the noise level profile on the ground is related directly to the engine power schedule. Further studies have revealed additional emphasis should be Placed on where people live relative to the airport runways. As community interface to airports creeps ever closer tothe airport boundaries consideration must be given to a power reduction at a lower altitude to provide noise relief for those close in. Surrounding terrain, prudence and an operationally safe operating procedures must be considered here as well as pilot workload during the critical phases of the takeoff and initial climb out. Consideration should also be given to climbing at reduced th.-ust to higher altitudes to.further reduce the noise annoyance for those living at greater distances from the airport environat, -B - In conclusion, noise abatement procedures: C. - must be simple to fly. must be safe. must be standard under all normal conditions. must satisfy engine life and fuel considerations. must provide noise reduction over the community. must be acceptable to pilots and Air Traffic Control.' In our opinion, the Northwest Airlines' procedure admirably meets the above requirements. The graph presented is a dramatic illustration of the. effectiveness of the procedure: Aircraft - 8727/200, gross weight - 140 000 lbs., engine JTBD-7, flap setting for takeoff - 1550 no wind. The horizontal scale represents distance from brake release in 5000 foot increments. The vertical scale represents altitude and db(A) 1 Full power climb out at V2+10- 2 Full power climb out with a reduction to climb thrust at 1500 feet, continued climb at V2+lo, flap retraction at 30001. l 3 Full power climb out to 10001, accelerate and clean up, reduction to "Quiet thrust," climb continued at. zero flap speed to 4000 feet, apply climb power. 3� s000 .iv ra xv 25 70 as 40 Is F"ir 11000 50 ss 60 es ro >s so MIM • TAN OFF / oa' ' �O v v• r / !r 100 • Mat op 00000, _ Fdl ost wft s."due in a' for It 1S" sumyomd a0eb v 10 fl alien d 000'• N FeN r wt a 000' wa Ir- atr ed dm op odatl h a 00 iet tbrut, daub a ndnod [ewe fl . qad 10001 t apply d!" NbUI . so cs;aN so°P cosjt Nitro 1 nn latera a orcN uaN .iv ra xv 25 70 as 40 Is F"ir 11000 50 ss 60 es ro >s so NOHTMNST AIRI.ZlH;S, INC, Nay 11. 1976 ( Flight Standards Bulletin No. 7-76 --TO: -• - All Flight 4:ewa FBOM: Director - Flying Operations ' SUBJECT: Noise Abatement One of the most serious and acute problems facing the Airline and aircraft industry today is noise pollution. It is a year around problem. It Is so serious airport proprietors are now defendants in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lawsuits which threaten to place them under intolerable Finan- cial burdens. The building of new airports, the ( expansion and modernization of existing airports, have been slowed and in.some instances completely halted because of environmental concerns on the part of our citizens. Many of these improvements are. .needed for the efficient operation of our National Air Transportation system. The growth of the entire aviation industry is being impaired and impeded as a result. Curfews are being imposed. Other drastic measures are being processed to alleviate the problem. Now you can say,. many people settled near an airport after it was in operation, the manufacturers should build quieter airplanes, our public officials should exercise land use controls to insure that land azposed, to high noise levels around airports is put into compatible use. The airlim a should buy new and quieter airplanes, etc. On and on it goes. There ( may. be some validity to all of the above statements because no one foresaw the rapid growth of the industry with the advent of the jet airplane; It FSB NM 7-76 -T-, may 11. 1976 is agreed that no one group has the authority or funds to solve the whole problem. This also'bas validity. There is little that you.as a pilot can do about land use, the building and sale of new. aircraft. the building or modernisation of airports. `. There are hopeful signsg, however. that these prob _ lams will be solved. ! In the mean time - where is an elegant and meaningful answer to part of the problem. bio are the key con- r tributor, We are talking about Northwest Airlines "Quiet BPR" noise abatement takeoff procedure. It ` has been clearly demonstrated that the procedure pro- duces a significant reduction in noise levels. Our use of reduced flap for landing is also effective in lowering approach noise levels. The suer season is approaching. Windows will be opened, patios used, conversations carried on out of doors. The purpose of this bulletin is to em- phasis again the importance of following our take- - off and landing procedures. The benefits are many; they ares Reduced noise levels • Reduced time of exposure to noise Fuel is saved Engine wear and tear is decreased Our early clean up increases safety margins when exposed to turbulence and wind shear. Your meticulous adherence to procedures will be appreciated by literally millions of people Living - In the vicinity of our airports. •so let's continue to do it right, proper rotation, a precise V2+1O climb to 1000' above field elevation, then clean up and set "Quiet BPR" very carefully to the nearest one hundredth of an BPR. The re-application of thrust should be accomplished slowly and smoothly. i • J FSB NO. 7-76 rr'• t- - W3. May 11. 1976 Last summer the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency set up and operated an extensive noise monitoring system around the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Noise measurements demonstrated lower peak noise levels and significant reduction in the time of exposure for our procedure as compared to the ATA/ FAA procedure used by others. The agency will be monitoring aircraft noise again this summer and on a more extensive basis.. The same system will be �^ used to monitor noise at Seattle/Tacoma Airport. r These two airports are among the most severely l noise impacted areas in our nation. In addition recordings will be made south of the SEA/TAC airport at a distance of 3 and 5.2 Nautical miles from brake release. A Seattle firm under contract to NASA will accomplish the monitoring. Noise calculations and actual airplane noise testa indicite additional relief from noise can be pro- vided by climbing at "Quiet EPR" to 4000 feet above field elevation. The monitoring that will be done at Minneapolis/St. Paul this summes will enable us to make an accurate determination of the results under'various conditions in daily operations. Therefore: ALL 727 FLIGHTS DEPARTIM THE MSP/STP AIItPORT DURING THE MONTHS OF JUNE-JULY-AWUST SHALL USE "QUIET EPR" TO 4000 FEET ABOVE FIEF ELEVATIONS. l 727 flights departing other airports and all 707. DC10 and 747 departures should continue to use nor- mal NWA "Quiet EPR" to 3000 feet above field elevation. A PIF will be issued and kept in the Til section of the Seattle and Minneapolis Fg Book for the months stated. This will serve as a reminder of the pro- cedural change. .......:. FSB N0. 7-76 -4- flay 119 1976 � We have discussed the change with Mr. lea Casa, Mpls/St, Paul Tower Chief and,he has agreed to the change. and will so advise tower and ATC per- somal. In his remarks to the '76 Intar-Moue Conference held in Washington, D. C., April S, 1976, the Honorable Russel E. Train, Administrator, nsS. Environmental Protection Agency bad this to any. "It has been clearly demonstrated by Northwest Airlines and its pilots, that we can employ, at the Nations airports, quieter takeoff and landing procedures than those which are used by most air- lines." On May 18, 1976, Northwest Airlines will be the recipient of an Award given by, the Acoustical Society of America. The Society recognises Northwest for co®endabls public concern, Initi- ative, perserverance and the skill 1rhas dem- onstrated in developing and practicing its unique noise reducing takeoff procedure. June 10, 19769 N.0.I.3.E. (National Organization to Insure a Sound Controlled Enviroameat) will present North- west Airlines its annual award at their annual meeting and Noise Symposium to be held in New York. An airiins' procedures are only effective if its pilots adhere to them. It is obvious from the above that you do! It is a pleasure and a privi- lege to says "Nell done:" . T-0!i11k4A-iFre: ricksou Director -Flying Operations JTF/sl r qu ' I i "O"N ..f•... ,i...,•,.... "IL. .+L�d7�bl' f�'111-','� n _.�.�•. •.l '^w.► NO ) Y M -'l1. C // .F"'•ii..:r ...:%°'':•:�.(:. Fw'rw'. .. I,r. HT ,.. ...,mA:�?;: 9.S:i: sr.,;m:� rlS �� �.. .r:Y.... .•1 ....1.... ......Ir'.Z. ..... o'.aa' �4.jYt.7. ,•.,,.d•u:... w•n. .... • ...1.... ... .. .. ......, '� _..` n:u.!" .. ...1 .,. .•, .. .. .....:':.,..,..:�."•.:1... ...,;.. ':. :".',::... .. n-- •' M"�'i11R1111� tl1RlTIt11���eLli11....w"'..w.'•:i:" .:,:- .. .Ix... F': .•...:•. ..{••x.• 1 ••'•: .... n'. :'1'•: -.. �.: �<.. �.. .. erlle Otto lletlee ll.TrM rll v'••: ' .... "Iw.vl .n.❖,: ^,•moi :...... ...... y.� 1.:... w ... ... .•. .. .. ...14Y.. I q ..... ::. •..: "• ....;. — "'• x.. l:', ,.. .. ... ....: ::'.: tNo/e1 111TOO1tRT uifn Sills N11 ... _.. _. '' 1.,.. . ... .::. ...::....., :� ............ ............ ... I . .... ... etMortlltl MTOR Ott ROIL r/11!11 :u•....•:; �.11101114 .... _I.. r_.:• .... .. .. .•.. .. .. .. ...fllleA /RR11/T Itf ATRRt1T .. :v, .. .... .' .. n ............... �' rSSSennT eSrrtru " • _ 'ry SRo M.. . � '•.. ,..... —� ......... �nllorr DUEolt :...... • urn n1 ROSS_ to ��� wf nodYi SISLTFMI RTITtloTIN Nf A rep Nt leelLNAt■ • . M .. . .+ .....'� •„ORSrettptt RIelA111tT A Rer •. .. shl"A O`lerl T , Age . • . Lt Rl OT ... to li N4 Is to IS -111. IS ...... . -,...., n..•r... tl♦OTR t/0lt•..::.'w •.. .. 1` '' • Slat SOMME NM n Kow. tlneef lot aiiis '..• ; 4111011!111 f1 eetRTIS MUM Al"Ma .. \ • nIq MNR $AA4m a 1.1 nR Amec t umf, ... . . 101N To APM IIRetI Ottetl MOST MAGIMIMBOMI •” SO 0618 ONItN IN 1N11fflt RtU AMq 9A"99 Ina 110111 c� 0 8 ...... ..r ..::........ .. .rc . �..".. .. . ..... . ..l � eNLArLIrN CLIr\ 1001 . ....,i',:,r�: `j.....:: iu�.::: .. .. 17,.:✓YI::•T..w.:. ::"N.., `yb• :. .. ,� 1, ....:.................:: :..... ...;,,..h• ,�+``• rNe00e IIOrO►l10\r rteTtr rlT\ T\\.a . q, L.. :., .......... i..... :................. .. ... .. •.. LrrNOr\IeTe NTON\0 \ell 10111 .. .::n: '.:' ;:iii:.:.•. ... .... .... .. . . ..... ,y •_ •"•:... a:... ....... _...d.r.... ..... ..........:. �... :.:.'w•r.: .... .r•;. ^Y..n:. �a..�. ���'•• .n..,.�;^.':.�... •'•\ef\e�l'i.rt0l�e t\q':.., :r' ii:..nr. '7.�... ._. .._ .in.: ..... ... ' viii �i iiiioeeiLii�Ti(II::. n' .:e :::.:: ... ...... ... .....,.„.. •n .... ,•. ”. •MANAGE tenet en tl fNgoef .. re\e1eNe1► egore►ee �' •reeearr ecce eeT ,..:...... . .•.•.. ••., •eUlfeee\en\IolaenAewe .. .'. .. "•'� ,•_., .. .... 