Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1. Last fall I was watching KARE 11 News and they had a report that one of the runways was
closing. The next week is when we started to receive the excessive noise or sound levels from
the airplanes. I’ve been tracking this for a long time and every three minutes we hear a rumbling
in the sky, it’s really constant and I feel like I live in a war zone to be honest with you. What was
the catalyst for this change? I’ve been living there since 2010 and airplane noise has been
infrequent and now it’s excessive so there has to be some reason why the flight pattern is
always consistently the same. I can tell you, I can see these planes right outside my window;
there’s a flight pattern that goes to the south side of Lake Calhoun and the other pattern goes
over Linden Hills and over Lake Harriet. So what is the reason…why did they decide to change
this flight pattern? Why aren’t there more variations in the flight patterns so we can have some
relief from the sound? There’s something going on and people aren’t being up-forward and
honest with us as to why this is happening. It’s unfortunate and I don’t have any choice but to
sell my house because I’m not going to wait years for this problem to be fixed. I haven’t
complained on your website but last night I went to your fast tracker and there are 2 distinct
flight patterns. Why isn’t there any variation? That just seems to be ridiculous. Plus the
airplanes are flying at a really low elevation and there doesn’t seem to be any variation with
that. I’m home majority of the time so...for people who work during the day they don’t really
have to experience this but it is a really frustrating situation.
The news report you reference is relating to what is referred to as Converging Runway Operations (CRO).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in response to a National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendation determined that in instances when two runways that do not physically cross, but cause
a point in the airspace beyond the end of the runways where aircraft may converge, that special rules
need to be instituted to increase the level of safety. At the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP) these rules apply to aircraft that are departing on Runways 30L and 30R with aircraft that are
arriving on Runway 35.
The FAA discontinued use of Runway 35 in late July 2015 to allow for the new rules to be implemented.
In late August, the FAA began using the runway with the new rules in place. The Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) in general, and Noise Program Office in particular are monitoring how the new rules
may be affecting how the traffic is being distributed as a result of the new procedures.
The new CRO requirements have not changed how the airport is being operated when arrivals are
approach the airport from the north and northwest of MSP. The rules are only applicable when the
aircraft are approaching the airport from the south and southeast and departing to the north and
northwest. When the airport traffic is reversed and aircraft are approaching from the northwest over St.
Louis Park and Minneapolis, CRO rules do not have to be used and thusly do not impact traffic in this
direction. The arrival flight patterns in these areas have not changed. The pilots flying the aircraft at MSP
and every airport will align the plane with the extended runway centerline many miles away from the
airport to establish a constant level and controlled descent to the runway pavement. This portion of air
travel has not changed in decades.
What has changed recently is the amount of time that MSP is in a South Flow Configuration. MSP, like all
airports, have numerous air traffic configurations to allow aircraft to arrive and depart with as much
headwind as possible. In this way, the prevailing wind has a major impact on where aircraft are overflying.
When winds at this airport are blowing from the south and southeast, the airport will be in a South Flow
Configuration. In this configuration, aircraft will arrive from the northwest and depart to the south and
southeast. This is the flight pattern you described in your comments. The airport recently has experienced
many weeks with south and southeast winds. Consequently, the FAA chooses the South Flow
Configuration to allow for the safest operation possible.
I have used our flight track data to determine the level of flight activity you are experiencing near your
home. The following chart shows the monthly total number of flights that flew within 1 mile of your home
from January 2013 through May 19th, 2016.
There were more flights over your area in March and April compared to previous years. At the time of
your comments the airport was recording numerous consecutive days of south and east winds and
resultant South flow configurations. This string ended on May 3rd and has been more balanced lately
allowing the FAA to use multiple traffic patterns.
I also analyzed the altitude of aircraft flying near your residence. The majority of traffic you’re your home
is arrivals to Runway 12L. The following chart shows the average altitude over your home by month of
every aircraft arriving to this runway.
3,2
81
2,9
25
4,2
43
4,3
90
5,5
22
5,4
89
5,5
16
5,4
57
5,7
80
4,9
88
3,5
98
3,3
68
2,8
75
2,4
69
4,6
05
4,4
96
4,6
44
5,9
57
4,4
85
5,5
94
4,7
23
3,6
62
3,5
76
4,7
02
3,8
11
3,2
35
4,0
29
4,4
40 4,9
22
5,0
91 5
,76
0
5,2
97
6,0
30
5,0
04
5,3
63
4,4
42
4,0
63
3,2
40
5,2
28
5,5
88
2,8
28
0
1 , 0 0 0
2 , 0 0 0
3 , 0 0 0
4 , 0 0 0
5 , 0 0 0
6 , 0 0 0
7 , 0 0 0JA
N
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
MS
P O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
MSP OPERATIONS WITHIN 1 MILE OF RESIDENCEA R R I V A L C O U N T D E P A R T U R E C O U N T
The average altitudes of aircraft over your neighborhood as they approach this runway has been strikingly
consistent for the past two years; the range during this time is only 65 feet.
Finally, I want to pass along some information related to your concerns and the overall message the MAC
heard from those in attendance in St. Louis Park. The MAC brought the topics presented by the residents
during that meeting to the members of the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) on May 18th. In response
to these topics, the NOC amended its 2016 Work Plan. Specifically, the NOC directed staff to evaluate
aircraft arrival trends to the northwest of the airport and investigate if there have been changes in the
use of the airport that is causing more overflights in these communities. Further, the NOC added an item
to discuss aircraft landing gear procedures and evaluate if there have been any changes to the flight crew
procedures at MSP. These items are preliminarily scheduled for the September NOC meeting.
Information related to the NOC can be found at https://www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-
oversight-committee-noc.
2. I have a two part question; the first part has to do with the seemingly increase in Night time
operations. Those operations don’t seem to follow any kind of weather pattern. It seems to be
all the time, starting around 10 or 11 at night and sometimes there is a break and then it’ll pick
up again around 2 or 3 in the morning.
There has been an increase in night time flights at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP).
The Noise Program Office, in addition to the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), identified this trend in
the summer of 2015. At that time, the community members of the NOC sent a letter to all of the carriers
operating at MSP, accompanied by a letter from the MAC Chairman Dan Boivin, to encourage the air
carriers to limit scheduling night time flights due to the intrusive nature a flight during these hours has on
1 , 4 0 0
1 , 5 0 0
1 , 6 0 0
1 , 7 0 0
1 , 8 0 0
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
AV
ER
AG
E A
LT
ITU
DE
(F
EE
T)
RUNWAY 12L ARRIVALS WITHIN 1 MILE OF RESIDENCE1 2 L A R R I V A L A L T I T U D E
the surrounding community. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is not legally permitted to
limit this activity. The United States Congress removed any flexibility the airport operator has to restrict
any flight activity with the passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (1990). While this legislation did
phase out louder, Stage 2 aircraft, it also eliminated the right of the airport operator to dictate what
aircraft use their facility and during what times of day. There are many times of the day where the airport
is quite busy and subsequent hours when there is relatively little flight activity.
This traffic follows all of the same general flight patterns during the night time that are used during day
time. There may be differences in traffic as less aircraft in the airspace allow for greater flexibility from
the air traffic controllers. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is able to utilize
Opposite Flow Configuration at MSP more often at night. In this configuration, aircraft depart to the south
and southeast over commercial and industrial zoned property in Eagan and Mendota Heights. Other
aircraft landing at MSP will also fly from the south and southwest and land facing the opposite direction.
