1. I am Bob Friedman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the MAC this evening. I live at 4237-22 Ave. So., on the north boarder of the Hiawatha Golf Course. My house is located "heading 360" from runway 30R...approximately 3 miles from the end of the runway. I speak for many in my community when I say we are deeply concerned again about the increases in noise, safety issues, health risks and economic fairness issues. We respectfully request that the MAC address our concerns and clarify the complexity of the issues. These are not being explained and understood by our community. After attending the NOC meeting last week it appears that my Standish-Ericsson Community is not alone in these concerns. After hearing Dana Nelson, Manager of MAC Noise present at NOC last week, I am assured that my neighbors are complaining once again for good reason. The early morning and night flights are increasing; and low altitude aircraft numbers have increased as the quieter planes are being phased out in favor of larger, noisier, lower flying aircraft. Many of her charts worded the 7 year trend as down, and then Dana would say..."but trends in 2015 are up". When we look at DNL charts I see that my neighborhood north of Lake Hiawatha isn't even close to any contours, and yet complaints are on the increase in Standish Ericsson. The method for recording DNL continues to be flawed. We are seeing many more complaints while seeing no expansion in contour lines. Of deep concern is the 2035 forecast showing a significant increase in 30R departures. Even with projected quieter engines, our home values will drop, our nerves will continue to fray, environmental issues will persist, and safety at the airport and over our homes will diminish. In the fall of 2011, 200 people showed up at a MAC public input meeting. The FAA finally stepped in, admitting lower altitude and more flights near heading 360. This 84 page Departure Analysis study dated January, 2012, did a lot to show what was happening, that the 200 people were complaining with good reason. A few changes were put into motion. A more even spread, or sharing of the noise, was proposed by using three headings, 320, 340, and 360. But much data was left out of the 2012 report that would have substantiated the fringe neighborhood's concerns. And other data was misleading because it relied too much on averaging. My intent today is to ask that MAC, with support from the FAA, do the following in the coming months: 1. Re-issue an updated Departure Analysis making then and now comparisons so we can see if the suggestions made then have been adhered to; that the noise is, or is not, being spread more fairly. 2. Create a clear to understand chart of plane types, with photos from below (that's how we see them). Include info on capacity, weight, and noise output.
3. Create data that shows altitude by plane type at various distances from the end of runway over a 24 hour period. 4. Chart Altitude comparisons at specific distances for each departure runway. (The effects of hard turns on altitude would then be known) 5. Produce a tracking record of time and plane type leaving the end of all departure runways. The point is...no house should be subjected to having the noisiest planes flying low over their house any more often than anyone else over the 320 to 360 heading choices of runway 30R. 6. Support a fairer and accurate way of determining DNL that better reflects what we hear on the ground. The complaints from neighborhoods come when the noise is excessive, constant over the short bursts of 10 to 15 overflights in 5 to 10 minutes, within narrow flight paths. We are frustrated when a form a letter in response to noise complaints tells us there is little that can be done. The term "efficiency" is used by the noise office to explain why there is little that can be done to change flight paths and frequency. To me, and many of my neighbors, another meaning for 'frequency' is "profit". And airline profits have been setting records now for many years. Delta alone will see a 4 year profit near $10 billion. I will pick on Delta as the likely leading profit maker. I would prefer that their advertising slogan "Keep Climbing" refer more to altitude that it does to profits. For those of us living outside the mitigation contour boundaries, yet suffering from increased noise, many would be helped with, at the very least, soundproofing windows for all bedrooms. Think about it, just 5% of recent profits, (the same percentage Target gives back to neighborhoods), about $500 million, would buy a lot of windows. Through the years the Metropolitan Airports Commission has moved forward in many ways to expand this urban airport for the benefit of local commerce, creating passenger choice, but pushing the envelope on safety. Change is a constant, and we once again find ourselves experiencing the negative impacts of an expanding urban airport. Concerned neighborhoods hope that the MAC and NOC will not only be more diligent, but also more compassionate, in considering the noise levels and frequency, safety, and pollution issues that all have impact on our neighborhoods. The airlines have had their way for too long. Neighborhood concerns will be substantiated by implementing the points I have set forth. Will you please support more, and more accurate, data collection that will give our politicians and the FAA reason to make changes that will improve rather than diminish our Quality of Life. The airlines are operating fewer takeoffs and landings using larger aircraft to carry the same or a larger number of passengers. This trend, called up-gauging, is evident throughout many airports in the United States. Although the aircraft are larger, many of them utilize newer technology with less noise energy than some aircraft they are replacing. Additionally, the reduction in the number of takeoffs and landings is a positive trend for noise reduction. Currently, the annual number of takeoffs and landings at MSP is at levels experienced in the early 1990s. Additionally, during the first seven months of 2015, there were
