1 21te) Critical Wear Areas & Vacuum Test Locations ts e ...
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE€¦ · 1,621 locations filed a complaint 3 areas with more than 30...
62
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE JANUARY 24, 2018 Audio recordings are made of this meeting
Transcript of NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE€¦ · 1,621 locations filed a complaint 3 areas with more than 30...
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEEJANUARY 24, 2018
Audio recordings are made of this meeting
ITEM 1 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017 MEETING MINUTES
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
ITEM 2REVIEW OF MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORTS:NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2017
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
MSP OPERATIONS
NOVEMBER 2017
32,268 1,789
Operations Nighttime Operations
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
DECEMBER 2017
33,098 2,119
Operations Nighttime Operations
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
33
,04
8
29
,77
2
36
,22
7
33
,82
7
34
,37
7
35
,65
9
37
,30
6
36
,68
9
33
,08
5
34
,59
5
31
,25
6
32
,61
3
31
,37
1
29
,03
8
35
,11
9
32
,68
6
33
,40
9 35
,54
2
37
,13
2
36
,88
5
32
,88
7
33
,96
9
31
,89
6
32
,35
6
31
,59
7
30
,02
0
34
,96
6
33
,29
3
34
,33
1 36
,75
0
37
,88
0
37
,88
7
34
,05
2
34
,90
6
32
,10
2
33
,10
3
31
,86
8
29
,82
5
36
,23
5
33
,97
1
35
,40
7
36
,29
2
37
,66
5
38
,51
1
33
,31
3
35
,02
7
32
,26
8
33
,09
8
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
NOVEMBER 2017
32,268 1,789
Operations Nighttime Operations
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
DECEMBER 2017
33,098 2,119
Operations Nighttime Operations
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
MSP OPERATIONS
1,4
04
1,2
50
1,7
25
1,5
27
1,5
62 1
,91
5
1,9
01
1,7
37
1,3
17
1,4
22
1,3
75
1,5
47
1,5
11
1,4
87
1,9
67
1,8
54
1,7
66
2,0
10
2,1
27
2,0
29
1,5
73
1,6
25
1,6
32
1,8
40
1,8
71
1,8
04 2,1
24
1,8
74
1,8
70
2,4
21
2,9
77
2,6
29
1,7
55
1,8
17
1,7
87 2
,15
2
1,9
10
1,6
39
2,4
41
2,1
43
2,0
19
2,2
64
2,3
46
2,2
13
1,5
51
1,8
07
1,7
89 2
,11
9
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
ARR DEP
MSP OPERATIONS
2012 Operations
421,153
2013 Operations
430,308
2014 Operations
408,454
2015 Operations
402,290
2016 Operations
410,887
2017 Operations
413,480
2012 Night Ops
15,902
2013 Night Ops
16,877
2014 Night Ops
18,682
2015 Night Ops
21,421
2016 Night Ops
25,081
2017 Night Ops
24,241
38
2,9
60
38
5,4
76
41
8,4
86
44
4,2
02
45
9,4
05
46
9,0
40
48
5,4
80
49
1,2
73
48
2,8
72
51
0,4
20
52
2,2
53
50
1,2
52
50
7,3
22
50
8,1
62
54
0,7
27
53
1,9
47
47
5,6
33
45
3,5
66
44
9,9
72
43
2,6
04
43
5,5
83
43
5,0
76
42
4,9
28
43
1,5
73
41
1,7
60
40
4,3
74
41
2,8
98
41
5,7
03
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
S O U R C E : F A A O P S N E T
SOURCE: MACNOMS
2017 RUNWAY USE
206,667DEPARTURES RECORDED
50.1%RUNWAYS 30L OR 30R
49.7%RUNWAYS 12L, 12R OR 17
206,813ARRIVALS RECORDED
56.9%RUNWAYS 30L, 30R OR 35
42.9%RUNWAYS 12L OR 12R
2017 FLOW BY HOURS
YEAR NORTH SOUTH MIXED
2014 44.82% 38.42% 6.82%
2015 36.17% 47.00% 8.37%
2016 33.53% 48.46% 10.22%
2017 40.33% 40.64% 10.78%
RUNWAY USE CHANGE (2016-2017)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
NARROWBODY 49.3% 44.7% 44.0% 44.7% 47.7% 52.8% 54.1% 57.3%
RJ 48.7% 53.1% 53.9% 52.8% 49.4% 44.3% 42.9% 40.0%
WIDEBODY 2.0% 2.2% 2.2% 2.6% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 2.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%2017 CARRIER JET USE
151,968OPERATIONS
217,757OPERATIONS
10,250OPERATIONS
MSP COMPLAINTS
NOVEMBER 2017
COMPLAINTS LOCATIONS
8,929 244