Because there are few aircraft flying during this time of day, the FAA is able to safely coordinate traffic to
operate in this manner. During the day, the amount of flights make this condition unusable.
I researched all of the aircraft operations at MSP for 2016 by hour. The following chart is the average
flight activity for every hour for January 1, 2016 through May 22, 2016.
This data encapsulates the picture of the entire airport facility. The chart shows the variability of
operations throughout the day. There are hours where arrival operations are the dominant operation—
specifically 1:00 PM, 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Conversely departure hours are generally experienced during
the 7:00 AM, 9:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 11:00 AM and 8:00 PM hours. During the night time hours, 11:00 PM
5.7
1.5
0.8
0.9 3
.3
10
.8
7.7
31
.9 36
.5
24
.0
32
.0
19
.7
32
.9
40
.1
32
.2
20
.3
49
.7
24
.5
58
.4
24
.3
37
.4
17
.0
11
.9 17
.0
1.0
0.4
0.2 0.1 0.3
9.5 1
8.3
44
.9
15
.7
43
.3
43
.2
42
.3
15
.8
37
.2
30
.8
42
.4
21
.3
29
.0
27
.6
27
.8
52
.3
13
.2 21
.2
1.8
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
0:0
0
1:0
0
2:0
0
3:0
0
4:0
0
5:0
0
6:0
0
7:0
0
8:0
0
9:0
0
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
AV
ER
AG
E D
AIL
Y O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
BY
HO
UR
AVERAGE DAILY MSP OPERATIONS BY HOUR ( JAN 1 , 2016 THROUGH MAY 22 , 2016)
A R R I V A L S D E P A R T U R E S
has regular arrivals which subsides during the 12:00 AM hour. There are 3.3 hourly arrivals in the 4:00
AM hour. 5:00 AM is when the airport has seen the largest increase in night time flights.
I also recreated the above chart for your area, selecting only flights that flew within one mile of your
home. Using both the data above and the chart for your neighborhood, I could not find any average
variability in the night time hours that you mention. While I certainly will submit that daily occurrences
would not be illustrated in a graphic that focuses on average values, taking a longer view of the
information allows us to identify trends that may need further research.
3. Related to the issue that was discussed by the previous commenter, I’m wondering if this track
where the airplanes seem to be, the more condensed tracks, I’m wondering if that has to do
with the implementation of RNAV.
The previous speaker lives in an area near Lake Calhoun that has not seen any change in flight procedures
as it relates to RNAV implementation. In March 2015, the FAA implemented Area Navigation (RNAV)
arrival procedures at MSP. These Performance Based Navigation (PBN) routes allow aircraft to be more
precise and efficient, while also allowing the FAA to provide a higher degree of safety during this critical
phase of flight. The RNAV procedures have compacted traffic onto arrival routes away from the airport.
The images below contrasts the differences between January 2015 arrivals on Runway 30R with January
2016 arrivals on Runway 30R. The flight track north of the airport has seen the result of the
implementation. More flights are able to fly a more compact track past the airport before turning 180°
back to the airport to line up with their assigned runway. This flight procedure calls for aircraft to descend
from 10,000 feet northwest of the airport to 6,000 feet before making this turn.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2 0.1 1
.7
2.4
7.0
3.1
7.5
6.2
5.1
2.5
5.8
5.6
6.7
4.4
5.2
5.9
3.7
7.3
1.9 2
.1
0.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0:0
0
1:0
0
2:0
0
3:0
0
4:0
0
5:0
0
6:0
0
7:0
0
8:0
0
9:0
0
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
DA
ILY
AV
ER
AG
E O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
BY
HO
UR
DAILY AVERAGE MSP OPERATIONS BY HOUR WITHIN 1 MILE OF RESIDENCE
( JAN 1 , 2016 THROUGH MAY 22 , 2016)
A R R I V A L S D E P A R T U R E S
The flight routes referenced by the previous commenter have not changed. The final approach phase of
flight have been consistent for many years. Pilots will always line up with the runway centerline extended,
ensuring the aircraft’s wings are level and the descent is controlled. This segment of flight is unaffected
by RNAV procedures.
4. I’m a big believer in data but I’m also a big believer in what I experience on a daily basis. I live
on the east side of Lake Harriet and once in a while I have experiences at night seeing those airplanes come in lower. I certainly have because they’re not that high above my house as they’re coming over and I don’t know what that decibel level is. It’s certainly a lot louder when airplanes are coming in than when they’re taking off from the airport. It would be also interesting to know what that range is and where those monitors are because the intensity of the airline noise, I’ve lived in my house for 14 years, has dramatically increased. So I appreciate you being here and sharing the data but the other part of me is pretty skeptical simply because
of my experience on a daily basis and when I see these airplanes, especially in the evenings, coming in very low. We have neighborhood gatherings and BBQ’s and it’s getting to be so frustrating because there’s so much noise coming in the evening hours. I appreciate that we can come to a meeting like this and express our concerns but it feels like there is no, you know….Fed-Ex will keep coming in with their big cargo planes and it is what it is. I don’t see how any of this will be mitigated or changed. I’m really feeling like the only option I have is to sell my house and I submitted comments and I was supposed to hear back from people at MSP and I never did and I just have a fairly high level of frustration at this point. So, thank you for listening, I appreciate it.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is committed to operating the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (MSP) in an environmentally responsible manner. We make every effort to hear the
concerns of our neighbors. This important dialogue ensures that there is communication between the
airport and the citizens. Furthermore, the Noise Program Office makes every effort to respond to citizens
at Public Input Meetings within one month of your remarks. For questions that are received daily, we
attempt to respond within three business days. You have my sincerest apologies that you did not receive
a response to comments you previously submitted.
I also rely on millions of data points to help tell the story of aircraft flights in this community. Our system
fuses data from flight tracks, noise monitors and citizen complaints to attempt to have a complete
narrative on this subject matter. Using this data, we are able to provide relevant information for individual
locations. Using this system, I analyzed flight tracks between January 1, 2013 and May 22, 2016 that flew
within ½ mile of your home.
The blue bars above represent all arrivals near your home. Based on your location, this will be primarily
inbound to Runway 12L. The departures are depicted using the gray bars. These flights are typically
coming from Runway 30R. This is the same runway pavement used in the opposite direction based on
weather conditions. In every month you experience more arrivals than departures. The arrivals in your
area all follow a very standard approach into the airport and do not deviate off the imaginary runway
centerline extended. Conversely, the departures fan out as they leave the airport environment and are
given specific direction headings to travel that will both keep them clear of other aircraft and begin to
point them toward their final destination.
The altitudes behave in a similar manner to the overall counts. The arrivals are very consistent while the
departures have more variability. The departures are also higher as the aircraft attempts to gain as much
altitude as possible after leaving the airport. The departures also have more deviations because of the
weather. All aircraft are able to gain altitude more easily in cold, dry air. Additionally, a jet engine can
produce more thrust in cold air allowing the aircraft to lift off from the runway earlier. Consequently, the
chart shows higher departure altitudes in the winter months.