about 9,300 fewer departures off Runways 30L and 30R over Minneapolis than in 2014 a 13.3 percent reduction. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric to determine and analyze noise exposure and aid in the determination of aircraft noise and land use compatibility issues around United States airports. The DNL metric correlated well with the degree of community annoyance from aircraft noise; therefore, DNL has been formally adopted by most federal agencies dealing with noise exposure. In addition to the FAA, these agencies include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Veterans Administration. The DNL metric is calculated by cumulatively averaging sound levels over a 24-hour period. This average cumulative sound exposure includes the application of a 10-decibel penalty to sound exposures occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). Since the ambient, or background, noise levels usually decrease at night the night sound exposures are increased by 10 decibels because nighttime noise is more intrusive. The FAA considers the 65 DNL contour line to be the threshold of significance for noise impact. As such, sensitive land use areas (e.g., residential) around airports that are located in the 65 or greater DNL contours are considered by the FAA to be incompatible structures. Currently, the FAA is undergoing a multi-year effort to update the scientific evidence on the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports. Beginning this summer, the FAA has started contacting residents around select U.S. airports through mail and telephone to survey public perceptions of aviation noise throughout the course of a year. To preserve the scientific integrity of the study, the FAA is not disclosing which communities will be polled. If changes are warranted, the FAA will propose revised policy and related guidance and regulations, subject to interagency coordination, as well as public review and comment. Regarding your six requests, the MAC Noise Program Office currently offers many tools and reports that allow the public to access this information. 1. Re-issue an updated Departure Analysis making then and now comparisons so we can see if the suggestions made then have been adhered to; that the noise is, or is not, being spread more fairly. The MAC Noise Program Office did not conduct the referenced Departure Analysis. This was completed by the FAA. However, the MAC did complete the MSP Runways 30L and 30R Departure Analysis in July 2013 which analyzed density, altitude and dispersion of northbound departures from Runways 30L and 30R. This report is available at http://www.macnoise.com/pdf/analysis-30l-30r-departures-overminneapolis-2013.pdf. The report concludes that northbound aircraft departures on Runway 30R were using the 320-, 340- and 360-degree headings as previously requested to the FAA, thereby achieving a greater dispersion of flight tracks over residential areas to the north of MSP. The report also found the use of Runway 30R for northbound departures had been declining slightly since 2010. Additionally, Runway 30L departures taking a northbound heading were down by over 50 percent from 2010 to 2012. The decline of departures on Runway 30L was attributed to aircraft being directed by Air Traffic Control to taxi to the
runway closest to the direction of flight. Hence, when the final destinations of the aircraft are north and east of MSP, the use of Runway 30R is favored over Runway 30L for these departures. Additionally, the report concluded that the use of hushkitted aircraft at MSP declined by 99 percent since 2004 and nighttime northbound departures of hushkitted aircraft were nearly zero. A more recent comparison of aircraft departure density from July 2011 versus July 2015 is shown below. The flight track data were filtered to show only departures from Runways 30L and 30R for these two comparison months. The dark orange bands show greater density of flights. The 320-, 340- and 360- degree heading dispersion is apparent in the July 2015 Departure Density graphic below. 2. Create a clear to understand chart of plane types, with photos from below (that's how we see them). Include info on capacity, weight, and noise output. The MAC Noise Program Office provides a number of interactive reports on its website at http://www.macnoise.com/tools-reports/reports-fly. The MSP Aircraft Type Count provides information closely related to your request. A user may choose a specific time period, click Submit, and a table is returned that provides a list of aircraft types, stage, FAR Part 36 Certificated Takeoff Noise Level, number of operations, count of arrivals and count of departures. Additionally, scrolling your mouse over the name of the aircraft type will produce a picture of the aircraft. Capacity and weight characteristics vary with each flight.
