sph/at Pg 1/11

Summary Reagan National Airport Community Working Group

Regular Meeting (22) – April 26, 2018 Date: April 26, 2018 Time: 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M. Location: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) Terminal A – Historic Lobby Conference Center Agenda: March 22, 2018 Summary, FAA Update, Working Group Discussion Working Group Members Present:

District of Columbia: Rick Murphy Primary District of Columbia – Ward 2 Ken Buckley Alternate District of Columbia – Ward 3 Maryland: Ken Hartman Primary Montgomery County

Paul Janes Primary Montgomery County Susan Shipp Primary Montgomery County John Mitchell Primary Prince George’s County – Accokeek Edward Williams Primary Prince George’s County – Ft. Washington William Noonan Alternate Montgomery County Janelle Wright Alternate Montgomery County

Virginia: Steve Thayer Primary Alexandria (City of) Ron Montague Primary Arlington County

Jim Phelps Primary Fairfax County – Dranesville Mike Rioux Primary Fairfax County – Mount Vernon Carol Hawn Alternate Fairfax County – At-Large Don Minnis Alternate Fairfax County – Mount Vernon Airlines: Tracy Montross Primary American Airlines

Agenda Item 1 – Welcome and Updates: Margaret McKeough, MWAA Chief Operating Officer:

Welcomed Working Group and announced new meeting format for FAA presentation of Conceptual South Flow SIDs:

o MWAA COO served as the facilitator. o Primary members seated at table, Alternates seated along the side, public observers seated

in the rear. Alternates called to table if primary member was absent. o Presentations delivered from podium. o Questions held until the end of the FAA presentation.

sph/at Pg 2/11

Announced that Nardyne Jeffries has been appointed to represent DC Ward 8, replacing Diane Fleming.

Facilitated the introduction of staff representing Montgomery County Council President Roger Berliner.

1A) Approval of March 22, 2018 Meeting Summary:

Approved.

Agenda Item 2 – FAA Update: 2A) Presentation: FAA 7100.41 Design Team Outcomes and Conceptual Procedures

Leslie Swann, FAA, Senior Advisor, Air Space Services Matthew Cathcart, FAA, DC Capital Project, PBN Management Co-Lead Bill Wise, FAA, DC Capital Project, PBN NATCA Co-Lead

Leslie Swann: o Acknowledged FAA colleagues in attendance representing Eastern Region,

Environmental, Subject Matter Experts and DC Capital Project.

sph/at Pg 3/11

Matthew Cathcart and Bill Wise:

sph/at Pg 4/11

sph/at Pg 5/11

sph/at Pg 6/11

Leslie Swann:

Discussion:

Margaret McKeough: o Requested FAA provide commentary and context of challenges encountered while

developing conceptual procedures that addressed the Working Group’s Recommendation #8.

Matt Fisher, FAA Potomac Consolidated TRACON Subject Matter Expert o Biggest consideration for design work was the impact to departure and arrival flows. o Currently, when South Flow departures have a CAPPS arrival conflict, aircraft will climb

and level off at 5,000 ft then wait for instructions to climb. o Under the conceptual design proposal, aircraft will climb to 7,000 ft once they’ve past

CAPVC_RC8 then continue to 11,000 ft. o Designers used 3 mile range circles around arrival and departure tracks to ensure proper

separation was maintained so aircraft could stay over the river as long as possible to minimize the impact on residential neighborhoods,.

o Ultimately, FAA had to build the airspace for the 2 sectors involved in the change while building the procedures, which is different than how FAA normally does procedure work.

John Mitchell: o Requested clarification of Slide 6 regarding Recommendation #8. Stated that FAA only

presented the top half of the recommendation which addresses South Flow departures and omitted the bottom half which addresses North Flow arrivals. Asked if the omission of the bottom half was an error or intentional.

o Working Group endorsed the entire Recommendation #8; Prince George’s County was under the impression that FAA would also assess arrivals and feels discredited by FAA’s decision to ignore North Flow arrivals.

Margaret McKeough: o Explained that the Working Group’s initial endorsement of Recommendation #8 focused

on South Flow departures. Recommendation #8 was amended the following month to include North Flow arrivals.

o Conceptual design demonstrates that FAA had to conduct a preliminary assessment of North Flow arrivals to address South Flow departures.

sph/at Pg 7/11

John Mitchell: o Stated the record is very clear that FAA committed to addressing arrivals and departures. o Recommendation #8, in its entirety, was endorsed by the Working Group as a

compromise to address two issues simultaneously as a unified position; it was not a 2-step process.

