MSP Airport / Metropolitan Airports Commission

[HiawathaGuy]

How are they overcoming the glare produced by these panels? Living on the 12th floor of my building there are certain periods where I have to close the blinds because it is so bad. These panels are three blocks away. I'm certain they will have to do mitigation to not blind the pilots.

They do make anti glare films. Not sure if that has ever been used on Solar Panels or not. Also not sure how much different it would be from the solar panels on IKEA. They would both be fairly close to the different runways. Both would be off to the side to the pilots direct vision.

I'm sure they looked into that, and probably had FAA help. Denver International has 4 solar farms. Two north of the airfield and two just south and east of the main terminal; 10 megawatts all together!

MSP's will be 3 megawatts.
IKEA's is 1.1 megawatts.

Interesting tidbit though... that 3 megawatts can produce up to 20% of the electricity needed at MSP, while DIA's 10 megawatt system can produce only 6% of their electricity needed. Clearly it's a larger airport with a full underground subway train system linking the 3 terminals. But I was still surprised to see just how much more electricity they use.

I have 15 panels on my house - which produces about 2/3 of my home's annual usage. So I'm a solar nerd.
I always try to see if I can spot my house when landing/taking off at MSP - no such luck yet.

[Wedgeguy]

Hot Pink asphalt shingles should make it stand out!! LOL

[Minneboy]

Other than the benefits of using less carbon fuels and the construction jobs, how can spending 25 million be justified when the savings are only 10 million over 30 years, and that's assuming there is no maintenance costs or replacements.

[holmstar]

Other than the benefits of using less carbon fuels and the construction jobs, how can spending 25 million be justified when the savings are only 10 million over 30 years, and that's assuming there is no maintenance costs or replacements.

I think they're saying that $10 million is the net savings including the costs of installing the solar panels.

[HiawathaGuy]

Other than the benefits of using less carbon fuels and the construction jobs, how can spending 25 million be justified when the savings are only 10 million over 30 years, and that's assuming there is no maintenance costs or replacements.

I think they're saying that $10 million is the net savings including the costs of installing the solar panels.

Yes, that's what they're saying. The panels will pay for themselves and give MSP a $10 million net savings.
I had to invest in the 15 panels on my house. I'll recoup my investment in roughly 10-12 years, but the panels will work for much, much longer. They may produce slightly less energy over time - but they typically have a 25-30 year life expectancy.

Solar panels require little, if any maintenance. That's the beauty of them! The sun shines - energy is produced. WIN!

[MNdible]

Here's an article talking about the NextGen GPS air traffic flight controls being rolled out in Dallas.

This has been controversial in MSP, and for some good reasons, but I don't think the potential benefits of this are fully understood. Yes, this would likely concentrate flight paths over certain neighborhoods in south Minneapolis (likely including my own), but it should also mean that planes on approach would be "gliding in", coming in at higher altitudes and running thier jets more quietly.

[Realstreets]

Here's an article talking about the NextGen GPS air traffic flight controls being rolled out in Dallas.

This has been controversial in MSP, and for some good reasons, but I don't think the potential benefits of this are fully understood. Yes, this would likely concentrate flight paths over certain neighborhoods in south Minneapolis (likely including my own), but it should also mean that planes on approach would be "gliding in", coming in at higher altitudes and running thier jets more quietly.

What about departures? Those are always much louder and with the new system, departures, when directed over south Minneapolis will inundate some unfortunate neighborhood with noise. I'm totally against it and the airport commission rightfully blocked MSP from being one of the early adopters.

[mattaudio]

The problem is already here - NextGen isn't the root of it. Realstreets is correct, departures (especially 12R departures turning to 360 for my neighborhood) are the problem, and that's because they've changed procedures for westerly flow operations. The problem with westerly flow is that Rwy 17 arrivals could not safely go-around with westerly operations on the 12/30s. For some background on this: http://www.smaacmn.org/

Granted, NextGen may exacerbate problems, but we have problems we didn't have a decade ago...
(despite more operations and more passengers - I think 2003-04 was MSP's peak at 15th busiest in the world by passengers, and aircraft movements in the top 10 worldwide, despite having only the two parallels)
...yet we still do not yet have nextgen.