0eer\NTgoe IRANIAN $1111 mop • .... ... ...a Muoe nice et 1[e! Nt ' r 1ernmlNy.isa .n • . •• • neoT LINA I •• • \ r 0= AM@Piro\\Tnmc I • ... •n ewerilni ten OF OLIre, Insect no eilt' �.... SOONER is etente Pirot ntmee •. •N►flN Nrot mt1UiU NT T.L eek ene\et Tllaet L111119TO APPROXIMAN NRtap \Nuel z •nGASt 491011119111.11491011119111.11.'- \OAT Q gone r0elrgo on "some Nell AsomeATIce . este still# r C >voRTtwesrAttuttv>Es® B-757 4.120.3 OPERATING PROCEDURES Apr 19, 1994 General The standard Northwest Airlines takeoff is designed to Produce the minimum amount of noise consistent with safe and efficient operating procedures. The following procedures achieve these objectives by Providing a high Initial climb angle and by reducing Won drag as on as practicable so that thrust can be reduced to a minimum. EFTS and FMS While taxiing toward the takeoff position, ensure that the HSI MAP display (map mode selected with the appropriate range) and the LEGS page waypoint sequence Is consistent with the required ATC departure procedure. Ensure that the assigned runway is displayed on the HSI MAP as confirmation that the IRS position Is correct and to ensure taxiing onto the correct runway. Waming The FMS may introduce an error in departure waypoint sequence and/or attitude constraints if there is a change of runway, FMS Departure, or SID. In the event of a runway, FMS Departure, or SID change: I. Select the DEPARTURE page. 2 Reseleet'the runway. & Reselect the FMS Departure or SID and transition of any). 4. Evaluate fie revised depardm on the NSI MAP or PLAN and LEGS page for reasonableness. b. EXECUTE. Display DIR INTC on the Pilot Not Flying's (PNPs) CDU during initial comb. Display the page for the current VNAV mode on the Pilot Flying's (PIPS) FMC when the FMC Is not needed for other purposes. Display the CLB page on the PF's FMC during climb to provide flap limit speeds, climb speed; maximum angle Climb speed. and altitude restrictions. Note: Do not use the Flight Director for takeoff. Takeoff Roll Prior to taxiing onto the runway for takeoff, brief the rejected takeoff procedure and significant factors that may affect a rejected takeoff. Consider. runway condition, gross weight, runway length, meteorological conditions, and inoperative equipment. Make a rolling takeoff except where runway specific procedures or other factors require static takeoff. (See the Jeppesen -7 pages.) Use autothrottles, if operative, for all takeoffs. When the first officer Is the PF, the first officer sets the selected takeoff thrust, then removes his/her hand from the thrust levers to allow the captain to Place his/her hand on the thrust levers in case of a rejected takeoff. When the aircraft Is aligned with the runway. the BEFORE TAKEOFF CHECK Is complete, takeoff clearance Is received, and the parking brake is released, advance the thrust levers to approximately 1.1 EPR and allow thrust to stabilize. Allowing thrust to stabilize at 1.1 EPR helps to ensure uniform thrust development as thrust is advanced to takeoff while minimizing directional control problems, especially important in a crosswind or H the rortway Is contaminated or Slippery. The exact amount of initial thrust Is not as Important as verifying tal thrust advances symmetrically. NORIINWILWAMUNESg_757 4.120.4 OPERATING PROCEDURES Apr ie, im Advance the thrust levers to approximately the desired thrust by referencing the Command Thrust Level Indicators. when the captain is the PF, he/she then engages EPR mode. When the first officer is the PF, he/she calls for EPR mode and the captain engages EPR Now, It to Important that the PNF continues to monitor thrust lever advancement to selected takeoff thrust even though the autothrottie is engaged. Ensure that selected takeoff thrust is set by 60 knots. Do not make thrust adjustments after 80 knots except to remain within engine limitations. Regardless of which plot is Conducting the takeoff, the captain's right hand remains on the thrust levers after selected takeoff thrust is set until V, (the same as V. in most cases) in case a rejected takeoff is required. The captain should promptly remove his/her hand from the thrust levers at V, to preclude an inadvertent rejected takeoff after V,. The captain makes the go/no-go decision 'and ms perforthe rejected takeoff procedure in all cases. During .takeoff roll maintain a small amount of forward pressure on the control wheel to provide more effective nose wheel steering, If necessary. Keep the aircraft on the centerline with rudder pedal steering and rudder. The rudder becomes effective at approximately 4060 knots. Appy aileron, as necessary, Into any crosswind to keep the wings level. As airspeed Increases, aileron displacement required to hold the wings levet decreases. At 60 knots, the PNF verifies that selected takeoff thrust Is set and that the autothrottle system annunciates THR HLD (Throttle Hold). Throttle Hold protects against thrust lever movement In the event of a system taut. Lack of the THR HLD annunciation means the protective feature may not be active. If the THR HLD annunciation does not appear, the autothrottle automatically disengages. Throttle Hold also allows the pilots to move the thrust levers without the autothrottle repositioning the thrust levers to Thrust Management Computer (TMC) commanded thrust during a rejected takeoff, windshear encounter or engine failure after VR. Caution: The THR HLD mode remains engaged until another thrust limit, usually Climb Thrust, is selected on the Thrust Mode Select Panel (TMSP). If another thrust limit is not selected on the TMSP, positive pilot action is required to manage speed. during level of at intermediate altitudes or during reduced rates of climb. Selecting a speed limit via FL CH, or SPD has no effect on the TMC In this case, and VNAV cannot be engaged. Derated Thrust Takeoffs Make all takeoffs at derated thrust settings (TO -1 or TO -2) whenever operationally possible to extend engine fife. Use the lowest thrust limit necessary for the takeoff except for anticipated tow level windshear or other conditions or emergencies requiring full (TO) thrust. If full (0) thrust Is desired during,a derated thrust takeoff and the autothrottles are engaged, press the takeoff or go -around (TO or GA) button on the TMSP to reset the thrust levers to the maximum thrust Omit Provided THR HLD Is not engaged. It THR HLD Is engaged, push the thrust levers to the maximum thrust limit. r� 0 m 1 1 1 e •1 a O mt7n O q NONIfN glOReenIN h Ngeee • [CCON►IICN CUNN CRICK fNIN IN.Nr1' � Le0 ..,:I ..:n•::y.: "-NAr'�' -nC ,�•!"1(.�: •XAl,a' i+�ri"a' Via. ...ij'. k9Ji f lay ... ,.. •: 4v I "lig' �i pi••a:e� . r > .••..... .'„g ," ;�iil:e: 'l�: •.��..� „w. �M`"-' i �'4� ,µ;,....•4.G,: .: u; •C�.',`W�'w•, �p SK .. ....... '... ...., :t.,. ... •.r:.: 114..... ::,• •run o.'nue f [OF APPLIGABLII rRLq INN nNNT Menefee • [CCeLINATIeN�ie/h .. ' •.� • .i U q ILNN 11P• 1Nesee am"" 11811111 en. O uonNAt10[ OLflrNe r!T • ALM901 NnrNlenON IN reN • ue @1101 FORWARD 1,e N' . • ININT HIM - nN N fees ' •CON►IN rN0 1 • FINN NONTIN OLMIll ��"CC O1 NCeRNnIN MINOR •M NNNe j01 ME Nr MEN rONmf[ one I I �..... qrf ;-NtRnf $UBSMun - .......••...... NAI-ee.erN A � u.0 � N � O r ONONITes ACCRMBtl191 Te 9181119 CLIMB C►Tea 1►lee LIATIee 10,048- • ACCas►LIMB CLIMB CeeCC 1. 1.. 1..... •:.wlw�Il�xl1/: .•MIyp�I �L•rt' `l�i`I.') ,I�b�`l:, ...6.��r��.y�6g5x.:5i�c�gf69'. �"�ItS:v^,.,`�1+%.t.%�ti sA .P.•��h . .:.'1 ..... .. �t..� V iel.y'r.1 ivti'e6 a�• a 'h•...rF`Lv .. A+ -.:.Pit.' �,:• ...... . _..: .. ....... ._.. .. l: .. :.I 4 , Y 1 1. M• none. nen I P ❑ . � ur ernloMBul I , .......... r TMBMBT Lnne le elms :... 1.;•... ., MLCe►el anNT 9181610110 Cllr! AT TL • IBM '00000f • TII91B 91Noll" amq 1.M. CCL • ACa111911108 ALT11991 DOLS' MBE "' • ALTIT9Ce 118115161100 M lee • we wits/ ►9n19e . M t88eIT Lines - TNA • Comtism PEA Ion am 0 000�_I♦ • eeeanmee coma �'! • T9191T ssesC810M AplTess • Cees UP Anse psalm este . •t1 *%- 91nTe Too" OMAsn irl W N O A a i N g� S � 4.120.3 •�aa.�s� 32O OPERA7HtG PROCEDURES Jul t$1ee4 General Northwest Airlines takeoff profiles are designed to aatisfy the requirements for a normal takeoff and produce the minimum amount of noise conststent with safe. simple operating procedures. Effective January 1994, the FAA will not snow air carriers b use more than two noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs),_ nor will. it allow any airport to dictate the vertical profile that an aircraft will By. The two NWA noise abatement departure profiles have been identified as the 'Clowln Commueity" and Tistant Communiy The MMM Community" profile will be used for all departures unless the appropriate Jeppesen -7 page Identifies the runway as one requiring the'Close-In Community" profile (e.g., 29L - Use 'Close -In Community" NADP). While tmftg to the takeoff position, ensure that the FMA Indications (normally CLB and NAh- are correct. Check that the ND map and range, as well as the F -PLAN page sequence, are consistent with the departure procedure. Takeoff Roll When cleared for takeoff and after the checklist Is complete. fie PF will release the brakes and advance the thrust levers to approximately 50% N, b ensure symmetric acceleration. The pilot will then advance the thrust levers from 50% N, to the desired takeoff delard CoAm Be aware that the Nrat deterrt is the CL defeat: Do not attempt to tarmotf WWI the ONO fevers In V* decent The ceptafn will keep -his dot hand on the thrust levers until reaching V,. FLEX or TOGA thrust must be achieved by 60lmofs: At 60 knots, check the upper ECRM to confirm that the N, achieved is equal to fhe'N, target end that the thrust. &nit mode selecWd agrees with*VW—mode. Vaned: Check the PFD to confirm that the FMA displays the proper modes (normally FLEX _ or TOGA, SRS, RWY. or HDG). As the thrust levers are advanced to the desired takeoff thrust, apply and maintain a half nose down : elevator. input to the side stick controller: Maintain. this Input until 80 knots regardless of the aircraft loading: Reduce the forward input progressively to reach neutral stick by 100 knots. If full thrust is desired during a reduced thrust takeoff, advance the thrust levers to the forward detent (TOGA). Rotation and Liftoff At Vq, rotate the airplane with smooth, continuous back pressure on the side stick controller to the pitch attitude commanded by the flight director. If the flight director becomes- unavailable during the takeoff, rotate to a nominal pitch attitude of 17.5 degrees r nose up. Proper rotation Is essential to attain the required performance from the airplane. Early or late rotation, as well as an improper rate of rotation, Is detrimental to this performance. Proper rotation must be done with %aline so that the airplane flies off of the runway. Resist making the takeoff rotation a mechanical maneuver since the range of weights, density altitudes, and loading affect the required rate of notation. The tan win stoke the runway at pitch angles above 13.5 degrees. - NOWN~'YT 4.120.4 ,A-320 OPERATfltG PROCEDURES Jul 12,,aaC initial Climb