Recent Community Aircraft Noise Topics And Management Considerations - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Recent Community Aircraft Noise Topics And Management Considerations Metropolitan Airports Commission Full Commission July 18, 2016 OUTLINE Topics Who is in Charge of What? Limitations: FAR Part 161 and Airport Revenue Usage for Noise
Who is in Charge of What? Limitations: FAR Part 161 and Airport Revenue Usage for Noise Mitigation What are We Hearing from the Community? What is NOC/MAC Doing? Noise Program Communication Enhancement Plan Update How to Stay Connected/Updated
Airlines
Federal Aviation Administration
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Airlines determine
meet customer travel preferences.
The number of flights, types of aircraft and flight times are driven by passenger demand MSP does not have a mandatory curfew. The MAC does not have the authority to create one.
Federal Aviation Administration
The FAA dictates airspace and runway use based on
The MAC does not determine where aircraft fly Aircraft need to land and takeoff into the wind
Metropolitan Airports Commission
maintaining facilities (runways, terminals, parking structures, etc.)
use planning, and noise management programs that include community engagement, staffing/facilitating policy discussions, and
technologies like noise and operations monitoring systems.
metric to assess aircraft noise impacts for noise mitigation and land use planning.
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36
Regulates the maximum noise level a civil aircraft can emit (Stage)
Aircraft Manufacturers Air Traffic Control
FAA ATC controls every aircraft movement at MSP and in the airspace around the metro
Aircraft Operators Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
Airport Airport Noise and Capacity Act (1990)
No Access Restriction without Approval
Airport
U.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
Notice of Approval of Noise and Access Restrictions:
Broad view of what constitutes a restriction
Stage 2 Restrictions:
Cost v. benefit Analysis Separate analysis of effects on aircraft <75,000 lbs. Extensive Documentation and public notice
Stage 3 Restrictions:
Benefits reasonably expected to exceed costs FAA approval of restriction – six major 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
Condition 6: The proposed restriction does not create an undue burden on the national aviation system.
Application to FAA Must Include:
A summary of evidence of the fulfillment of conditions for approval, as specified in 14 CFR §161.305; Full 14 CFR §161.305 analysis as appropriate to the proposed restriction; A statement that the submitting entity is empowered to implement the restriction, or is submitting the proposal
A statement as to whether the airport requests partial approval if determined acceptable by FAA.
FAA Application Review Process:
A determination as to the completeness within 30 days of receipt of the application Upon a determination of completeness, FAA notifies applicant of its intent to act on the proposed restriction, notice is published in the Federal Register starting a 30-day comment period, and the 180-day approval period begins from the date of the FAA’s original receipt of the application. Following FAA’s review of the application and public comments, it will issue a decision approving or disapproving the proposed restriction and its determination is communicated to the applicant and posted in the Federal Register. This is a final decision of the Administrator for purpose of judicial review.
These topics currently represent over a dozen specific community concerns being managed by MAC staff in collaboration with our stakeholders.
Runway Use and Flight Tracks
NOC conducting evaluation of runway use effects of CRO Scoping Runway 12L and 12R Arrival Study with ST. Louis Park and Minnetonka residents – added to 2016 NOC Work Plan South Bound Departure Turns off Runway 30L – discussions underway with Richfield and the FAA – NOC to review Runway 17 Departure Usage – 120-degree departure heading – discussions underway with Eagan and the FAA – NOC to review
Noise Mitigation and Land Use
Preparation and coordination for mitigation in 2017 – discussions underway with Minneapolis – NOC briefing July 20 Mitigation eligibility: opt-out scenarios, block rounding, etc. – addressed in Consent Decree and First Amendment – ongoing staff dialogue with interested residents Berms through land art – Amsterdam – proposed for 2017 NOC Work Plan
Increased Nighttime Operations
Restricting nighttime operation and/or differential fee structures are subject to FAA Part 161 July 2015 letter to carriers from NOC Community Reps. and Chair Boivin
Local and National PBN Strategies
NOC Resolution #2014-01 establishing community engagement expectations for future PBN departure procedure design and implementation – ongoing support for this policy position that was unanimously supported by all stakeholders
New Noise Metric and Mitigation Threshold
Federally preempted – awaiting FAA study findings – surveys done end of 2016 and report published end of 2017
Aircraft Procedures and Equipment
FAA Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) transition amendments – NOC will be reviewing FAA noise screen and NOC communities collaborating with FAA on a communication plan Requests to increase arrival glideslope from 3 to 3.5 degrees – proposed for 2017 NOC Work Plan Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) usage at MSP – proposed for 2017 NOC Work Plan Vortex Generator retrofits – A320s – installed on new Delta deliveries and NOC will be analyzing the effectiveness to factor into the retrofit discussion Aircraft Gear Extension Locations on Arrival – added to 2016 NOC Work Plan Turboprop departures outside of Corridor over Mendota Heights – FAA briefing at July 20 NOC meeting on options
Challenges to Value of Past and Future MSP Expansion and Associated Planning Processes
Runway 17/35 built to increase capacity – what resulted was fewer aircraft concentrated into fewer peak hours and slower and lower aircraft producing more noise and pollution – addressed in NOC 2015 aircraft altitude analysis and 2016-2022 CIP AOEE Hearing Officers Report Planning and environmental processes are flawed and do not consider public input – addressed in 2016-2022 CIP AOEE Hearing Officers Report Peak hour operation restriction/cap is needed – addressed in 2016-2022 CIP AOEE Hearing Officers Report, restricting operations are subject to FAA Part 161 Physiological impacts of noise – MAC March 2012 letter to ACRP and PARTNER supporting ongoing research – studies reviewed annually by NOC
resolution on January 19, 2016
threshold.