Operations per Complaint New Locations Average Median
3.6 15 37 3
DECEMBER 2017
COMPLAINTS LOCATIONS
7,184 187
Operations per Complaint New Locations Average Median
4.6 11 38 4
NE
W W
EB
SIT
E
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
NOVEMBER 2017
COMPLAINTS LOCATIONS
8,929 244
Operations per Complaint New Locations Average Median
3.6 15 37 3
DECEMBER 2017
COMPLAINTS LOCATIONS
7,184 187
Operations per Complaint New Locations Average Median
4.6 11 38 4
MSP COMPLAINTS
4,9
74
4,0
70
7,9
39
7,8
55
7,4
44
9,6
29 11
,50
1
12
,13
9
11
,13
8
9,0
75
6,2
64
5,2
27
6,0
54
6,9
77
9,9
74
9,6
76
8,7
20
12
,82
7
11
,66
4
12
,47
5
12
,22
2
9,2
44
6,9
55
5,9
13
5,5
47 7
,59
4
13
,19
6
10
,04
0
11
,06
3
12
,22
7
10
,87
8
12
,03
5
10
,83
1
9,9
83
7,2
41
6,3
18
7,4
57
12
,01
2
13
,24
4
13
,90
7
12
,55
9 14
,61
7
16
,29
3
16
,72
7
15
,28
2
10
,84
4
8,9
29
7,1
84
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
JAN
-14
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JUL
-14
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JAN
-15
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JUL
-15
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JAN
-16
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JUL
-16
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JAN
-17
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JUL
-17
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
2017 COMPLAINTS
149,055 MSP COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
1AREAS WITH MORE THAN 50
COMPLAINTS PER DAY
1AREAS BETWEEN 25 AND 50
COMPLAINTS PER DAY
8AREAS WITH BETWEEN 10 AND 25
COMPLAINTS PER DAY
179AREAS WITH 1 OR LESS COMPLAINT
PER MONTH
2017 LOCATIONS
1,621LOCATIONS FILED A COMPLAINT
3AREAS WITH MORE THAN 30
LOCATIONS
11AREAS WITH BETWEEN 21 AND 30
LOCATIONS
21AREAS WITH BETWEEN 11 AND 20
LOCATIONS
368AREAS 10 OR LESS LOCATIONS
2017 TOP 25 BY COUNT
101,761 (68%)
MSP COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
2017 TOP 10 BY COUNT
78,106(52%)
MSP COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
2017 LOCATIONS
1,146(71%)
FILED 10 OR LESS COMPLAINTS
SOUND MONITORING
NOVEMBER 2017
Time Above49s
TA65 per operation
437h 46m
TA65
Count Above2.58
N65 per operation
83,362N65
DECEMBER 2017
Time Above40s
TA65 per operation
365h 26m
TA65
Count Above2.23
N65 per operation
73,949N65
27
4 H
1 M
55
S
22
6 H
19
M 2
8 S
38
7 H
39
M 4
1 S
47
4 H
50
M 3
5 S
45
7 H
11
M 5
4 S
48
8 H
40
M 4
0 S
47
0 H
28
M 2
5 S
45
1 H
39
M 9
S
44
7 H
42
M 6
S
49
6 H
43
M 2
4 S
35
2 H
20
M 2
9 S
37
4 H
36
M 5
4 S
33
7 H
44
M 2
6 S
26
8 H
15
M 4
8 S
43
1 H
8 M
58
S
43
6 H
40
M 3
2 S
47
4 H
6 M
9 S
48
3 H
12
M 1
4 S
47
4 H
44
M 2
5 S
50
0 H
27
M 4
7 S
45
5 H
51
M 1
S
51
8 H
27
M 5
5 S
48
4 H
41
M 5
4 S
44
7 H
0 M
21
S
34
2 H
53
M 1
3 S
36
3 H
21
M 1
5 S
52
0 H
10
M 3
8 S
50
6 H
10
M 3
2 S
47
0 H
22
M 2
9 S
49
9 H
53
M 5
1 S
48
7 H
26
M 3
1 S
50
3 H
50
M 4
8 S
50
0 H
41
M 4
9 S
54
3 H
51
M 3
8 S
49
0 H
4 M
28
S
38
8 H
27
M 4
5 S
36
3 H
58
M 4
5 S
39
1 H
31
M 5
9 S
48
1 H
6 M
28
S
50
9 H
7 M
5 S
51
3 H
41
M 2
6 S
48
1 H
47
M 7
S
45
4 H
29
M 5
2 S
50
6 H
47
M 3
7 S
44
4 H
17
M 9
S
50
5 H
44
M 2
3 S
43
7 H
46
M 1
4 S
36
5 H
26
M 2
5 S
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
NOVEMBER 2017
Time Above49s
TA65 per operation
437h 46m
TA65
Count Above2.58
N65 per operation
83,362N65
DECEMBER 2017
Time Above40s
TA65 per operation
365h 26m
TA65
Count Above2.23
N65 per operation
73,949N65
SOUND MONITORING
56
,50
3
48
,18
2
77
,40
7
87
,09
8
88
,23
1
95
,13
8
92
,24
2
92
,01
8
85
,99
3
90
,83
0
68
,06
0
75
,41
5
68
,11
2
56
,93
0
83
,15
5
82
,74
4
89
,77
4
93
,82
7
95
,33
3
97
,91
9
89
,76
5
95
,85
9
89
,37
3
85
,90
9
70
,34
4
70
,42
4
98
,46
