metropolitan airports commission (mac)2014/05/08 · million, while its projected 2014 operating...
TRANSCRIPT
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
MAC General Office Building Lindbergh Conference Room
6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450
NOC Committee Members Jeffrey Hart – Co-Chair (Delta Air Lines) Elizabeth Petschel – Co-Chair (Mendota Heights City Council) John Bergman At Large Cities Representative (Apple Valley City Council) John Carlson (United Parcel Service) Tyler Christiansen (Delta Connection) Karen Erazo (Sun Country Airlines) Cyndee Fields (Eagan City Council) Tom Fitzhenry (Richfield City Council) Ben McQuillan (MBAA) John Oleson (Bloomington City Council) John Quincy (Minneapolis City Council) Bill Underwood (Chief Pilot Delta Air Lines)
MEETING AGENDA May 8, 2014
1:30 P.M. (Elizabeth Petschel, Mendota Heights City Council will be the acting Chairperson for the meeting)
*Note: 1:00 to 1:30 – Committee Agenda Review Session (NOC members only in the Coleman Conference Room)
1. 1:30 - 1:35 Review and Approval of the March 19, 2014 Meeting Minutes
2. 1:35 - 1:40 Operations Report Summary: March 2014
3. 1:40 – 2:05 Presentation: “Sound Level Meter Measurement” Mr. Ken Cox, Product Manager,
Larson Davis
4. 2:05 - 2:15 Noise Monitoring Study West and Northwest of MSP: Fall 2014
5. 2:15 – 2:30 Runway Use System Study
6. 2:30 – 2:35 Review of Runway 35 River Visual Approach Procedure
7. 2:35 – 2:40 Second Quarter 2014 Public Input Meeting Summary
8. 2: 40 – 2:55 Public Comment Period
9. 2:55 Adjourn
Notice: MAC operated audio and video recording devices may be used at NOC Meetings
ITEM 1
METROPLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION MSP NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1:30pm
MAC General Offices Building – Lindbergh Conference Room
Call to Order
A regularly-scheduled meeting of the MSP Noise Oversight Committee, having been duly called, was held Wednesday, 19 March 2014, in the Lindbergh Conference Room at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices. Chair Hart called the meeting to order at 1:30pm. The following were in attendance:
Representatives: J. Hart, J. Carlson, K. Erazo, B. McQuillan, T. Christiansen, J.
Oleson, D. Miller, E. Petschel, J. Quincy, T. Fitzhenry, J. Bergman, T. Fitzhenry
Staff: D. Nelson, J. Nelson, J. Giesen, J. Felger
Others: C. Costello – City of Richfield; B. Hoffman – City of St. Louis Park;
A. Swenson – Edina; S. Nienhaus – City of Burnsville; L. Moore – Bloomington; J. Miller – City of Mendota Heights; M. Park – City of Sunfish Lake; L. Olson – City of Minneapolis; S. Neal – City of Edina; J. Bennett – City of Edina; P. Dmytrenko – City of Richfield; C. Wickstrom –Minneapolis; D. Langer – Federal Aviation Administration; M. Woodruff – Federal Aviation Administration; J. Childers – Edina; R. Owen – Metropolitan Council; D. Sloan – Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission; L. Grotz – Edina; J. Teppen – City of Inver Grove Heights
1. Review and Approval of the 15 January 2014 Meeting and 6 March 2014 Special Meeting
Minutes
IT WAS MOVED BY REPRESENTATIVE MILLER AND SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE QUINCY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 15 JANUARY 2014 COMMITTEE MEETING. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
IT WAS MOVED BY REPRESENTATIVE FITZHENRY AND SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE BERGMAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 6 MARCH 2014 SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING.
The motion carried by unanimous vote.
2. Operations Summary Report
Dana Nelson, MAC Environment – Noise Program Office, said complaints in January 2014 and February 2014 were up compared to January 2013 and February 2013. She said total aircraft operations in January 2014 were about 26% lower than in January 2013, and in February 2014 were about 3.9% lower than in February 2013. Chair Hart, Delta Air Lines, noted that Delta took a number of flights out in February 2013 due to weather conditions at MSP, and that the cold weather in January and February led Delta to cancel more flights than it had before. D. Nelson said that air carrier jet operations were up 2.5% in January 2014 compared to January 2013, and were up 0.7% in February 2014 compared to February 2013. She said there was a decrease in the number of regional jets in the fleet composition in both January and February 2014 compared to January and February 2013. She said more manufactured Stage-3 aircraft were used in the fleet composition, and that modified Stage-3 aircraft levels were at 0% in both January and February 2014. D. Nelson said there was a 19% increase in the total number of nighttime (10:30pm-6:00am) operations, and a 2.5% increase in carrier jet nighttime operations in January 2014 compared to January 2013, and similar increases in February 2014 compared to February 2013. D. Nelson said Runway 30L had the majority of arrivals and departures during the nighttime hours (10:30pm-6:00am) in January and February 2014. She noted that Runway 17 had an increase in nighttime (10:30pm-6:00am) departures in February 2014 due to more days when the airport was operating in a mixed-flow configuration. D. Nelson said 99.9% of the 1,898 Runway 17 carrier jet departures in January 2014 complied with the Runway 17 Carrier Jet Departure Procedure, and 99.4% of the 2,0756 Runway 17 carrier jet departures complied. D. Nelson said there were 1,546 carrier jet departures off of Runways 12L and 12R in January 2014, and that 93.3% remained in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. She said there were 1,432 carrier jet departures off of Runways 12L and 12R in February 2014 and that 95.7% remained in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. D. Nelson said that, in January 2014, 53% of departure operations used the Crossing-in-the-Corridor Procedure during the nighttime hours of 11:00pm-6:00am, and 50% of departure operations used the procedure during those hours in February 2014. She said that, in January 2014, 21% of departure operations used the Crossing-in-the-Corridor Procedure during the hours of 6:00am-11:00pm, and 29% of departure operations used the procedure during those hours in February 2014.
3. Presentation: Metropolitan Airports Commission Overview, MAC CEO Jeff Hamiel Jeff Hamiel, MAC CEO/Executive Director, expressed the Metropolitan Airports Commission’s (MAC) appreciation for the work the Noise Oversight Committee does as an
advisory board to the Commission, and gave an overview presentation on the MAC. Highlights of the presentation included:
The MAC is a public corporation created by the Minnesota Legislature in 1943 to own and operate airports within 35 miles of downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis.
The MAC’s narrow purpose and scope is to provide and promote safe, convenient, environmentally-sound and cost-competitive aviation services for its customers.
The MAC is user-funded, not taxpayer-funded; has limited property taxing authority, which has not been exercised since the 1960s.
There are 15 commissioners on the MAC’s Board; 13 are appointed by the governor, and the mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis each appoint one member. Members serve staggered, four-year terms.
The MAC’s projected 2014 operating expenses total approximately $150 million, while its projected 2014 operating revenues total approximately $290 million. Revenue is generated by charges to the airlines operating at MSP, concessions, rents and fees, and utilities and other revenues. Chair Hart, Delta Air Lines, asked for comment on concessions revenue being higher than airline rates revenue. Hamiel said the concessions figure includes parking concessions, which total approximately $72-74 million.
The MAC’s net operating revenues are approximately $140 million; minus payments to deb service, expenses for equipment and capital and other expenses, the MAC’s net revenue is approximately $42 million. The net revenue is invested in the next year’s construction program. Representative Quincy, Minneapolis, asked what percentage of revenue and expenses are related to MSP, versus related to the MAC’s reliever airports. Hamiel said the lion’s share of revenues and expenses are related to MSP.
