NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, Audio recordings are made of this meeting

Transcription

1 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Audio recordings are made of this meeting

2 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 1: Review and Approval of July 20, 2016 Meeting Minutes

3 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016

4 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC COMPLAINTS Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016 JULY AUGUST MSP COMPLAINTS JULY 11,664 10,878 AUGUST 12,475 12,035 10,183 11,442 JULY AUGUST ,000 12,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 2,

5 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC COMPLAINT LOCATIONS Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016 MSP COMPLAINT LOCATIONS JULY AUGUST AVERAGE COMPLAINT PER LOCATION JULY AUGUST

6 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016 TOTAL MSP AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS JULY 37,132 37,880 AUGUST 36,885 37,887 YEAR TO DATE , ,724 40,000 38, ,880 37,887 36,750 36,000 34,000 32,000 30,000 31,597 30,020 31,371 35,119 34,966 33,293 34,331 32,686 33,409 35,542 37,132 36,885 32,887 33,969 31,896 32,356 28,000 29,033 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

7 J A N M A R M A Y J U L S E P N O V J A N M A R M A Y J U L S E P N O V J A N M A R M A Y J U L S E P N O V J A N M A R M A Y J U L P A S S E N G ERS Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: June and July 2016 MSP PASSENGERS MSP AIRLINE PASSENGERS A V E R A G E P A S S E N G E R P E R F L I G H T JUNE JULY ,352,178 3,533, JUL 101 JUN 102 Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission s Finance Department Monthly Passenger and Operations Reports

8 Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016 FLEET MIX COMPOSITION JULY & AUGUST 2016 DAYTIME COMPOSITION JULY & AUGUST 2016 REGIONAL JET 28,934 41% MANUFACTURED STAGE 3/4 41,183 59% DAY 70, % NIGHT 5, %

9 SATURDAY OPERATIONS Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016 MSP NIGHT TIME OPERATIONS (22:30 06:00) JULY AUGUST

10 Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016 JULY NIGHT TIME Scheduled Actual 1,588 2, A S A S A S A S A S A S A S A S 22:30 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 OTHER AIR CARRIER CARGO

11 Item 2: Review of Operations Report Summary: July and August 2016 AUGUST NIGHT TIME Scheduled Actual 1,478 2, A S A S A S A S A S A S A S A S 22:30 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 OTHER AIR CARRIER CARGO

12 JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE Noise Abatement Procedures Runway 17 Departure RUNWAY 17 JULY AUGUST CARRIER JET DEPARTURES (PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE) 6,199 (99.4%) 6,423 (99.3%) 100.0% 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% 98.0%

13 EAGAN - MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR COMPLIANCE JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL Noise Abatement Procedures Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor RUNWAYS 12L AND 12R JULY AUGUST CARRIER JET DEPARTURES (PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE) 4,069 (97.0%) 3,981 (97.6%) 100% 95% 90% 85% 80%

14 EAGAN -MENDOTA HEIGHTS CROSSING PROCEDURE USAGE JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV Noise Abatement Procedures Crossing-in-the-Corridor CROSSING USAGE JULY AUGUST NIGHT TIME (23:00 06:00) DAY TIME (06:00 23:00) 219 (39%) 3,850 (38%) 259 (47%) 3,722 (36%) Cross Day Cross Night 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

15 5,229 8,418 6,045 9,005 9,072 9,987 7,676 5,888 8,187 9,030 9,640 9,384 MSP OPERATIONS 11,656 9,175 10,397 8,542 7,289 5,751 10,463 11,069 10,369 10,385 10,947 11,256 RUS PERCENTAGE Noise Abatement Procedures Runway Use System (RUS) July Count Percent Arrivals on 30L, 30R, and 35 9, % Departures on 12L, 12R, and 17 10, % Use of RUS High-Priority Runways 20, % August Count Percent Arrivals on 30L, 30R, and 35 9, % Departures on 12L, 12R, and 17 11, % Use of RUS High-Priority Runways 20, % USE OF MSP RUS HIGH-PRIORITY RUNWAYS ARRIVALS 30L, 30R, 35 DEPARTURES 12L, 12R, 17 RUS 30,000 25,000 20, % 51.8% 51.6% 54.2% 51.8% 52.4% 51.9% 50.9% 54.1% 52.8% 54.4% 54.5% 56% 54% 52% 50% 15,000 48% 10,000 5,000 46% 44% 42% 0 SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 40% 2016