6
94
,14
9
91
,96
7
98
,24
4
99
,13
2
10
1,6
93
96
,60
2
10
1,9
46
92
,09
6
77
,12
5
74
,22
4
75
,45
4
93
,25
2
95
,55
3
97
,23
8
95
,36
5
94
,43
6
98
,84
7
87
,88
3
95
,47
2
83
,36
2
73
,94
9
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
ANNUAL RMT DATA
COUNT ABOVE(N65)
TIME ABOVE(TA65)
2014
957,117EVENTS
2014
4,902HOURS
2015
1,028,700EVENTS
2015
5,312HOURS
2016
1,092,188EVENTS
2015
5,617HOURS
2017
1,065,035EVENTS
2017
5,456HOURS
NOISE ABATEMENT
NOVEMBER 2017
Runway 17 99.7%
Corridor 97.0%
RUS 54.1% Arrive – 57% Depart – 51%
DECEMBER 2017
98.0%
98.5%
99.0%
99.5%
100.0%
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
Cross Day 25.2%
Cross Night 45.0%
Runway 17 98.8%
Corridor 97.2%
RUS 55.1% Arrive – 72% Depart – 39%
Cross Day 31.2%
Cross Night 33.8%
Runway 17 99.7%
Corridor 97.0%
RUS 54.1% Arrive – 57% Depart – 51%
Cross Day 25.2%
Cross Night 45.0%
Runway 17 98.8%
Corridor 97.2%
RUS 55.1% Arrive – 72% Depart – 39%
Cross Day 31.2%
Cross Night 33.8%
80%
82%
84%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
NOISE ABATEMENT
NOVEMBER 2017 DECEMBER 2017
Runway 17 99.7%
Corridor 97.0%
RUS 54.1% Arrive – 57% Depart – 51%
Cross Day 25.2%
Cross Night 45.0%
Runway 17 98.8%
Corridor 97.2%
RUS 55.1% Arrive – 72% Depart – 39%
Cross Day 31.2%
Cross Night 33.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
DAY USAGE NIGHT USAGE
NOISE ABATEMENT
NOVEMBER 2017 DECEMBER 2017
Runway 17 99.7%
Corridor 97.0%
RUS 54.1% Arrive – 57% Depart – 51%
Cross Day 25.2%
Cross Night 45.0%
Runway 17 98.8%
Corridor 97.2%
RUS 55.1% Arrive – 72% Depart – 39%
Cross Day 31.2%
Cross Night 33.8%
13
,09
5
11
,89
2
10
,66
9
9,4
13
9,5
54
7,3
62
12
,28
1
9,3
62
8,6
85
12
,53
6
10
,42
0
8,3
57
9,5
70
9,4
73
11
,09
7
8,7
12
8,4
88
10
,20
7
8,7
63
9,4
66
5,2
29
8,4
18
6,0
45 9
,00
5
9,0
72
9,9
87
7,6
76
5,8
88 8,1
87
9,0
30
9,6
40
9,3
84
6,8
41
7,2
57
8,9
39
11
,17
6
9,9
64
9,9
89
9,1
40
9,3
69
10
,98
2
10
,88
1
7,9
18 11
,11
6
7,5
64 9,7
13
9,2
00
11
,85
3
3,7
22
3,8
24
8,2
61
7,9
99
8,3
74
11
,43
2
6,8
07
9,5
35
8,5
19
5,6
79
5,4
91
8,5
64
7,3
17
5,8
19
7,3
89
7,8
56
8,8
96
8,0
14
10
,99
3
10
,73
1
11
,65
6
9,1
75
10
,39
7
8,5
42
7,2
89
5,7
51
10
,46
3
11
,06
9
10
,36
9
10
,38
5
10
,94
7
11
,25
6
11
,12
2
11
,09
0
9,1
85
7,0
81
6,9
57
6,2
21 9,2
16
8,2
79
7,8
60
8,3
26
11
,72
0
10
,20
4
10
,33
5
9,0
25
8,2
60
6,3
98
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
JA
N-1
4
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JU
L-1
4
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JA
N-1
5
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JU
L-1
5
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JA
N-1
6
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JU
L-1
6
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JA
N-1
7
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JU
L-1
7
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
ARR DEP RUS
NOISE ABATEMENT
NOVEMBER 2017 DECEMBER 2017
NOISE ABATEMENT
94.4%
94.8%
94.1%94.3%
93.5%
94.0%
94.5%
95.0%CORRIDOR
99.7%
99.5%99.5%
99.7%
99.4%
99.6%
99.8%RUNWAY 17
31.3% 34.0% 32.9% 32.7%
51.4% 52.8%45.8% 41.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%CROSSING
NIGHT
DAY
51.9%
52.5%
53.3% 53.3%
51%
52%
53%
54%
2014 2015 2016 2017
RUS
ITEM 3UPDATE ON PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PBN RULING
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
Item 3: Update on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PBN Ruling
Background
In August 2017, the DC Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FAA vacate satellite-based (Performance Based Navigation – PBN) procedures at PHX for failing to follow environmental laws and involve stakeholders.