3. Create data that shows altitude by plane type at various distances from the end of runway over a 24 hour period. The MAC Noise Program Office FlightTracker provides this information at https://www.macnoise.com/tools-reports/flighttracker. By choosing the Animated Flight Track Replay in the upper left drop-down, an animated replay of aircraft operations for a user-defined period of time will display on the map. Various pieces of information can be displayed for each aircraft type using the Aircraft Display drop-down. By default, this is set to altitude in feet above MSP field elevation. The user may choose the aircraft display to show aircraft type, flight ID, airline, heading or speed. 4. Chart Altitude comparisons at specific distances for each departure runway. (The effects of hard turns on altitude would then be known) In addition to the FlightTracker features mentioned above, future enhancements of the FlightTracker application includes the addition of a user-defined gate to assess altitude trends at specific locations. The gate would produce a scatter plot of where the aircraft penetrated the gate with altitude along the vertical axis. The MAC Noise Program Office anticipates this feature will be available to the public by the end of 2015. 5. Produce a tracking record of time and plane type leaving the end of all departure runways. The point is...no house should be subjected to having the noisiest planes flying low over their house any more often than anyone else over the 320 to 360 heading choices of runway 30R. The MAC Noise Program Office FlightTracker tool provides actual flight information displayed over a map showing where each aircraft flew over the ground. In the Static Flight Tracks mode, the user may select a flight track and open the Flight Information window. This window provides the flight number, airport, airline and aircraft type as well as any noise information from the Remote Monitoring Towers associated with that operation. Additionally, this information can be obtained through the Animated Flight Track Replay of the FlightTracker tool. The user can define a date and time and replay flight activity in 15-minute intervals. Various pieces of information can be displayed for each aircraft type using the Aircraft Display dropdown. By default, this is set to altitude in feet above MSP field elevation. The user may choose the aircraft display to show aircraft type, flight ID, airline, heading or speed. Support a fairer and accurate way of determining DNL that better reflects what we hear on the ground. The MAC understands the fact that DNL is not a noise metric that one hears. Therefore, monthly reports, annual analyses and presentations to the public use alternate noise metrics, such as time above, number of events above, maximum noise levels and Sound Equivalent Levels to assess noise trends in communities around the airport and to better respond to residents concerns. The MAC is, however, federally required to use the DNL metric to assess aircraft noise impacts and will continue to produce DNL noise contours for this purpose.
6. I live near Lake Harriet. I m learning more about this, learning a lot from FairSkies. I m over an arrival lane and it s gotten horrible. We cannot sit outside and it affects our sleep. Your slide about the midnight arrivals, we all work in this room I don t know what can be done, but I hope the people who can do something will take that into consideration. I think that the number of people here speaks volumes about how important we feel about it. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) also feels strongly about this issue. The MAC has devoted considerable resources to balance the benefits of an urban airport against the concerns of the neighboring communities. As it relates to airport noise, the MAC began a Residential Noise Mitigation Program in 1992 that still continues to this day. The Consent Decree First Amendment Program began in March 2014. This program goes beyond the Federal Aviation Administration s (FAA) recommendation threshold and will mitigate qualifying residential areas around the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) until the year 2023. As mentioned in the presentation, the MAC has identified the increase in flights between the hours of 10:30 PM and 6:00 AM. Thusly, the community members of the Noise Oversight Committee recently sent a letter to the airlines that operate at MSP to remind them that scheduling flights during these hours has impacts on the neighboring community. MSP is, however, a public use airport receiving federal money for maintenance and upgrades. As such, the MAC is legally required to keep MSP open and available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. The MAC staff did an analysis of all MSP aircraft activity within ½ mile of your residence.
MAC staff tracked both the total number of flights every month, and the number of flights that are occurring at night (10:30 PM-6:00 AM). The data show peaks and valleys of aircraft traffic. These variations are normal and expected; they are caused by numerous variables, including safety, efficiency, wind direction and wind speed (on the surface and aloft), air traffic demand, aircraft weight, the number of inbound and scheduled outbound aircraft, noise abatement, and many other factors. As these conditions change, so will the activity over your home. Seasonal trends aside, the overall activity near your residence is largely unchanged in the previous five years. The chart also shows nighttime activity. As indicated above, overall nighttime flight activity has increased at MSP. The data for your residence also reflect this trend. There is a slight upward trend in the previous 18 months but the most recent months remain below the peak of 531 flights observed in August 2014. 7. I m really surprised at the frequency and how low the planes are flying. I think it s important we have an airport in the Cities, so I can put up with a little bit but I m astounded at how constant it is one plane after another. The total number of annual aircraft operations at the airport is down to 1990 levels; however, a particular residence or neighborhood may experience a greater number of flights at times, due to the complexities and variables that determine where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directs aircraft in and out of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). MAC staff analyzed flight activity within ½ mile of your home and found consistent trends in the number of flights in your area. The data, as shown in the chart below, have peaks and valleys of aircraft traffic. These variations are normal and expected; they are caused by numerous variables, including safety, efficiency, wind direction and wind speed (on the surface and aloft), air traffic demand, aircraft weight, the number of inbound and scheduled outbound aircraft, noise abatement, and many other factors. As these conditions change, so will the activity over your home.
Altitudes of aircraft over you home during this time frame were also found to be consistent and normal. A jet engine performs best when weather conditions are cold and dry. Therefore, aircraft will typically be lower during the warmer, more humid months. The chart below generally follows this trend. Due to your proximity to the airport, the variation is minimal. The range in this location is less than 700 feet from month to month. 8. I m just learning about the new system, how they re routing airplanes to save fuel, I guess, and with a system like that is there a way they can rotate it so the same people don t get the constant late night or early morning planes. I think a lot of people could put up with a little bit but not the constant pounding. In March 2015, Area Navigation (RNAV) arrival procedures were implemented at MSP. These procedures also utilize Optimized Profile Descents (OPD). These procedures save fuel and also reduce carbon emissions. Prior to the procedures being in effect, aircraft were required to descend to altitudes in a stair-step type approach. During this method, an aircraft would level off at its assigned altitude and increase engine power to control the aircraft at the desired altitude. This would happen several times as the aircraft approached the airport. This method uses more fuel and also increases carbon emissions. Now aircraft and crew that are trained to utilize them, fly these procedures that guide them at a constant descent.
