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
SMAAC is contacting citizen groups and municipal governments about joining in proposing National Airspace System revisions that would reduce average city-hub-city routes (miles and hours). This would:
- save fuel and reduce emissions,
- reduce FAA ATCT, TRACON and NextGen costs substantially,
- increase safety margins, and reduce the airfare disparity and neighborhood impacts being experienced in major-hub-airport cities and metro areas.
The FAA development of Next Gen En Route to increase usable airspace (by allowing aircraft to navigate safely outside of FAA radar-transponder service areas) was based on about 70- 75 hub airports (2007). Now --and since about March 2010 --the FAA is attempting to adapt more airport-to-airport routes to 35 to 40 hub airports by increasing actual flight operations/runway/hour.
The two expressions of the attempt are 1) using aircraft GPS navigation-autopilot routes for airport operaions and 2) complicating the development and deployment of NextGen. Both are uncertain, unmonitored, costly, risky and polluting. Lower departures and more routes, much more intrusive and polluting, are the ongoing result. The development and deployment of Next Gen Airport is delayed and is becoming unaffordable.
Anti-Airport-Noise groups have been protesting intrusive commercial overflights for decades. First at oft-used airports close to residential and other sensitive land-uses and later as national air traffic plans increased both active airport hours (night operations) and peak-hours. These groups share information through Aviation Watch and support each other generally. SMAAC works with Congressional staff and numerous Representatives and Senators.
Currently, FAA air traffic control changes caused numerous lawsuits, and these forced FAA and Congress to re-think policy and budget in FAA re-authorizations.
Currently, we are talking with groups in Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.
Welcome to the Special Metro Airports Analysis Consortium or SMAACUS!Read more
As the result of a move and reorganization, SMAAC will no longer use firstname.lastname@example.org for its central email services.
Please address messages to email@example.com temporarily, or post a message through this website (registration required).
Plans are to create several webmail accounts when internet services are contracted.
An attorney and environmentalist from the neighborhood was a good choice as the Mayor's appointment to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. In his answers to the 2017 SMAAC Survey of Mayoral candidates, Mayor Frey pledged that he would work with SMAAC on MSP issues and demand more open and accessible meetings of the MAC commission and its standing committees.
SMAAC members wanted a neighborhood activist that would connect MSP operations -- routes, airline schedules --safety and carbon emissions (climate change) with City health and economics. Also, the Mayor's commissioner should oppose noise mitigation-not-reduction policies and negotiate a closure of the Consent Degree so that overflight pollution in all of its ugly forms can be openly addressed in a long-term plan for air transportation in the State and Metro.
When citizens protest its pending decisions, the MAC too often huddles behind its staff to delay consideration. The probably illegal and certainly unwise 5-year delay of the MSP LTCP Update is a pretty clear signal that openess and transparency policies are pretty scarce at the MAC.
Please comment on this piece to start a discussion with Commissioner Fatehi and the District Commissioners. The people living under frequently lower and louder overflights not only suffer. but are made to finance the suffering through high O&D fares when they or local businesses travel.
We worked diligently with key MAC staff, but the only change was a more respectful dialog with staff. The first public discussion of MSP Environmental Impacts is now scheduled December 04, 2017 at the MAC Planning, Development & Environment Committee (PD&E) meeting.
The Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) in part of a larger agenda item, the 2018-2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. The only good news is that on-airport operations of all sorts are 'greener' --such as more electric vehicles reducing fossil-fuel use --although large new buildings and growth of airport operations still increases total not-air-operations emissions.
This MAC electric vehicle program and other reductions of carbon sources was publicized as a laudable accomplishment by comparison with other U.S. Airports. SMAAC was pleased and elected officials were thrilled that something was being done.
GHG and other carbon emissions from overflights and air operations (landings, take-offs, taxiing) are mentioned, not assessed or quantified. Only a small increase in daily flight operations is projected for 2018. There was no follow-up on our question about possible changes in hourly use by airlines schedules or changes in FAA routes and procedures somehow evading the converging runways safety order of 2014 that led to the continued shading of long-term plans for hub expansion.
We'd bet a bundle that the questions we asked will not be discussed in the public meeting. In 2015 and 2016 the AOEE hearings heard nothing, and written testimony was disputed by MAC staff. SMAAC was the only speaker in 2016, given 4 minutes as if the public hearing was not worth the Members' time. Our comments took longer, but it was clear that no questions were going to be asked on the record.
If you think public meetings are important, then demand that these critical meetings be opened up and held on an accessible site and at a more reasonable time. Come to the December 4th meeting (10:30 at Twrminal One inide security. And call Steve Cramer, the PD&E Chair at 612-656-3811, the Governor [651-201-3400] and Email MAC Chair Dan Boivin at firstname.lastname@example.org. Their promises of off-site Commission meetings and transparency were empty.