In response to the court ruling, on November 30, 2017, the parties to the litigation jointly petitioned the court to accept a two-step plan they co-developed.
Item 3: Update on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PBN Ruling
Seeks Clarification
The petition asks the Court to clarify the scope of its order:
• Limit it to the 9 westbound RNAV departure procedures at PHX which were the focus of the litigation All other PBN departure and arrival
procedures would remain operational
• Remand but not vacate the procedures Alter only the beginning of the departure
routes, so planes would return to the RNAV procedure after the first leg of the departure (referred to as vector to RNAV procedure)
Item 3: Update on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PBN Ruling
Step 1 (short-term fix) the FAA would create new, temporary instructions for departures to the west that would route aircraft near the airport in a manner to approximate the routes prior to the implementation of RNAV departures.
Step 2 (long-term fix) the FAA would develop new westbound RNAV departure procedures and consider routes that approximate the routes prior to the initial RNAV implementation near the airport. The FAA also would consider feedback on procedures throughout the Phoenix area.
The FAA will conduct community outreach, safety and environmental reviews during the two steps above.
Item 3: Update on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PBN Ruling
Recent FAA actions reinforces the points raised by the NOC and MAC to the FAA in 2014 in the NOC’s RNAV
Resolution: a successful implementation of such RNAV flight procedures requires community outreach.
NOC RNAV Resolution• Establishes “Extraordinary Circumstances” at MSP
• Provides strong message with all stakeholders aligned around a set of local expectations
• A foundational element for industry position on airport and community role
• Speaks to role/extent of community engagement and nature of analyses
ITEM 4RESPONSE TO MSP FAIRSKIES REQUESTS
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
Item 4: Response to MSP FairSkies Requests
September 20, 2017 NOC Meeting representatives from MSP FairSkies addressed the Committee requesting that NOC/MAC:
1. Enhance the NOC with greater stakeholder (citizen) representation
2. Establish a goal to reduce noise
3. Produce a 55 dB and N65 NEM/Contour
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Enhance NOC with Greater Stakeholder (Citizen) Representation
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ORIGIN
MASAC and NOC:– MASAC disbanded in October 2001– Blue Ribbon Panel was formed with members from Minneapolis, Eagan,
Mendota Heights, Northwest Airlines, MBAA, and UPS.– Dr. John Brandl, Dean of University of Minnesota Hubert H. Humphrey Institute
of Public Affairs was retained to review the MASAC issues and provide feedback to Panel
– In June 2002 the Blue Ribbon Panel published its report detailing the NOC framework and bylaws
– First NOC meeting was June 23, 2003
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Enhance NOC with Greater Stakeholder (Citizen) Representation
NOC MISSION
Provide a balanced forum for the discussion and evaluation of noise impacts around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport through the following functions:
– Identify, study and analyze airport noise issues and solutions– Provide policy recommendations or options to the MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee and Full Commission regarding airport
noise issues– Monitor compliance with established noise policy at MSP– Ensure the collection of information and dissemination to the public.