All aircraft that enter the airspace around MSP are communicating with and ultimately being directed by the FAA Air Traffic Controllers. The MAC does not choose which runways are being utilized. Traffic patterns vary depending on many factors, including weather, airport traffic, and airfield conditions. Ultimately, the decision as to which runways are being used for landing are primarily chosen due to meteorological conditions. To ensure the highest level of safety, airplanes need to land into the wind. Therefore, due to runway geometry and prevailing winds, the FAA will choose the most appropriate direction for the safest operation. 9. Just like the government put pressure on the auto industry to make cars more fuel-efficient, can we put pressure on the airlines to have an impact on noise? Because MSP is a public-use airport, the MAC cannot restrict access to aircraft operations. According to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990, no airport may impose any access restriction, such as a mandatory curfew, that unduly burdens interstate commerce. All seven MAC-owned airports are public-use facilities available 24 hours per day. Because all seven MAC-owned airports are public-use facilities that use federal aviation dollars for improvements and development, federal policy supersedes local authority with respect to access and use of the airports. A curfew would create a burden on interstate commerce which is illegal by FAA regulations. Since ANCA was implemented, the federal government has not granted approval to any airport to implement an access restriction to Stage 3 certified aircraft operations. The MAC is unable to restrict aircraft operations; however, the MAC has consistently maintained a positive working relationship with the airlines that use MSP. There is regular communication between an airport and the airlines that serve the airport across many operational areas. As it pertains to airport noise, the MAC established the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) in August 2002 as an advisory board to bring industry and community representatives together to address aircraft noise issues at MSP and to bring policy recommendations to the MAC. In addition to the community members, the aviation industry is represented by a Scheduled Air Carrier, a Cargo Air Carrier, a Charter/Scheduled Operator, a Chief Pilot of an airline serving MSP, the Minnesota Business Aviation Association (MBAA) and an At- Large member. The community members of the NOC recently sent a letter to all the MSP carriers to remind them of the voluntary nighttime agreement and to request they refrain from scheduling operations between 10:30pm and 6:00am. A companion letter was also sent from MAC Chairman, Dan Boivin. The MSP NOC will continue to track nighttime operations at MSP. 10. I m representing some people from the neighborhood of Minnetonka and, at this point, what we re learning is much the same as what others have said tonight. We appear to live in a corridor of incoming flights that are incessant. I work from home and today, from 1-3pm, I could not work I had to tell people on my phone that I have to stop and I will call them later. The airplane noise overhead was constant and incessant for that period of time, and it was so loud it disrupted my work effort. I would like to understand what has happened that these planes are now routed right over our area and the noise issues have moved out further into the suburbs. I ve never had this problem before and we ve lived there for almost 20 years. It s affected our life, our ability to enjoy our neighborhood, and it s going to affect our property values now. I would like to understand if this traffic is going to be distributed more evenly, what s the plan to do that? I agree, we all have to take our fair share, but it seems something has changed recently that an unequal amount of traffic comes our way.
All aircraft that enter the airspace around the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) are communicating with and ultimately being directed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Controllers. The MAC does not choose which runways are being utilized. Traffic patterns vary depending on many factors, including weather, airport traffic, and airfield conditions. Ultimately, the decision as to which runways are being used for landing are primarily chosen due to meteorological conditions. To ensure the highest level of safety, airplanes need to land into the wind. Therefore, due to runway geometry and prevailing weather, the FAA will choose the most appropriate direction for the safest operation. In March 2015, the FAA began using NextGen Performance Based Navigation Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs), utilizing Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) technology. This technology allows the FAA to direct traffic efficiently onto standard routes as they approach the MSP area. These efficiencies help to reduce emissions, flight times, and, to a lesser degree, noise impacts. After reviewing flight activity in your area, the data show the number of MSP arrivals flying near your home is the same before the RNAV approaches were implemented. Please see reply below for further analysis of this data. Submitted via the online form on 10 July 2015: 11. Incoming traffic to MSP seems to be continuously routed over the same path (over our neighborhood in the Minnetonka/St Louis Park area) causing an airplane highway over our area. The noise from the planes often starts at 5am and goes until 11pm and is continuous throughout the day (7 days a week). This makes it so we have to close our windows during these lovely summer days (which often doesn t help) and makes it impossible to enjoy our backyards. What is the plan to distribute this traffic more evenly throughout the metro so that one neighborhood doesn t get the total impact of this noise pollution? As mentioned above, there are many factors that are considered when the FAA chooses the runways it will utilize. Realizing that all of