In 2013 MSP was chosen the “Most Efficiently Managed Large Airport in North America”, and it has one of the lowest airline cost per enplanements in the nation.
The MAC’s financial model is predicated on originating and destination passengers only, and the MAC uses conservative financial forecasting.
The MAC has a AA- bond rating. MSP has the 17th busiest terminal facilities in North America, and the 13th
busiest airfield. MSP was named “Best Airport in America” by Travel & Leisure in 2012.
MSP had approximately 38 million total passengers in 2005; that number dropped to approximately 31 million in 2008 and grew slowly to approximately 33 million in 2013.
MSP has seen a decline in total operations since 2004. As passenger traffic grows at MSP, it is forecasted that larger-capacity
aircraft will be used to accommodate passenger loads. MSP contributes approximately $10 billion toward the economic vitality of the
community, and is the single largest economic generator. Approximately 76,000 people directly or indirectly generate employment
through the MAC. Approximately 20,000 work at MSP. 6500 people who work at MSP live in Hennepin County; 4700 live in Ramsey
County; 4000 live in Dakota County.
Average compensation of MSP employee is highest of any county in Minnesota at $66,000/year.
MSP’s tax revenue impacts are approximately $360 million federal; $243 million state; and $10 million local.
The 2030 Long-Term Plan for MSP forecasts 50 million passengers at MSP by 2030. To accommodate that number, MSP would need 20-30 more aircraft gates and another 18,000 parking spaces. No new runways would be needed. Expansion of MSP would be demand-driven.
Hart noted that Committee members are often asked by their constituents about the possibility of “downsizing” MSP and shifting some operations to airports such as St. Cloud, Duluth or Rochester, and asked for Hamiel’s perspective on that idea. Hamiel said that the MAC has worked with the St. Cloud, Duluth and Rochester airports over the past 20 years and is not concerned about losing air traffic to them. He noted that “planes go where the people are” and that the vast majority of Minnesota’s residents live in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. He said the MAC is supportive of the other airports, and would like to see them be successful in securing direct flights to their facilities but noted that they are challenged by a lack of population density in their metropolitan areas.
4. 2013 Annual Actual Contour Report
John Nelson, Technical Advisor, reminded Committee members that, per the Consent Decree, the MAC is required to prepare an Annual Noise Contour Analysis by 1 March. He noted that the Consent Decree was amended in October 2013 to extend the current mitigation program out to 2024, and to establish a three-successive year eligibility requirement (compared to the 2007 DNL forecast map), with the 2013 Actual Noise Contour used as the first year. The 2013 Actual Noise Contour Analysis was sent to Committee members with today’s meeting packet. The 2013 Actual Noise Contour Analysis map shows 137 single-family and 89 multi-family homes in Minneapolis that have been identified as having first-year eligibility status. J. Nelson noted there was an overall decrease in the size of the 2013 Actual Noise Contour compared to the 2007 Forecast Mitigated Contour, with the exception of an area where the 2013 contour is larger. He noted that this contour increase is associated with nighttime arrival operations on Runway 12R. J. Nelson noted that a 25% reduction in total operations between what was forecasted in 2007 and what actually occurred in 2013 is one reason for the decrease in the contour size. He said the reduction in the use of manufactured Stage-3 aircraft at MSP and a 20% reduction in scheduled nighttime operations are also contributing factors to the reduced contour size. Representative Quincy, Minneapolis, noted that the MAC used HNTB for the preparation of the Integrated Noise Model inputs to the report, and to run a quality check of the noise contours, and said that he appreciated the third-party validity. He asked how, if there’s been a decrease in operations and changes to the fleet mix, part of the contour increased in 2013. J. Nelson said that is primarily attributed to the increase over forecast in the number of nighttime arrival operations on Runway 12R, because nighttime operations carry a 10 dB
penalty. He noted that a Runway Use analysis will be presented to the Committee at the May meeting.
5. Remote Monitoring Tower Monthly Technical Report Graphs
John Nelson, Technical Advisor, reminded Committee members that a table of the daily and monthly average DNL sound level reported at each Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) is included in the Technical Advisor’s Report published each month. He said that, beginning in March 2014, the Technical Advisor’s Report will include graphs showing the RMT average monthly DNL. He noted that RMTs are located in residential areas located close to runway ends. Representative Petschel, Mendota Heights, noted that RMT 23 is located in a Mendota Height’s resident’s backyard. She said the resident noticed the raw data on the RMT showed an increase in noise levels, and sent the data to the Noise Program Office for investigation. Petschel said the investigation determined the increased noise levels recorded were related to work being done by the City of Mendota Heights on the resident’s street, and not related to aircraft overflights. She said that correlating the RMT data with aircraft events is important. Representative Oleson, Bloomington, noted that RMT 30 is ranked #6 on the graph J. Nelson showed, and he asked what types of complaints the Noise Program Office has received related to aircraft noise events monitored by that RMT. J. Nelson said the Noise Program Office has not received a higher number of complaints from that area, but that an increased number of complainants is filing complaints i.e., fewer people are calling more frequently. Oleson noted there is increased development activity in Bloomington’s South Loop area and said there should be conversations about the level of collaboration between the developers and the MAC with regard to construction and noise mitigation. J. Nelson agreed and said the MAC would be happy to meet with the developers to discuss the necessity of having noise insulation in the area being developed by Bloomington.
6. MACNOMS Validation Study Field Monitoring Scope and NOC Observation Team
Appointments
John Nelson, Technical Advisor, reminded Committee members that an item on the Committee’s 2014 Work Plan is to conduct a validation study of the MACNOMS equipment and processing used by the Noise Program Office. He said the study will examine and compare real-time and MACNOMS system data – flight operations counts, flight tracks and noise levels at RMTs. He noted that, due to staff and timing constraints, not all 39 Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT) can be validated during the study. He said the following criteria were used to establish the RMT sites to be used in the study:
Must be one RMT for each community that has an RMT within its city limits RMT location must be easily accessible and have sufficient space to
accommodate staff and observer team Where multiple RMTs are located in one city, selection should be based on
the frequency of events, or the number and proximity of flight tracks over the
prospective area, and be representative of departure and/or arrival operations or both.
J. Nelson noted that Committee member representative participation in the study is optional and voluntary. Staff recommends an appointed observer to the study be a sitting or alternate member of the Committee, or an employee of the represented city or air carrier-related group of the Committee. He said staff proposes a kickoff event in early April during which Committee members could visit RMT 5 for a demonstration of the validation study methodology. He said staff will communicate with the observers during the RMT field testing and during preparation of the study. IT WAS MOVED BY REPRESENTATIVE FITZHENRY AND SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE OLESON TO APPROVE THE FIELD MONITORING SCOPE AND COMMUNICATION PLANS DESCRIBED IN THIS ITEM, AND FOR COMMITTEE COMMUNITY AND USER GROUP MEMBERS TO CONVEY TO THE NOC TECHNICAL ADVISOR BY 28 MARCH 2014 OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS TO THE MACNOMS VALIDATION STUDY OBSERVER TEAM, IF THEY WISH TO PARTICIPATE. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
7. Permanent Remote Monitoring Tower Request – City of Edina
John Nelson, Technical Advisor, said that the MAC received a request from the City of Edina in February 2014 for the installation of three Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT), to provide an aviation noise baseline that could be used to measure the impacts of future navigational changes on noise levels in Edina. He said the MAC reviewed the request, and reviewed the methodologies that were used to site the existing RMTs. He said the methods used by the MAC to site RMTs are driven by spatial technologies and sound level meter performance parameters. He said the system was determined based on RMT monitoring coverage areas, and that flight track data were analyzed to determine instances in which operations departed MSP without passing through an RMT coverage area. He noted that the RMTs have the capacity to pick up noise events in areas much wider than depicted in his presentation. J. Nelson reminded members that the Committee has established the following criteria to be evaluated when requests are made for mobile noise monitoring:
Mobile noise monitoring will not be done where there is already an RMT that can provide the data being sought.