[MNdible]

Anecdotally, I find arrivals to be more disruptive than departures, because most departures (excepting the C-130's) rapidly gain altitude after take-off. That's probably not the case if you're closer in to the airport, but in that proximity, NextGen would have no effect positive or negative.

While we should expect passenger counts to increase, that on its own won't necessarily add to increased noise, as airlines are shifting to fewer, larger planes. In addition, new aircraft will be significantly quieter than the old tin that it's replacing.

[martykoessel]

We live near Cedar and Minnehaha Parkway, and the takeoffs are definitely noisier than the landings. The planes taking off might be somewhat higher, but they're at full throttle! That said, I think a huge part of the noise problem will be solved when the last of the DC-9s disappear. They roar rather than whine and are the only planes (at least at our distance from the airport) that force a halt to conversation.

[mattaudio]

The DC9s did disappear in January of 2013. I remember flying a Delta DC9-50 to Chicago for New Years Eve, and it was retired the following day. But absolutely departures are louder. Martykoessel and I occasionally get arrivals to Rwy 35 over our homes during IRROPS or runway construction, and the arrivals are much quieter.

Another thing that I'm researching is continuous low-frequency transmissions from the airport, which are clearly not takeoffs/landings. I don't think it's an engine test cell. I'm doing some measurements but right now the people I've talked to think it's mechanics draining jet fuel at the runup area on the northwest side of the airfield... sort of like people running their mowers before winter to get the gas out, but in this case it literally rattles my windows 2.5 miles away.

I have a tour of the tower coming up with our local FAA administrator, so hopefully I'll learn more at that time.

[MNdible]

We live near Cedar and Minnehaha Parkway, and the takeoffs are definitely noisier than the landings. The planes taking off might be somewhat higher, but they're at full throttle!

I'm sure that's true, but as I noted above, if you're that close to the airport, I don't think NextGen will impact you one way or another. When you're that close to the runways, the planes aren't going to be straying much from their flight path whether they're pilot controlled or on a GPS dictated path. The impacts (i.e., the differences between a current and NextGen operations) are only likely to be noticed once you're further away from the runways, where NextGen would concentrate flight paths that are currently more distributed.

[MNdible]

Another thing that I'm researching is continuous low-frequency transmissions from the airport, which are clearly not takeoffs/landings. I don't think it's an engine test cell. I'm doing some measurements but right now the people I've talked to think it's mechanics draining jet fuel at the runup area on the northwest side of the airfield... sort of like people running their mowers before winter to get the gas out, but in this case it literally rattles my windows 2.5 miles away.

Yes, I've noticed this in certain locations around town as well. I've always assumed that it's the C-130's being warmed up/tested/etc. They're easily the loudest planes at the airport, they're cranky and old, and because the government is paying for the gas (not tight-fisted Richard Anderson), I think they're more likely to leave the engines running.

[martykoessel]

Delta retired its DC-9s, but it continues to fly 717s, which are essentially DC-9s manufactured by Boeing after it took over McDonnell Douglas. Also, I believe that other airlines continue to fly DC-9s. In any case, when I hear that awful roar, I look up and know that I'll see that familiar twin-engines-at-the-tail design. The C-130s are annoying, too, but they only fly over a couple times per day. We can hear them warming up on the runway, but that's not at a level to affect conversation. Most interesting are the days when weather conditions carry the noise in such a way that it seems the runway is just next door. Sometimes we even catch the faint odor of jet exhaust, which is rather unpleasant.

Of course, my wife knew where the airport was when she bought what is now my home, too, so our gripes our minimal. Changes in take-off patterns have brought much more traffic directly over our rooftop, and, as I said before, I'll be thrilled when the last of the DC-9s (and 717s) bites the dust.

[MNdible]

Delta is also flying a lot of MD-90's out of MSP these days -- their range works well given our location in the middle of the country to fly out to the major markets on the coasts. While they are much quieter than the original DC-9's, I think they're still noticeably louder than the generation of planes that followed them (to say nothing of the new planes available today). These were low-mileage used planes that Delta bought on the cheap, so they'll likely be around for a while.