16 3.3% 22.8% 19.9% 17.4% 19.4% 21.3% 27.6% 26.2% 26.4% 25.2% 22.8% 29.6% 26.2% 22.4% 27.7% 27.1% 33.8% Noise Abatement Procedures Runway Use System (RUS) JULY ARRIVALS TOTAL MORNING TRANSITION EVENING TRANSITION NIGHT COUNT 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 12L 12R 30L 30R 35

17 6.8% 7.5% 6.8% 16.5% 14.7% 16.7% 13.0% 18.2% 22.2% 23.9% 20.6% 20.3% 25.3% 24.8% 22.4% 22.8% 22.6% 29.4% 34.5% 30.7% Noise Abatement Procedures Runway Use System (RUS) JULY DEPARTURES TOTAL MORNING TRANSITION EVENING TRANSITION NIGHT COUNT 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 12L 12R 17 30L 30R

18 0.0% 3.2% 20.6% 18.3% 16.9% 24.3% 24.3% 22.7% 26.6% 25.8% 26.2% 25.7% 23.4% 24.5% 30.6% 29.9% 27.4% 29.3% Noise Abatement Procedures Runway Use System (RUS) AUGUST ARRIVALS 35% TOTAL MORNING TRANSITION EVENING TRANSITION NIGHT COUNT 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 12L 12R 30L 30R 35

19 6.3% 6.4% 17.0% 16.8% 14.2% 10.4% 16.8% 16.1% 19.0% 24.6% 22.9% 19.8% 19.1% 15.3% 23.6% 22.2% 29.7% 29.3% 36.2% 34.0% Noise Abatement Procedures Runway Use System (RUS) AUGUST DEPARTURES TOTAL MORNING TRANSITION EVENING TRANSITION NIGHT COUNT 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 12L 12R 17 30L 30R

20 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 3: Aircraft Arrival Gear Extension Gordon Goss Chief Pilot Delta Air Lines Timothy Bathke Chief Pilot Sun Country Airlines

21 LANDING GEAR EXTENSION DETERMINATES: STABILIZED APPROACH CRITERIA SLOW/FAST ATC SPEED ASSIGN SLAM DUNK APPROACHES LOW VISIBILITY/BAD WX

22 STABILIZED APPROACH DISCUSSION STABLE APPROACHES ARE ICAO/INDUSTRY STANDARD STABLE APPROACH = SLOW APPROACH = SAFE APPROACH GARAGE ANALOGY

23 STABILIZED APPROACH CRITERIA (By 1000 AGL = Approx 3 nm) Visual Conditions Landing Gear Down not in transit Flaps set at a Landing Flaps position Relatively high lift and high drag Airspeed at Touchdown Speed + 15 KIAS(mph) On nominal 3 degree glideslope Engines spooled up ready for go-around (approximately cruise power setting)

24 LOW VISIBILITY/BAD WX AIRCRAFT STABLE CLOSER TO 5-6 nm vs 3-4nm MINIMIZE DISTRACTIONS MOST APPROACHES REQUIRE VISUAL FOR LANDING ALLOWS DETERMINATION OF AIRSPEED VARIATION USUALLY NOT NOTICED FROM GROUND

25 Approach Procedure Profile

26 12R/12L ILS APPROACH CHARTS

27 SLOW SPEED ASSIGNMENT (> 6 NM from Rwy) Assigned speed 150 to 170 KIAS Speed MAY require Landing Flaps Aircraft type and weight dependent Landing Flap set with Landing Gear UP Landing Gear Warning Horn to prevent gear up landing Landing Gear Required to silence Warning

28 FAST SPEED ASSIGNMENT ( KIAS to 5-6 NM) Less Prevalent Condition Higher Speed Carried Closer to Runway Aircraft Type Dependent DC-9/727 vs 757/A-320 Landing Gear Used as Drag to Slow Quickly