Mobile noise monitoring will not be done to benefit a single resident or building.
Mobile noise monitoring should be conducted only to the benefit of a large section of the community that is suffering the effects of unusual aircraft noise events that are difficult to monitor otherwise.
The goal of the mobile noise monitoring effort must be well-defined and realistically achievable.
The mobile noise monitoring request must identify why current monitoring data are inadequate for analysis.
J. Nelson noted that 99% of the February 2014 westbound departures off of Runway 30L over Edina went through the coverage areas of at least two RMTs. He said that the criterion of monitoring being done because of “unusual aircraft noise events” was not met; changes have not been observed in the headings given to westbound departing aircraft. He said the current configuration of RMTs provides complete coverage and has been validated as doing so. He said all of the criteria for a monitoring request has not been met with regard to Edina’s request. Representative Petschel, Mendota Heights, noted that mobile noise monitoring was used several years ago in Richfield when there was unusual activity on the cargo side of MSP. She noted that the activity did not involve arrivals or departures, but was related to aircraft start-ups on the cargo apron. She said that a mobile noise monitor was the only way to determine what was occurring. Representative Fitzhenry, Richfield, concurred and said that the City of Richfield hired Orfield Labs to validate the activity. He said the results confirmed that the RMTs provide sufficient coverage and data. Representative Miller, Eagan, noted that the City of Eagan hired Wylie Labs in 2005 to collect baseline data before Runway 17/35 opened. She said their work confirmed that the RMTs were accurate and providing coverage for areas where no RMT was located. Representative Bergman, At-large Representative, noted that the City of Edina has received all memos related to this issue, as has MAC Commissioner Peilen. He said the City of Edina hosted a meeting with the other at-large communities, which was attended by the representatives for Apple Valley, Burnsville and St. Louis Park. He said the communities that could not attend the meeting presented their views to the City of Edina, MAC staff and Commissioner Peilen. Council Member Joni Bennett, City of Edina, thanked the Committee for considering the City of Eagan’s request. She said the request is being made because of anticipated changes in operations levels at MSP, and changes in operations in terms of RNAV. She said the City’s request is to establish a baseline measurement to use going forward as changes take place. She said the request for RMTs in Edina is also based on the importance of data and data analysis to the Committee. She said the request is also based on providing education to Edina residents. She said the City understands the desire for RMTs to cover a sufficient area, but noted that the current placement of RMTs does not appear to have been established to capture the “first ring” of noise impacts. She said that if that were the intention, she does not understand why there aren’t RMTs completely encircling the airport. She said that flight patterns today are making turns to the south and southwest that they may not have taken in the past, and that there isn’t data to compare what is happening now to how it was previously. Bennett noted that one of the seven at-large communities stated that it would support Edina having permanent RMTs only if all of the at-large communities had permanent RMTs installed. She said the City has no objection to the other communities having permanent RMTs. She said it is clear the criteria for mobile noise monitoring do not support the City’s request, which is why the City is requesting permanent RMTs and not mobile noise monitoring. City Manager Scott Neal, City of Edina, said the City is looking for data to explain what Edina residents are experiencing in terms of aircraft noise. He said the City sees data from permanent RMTs in Edina as providing a baseline for residents.
Fitzhenry asked if the current RMT configuration can provide a baseline for Edina. J. Nelson said that, at points more distant form the airport, noise events can be recorded by RMTs that are not aircraft-related. He said more refinement would need to be done on flight track correlation to make sure non-aircraft events were not correlated inappropriately to flight tracks.
Quincy said he believes there is value in setting benchmarks early to help the City of Edina communicate noise event information to its residents. He noted that RMTs have nothing to do with the creation of noise contours but that the contours are reflective of actual noise experiences. Representative Carlson, United Parcel Service, asked what the precedence has been for siting RMTs. J. Nelson said the original 24 RMTs were placed to monitor aircraft operations off of the runway ends and to provide sufficient coverage to the communities on MASAC. He said five RMTs were added based on MAC staff input on flight track locations. He said RMT placement has been driven by technical and acoustic needs of the system. He said 10 more RMTs were added as a result of work done by a task force of communities to the south of MSP anticipated to receive new overflights as a result of the opening of Runway 17/35. Fitzhenry asked if it would be prudent to utilize mobile noise monitoring equipment in Edina to determine whether or not permanent RMTs should be established. J. Nelson said MAC staff would need time to examine that issue. Miller noted that the City of Eagan hired Wylie Labs to do analysis because it knew Runway 17/35 was going to be built. She said Edina’s request may be premature in light of it having been announced recently that RNAV departure operations will not be implemented at MSP at this time. She suggested that Edina might want to consider hiring a firm to conduct monitoring to establish a baseline, as Eagan did. Neal said the City is interested in collecting data, but is concerned about collecting data that meet NOC protocol and that the Committee would have faith in. IT WAS MOVED BY REPRESENTATIVE BERGMAN, AT-LARGE REPRESENTATIVE, AND SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE QUINCY, MINNEAPOLIS, TO ADD THREE PERMANENT REMOTE MONITORING TOWERS IN THE CITY OF EDINA. The motion failed. Bergman requested, on behalf of the at-large communities, that the Committee’s 2015 Work Plan include an educational roundtable meeting of the Committee and at-large communities on the topic of the RMTs. Petschel said she was very supportive of that suggestion, particularly as the Committee may have more specific information at that time from the FAA about the RNAV arrival operations anticipated to be published in early 2015.
8. First Quarter 2014 Public Input Meeting Summary
John Nelson, Technical Advisor, noted that a Public Input Meeting was held on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at the MAC’s General Offices Building. He said 17 people attended the meeting and three people made comment at the meeting. Comments focused on:
Routing of aircraft over non-residential land uses At-large representation on the NOC Noise mitigation eligibility under the First Amendment to the Consent Decree
9. Public Comment Period
There were no public comments. The next meeting of the NOC is scheduled for Thursday, 8 May 2014. The meeting adjourned at 3:18pm. Respectfully Submitted, Christene Sirois Kron, Recording Secretary
ITEM 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: John Nelson, Manager – Noise, Environment and Planning SUBJECT: CONTENT OF OPERATIONS REPORT SUMMARY DATE: April 15, 2014 Each month of the year the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) produces a Technical Advisor’s Report for the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). This report provides maps, tables, and charts that examine runway use, departures and arrivals, and noise levels associated with aircraft operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The detailed content of a typical Monthly Technical Advisor’s Report is provided below: 1) Complaint Data
a) Number of Complaints i) Type (noise, engine run-up, low altitude, etc.), time of day/night, and complaint city of
origin listing. b) Noise Complaint Map
i) Showing location and number of complaints. 2) Runway Use
a) FAA Available Time for Runway Usage i) Showing the airport layout and hours per month (all hours and nighttime hours) that
each runway end met FAA Aviation Performance Metrics. b) MSP All Operations Runway Usage
i) Showing the airport layout and the percentage of monthly flights for each runway. c) MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage
i) Showing the airport layout and percentage of monthly flights by the air carriers. d) MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
i) Table showing type of aircraft, number of monthly operations at MSP, percentage of operations for each aircraft type and FAR Part 36 Take-Off Noise Levels.