these limitations exist, a Runway Use System (RUS) is utilized at MSP to prioritize the order in which runways are assigned for arrivals and departures during times of the day when safety and air traffic demand allow flexibility. Due to the impact from departure operations, the RUS prioritizes departure runway selections over arrival runway selections. The RUS prioritizes the runways as follows: Departures Arrivals Runways 12L and 12R Runways 30L and 30R Runway 17 Runway 35 Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 Runways 30L and 30R Runways 12L and 12R MAC staff analyzed flight activity within ½ mile of your home and found consistent trends in the level of activity in your area. The data, shown in the chart below, have peaks and valleys of aircraft traffic. These variations are normal and expected; they are caused by numerous variables, including safety, efficiency, wind direction and wind speed (on the surface and aloft), air traffic demand, aircraft weight, the number of inbound and scheduled outbound aircraft, noise abatement, and many other factors. As these conditions change, so will the activity over your home. The peak month for arrivals over your
home was December 2014 when 6349 flights traveled in your area. This point, in addition to September 2012 when there were only 512 flights, appear to be outliers. The typical average and median number of flights for this area is 3065 and 3084, respectively. These values appear to be normally distributed and, outside of the typical conditions, have not varied significantly in the previous five years. After analyzing the volume of activity, we further focused on the altitudes the aircraft are at as they pass near your residence. Altitudes of aircraft in your area during this time frame were also found to be consistent and normal. A jet engine performs best when weather conditions are cold and dry. Therefore, aircraft will typically be lower during the warmer, more humid months. The line on the chart below reflects this concept. The altitudes of aircraft near your home tend to be lower in the summer and higher in the winter.
12. Thank you for the analysis. The MAC has been a model of going out of its way to help the community with some analysis and I wish the rest of the country was as ambitious as you on that. Comment noted. 13. Why is it that you use 10:30pm-6:00am for nighttime definition when DNL uses 10:00pm- 7:00am? The MSP nighttime definition of 10:30pm-6:00am was established as part of a recommendation from the 1996 Noise Mitigation Committee. Originally, the MSP nighttime hours were from 11:00pm-6:00am Monday through Friday, and 11:00pm-8:00am Saturday and Sunday and the voluntary agreement pertained only to Stage 2 or Hushkit Stage 3 operations during these periods. The DNL metric uses a different nighttime definition, as it was federally established. Any requests in changing the MSP voluntary nighttime periods would need to be approved by the MSP Noise Oversight Committee and subsequently, the MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee. 14. The FAA will do its post-implementation review of the new arrival tracks. What is the plan for the MAC to do a deeper level of analysis on that, linking it to complaints and such? From what
I ve seen, those post-implementation reviews are perfunctory and will not meet the community s needs. In March 2015, the FAA began using NextGen Performance Based Navigation Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs), utilizing Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) technology. This technology allows the FAA to direct traffic efficiently onto standard routes as they approach the MSP area. Since implantation of the new arrival procedures, the FAA and the MAC have provided briefings to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee and to the MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee regarding the implementation of the procedures. The following graphics display the density of arriving flights as they approach MSP. The first map shows the density from July 2015 with the new RNAV arrival procedures in place. As compared to the second graphic which shows standard arrivals from July 2014, the routes are more tightly compacted as they enter the MSP airspace. Aircraft are still lining up with the extended runway centerlines or each runway. These extended centerlines have not changed; therefore, residents living within approximately 10 miles of the airport do not experience any differences in the location of these arrivals paths over the ground. The RNAV arrival procedures incorporate Optimized Profile Descents (OPD), which allows aircraft to follow a continuous descent rather than a step-down approach to the airport. For this reason, the RNAV arrival routes provide efficiencies in the areas of reduced fuel consumption, reduced carbon emissions, reduced flight times, and to a lesser degree, reduced noise impacts.
Since the implementation of the RNAV arrival procedures in March 2015, the number of complaints and the number of households registering complaints within ½ mile of these routes have not changed beyond the seasonal variance that is normally recorded. With the incorporation of OPD in the new arrival procedures, aircraft altitudes on these arrival tracks are typically higher and therefore less noise intrusive on the changed portion of the routes. Below are two comparisons of the arrival profiles for RNAV arrivals and conventional arrivals for the same aircraft types. The RNAV arrival profiles stay higher for a longer period of time and the number of level-off segments are reduced as compared to the conventional arrival profiles. Once the aircraft on an RNAV arrival is beyond the initial approach fix and flying the final approach path into the airport, the altitudes are consistent with the conventional arrival procedures.
15. You posted what amounts to N65 you had counts of flights that were over 65 db, which is the beginning of using the N65 metric, if you will. Is there any intention to post contours that show N65?