The above functions will be conducted in a manner that considers public and airport user concerns, taking into consideration public input/information from the following channels of communication:
– MAC Noise Program Office– MAC Noise Program Office Website– MSP Noise News newsletter– MAC noise complaint and information hotline– Governmental body official policy development processes– MAC public hearings– MAC informational meetings– Individual NOC members– MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee– Metropolitan Airports Commission meetings
EXECUTING THE NOC MISSION
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Enhance NOC with Greater Stakeholder (Citizen) Representation
Identify, study and analyze airport noise issues and solutions– 320, 340, and 360 departure headings– Westside Cargo Engine Start Procedure– Runway 12L and 12R Arrival Study
Provide policy recommendations or options to the MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee and full Commission regarding airport noise issues
– MSP LTCP and environmental review input– 64-60 DNL noise mitigation program– Second amendment to the Consent Decree– RNAV SID resolution– CRO environmental review resolution
Monitor compliance with established noise policy at MSP– SIP annual report– Annual Noise Contour Report– Monthly reports– OPD Analysis Application
Ensure the collection of information and dissemination to the public.
– MACNOMS– Website and interactive reports– Communication Enhancement Plan:
• Noise basics videos and factsheets• Listening sessions
CITIZEN INPUT GUIDING NOC ACTION
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Enhance NOC with Greater Stakeholder (Citizen) Representation
– 12L and 12R Arrival Study
– Expert Presentation on Aircraft Arrival Landing Gear Extension Procedures
– Investigate Noise Reduction Benefits from Vortex Generators on Airbus Aircraft
– Analyze Trends in Wind and the Relationship to Aircraft Noise Complaints
– Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Turboprop Analysis
– Investigate Noise-Reducing Landscaping Options
– Quantify Noise Reduction Benefits of Vortex Generators on Airbus Aircraft Arrivals at MSP
– Evaluate Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) Use at MSP
– Develop a New, or Append to an Existing Monthly Report, Evaluation of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Turboprop Activity
– Evaluate Steeper Glide Slopes for Aircraft Arrivals
Item 4: NOC Action – FairSkies Request: Enhance NOC with Greater Stakeholder (Citizen) Representation
Does the Committee feel that changes are needed to provide greater stakeholder (citizen) representation on the NOC?
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Noise Reduction Goal
CONTEXT: WHO REGULATES AIRCRAFT NOISE
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Noise Reduction Goal
CONTEXT: 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity ActU.S. Congress Found That:
– Aviation noise management is critical to the continued increase in airport capacity.
– Community noise concerns led to uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on aviation that could impede the national air transportation system.
– Local interests in aviation noise management shall be considered in determining the national interest.
– A noise policy must be carried out at a national level.
– Revenues controlled by the U.S. government can help solve noise problems and carry with them a responsibility to the national airport system.
Results of 1990 ANCA:
– All aircraft over 75,000 pounds to be Stage 3 by year 2000
– Availability of federal funds and PFCs tied to provisions on acceptability of access restrictions.
– National program for the review of airport noise and access restrictions - 14 CFR Part 161
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Noise Reduction Goal
CONTEXT: FAR PART 161
Notice of Approval of Noise and Access Restrictions:
– Broad view of what constitutes a restriction
Major Components:
– Cost v. benefit analysis
– Extensive documentation and public notice
– FAA approval of restriction – six major conditions
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Noise Reduction Goal
CONTEXT: FAR PART 161 Analysis
14 CFR § 161.305:
– Must provide “…..an analysis that supports, by substantial evidence, that the six statutory conditions for approval have been met for each restriction and any alternatives submitted.”
– Cost v. benefit is a major component – use of FAR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Criteria
– Provides specific information/analyses requirements to demonstrate that various conditions are being met to establish statutory compliance
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Noise Reduction Goal
CONTEXT: FAR PART 161 ANALYSIS (CONT.)
14 CFR § 161.305 – Six Conditions:Condition 1: The restriction is reasonable, non-arbitrary, and nondiscriminatory.Condition 2: The restriction does not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce.Condition 3: The proposed restriction maintains safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace.Condition 4: The proposed restriction does not conflict with any existing Federal statute or regulation.Condition 5: The applicant has provided adequate opportunity for public comment on the proposed restriction.Condition 6: The proposed restriction does not create an undue burden on the national aviation system.
Failure to Comply 14 CFR § 161.501(b):“Under no conditions shall any airport operator receive revenues or collect a passenger facility charge under section 1113(e) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 if the FAA determines that the airport is imposing any noise or access restriction not in compliance with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 or this part.”
Item 4: Background – FairSkies Request: Noise Reduction Goal
CHARACTERISTICS OF WELL-SET GOALS – S.M.A.R.T. PRINCIPLE
Item 4: NOC Action – FairSkies Request: Noise Reduction Goal
Does the Committee wish to set a specific noise reduction goal, and if so, what should the goal be?
Item 3: NOC Action – FairSkies Request: NOC/MAC Publish 55 dB DNL and N65 Contours & NEMs
Does the Committee recommend publication of 55 dB DNL and N65 noise contours and NEMs?
During the meeting The Committee decided to delay the presentation of this report until its March 2018
meeting
ITEM 5ANNUAL FLEET MIX AND NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
Item 5: Annual Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
The 2018 NOC Work Plan includes an assessment of current fleet mix and nighttime
operational trends.