29 SLAM DUNK APPROACHES AIRCRAFT BEGINS APPROACH HIGH AND FAST STABILIZED APPROACH CRITERIA STILL APPLIES AIRCRAFT IS ABOVE 3 DEGREE GLIDESLOPE LANDING GEAR USED WITH SPEEDBRAKES FLAP EXTENSION SPEED DEPENDENT

30 NOC QUESTIONS: What are Delta s SOP re LANDING GEAR EXTENSION? Fully extended no later than 1000 feet AGL. Given normal extension times usually start approximately 5-7 nm from Runway. HAS THIS CHANGED RECENTLY? No changes from Delta or even NWA procedures

31 Q: ARE THERE GROUND LANDMARKS FOR GEAR EXTENSION? A: No, A/C configuration is dependent upon the factors listed above, not a spot on the ground. Q: DOES GEAR EXTENSION DIFFER FOR DIFFERENT RUNWAYS? A: No. Except as listed above, the goal of approach standardization is to make all approaches as similar as possible. DISCUSSION OF RWY 12L/R APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS/QUESTIONS

32 NOC Presentation MSP Base Chief Pilot Captain Timothy Bathke Sun Country, Sun Country Airlines, Sun Country Vacations, the Compass logo, and Ufly are trademarks of MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country Airlines.

33 Landing Procedure Considerations Safety driven Internal data Industry lessons learned Regulatory compliance FAA Directive Sun Country Policy Recent Stabilized Approach Emphasis

34 Procedural Considerations Safety A decade long data driven initiative Stabilized Approach criteria met for each and every approach Positioning the airplane in the proper landing configuration (in addition to completing several other tasks) prior to 1000 above the ground Approximately 4 miles from the runway

35 Sun Country Approach Profiles No significant changes in the past 2 years Minor verbiage change Approximately the same point over the ground

36 Standard Operating Procedure Difficult to quantify Multitude of variables Crew qualification Weather conditions Assigned approach speeds Number of Operations/Congestion Direction of traffic flow Day vs. Night Specific size of 737

37 Visual Weather Conditions Normally the landing gear is lowered approximately 5-7 miles from the runway This can vary with crew experience, flight conditions, weather, runway conditions, etc. The primary emphasis for our crews is the safety of our passengers and the community on the ground

38 SCA Approach Profiles

39 Instrument Weather Conditions Current procedure specifies lowering the landing gear 3 miles before the Final Approach Fix Conditions alter this slightly based primarily on aircraft weight and speed assigned by ATC The final approach point changes based on the specific runway in use

40 Approximate Final Approach Fix Distance Runway 12R 7 nm Runway 12L 7 nm Runway 30L 6 nm Runway 30R 6 nm

41 Procedural Differences Between Runways The Sun Country profile for an Instrument approach is the same whether the runway is 12R or 35 in MSP, or any approach at any other airport Different types of instrument approaches can have slightly different profiles The gear is lowered at essentially the same distance from any runway

42 Ground based Reference Points Sun Country does not utilize ground based references

43 SE Ops versus NW Ops Runways 12L/12R are typically used without the benefit of 35 Runways 30L/R/35 can handle a greater number of flights In a 2 runway configuration, there is an increased likelihood of congestion Slower speeds assigned further from the airport Typically, once MSP Approach Control or MSP Tower assigns a certain speed (170mph) we can only slow the airplane using landing gear Doing so assures we maintain a stabilized and safe approach Depending on the distance from the airport, this could lead to level flight segments that potentially require higher power settings, thus increasing the noise.

44 Considerations Customer loyalty to the Hometown Airline is driving growth SCA Fleet Make-up Aircraft Aircraft (22 in March 2017, 23 and 24 in 2017) Pilot Demographics 306 pilots 60% increase in 5 years Increased training Pilot candidate experience Teaching and maintaining our high level of safety

45 Considerations RNAV STARs There is not a negative impact on noise from the implementation Instrument approach procedures haven t changed as a result Altitude at correlating navigation points is higher 230 KIAS on downwind requires reduced engine thrust settings, lowering noise footprint further Shared benefits- reduced noise and a lower fuel consumption

46 Questions?

47 MSP Base Chief Pilot Tim Bathke

48 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals In May, NOC directed MAC staff to conduct an analysis of MSP Runway 12L and 12R arrival activity over the cities to the northwest of the airport. Direction was based on feedback from the 2 nd Quarter Public Input Meeting in St. Louis Park