3,1
32
2,7
20
4,0
02
4,1
42
5,3
41
5,2
77
5,3
23
5,2
47
5,6
99
4,8
55
3,4
36
3,2
83
2,7
75
2,3
65
4,5
25
4,3
02
4,5
21
5,8
73
4,5
55
5,5
02
4,6
35
3,5
63
3,5
10
4,6
32
3,7
98
3,1
85
4,1
05
4,2
79 4,8
34
4,9
60
5,7
29
5,4
62 6
,11
1
4,9
79
5,4
30
4,4
21
4,0
10
3,0
98
5,2
58
5,5
77
3,4
69
0
1 , 0 0 0
2 , 0 0 0
3 , 0 0 0
4 , 0 0 0
5 , 0 0 0
6 , 0 0 0
7 , 0 0 0
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
MS
P O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
MSP OPERATIONS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF RESIDENCE
A R R I V A L C O U N T D E P A R T U R E C O U N T
Based on your comments, I thought it would be important to look closer at the altitudes. Because you
have more Runway 12L arrivals near your residence than any other operation, I focused on this specific
runway. In the following chart, I compared the average altitude of day time flights near your
neighborhood against the average altitude of flights at night. Your assertion that flights are lower at night
is true. Over the past 3 ½ years, the night flights are 32 feet lower than the day time flights. The day
flights average 1,101 feet while the night flights are at 1,069 feet above the ground.
0
2 5 0
5 0 0
7 5 0
1 , 0 0 0
1 , 2 5 0
1 , 5 0 0
1 , 7 5 0
2 , 0 0 0
2 , 2 5 0
2 , 5 0 0
2 , 7 5 0
3 , 0 0 0
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
AV
ER
AG
E A
LT
ITU
DE
(F
EE
T)
MSP OPERATIONS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF RESIDENCEA R R I V A L A L T I T U D E D E P A R T U R E A L T I T U D E
The previous two charts led me to one more observation related to altitudes. The seasonal variations of
altitudes during the arrival flights have become more muted beginning in the winter months of 2014. The
higher altitudes in the winter are not as high while the lower altitudes in the summer are not as low. I
took a very long view of this to determine the net effect in your area. This subtle change has done two
things. First, it has made arriving altitudes extremely consistent. Over the past two calendar years, the
difference in months has only been 58 feet. Second, the annual average altitude of arriving aircraft in
your area has never been higher. While it is only a minor increase—around fifty feet—the increase has
been sustained for two full years.
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 0 0
9 0 0
1 , 0 0 0
1 , 1 0 0
1 , 2 0 0
1 , 3 0 0
1 , 4 0 0
1 , 5 0 0
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
AV
ER
AG
E A
LT
ITU
DE
(F
EE
T)
MSP ARRIVALS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF RESIDENCE1 2 L A R R I V A L D A Y A L T I T U D E 1 2 L A R R I V A L N I G H T A L T I T U D E
My last subject matter is related to our Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) information. The closest tower
to your home is RMT 2, which is in the area of Fremont and 43rd Street. This location is less than ½ mile
from your home. This RMT, as well as the 38 other locations, are continuously observing sound levels
from all sources. When the sound level rises above 65 decibels (dBA) and remains above 63 dBA for 8
seconds, an event is recorded. Our system then determines if the event was an aircraft or not. If an
aircraft flew within 3500 meters (2.2 miles) of the RMT location at or below 2000 meters (6,560 feet) and
within 30 seconds, the event is attributed to that aircraft. My last chart displays the number of aircraft
events over 65 dBA at RMT 2 back to 2014. This number is compared to the total number of arrivals to
those runways. Not surprising, when the arrivals for Runways 12L and 12R increase, so do the total
number of events. The events at RMT 2 are driven by the arrival operations. Nearly every arrival to
Runway 12L flies near RMT 2. Many of the departures from the same pavement, Runway 30R, make
dispersal turns prior to reaching RMT 2 and thusly, may not create an event at this location.
5 0 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
8 0 0
9 0 0
1 , 0 0 0
1 , 1 0 0
1 , 2 0 0
1 , 3 0 0
1 , 4 0 0
1 , 5 0 0
J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A
2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
MS
P O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
MSP 12R ARRIVALS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF RESIDENCE
A N N U A L A R R I V A L A L T I T U D E A R R I V A L A L T I T U D E
Finally, I want to pass along some information related to your concerns and the overall message the MAC
heard from those in attendance in St. Louis Park. The MAC brought the topics presented by the residents
during that meeting to the members of the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) on May 18th. In response
to these topics, the NOC amended its 2016 Work Plan. Specifically, the NOC directed staff to evaluate
aircraft arrival trends to the northwest of the airport and investigate if there have been changes in the
use of the airport that is causing more overflights in these communities. Further, the NOC added an item
to discuss aircraft landing gear procedures and evaluate if there have been any changes to the flight crew
procedures at MSP. These items are preliminarily scheduled for the September NOC meeting.
Information related to the NOC can be found at https://www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-
oversight-committee-noc.
5. So when you look up our driveway you see the Southern parallel runway on a Northern flow.
What I was wondering is, you mentioned earlier about MAC subsidies having additional ones.
When you say additional do you mean expanding out the area or are customers who have
already had a MAC upgrade, are they eligible for a second one?
Both conditions are true. The geographic area that is eligible for residential sound insulation is expanding.
Additionally, some homes that participated in previous sound insulation programs will be eligible for
further upgrades. Based on the terms of an amended legal agreement between the MAC and the cities
of Richfield, Minneapolis, Eagan, and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, the MAC has agreed to
provide mitigation to any home provided the home is located, for a period of three consecutive years in
the actual 60-64 DNL noise contour published in the Annual Noise Contour Analysis report, and, within a
higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to the home's status under the noise mitigation
program prior to the amendment.
0
2 , 0 0 0
4 , 0 0 0
6 , 0 0 0
8 , 0 0 0
1 0 , 0 0 0
1 2 , 0 0 0
0
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
RU
NW
AY
12
L,
12
R A
RR
IVA
L O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
AIR
CR
AF
T S
OU
ND
EV
EN
TS
AIRCRAFT SOUND EVENTS OVER 65 DECIBELS AT RMT 2A R R I V A L E V E N T S D E P A R T U R E E V E N T S M S P A R R I V A L S
Additionally, if a home was in the 60-62 DNL contour and previously received mitigation it will be eligible
for further improvements if it moves into the 63+ contour area. This is the section that applies to your
property. The block you are on received partial mitigation as a part of a previous program. In the future,
if this block moves into the 63+ DNL contour level for three consecutive years, it will be eligible for further
mitigation. The actual noise contour levels are determined by March 1 of each year.
To easily determine if your home is currently eligible for further upgrades or if the property is located
within a certain contour level, please visit our website at http://www.macnoise.com/residential-noise-
mitigation-programs. This section of the website has a “Residential Noise Mitigation Map” tool that allows
a property owner to determine if their location is included in the program at this time. It also includes a
description of the program and a full listing of properties that are eligible for mitigation or in their 2nd or
1st year of eligibility.
6. I wanted to comment on the late night flights and that the airport can’t control when flights
come in, when they take off nor the type of aircraft that they use. However the MAC does have
some control over what they charge for their fee structure for landing and take offs. Now MSP
has been known and continues to be known for having very low takeoff and landing fees. In
your fee model you could devise it as such that there would be a larger fee for takeoffs and
landings late at night. You could charge differently or more for the noisier aircraft, you could
put in incentives where businesses would want to try to comply and perhaps do what’s better
for their bottom line in the same way it’s better for residents. So you do have some controls. So
have you been revisiting that at all or at least taking a look at what your fees are? Your previous
Chairman of the MAC, who has just retired now, he was quite proud of the low fees that MSP
had. Other cities have high fees for noisier aircraft and the late night flights. Have you
considered that?