The MAC understands the fact that DNL is not a noise metric that one hears. Therefore, monthly reports, annual analysis and presentations to the public use alternate noise metrics, such as time above, number of events above, maximum noise levels and Sound Equivalent Levels to assess noise trends in communities around the airport and to better respond to residents concerns. The MAC is, however, federally required to use the DNL metric to assess aircraft noise impacts and will continue to produce DNL noise contours for this purpose. Currently there is no plan to transition to an N65 contour chart. The FAA is currently studying the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current DNL metric and its 65 db DNL threshold for incompatible land use; however, no update or modification to this metric will be available in the shortterm. 16. Regarding the Runway Use System, I have a chart, I took your chart this is a rare instance of when I find a chart less useful than a table of data, so I have a table that aggregates the chart into something we can do our own analysis on and I d be interested in seeing whether we can get that. Comment noted. MAC staff is looking into your request. 17. Unless I m misreading it, the noise contour numbers you showed don t line up at all with what we ve been hearing in the paper around 7000 new homes that will be impacted by noise in the near future. I think your website said it was close to 1500 and I d like clarification on that. The MAC is currently undergoing a long-range planning effort for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Many assumptions must be made to complete an analysis of this nature. Variations in the number of operations, nighttime operations, fleet mix, runway use, and expected flight tracks can alter the size of the contours. The 2035 forecast for MSP shows a 65 DNL contour that is 53.8% larger than the 2014 actual contour. Similarly, the 2035 forecasted 60 DNL contour is 56.1% larger than the 2014 actual contour. The 2035 forecasted 60 DNL contour includes 6,530 more single-family and 1,907 more multi-family homes than the 2014 actual contours. However, the 2035 forecast contours are smaller than what was forecasted in the 2030 forecast that was completed five years ago. The 2035 forecasted 65 DNL is 37.4% smaller and the 2035 forecasted 60 DNL contour is 32.3% smaller than the 2030 forecasted contours. Due to the smaller size, 7,005 singlefamily and 6,398 multi-family homes that were included in the 2030 forecast are not included inside the 2035 forecasted 60 DNL contour. Additionally, the 2035 forecast noise contours take into account only aircraft types that are currently in the noise modeling database. New aircraft and engine technology that are currently in the design and testing phases should be in place by 2035. These new technologies are forecasted to represent roughly 30% of the MSP fleet mix by 2035. A conservative approach was taken in modeling the new-generation aircraft by substituting them with existing aircraft types; therefore, when the new aircraft types become available in the noise model database for calculation, the size of the contours should decrease. 18. I know that you talk about the fact that there s really not much you can do about nighttime noise, outside of writing a strongly-worded letter. What is the plan beyond that? There needs to be a plan beyond that. I d love to figure out how to do that in partnership with the airlines. I know that this is an open-air airport, if you will, so they can pretty much do what they want
but we need to make sure that they continue to understand that for this to continue to be successful, or continue to be successful in the future, we need to have a partnership between the airport, the airlines and the people that live underneath this. This has been our mantra from the beginning transparency and partnership. Transparency we ve gotten more of, thank you partnership, not so much. So we need more of that. We need to understand how we can work together to make this better for everybody, all the way around. Comment noted. The MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) recently sent a letter to the MSP carriers to remind them of the voluntary nighttime agreement and to request they refrain from scheduling operations between 10:30pm and 6:00am. A companion letter was also sent from MAC Chairman, Dan Boivin. The MSP NOC will continue to track nighttime operations at MSP. Additionally, actual noise contours are generated each year that reflect changes in aircraft operations, such as an increases in nighttime operations. Moreover, the First Amendment to the Consent Decree establishes residential noise mitigation eligibility on these actual noise contours, so any home that is impacted to a greater degree for a period of three consecutive years will become eligible for residential noise mitigation. Since MSP is a public-use airport, the MAC cannot restrict access to aircraft operations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prohibits public-use airports from requiring access restrictions, such as a mandatory curfew, without going through a Part 161 Study and approval process with the FAA. Under a Part 161 Study, the FAA requires that the proposer adequately qualify six statutory conditions with substantial evidence. The six statutory conditions are: (1) the restriction is reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory; (2) the restriction does not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce; (3) the restriction is not inconsistent with maintaining the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace; (4)the restriction does not conflict with a law or regulation of the United States; (5) an adequate opportunity has been provided for public comment on the restriction; and (6) the restriction does not create an undue burden on the national aviation system. 19. You talked about the long-term plan of the airport. What is the plan for when the airport reaches capacity? There was a document I m not quite sure where it ended up, I can t find it anymore online there used to be a document that talked about airport capacity being at approximately 700,00 flights. I don t think the public knows that or is aware that the airport has a capacity of roughly 700,000 flights. According to what I read in the document the MAC is directed to start looking at alternatives at roughly 520,000 flights. Our team has always advocated for reducing that capacity, as well as reducing the research timeframe to look at alternatives so, rather than go until 700,000 flights, why do we have to go - can it drop to 500,000 or 600,000 and can we look at alternatives now rather than waiting? An airfield capacity analysis was completed as part of the previous 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). At the time, MSP was projected to have approximately 630,000 annual operations by 2030 with an average annual delay of approximately 10 minutes per operation. The current projections show a substantial decrease in the operations forecasted for 2035 (511,315) than what was forecasted five years ago. The topic of capacity and delay is multi-faceted and can, at times, be heavily impacted by the interaction of other airports within the National Airspace System. To better understand MSP airside facilities and infrastructure in context of the local, regional, and national airspace systems, the MAC committed to