At the November 2017 NOC meeting, MAC staff committed to incorporating
suggestions from NOC members and develop a year-end Fleet Mix and Nighttime
Operations Report.
The report includes updated 2017 data as well as the following additions:
- 2017 Carrier Jet Usage and Certificated Noise Levels chart
- Average Altitude for Aircraft Arrivals and Departures
- Percent Contribution to Nighttime Total included in the tables
- Noise Level Certification range included in the table
- Nighttime Operations by Origin and Destination tables
- Nighttime Operations by Hour
- 2017 Scheduled versus Actual Operations
Item 5: Annual Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
JAN
-13
MA
R-1
3
MA
Y-1
3
JUL
-13
SE
P-1
3
NO
V-1
3
JAN
-14
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JUL
-14
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JAN
-15
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JUL
-15
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JAN
-16
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JUL
-16
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JAN
-17
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JUL
-17
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
MS
P O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
TH
OU
SA
ND
S
MONTHLY CARRIER JET COUNTS BY TYPE
NARROWBODY WIDEBODY RJ
HUSHKIT BY YEAR: 2013 - 71, 2014 - 37, 2015 - 26, 2016 - 48, 201 7 - 26
WID
EBO
DY
TYPE 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
A124 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
A225 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
A300 0.03% 0.07% 0.07% 0.03% 0.03%
A310 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00%
A330 0.75% 0.69% 0.73% 0.68% 0.80%
A340 0.00% 0.05% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07%
A350 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
A380 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B742 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B744 0.01% 0.08% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01%
B748 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B762 0.12% 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 0.15%
B763 0.55% 0.83% 0.74% 0.90% 0.49%
B764 0.19% 0.21% 0.22% 0.24% 0.01%
B767 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B777 0.18% 0.10% 0.17% 0.18% 0.38%
B7878 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
DC10 0.20% 0.19% 0.24% 0.13% 0.27%
MD11 0.51% 0.54% 0.51% 0.61% 0.46%
TOTAL 2.56% 2.92% 2.94% 2.98% 2.70%
A330
B763
MD11
Item 5: Annual Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
A319 / A320
B738
MD90
Item 5: Annual Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
NA
RR
OW
BO
DY
TYPE 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
A318 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
A319 5.98% 7.54% 7.91% 7.23% 6.77%
A320 8.35% 9.61% 9.02% 9.89% 7.10%
A320-NEO 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.24%
A321 0.47% 0.72% 0.84% 0.46% 0.53%
B717 0.83% 0.59% 1.48% 2.36% 5.24%
B72Q 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B733 1.12% 0.75% 0.85% 0.67% 0.35%
B734 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03%
B735 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B7377 4.43% 5.01% 4.83% 4.83% 5.03%
B738 4.53% 5.62% 6.78% 7.82% 9.76%
B739 0.13% 0.77% 2.81% 3.78% 5.03%
B73Q 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00%
B737-MAX 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
B757 6.89% 6.47% 6.39% 5.80% 5.89%
DC8Q 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
DC9Q 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MD80 4.03% 3.72% 3.52% 3.59% 2.47%
MD90 7.84% 6.78% 8.25% 7.61% 8.83%
TOTAL 44.66% 47.62% 52.73% 54.11% 57.29%
Item 5: Annual Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
REG
ION
AL
JET
TYPE 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
BA46 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
CRJ 16.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
CRJ1 0.01% 0.10% 0.00% 0.13% 0.06%
CRJ2 9.33% 21.40% 17.26% 17.14% 16.17%
CRJ7 4.11% 4.23% 3.39% 2.75% 4.82%