Thank you for your suggestion to encourage quieter aircraft to operate at MSP at times that are less
intrusive on the community. Unfortunately, the MAC does not have the ability to charge differential rates
on a basis of aircraft type or time of day. 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
charging differential fees for the purpose of controlling noise exposure, 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.
Unfortunately, the use of a differential fee structure for noise control efforts would fail the first criteria as
it discriminates against an aircraft that in every other way is certificated to fly in this country.
The 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act was created, in part, to standardize aircraft noise planning
efforts. Many local communities and states had begun imposing restrictions on aircraft and managing
noise planning without federal guidance, leading to a patchwork of restrictions at airports across the
United States. This act established a federal framework for airports to manage noise exposure, but also
eliminated an airport operator’s ability to impose new restrictions without receiving approval as a part of
a Part 161 submission. Airports that had restrictions in place prior to the 1990 legislation were allowed to
maintain them. To date only 39 different Part 161 applications have been submitted with the FAA and
only one was approved after multiple litigation efforts were undertaken.
7. I would just like to say over the last year the night flights have gotten louder and a lot of times
it’s a low rumble. I’m wondering if they’re coming in lower. To be sleeping deeply and at 3, 4, 5
in the morning be startled awake. One night I thought a plane was landing on my house and
that also makes me also worry about my safety. If they are that low, and there’s a problem,
what happens? There’s something very different, very loud and very frightening.
Aircraft arriving toward the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), are on a consistent and
controlled descent. During the critical approach and landing phase of flight the aircraft at MSP operate
very similarly, regardless of performance characteristics. These similarities have become even more
homogenous recently. The traffic mix at MSP is dominated by airline traffic; these aircraft fly very
standardized routes and arrival procedures. Similar to the other residents at the meeting, I have
investigated average altitudes of aircraft that have flown within ½ mile of your home. There has been a
very minor change in altitudes. The higher winter altitudes are not as high, while the low summer altitudes
are no longer as low. The altitudes of aircraft near your home over the past 18 months is amazingly
consistent, having deviated less than 100 feet total during that time span. The following chart shows the
average monthly and annual altitude of arrivals near your property back to 2013.
Finally, I want to pass along some information related to your concerns and the overall message the MAC
heard from those in attendance in St. Louis Park. The MAC brought the topics presented by the residents
1 , 4 0 0
1 , 4 5 0
1 , 5 0 0
1 , 5 5 0
1 , 6 0 0
1 , 6 5 0
1 , 7 0 0
1 , 7 5 0
1 , 8 0 0
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
JUN
JUL
AU
G
SE
P
OC
T
NO
V
DE
C
JAN
FE
B
MA
R
AP
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
AV
ER
AG
E A
LT
ITU
DE
(F
EE
T)
RUNWAY 12L AND 12R ARRIVALS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF RESIDENCEA N N U A L A R R I V A L A L T I T U D E M O N T H L Y A R R I V A L A L T I T U D E
during that meeting to the members of the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) on May 18th. In response
to these topics, the NOC amended its 2016 Work Plan. Specifically, the NOC directed staff to evaluate
aircraft arrival trends to the northwest of the airport and investigate if there have been changes in the
use of the airport that is causing more overflights in these communities. Further, the NOC added an item
to discuss aircraft landing gear procedures and evaluate if there have been any changes to the flight crew
procedures at MSP. These items are preliminarily scheduled for the September NOC meeting.
Information related to the NOC can be found at https://www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-
oversight-committee-noc.
8. I feel for your concerns. I go back to 2011 when things changed drastically for the Standish-
Ericson neighborhood as well Lake Hiawatha and Nokomis area because of a near collision
situation that caused the take offs to change dramatically. I’m in south Minneapolis so we’re
mostly concerned about take offs and you all here in St Louis Park are concerned about the
landings. I just want to reiterate what Chad said, the MAC and Chad were very helpful for the
neighborhoods to the best that they could be. They have a tremendous amount of data
available, willing to share it, create charts, and create graphs for us. We talked about altitude,
we talked about frequency of flights over particular neighborhoods and so on. One thing I would
like you to comment on is the night time, since night time is a real concern for St Louis Park,
your charts said the window was 10pm-7am but in the presentation you said the MAC uses
10:30pm-6:30 am. So it’s a much smaller window by a full hour and that’s pretty important. The
MAC website does have a tremendous amount of information and I would tell you that the MAC
really can’t do a whole lot for us. They can report, they can suggest, they monitor but the FAA
and our Senators and Representatives in Washington are the people to continue to write to
with your complaints and to ask for help if the FAA is ever going to change this noise contour
thing and ever going to monitor through that. Because of the winds, I think the flights over
South Minneapolis have perhaps been a little bit less over the last couple years but one things
is happening, while the operations are down the size of the airplane fleets increased. So while
engine noise is coming down with a newer generation of airplane, the airplanes are getting
bigger, overall, fleet wise so maybe it’s a wash at this point. If you can talk to one thing, I know
over the last few years, we talked about landings, there was supposed to be a new profile
created that was supposed to lessen noise and bring the airplane in on a different profile. If you
can speak to a few points I made about night time operations and this landing thing and so on.
I appreciate all you did 5-6 years ago, MAC is responsive if you ask the right questions and you
ask for specific data for your particular spot and you’ll learn a lot of the couple years.
Thank you for your sentiment about the role of MAC in this discussion. We are continually using our data
to work closely with the airlines and the FAA to find a balance between an important airport asset and
the impact it has on the surrounding community.
The nighttime period from 10:30 pm to 6:00 am reflects the MAC’s voluntary nighttime restrictions at
MSP and its six reliever airports with recommended procedures for operations that occur during these
hours. The MAC has requested the MSP air carriers "put forth [their] best efforts to avoid scheduling
operations between the nighttime hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and avoid the use of louder, modified
Stage 3 aircraft for flights that are scheduled to occur during the nighttime hours."
You have correctly observed that the fleet using MSP is slowly changing. The demand for air travel
continues to rise in this community. Passenger counts have never been higher. Fortunately, the number
of operations at MSP have not risen by similar amounts. Instead, the airlines are flying bigger aircraft, and
they are filling them closer to capacity. The airlines are making fleet choices to align with this trend. Delta
Air Lines is the biggest carrier at MSP. Delta has recently announced a handful of future aircraft order
commitments. Delta is taking delivery of new Airbus A321 aircraft and recently announced plans to add
the Bombardier CS100 aircraft into its fleet. The A321 will in part replace both MD-80 and Boeing 757
aircraft. Neighbors living under the flight paths associated with MSP have expressed their eagerness for
Delta to discontinue using MD80 aircraft at MSP. Not only are the A321 aircraft quieter, they are 25%
more fuel efficient and roomier for passengers. More exciting from the Noise Office perspective is the
introduction of the CS100 into the MSP fleet. This airplane is powered by the Pratt & Whitney 1500G
engines. This new geared turbofan engine technology from Pratt and Whitney will allow the CS100 to be
up to 20 dB quieter than today’s FAA Stage 4 noise standards.