Matt Fisher: o As noted on Slide 7, FAA briefed the Working Group in November 2017 that there aren’t

any PBN procedures that can be developed at this time that will make a difference for North Flow arrivals.

o From an operational standpoint, south operations and north operations have two completely different sets of Standard Operating Procedures. While FAA may be able to do certain things in south operations, it doesn’t mean we are always able to reciprocate in north operations.

Mike Rioux: o Clarified the Working Group Recommendation process. Recommendation #8 was

submitted with a request to evaluate arrivals and departures. FAA responded that no operational changes could be made to North Flow arrivals. Working Group responded by submitting Recommendation #11 which doesn’t change any of the PBN procedures but does request FAA raise the altitudes for North Flow arrivals that impact the community. The altitude is the principle issue, not the flight track.

Matthew Cathcart/Matt Fisher: o FAA reviewed/responded with track data to a specific recommendation about turn

points.

Matt Fisher: o For a stabilized approach related to safety procedures, especially at airports with short

runways, aircraft need to be established on final approach at 7 miles out. Higher altitudes are not necessarily in-line with that objective. Distances from airport and optimum final approach altitudes:

10 miles: altitude 2,500 – 3,000 ft 6 miles: altitude 1,800 ft

William Noonan: o Asked why the stabilized approach profile is shallower than before. Previously, aircraft

had steeper descents and higher altitudes at a given DME; why can’t aircraft do that anymore?

Matt Fisher: o Altitude arrival restrictions haven’t changed in 10 years. FERGI waypoint moved out 1

mile to help set up the RNP approach. o Air Traffic must deal with improved aircraft performance and aerodynamics. Energy

management is critical to slow aircraft down and bleed altitude to set them up for a stabilized approach.

Mike Rioux: o Requested copies of presentation and latitudes/longitudes of conceptual waypoints.

Jeck / MWAA Noise Office:

MWAA will post FAA presentation: FAA 7100.41 Design Team Outcomes and Conceptual Procedures.

sph/at Pg 8/11

Matthew Cathcart:

FAA will provide the latitudes/longitudes/distances of conceptual waypoints depicted in presentation: FAA 7100.41 Design Team Outcomes and Conceptual Procedures.

o Asked if current procedures will be discontinued if the conceptual procedures are adopted in late 2019/early 2020.

Matt Fisher:

Yes, the 6 current SIDs will be discontinued; however, new procedures will use the same name with an up-number update.

o Did FAA give any consideration to waypoints with block altitude restrictions, e.g. – ‘At or Below 5000 ft’ BUT ‘Not Below 3000 ft’?

Matt Fisher:

Block altitude restrictions are not helpful for departures because the onboard Flight Management System ignores the bottom number.

o Slide 14: Is ESSZZ waypoint a combination of all the old waypoints around Woodrow Wilson Bridge?

Matthew Cathcart:

Yes – Waypoint had to move the minimum amount to meet criteria. Matt Fisher:

ESSZZ is primarily used to vector Runway 15 departures over the river. o Will FIMBI waypoint still be used for Runway 19 departures turning to the NE?

Matt Fisher:

Correct. There are no changes to Runway 15 & 19 transitions to the eastside SIDs. FIMBI needs to stay in its location to setup a turn to the next waypoint.

o Slide 29: Implementation timeline shifted from June 2019 to Late 2019/Early 2020. What is involved in an environmental review and what is the associated schedule?

Sean Doyle, FAA, Environmental Subject Matter Expert:

Since 1969, any federal action must undergo a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process which is a tiered process dependent on the proposed level of change. NEPA Categories:

o Categorical Exclusion Includes a preliminary noise screening assessment with

simplified assumptions for the worst case scenario. If proposed change crosses a threshold of concern, the

process triggers a more in-depth assessment. o Environmental Assessment (~1 year) o Environmental Impact Statement (Multiple years)

Completion timeline is dependent on the initial screening and the assigned NEPA category.

Community Outreach is part of the process.

sph/at Pg 9/11

o How will FAA determine the noise impact of the conceptual arrival and departure procedures?

Sean Doyle:

Software utility (Aviation Environmental Design Tool) is used to calculate/compare current and proposed conditions based on aircraft type, thrust configurations, flight track position data etc.

o Noise assessment defines a study area using a set of grids then calculates noise before and after the change for each grid.

Grid size is variable based on conditions. o Along the 65 dB DNL contour, NEPA defines a 1.5 dB increase or

higher, from all the flown conditions over the course of a year, as a significant impact which triggers the next environmental category.

o Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement culminate in a fully documented report. Report includes maps with color-coded changes of significant noise impacts (1.5 dB or higher); maps may include the current/conceptual procedures.

Susan Shipp: o What noise data source is used to conduct the noise assessment?