The SRS is a valuable tool for maintaining initial d Imb airspeed. but good. Judgement requires looking through' the guidance to the raw pitch data dn.thePFD: Use the SRS in conjunction with other ftht reference Instruments to ensure proper flight path maintenance. Afterthe Wdal pitch is stabilized and the control taw transition takes place, the side stick should be mWmed to neutral. Auto pitch trim begins to work and the airplane will remain In a 1 g condition. With ell engines operating; tha SRS will provide a minimum of V:+10 iGAS: Maintain takeoff flaps until reaching cleanup altitude. Do not retract the landing gear.untii a positive rate of climb .is indicated on the vertical speed indicator and altitude tape. Typically _departure clearances will either be to maintain an assigned heading or to fly a managed NAV departure (SID). Assigned Heacing - Before takeoff, preselectthe assigned heading in the FCU window taking care not to push or pull the HDG knob. Pull the FCU HDG knob when passing the field boundry. Tums after takeoff. should not be Initiated below an altitude of SW feet height above the airport (HAA) except when necessary in the Interest of safety or noise abatement procedures. If the heading knob Is not pulled after departure, the aircraft will remain In RWY TK In RWY TK the aircraft will fly the extended center One of the runway and Could possibly conflict with traffifc on Parallel runways. Managed NAV Departure (SID) - Before takeoff, ensure that the appropriate SID, banslff on, and runway are selected. Managed NAV Is automatically armed upon the selection of TOGA or FLEX power. Shortly afterlakeofl, managed NAV becomes active wittaAany crew action. Select climb thrust and lower the nose to accelerate Itoward 250 knots at 1,500 feet, unless specific airport procedures dictate otherwise. At the Thrust Reduction Altitude, the FMA will flash CLS to remind the phot to select the CL detent. At the Acceleration Altitude, the flight director will command a lower pitch attitude and SRS Is replaced by OP CLB (CLB If in managed NAV). Note: Because the Thrust Reduction and Acceleration Altitudes are the same for most flights, the pilot will be reducing power and lowering the pitch attitude at the same time. Autopilot engagement altitude Is determined by cockpit workload and passenger comfort. The minimum autopilot engagement attitude is 500 feet. l From this point on, use either the Distant Community NADP, or the Close -In Community NADP. Distant Community Noise Abatement Departure Profile This departure procedure uses the default FMS Thrust Reduction Altitude and Acceleration Altitude. Therefore, no special programming of the PERF TAKEOFF page Is required. Accomplish a FLEX or TOGA takeoff as previously described. At 1,51)0 feet, lower the nose to follow the flight director commands and retard the thrust levers to the CL decent as CLB annunciates on the FMA. The most common takeoff flap configuration will be FLAPS 1. In this case,.retract the flaps to UP as the airspeed accelerates through S speed If the takeoff is made using FLAPS 9, retract the fiaps.to 2 and ften,to 1 as the airspeed Increases' through the 'F'speed. Retract the flaps to UP when the speed exceeds OW apse& NOW Comply with all 10.7 page Instructions which may modify this procedure. 4-9 110 4.120.5 • ....,... A=320 OPERATtiIf: PROCEDURES Jul 12,111a4 w� CIO" Community Noise Abatement Departure Proffle The Wd of this Procedure Is to provide a steeper departure Meth and thereby nKluce the noise for eonmu *les very dose to the airport During Preflight program a Thrust Reduction Altitude of 1,1100 feet HAA and an Acceleration Altitude of 3,000 feet HAA on the PERF TAKE OFF Rag". Caution: The MCDU entries for Thrust Reduction A/tihrde and Acceleration Altitude must be nude in feet MSL Add the field elevation to the appropriate HAA altitude and ender Me sura on the PERF TAKE OFF page - Accomplish a.nomual TOGA takeoff as described l pwou*' At 1A00 feet HAA, retard the thrust levers to the CL -f: detent and continue to follow the flight director which L1 owmnarding an airspeed of V=+10 tOAS. r. At3.000fog MAA, lower the rase as commanded by the flight director and allow the airplane to accelerate. For a FLAPS 1 takeoff, retract the Raps to UP as the airspeed accelerates thnaugh S speed. B the takeoff is made using FLAPS 3, retract the flaps to 2 and then to 1 as the airspeed Inaeases through OF opeed. Retrect the flaps to UP when the " WW succeeds S speed. ♦tole: Comply with all Jeppesen 7 page Instructions width may modify this procedure. 19� city of eagan THOMAS EGAN Maya PATRICIA AWADA SHAWN HUNTER SANDRA A. MASIN THEODORE WACHTER C WX4 Me ben March 9, 1995 THOMAS HEDGES Cay Adrnhisholol WENDELL CAUSON E. J. VAN OVERBEKE CITY Clete 1563 MCCARTHY RD EAGAN MN 55122 Dear Mr. Carlson: Thank you very much for your fax of March 6 relative to the City's position on the Runway 4/22 extension. Your concerns are valid ones and if the runway extension would offer any measurable relief to residents in northern Eagan, the City might have considered a different position. As it is, the main effect of a runway extension will be to shift traffic from South Minneapolis to areas south and west of the airport including areas of southern Eagan which are also affected by parallel runways. In addition to the fact that the extension as proposed does little to share Eagan's. noise burden with other cities and actually makes, in worse in some cases, the City's position was that the cost of the proposed runway was an excessive investment in the current airport site, while the dual track airport planning process is still pending. While Eagan has yet to support either expansion of the existing airport or relocation to the Dakota County site, the City has taken the position that excessive investment at 'the current site limits the options available to the region. In considering this - issue and making its recommendation to the City Council, the Airport Relations Commission carefully balanced all of these issues and carefully considered whether any substantial benefit would come from the runway expansion for any part of the City. When they determined that it would not and considered the other.factors noted above, they made the recommendation which the City Council endorsed. Again, thank you for sharing your perceptions with us. If you have any further questions or wish to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at 691-4603. Sincerely, Hohanstein Assistant to the City Administrator MUNICIPAL CENTER THE LONE OAK TREE MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3850 PLOT KNOB ROADh(E EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55172.1897 SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH BV OUR COMMUNITY J6D1 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55171 PHONE: (612) 6614= PHONE: (612) 6814300 FAX (612) 6816612 Equal Oppo"unIlly/AtIlInvIl IB AC11on Employer FAX (612) 661.4160 inn• 1AM do Mk TDD: (612) 6544LWS MINNEHAHA ACADEMY TEL No.612-729-8322 FAX TO: John . Hohenstein FROM: Wendell Carlson DATE: . March 6.. 1995 Mar 6.95 11:12 No.014 P.01 I want to express my disappointment with your opposition to the proposed 4-22 runway extension. As an Eagan resident I believe I represent a large number of residents who feel that sharing the . airplane noise with . our neighboring cities is only fair, This runway extension would do that and the Impact on the southwest portion of Eagan would be very, very minimal. In fairness to the large number of Eagan residents tow affected, I .urge Your reconsideration regarding this matter. We may as well begin encouraging a more equal sharing of the noise because there Is, not even a miniscual chance'the airport will be relocated and even if It were It would tie a decade or two. hank you for your efforts on b i alf' of Eagan residents. i Si 2-94% 912 729 9322 03-09-95 11:19AM P001 n44 FROM: Mike Schlax DATE: 3-8-95 SUBJECT: MASAC Meeting of 3-7-95 Below are the items of interest that occurred at the MASAC meeting of 3-7-95. 1) All MASAC activity concerning the runway 4/22 extension will be delayed until the 3-28-95 meeting at the request of Bloomington and Richfield since they could not have 'their experienced' representatives at the 3-7 meeting. 2) As a result of the MAC/MASAC meeting of October 1994 Jeff Hamiel will try to appear quarterly at a MASAC meeting. His first appearance was at the 3-7 meeting. High Lites of his comments included: --Transition to. new MAC chair Wayne Popham is proceeding all be it slowly. Hamiel will try to keep noise high the MAC agenda.- --Just genda:--Just a few comments on 4/22 extension. MAC tried hard to accommodate the Richfield/Bloomington issues but was unable to find common ground. MAC is prepared to fight it out on both operational and environmental (noise) issues. MAC feels the need fo the 4(22 extension is "desperate"--Hamiel's word. art 156 funding. Hamiel is quite concerned about Federal funding cutbacks. He feels there is a good chance there will be no Federal money for the Part 150 program, but he assured the audience that MAC is prepared to go it alone to continue the 600 home abatement treatments per year. To date they have done about 9000 homes At an average cost of $12000 per home. At present in 1995 they expect to do about 840 homes. --New Noise Metric. John, hopefully, can.explain this for us. But MAC and MASAC staff are working on a new method of measuring noise instead of just using the 65ldn contours. They hope to have the program up for review in the second quarter of 1995. --Federal Funding. There is a good chance that the Aviation Trust Fund monies may be difficult to get impacting present airport expansion plans. 3) Staff Briefings. John Foggia reviewed the noise reports for the period SEPT -DEC. Special note was made of the improvements in the 'south of the localizer' numbers for the corridor. Foggia clarified the old proposed nighttime use ordinance, what it was why it failed, how we got to the present 'voluntary' program. Foggia also addressed issues on runway use for night time resolution by Jim Serrin and a San Diego Noise and Land symposium he attended. 4) Chair Johnson's report on the 2-21-95 MAC meeting. MAC approved the 4/22 extension. The MAC, over objections of NWA and others, approved the Alternative 6 (the new west terminal) for the plan for present expansion.MAC promised to bring the issue up for review before acting.on the issue. Next meeting 3-28-95. Personal Opinion: I think Eagan should join Richfield and Bloomington if they sue the MAC over the 4/22 extension. There is no 'doubt that the west side of Eagan will be negatively impacted by runway 22 departures. I think we have,a right to be concerned.. Just by getting our name in opposition, based on Hamiel comments, I think we have a chance of getting MAC to negotiate with us on the runway 22 paths and profiles. If we continue to do nothing we're going to get buried. d;. 