The arrival flight procedures over St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have not changed with the
implementation of RNAV arrival procedures. The aircraft in these areas are flying traditional approaches
using existing glideslope technology. Further away from MSP, all jet aircraft, old and new, are flying new
arrival procedure profiles into MSP. Optimized Profile Descents (OPD) are a major improvement realized
from the implementation of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures by the FAA. OPD’s allow an
aircraft to descend to the airport at both a more consistent rate and at idle engine power. Previously,
aircraft would descend and level off multiple times while approaching an airport. These level off periods
would require the pilot to increase engine power to maintain the altitude assigned. While the benefits
from noise reduction may be limited, the emission reduction benefit is encouraging. The MAC Noise
Program Office, in partnership with the FAA and the airlines, is developing an application to determine
how many aircraft are utilizing these procedure to quantify just how much the new procedures are
reducing emissions.
9. I’ve been struck as I listen to you, all of the things you have said that the MAC does, none of
them have you mentioned to factor taking in account resident feedback. My question is, what
do you do with the data when people later give you grave concerns in meetings like this or
whether they put complaints in on the website or any other way. What do you do with all that
information besides tally it and can you point to any decisions that the MAC has made that have
appreciably improved the noise situation for residents that are at least partially attributable to
the feedback that you get from residents?
Operational changes from Public Input Meetings, open forums, noise complaints and resident concerns
are not always possible. That does not mean these activities are not important. It does not mean resident
concerns fall on deaf ears. It does not mean there is no recourse. The opposite is in fact true. Public
input is required for our office to continue to make improvements in this arena. Aircraft noise has many
different entities involved and is ever changing. Changes are made gradually and concerns cannot always
be remedied. This office will continue to listen to the community and will always strive to make
improvements when possible. To that end, the Noise Program Office is currently undergoing an
evaluation of all of our outreach efforts to determine how we can better meet the realistic needs of our
stakeholders.
Beyond the specific cases that were presented during the meeting, public input continues to drive many
of the Noise Program Office activities. The Public Input Meeting process is a function of the MSP Noise
Oversight Committee (NOC). The NOC uses the content of these meetings to formulate their annual work
plan. In fact, the NOC took action to make additions to the 2016 Work Plan based on feedback from
residents at the April 27 Public Input Meeting. The MAC staff brought the topics presented by the
residents during this meeting to the members of the NOC on May 18th. In response to these topics, the
NOC directed staff to evaluate aircraft arrival trends to the northwest of the airport and investigate if
there have been changes in the use of the airport that is causing more overflights in these communities.
Further, the NOC added an item to discuss aircraft landing gear procedures and evaluate if there have
been any changes to the flight crew procedures at MSP. These items are preliminarily scheduled for the
September NOC meeting. Information related to the NOC can be found at
https://www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-oversight-committee-noc.
10. I’ve lived in my area for almost 20 years and I would say the sound has changed. In some ways
better, the throttle pulling-we don’t get that “boom”. I don’t know what it was called but it was
horrible. I don’t know why you fly over water since it tends to amplify noise, go to the boundary
waters and drop a canoe paddle in a metal canoe and you know that. One of the things I’m glad
you do, is take this information and find out what patterns or noise because there are two
separate kinds of planes in this landing pattern are causing a low rumble. It’s obviously not sub-
sonic but it’s low enough that it’s shaking the houses. That’s happening at night so I don’t know
what plane that is but there are other times during the day and they look like a DC-9. You say
there are no DC-9s so whatever has the tail engines, those planes are making a low rumble noise
and is a very large plane. So I guess I need to ID my planes and then call. One of the suggestions,
if you are getting all this noise information that would be helpful, sometimes if you can plan
that’s helpful instead of not knowing when these planes are going to be so loud. Much like how
you can look up a pollen count and say ‘ok this is going to be a really bad day to go out and have
a picnic’. You guys can tell when the wind is going this way and out flights are going to be worse
you can have a flight pattern of different colors so we know we won’t want to be outside and
invite everyone over for a BBQ that day because it’s going to be horrible. Maybe then we won’t
get so mad because we can plan.
The flight tracks that aircraft fly at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) are controlled by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA does take into account the land that is under a flight
procedure. Flying over water is preferred to flying over a neighborhood when possible. Due to the
requirements related to aircraft performance and safety, the FAA does not always have the flexibility to
not overfly water or neighborhoods. The runway orientation is the foundational item used when a flight
procedure is being created. All arriving aircraft are going to line up with the runway centerline extended.
In your case, if you draw a straight line from the Runway 12R runway centerline to the northwest, it would
be drawn very close to your neighborhood. Consequently, many of the aircraft that arrive on this runway
will fly near your home during their approach to MSP.
The aircraft you are referring to is more than likely the MD-80. This is one of the louder, mainline, narrow
body aircraft at MSP. It looks very similar to the DC-9. Unfortunately, it also looks very similar to the MD-
90, which by comparison is a relatively quiet aircraft. Delta has recently announced it plans to phase out
operation of the MD-80 aircraft in favor of the Airbus A321 and Bombardier CS100. These new aircraft
are quieter and more fuel efficient than the MD-80. New additions like this and other aircraft will continue
to change the sound you experience, hopefully for the better.
There are many factors that are used to determine runway configurations. 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. Due to the
variability of all of these conditions, an air traffic forecasting tool is unlikely to be accurate. Because the
wind can be a driving factor in runway use decisions, I like to know the forecasted winds at MSP to help
in determining future runway use. While the MAC does not endorse a product for this purpose, I
personally use https://www.windfinder.com/forecast/minneapolis-st_paul_airport to estimate how the
airport may be operated. This website provides forecasted surface winds every 3 hours for the next ten
days. In very general terms, if the arrow is pointing up, the airport will likely be in a South Flow
Configuration with arrivals in your area. If the arrow is pointing down, the traffic will likely be reversed
11. I’ve been coming to these meetings for about a year and your presentation has gotten better,
it’s very educational. I started coming because the landings over my house, starting last
summer, had clearly gotten to be a lot louder. So I was coming to get some information about
what was happening there. From a letter that I got from the MAC, they did indicate that March
2015 the FAA began the RNAV program and that’s kind of when things started to happen in our
area. This is the first time I came to a meeting and we talked about the landing pattern and
clearly that is what has been happening here. I have a folder full of letters from the MAC and
the FAA, who all refer me back to the MAC to be quite truthful, indicating that nothing has
changed. All you data says that nothing has changed so I would just offer that it very frustrating
to come here with a room full of people who are telling you it has changed, something has
changed and the recent months and years. Then to have you send me data that says nothing
has changed so you don’t know what my problem is. I would just offer that clearly it has changed
and I’m hearing the landing and dissenting activity has changed so I would just ask that you dig
a little deeper and help us understand that. Maybe then to your point about assisting, perhaps
there is an opportunity for you to take this information back and I realize you don’t have any
control over that and you don’t have any ability to affect change there but you guys are a
conduit; perhaps you can help us reach the FAA. I did, as was suggested, wrote to my Senator,
wrote to the FAA and they all referred me back to you so I would like you to help us, you know
be a conduit to the FAA. Maybe you can help get them in here so they can hear what’s going on
and help us actually change rather than just talk about it. To be quite truthful, I’m a little
frustrated coming to these because I don’t see the value because it doesn’t really affect change.