3) Nighttime Runway Use (10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.)
a) MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage i) Showing the airport layout and the percentage of use of each runway at night.
b) MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage i) Showing the airport layout and percentage of nighttime flights by the air carriers.
c) MSP Scheduled Nighttime Operators i) Tables and a chart showing the names of the air carriers, number of operations per
carrier and time of night of flights, including the schedule of nighttime jet operations. d) MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators by Type and Stage Mix
i) Tables and a chart the aircraft type (A320, MD 90, etc.), stage mix (Stage 3, hush-kitted, etc.), and type of aircraft used by the air carriers by time of night.
4) Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
a) Flight Tracks i) A series of maps showing the density of weekly arrivals and departures and weekly
flight tracks during the nighttime for each runway. b) MSP MACNOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map
i) A map showing the locations of each of the 39 Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT). c) Time Above dB Threshold for MSP Arrival/Departure-Related Noise Events
Tables showing the address location of each RMT and the amount of time for the month that each RMT recorded jet aircraft noise arrivals and departures events >=65dB, >= 80dB, >= 90dB and => 100 dB.
d) MSP Arrival/Departure-Related Noise Events i) Tables showing the count of jet aircraft arrival and departure events >=65dB,
>= 80dB, >= 90dB and => 100 dB. e) MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT
i) Tables showing the flight number, aircraft type, runway and LMAX (dB). f) Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL
At the May 8, 2014 NOC meeting, MAC staff will provide an update on the Technical Advisors Report for March 2014.
ITEM 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: John Nelson, Manager – Noise, Environment and Planning SUBJECT: Sound Level Measurement 101 DATE: April 15, 2014 At the May 8, 2014 NOC meeting, Mr. Ken Cox, Product Manager for the sound level meter manufacturer Larson Davis, will provide the NOC with a “Sound Level Measurement 101” briefing. Topics to be discussed include:
Basic Acoustics
Sound Level Meters
Sound Level Measurement
Sound Level Meter Data Output
Airport Sound Level Measurement Systems
ITEM 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: John Nelson, Manager – Noise, Environment and Planning SUBJECT: Noise Monitoring Study West and Northwest of MSP: Fall 2014 DATE: April 15, 2014
At the March 19, 2014 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting the Committee denied a request for the installation of permanent remote monitoring towers in the City of Edina. However, following the meeting staff was contacted by a number of NOC community representatives and at-large member communities suggesting that a reasonable accommodation for the request would be for the NOC to consider conducting a noise study using mobile noise monitors. This work would provide the ability to give informed responses to Edina residents based on actual noise monitoring.
Many NOC members have indicated that the unique circumstances surround the noise concerns that have risen in the City of Edina, resulting from the FAA’s discussion of the unprecedented implementation of Area Navigation (RNAV) departure procedure at MSP, warrants additional consideration. Regardless of the provisions contained in the NOC approved Mobile Noise Monitoring Request Form, many have pointed out that this circumstance is unique, and as such is reasonably distinguishable from the nature of monitoring requests that the NOC’s Mobile Noise Monitoring Criteria were intended to address.
In addition to the growing sentiment of the NOC members, legislation was recently introduced in both the Minnesota House and Senate to require the MAC to do a mobile noise monitoring study to the west and northwest of MSP in the cities of Edina and St. Louis Park.
In consideration of these factors, and consistent with the specifics of the proposed legislation, staff is recommending that a mobile noise monitoring study be approved by the NOC. The recommended study elements are as follows:
o The noise monitoring will be focused on assessing existing aircraft noiselevels.
o The noise monitoring will be conducted for a period of two weeks in thefall of 2014.
o The monitoring will be limited to three locations in the area bound by I-494 on the south, Xerxes Avenue on the east from the intersection of I-494 and Xerxes Avenue extending in a straight line north to I-394, I-394on the north, and Trunk Highway 169 on the west.
o Two of the monitoring locations will be within the City of Edina and onewill be located in the City of St. Louis Park.
o The specific location of the monitors shall be determined by therespective cities, in consultation with MAC staff.
o No monitor may be located within two miles of another permanent noisemonitor.
o The final report is due by December 1, 2014.
The staff will coordinate the specific locations of the sound level meters with NOC At-large representatives from Edina and St. Louis Park. The field monitoring is proposed to begin on October 1, 2014 and conclude on October 15, 2014, based on current and anticipated workloads. A final report of the monitoring is proposed to be completed by December 1, 2014 and distributed to the NOC and the cities of St. Louis Park and Edina. A map depicting the study area is shown below:
REQUESTED ACTION THE NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE DIRECTS THE MAC NOISE PROGRAM OFFICE STAFF TO CONDUCT THE NOISE MONITORING STUDY AS DETAILED ABOVE IN THE CITIES OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND EDINA. THE NOISE MONITORING REPORT SHALL BE
COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 1, 2014 AND BE PROVIDED TO THE NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND THE PARTICIPATING CITIES.
ITEM 5
MEMORANDUMTO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: John Nelson, Manager – Noise, Environment and Planning SUBJECT: Runway Use Study (Attached) DATE: April 15, 2014
The Runway Use System (RUS) for Minneapolis – St. Paul international Airport (MSP), a defined list of runway prioritizations for arrival and departure procedures, is intended to reduce noise impacts in densely developed residential areas to the west and northwest of the airport.1 To that end, the RUS gives first priority to departures and arrivals over open space, the Minnesota River, wetlands, and noise compatible commercial and industrial areas located to the south and southeast of MSP.
Departures, because they are louder noise events than arrivals, are further prioritized as the first operations to be considered when conditions permit the RUS to be used by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC). Typically, the RUS is able to be used when MSP is operated in a “south” flow, with departures off of runways 12L/R and 17. When used for arrivals, the RUS gives priority for operations using runways 30L/R and 35. However, using the RUS for both arrivals and departures creates opposite flight paths to the south and southeast. Over time the RUS has been limited primarily to nighttime operations. During 2012 and 2013, the RUS was used for 65% of the MSP departures and 57% of the MSP arrivals between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Numerous and complex factors affect the particular use of any specific runway configuration at any time. The RUS study determined that wind direction, wind speed, and aircraft traffic demand play significant roles in the utilization of the RUS at MSP. Historical wind data indicate a strong and consistent pattern of prevailing winds from the north and northwest for many months of the year at MSP. Since it is preferred that aircraft arrive and depart into a head wind, the use of a “north” flow with departures on runways 30L/R and arrivals on runways 12L/R and 35 is commonly observed. Periods of high traffic volume, those with more than 60 arrival and departure operations per hour, are present at MSP from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., which limits the utilization of the RUS due to the potential for opposite head to head flight tracks when the local airspace is in high demand.
During the nighttime hours, when the wind speeds are less than 7 knots and traffic volumes are low, (fewer than 15 operations per hour), the RUS is utilized to reduce noise impacts to the northwest and west of MSP. This means that the noisier departure operations are placed on runways 12L/R and 17. This configuration places arrivals on runways 12L/R and has resulted in an increase in noise impacts in residential areas located on the extended centerline of runway 12R. When feasible, these impacts may be mitigated by using both runway 12L and runway 35 for more nighttime arrival operations.
