SMAAC Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 20, 2020, 04:57:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
426 Posts in 235 Topics by 4272 Members
Latest Member: Fidel8185
Home Help Search Login Register
+  SMAAC Forums
|-+  SMAAC Key Topic Blog.
| |-+  MSP 2016 Forum (Moderator: Forum Manager)
| | |-+  Noise and Pollution (MSP Fair Skies)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Noise and Pollution (MSP Fair Skies)  (Read 3523 times)
Forum Manager
Jr. Member
Posts: 51

« on: June 24, 2016, 04:26:02 PM »
Reply with quote

Reduce noise and pollution from overflights to protect public health and the environment, MSP Fair Skies Co-Founder Keven Terrell

1. What happened in 2010 that caused more complaints about noise?
2. After a public protest about PBN/RNAV routes, MAC asked FAA not to use them for R30L/R depatures.  What was the result?
3. What changes are SMAAC and MSP Fair Skies asking for at MSP?

The MSP Air Traffic Control Tower reacted to a near-miss incident by rapidly changing procedures to "prevent air crossings."  Noisy overflights were noticed and complained about more often in the Sping of 2011.  Due to new routes, more residents experienced overflights. The increased complaints led to investigations and re-drawn noise contour maps, but as reported by NOC, no new blocks were "found" within or touching the 60 DNL or 63 DNL. FAA, however, added R30R departure headings, decreasing the times per day that any given block was overflown. In 2013-13, the FAA MSP ATCT announced a plan to use more-automated routes using GPS navigation avionics and autopilot systems, called PBN/RNAV routes.

Importantly, MAC did ask. But the FAA could not or would not agree to manage MSP airspace with a mixture of visual flight rule routes and PBN routes.  The MSP Tower issued Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs). For SE departures, the SIDs described the proposed PBN routes. However, the FAA's MSP NextGen plan indicates that all flights will become PBN routes "when needed," in 2018.  This is circular, because the SIDs were needed for peak hours in the first place.

Every opportunity for fewer night schedules and less noisy arrivals and departures should be exploited. The industry is interested in less noisy aircraft because noise reducing airframe designs are also fuel saving as well. The price of fuel, however, seems to be the airlines' greater interest.  When fuel prices are low or falling, there is less chance that older planes will be modified or new aircraft bought or leased.  MSP, will FAA approval, could limit nighttime use of older, noisier aircraft, limit operations per hour directly or by fees, or by auctioning arival times to spread out flights in time and allow for less noisy operations. 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 10:47:02 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!