So if we can get some people in here so we can actually have some conversations about how to
change what’s been done here. I get that you say its wind. I’ve lived in my house for 20 years
and I venture to guess that the wind has blown in that direction one other time in the time that
I’ve lived there but I’ve never noticed that I can’t be in my backyard as much as I have since this
implementation in March 2015. Not to only mention the noise but I’m telling you I’ve never
seen as many planes go over my house. Clearly you’ve indicated the flight patterns for landing
have really come in and that is a change that has been affecting us. I would offer that you assist
us in working with the FAA, set that type of meeting up so we can really have a change rather
than just having these conversations. The other thing I would like to ask is-where are the
monitoring stations out here in Minnetonka where you will be monitoring the noise levels? I
don’t know if there are any out that far but here we are way far out from the airport and we’re
having problems with the airplane noise that we’ve never had before.
Thank you for comments about the presentation. We updated our materials to bring clarity to a few
essential messages. Additionally, the Noise Program Office is undertaking a full audit of our outreach
efforts. Our goal is to evaluate how we can better engage with the community on this important topic.
Results of this evaluation should be available in late 2016 with changes reaching the public beginning in
2017.
The MAC Noise Program Office staff certainly does not mean to minimize any differences in flight activity
you have experienced in your area. My previous correspondence with you and my comments during the
meeting in April are correct. There have not been any changes to the flight procedures since the FAA
implemented Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) procedures in March 2015.
For the past 14 months, the flight procedures have been unchanged. The tracks over the ground, the
altitudes that the aircraft fly, and operating procedures have not been altered. Based on your location,
you primarily experience overflights from aircraft that are arriving to MSP for Runways 12L and 12R. What
may be different is how often these particular runways are being used. In previous letters, I highlighted
the change in operations in September 2015 that resulted from record warm temperatures and south
winds. November 2015 experienced similar, albeit muted abnormal conditions. March and April followed
this change as well. To further illustrate these, please note the chart below. In September of 2015,
Runways 12L and 12R handled 68% of all arrivals to MSP. November was recorded at 62%. March and
April saw arrivals on these runways 56% and 65% of the time. Any change you are experiencing is more
than likely due to this shift in runway use. This runway use has been noted by MAC staff and presented
to the FAA for their review. The MAC Noise Program Office produces a monthly Runway Use System (RUS)
Report to keep abreast of potential changes in the use of the facility and resultant flight tracks. The data
contained within is presented to the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) at every bi-monthly meeting for
their review.
The changes that you and the other attendees at the Public Input Meeting highlighted has been heard by
the MAC and the NOC. The MAC brought the topics presented by the residents during that meeting to
the members of the NOC on May 18th. In response to these topics, the NOC amended its 2016 Work Plan.
Specifically, the NOC directed staff to evaluate aircraft arrival trends to the northwest of the airport and
investigate if there have been changes in the use of the airport that is causing more overflights in these
communities. Further, the NOC added an item to discuss aircraft landing gear procedures and evaluate if
there have been any changes to the flight crew procedures at MSP. These items are preliminarily
scheduled for the September NOC meeting. Information related to the NOC can be found at
https://www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-oversight-committee-noc.
12. I want to reiterate that what we’re hearing is you saying that nothing has changed and we’re
all here telling you that yes it has changed. We feel like you’re not hearing us. Feels like we’re
here to tell you something has changed and you keep saying nothing has changed and I don’t
understand that.
I can appreciate that you are experiencing aircraft overflights differently. My comments during the
meeting were intended to assure the residents assembled that the routes into the airport have not
changed since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard
Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) procedures in March 2015. These routes did change the overflights some
4,4
16
3,5
34
6,1
42
6,4
45
9,0
46
8,6
37
8,5
99
8,2
02 1
0,0
51
7,9
07
4,9
37
4,4
04
3,3
91
2,9
55
7,3
79
7,4
43
7,5
60
10
,36
46
,30
18
,98
17
,86
34
,75
45
,20
17
,96
86
,11
44
,99
1 6,4
77
7,4
35
8,1
37
7,5
84
9,8
04
8,9
42
11
,22
88
,58
1 9,9
05
7,1
86
6,7
36
5,0
33
9,8
13
10
,76
98
,73
7
0
2 , 0 0 0
4 , 0 0 0
6 , 0 0 0
8 , 0 0 0
1 0 , 0 0 0
1 2 , 0 0 0
1 4 , 0 0 0
0 %
1 0 %
2 0 %
3 0 %
4 0 %
5 0 %
6 0 %
7 0 %
JAN
MA
R
MA
Y
JUL
SE
P
NO
V
JAN
MA
R
MA
Y
JUL
SE
P
NO
V
JAN
MA
R
MA
Y
JUL
SE
P
NO
V
JAN
MA
R
MA
Y
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
TO
TA
L R
UN
WA
Y 1
2L
AN
D 1
2R
AR
RIV
AL
S
PE
RC
EN
T O
F A
RR
IVIN
G F
LIG
HT
S T
HA
T U
SE
D R
UN
WA
Y
12
L O
R 1
2R
MSP ARRIVALS USING RUNWAYS 12L OR 12R
1 2 L A N D 1 2 R A R R I V A L S P E R C E N T O F A L L A R R I V A L S
residents experienced further away from the airport. Further, the altitudes aircraft are flying also have
not changed since the implementation by the FAA. As I discussed at the meeting, there have been two
changes that may be what you are experiencing. First, the airlines are scheduling more flights in the night
time hours. The increases in flights from 10:30 PM through 6:00 AM began in March of 2015. MAC Staff
and the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) identified the increases early in the summer of 2015 and sent
letters to the airlines requesting that they limit the scheduling of flights during these hours when possible.
Secondly, the FAA is directing aircraft to use south bound arrival routes more frequently. Runway use
decisions at MSP are made by the FAA air traffic control facility. These personnel consider many factors
before choosing which runways will be used for landing. The biggest factor is wind. For safety
considerations, airplanes need to land and depart into the wind as much as possible. The wind provides
more lift for aircraft on departure and slow the airplane during arrival. Because it is a critical component
of safety, the wind is considered carefully when choosing the runways. The wind conditions over the past
nine months have favored south flows with arrivals over Minnetonka, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis more
often than the past. September and November of 2015 and March and April of 2016 have seen winds
from the south be more prevalent. The correlating runway use percentage of the southbound runways
has been higher to match the wind.
The changes that you and the other attendees at the Public Input Meeting highlighted has been heard by
the MAC and the NOC. The MAC brought the topics presented by the residents during that meeting to
the members of the NOC on May 18th. In response to these topics, the NOC amended its 2016 Work Plan.
Specifically, the NOC directed staff to evaluate aircraft arrival trends to the northwest of the airport and
investigate if there have been changes in the use of the airport that is causing more overflights in these
communities. Further, the NOC added an item to discuss aircraft landing gear procedures and evaluate if
there have been any changes to the flight crew procedures at MSP. These items are preliminarily
scheduled for the September NOC meeting. Information related to the NOC can be found at
https://www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-oversight-committee-noc.