1 Air traffic control at MSP is solely the responsibility of the FAA.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Runway Use Study
Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Oversight Committee
Minneapolis ‐ St. Paul International Airport Runway Use Study
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2 Supplemental Analysis 3‐16 Introduction 3 The Federal Aviation Administration’s role in Runway Use and Air Traffic Control 3 Minneapolis – St. Paul Airport Layout 3 Generalized Runway Use 3‐4 Runway Use System History 4‐6 Air Traffic Demand 6 Hourly Traffic Demand Patterns 7‐8 Wind Conditions 11 ASOS and Calm Wind Conditions 11‐13 RUS Utilization Variables 13 Recent RUS Analysis 13‐15 RUS Utilization for All Hours 15‐16 Discussion 16
List of Tables
Table 1 Preferential Runway Use System 1972‐1989 4 Table 2 Summary of Daytime/Nighttime Runway Use Priorities 180 Day RUS Test 1989 5 Table 3 RUS Implemented in 1989 5 Table 4 Existing RUS 2005‐2014 6 Table 5 Traffic Demand Period Criteria 6 Table 6 Average Daily Arrival and Departure Banks: July 2013 7 Table 7 MSP March 2014 Wind Rose Data 10 Table 8 Percentage of Runway Use September 2012 ‐2013 11
List of Figures
Figure 1 MSP Layout 3 Figure 2 Average Hourly Traffic Demand, July 2013: Total Operations 7 Figure 3 Average Hourly Traffic Demand, July 2013: Arrivals and Departures 7 Figure 4 Long Term Wind Rose for MSP: 1970‐2014 9 Figure 5 MSP Wind Rose March 2014 9 Figure 6 MSP Wind Rose Comparison September 2012 – September 2013 10 Figure 7 MSP Nighttime Runway Use when Winds are Less than 7 knots 11‐12 Figure 8 MSP Daytime Runway Use when Winds are Less than 7 knots 12‐13 Figure 9 Monthly Nighttime Arrival and Departure Operations 2012 – 2013 14 Figure 10 Nighttime Percentage of Runway Use for Departures 2012 – 2013 14 Figure 11 Nighttime Percentage of Runway Use for Arrivals 2012 – 2013 15 Figure 12 Percentage of Runway Use for 24‐hour Arrivals 2012 – 2013 15 Figure 13 Percentage of Runway Use for 24‐hour Departures 2012 – 2013 16
2
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Noise Oversight Committee
Minneapolis ‐ St. Paul International Airport
Runway Use Study
Executive Summary
The Runway Use System (RUS) for Minneapolis – St. Paul international Airport (MSP), a defined list of runway prioritizations for arrival and departure procedures, is intended to reduce noise impacts in densely developed residential areas to the west and northwest of the airport.1 To that end, the RUS gives first priority to departures and arrivals over open space, the Minnesota River, wetlands, and noise compatible commercial and industrial areas located to the south and southeast of MSP.
Departures, because they are louder noise events than arrivals, are further prioritized as the first operations to be considered when conditions permit the RUS to be used by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC). Typically, the RUS is able to be used when MSP is operated in a “south” flow, with departures off of runways 12L/R and 17. When used for arrivals, the RUS gives priority for operations using runways 30L/R and 35. However, using the RUS for both arrivals and departures creates opposite head to head flight paths to the south and southeast. Over time the RUS has been limited primarily to nighttime operations. During 2012 and 2013, the RUS was used for 65% of the MSP departures and 57% of the MSP arrivals between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Numerous and complex factors affect the particular use of any specific runway configuration at any time. The RUS study determined that wind direction, wind speed, and aircraft traffic demand play significant roles in the utilization of the RUS at MSP. Historical wind data indicate a strong and consistent pattern of prevailing winds from the north and northwest for many months of the year at MSP. Since it is preferred that aircraft arrive and depart into a head wind, the use of a “north” flow with departures on runways 30L/R and arrivals on runways 30L/R and 35 is commonly observed. Periods of high traffic volume, those with more than 60 arrival and departure operations per hour, are present at MSP from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., which limits the utilization of the RUS due to the potential for opposite head to head flight tracks when the local airspace is in high demand.
During the nighttime hours, when the wind speeds are less than 7 knots and traffic volumes are low, (fewer than 15 operations per hour), the RUS is utilized to reduce noise impacts to the northwest and west of MSP. This means that the noisier departure operations are placed on runways 12L/R and 17. This configuration places arrivals on runways 12L/R and has resulted in an increase in noise impacts in residential areas located on the extended final approach of runway 12R. When feasible, these impacts may be mitigated by using both runway 12L and runway 35 for more nighttime arrival operations.
1 Air traffic control at MSP is solely the responsibility of the FAA.
3
Runway Use Study Supplemental Analysis
Introduction The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has designated the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) as its primary advisory body regarding aviation noise issues associated with aircraft operations at Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport (MSP). On December 19, 2013, the full MAC Commission approved the 2014 NOC Work Plan, which includes an “Evaluation of Runway Use System (RUS) usage at MSP and Related Performance.”
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Role in MSP Runway Use and Air Traffic Control The FAA has sole jurisdiction and decision making authority for air traffic control and safety for aircraft operations at MSP. The particular runway selection given to a specific aircraft arriving or departing MSP is the responsibility of the MSP Air Traffic Control (ACT) personnel. The MAC does not control the aircraft traffic using MSP.
Minneapolis ‐ St. Paul Airport International Layout The MSP airfield is approximately 3,400 acres in size and consists of two parallel runways, one north‐south runway, and one crosswind runway. Runway 04‐22 is 11,006 feet long; Runway 12R/30L is 10,000 feet long; Runway 12L/30R is 8,200 feet long; and, Runway 17/35 is 8,000 feet long.
Figure 1 MSP Layout
Generalized Runway Use Layout of the parallel runways, 30L/12R and 30/12L is designed to accommodate aircraft operations with historical prevailing wind patterns at this location. The 300° and 120° orientation of the parallels aligns with summer and winter wind directions that are predominant and the parallel runways are used
4
heavily at MSP. The crosswind runway 04/22, with a 40° and 22° orientation, is used rarely. Similarly, the north‐south runway 17/35, with a 170° and 350° orientation, is used rarely for departures to the north or arrivals from the north and is used primarily for departures to the south and arrivals from the south. Runway 17/35 may be used for arrivals from the north and departures to the north due to safety or emergencies, weather conditions that require its use, or temporary runway closures due to snow removal, construction, or other activities. When MSP is operating in a “north flow” configuration, the runway use is that of departures to the northwest on runways 30L/R and arrivals from the southeast on runways 30L/R and from the south on runway 35. North flow configurations are common from October through May due to the prevailing wind patterns and they are also used during daily peak hour traffic conditions because the north flow offers the ATC the highest capacity for arrivals.
When MSP is operating in a “south flow” configuration, the runway use is that of departures to the southeast on runways 12L/R and runway 17, and arrivals from the northwest on runways 12L/R. South flow configurations are common from June through September due to the prevailing wind patterns. South flow configurations are also used by the ATC during nighttime hours because the south flow can be used effectively during periods of low traffic demand winds permitting.
Occasionally MSP is operated in a “mixed flow” configuration. When MSP airport is operating in the mixed flow departures are to the northwest on 30L/R and runway 17 to the south, arrivals are from the southeast on runways 30L/R. A mixed flow configurations requires that the departures to the south on Runway 17 maintain separation from the arrivals from the southeast on runway 30L/R, hence the “mixed” flow designation.
Runway Use System History In 1972 the FAA ATC began operating a “preferential runway system” (PRS) for aircraft operations at MSP. The PRS was the precursor to the Runway Use System (RUS). Under the PRS, the objective was to route aircraft over less sensitive noise areas. The PRS maximized the number of departures and arrivals to the southeast and southwest and minimized the number of flights affecting residential areas to the north, northeast and northwest. The arrival and departure priorities of the PRS in its original design are shown in the table below:
Table 1
Preferential Runway System 1972‐1989
PRS PRS
Arrival Priorities Departure Priorities
29L/R 11L/R
04 22
11LR 29L/R
22 04 Table 1 note:
Runways 29L/R and 11L/R were renumbered 12L/R and 30L/R in 1997 due to a shift in magnetic declination.