Sean Doyle: o TARGETS is a software program used in procedure designs that simulates flight tracks. It

compares original flight tracks with TARGETS simulated flight tracks. Modelled data is used instead of measured data (WebTrak) because the noise assessment process uses thousands of modelled grid locations to determine the noise impact; it isn’t practical or feasible to measure noise levels at all the required locations.

Steve Thayer: o Asked for clarification of waypoint near Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Original discussion was

to adjust Waypoint 17 so South Flow westbound departures would fly the center of the Potomac River instead of flying over Old Town, VA. Why didn’t that waypoint move?

Matt Fisher: o During the procedure design phase, ESSZZ was placed to help center aircraft over the

Potomac River using a 1-2 degree turn away from Old Town. o By nature of how aircraft will fly ESSZZ and CAPVC_RC8, aircraft should be slightly east,

centered more over the Potomac River. o FAA will provide conceptual South Flow westbound departure data to demonstrate

effectiveness of ESSZZ waypoint to center flight tracks over the Potomac River.

Ron Montague: o Concerned about introducing aircraft over new areas. o Slide 17: Will all aircraft (orange flow) follow the magenta line? o Will FAA brief the communities potentially impacted by the change in procedures?

Matthew Cathcart: o Yes, width of South Flow departures (orange flow) will move to magenta line. o Conceptual procedures designed with flyby waypoints with the intent to keep tracks

inside the waypoint and over the river.

sph/at Pg 10/11

Carol Hawn: o Emphasized that it’s imperative FAA explain conceptual design advantages/disadvantage

in community layman’s terms to avoid a similar negative outcome experienced with LAZIR-B North Flow departures where communities rejected conceptual designs that moved flight tracks over their neighborhoods.

Margaret McKeough: o Assuming the Working Group endorses the conceptual design and FAA begins the

environmental review, when does FAA conduct public outreach/comment period? o What’s the level of noise analysis that will be available at the very first community

meeting?

Sean Doyle: o FAA has made a concerted effort to conduct public outreach sooner. o NEPA is not a static process. FAA will start an environmental review assessment and

share preliminary noise screenings results with the public prior to completing the review process.

Ryan Almassy, FAA, Operations Support Group Manager for Eastern Service Center o FAA’s presentation to the Working Group is the beginning of the environmental review

process and community outreach. o As part of the NEPA process, FAA will conduct a preliminary noise screening and present

findings to the community for feedback. An additional month may be added to the timeline if the Working Group would

like to review the preliminary noise screening prior to presenting to the public. o FAA will provide a NEPA milestone flowchart.

Tracy Montross: o What is the next step for industry involvement?

Matt Fisher: o Industry was involved in the design process and has committed to continue with the

process.

Susan Shipp: o What percentage of South Flow departures will use the new SIDs?

Matt Fisher: o Eastbound (35%): No change. o Westbound (65%): 100% of South Flow departures would follow new procedures.

Mike Rioux: o South of the Airport Sub-Committee will discuss/compile/distribute a recommendation to

the Full Working Group within next 7-10 days in response to FAA’s presentation: FAA 7100.41 Design Team Outcomes and Conceptual Procedures.

Ryan Almassy: o FAA committed to providing additional data before asking for a Working Group’s

endorsement of the conceptual design.

Agenda Item 3 – General Working Group Discussion: 3A) Standard Operating Procedures

David Mould, MWAA VP of Communications: o Deferred to the May 24, 2018 meeting to incorporate additional changes.

sph/at Pg 11/11

Agenda Item 4 – Other Business/Next Meeting Agenda: 4A) May Tower Tour:

Mike Jeck: o FAA responded that a May Tower Tour is not possible. o MWAA will coordinate with FAA/Hilary King to determine the availability of a June Tower

Tour. 4B) Complaint Dashboard:

Susan Shipp: o When will MWAA release the Complaint Dashboard?

David Mould: o MWAA/Bruel & Kjaer are in final stages of development and hope to have a release date soon.

4C) Next Meeting:

May 24, 2018 Action Items – Prior to Next Meeting or Future Meeting:

FAA:

FAA will provide the latitudes/longitudes/distances of conceptual waypoints depicted in presentation: FAA 7100.41 Design Team Outcomes and Conceptual Procedures.

FAA will provide conceptual South Flow westbound departure data to demonstrate effectiveness of ESSZZ waypoint to center flight tracks over the Potomac River.

FAA will provide a NEPA milestone flowchart. MWAA:

MWAA will post FAA presentation: FAA 7100.41 Design Team Outcomes and Conceptual Procedures.

MWAA will coordinate with FAA/Hilary King to determine the availability of a June Tower Tour.

Working Group:

South of the Airport Sub-Committee will discuss/compile/distribute a recommendation to the Full Working Group within next 7-10 days in response to FAA’s presentation: FAA 7100.41 Design Team Outcomes and Conceptual Procedures.