13. I’ve lived in my house for 15 years and I live in a busy and noisy area, I’m not immune to noise
and I live where I live and noise is a part of it. I’ve heard you say that you don’t have any control
over how late they fly other than that the later they fly the larger the contours get and that
affects who can get mitigation for their house but it never goes west of Lake Harriet so St. Louis
Park is never even in the ballpark. What else can we do besides not taking those 9:30pm flights
to drag the opportunity costs down, is there anything else we can do. I’ve taken 5am flights
because it was the cheapest one, I’m sure they are the cheapest ones.
The airlines have begun to schedule more flights during the night time hours. This trend includes more
arrivals between 10:30 PM through 12:00 AM and more departures between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM. MAC
staff and the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) identified the increases early in the summer of 2015 and
sent letters to the airlines requesting that they limit the scheduling of flights during these hours when
possible. This letter was just a request however as you correctly note the airport cannot restrict these
flights. The increased frequency of flights during these hours does correlate to customer preferences.
Passengers willing to fly during off peak hours typically do so because of cost. If the demand for air travel
during these hours wanes, the airlines will not schedule them as frequently.
As discussed during the meeting, the Annual Noise Contour Report produced by the MAC Noise Program
Office does account for the effect these flights have on the community. The federally-approved noise
metric for aircraft noise exposure, the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL), penalizes flights between
10:00 PM and 7:00 AM by adding a 10 decibel (dB) penalty to the operation. Due to the logarithmic scale,
a 10 dB penalty has the same effect as counting one operation at night as ten during the day. The noise
contours produced for the Annual Noise Contour Report uses a variety of data inputs, such as the number
of operations, the runway used, the aircraft type, and the time of day the flight is operated. The output
is a direct result of flights that operated in the previous year. If the flights increase or decrease
dramatically, if the runway use changes considerably, or if aircraft fleet mix sees a change, or if there is a
change in the number of flights at night, the noise contours will change to reflect that. There are no
geographic boundaries to limit the noise contours.
14. I’ve lived here for 53 years, same house and we’ve definitely seen more aircraft activity during
the recent period of time. I think something to improve, another friend of ours was here, he’s
a pilot and he saw a plane fly right over our house and he commented on how low they were
flying. Somebody, I think, did something about that a few years ago. My question is, something
I pulled up off the internet regarding arrivals says 1st priority, 2nd priority, 3rd priority, 4th priority
and the 4th priority was 12L and 12R. What does this priority mean? Is that something that might
help us? Also I’d like to know, you mentioned the percentage of flights over this area in January
and February were 33% and March and April it was 57%. What about the other months? Did
they go up from there?
The priorities you are referring to are related to the Runway Use System (RUS). The Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have worked collaboratively with the
communities to attempt to keep aircraft over compatible land area as much as possible. At the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) those areas are southeast of the airport over commercial
and industrial parcels in Mendota Heights and Eagan, and to the south over the Minnesota River Valley.
Aircraft that depart from Runways 12L and 12R overfly these areas in Mendota Heights and Eagan. Aircraft
that depart Runway 17 overfly the Minnesota River Valley. As such, the RUS prioritizes departures toward
those directions and arrivals from those directions above other areas. There are many factors that are
considered when the FAA chooses the runways it will utilize. Realizing that all of these limitations exist,
the FAA has prioritized 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
Meteorological conditions often dictate how frequently the RUS is utilized. In March and April there were
a higher percentage of flights arriving from the northwest than there were in January and February. In
January and February, the prevalent winds were out of the north and northwest more often than March
and April. As a result only 38% of all arrivals used Runways 12L and 12R overflying portions of St. Louis
Park on their way to the airport. The winds were more prevalently out of the south and east in March
and April resulting in 57% of all arrivals using Runways 12L and 12R during these months. The weather
conditions experienced at MSP play a large role in how the airport is operated and what flight routes are
used.
15. This morning, once again, we were awakened by a barrage of low-flying prop cargo planes (Bemidji Air?) going directly over our neighborhood, beginning around 6:30am. On Monday it was 4:00am - just a single plane but loud and rattling, turboprop snarling at low altitude. This morning, these nasty loud planes flew in near-constant succession for almost 30 minutes across my neighborhood. There is no way anyone can sleep through this - and I use ear plugs and a noise cancellation device to try to mask the noise, to no avail. It would seem that the comments alerting this problem to the MAC or the council who convened the meeting on MAC Noise (in March at Mendota Heights City Hall) have not been taken seriously. What is being done about this problem - I am not alone in being routinely disturbed from sleep because of these noisy cargo planes being diverted to fly over the Marie Street/Dodd Road neighborhood. Will there be another meeting to address this problem - since everyone on council seemed very surprised to learn about the issue of Bemidji Air/cargo plane noise?
Your comments and those heard during the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission (ARC)
meeting were heard and acted upon. I assure you the MAC staff and the Noise Oversight Committee
(NOC) are taking measures to address this issue. As the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ultimate
authority where the aircraft fly, the MAC and NOC will supply these concerns to them for their
consideration.
Thank you for continuing the dialogue about early morning propeller planes departing over Mendota
Heights, and specifically, over your home. At the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission Open
House on March 9, MAC Staff and the Air Traffic Control Manager committed to looking into this issue
further and bringing it to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). At the May NOC meeting, MAC staff
presented an analysis of these flights, which I’ve summarized below.
The Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Departure Procedure has been an effective noise abatement tool to
concentrate jet departures over commercial and industrial areas while departing MSP Runways 12L and
12R. Propeller-driven aircraft are not subject to this noise abatement procedure, because their slower
speeds would result in airspace congestion and capacity issues.
Our analysis found that for a 12-month period ending on March 31, there were 2,893 propeller-driven
aircraft departures from Runways 12L or 12R. Of those, about 50% were outside the noise abatement
departure corridor either to the north or the south. Some of these flights were simply pushed out of the
corridor by winds, which is more of a factor for a small aircraft compared to larger jets. In other cases,
these aircraft were directed to turn by Air Traffic Control to clear the corridor airspace for jets waiting to
depart behind. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control is the sole authority for
directing aircraft in and out of MSP. The FAA mandates that aircraft maintain at least 3 miles of separation
between the tail of the lead airplane and the nose of the following aircraft. To maintain an efficient flow
of traffic, Air Traffic Control may also separate the aircraft by assigning diverging headings of at least 15
degrees. These turns are typically given to propeller-driven aircraft as the method for separation, allowing
a quicker departure clearance for the jet aircraft departing behind the slower aircraft.
We looked at the times between the propeller-driven aircraft departures and the subsequent departures
to try to identify where Air Traffic Control may have opportunities to keep the slower aircraft in the noise
abatement corridor longer. We found that in 290 instances, a propeller-driven aircraft departure had a 5-
minute lead on the next departure.
This analysis and the findings were forwarded to the MSP Air Traffic Control management who committed
to look into the current operating procedures to determine if anything can be done to provide some noise
relief from these flights, particularly when there is a sufficient time gap between the propeller-driven
departure and the next departure. The full report can be found here on pages 19-23.
The MAC Noise Program Office is committed to continue coordination with the FAA on these efforts and
bring its conclusions/decisions back before the NOC at a meeting later this year.
16. Why must every single arriving plane must seemingly fly over the same 2 exact flight paths whenever the wind is from the south or east (common wind direction during the warmer months)? Is it really necessary that these arriving aircraft fly into the wind even when it is relatively light? I live under the approach path for runway 12R/30L and air traffic seems worse than ever, both frequency and altitude.