49 METHODOLOGY Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals FINDINGS FINDINGS Collectively designed study objective and scope with residents. Data analyzed from 2004 and 2013 through July The following concerns were identified and evaluated: Volume of arrival activity Late-night and early-morning arrival activity Arrival aircraft altitude trends Frequency of arrival flights throughout the day Arrival path changes Increased arrival activity on Runways 12L and 12R between 2013 and 2015, although total number of arrivals to these runways are lower than 2004 Two factors leading to increases: southerly winds and new separation standards for Converging Runway Operations Increased late-night and early-morning arrival activity There are peaks and valleys of activity throughout the day The peak hour of arrival activity occurs during the evening No substantive changes were found in aircraft altitudes Some spatial variations exist for flight segments prior to final approach as a result of Area Navigation (RNAV) arrival procedures

50 ARRIVAL OPERATIONS 40,399 38,664 27,790 32,056 41,921 41,496 45,496 50,888 ARRIVAL PERCENTAGE 59,720 58,425 NIGHTTIME ARRIVAL OPERATIONS 1,546 1,706 1,923 1,713 2,607 2,906 3,608 3,102 4,138 4,881 ARRIVAL PERCENTAGE Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals OPERATIONS 60,000 RUNWAY 12L AND 12R ARRIVAL USAGE RUNWAY 12L RUNWAY 12R 60% 6,000 RUNWAY 12L AND 12R NIGHTTIME ARRIVAL USAGE RUNWAY 12L RUNWAY 12R 35% 50,000 50% 5,000 30% 40,000 40% 4,000 25% 30,000 20,000 30% 20% 3,000 2,000 20% 15% 10% 10,000 10% 1,000 5% * 0% * 0%

51 J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L D A Y S I N S O U T H F L O W Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals SOUTH FLOW DAYS 22 DAYS IN A SOUTH OR STRAIGHT SOUTH FLOW M A X C O N S E C U T I V E D A Y S T O T A L D A Y S * * C O U N T S I N C L U D E D A Y S W H E R E S O U T H F L O W O R S T R A I G H T S O U T H F L O W W A S U S E D M O R E T H A N 8 H O U R S

52 FLOW DAYS Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals SOUTH FLOW DAYS MSP RUNWAY CONFIGURATION FLOW DAYS SOUTH NORTH MIXED A * * * N O R T H D E P I C T S B O T H N O R T H F L O W A N D S T R A I G H T N O R T H F L O W D A Y S * * S O U T H D E P I C T S B O T H S O U T H F L O W A N D S T R A I G H T S O U T H F L O W D A Y S * * C O U N T S I N C L U D E D A Y S W H E R E T H E D O M I N A N T F L O W W A S U S E D A T L E A S T 8 H O U R S

53 A L T I T U D E ( F F E T ) Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals ALTITUDE 12R AVERAGE ARRIVAL ALTITUDE 12L AVERAGE ARRIVAL ALTITUDE 2, M I L E S 4 M I L E S 6 M I L E S 8 M I L E S 2, M I L E S 4 M I L E S 6 M I L E S 8 M I L E S 2, , , , , , , , , , , , J M M J S N F A J A O D F A J A O D F A J A O D F A J 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J

54 MSP ARRIVAL OPERATIONS MSP ARRIVAL OPERATIONS MSP ARRIVAL OPERATIONS Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals AVERAGE SOUTH FLOW ARRIVAL DAY IN L 12R TYPICAL SOUTH FLOW DAY AVERAGE SOUTH FLOW ARRIVAL DAY IN L 12R 80 AVERAGE SOUTH FLOW ARRIVAL DAY IN L 12R

55 P E R C E N T O F T I M E P E R C E N T O F T I M E Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals MSP WIND CONDITIONS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% RUNWAY CONFIGURATION WHEN WINDS FAVOR SOUTH FLOW S O U T H F L O W N O R T H F L O W M I X E D * Percent of Time Wind Favored these South Flow North Flow Calm Crosswind % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% RUNWAY CONFIGURATION WHEN WINDS FAVOR NORTH FLOW S O U T H F L O W N O R T H F L O W M I X E D *