initiate a capacity study two years in advance of when MSP is expected to reach 540,000 annual operations and incorporate the results of this study into the following LTCP study. 20. I live in the crook of the contours, precisely half a block from any noise mitigation program. I get the pleasure of arrivals over Lake Harriet, which do not seem to be really, truly winddependent, and although they re the lowest priority landing direction for the RUS system, I know that was the most used landing direction in June. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) does not choose which runways are being utilized. Decisions about airport configuration and runway use at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) are made carefully on a continuous basis by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC). ATC takes into consideration numerous factors, including: safety, efficiency, wind direction and wind speed (on the surface and aloft), air traffic demand, aircraft weight, the number of inbound and scheduled outbound aircraft, noise abatement, and many other variables when selecting an airport configuration. Realizing that all of these limitations exist, a Runway Use System (RUS) is utilized at MSP to prioritize the order in which runways are assigned for arrivals and departures during times of the day when safety and air traffic demand allow some flexibility. Due to the higher noise impact from departure operations, the RUS prioritizes departure runway selections over the arrival runway selections. This system prioritizes the runways as follows: Departures Arrivals Runways 12L and 12R Runways 30L and 30R Runway 17 Runway 35 Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 Runways 30L and 30R Runways 12L and 12R For the month of June the runways were utilized in the following way: Runway Arrival Operations Total Arrival Percentage 12L 3,765 21.16% 12R 3,819 21.46% 7,584 42.62% Runway Arrival Operations Total Arrival Percentage 30L 3,194 17.95% 30R 3,769 21.18% 35 3,244 18.23% 10,207 57.36% This information is pulled directly from a new report on our website. The MSP Runway Use System Report can be found on the Monthly Operations Reports section of the website. 21. DNL isn t a measure of decibels. Decibels are decibels. At 85 it s a cumulate effect of hearing loss. I ve downloaded an app on my phone with a decibel meter on it and I can stand in my
back yard and watch the planes go over and see how loud they are, especially when they come in side-by-side. Day-Night Average Sound level (DNL) is the primary metric used to evaluate noise exposure. This is the metric the FAA mandates that airports use when conducting noise analysis. Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has also identified DNL as the standard for noise exposure. DNL is expressed as an average noise level for a particular location for an entire year. Because the MAC records the flight tracks of all aircraft using MSP every year, we are able to determine the actual DNL contours in the metropolitan area. Using this data and the FAA s Integrated Noise Model, the MAC develops a noise contour map annually. The MAC understands the fact that DNL is not a noise metric that one hears. Therefore, monthly reports, annual analysis and presentations to the public use alternate noise metrics, such as time above, number of events above, maximum noise levels and Sound Equivalent Levels to assess noise trends in communities around the airport and to better respond to residents concerns. The MAC is, however, federally required to use the DNL metric to assess aircraft noise impacts and will continue to produce DNL noise contours for this purpose. 22. If you re under an arrival path, it s unforgiving, we take a pounding. At 5:15 every morning there s a plane that wakes me up. I think I filed a complaint, but it s hard to file a complaint that early in the morning when you re tired. All aircraft that enter the airspace around the MSP are communicating with and ultimately being directed by the FAA Air Traffic Controllers. The MAC does not choose which runways are being utilized. Traffic patterns vary depending on many factors, including weather, airport traffic, and airfield conditions. Ultimately, the decision as to which runways are being used for landing are primarily chosen due to meteorological conditions. To ensure the highest level of safety, airplanes need to land and takeoff into the wind. Therefore, due to runway geometry and prevailing winds, the FAA will choose the most appropriate direction for the safest operation. The MAC does not have the ability to restrict the time that aircraft operate. We are required by Federal Grant Assurances to ensure MSP is open and available for use 24 hours a day. The MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) has identified the concern the residents have brought about nighttime operations. As such, the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) recently sent a letter to the MSP carriers to remind them of the voluntary nighttime agreement and to request they refrain from scheduling operations between 10:30pm and 6:00am. A companion letter was also sent from MAC Chairman, Dan Boivin. The MSP NOC will continue to track nighttime operations at MSP. MAC staff analyzed flight activity within ½ mile of your home and found consistent trends in flight activity in your area. The data show peaks and valleys of aircraft traffic. These variations are normal and expected; they are caused by numerous variables, including safety, efficiency, wind direction and wind speed (on the surface and aloft), air traffic demand, aircraft weight, the number of inbound and scheduled outbound aircraft, noise abatement, and many other factors. As these conditions change, so will the activity over your home.