In 1987, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Operations Committee was assigned to assess the runway use at MSP due to the decreased use of the cross wind runway 04/22 and the perceived ineffectiveness of the PRS. The ineffectiveness of the PRS was attributed to increased operations from airline deregulation, hub activity and a steady rise in passenger enplanements which contributed to heavy traffic volumes that warranted the use of the parallel runways thereby reducing
5
the use of the cross wind runway. The PRS use was further limited by wind speed, wind direction, runway surface conditions and the number of aircraft being controlled at any given time.
The MASAC met from June 1987 to January 1988 with the objective of achieving a more equitable distribution of aircraft noise in the communities surrounding MSP. In February 1988 the MASAC urged the MAC to recommend a FAA 180 day test of a newly proposed RUS. The RUS test was completed and resulted in the following summary:
Table 2
Summary of Daytime/Nighttime Runway Use Priorities 180 Day RUS Test June 1989
Daylight Hours (0600 – 2300)
1. When operations require the use of the parallel runways, a configuration should be selected that will place the majority of traffic in the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor when feasible.
2. When feasible, maximize the use of runway 04/22 and balance the use at both ends.
3. Utilize runway 04/22 in conjunction with the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor as much as possible
Nighttime Hours (2300 – 0600) 1. Maximize the use of Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor (head‐to‐head) when feasible
2. If runway 04/22 is required, use in a balanced manner
As a result of the successful RUS test and the summary test findings, the PRS was modified to reference the balanced use of both runway ends of runway 04/22 and re‐named the RUS. Runway use preferences that were put in place in 1989 are shown below:
Table 3 RUS Implemented in 1989
Departures
1. Runways 12L/R 2. Balanced Use of Runway 04/22 3. Runways 30L/R
Arrivals
1. Runways 30L/R 2. Balance Use of 04/22 3. Runways12L/R
Table 3 notes:
Departure preferences are separate and distinct from arrival preferences.
Since departures are typically noisier than arrivals, ATC first selects the departure runway and then selects the appropriate arrival runway.
Balanced use means that ATC will assign use of Runway 4 or Runway 22 with equal priority for noise abatement purposes; it does not mean that an equal number of aircraft will use either runway. Operational factors, such as wind, weather, and aircraft destination, will determine final selection of the use of Runway 4 or 22.
In July 2003, the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Office published the Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17. This document was prepared in advance of the opening of the new north south runway 17/35 which occurred in October 2005. As a result of the construction of the new runway, the former RUS system was modified to incorporate the use of runway 17/35 as follows:
6
Table 4 Existing RUS: 2005 – 2014
Departure Preference
1. Runways 12L/R 2. Runway 17 3. Either Runway 22 or 04 4. Runways 30L/R
Arrival Preference
1. Runways 30L/R 2. Runway 35 3. Either Runway 22 or 04 4. Runways 12L/R
Table 4 notes
Departure preferences are separate and distinct from arrival preferences.
Since departures are noisier than arrivals, ATC first selects the departure runway, and then selects the appropriate arrival runway.
Balanced use means that ATC will assign use of Runway 04 or Runway 22 with equal priority for noise abatement purposes; it does not mean that an equal number of aircraft will use either runway. Operational factors, such as wind, weather, and aircraft destination, will determine final selection of Runway 04 or 22.
In addition to the runway configuration arrival and departure preferences, circling approaches by turbo jet aircraft for training purposes are not allowed and helicopters requesting approaches are to be accommodated.
Air Traffic Demand While there are many factors to consider with regard to runway use configuration at MSP, one of the most significant issues is the level of scheduled operations at any given time and the orderly, safe, and efficient use of the runways to meet the air traffic demands. There are times of lighter air traffic loads, such as the nighttime hours from 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m., that present an opportunity for greater RUS utilization. In 2003, as part of the Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17, the ATC was consulted to determine low‐, mid‐, and high‐demand time periods of aircraft traffic, as follows:
Table 5 Traffic Demand Period Criteria
Demand Period
Traffic Demand(Operations per 15‐minute
segment) RUS Status
Low Fewer than 3.5
Traffic levels allow for maximum flexibility in runway selection and RUS implementation, including the use of unique procedures such as the Head‐to Head procedure in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
Mid Between 3.5 and 15 Traffic levels allow for efficient selection of runways based on noise considerations, given requirements for runway crossings, capacity, etc.; moderate use of the RUS
High Greater than 15 The need to maintain operational capacity does not allow ATC flexibility in runway selection; limited use of the RUS.
7
Hourly Traffic Demand Patterns Hourly traffic demand patterns at MSP are well‐established for arrivals and departures and can be analyzed by flight data information provided to the MAC. The airport has an average of over 1,100 flights per day and these are nearly evenly divided for the arrivals and departures. During the daytime hours, from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., there are distinct periods of arrival and departure “banks”. Operations banks are generally off set from one another, as aircraft arrive at MSP in larger numbers and then depart in larger numbers. Examples of arrivals and departures patterns for July 2013, one of the busiest months of the year at MSP, are shown below
Table 6 Average Daily Arrival and Departure Banks: July 2013
Arrival Banks 8 a.m., 12 p.m., 6 p.m., 8 p.m.
Departure Banks 6 a.m., 7 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., 3 p.m., 7 p.m., 10 p.m.
MSP’s Highest Hours of Traffic Demand 7 a.m., 10 a.m., 1 p.m.
MSP’s Lowest Hours of Traffic Demand 11 p.m., 12 a.m., 1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m., 4 a.m., 5 a.m.Table 6 note:
Based on air traffic demand alone, the RUS can be utilized during the nighttime hours, from 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.
Figures 2 and 3 below provide average hourly air traffic counts for total operations and for the division of total operations between arrivals and departures.
Figure 2 Average Hourly Traffic Demand, July 2013: Total Operations
Figure 2 note:
The 45 operations reported for 22:00 represent a seasonal increase of arrivals and departures added to accommodate higher passenger use in the summer.
6 2 1 1 3
14
32
92
57
78
95
82
62
104
80 82 8086 86
7971
32
45
17
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Average
Daily Operations
Average Carrier Jet Daily Arrivals and Departures Traffic Demand by HourJuly 2013 (1,286 Operations)
Green = Low‐Demand, Yellow = Mid Demand, Red = High Demand
8
Figure 3 Average Hourly Traffic Demand, July 2013: Arrivals and Departures
Wind Conditions In addition to traffic demand considerations relative to the use of the RUS, other factors that influence the particular runway configuration in place at a specific moment are the wind speed and direction. Even if the traffic demand were low, northwest head winds would require arrivals and departures in that direction. As noted earlier, in general, prevailing winds at MSP are out of the north and northwest during the months with cooler temperatures (October ‐ May) and out of the southeast during the warmer months (June – September). The wind conditions for MSP over a 43‐year, 3‐month period on record are shown on the wind rose below. The spokes on the wind rose indicate the direction of the wind, the concentric circles represent the percentage frequency of time the winds were from that direction, and the color of the spoke indicates wind speed. For example, for the longest spoke to the NW, the wind speeds were greater than 20 miles per for about .3% of the time.
