Airport groups offered and received help through Aviation Watch for many years. "Airport Noise" in various forms and places resulted in protests, lawsuits, and occasionally changes in airport management. Over the years, airport noise was encapsulated by US DOT and FAA laws and rules (i.e. 14 CFR Part 150 and Part 161). Airlines successfully lobbied to stuff all protests of overflights into these grinders until protestors were exhausted and disillusioned.
In the social media age, anyone can put out a web site named "Quiet Skies" this or that and many have. We have a problem in that the title funnels the actions into limited practices and Rules. Even the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus's boldest proposal 55 DNL and over mitigation under 14 CFR Part 150 would by no means result in noise or pollution reductions and mitigation can be evaded by noiser flights over more people using more overflight courses per day.
So, with help from other groups promised, we are taking two small steps toward a reduction in aviation noise and pollution per actual flight --by shortening the length and time of the average trip and reducing airport operations involved in the average trip.
1, We're oganizing a technical base for airport capacity plan protests called, for the moment, the Special Meto Airports Analysis Consortium (US)
2. We are hosting the Aviation Watch blog.Read more
At the August 20, 2018 Metropolitan Airports Commission meeting, SMAAC delivered an Open Letter urging the Commission to make the purposes, costs and economic and emvironmental impacts of its 2010 to 2020 Captial Improvement Program (CIP) public, as required by Law and as related to the Met Council Transportation Policy Plan.
In particular, the long-delayed 2015 MSP LTCP Update veils the purposes and costs of capital improvements from the public, the Legislature and several State and Federal agencies. Key planning factors remain unpublished, and many details need to be explained or revised.
The letter said "We are hopeful that the Draft LTCP Update will soon be published and that maximum hourly operations limited by the CRO and aggravated by the differences in hourly arrivals depending on “flow” will be included, and that realistic Next Gen and automated flight improvement plans and schedules are used for the CIP.
"The MSP LTCP and the Metropolitan Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) for 2010 to 2030 were approved after they were revised by the MAC to include noise and other environmental studies adjusted to the evolving new routes and ATC procedures" in the 2014 Draft MSP LTCP Update.
Is is sad that the media, the Governor and the Legislature accept the fact of $billions being spent at MSP for imporvements based on a 2014 draft that has since been hidden and apparently revised by the MAC alone. Long-term plan changes may or may not be needed for safe operations, may or may not increase noise expousre and almost certainly increase air pollution per flight.
What is the plan, and when will it become pubic?
The Online Forum has been modified.
SMAAC' s Survey and Candidate Answers drew attention to ongoing MSP plan-implementations and Federal actions.
The SMAAC Board and the Forum volunteers appreciate attention the DFL Nominee and practically the Representative-Elect, Ilhan Omar, gave to the Forum. She seems to share our goal for MSP flight operations capacity: safe, sufficient, affordable and environmentally sound. [The Republican Nominee was asked to participate but did not.]
At this time, and perhaps longer depending on US House elections go in other states, actions in pursuit of this goal in Washington will be helped or hindered by the terms of and appropriations for FAA in the Re-authorization bill, if passed. It seems likely that less--than-clear aviation policy will prevail in the Re-authorization or a continuing resolution.
SMAAC hopes that MSP and National Airspace System planning positions are debated in Statewide campaigns. We may extend the 2018 Forum and will publish on-line news about that!Read more
After a longer than expected design and survey phase, we were ready August 3rd for the 4 participating Candidates to post their "Opening Statements" and open the Forum to the public. The Forum "went live" on Sunday. We issued a Public Announcement to 50 media outlets (TV, Radio, Newspapers and on-line publishers) and notified over 700 members and followers by email.
Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, Frank Drake, Ilhan Omar, and Patricia Torres-Ray submitted statements by email, and we asked for confirmation that the sender was delegated by the candidate. The Forum Website is
After considering the candidates' statements and the public reactions for a week, a panel will rate the candidates as having GOOD, ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE intentions to support efforts to modify the National Airspace System plans and policies as proposed by SMAAC and other citizens' groups and local government units.