53 AGENDA METROPOLITAN A1RCReFr SOUND ARATEMENT COUNCIL. lentil Meetior MARCH 7,199S 7J0 pa. 6010 289h Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. auto Order, Ron Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting January 2l,199S 3. Introduction of new member. Mr. Dale Karlya, Sun Country Airlines, Senior Director of Station Receipt of Communications 4. Persons Wishing to Address the Cound S. Special Topic - Jeftey Hamlet, MAC Executive Director 6., Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary 7. Report of the MASAC Operations Committee Meetbg 2-16-95 L Staff Clarification of applicability under the RUS of Resolution presorted by Jim Sesrio 1-2d-95 9. Stats Briefing: Jim Kuo:man's request on the September 16,1991, FAA Ruling an Stage 2 Nighttime Operations 10. Staff Briefing: Sao Diego Airport Nobe & Land Use Compatibility Symposium 11. Report of MAC Commission Meeting February 21,1995 12. Other Items Not on the Agenda 13. Adjoarament Next Meeting: March 28,1995 MINUTES MASAC.OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 16, 1995 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Office Lobby Conference Room, and called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 1:00 p.m. The following members were in attendance: Mark Salmon, NWA - Chairman Bob Johnson, MBAR -- Jon Hohenstein, Eagan Charles Curry, ALPA Craig Wruck, St. Paul Dick Keinz, MAC Tom Lowell, Mendota Heights Advoso John Foggia, Technical Advisor Bob Johnson appointed Mark Salmon, Northwest Airlines, Inc., as the new Operations Committee Chairman. Bob Johnson announced that the MAC Planning and Environment Committee approved going forward with the Runway 4122 extension, which will be forwarded to the full Commission 2-21-95. He also announced two upcoming meetings of a technical nature to be held by the FAA ATC on realignment of flight patterns and use and implementation. of GIS (Geographical Information System) by the ATC. The Committee met to "fine-tune" a proposal of the New Noise Management Methodology, prepare a draft final proposal, and respond to a request from the City of Eagan for track data regarding Corridor compliance. Jon Hohenstsin, Eagan, explained the request by the City of Eagen regarding Corridor compliance. The City formally requested MAC staff to prepare track data for the months of June through August 19% which.show operations on or north of the 29L bealizer. Jon explained the purpose of the request is to see whether aircraft which are north of the localizer at three miles track further north & east from neighborhoods down range from the Corridor than do aircraft which intersect the gates. Mr. I ohenstein explained, this information will be valuable in determining whether Improved compliance in the initial three miles will have any effec'on the residents beyond that distance. Eagan wants to know if improved Corridor compliance will cause other problems down -range and 5� the requested tracking data should give them that information. Mr. Hohenstein requested MAC staff to place the request on a list of priorities when staff time is available. John Foggia responded.that he cannot commit to another request at this time with the current staff shortage, and is reluctant to take on anymore regular monthly reporting. He suggested that in the near future, studies and reports -are forthcoming which will -cover many of these questions. Staff Is Interested in Eagan's request, but able to commit only on a "loose" time frame [end of March - earliest) and, only for a single month, not June through August 1994. It was determined that the Operations Committee will prepare a briefing and•a "Draft" document for the MASAC meeting March 28th. One ipore meeting of the Operations Committee will be held to finalize the draft before that date. John Foggia briefed the committee on the history of the new aviation noise management methodology which will replace the Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) reporting methodology. Handouts Included a sample letter dated 8-24-93 mailed to all MSP airlines and a memo to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 11-30-93 on the "Status of the proposed Noise Management Methodology'. Mr. Foggia reiterated that ADNE is difficult for the public to understand. With the development of ANOMS, we now have techniques which will better frame the issue. The main goal of the New Noise Management Methodology is to provide a better management tool. In brief, the three main objectives are : Provide an overall plan which applies to all carriers serving MSP streamlining the existing agreements with various carriers, and providing a continuity to the noise programs at MSP. Insure noise environment improvements from Increased utilization of Stage 3 aircraft, realized to date, remains at least at current levels.. "no backsliding". Formalize for MSP the existing federal provision: after 12-31-99, only Stage 3 aircraft will be allowed to operate at airports in the US (FAA Regulation Part 91.853). The Federal Register Part III DOT/FAA [attached] was reviewed by Mr. Foggia: Part 91.853 Final compliance: Civil subsonic airplanes Part 91.873 Waivers from final compliance Mr. Foggia suggested reporting the average daily number of stage 2 aircraft for an entire quarter (average daily operations) and compare each quarter to the previous year's quarter. We must also recognize sensitivity to aircraft noise during nighttime hours. Shoulder hours will be addressed in 1995 at MASAC.and have already been addressed internally at MAC. Also, there will be "no- badmrrding"...to insure that improvements from increased utilization,of Stage 3 aircraft, remain at least those levels. N .. The following timeline was agreed upon: the Operations Committee will submit changes to the existing proposed Noise Management Methodology In writing no later than March 10th, and most again on March 15th. The final draft will be presented and voted on by MASAC - March 28th. Comments by MSP airlines were noted in a memo to the PBE Committee The, Voluntary Agreements will be signed by MAC and each airline. The Noise Reporter contained an article stating... H the carriers can't comply with federal regulations, they cannot operate. No carriers' certificate has been pulled to date. MAC should formalize the language of FAR Part 91.853 and 91.873 into a MAC Ordinance written to fit federal regulations. (A MAC ordinance does not list any punitive measures. Federal sanctions would rule). If an ordinance is created now, and the federal law changes, then we at least can bring forth the issue at that time. By default we will continue higher stage 3 percentages overtime. The new Noise Management Methodology will include a 'NO -BACKSLIDING" concept. There will be no Increase in Stage 2 operations from one quarter to the some quarter in the following year. Valid federal waivers will be honored In the new Noise Management Methodology. — The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Jean Deighton, Secretary r�q Next Meeting: March 15, 1995, 1:00 p.m., Lobby Conference Room Si MINES AIIII jr M low 40M M M K M M M 0 ME M No Simon a IN M Al 21111 INE w EARN a IMER I ITS Nfeaupolitan Airports CommissAw January 1995 Operations and Complaint Summary Operations Summary - All Aircraft MSP January Fleet Mix Percentage ,gPi Q . �:.. N tall ��, a. 758 Ahtake 0 MM RIN 04 27. 1.2% 43 02% 22 66 0.4% 774 4A% 11 5649 30.6% 6032 34.0% 29 I= 67.8% 1=1 I GIA% MSP January Fleet Mix Percentage ,gPi M.-': . �:.. N -4-- g Uk" ��, a. 758 Ahtake 0 MM Anoka 0 0 cmw 0 0 stage 2 60A 582 W 57.7 Stage 3 39.6 41.8 373 423 Airport January Complaint Summary January Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office I 104wgg:� —3. 4W MSP 533 758 Ahtake 0 1 Anoka 0 0 cmw 0 0 Air Freight 37 35 Lake Elmo 0 0 SL Paul 7 1 Nine- 2 1 January Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office 6) AirCwriw Air 685 728 CARIMMUter 291 322 GA. 106 124 Air Freight 37 35 Charter 20 26 6) MSP JANUARY 1995 COMPLAINT SUMMARY MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT �'� n�'�"s m5'• � f'�y ysxu •L'=L.YXA 5 10e'hRfrosW�c'Y IFAS Va�L Vl' 3-1 .yX;i.St s ' B5iEE Opo 1 71. YA4 to 1 :00 - 115 BDmsvule Low 30 Snt wut CDM RW& 164 1 - 2159 14 Nuke 88 201 289 39.70% Edina �•.F- �[�S'��7rc. -55 ..Tim,. a;.'.. .l IOver ii!'Ove He1gWa 11.77 Mendota Helght8 hfiMtgoBs 61 111 172 23.63% M!®etaolta RchSeld %— Raeemam 1 SOUth SL Paul 1.65% St 341 Sc Louis Peds 3 0 .41 TL Paul 41 FOR TDTAL_.g sag, TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT �'� n�'�"s m5'• � f'�y ysxu •L'=L.YXA 5 10e'hRfrosW�c'Y IFAS Va�L Vl' 3-1 .yX;i.St s ' YeN 0186 06:00.0659 23 YA4 to 1 :00 - 115 195 Low 1 -1559. Snt wut 16..00-19.59 164 HER—v er - 2159 189 Nuke 5 Ease RBtm-uP 23:00-23--59 �•.F- �[�S'��7rc. �k <:.. yn`3'�tcx.,,e&..'_��a.e ..Tim,. a;.'.. I&ropoh= Airports Commission Runway Use. Report - All Operations For January, 1995 MmrJi 7,1995 Faff Jane JADUM7 RUMMY ArrMcp Carat Pa ho 1994 cown 1994 Paccour 04 A 227 . . . . . . . . . . ........ 146 M95 IIL A2741 2407 IIR A 2909 2323 22 A66 66 29L A 4045 29R A 5834 1.9961, 4011+.38996r t TOTALARR. 184199096 nM 04 D 43 86 fi 6791t' IIL D 2978 gb165 6 2500 ?096 x IIR D 3054 2423 22 D 774 IN i 3M t 29L I D 5558 3643 29R D 53433543 TOTAL DER �17750 ml=z = 12497 MmrJi 7,1995 Faff q.::w,:; Runway Use Report Nighttime -All Operations For January, 1"S Match 7,1995 ��4 PW 10 janum inum RMMY AuMv could PacwtW M 1994 Carat PawntW 04 A 27 17 lij$kOM 11L A 34 29 IIR A 88 44 u 96 22 A 2 6 29L A 520 274 29R A 129 00 TOTAL ARR. 111111�800 8 0 520 04 D 0 9 .19 IIL D 414 44 57 IIR D IL593 M11C 94 22 D 34 12 29L D 69 42 29R D 15 15 23 . . . . . . 96w, n TOTAL DEP. M6 324 247 Match 7,1995 ��4 PW 10 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations By Type Janaary,1995 .- Ahmft 7jpe canoe IPaommee B7'M 183 0.8% D= 281 13% 8707 0 O.0% 11733M 13% 62% B747 136 Q6% B74F 8 QO% B757 1786 82% B767 1 O.O% DA10 4 .0.0% DC10 984 43% DC67 114 OS% EA32 2159 10.0% PS10 839 4.0% L1011 71 03% 1D11 6 0.0% MD80 1271 5.9% BA10 2 00% BALI 12 01% 8727 4148 19.1% B737 482 22% DC8 83 0.4% DC86 32 02% DC9 7698 35A% PSZB 59 03% 7b1a1N2"09s 423%Sbw3 57.7% Stage 2 March 7.1995 (0 **) Pop 13 Metropolitan Ahpm-ts Commission Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For January, MIS Count Of EI For Each Rbff Mawk 7.1995 on Pop 19 MM .... ... 