4
1 1 1 3
10
11
41
36 35
42
28
46
56
34 31
59
39
53
21
47
16 15 14
1 0 0 0 1
4
21
51
20
43
53
54
16
48 46
51
21
47
33
58
25
16
30
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Average Carrier Jet Daily Arrivals (644 Operations) and Departures (642 Operations) by Hour
July 2013
Arrivals Departures
9
Figure 4 Long Term Wind Rose for MSP: 1970‐2014
Although long‐term data affirm the correct directional layout of the runways at MSP, on any given day specific wind data will be variable dependent upon the current conditions present for that time. Hence, broad generalizations regarding wind data must be used with care. Further, in addition to the common dynamic variations of wind speed and direction, wind shear, cyclonic winds, microburst storms, gusts, winds aloft and squalls can have a significant influence on the runway configuration selected for safe arrival and departure operations. A closer look at the variable wind speed and wind directions factors as they might be present for a particular month (March 2014) are depicted in the wind rose and associated data table shown below:
Figure 5 MSP Wind Rose March 2014
10
Table 7 MSP March 2014 Wind Rose Data
Wind Direction
in Degrees
0.0‐2.0 mph (Calm)
2.0‐5.0 mph
5.0‐7.0 mph
7.0‐10.0 mph
10.0‐15.0 mph
15.0‐20.0 mph
20.0+ mph
Total Direction Frequency
348‐011 7.8 0.1 1.1 2.3 3.6 1.0 0.2 16.2011‐033 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 033‐056 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.6 056‐078 0.0 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 078‐101 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.2 101‐123 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 123‐146 0.0 1.0 2.9 4.0 2.4 0.3 0.6 11.2146‐168 0.0 0.5 0.6 1.3 4.8 1.9 0.3 9.3 168‐191 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.8 1.8 0.6 0.0 6.3 191‐213 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.0 2.9 213‐236 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 236‐258 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 258‐281 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.3 4.9 281‐303 0.0 1.1 1.4 1.1 2.4 1.6 0.9 8.6 303‐326 0.0 0.5 1.1 1.0 5.6 2.7 0.7 11.6326‐348 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.1 5.8 2.2 0.2 10.1
Total Speed Frequency 7.754 9.690 13.681 19.724 34.149 11.173 3.306 99.477
Wind rose data for a given month can present a stark contrast from year to year, particularly in early fall and early spring. This contrast is shown in the accompanying figures and tables below that examine wind conditions and runway use in September 2012 and September 2013.
Figure 6 MSP Wind Rose Comparison
September 2012 – September 2013
September 2012 September 2013
11
Table 8 Percentage of Runway Use
Arrivals Arrivals Departures Departures
Runway Sep‐12 Sep‐13 Runway Sep‐12 Sep‐13
4 0.0% 0.0% 4 0.0% 0.0%
17 0.1% 0.0% 17 15.5% 36.0%
22 0.0% 0.0% 22 0.0% 0.0%
35 26.1% 13.6% 35 0.0% 0.0%
12L 10.7% 28.6% 12L 7.6% 16.9%
12R 10.9% 28.6% 12R 4.1% 7.0%
30L 22.8% 12.6% 30L 38.1% 22.9%
30R 29.5% 16.6% 30R 34.8% 17.2%
Figure 6 and Table 8 note:
The shift from a north flow in 2012 to a south flow in 2013 is evident in the percentage of runway use for both arrivals anddepartures. This shift underscores the important relationship of wind direction to runway configuration.
ASOS and Calm Wind Conditions The Minnesota Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) has a wind sensor station located at MSP. The primary function of the ASOS is to provide minute‐by‐minute observations and generate the basic Aviation Routine Weather Report (METAR) and Aviation Selected Special Weather (SPECI) reports. This information is essential for safe and efficient aviation operations. The MSP ASOS data were queried to determine wind conditions at MSP for arrival and departures that occurred when the winds had a speed of less than 7 knots. Runway use is generally configured such that aircraft arrive and depart into a headwind. When the tail wind speed is greater than 7 knots, (a generalized tail wind speed criteria, not a hard limit), other runway configurations may be selected to improve the head wind conditions for flight operations. Nighttime (10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.) runway use selection in 2012 and 2013 during calm and very light winds are shown in the table below:
Figure 7 MSP Nighttime Runway Use when Winds are Less than 7 Knots
2012‐2013
30L20%
30R9%
12L15%
12R34%
40%
220%
1722%
350%
2012‐2013 Nighttime Runway Use <7 knot Winds:Departures (3,115 Operations)
12
These figures indicate that when the winds are light and traffic demand is low, the RUS was able to be utilized for 71% of the departures and 66% of the arrivals at night. The potential convergence of head to head operations to the southeast and south places a limitation on the RUS under all wind conditions. Daytime (6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.) runway use selection in 2012 and 2013 during calm and very light winds is shown in the table below:
Figure 8 MSP Daytime Runway Use when Winds are Less than 7 Knots
2012‐2013
30L43%
30R20%
12L11%
12R23%
40%
220%
170%
353%
2012‐2013 Nighttime Runway Use < 7 kts Winds: Arrivals (8,933 Operations)
30L32%
30R26%
12L12%
12R7%
40%
220%
1723%
350%
2012‐2013 Daytime Runway Use < 7kts Winds:Departures (193,124 Operations)
13
These figures indicate that when the winds are light, the RUS was able to be utilized for 42% of the departures and 66% of the arrivals. The reduction in the use of the RUS in departures when the winds are light is likely associated with the high traffic demand during the daytime hours and the added efficiency and added capacity of using the north flow runway configuration during those times. RUS Utilization Variables In addition to the significant issues of air traffic demand levels and wind conditions, there are a number of variables that may affect the use of the RUS at MSP. These include: safety procedures, efficiency considerations, aircraft separation minimums, runway conditions, runway construction, runway maintenance, runway closures, meteorological conditions, visibility, navigational equipment maintenance, ATC work load levels, aircraft ground movements, airspace capacity, and the de‐confliction of aircraft on the ground and in the airspace, among others. Recent RUS Analysis The RUS establishes runway selection preferences based on impacted population (i.e., the runway that impacts the fewest people receives the highest preference); as a result, the RUS serves to reduce aircraft noise impacts on populations within the 60 dB DNL contour. The RUS is always in use, although it is used to varying degrees depending on traffic levels. During peak operational periods, capacity and weather are the driving factors in runway selection. ATC must select runways that maintain necessary airport capacity and consider aircraft performance criteria. Generally, aircraft must take off and land into the wind, in order to maximize safety and aircraft performance. Although ATC has limited flexibility in runway selection during high demand periods, the RUS can be employed in certain conditions. If prevailing winds are relatively calm, for example, the RUS is the mechanism that allows ATC to select a south flow, and depart aircraft on Runways 12L and 12R instead of on Runways 30L and 30R. Optimal noise benefits utilizing the RUS can be obtained only during mid‐ and low‐demand periods, which typically occur at night and for limited periods during the daytime. During these periods, ATC has some flexibility in runway selection. The RUS is used to make appropriate, noise‐sensitive runway selection in the mid‐ to low‐demand timeframes.
30L20%
30R25%
12L16%
12R18%
40%
220%
170%
3521%
2012‐2013 Daytime Runway Use < 7kts Winds: Arrivals (147,517 Operations)
14
Given the operational considerations of traffic demand and the data presented above, it is clear that the most favorable times for RUS utilization are between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The table below provides nighttime operations data for 2012 and 2013.
Figure 9 Monthly Nighttime Arrival and Departure Operations 2012 ‐ 2013
The number of arrivals (76%) exceeded the number of departures (24%) by a wide margin during the nighttime hours over the past two years. RUS prioritization places the noisier departures to the southeast and south, using runways 17, 12L and 12R. This utilization is shown below in Figure 10, showing that 64% of the carrier jet nighttime departures during nighttime hours were consistent with the RUS.