Simply stated the solution is to directly or indirectly realign routes and hubs to shorten city-hub-city trips and reduce congestion at major hubs. Flight capacity was re-arranged following airline mergers in 2008 to 2012 and consolidation of connecting hubs.
The Federal Government has invested billions of dollars in Next Gen and related technologies, but the en route implementation creating more routes also created congestion and additional systems at many airports. In Metoplexes and major hub cities, Next Gen is not likely to add hourly safe capacity --closer sep--arations, shorter intevals and affordable airport facilities and services --as was planned for economic growth prijections. The national airspace system is now in a completely different situation economically, environmentally and ecconomically. This needs to be recognized.Read more
Your vote in the DFL Primary Election for United States Representative in the Fifth Congressional District needs to be fully informed. We will be replacing a Representative who has worked with SMAAC and FAA to escalate unresolved safe capacity and schedule issues at MSP during Federal development and deployment of Next Gen and PRB/RNAV systems.
It is an uncompleted task.
The Forum is open at
and if you are registered here you can log-in there. Ou ratings published before the Primary Election.
AIR POLLUTION: There has been no attention to green-house gas (GHG) or sub-micron particulate emissions from MSP flight operations since 2015: by the MAC or the FAA. Environmental Assessments at MSP have been delayed despite the FAA/EPA Finding in 2014 that Commecial Aviation produces 14% of all US GHG emissions. Additionally, MSP capacity is being expanded per-hour at a high cost and involves maneuvers and flight automation in the vicinity that burn more fuel per operation (than at less-busy hours) causing more GHG/flight as well as unique carbon particulates that are blown around.
Studies show an alarming increase in health and mortality risks near busy airports.
ECONOMICS: The postponement of the MSP LTCP Update (4 years overdue) postpones the FAA's assessments of future needs and impacts. The update is reviewed by Met Council using a Public Hearing with testimony about economic benefits (or negatives) and environmental impacts.
This is a sorry state of affairs and hides safety risks and high costs (likely both) from the public and the Legislature. According to MAC senior staff, MSP capital improvements assume a change in arrivals per hour and aircraft sizes extending the 2015-16 Draft Long-Term Comprehensive Plan: the dates and numbers are "a basis" for capital budgets dealing with expensive terminal improvements for hourly passenger uses as well as airfield improvements. The FAA and the airlines using MSP lack any believeable schedule for deploying the air traffic control and associated cockpit electronics supporting more runway operations per hour.
ACTION; The MAC just patted itself on the back for being rated a "top airport:" the press release was carelessly cited by media. The terminal improvements were impressive (and expensive), but mainly inside security to support peak-hour passenger congregations.
The recent Federal continuing-authorization extended FAA funding though September 20, 2018. The FAA, however, has not changed the MSP Converging runway operations or programed Next Gen deployment to MSP. Consequently, MAC planning for GFY 2019 is uninformed as to maximum hourly operations and runway use.
Are neighbors, cities, Legislators, US Reps and Senators -- and the Governor who appoints the MAC and public health and enviromental protection officials -- doing anything about this?Read more
Congress is not actively pursuing a new FAA Re-Authorization right now, and another continuing resolution extending funding is likely. Politico just reported that House Transportation Committee Chair, Bill Schuster, is no longer insisting on a change to contracted Air Traffic Control or Controllers.
It has never been clear exactly what "privatizing" or "out-sourcing" air traffic control meant or what benefits were projected. Various draft bills were floated, from directive policy to various amendments to re-authorization or funding legislation. However, the dirty details include safety, cost and implementaion issues of great complexity:
- Could liability for an emergency result in payments to airlines? Would all air passengers be required to buy or have included in fares travel insurance?
- How many entities would be contracted? One national contractor? By region? By Radar Facility type (Airport, TRACON, En Route)? By Metroplex? Before, during, or after NextGen deployments?
- Would Controller proficiency be managed by FAA at each facility or only monitored by FAA throuhg reports and inspections (like aircrew or aircraft maintenance?
- Would existing controllers be retained on the job? There is a union, Federal retirement and health insurance plans.
Only a fool would have pursued this very long. But there you go.Read more