It is imperative for aircraft to arrive into as much headwind as possible. Crosswinds and tailwinds would add an unnecessary component of risk to the critical landing phase of flight. The headwind slows an aircraft as it approaches the runway and helps to reduce the airspeed naturally without increased flaps and other mechanical drag that would produce more noise from the airframe. A direct headwind provides the greatest level of safety for arriving and departing aircraft. At the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP), the southbound arrival runways, Runway 12L and 12R are the only runways oriented for wind out of the south and east. Aircraft arriving to these parallel runways are lining up on an extended runway centerline miles out from the airport to ensure a safe touchdown on the runway. As such, the aircraft approaching MSP for these runways are flying the similar final approach paths, just over ½ mile apart.
You are correct about the frequency of flights over your area. There has has been a higher use of south flow configurations where aircraft arrive onto Runways 12L and 12R. This increased use is due almost entirely to the direction of the winds. December 2014, September and November of 2015, and now March and April 2016 saw an abnormal amount of south winds when compared to historical periods. These winds are causing increased southbound runway use and more flights over your residence. Using our flight track data, I charted how many flights have flown within ½ mile of residence from January 2013 until May 2016.
The five months I highlighted in the previous section are also the highest month for arrivals near your home. The historical expectation is for more arrivals in the summer time with south winds compared to less arrivals in the winter with more north winds.
17. There are 3 main runways and based on the flight tracker map runway 17/35 is only used for departures to the south, yet the two parallel 12/30 runways are used for both takeoffs and landings. Why can't runway 17/35 share at least some of the arrival traffic from the north (I realize arrivals from the south have been discontinued, great design planning...) with careful coordination from air traffic control?
Runway 17/35 was opened in 2005. The MAC and the FAA have an agreement with the City of Minneapolis to not operate the runway to the north over the city except during emergencies and significant weather conditions. Additionally, using this runway for arrivals would be operationally challenging because arrivals on Runway 17 would converge with arrivals on Runways 12L and 12R. Due to the operational limitations and the agreement, the runway is not used to or from the north. Runway 17/35 is used extensively for departures to the south and to a lesser extent arrivals from the south. For 2016, 31% of all departures at MSP used Runway 17. The discontinuance you mention was only for four weeks beginning in August 2015, as the FAA implemented new rules regarding its use. That runway is open and available for traffic to and from the south.
18. Furthermore, why can't more use be made of reliever airports for jet air traffic such as Flying Cloud or St. Paul downtown, or consider building a smaller international-level reliever airport
1,7
77
1,3
55
2,2
08
2,3
67
3,4
56
3,2
47
2,6
44
2,5
52
3,3
12
2,8
65
1,5
97
1,8
70
1,2
96
1,0
50
2,6
85
2,8
14
2,4
29
3,4
93
2,3
51
3,3
59
2,9
81
1,6
60 1,9
58
3,8
94
2,5
47
1,7
29
2,3
23 2
,75
23
,21
02
,66
63
,86
53
,24
74
,12
12
,92
53
,82
63
,18
13
,10
02
,11
34
,00
94
,20
83
,21
0
0
5 0 0
1 , 0 0 0
1 , 5 0 0
2 , 0 0 0
2 , 5 0 0
3 , 0 0 0
3 , 5 0 0
4 , 0 0 0
4 , 5 0 0JA
NF
EB
MA
RA
PR
MA
YJU
NJU
LA
UG
SE
PO
CT
NO
VD
EC
JAN
FE
BM
AR
AP
RM
AY
JUN
JUL
AU
GS
EP
OC
TN
OV
DE
CJA
NF
EB
MA
RA
PR
MA
YJU
NJU
LA
UG
SE
PO
CT
NO
VD
EC
JAN
FE
BM
AR
AP
RM
AY
2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6
MS
P A
RR
IVA
LS
RUNWAY 12L/R ARRIVALS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF RESIDENCE
like Chicago Midway Airport to alleviate congested air traffic levels and avoid potential mid-air collisions? Thank you.
The reliever airport system operated by the MAC is an important collection of airports that is used by many business jets. The role of these airports is to divert general aviation air traffic away from MSP and relieve congestion at that facility. The St. Paul Downtown Airport, Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie and Anoka-Blaine County airports handle a large amount of general aviation jet traffic. The runways at these facilities can adequately handle small jets, but are not equipped for typical airline sized aircraft. The shortest runway at MSP is 8,000 feet long and rated to handle the weight of a bigger aircraft. The longest runway at the reliever airports is 6,500 feet. Further, the jets that use MSP or any MAC airport do so at their discretion. We cannot dictate which aircraft fly to which airport. The role of the MAC is to provide a safe system of airports that facilitate air commerce. We encourage smaller aircraft operators to use our other airports and promote the convenience and ease of these facilities.
Finally, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is not able to construct a new airport facility to replace or
replicate the use of MSP. After the Dual-Track planning process was undertaken in the late 1980s to
consider the merit of a new facility away from the metro, the State Legislature approved legislation that
the a future major airport would not be constructed. For further information on this topic, please see
Laws of Minnesota 1996, chapter 464, article 3. Specifically, Section 4, subsection 16 states,
“Subd. 16. It [Metropolitan Airports Commission] may generally carry on the business of
acquiring, establishing, developing, extending, maintaining, operating, and managing
airports, with all powers incident thereto except it is expressly prohibited from exercising
these powers for the purpose of future construction of a major new airport.”
If the MAC is to build a new airport, it would need State Legislature action.
19. Since we purchased our house nearly four years ago, we've noticed a considerable increase in airplane noise, particularly in the mornings, the evenings, and during the day on weekends. We know that this is due to the closure of a runway, but is there any abatement planned for this corridor? If not, what steps can we take to begin more substantively addressing the issue?
The amount of traffic at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has fallen to early 1990s levels. In 2015, there were approximately 404,000 operations. An operation is either a takeoff or landing. In 2004, MSP had over 540,000 operations. We further track the number of operations that occur during the morning and evening as well as night time hours. You can find this information on our website at https://www.macnoise.com/tools-reports/monthly-operations-reports. The last report titled MSP Runway Use System Report tracks all operations by runway, operation type and time period.
The traffic you are experiencing is not the result of a runway closure. Runway 17/35 was closed to arrivals between July 27 and August 28, 2015. This temporary suspension was put in place by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow for time to implement new rules for arrivals. These new rules were enacted and the runway re-opened in late August. The arrivals using this runway do so in a North configuration. The aircraft that are arriving over St. Louis Park do so in a South configuration. The temporary suspensions and change in rules of that runway should not have an effect on the aircraft in your area.
The MAC does have a Residential Noise Mitigation Program through the year 2023. Annually, the MAC produces an Annual Noise Contour Report. This report displays noise contours around the airport that shows noise exposure areas from the previous year. If a residential property lies in an area that meets
certain criteria, it will be eligible for noise mitigation. Complete details about the program can be found on our website at https://www.macnoise.com/residential-noise-mitigation-programs. This website has an interactive map that allows resident to enter their address to determine if their location is eligible. At this time, your home is not included in the mitigation eligibility area.
20. Additionally, have the new RNAV landing procedures been implemented yet, and are there any plans for other procedures that will help with noise control?
Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) procedures were implemented at MSP in March 2015. These arrival routes are similar, but not identical to the routes flown previously. RNAV departure procedures were not implemented at MSP and as of this time, the FAA does not have plans to do so.