01 1 g ......... �Mt P ... Touts is 1 hfian"Poss Xc=A==&4lstSant 3953 71 2 0 2 Ifmogapas Fzman: Aveme & 43rd Suva 2614 347 1 0 3 IGM@Pdjt W Elmwood SUM & Belmom Avmm 3114 1586 32 0 4 Ifigmelpas Odd=dAve=&49diStreet 2852 1214 2 0 5 WbWApofis 121h Avemm & SM SUM 3681 2512 533 0 6 WbWAPO& 251i Aveme & 57th SUM 3693 2481 323 4 7 RiAfipja Wastworch Ave & I&& Sam 1.87 38 4 0 8 Ifinkespolis 1408hHow Avmm & Ord Sweet 263 34 8 0 9 St Pull SMajap SUM & Hartford AnM 45 30 5 0 10 St. Pad Itasca knew & Bowdein Sweet 35 21 12 0 11 SL Pad F= Saes & Scbeffer Aveme 12 5 3 0 12 SL Pad Alto SUM & Rockwood Avow 10 8 2 0 13 Wkwotamthts Soodeast and of Mahican Camt 26 is 4 0 14 Ewa . Fast Sates & MEW SUN 3271 163 a 0 is Meadow HO*n 0W1cnSwat &Te*stmANaaoe 170 43 2 0 16 Ewa Avdm Ame & Was Lam 2714 ini 14 0 17 RkMIffn;nMM U&Saar ,14th Aveme 73 51 5 0 is PUcdbdfiWcM 75th Sweet & 17th Aveme 113 83 4 0 19 Bbommgma 16dLAw=&3ftSaar 19 17 4 2 2D Pich" 75th Suat & 3fd M— 10 6 1 0 21 Inca Grove B*W Barbara q - - & 67th Saar 108 31 1 0 22 Irwin amnsdeft Arne Marie lkell 1250 31 2 0 23 Mendota MOW End of Endw Am= 1313 83 15 0 24 Eqpm OMFdLjM&WnmL=c $51 71 5 0 Mawk 7.1995 on Pop 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events For January, 1995 Count Of Events For Each Rbrr March 7. 1995 41 Pap 2( Xa=Avww&41stSweet -N. 223 34 6 1 2 bfinupob Fnm= Ave= & 43rd SUM 238 72 a 0 3 bn=VO& WElmwood Saes &P -h -m Amore 943 228 24 1 4 bfime4pli Oddind A%=& 49di Said no 592 81 10 5 bf=evwis U& Amme & SI& Son zm 1173 wo 61 6 Minaespolis 25th Arewe & 57th Soft 3315 1627 820 545 7 Richfield V&nnm* Ave & 64th Sum 1331 454 68 8 wbw-qdb LongkBow Amme & 43rd Saw 693 257 38 1 9 SL Pad sarstop Sam& Hartford Avemre 33 4 0 0 10 SL PAW Itasca Aveme & Bowdom Sum 31 10 1 0 11 SL P=1 FIM Sulu & Schaffer Avemre 21 5 1 0 12 SL Paul Ahm Sum & PAdmvW Avow 38 is 0 0. 13 lk=bts Bmigft Sau&east end of Mohican Ona 342 243 16 3 14 Fagan First Sweet & Sum 2718 $43 91 2 is h(enfte EW4;bm CUBm SUft & T my6gM AM= 2450 831 V 3 16 Emu Awalm Ayenae & Was Ime 3891 1917 483 12 17 zbmiqgm 34thSaes & 4th Aws= 142 43 9 0 is It"apid 75th SUM & 171h AKme 323 191 58 is 19 Bloomingm 16&AY@mw&8ftStreet 271. 131 45 5 20 Richfield 7SthSweet & 3rd Avww 231 32 7 0 21 laver Grove Heights Baftrz Avemte & 671h Sum 1012 152 4 0 22 hmwGwvcB*bts AnseMwisTmH 1151 143 0 0 23 Modom HdShts 1wafranam.A PMP "M 2109 iml 16 24 E*w Chapel Lor & Wim L= 542 a 21 0 March 7. 1995 41 Pap 2( MetopoUtan Airports r..=:.z:... • Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court RMT #14:1st St. & McKee St' Mendota Heights Eagan Bre lime A/C .. Ma: lid AID 01/130519:49:45 B727 101.6 D 01/14/95 8:19:36 8727 1013 D OLWJ95 9:45:39 8727 IOOA - D 01/1319519.57:08 B727 99.6 D 01/13195 20:220:16 DC9 99.1 D 0112319516.40.33 B727 98.6 D 01114M 20:10:44 8727 982 D 0100513:48:31 8727 973 D 01/13195 9:48:13 B727 962 A 011010517:01:53 DC9 95.8 D RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights We 75me � Dave! A/D 01113M 16:39.50 B727 101.8 D OL401M 170-13 DC9 1012 D OIA305 9:48:37 8727 IOOA D 01010511:36 31 B727 99.7 D 01240516.40.31 B737 992 D 011090516:53.48 8727 98.6 D 01080519.53:27 8727 982 D 0111405 9:47:26 8727 97.6 D O1A1195 931:30 B727 97.1 D 01/1505 908:26 B727 96.8 D Maak7.1995 Date75me � Im AID 0123051&5936 8727 101.6 D 01090517.48.07 B727 101.2 D GUAM 1WIA6 B727 99.8 D 011181951738:44 B727 99.2 D OIOM 1934:13 DC9 99.1 D O1A6051&15.45 2727 99.0 D O1109M 13:10:% B727 982 D OlAM 170:20 2727 97.1 D 01/1719513:2621 8727 %3 D 01/14/95 9-%51 B737 %.8 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Was Lane DreTime � u A/D 01/1319513:0733 B727 102.9 D OIA619517.4234 B727 102.8 D OIMM 8:03:19 8727 1023 D 011010510:02:17 B737 1019 D 01/1605 62MM B727 101.7 D 0110705 23:4908 B727 101.4 D 01/!80516:4825 8727 1013 D 0125/95 8.01:16 DC9 1 1012 D 01/1319517:00:23 8727 101.1 OIMJ951&W.43 8 727 101.0 !Dd I X24 Metropolitan Airports Cm,�,,� Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove Heights Inver Grove Heights Date 75me A1C ,ry1 . Max Level AID OlAM 9:43.•02 B727 912 D Olfim 11:16.11 DC9 91.1 A 01105195 93857 B727 90.8 D 01MM 101527 8727 90.6 D 01106195102630 BEM 90.1 D 01/1719517:1754 DC9 89.7 A 01116195 5:13:53 B727 892 D 010951055:29. DC9 883 A OWAM 17:19:38 B737 879 A OlAM 1157:43 DC9 87.8 D RMT #23: End of Benndon Ave. Mendota Heights Dab Tie m " 1 ewd A/D OlWM 13.41:50 B727 403.8 D 0]/16195 17:12:22 B727 103.7 D 01/1619514:32:17 DO 1035 D OWAM 16:29.18 8727. 103.2 D 01/24195 161)6:45 8727 102.8 D OI/1A195 2139:19 8737 102.7 D 01/18A51952:06 B727 1023 D 0121195 7?A:13 8727 1023 D O1A9195 23:07.40 B727 1022 D 01/18195 20.2458 B727 102.1 D Ma b7.1995 Date7lme � Max AID Ol/MM 21:06:09 B727 892 D 01/1619513:12:10 B727 89.0 D 01I08f95 9.3430 DC9 889 D 01/" 9:33:10 DC9 88.7 D 0IM19516:5737 B727 885 D 01106195 8:18:48 B727 883 D OVD7M 13.49.06 DC9 88.1 D 01/111951858:45 B727 87.7 D OU07195 9.11.07 B727 872 D 0100 12:14:11 DO 86 8 D RMT #24: Chapel In. & wren Im. Eagan Date7lme , Pop 26 AIC � A/D 01/15195 9.48:53 B727 962 D OIAl/9513:47A3 B737 96.1 A 01/2619519.29:08 8727 .95A D 01/161951130:16 DC9 952 D 011071951909:17 B737 94.7 A 01251951050:40 DC9 943 A 01WA5195031 DC9 933 D OLWM 948:04 DC9 92.8 D 0125195 2131:23 1 11727 92.1A 010)95 13:15:46 B727 91.7 A Pop 26 ' �.y ? Minneapolis St. Paul. International Airport Analysis of Noise Events with 71me/Date January 01 to January 31,1995 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DA -12 n N #3 #4 n /6 87 0 A Ito 111 112 013 014 HS H6 117 me II9 ' 120 171 122 Iii 024 1 392 5910 38.8 aQ4 71.1 77A 639 39.8 • 53A 47.7 51.1 473 3&7 53.7 67.7 65.1 7110 69.9 60.0 • 39A 56.6 623 2 579 57.7 59A .613 71.1 • 66.1 612 • 504 40.9 47A 47.1 SU $72 67.8 SU 693 682 50.9 427 BOA 603 62A 3 51S`2 663 66.2 63.1 743 772 .59.9 '62A 51.9 S&O 421 5510 59A 64.9 5107 712 629 663 503 55.0 50.1 60.9 69.1 672 4 W. 573 60.9 63.1 72A 712 6710 6210 32.6 37A 3710 5710 4310 621 51L7 70.2 SQA 0.5 64A 50.1 • 37A • 63.1 3 362 !OA 61.1 672 76.9 On V.S. 6610 60.0 679 53.1 621 57A 99A 64.6 6910 17A 623 SBA 59.1 493 623 • 643 6 5&1 !BA 63.9 67.6 77.1 783 0.6 61A '373 '51.6 SU 512 303 67.9 34.9 7010 479 SQA 47A 751019.1 612 0 6310 7 55.9 S73 59.0 03 723 763 619 39.5 b3 35A _ 319 572 33.1 6510 60.2 VA 625 7" "A • SIA 57b • 61.6 8 57.8 573 59.1 60.1 67.9 73.7 623 SU 273 44A • !11' 41.7 573 329 67A 623 73A 6&1 • 37A 123 593 39.9 9 3910 6110 64! 0.6 7010 702 567 61.1 41.2 5410 57.1 49 613 64.7 63A692 49.9. $73 302 • 61.1 63A 72.3 67.2 10 622 643 69.1 662 69.7 7111 53.8 5710 429 603 SSA 583 6310 6410 666 683 47.7 554 31.9 80.7 603 613 727 64A _ 11 - 61.1 627 70.2 63.6 727 71.9 SIA 373 4310 SQA 41L7 492 64.1 6410 "A 70.1 47.7 352 433 453 MO 614 • 61.6 12 SBA 627 67.7 72.6 74.8 827 694 SU 47.7 47.9 428 47A 33.7 6/A !B2 712 474 393 =A "A 527 622 0 63.9 13 661 612 632 66.7 692 793 702 63A 44.1 ' 51.9 51.1 412 361 6410 S4.1 703 3610 70.7 662 64A 41.7 61.7 592 6S.2 14 5710 573 62A 642 7410 77A 67.9 60.7 M.9 469 467 413 309 62! 50.8 6S3 US 773 4" 63A 493 5&9 36.1 62.4 1! 5110 60A 65.9 639 69A 69.1 60.2 63A 41.9 5710 3410 .503 6310 63A 6510 70.1 621 673 662 4910 621 623 727 61.9 16 623 64A 70.7 6&2 71.7 73A 612 6&1 49A 61.7 !B3 S66 65.9 60.7 67A 669 519 611 47.6 48A 6110 61.7 73A 661 17 64.1 65.7 69.9, 69A 73.7 802 6&7 64.8 53A 61.1 S24 SU 61.8 61.1 WA 67.7 39.7 543 '!!.1 59.1 SBA 39.1 • 6210 IB 6010 620 622 653 712 79.1 67.7 6210 51.1 33.7 BOA SSb 529 393 _59.7 67.7 62.6 7210 71A 542 47A SQA • 63A 19 394 392 61.6 663 73.7 789 71.1 6310 SBA !43 ]B.6 3410 593 64.7. 616 70.6 60.2 70.1 7210 !63 !22 6110 102 64.9 20 SO2 37.7 6110 93A 730 T/A 68.6 664 442 43.1 MA !OA 40.1 5910 SUB 49A 6110 67.9 693 343 40.9 61.7 621 63.1 M616O0.ins Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Analysis of Noise Events with 'lime/Date January 01 to January 31,1995 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE 01 a Il #4 1 85 i6 47 ss A 910 011 812 I13 I14 I IIS 016 IN 1 018 I19 I20 I21 I22 I Ili I nI 21 40A 366 60.7 622 72A 763 693 663 Mb 48.6 413 433 • 627 53A 693 683 74A 70A, 61A 44.9 336 383 1 627 22 62LO 62A 62.7 4&1 72.1 7&1 67A 62.9 SIA 48A 49A • • S82 513 6&7 336 WA 64.7 33.9 35.1 $92 37.7 63A 23 57.0 36A S69 61.9 68.8 769 643 "A S&I 49.8 47.1 31.7 473 ' ' S7A 37A 67.9 57.0 692 70.1 322 493 069 60.7 61.8 Z• 333 36.7 603 60.7 68.6 713 39.9 S62 SOA 38.6 532 73.9 "A 610 63A 70.1. ,362 38.7 52.9 483 68A 61.9 72A 64.6 25 353 568 60A 627 0.4 74A 633 57.8 492 52A 463 49.7 .17.0 603 61.0 69.1 600 67.9 69A SIA 55.9 39A 713 62A 26 MA 593 673 65.1 72.1 - 71.1. 629 6&I 483 672 SBA S&2 64.0 643 667 71A X47.8 33.1 461 433 61.6 WA 759 66.1 27 SU 612 6S2 643 68.7 4W 619 64.6 • 60.1 56.6 SSA 613 661 643 72A 589 619 43A • "A 63A 72.0 66.1 28 37A 612 644 1 62A 67A 689 SU 33A 4" 51.1 48A 47.8 612 67A 643 72A SBA 60.7 43A 499 61.1 643 729 673 29 37A 373 58A 62A 703 766 633 392 IBA SOA 503 39.7 SOA 63A 323 69.0 64.9 733 713 629 433 613 58.6 643 30 .57.0 59A 61.9 GSA 733 7&9 61.6 61A 4"61A 57A 63.7 56.8 642 673 69.9 619 727 72.0 33.7 44.7 602 63.6 64.1 31 58.9 39.7 399 67.1 70A 78.1 65A 62A ISA 542 163 36.9 54.6 682 61.1 ' 723 600 69.6 712 33.7 493 629 663 66.9 - M• 7 ti4. Q0.6 0"66.1. 63.9 72_7 773 663 627 382 373 S42 563 "A ee MEM 613 63A 699 60.1 69A 67.1 679 !63 61S 692 643 elm em hmnly-our Moms Of" 41"Ame Aviation Noise ANOMS Monthly Review Programs MSPMonthly Complaint Summary LI nn�nn�ii��nnnnn .III nn�nni�ii�n�wnnn 111MI171V������tl���itllvl'17�1"I!� IAl I IiII I2,I I>,� I,I --- --- - - -- - - ._._._.... ��i �a���� ����� ������ ..T.....:.....:......... ����'� ��s��� ,..-.�...T..�...-..vim..-... ������ ����s ����� ------i ---- ------ .___.... s�i ------- ---- ------ ------ ---- � ----- ANOMS Monthly Review Percentage 100 " g0 70 60 SO 10 30 m i0 w w w w e g z Aviation Noise Programs 'vals -All Operations Summary w • w w w n w w w w w w w w w w s axe O z Over Minneapolis Over Bagan/Mendots Heights Over Bloomington Over 9t. Paul a ANOMS Monthly Review i Aviation Noise Programs Departures -All Operations Summary q V _ O Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul CONTENTS L Dual Track Planning Process ..................... I-1 through I-37 MAC/Met Council Recommendation to the Legislature ........................... I-38 through I-70 IL New Airport Comprehensive Plan Draft AED ........ II -1 through II -27 IIL MSP Long -Term Comp Plan Draft AED ......... III -1 through III -15 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation ............ III -16 through III -27 Resolution for MAC Comp Plan for Airport Expansion ........................ M-28 through III -29 IV. Remote Runway Study ................................... IV -1 V. Star Tribune Articles .......................... V-1 through V-3 VL Estimates of Magnitude of Economic Development Around the Proposed Airport Site .............. VI -1 through VI -28 VII.. Relocating the Airport: Potential Development and Policy Impacts ........................ VII -1 through VII -35 2D E. 186 liar 1 or your inform )rld air travel nps 8 percent ; re than 2 billion passengers used world's airports last year, an 8 7. :ent increase over 1993, accord- t to a report by Airports Council t mati6nal. t fare International Airport in i sago was the world's busiest, I t 66.4 million passengers, fol - ed by Atlanta at 54.1 million i Dallas -Fort Worth at 52.6 10 also included London's w, 51.7 million; Los Angeles, Ilion; Frankfurt, 35.1 mil- n.Francisco, 34.6 million; 33.1 million; Miami, 30.2 and New York's Kennedy,. y half the passenger arrivals, tures or transits were regis- in North America — 998 mil - followed by Europe with 632 in and the Pacific with 268 in, the council said. un American and the Caribbean h d 107 million, Asia 48 million d Africa 14 million. T 7r Airport Comparison, March 1995 14 1883.00012,420166,5W.000 11385.0001 73 12 1841,00012,300152,400,0001800,0001 77 8 1716.00011,970154,100,0001590,0001 UNK 10 1531.00011,460 133,135,000 1421,000 1 66 12 1531,00011,460133,135,000 1421,000 1 66 8 1510.00011,400124800.0001 51.000 1 80 4 1491,0001 1,350125,500,0001 261,000 1 72 10 1486,0001 1,330126,100,0001 123,000 1 38 10 1480,0001 1,320123,250,0001 64,000 1 32 10 1471.0001 1,290 125.200.0001390.000 1 69 6 1455,00011,250122,000,0001350.0001 42 Page 1 g Ch1mg0•Q'1# " 312 686.3553 Judith 14 miles ' 312 686-2219 Ooettells Chicago 150 ft 113,850 7,700 .li„telt .. ,� .. Karen Dallas - 214574 -3197 574-3197 Robertson Port worth 17 miles N/A 18,000 404 991-9664 �a Atlanta 11 miles 14 000 7,800 2,0001 303 342-2200 Brian a ext 2361 Ryks Denier 25 miles 150 34.000 q: 303 342-2200 BrienDenver m _� ext 2361 OM Ryks 10 tulles 15,000 4,700 y:R 2 Sega I Jacob N 702 261-57x3O Snow Les Vegas 5 miles 17,100 2,200 s Pfl ,:i 602 273-3475 Shawn Phoenix 5 miles 14.000 2,032 sem.. �i(e118tiriAal=�' 602 273-8874 Arena Sean , 313 942-3792 Brosnan . Detroit 27 miles 10,400 6,700 Jamie St Louis 12 miles s e 314731-5707 %l�rilrnfiir f Igckea Bridgeton .25 miles 4400 2100 u .I .. � > ton Y u'R` 617 561-1636 Betty •90.41AW 3 ,as�fttii`rtiaidtiatl 617 561-1886 Derosiers Boston 3 miles m 9 mo 4500 i ( � j po1T9PuiEi TracNfii x filitt 612 725-8338 tt'nidtior Erickson eapolls 6 miles 32.000 3,200 yyy 14,000 Homes Sound Insulated to Date i 2,000 Homes Purchased within 75 Ldn 14 1883.00012,420166,5W.000 11385.0001 73 12 1841,00012,300152,400,0001800,0001 77 8 1716.00011,970154,100,0001590,0001 UNK 10 1531.00011,460 133,135,000 1421,000 1 66 12 1531,00011,460133,135,000 1421,000 1 66 8 1510.00011,400124800.0001 51.000 1 80 4 1491,0001 1,350125,500,0001 261,000 1 72 10 1486,0001 1,330126,100,0001 123,000 1 38 10 1480,0001 1,320123,250,0001 64,000 1 32 10 1471.0001 1,290 125.200.0001390.000 1 69 6 1455,00011,250122,000,0001350.0001 42 Page 1 Airport Comparison, March 1995 Page 2 'Ills Mg 412 472-3542 Pittsburgh 8 miles UNK 12,200 8 443,000 1,220 CENK UNK UNK Rltfbritltt3 H M� CGt�ptfatiPioi theMl! Kenl 606 283-3151 Herb Cincinnati 25 miles 2,700 606 767-7800 SChen f p 3 Communities 2 miles (eo(auy) 6.500 6 370,000 1,010 14,800,000 291,000 67 a@� xgr�j�F_ fr_k� /- $ N? •=11,1,; ['L1isir F in' K� a ttetiti�191Y, s 905 676.4537 Toronto 15 miles 38,500 4,200 6 310,000 850 20,400,000 353,000 60 �Ite1 �Selt%akeCtl Steve Salt Lake 150,000 801575-2991 Domino Cit 7 miles 100 7,500 6 343,000 940 17,000,000 50 'i9 If �V1'iafthi t,ki 410 859-7770 Tbny Baltimore 10 miles • 410859-7029 Storck Glen Burny 0.5 miles 5100 3160 8 296,000 810 12,300,000 160,000 50 �i�Hertle���piitt� g �' tttaltvllhlt� 3tiEte.�.t Martha , 615 399-0585 Bradley Nashville Smiles 4,000 4,00 8 295,000 810 8,600,000 77,000 68 a�° 6 a slliegblDnrbitt ; Armeado . �� r£�tttetwtefloitul 919 940-2110 ,lovar ltallegh 15 tulles UNK 5,000 6 277,000 760 9,000,000 11,000 54 ?�1Netibp�ti's Solomon V.'rg-01 %r 901922-8789 Garrett Memphis P 9 miles 10,000 5,000 6 264,000 730 7,960,000 914,000 38 V a x natmtttil���E s 9 Q3"Mt ��S'rSPt- ' WRiO a y�: 206 433-5216 Dianne . 1$e(tttle•'113t kb �p ;s 1tttxtatlotial 206 248-7452 Summerhays Seattle 10 tulles 64,000 2,000 4 253,000 640 20,972,000 410,000 83 ,,� Denise 816 274-2300 Wdmsmeyer Kansas City 20 miles 58 10,000 6 204,000 560 8,800,000 108,000 50 s.ItltEl'tt>it�(1nHl, s�,�, E,:: zY ' EXNll101v lttttt Q[a : Sean & 313 942-3792 7 miles N/A 2,360 10 161,000 440 N/A 64,000 32 x tE Airport�3f BrosnanDearoit a i)aylottF;' 513454 Jim Dayton 15 miles , 4500 6 160,000 440 2,600,000 720,000 UNK `r. Ittiernaliuita 513 454-8216 Davis Vandalia l miles s : <.< Page 2 - June 1, 1994 { D/M p ) 1� , i— Dn e , C )UAL' 'nn' / (/lW Mr. Wes Minter WCCO Radio - 625 Second Avenue South = -- - Minneapolis, MN 55402---- Dear 5402-=-Dear Mr. 'Minter:- . Several days ago, your s w was'playing y -car radio. I heard you make a comment that we>3is <3.n like...what business does _-- -. North Dakota have in what our airport.- Since I'musually working and unab to the radio, I may be taking the comment out of con est. Hhere are some enlightening facts, if that :Ls the case. Seventy-four percent of North Dakota air passengers travel on Northwest Airlines or AirLink. That amounts to about a million- = tickets a year that originate from four locations. That's not bad for a population of about 640,000 people. Eighty percent of the passengers continue on to other locations, and will more than likely use MSP as a hub on their return flights. The remaining travelers take care of business in the Twin Cities and return, again using our locally -based airline. North Dakotans pay ticket -tax (10%) that ends up in the federal coffers. Just like everyone else who uses airline service, they contrcontribute money that eventually, through the FAA, is shared at ibute used for airport improvement. In addition, North Dakotans pay a $6.00 (round trip) facility charge on every ticket purchased. All of these funds are used by MSP. - MSP is North Dakota's only hub airport that offers major jet service. North Dakota has always been a comp lemen o Minnesota, but the treatment North Dakota has received not always been complimentary. In the past, railroads ori inati_ in Minnesota have oroduced fine —profits -for owners-,--much-of gain coming about by -hauling grain --- from North Dakota. In a s North Dakota farmers have fed Minnesotans since 1889. North Dakota event ly created tEN, Melland Elevator Company to avoid being take advantage of by -t robber barons living in this area. r t L t , k 4 �H • A • i r Y �n . t J s _' µ •i . ;'•`a �;,>, T<'ip�rX�•,if� yam:. to be looked at" Long said "The Separating the location of the run- State Rep. Dee Long, DFL Miane, thing that I find interesting is the ways from maintenance buildings at apofiR has drafted a bill to make the concept that you would not have the the terminal would be unworkable study of the remote- runway idea a cost involved in completely moving and costly for the airline, she said 4 and establishing a new airport." 4F.: .f4.tG t , k 4 �H • A • i r Y �n . t J s _' µ •i . ;'•`a �;,>, T<'ip�rX�•,if� yam:. Lip Airport/ say 1oe qed from page IA Tuesday/March 21/1995/Star Tribune Residents of Dakota County the only bonus Gloria Pinke, a resident of Dakota County who has represented the area on phases of phaof the study of the airport's future, said residents there tub offended by the idea because it implies that "We can just move the n6rse to Dakota County, give Dakota County, the noise and nothing else." Nbnhwest Airlines also opposes the idea "Thy, concept will simply result in substandard facilities, each costing hurt ds of millions of dollars, split twpm two sites separated by 16 to 20 mom" said Kathleen Gaylord Nbnhwest government affairs diteo- tT, in;a letter to the MAC MAI;,Exmtive Director Jeff Harriet seed the commission agreed to ex- plom the idea because "enough citi- zen concern has been expressed that we feel that we have to at least take a look at it" .r The;commission will pay Turner C611ie & Braden Inc. of Fort Worth, Tfxa,, (50,000 to evaluate the idea ovef the next sit months "We think that this is going to be viewed by everyb9dy as a fair way of giving an unbiOW look at this concept," He- mlel said. I ". Almoit six years of study have al- ready gone into the dual track" comparison of expanding the current aitport,or building a new one in Dakota County. The MAC'S final recorquiendation is due by July 1996. ti! a b_ I -E they'll get is noise The look at the remote-ninway idea warily studying the spot in Rose - will determine whether it should be mount discounts all the work that elevated to the status of a third track has been done to choose the best site. and studied further, said Commis- sioner Patrick O'Neill of St. Paul. chairman of the MAC committee that oversees the dual -track study. The site envisioned for the runways is about 7,000 acres owned by. the University of Minnesota just south of Rosemount. Because the airport and the site are about 16 miles apart, •you're talking about some pretty fancy transit technology that would be needed," O'Neill said "You'd have to have a people mover of some sort.' A rail connection between the run- ways and the terminal would be in- convenient for passengem, said Gay- lord of Northwest The airline pro- vides 80 percent of the air service to the Twin Cities. "Passengers connecting between Bights require a full range of terminal services including waiting areas, tick- et counters, concessions and public space to be available within minutes of their gate," she said. She said it would impossible for passengers to shuttle back to the terminal for these services and still make connections. "The remote -runway concept was re- viewed and discarded as being unfea- sible way back in the search -arta process," she said. -Nowhere in the world are they in use." Newhall, a retired lawyer, and Henry Snyder, a retired executive of Ecolab Inc., have argued in a joint position paper that the plan is workable. "Rosemount lies along a Soo Line right of way which easily could be acquired for fast light-rail transit ... If trains were leaving the terminal every'six minutes and arriving at Rosemount eight minutes later (about the time it now takes to walk down the airport's Gold Concourse), passengers and their luggage could cheek in at the present terminal and in 15 to 20 minutes they could board a plane at the Rosemount terminal." "A mini -terminal could be built at the Rosemount site with fast food; reswooms and other essentials .. Northwest's maintenance hangers . could remain at [the existing airpon], with one runway to serve them," Newhall and Snyder said. A new track for. the airport? - i The so-Wed"clehiched in Is -be studied by Bre �T�rtao Metropolitan Airports Commission. Paesasseennggers wmiltl use ftteaxls8ng tarminal, then be shunted to . runwaIn Rosemount about 76 miles Propone is seamy the arrangement would coat less and useless land than building a new airport In Dakota County. F�Jt1— (5) as mm. TA Man "I think this is an option that needs to be looked at" Long said "The Separating the location of the run- State Rep. Dee Long, DFL Miane, thing that I find interesting is the ways from maintenance buildings at apofiR has drafted a bill to make the concept that you would not have the the terminal would be unworkable study of the remote- runway idea a cost involved in completely moving and costly for the airline, she said 4 and establishing a new airport." Airport/ say 1oe qed from page IA Tuesday/March 21/1995/Star Tribune Residents of Dakota County the