SMAAC Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 11, 2020, 11:16:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
477 Posts in 235 Topics by 4713 Members
Latest Member: edecov
Home Help Search Login Register
+  SMAAC Forums
| |-+  Autumn 2017 E-NewsLetter
| | |-+  MSP Neighbors Petition For Overflight Noise Abatement
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Send this topic Print
Author Topic: MSP Neighbors Petition For Overflight Noise Abatement  (Read 2745 times)
Forum Manager
Jr. Member
Posts: 51

« on: January 27, 2014, 11:42:16 AM »
Reply with quote


Citizens had not succeeded in getting the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to recognize that the procedural changes made since the September 2010 near-mid-air- collision at MSP were responsible for thousands of overflight complaints. So, on a bitter cold night, about 85 people turned out at a public meeting January 7 seeking attention from elected officials at all levels. The South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) called the meeting as a part of an ongoing blog on MSP Safe Capacity & Overflight Noise.

Their issue: operational changes at MSP are creating more disturbances in more places since FAA procedures were modified in late 2010 and 2011.

“It is how the airport is operated by FAA and used by the airlines that increased noise.” SMAAC President Jim Spensley told the crowd. “MSP operations should be broadly reviewed as well for economic and environmental impacts.  How much are Minnesota air travelers being over-charged to subsidize the Delta hub?”

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations14, Part 161 defines a process for airports to limit operations to reduce noise and pollution (Part of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990).  Dr. Barbara Lichman, a California attorney and lobbyist, outlined the Part 161 process.  She said a community was unlikely to succeed without strong political support and the attention of the airport manager.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), manages MSP under State laws that define airport capacity, land use, and expansion limits.  MAC Chair Dan Boivin and MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee Chair, Paul Rehkamp were invited to respond.
MAC staff, however, messaged that the MAVC declined to participate in the discussions. To date, SMAAC has received explanation from Boivin or Rehkamp.

Federal, State, and local reelected officials did respond, favorably, and perhaps they will address the safety and noise issues at MSP with MAC and the Federal Aviation Administration.  Congressman Ellison sent a statement supporting a new MSP operations plan.  Stae Senator Scott Dibble and State Representative said that they would holds a series of hearings and propose legislation as needed.  Minneapolis City Council Member John Quincy siad that the City agreed that operational changes were needed for noise relief, including restoration of noise-abating departure procedures.
Congress is updating the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95, the Federal Aviation Administration policy and re-authorization). The public meeting resulted in very specific petitions suggesting action at Municipal, State and Federal levels. The Federal part has been adopted by other citizen organizations across the nation.
The Federal government should: step up to its responsibility for public health and safety by:
1. Replacing the Integrated Noise Model (INM) and annual-average forecast day-night level (DNL) with a more reliable and predictive standard by September 30, 2014, and directing the FAA to more frequently exercise its authority to direct flights for noise reduction and related health and safety benefits until more predictive standards are developed.
2. Make conservative safety adjustments to airspace management plans and airport rules and procedures that are consistent with current air traffic systems and aircraft capabilities and discontinue efforts to operate as often as possible at minimum separations (intervals).
3. Assure that automated flights and satellite-based surveillance systems are functional, reliable, and fully deployed for airport air traffic control, and that that aircraft are properly equipped and air crews properly trained and rested prior to a change-over to PBN routes or other changes.

The State of Minnesota, through executive actions and appointments or legislation, should
1. Assure these air service needs are properly forecast and the long-term costs of airport capital projects and operations (including fares and fees for local travelers) do not foreclose the economic developments included in the need forecast.
2.  Require and oversee contested public hearings and independent determinations of fact regarding environmental impacts, including noise and air pollution off-site, and the economic need for and effects of capital and operational costs on local (origin and destinations) passengers.

The City of Minneapolis and other municipalities around MSP, considering how overflights affect livability and how developments may be limited or aided by MSP operations, should:
1. Withdraw from the MSP Noise Oversight Committee unless both a new noise analysis is completed considering health risks studies and the near-favoring noise-abating departure procedures and gradual approaches  defined in the FEIS/ROD and MSP Noise Compatibility Plans circa 1999 are reinstated.
2.  Enlist Commissioners representing residents and Mayors to reform Commission policies regarding community and State noise and land-use standards so that community-expressed needs for safe, sufficient, and affordable air transportation services are met without obtrusive or unsafe overflights
« Last Edit: June 15, 2014, 03:08:39 PM by Forum Manager » Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Send this topic Print 
« previous next »

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 RC3 | SMF © 2006–2010, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!