CRJ9 7.60% 10.96% 14.70% 13.71% 11.29%
E135 1.30% 0.06% 0.09% 0.08% 0.07%
E145 0.67% 1.85% 1.24% 0.22% 0.07%
E170 13.22% 10.60% 7.37% 8.67% 7.04%
E175 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
E190 0.40% 0.23% 0.25% 0.20% 0.47%
F28 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
J328 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01%
TOTAL 52.77% 49.46% 44.33% 42.91% 40.01%
CRJ2
CRJ9
E170
STAGE 3
STAGE 4
STAGE 5
6.7
7%
7.1
0%
0.2
4%
0.5
3%
5.2
4%
0.3
5%
5.0
3%
9.7
6%
5.0
3%
0.0
1%
5.8
9%
2.4
7%
8.8
3%
16
.17
%
4.8
2%
11
.29
%
0.0
7%
0.0
7%
7.0
4%
0.4
7%
0.0
3%
0.8
0%
0.0
7%
0.0
1%
0.0
0%
0.1
5%
0.4
9%
0.0
1%
0.3
8%
0.0
1%
0.2
7%
0.4
6%
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0A
31
9
A3
20
A3
20
-NEO
A3
21
B7
17
B7
37
-30
0
B7
37
-70
0
B7
37
-80
0
B7
37
-90
0
B7
37
-MA
X
B7
57
MD
80
MD
90
CR
J2
CR
J7
CR
J9
E13
5
E14
5
E17
0
E19
0
A3
00
A3
30
A3
40
B7
44
B7
48
B7
62
B7
63
B7
64
B7
77
B7
87
8
DC
10
MD
11
CU
MU
LATI
VE
CER
TIFI
CA
TED
NO
ISE
LEV
EL B
ELO
W S
TAG
E 3
LIM
ITS
(EP
ND
B)
2017 MSP CARRIER JET USAGE WITH CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVELS
NARROWBODY REGIONAL JET WIDEBODY
SOURCE: USAGE DATA: MACNOMS; NOISE CERTIFICATION DATA: EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY
CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVELS REPRESENTED AS A RANGE TO ACCOUNT FOR MULTIPLE CERTIFICATION VARIABLES (WEIGHT, MODEL, ENGINE TYPE, AIRFRAME CONFIGURATION, ETC)
CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVEL RANGE
Item 5: Annual Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
Item 5: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
JAN
-13
MA
R-1
3
MA
Y-1
3
JUL
-13
SE
P-1
3
NO
V-1
3
JAN
-14
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JUL
-14
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JAN
-15
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JUL
-15
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JAN
-16
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JUL
-16
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JAN
-17
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JUL
-17
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
FE
ET
AB
OV
E M
SP
FIE
LD
EL
EV
AT
ION
AVERAGE ALTITUDE FOR AIRCRAFT ARRIVING TO MSP
NARROWBODY RJ WIDEBODY
MEASUREMENT POINT IS 3 NAUTICAL MILES FROM THE THRESHOLD OF THE ARRIVAL RUNWAY.FLIGHT TRACK DATA SOURCE CHANGED NOVEMBER 2013.
Item 5: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
MEASUREMENT POINT IS 3 NAUTICAL MILES FROM THE START OF TAKEOFF ROLL.FLIGHT TRACK DATA SOURCE CHANGED NOVEMBER 2013.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
JAN
-13
MA
R-1
3
MA
Y-1
3
JUL
-13
SE
P-1
3
NO
V-1
3
JAN
-14
MA
R-1
4
MA
Y-1
4
JUL
-14
SE
P-1
4
NO
V-1
4
JAN
-15
MA
R-1
5
MA
Y-1
5
JUL
-15
SE
P-1
5
NO
V-1
5
JAN
-16
MA
R-1
6
MA
Y-1
6
JUL
-16
SE
P-1
6
NO
V-1
6
JAN
-17
MA
R-1
7
MA
Y-1
7
JUL
-17
SE
P-1
7
NO
V-1
7
FE
EL
T A
BO
VE
MS
P F
IEL
D E
LE
VA
TIO
N
AVERAGE ALTITUDE FOR AIRCRAFT DEPARTING FROM MSP
NARROWBODY RJ WIDEBODY
Item 5: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
7 3
7 0
4 5
4 8
4 3
4 6
5 1
5 9
6 96 6
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
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 2 0 1 7
AV
ER
AG
E D
AIL
Y O
PE
RA
TIO
NS
AVERAGE DAILY NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS10:30 PM - 6:00 AM
Item 4: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY RUNWAY(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
BLUE: 2014 - 2016 AVERAGE
BLACK: 2017
Item 4: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY AIRLINETOP 15 BY COUNT
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
20
17
AIRLINE ID COUNT
PERCENT OF
AIRLINE
OPERATIONS'
OCCURRING AT
NIGHT
PERCENT OF
CONTRIBUTION TO
NIGHT TIME TOTAL
DELTA DAL 5,896 4.10% 26.08%
SUN COUNTRY SCX 3,735 17.80% 16.52%
AMERICAN AAL 2,417 14.10% 10.69%
SOUTHWEST SWA 2,234 12.70% 9.88%
SKYWEST AIRLINES SKW 1,887 2.40% 8.35%
UNITED UAL 1,248 14.40% 5.52%
SPIRIT NKS 1,239 13.50% 5.48%
UPS UPS 874 31.90% 3.87%
REPUBLIC AIRLINES RPA 721 8.40% 3.19%
FEDEX FDX 635 23.90% 2.81%
ENDEAVOR AIR EDV 491 1.30% 2.17%