metrics when evaluating noise impacts from new PBN flight procedures
passed similar resolutions
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 35 16.1% 16.6% 14.0% 15.2% 2.9% 12L 23.3% 20.4% 22.9% 20.7% 25.8% 12R 23.9% 21.0% 24.1% 22.8% 29.9% 30L 16.6% 19.8% 18.8% 20.0% 23.0% 30R 20.1% 22.3% 20.3% 21.3% 18.4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
MSP ARRIVAL RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGE (MARCH ‐ JUNE)
35 12L 12R 30L 30R
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17 29.73% 22.74% 27.47% 24.30% 33.94% 12L 14.88% 14.25% 15.55% 14.84% 17.61% 12R 7.73% 7.47% 8.37% 7.97% 9.22% 30L 25.16% 29.88% 28.04% 29.84% 19.59% 30R 22.50% 25.67% 20.57% 23.04% 19.64% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
MSP DEPARTURE RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGE (MARCH ‐ JUNE)
17 12L 12R 30L 30R
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 35 2.6% 3.1% 2.3% 1.6% 0.4% 12L 16.9% 15.4% 16.1% 21.3% 19.0% 12R 35.0% 26.3% 28.2% 25.6% 32.8% 30L 26.7% 34.4% 34.7% 28.8% 31.4% 30R 18.7% 20.7% 18.8% 22.6% 16.4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
MSP NIGHTTIME ARRIVAL RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGE (MARCH ‐ JUNE)
35 12L 12R 30L 30R
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17 15.94% 12.80% 16.28% 11.12% 9.12% 12L 25.64% 20.12% 16.03% 19.01% 23.38% 12R 30.75% 26.70% 30.63% 29.09% 29.83% 30L 14.92% 24.78% 25.31% 23.61% 20.94% 30R 12.76% 15.60% 11.75% 17.17% 16.73% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
MSP NIGHTTIME DEPARTURE RUNWAY USE PERCENTAGE (MARCH ‐ JUNE)
17 12L 12R 30L 30R
382,960 385,476 418,486 444,202 459,405 469,040 485,480 491,273 482,872 510,420 522,253 501,252 507,322 508,162 540,727 531,947 475,633 453,566 449,972 432,604 435,583 435,076 424,928 431,573 411,760 404,374 427,270 449,081 477,762 511,315 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000 600,000 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 2020 2025 2030 2035
MSP ANNUAL OPERATIONS
MSP 2035 LTCP Forecast
5.2 2.1 0.8 1.2 2.3 14.9 36.5 87.7 60.2 100.8 96.2 89.0 68.1 111.0 80.2 104.8 73.7 109.0 68.2 112.8 63.8 72.0 42.2 12.6 6.9 2.0 1.1 1.0 3.6 21.3 25.9 78.3 53.6 68.1 77.4 63.7 49.8 79.5 63.9 64.4 71.5 54.0 88.2 52.8 90.8 31.8 35.3 19.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
MSP AVERAGE OPERATIONS BY HOUR
2004 ARRIVAL 2004 DEPARTURE 2016 ARRIVAL 2016 DEPARTURE
5.2 2.1 0.8 1.2 2.3 14.9 36.5 87.7 60.2 100.8 96.2 89.0 68.1 111.0 80.2 104.8 73.7 109.0 68.2 112.8 63.8 72.0 42.2 12.6 6.9 2.0 1.1 1.0 3.6 21.3 25.9 78.3 53.6 68.1 77.4 63.7 49.8 79.5 63.9 64.4 71.5 54.0 88.2 52.8 90.8 31.8 35.3 19.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
MSP AVERAGE OPERATIONS BY HOUR
2004 ARRIVAL 2004 DEPARTURE 2016 ARRIVAL 2016 DEPARTURE
5.2 2.1 0.8 1.2 2.3 14.9 36.5 87.7 60.2 100.8 96.2 89.0 68.1 111.0 80.2 104.8 73.7 109.0 68.2 112.8 63.8 72.0 42.2 12.6 6.9 2.0 1.1 1.0 3.6 21.3 25.9 78.3 53.6 68.1 77.4 63.7 49.8 79.5 63.9 64.4 71.5 54.0 88.2 52.8 90.8 31.8 35.3 19.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
MSP AVERAGE OPERATIONS BY HOUR
2004 ARRIVAL 2004 DEPARTURE 2016 ARRIVAL 2016 DEPARTURE
resource on our website and mailed to new individuals
distributed electronically once a person registers an account in our noise complaint system
Community Survey: to help determine the effectiveness of current communication measures and help ascertain how residents prefer to get aircraft noise-related information from the MAC
interact with the MAC and experience aircraft noise
Stakeholder Interviews: to help determine the effectiveness of current airport noise meetings and identify recommendations for improving these meetings