Figure 10 Nighttime Percentage of Runway Use for Departures 2012‐2013
787
831
1096
896
957
1095
1099
1066
764
812
756
871 809
819
1161 1023 946
1092
1168
1066
773
840
826
1043
221
246
287 196
294
453
534
286 217
230
193
312 241
256
308
340
284
411
384 286 157
187
217
456
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
January 2
012
February 2
012
March
2012
April 2
012
May 2
012
June 2
012
July 2
012
August 2
012
Septem
ber 2
012
Octo
ber 2
012
Novem
ber 2
012
Decem
ber 2
012
January 2
013
February 2
013
March
2013
April 2
013
May 2
013
June 2
013
July 2
013
August 2
013
Septem
ber 2
013
Octo
ber 2
013
Novem
ber 2
013
Decem
ber 2
013
Total MSP Monthly Carrier Jet Nighttime Arrivals and Departures2012‐2013: 29,592 Total Operations
Arrivals Departures
40%
1715%
220% 35
0%
12L19%
12R30%
30L22%
30R14%
Percentage of Runway Use: Nighttime Departures 2012‐20136,996 Total Carrier Jet Operations
15
Figure 10 notes:
Wind conditions may require departures on runways 30L/R during the night.
When the airport is operating in a south flow for departures, a possible side effect is an increase in arrivals on 30L/R, although under the RUS arrivals and departures are viewed as distinct events.
Nighttime arrivals are at a higher level of activity and the RUS prioritization is reversed to allow north and northwest flow. This means that runways 35, 30L and 30R are preferred. These runways were used for 57% of the nighttime arrivals in 2012 and 2013.
Figure 11 Nighttime Percentage of Runway Use for Arrivals 2012‐2013
RUS Utilization for All Hours The RUS system is in effect when arrivals are on runways 30L/R and 35 from the southeast and south, and departures are on runways 12L/R and 17 to the southeast and south. Both arrival and departure operations are considered to be distinct from each other, and largely due to wind direction (Figure 4) and traffic demand (Figure 2), there are limitations on having both arrival and departure operations to and from the same direction. The runway use for carrier jets during 2012 and 2013 are shown in the figures below:
Figure 12 Percentage of Runway Use for 24‐hour Arrivals 2012‐2013
Figure 12 note:
Arrivals were in the RUS configuration for 61% of the total carrier jet operations for the time period.
40%
170%
220%
352%
12L13%
12R30%30L
38%
30R17%
Percentage of Runway Use: Nighttime Arrivals 2012‐201322,596 Total Carrier Jet Operations
40%
170%22
0%
3518%
12L20%
12R19%
30L19%
30R24%
Percentage of Runway Use: Arrivals 2012‐2013382,401 Carrier Jet Operations
16
Figure 13
Percentage of Runway Use for 24 hour Departures 2012‐2013
Figure 13 note
Departures were in the RUS configuration for 44% of the total carrier jet operations for the time period.
Discussion A review of the runway use data presented in this study indicates that the RUS system is used effectively during the nighttime hours when wind conditions and low traffic demand permit. During the daytime hours the increased traffic demand and wind direction have a significant effect on the selected runway configuration, and the north flow configuration was used more than the south flow configuration during the past two years. During the nighttime hours, as the noisier departure traffic is sent to the southeast and south, the arrivals on runways 12L/R are increased, consistent with the RUS departure prioritization. There are more arrivals on runway 12R than 12L during the nighttime and these events contribute to increased noise impacts that have been identified in the Annual Noise Contour Analysis for 2013 recently completed by the MAC in March 2014. Greater use of runway 12L for arrivals during the nighttime could reduce these noise impacts. Similarly, greater use of runway 35 for arrivals during periods of extremely low traffic demand could further lower the nighttime noise impacts over densely‐populated areas to the west and northwest of MSP.
40%
1725% 22
0%
350%
12L12%
12R7%
30L30%
30R26%
Percentage of Runway Use: Departures 2012‐2013382,368 Carrier Jet Operations
ITEM 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: John Nelson, Manager – Noise, Environment and Planning SUBJECT: Continue Review of Runway 35 River Visual Approach Procedure DATE: February 26, 2014 A review of the Runway 35 River Visual Approach Procedure was discussed in November 2012 by the NOC and was carried forward in the 2014 NOC Work Plan at the request of the City of Eagan. The procedure was outlined in the November 2004 Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Part 150 Update Document as Noise Abatement Measure 16. The intent of this measure in the Part 150 Update was to consider a visual river approach to Runway 35 that routes arriving aircraft over the Minnesota River Valley. The purpose of this procedure would be to reduce aircraft arrival overflights of residential areas south of MSP. Aircraft using this procedure would approach from the southwest, flying a 65°
heading over the river. As an aircraft nears the airport, it would turn on to final approach and align with Runway 35. The procedure is shown below:
Recently the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have engaged in a series of actions involving proposals for Area Navigation RNAV procedures for use at MSP. In February 2014, Mr. Dennis Roberts of the FAA sent the MAC a letter stating that RNAV Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) could not be implemented in a mixed Performance Based Navigation (PBN) and vectored airspace environment which had been proposed for consideration by the MAC Full Commission in November 2012. However, Mr. Roberts indicated in his letter that Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs), based on PBN procedures, could be implemented at MSP. The PBN STARs proposed by the FAA for implementation at MSP do not include the Runway 35 River Visual Approach procedure as is shown in the figure below which depicts the PBN arrival routes that are in the process of being finalized prior to FAA publication.
MAC staff again reviewed the procedure with local FAA representatives. As was the case previously, several issues remain regarding the implementation of this procedure at the present time. Some of the issues include safety, efficiency, established final approach segment length, and the present commitments to implement the PBN STARs. Based on these factors, the Noise Program Office staff believes it is unlikely that the Runway 35 River Visual Approach will be implemented in the mid-term.
ITEM 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: John Nelson, Manager – Noise, Environment and Planning SUBJECT: SECOND QUARTER 2014 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING SUMMARY DATE: April 23, 2014 One of the elements of the Metropolitan Airports Commission’s (MAC) approved framework for the MSP Airport Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) requires MAC staff to conduct quarterly public input meetings. The intent is to ensure residents’ concerns are considered as part of the ongoing effort by the MAC and the NOC to address noise issues around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The NOC may also review these topics as possible future action items if the members so desire. On April 22, 2014 MAC Noise Program staff conducted the second quarter 2014 public input meeting at the MAC General Offices building. There were 11 people who attended the meeting, 3 individuals made comments at the meeting, there were no individuals who submitted comments via the Public Input Meeting Form on the Noise Program website and no comment forms were submitted at the meeting. MAC staff is in the process of preparing written responses to the questions. The comments and associated responses can be found on the MAC Noise Program’s website, accessible on the Internet at www.macnoise.com, when they are completed. The primary issues raised by those who commented focused on concerns about noise abatement departure tracks and procedures, frequency of overflights, and the location of the remote monitoring towers that measure noise in the communities. Specifically, comments/questions focused on:
Routing aircraft arrivals over non-residential land uses (highway 77) to reduce residential noise impact.
The increased use of Runway 30L for departures to the northwest and west of MSP.
A concern that the remote monitoring towers located to the west and northwest of MSP do not measure noise in communities further west of MSP, specifically, the city of Edina.
The next quarterly public input meeting is planned for July 29, 7:00 p.m. at the city of Mendota Heights City Hall.