56 PERCENT OF TIME PERCENT OF TIME Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals MSP WIND CONDITIONS 60% 50% 40% 30% RUNWAY CONFIGURATION WHEN WINDS ARE CALM OR LIGHT SOUTH FLOW NORTH FLOW 20% 10% Percent of Time Wind Favored these South Flow North Flow Calm Crosswind % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% * RUNWAY CONFIGURATION DURING CROSSWINDS SOUTH FLOW NORTH FLOW 10% 0% *

57 Item 4: Study of MSP Runway 12L and 12R Arrivals MSP AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)

58 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 5: Update on the Impacts of Converging Runway Operations (CRO)

59

60 MSP ranked 16 th busiest airport in the nation with over 400,000 operations per year. Air Traffic Control primary duty is to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic to MSP and the surrounding airspace. Safe Ensuring aircraft separation and system safety in the air and on the ground Orderly Applying air traffic control rules to ensure system integrity which in turn supports safety Expeditious Maintaining an efficient throughput of arrivals and departures, keeping demand and capacity in balance again, this in turn supports safety Noise Considerations - RUS Utilization September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 44

61 September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 45

62 Arrival Departure Window (ADW) Depicted on radar maps to assist controllers with departure decision making criteria September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation 46 Federal Aviation Administration 46

63 Rwy 30L ADW September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation 47 Federal Aviation Administration 47

64 Rwy 30L ADW September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation 48 Federal Aviation Administration 48

65 Land 30s & 35 Depart 30s September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 49

66 Land 30s Depart 30s September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 50

67 Land 12s Depart 12s and 17 September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 51

68 Land 30s Depart 30s & 17 September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 52

69 Land 35 Depart 12s September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 53

70 September 21, 2016 MSP NOC Presentation Federal Aviation Administration 54

71 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 6: Update on Turboprop Departures over Mendota Heights

72 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 7: NextGen Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) Amendment Update

73 Environmental Process for MSP Arrival Procedure Amendments September 21, 2016

74 Agenda National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) FAA environmental process Process and status of environmental review for arrival procedure amendments

75 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Broad national policy to protect and enhance the quality of the human environment Requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their proposed actions prior to finalizing decisions Requires Federal agencies adopt their own procedures to supplement the regulations

76 FAA Environmental Policy FAA Order F Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures Order K Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters Describes how the FAA is to implement NEPA specifically for FAA actions Defines impact categories that require analysis Sets thresholds of significant levels

77 Typical Environmental Process

78 MSP Arrival Procedure Amendments

79 Environmental Review Air Traffic Initial Environmental Review (IER) Appendix 5 from Order K Considers Extraordinary Circumstances Ensures NEPA compliance Noise Screen Looks at the possible change in noise from current conditions

80 Noise Screen Methodology 28 days of radar track data were selected for the MSP analysis June 14-20, 2015 October 18-24, 2015 December 13-19, 2015 March 13-19, 2016 Aircraft fleet mix Day/night traffic ratios Lowest point of an altitude range was used

81 Noise Screen Methodology Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Baseline and Alternative tracks are run for comparison Produces three outputs Baseline noise exposure Alternative noise exposure Noise impact

82 Environmental Findings Completed the IER and Noise Screen No extraordinary circumstances identified No significant or reportable noise identified Significant if 1.5 db increase at the DNL 65 db noise exposure level Qualifies for a CatEx under i Air traffic control procedures conducted at or above 3,000 feet AGL

83 Final Environmental Steps Categorical Exclusion package sent to Central Service Center for signature by the Director Available to the public

84 Thank you!

85 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 8: Runway Use System (RUS) Evaluation The 2016 NOC Work Plan includes an item to evaluate the use of the FAA Runway Use System (RUS). The RUS prioritizes arrival and departure runways to promote flight activity over less-populated residential areas as much as possible.