23. The following comments are based on the presentation made to the City of Minneapolis Intergovernmental Relations Committee on July 16, 2015 regarding the 2035 long-range plan: From a regional planning perspective, why is the expectation that airport operations will increase by nearly 25% when the population is not expected to grow at that same rate? Why are we accommodating so much connecting traffic? How are connecting flights beneficial to our economy? Have all of the associated costs been counted and weighed against the gains? What can Minneapolis do to stop this from happening? The impact to city residents is far too great and noise mitigation packages do nothing if you want to be outside or have your windows open. And this isn t just a noise issue. I have a lot of concern about the health impacts. What does the MAC do to push back on the FAA? How can the MAC be made to stop building for future capacity that exceeds regional population growth? Total flights could possibly be reduced if the number of connecting flights were limited in some way. The economic gains from connecting air traffic must be weighed against the significant environmental costs. South Minneapolis will be ruined is this plan moves ahead. In the presentation, one of the MAC representatives mentions their customers. Who does MAC view as their customers?
During their presentation the MAC says they have enough runway capacity but needs more gate and parking capacity. Who will please speak for all of the residents of South Minneapolis that we have surpassed our capacity for noise, visual and other pollution? We cannot take any more. If the population affected is out of capacity, their plan may not advance. Flight efficiency cannot be the only goal. Humans live under all of these flights. The MAC was established in 1943 by the Minnesota Legislature to provide for coordinated aviation services throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The MAC s mission is to provide and promote safe, convenient, environmentally sound and cost-competitive aviation services for our customers. The MAC is currently in the process of compiling the MSP 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) to assess the airport facility needs for the next 20 years. Forecasts show an increase in total number of operations from 411,760 in 2014 to 511,315 in 2035. Historically, the peak year of operations at MSP was 2004 with 540,727 operations. Passenger traffic has historically been more closely correlated with income than with population. When people have more money, they can fly more often. Real income is projected to increase more than 60 percent over the 20-year forecast period. As a result, even with an increase in average aircraft size, aircraft operations are projected to grow faster than population. Having connecting passengers at MSP benefits the Twin Cities/Minnesota economy by providing jobs in the area. Without the hub and connecting flights, Delta and its affiliates likely would not employ over 10,000 people in Minnesota. Also, the nonstop destinations that result from the connecting activity benefit local businesses and Fortune 500 companies in the area. Moreover, the business community and leisure travelers enjoy a large number of direct destinations serviced from MSP, due to a large number of connecting passengers. The terminal and landside developments contemplated in the MSP 2035 LTCP do not directly increase the number of projected aircraft operations. The 2035 forecast number of aircraft operations would be the same, whether or not the MAC completed the terminal and landside developments. The projected operations and fleet mix are reflections of organic growth in the geographic region and in the aviation industry. While a no-action alternative represents a much more crowded condition, the projected daily and annual demand can be accommodated, albeit at a reduced level of service, for the passengers using the terminal and landside facilities. There will be a public comment period for the Draft MSP 2035 LTCP beginning in September. Residents will be able to submit comments on the draft document. It is important to note, the LTCP does not facilitate any construction at the airport, nor does it fund any projects. It is a planning document to look into the long-term future to assess facility needs to maintain an adequate level of service for the traveling public. Since MSP is a public-use airport, the MAC cannot restrict or limit access to aircraft operations. Passengers who are connecting through MSP are on the same flights as those who are originating at MSP and those who have a final destination here. Therefore, limiting connecting flights would not be possible.
The total number of annual aircraft operations at the airport are down to 1990 levels; however, a particular residence or neighborhood may experience a greater number of flights at times, due to the complexities and variables that determine where the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) directs aircraft in and out of MSP. 24. I ve lived in our house for five years and we re in the process of deciding whether to do renovations on our house. With what s happened this summer we typically eat outside at 8:00pm we can t carry on a conversations. And we re reconsidering our plan to add to the house because we re thinking about moving. It s just become impossible to hold a conversation most evenings. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) records the flight track and altitude of every aircraft into and out of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). MAC staff analyzed flight activity within ½ mile of your home and found consistent trends in the level of activity in your area. The data show peaks and valleys of aircraft traffic. These variations are normal and expected; they are caused by numerous variables, including safety, efficiency, wind direction and wind speed (on the surface and aloft), air traffic demand, aircraft weight, the number of inbound and scheduled outbound aircraft, noise abatement, and many other factors. As these conditions change, so will the activity over your home. The amount of aircraft over your home falls in line with historical trends with the lowest monthly total having just occurred in December 2014. Generally, your home experiences greater activity in the