SMAAC Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 16, 2019, 06:30:36 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
445 Posts in 235 Topics by 3514 Members
Latest Member: MerissaMul
Home Help Search Login Register
+  SMAAC Forums
|-+  SMAAC Key Topic Blog.
| |-+  MSP 2016 Forum (Moderator: Forum Manager)
| | |-+  More Noise from South Parallel Departures
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Send this topic Print
Author Topic: More Noise from South Parallel Departures  (Read 2532 times)
Forum Manager
Administrator
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 51

« on: July 10, 2016, 06:49:19 PM »
Reply with quote

Overflight Noise often comes up in neighborhoods, mostly noting events or reactions, but leading to misleading statements and opinions without a foundation in fact.   With that in mind, here is a more informed view addressing departures across SW Minneapolis and Edina.  These oveflights are more noticed because they are generally lower than in the Summer of 2010.

SMAAC is always interested in correcting misstatements and propaganda, publicizing health risk, environmental and school performance impacts of overflights, and informing people about changing operations and environmental impacts at MSP.  Here are four points answering questions about the 2011 Departure by Runway and the 2016 CRO changes in use of R30L.
 
   Newer (designed and built after about 1990) commercial aircraft can operate safely with higher cross-wind and tailwind forces than older aircraft. The designs have this greater wind tolerance mainly because they were designed for 8,000 foot runways with more powerful engines or "higher thrust to weight ratios" (i.e., at MSP the new R17-35). The MSP parallel runways are longer: R12L-30R, 10,000+ feet; R12R-30L, 11,000+ feet. The last 1,000 feet of R30L is closer to Richfield and the Hale neighborhood.
   Noise and routes depend on scheduling and airport practices. Big changes at MSP occurred in 2004 (new runway opened); in 2005 (more flights/day, spilled into late night and early morning hours) and an accident led to additional changes in overflights; in late 2010, runway use changed due to a near-mid-air collision in September; and in 2015, when the FAA finally ordered MSP to respond to a 2013 NTSB safety warning (converging runway operations or CRO).
   Overflight noise and pollution is a far worse long-term problem than you know or the MAC admits.
   The sound-insulation program was completed by 1998 but extended to mapped noise exposure from R17-35 operations (then scheduled for 2003 but postponed). The lawsuit about extending the SIP to the new 60 DNL contours was settled in a compromise in 2007, amended in 2010 or 2011, and, as was noted, is unlikely to benefit any more homes. The industry members of NOC do not support more home treatment and the noise-exposure mapping is suspect but accepted by a NOC majority.

The noise and pollution battle needs to be fought against airports and the airlines through elected officials. SMAAC is engaging Cities, Met Council, Legislators, the Governor, FAA, NTSB, and Congress for that purpose.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 10:45:44 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!