To reframe my original point, I think this conversation demonstrates that the impacts to people who live close in to the airport are quite different from those who live further out (but still smack underneath the flight path). Also, I think that MAC did a terrible job of explaining what NextGen actually entails -- very few people I've spoken with about it (even activists) understand what it will do.

[mattaudio]

Yes, major operational changes 4 years ago pushed more departures over Northrop, Bancroft, Standish, Ericson, Powderhorn, etc. These were changes instructions given to air traffic such as turns after departure, not NextGen (PBN RNAV). The problem is that these departures are now going over unmitigated areas outside the 65 DNL contour (even though everyone including the FAA and Military have acknowledged that DNL is a worthless metric of noise impact, but that's the way the MAC settlements and consent decree are measured). Another problem is now the planes departing 12R bank right after departure. The physics of such a bank at a low altitude mean that the departure is significantly lower on every point after the bank is completed, affecting neighborhoods even further away from the airport.

The dirty secret is that the current operations aren't safe. Either they're not safe (because MSP's CIP is proposing massive spending on airfield "improvements" justified by the need for safety, despite stagnant demand for operations) OR the massive CIP spending requested is not necessary, because the current operations are safe. They can't have it both ways. But there's the very real possibility that the existing unsafe operations could cause something catastrophic in our neighborhoods and for the traveling public.

Since the current operations, 160/hour, are not safe - then the logical outcome is to reduce the maximum flow rate to a safe level. An added advantage is that the procedures implemented after 2010's near miss would no longer be needed, so departures would ascend over mitigated areas. This is not an issue of total volume with the airport, it's only the maximum operations per hour for our runway configuration during the busiest times of the day (the rush hours that tie to Delta's banked operations). There's plenty of capacity at our airport, it's just not being effectively utilized across timespace.

[FISHMANPET]

I wonder how long before we move the airport farther out from the core. It really is amazing how close in our airport is.

[mattaudio]

I wonder how long before we move the airport farther out from the core. It really is amazing how close in our airport is.

That was studied under the legislature's dual-track process which ended in roughly 1994 with a decision to significantly expand and invest in the current MSP location. I doubt that will be addressed again, unless there's major changes in the commercial aviation industry which dramatically alter our airfield and terminal needs in a way that either MSP can't handle or would cost so much money that it would make sense to explore alternatives. There were groups in rural Dakota County such as SOAR that fought the plan to move the airport. IIRC, the entire city of Vermillion would have been removed for the new airport. It would be fascinating to see some of those plans floated at that time. I also remember a newspaper diagram of the existing MSP from the mid-90s which showed a massive redo of the 62/77 interchange with a new access road to the terminal complex going southeast from the existing interchange location.

We also have to be careful regarding how much we actually invest in MSP's facilities. Granted, MAC operates without taxpayer money, but if those concession and parking revenues and landing fees dry up, the public is on the hook for MAC's bonds. Look at what's happened to STL, CVG, PIT, and others who have spent massive amounts of money only to see their hubs eliminated shortly thereafter due to hub consolidation.

[twinkess]

The B717s are actually a bit quieter than the DC-9s, however most of the planes you are seeing are their older siblings the MD-88s and MD-90s. Still powered by the JT8D engines that made the DC-9s soooo loud.

[martykoessel]

As someone very much affected by airport noise, I still believe that the airport should not be moved. Even if politically possible, I think the billions this would cost would be an unwise use of public funds, given all that could be accomplished alternatively.

Among these alternative things might be a high-speed rail link between the core cities and Chicago, with a station near O'Hare. Last I read, I think about 17% of the flights leaving MSP were to Chicago. I'd be very interested in what percentage of these flights (as well as a few to Milwaukee) could be replaced by efficient high-speed rail transportation. Have studies been done on this?

If, say, 60% of air travel to Chicago could be replaced by high-speed rail, that would go a long way toward addressing capacity issues at MSP. Also, some of the cost objections to high-speed rail might be answered by doing a cost-benefit analysis of how much could be saved through reduced need for infrastructure improvements at the airport. Do any of you know enough about all the related points to weigh in on this issue?