FRONTIER AIRLINES FFT 420 18.40% 1.86%
MESA AIRLINES ASH 323 9.10% 1.43%
ALASKA ASA 298 19.20% 1.32%
COMPASS CPZ 188 1.90% 0.83%
*AIRLINE OPERATIONS OCCURRING AT NIGHT REPRSENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPECTIVE AIRLINE SCHEDULE THAT OCCURS AT NIGHT*CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL IS RESPECTIVE AIRLINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OVERALL MSP NIGHT OPERATIONS
Item 4: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFTTOP 15 BY COUNT
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
AIRCRAFT
CODEDESCRIPTION COUNT
NOISE LEVEL
CERTIFICATION (EPNdB BELOW STAGE 3)
B738 BOEING 737-800 6,071 11.3 - 17.1
B757 BOEING 757-200 2,552 11.1 - 22.1
B7377 BOEING 737-700 2,549 11.6 - 19.8
A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 1,836 12.1 - 21.2
E170 EMBRAER 170 1,825 9.2 - 16.8
B739 BOEING 737-900 1,813 10.9 - 16.1
A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A319 1,166 12.9 - 22.2
CRJ9 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-900 958 14.5 - 17.6
MD90 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD90 774 23.4 - 27.2
CRJ2 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-200 601 26.5 - 30.6
B717 BOEING 717 535 19.2 - 23.0
A321 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A321 518 6.4 - 17.0
CRJ7 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-700 418 14.5 - 17.6
MD11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD11 384 12.8 - 17.9
A330 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A330 271 11.7 - 21.1
NOISE CERTIFICATION DATA SOURCE: EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVELS REPRESENTED AS A RANGE BELOW STAGE 3 NOISE LEVELS TO ACCOUNT FOR MULTIPLE CERTIFICATION VARIABLES (WEIGHT, MODEL, ENGINE TYPE, AIRFRAME CONFIGURATION, ETC)
Item 4: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY ORIGIN AND DESTINATIONTOP 15 BY COUNT
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
MSP
AR
RIV
ALS
AIRPORT
CODEORIGIN AIRPORT COUNT
LAX LOS ANGELES 1,343
LAS LAS VEGAS 1,338
SFO SAN FRANCISCO 1,101
PHX PHOENIX 1,029
DEN DENVER 928
ATL ATLANTA 881
ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 783
SEA SEATTLE 779
DCA WASHINGTON D.C. (REAGAN NATIONAL) 594
SDF LOUISVILLE 486
MEM MEMPHIS 460
DFW DALLAS/ FORT WORTH 381
PANC TED STAVENS ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL 354
MDW CHICAGO (MIDWAY) 348
CLT CHARLOTTE 347M
SP D
EPA
RTU
RES
AIRPORT CODE DESTINATION AIRPORT COUNT
ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 534
ATL ATLANTA 473
CLT CHARLOTTE 361
IAH HOUSTON 322
DEN DENVER 305
PHX PHOENIX 232
TVF THEIF RIVER FALLS REGIONAL 189
FLL FT. LAUDERDALE 167
LAS LAS VEGAS 152
STL ST LOUIS 126
GFK GRAND FORKS 121
MSN MADISON 116
DLH DULUTH 104
MOT MINOT 104
GEG SPOKANE 102
Item 4: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY HOUR(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
2,617
694313 456
1,577
6,415
4,634
7,535
2017
2,191
760379 392
1,272
6,325
4,154
6,255
2013 - 2016 AVERAGE
Item 4: Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
SOURCE: MACNOMS FLIGHT TRACKING DATA FOR ACTUAL COUNT OFFICIAL AIRLINE GUIDE (OAG), UPS AND FEDEX REPORTING FOR SCHEDULED COUNTOAG DOES NOT REPORT ALL MSP AIRLINE AND CARGO SCHEDULES.
4.40.1 0.0 0.5
2.3
13.2
5.9
17.4
AVERAGE DAILY SCHEDULED NIGHT
OPERATIONS
7.2
1.90.9 14.3
17.6
12.7
20.6
AVERAGE DAILY ACTUAL NIGHT
OPERATIONS2017 NIGHTTIME SCHEDULED VERSUS ACTUAL OPERATIONS
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
ITEM 6VORTEX GENERATOR NOISE MONITORING STUDY
During the meeting The Committee
decided to delay the presentation of
this report until its March 2018
meeting
ITEM 7SUPER BOWL COMMUNICATION PLAN UPDATE
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
ITEM 8PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
ITEM 9ANNOUNCEMENTS
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 24, 2018
Winter Listening Session
Tuesday, January 30, 2018 @ 7:00 PM
Mount Olivet Lutheran Church
5025 Knox Ave South
Minneapolis, MN 55419
Next NOC Meeting
Wednesday, March 21, 2018 @ 1:30 PM
MAC General Offices