only bonus Gloria Pinke, a resident of Dakota County who has represented the area on phases of phaof the study of the airport's future, said residents there tub offended by the idea because it implies that "We can just move the n6rse to Dakota County, give Dakota County, the noise and nothing else." Nbnhwest Airlines also opposes the idea "Thy, concept will simply result in substandard facilities, each costing hurt ds of millions of dollars, split twpm two sites separated by 16 to 20 mom" said Kathleen Gaylord Nbnhwest government affairs diteo- tT, in;a letter to the MAC MAI;,Exmtive Director Jeff Harriet seed the commission agreed to ex- plom the idea because "enough citi- zen concern has been expressed that we feel that we have to at least take a look at it" .r The;commission will pay Turner C611ie & Braden Inc. of Fort Worth, Tfxa,, (50,000 to evaluate the idea ovef the next sit months "We think that this is going to be viewed by everyb9dy as a fair way of giving an unbiOW look at this concept," He- mlel said. I ". Almoit six years of study have al- ready gone into the dual track" comparison of expanding the current aitport,or building a new one in Dakota County. The MAC'S final recorquiendation is due by July 1996. ti! a b_ I -E they'll get is noise The look at the remote-ninway idea warily studying the spot in Rose - will determine whether it should be mount discounts all the work that elevated to the status of a third track has been done to choose the best site. and studied further, said Commis- sioner Patrick O'Neill of St. Paul. chairman of the MAC committee that oversees the dual -track study. The site envisioned for the runways is about 7,000 acres owned by. the University of Minnesota just south of Rosemount. Because the airport and the site are about 16 miles apart, •you're talking about some pretty fancy transit technology that would be needed," O'Neill said "You'd have to have a people mover of some sort.' A rail connection between the run- ways and the terminal would be in- convenient for passengem, said Gay- lord of Northwest The airline pro- vides 80 percent of the air service to the Twin Cities. "Passengers connecting between Bights require a full range of terminal services including waiting areas, tick- et counters, concessions and public space to be available within minutes of their gate," she said. She said it would impossible for passengers to shuttle back to the terminal for these services and still make connections. "The remote -runway concept was re- viewed and discarded as being unfea- sible way back in the search -arta process," she said. -Nowhere in the world are they in use." Newhall, a retired lawyer, and Henry Snyder, a retired executive of Ecolab Inc., have argued in a joint position paper that the plan is workable. "Rosemount lies along a Soo Line right of way which easily could be acquired for fast light-rail transit ... If trains were leaving the terminal every'six minutes and arriving at Rosemount eight minutes later (about the time it now takes to walk down the airport's Gold Concourse), passengers and their luggage could cheek in at the present terminal and in 15 to 20 minutes they could board a plane at the Rosemount terminal." "A mini -terminal could be built at the Rosemount site with fast food; reswooms and other essentials .. Northwest's maintenance hangers . could remain at [the existing airpon], with one runway to serve them," Newhall and Snyder said. A new track for. the airport? - i The so-Wed"clehiched in Is -be studied by Bre �T�rtao Metropolitan Airports Commission. Paesasseennggers wmiltl use ftteaxls8ng tarminal, then be shunted to . runwaIn Rosemount about 76 miles Propone is seamy the arrangement would coat less and useless land than building a new airport In Dakota County. F�Jt1— (5) as mm. TA Man "I think this is an option that needs to be looked at" Long said "The Separating the location of the run- State Rep. Dee Long, DFL Miane, thing that I find interesting is the ways from maintenance buildings at apofiR has drafted a bill to make the concept that you would not have the the terminal would be unworkable study of the remote- runway idea a cost involved in completely moving and costly for the airline, she said third track in the "dual track" study. and establishing a new airport." She said last week that she may re- Pinke, who worked on the Metmpofi- consider it now that the MAC has tan Council task force that chose the proceeded on its own. site for a new airport. said that arbi- i 10,010 1 d Press fiefs in hting a .000. The Chairman or me mare Finance Committee said Monday that both Republi- cans and Democrats on the panel were prepared to make spending cuts "of an Im- mense magnitude" — up to $700 billion by 2002 — to erase the federal deficit, If both parties will give their po- litical blessing. Page 7A. Remote airport runways? • � w n _ � �..�........+� ,.-I...-.f +ho nneoihilitv MAC approves stu y o e By Laurie Blake Staff Writer The Metropolitan Airports Commis- sion voted Monday to spend S50.000 to study, an unusual airport expan- sion idea: leave the terminal where it is and move the runways 16 miles southeast to Rosemount. The idea has not been included in the extensive "dual track" study of fu- ture airport capacity needs, but south Minneapolis noise opponents are is Eau Claire parry. -ss than Minne- ltz, Eau lopment nd Eau acentive riuion in .s, grants lopment v Hutch - :he com- Local communities in Minnesota of- fered incentives for Hutchinson to relocate, but their packages were less favorable. .,The cities did offer incentives but the state of Minnesota did not, Craig said. Hutchinson continued on page 9A promoting it as the ideal compromise between those who want to build a new airport in Dakota County and those who want to expand the exist. ing airPorL -The appeal is this," said Norm Newhall, president of the citizen group called Minnesota Public Lob- by. -Most people who say we don't want to move the airport say so be- cause it is convenient for them where it is. This preserves the convenience of the present location and it also pos y:, moves the noise out of a populated area and down to a more scOmly populated area." The remote -runway concept has been kicked around for 20 years. Now that it has been approved for study,.ane of the. chief questions to be answered is how passengers would get fropi the terminal to the runways. Among the options is a high-speed rail system. Airport continued on page 6A Tuesday, March 21, 1996 80th day; 285 to go this year Sunrise: 6:16. Sunset: 6:27 Partly sunny. High 45-50. Wind be- coming light and variable. Comin 4,5E Obituaries 48 Movies 8D TV,Redio K Com�indox 2A2A General lnfomtatlon 673-4000 ClaesHlede 673.7000 Cireuletion 6734343 ort -800.775-4344 03218 11111111111 7 67273 1111111111111 1 Copyright 1995 Star Tribune Volume XIII/Number 351 6 sections MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE March 14,1995' A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, March 14, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Pat Todd, Bob Cooper, Steve Soderling, Lance Staricha and alternate, Jane Vanderpool. Absent was Lois Monson. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. AGENDA With an addition under New Business of C. Goal Setting for Subgroups there was a motion by Schlax, seconded by Starichs, all members voting in favor, the agenda was approved as presented. MINUTES The February 14, 1995 minutes were reviewed and corrections made to page 6 of the packet (page one of the minutes), to the beginning of the last paragraph which should read, "During the discussion, Cooper questioned ...." On page 9 (page 4 of the minutes) paragraph six, second sentence should read, "Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schlax ...... the meeting was extended...' Upon motion by Vanderpool, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the February 14, 1995 meeting, were approved as amended. OLD BUSINESS A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process— Hohenstein Informed commission members that the Information he has provided to them as part of the packet Is background Information on a number of issues. He also distributed a Draft Outline of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Recommendation to the Legislature produced by the MAC and Met Council. Hohenstein stated that the deadline for the decision on the dual track planning process has been moved to November, 1995. He reminded commission members that although this is an extension that the dual track process should still be a high priority before the commission. He continued to describe the sections numbered I through VII and that these documents will be added to as information becomes available. Soderling asked for more information regarding the Rosemount alternative and why it was rejected. Hohenstsin stated that the Rosemount site is similar to site alternatives for the Dakota County airport He stated that there was interest in the Hastings site farther from dense population. The Rosemount option was discussed at an earlier date. This alternative was not supported because, first it would bean Inconvenient way to run business and, second, having to travel to distant terminals would be difficult. There was further discussion regarding the packet of information. Todd asked If Section I, page 11 addresses potentially purchasing land, not necessarily relocating but having the land available so that the option could be there. Hohenstein replied that having a site set aside may be prudent until it became unfeasible to further expand the current site. He stated that it was important to keep in mind that ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995 Page 2 even though We referred to as dual track, the outcome could be a hybrid of the options. Todd referred to pages 113 -115 which referred to future activity levels In the year 2020. She asked whether they were addressing current issues. Hohenstein responded that capacity enhancement Is referring to larger regions, not the airport itself. Schlax commented that this would be a good time to discuss MAC action on proposal #6 - the article In the Star Tribune - approval of 4/22 extension and proposal 6 - building a temdnal west of the present temdnal. He -stated they are being told by Northwest that they shouldn't build the west terminal. They are concerned about political agendas involved in this decision. Hohenstein responded that the commission and council have opposed a new terminal site In the past. The MAC vote was to Identify alternative 6 as the position taken in the past on the runways. Cooper asked how the lawsuit between MAC and the city of Richfield was going. Hohenstein stated that he had spoken with Richfield and they are very serious about pursuing the lawsuit. Their position is that if the runway needs to be built then build it for use while others are under construction, but