86 J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N JUL A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N JUL A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N JUL H I G H P R I O R I T Y R U N W A Y O P E R A T I O N S R U S P E R C E N T A G E Item 8: Runway Use System (RUS) Evaluation Runway Use System (2005-present) DEPARTURES RUNWAYS 12L AND 12R RUNWAY 17 BALANCED USE OF RUNWAY 4/22 RUNWAYS 30L AND 30R ARRIVALS RUNWAYS 30L AND 30R RUNWAY 35 BALANCED USE OF RUNWAY 4/22 RUNWAYS 12L AND 12R 3 0, , , , , , USE OF RUS HIGH-PRIORITY RUNWAYS 60% R U S O P E R A T I O N S R U S P E R C E N T % % % % 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30%

87 J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L H O U R S I N O P P O S I T E C O N F I G U R A T I N O N COUNT OF HOURS IN OPPOSITE FLOW Item 8: Runway Use System (RUS) Evaluation OPPOSITE FLOW Maximizes RUS, however is used sparingly due to safety and capacity considerations. 120 HOW OFTEN IS THE AIRPORT IN AN OPPOSITE FLOW CONFIGURATION? 100 WHEN IS THE AIRPORT IN AN OPPOSITE FLOW CONFIGURATION? Jan-August HOUR

88 J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L A U G S E P O C T N O V D E C J A N F E B M A R A P R M A Y J U N J U L H O U R S I N M I X E D A C O N F I G U R A T I N O N COUNT OF HOURS IN A MIXED A Item 8: Runway Use System (RUS) Evaluation MIXED FLOW A Utilizes the top arrival runway priority (30L and 30R) and the 2 nd departure runway priority (17) with limited departures on Runways 30L and 30R. 120 HOW OFTEN IS THE AIRPORT IN A 'MIXED A' CONFIGURATION? 50 WHEN IS THE AIRPORT IN A 'MIXED A' CONFIGURATION? Jan-August HOUR

89 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 9: Consent Decree Amendment Update In May 2015, the FAA replaced the Integrated Noise Model (INM) with the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). Section 8.1(d) of the 2007 Consent Decree states: By March 1 of each year, MAC shall develop and make available to the public a noise contour report using the FAA s Integrated Noise Model to reflect noise conditions for the prior calendar year MAC staff is working with the parties of the Consent Decree to update the language to allow the use of the FAA-approved noise modeling software.

90 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 10: Draft 2017 NOC Work Plan

91 Item 10: Draft 2017 NOC Work Plan 1. Review Residential Noise Mitigation Program 2. MSP Noise Program Specific Efforts a) 2016 Actual Noise Contour Report and First Amendment to the Consent Decree Noise Mitigation Program Eligibility b) NextGen Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) Amendments Update c) Investigate Noise-Reducing Landscaping Options d) Quantify Noise Reduction Benefits of Vortex Generators on Airbus Aircraft Arrivals at MSP e) Evaluate Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) Use at MSP f) Update on the FAA s Survey to Re-Evaluate Noise Measurement Methods g) Develop a New or Append an Existing Monthly Report h) to Evaluate the Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Turboprop Activity i) Evaluate Steeper Glide Slopes for Aircraft Arrivals j) Noise Program Communication Enhancement Plan Implementation k) Improve MAC Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) for Better User Experience l) Annual MSP Nighttime Operations Assessment m) Annual MSP Fleet Mix Assessment n) Status of FAA Center of Excellence/ASCENT, TRB and FICAN Initiatives o) Consider/Evaluate a Fly Quiet Award Program to Reward MSP Aircraft Operators who Actively Participate in Noise Reduction Efforts 3. Continue to Review Input Received from Public Input Meetings as Possible Agenda Items

92 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 11: Review of July 27, 2016 Public Input Meeting On July 27, 2016 MAC Noise Program Office staff conducted the 3 rd Quarter 2016 Public Input Meeting. One resident attended the meeting and also submitted the Public Input Meeting website form. MAC staff had a focused discussion with the resident covering information about the FAA s decision-making and consideration of community impact from aircraft overflights and the difference between the impact on the community from MSP and from Denver International Airport. Representatives from the FAA and the airlines were in attendance and joined in the discussion. The next quarterly public input meeting will be October 26, 2016, 7:00 p.m., at the MAC General Offices Lindbergh Room While the questions were answered in person, staff also responded in writing and posted them on the website under For Our Neighbors Public Input Meetings.

93 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 12: Public Comment

94 NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 Item 13: Announcements Next NOC meeting November 16, 1:30 PM MAC General Offices Lindbergh Room 4 th Quarter Public Input Meeting October 26, 7:00 PM MAC General Offices Lindbergh Room