not for the purpose of sending more traffic over Richfield. Cooper asked if there were any cost figures available for Eagan if It were to join the lawsuit. Hohenstein replied that Rdchfield estimates the lawsuit will Incur tens of thousands of dollars. Cooper stated that Eagan has been riding the fence on this issue and that if extension 4122 Is built it would cause serious noise problems. Consequently, the additional air traffic over Eagan would result in more noise complaints. Cooper suggested that Eagan becoming Involved In the lawsuit or take a stronger stand where the extension is concerned. Hohensteln said that he can explore the costs of joining the lawsuit. He stated that the City Council did object to the extension of 4/22 but has taken no position on the lawsuit. Schlax stated that joining the lawsuit would give Eagan some leverage. It may be a way to get a guarantee from the MAC to hold planes on course for three miles from 4/22 before turning. Cooper commented that there will be even more noise with the 422 extension and there is still nothing to keep the planes from turning at the end of the corridor, consequently, he would Oke to see a stronger stand taken by Eagan. Hohenstein stated that if the Airport Relations Commission would like to take an action or continue discussion on this Issue, they could do so. Todd commented that there were mixed messages on the 422 extension from.the public. She stated that it was Important to communicate why they oppose the 422 extension and the community should be made aware of the commission's position. She stated that MASAC was of the opinion that Eagan would benefit from the 422 extension and she believes that should be publicized. Hohenstein agreed that this was something that could be addressed with the media. Cooper was of the opinion that the press should not be contacted until the commission has more facts and a stronger position before commenting to the public. Staricha stated that a strong stand against the 422 extension needs to be taken but that Eagan should not be Involved In the lawsuit. ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995 Page 3 Hohenstein stated that Richfield's purpose for the lawsuit Is to say that the runway does not reduce noise, It just relocates the impacts. Soderfing stated that Richfield and Bloomington are okay with the runway but not flight tracks. Hohensteln stated that the Airport Relations Commisslon and City have taken a position against the 4122 extension. Schlax stated that this should have the highest profile and that MAC just Isn't paying attention. He commented that by joining the lawsuit Eagan could get more involved in negotiating which would result In a higher profile. White commented that joining )the lawsuit may be counter productive. He stated that since Richfield and Bloomington want traffic lessened, this would result in more traffic over Eagan. Hohenstein replied that it would be possible to pursue a lawsuit separately, not the same one as Richfield and Bloomington since our interests would be different. Soderfing commented that the interests would not be that different and It would benefit Eagan to encourage reduced use of runway 4/22. Upon motion by Stadcha, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, it was recommended that issues and costs be Investigated as to joining the Richfield/Bloomington lawsuit. Schlax commented that MAC should be notified of the possibility of Eagan joining the lawsuit. Hohenstein stated that the Issues should be explored and a policy recommendation made to take before the City Council. Stadcha amended his previous motion stating that the commission should ask the City Council that they make public the option of joining the lawsuit, second was made by Soderling, all members voted in favor. There was discussion regarding the building of a new airport and various airports around the country. Cooper stated that the Kansas City airport closely resembled the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport. He commented that he had been in and out of that airport many times and noticed there wasn't much development around it. White stated that he would like to know why Kansas City has not developed the area around their airport. Hohenstein commented that there is concern that relocating the airport in Dakota County Y411 cause traffic restrictions such as those south of the river when traffic backs up during rush hour. Schlax asked if Dakota County Is restricted with the three bridges. Hohenstein stated that 35W and Cedar are bottlenecks. The concern Is that if the airport is relocated, it would become a major traffic generator. If the river were restricted, things would slow down, theoretically becoming a barrier. The problem with bridges Is that they restrict traffic and there are not as many aftemate routes. NEW BUSINESS - A. MAC Noise Methodology— Hohensteln discussed the proposed MAC Noise Methodology Program to measure noise Impacts by counting and reduction of Stage II aircraft. Hohensteln stated that he has submitted comments to the MAC stating that It is okay to count and reduce Stage 11 aircraft but they will need something more after the year 2000. Also, Stage III aircraft create noise events also and that reaction to noise is an Individual item, people are affected differently. Hohenstein also stated that this measuring system is not intended to replace ANOMS or contouring, that it will be used in conjunction with the other noise measuring methods. This system would be reporting quarterly rather than monthly as the ANOMS data is reported. ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995 Page 4 There were comments made by commission members stating that it was important that the reporting be monthly and not quarterly. A motion was made by Schlax to approve the MAC Noise Methodology Program with a six month review and then submit information to the MAC as to the commission's position on the program, at that time. The motion died for lack of a second. Hohenstein stated that the previous method was based on noise levels measured in 1986 and 1987. These are used as benchmarks for significant noise impact. The daily average noise energy was measured using different types of aircraft and they were expected to meet the target noise levels. This was used until 1992 when the agreements with the airlines expired., Todd asked Hohenstein whether Northwest had requested an extension on the Implementation of the Stage III aircraft time One. Hohenstein replied that they haven't and that the airlines are, In fact, arguing against waivers at this time One because they can meet the 1994 guidelines and it is a means of self-preservation. Hohenstein stated that the action required is to either accept the comments or add to them. Upon motion by Stericha, seconded by Soderring, all members voting in favor, the comments were adopted. B. Alternative Departure Profiles— Hohenstein reviewed the item. Schlax stated that he would Oke to have Mark Salmon attend an Airport Relations Commission meeting to discuss aftemative departure profiles. Hohenstein stated that he would Oke the discussion to Include timing of the thrust of aircraft. Upon motion by Soderling, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, it was decided to postpone discussion on this item until Mr. Salmon could be present. C. Subgroup Goal Setting— Hohenstein commented that one of the outcomes of the retreat was to use more in-depth methods for discussing commission items. He stated that one way would be to use tub -groups in work sessions. Because of the incidence of items recurring before the commission, ad-hoc, standing or task committees could be formed to discuss the topics in depth. Schlax stated that he would Oke to see several issues brought to a close. Staricha said that he would Oke to see two or three subcommittees each discussing one issue. For example, the dual track planning process for one committee, the corridor for another and runway 4/22 as a third. After discussion, a motion was made by Schlax for the commission to meet as a committee of the whole at a workshop meeting to discuss the subgroup process, Soderring seconded, all members voted In favor. After further discussion, it was decided to hold the workshop on March 28, 1995 from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995 Page 5 STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report— Hohenstein informed the committee that there was no compliance activity report for January and he will Include It in the next packet. He went on to say that percentages are improving marginally but there are still frustrated citizens in eastern Eagan who are affected by overflights. He stated that a request was approved by MASAC to provide a report on three mile compliance within the corridor. Soderling stated that the ANOMS data is not clear and he doesn't like the way the data is presented. Hohenstein responded that the MASAC is reducing the information In order to save on paper. Soderling stated he would Oke a report on the total number of flights, compliant and non-compliant. Hohensteln responded that he wasn'tsure if that would be a monthly report but he would push for that. B. Part 150 Update— Hohenstein updated the commission on the Part 150 process. He stated that he's still receiving comments from residents unhappy because they were not included in the sound Insulating. He said that those who have had the sound Insulating done are very pleased with the results. Hohenstein went on to say that the Kollofsky Addition will be included in the program in 1995. He stated that there is an ordinance that states that buildings on properties zoned commercial cannot be improved. He does not believe that will affect the Kollofsky Addition homes. Stadcha stated that he would like background Information concerning this situation. C. Runway 4122 Update— Hohenstein Informed the commission that the MAC has voted to proceed with the Runway 4/22 extension and that Richfield and Bloomington will continue with their lawsuit. D. MASAC Meeting of March 7,1996-- Hohenstein referred the commission to a memo from Schlax, who attended the meeting on behalf of the commission. Schlax commented that the MAC Chainnamwas removed from his position. He asked If the commission should actively seek a replacement other than a Minneapolis resident. Hohenstein responded that If the commission members have anyone in mind they should be aware that it Is a political appointment and, consequently, a republican seat. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. INFORMATIVE Hohenstein reminded commission members of the joint meeting with the City Council on March 28, 1995. ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995 Page 6 9:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by, seconded by, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at Date Chairperson Secretary JEH