Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team

The Bad, Worse,and Worst about RJs

2012-01-10T14:23:00.000-08:00

RJs are causing noise disturbances in Minneapolis neighborhoods.

Re-routed traffic at MSP intended to reduce the potential for planes to cross paths after a near-collision between a commercial jetliner and a cargo plane in 2010, has resulted in more flights over neighborhoods.

What are RJs?

They are aircraft that can accommodate anywhere from 19 to 100 passengers. Commercial RJs used by the airlines are 50 to 100 seat aircraft that require 5,500 to 6,500ft runways, which are the runway lengths required to achieve FAA- certified takeoff.

Anoka and Flying Cloud have 5,000ft runways.

According to Consumer Travel Magazine there are 7 regional jet sins against passengers. (which ironically means profits for the airlines.)

What are they?

They’re more delay prone, they have a harder time in rough weather, they’re more likely to run into weight issues, they have a more difficult time getting slots which are given to larger aircraft first, and they are more prone to delays. That’s only five and I can tell you all five happened to me on a trip from LGA to MSP during the Christmas Holiday.

But more importantly what are their sins against communities?

With RJs it’s their ability to flyer lower, thus frequency and altitude contribute to higher noise levels, something we argued with MAC related to the runway extension at Flying Cloud Airport. Frequency will result in more noise, whether it’s jets or props. At the time MAC argued that jets are quieter. Maybe, but lots and lots of them are not.

In a statement from the MAC’s Noise Manager Chad Leqve, regarding the noise increase at MSP he said while regional jets are considered quieter than some larger jets, "if they're frequent enough, they can be very annoying." (That was our point exactly, years and years ago.)

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/136984638.html

RJs help airlines cut costs on routes between major cities. They are cheaper to operate in terms of fuel and staff, they allow carriers to serve more cities and display those cities as part of their network.

So while Americans are getting bigger, national air travel is getting smaller. If you’ve flown an RJ lately you had to have noticed the seats are smaller, overhead is smaller and the bathrooms are smaller. Yes, even the cockpit is crazy small!

New MAC Noise Complaint Line

2011-12-21T10:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.macnoise.com/complaint

SMALL PLANE TERROR THREAT

2011-09-04T06:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44387746/ns/politics/

“WASHINGTON — The FBI and Homeland Security have issued a nationwide warning about al-Qaida threats to small airplanes, just days before the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks”

An email went out to the Eden Prairie City Council, Tim Anderson of MAC, our MAC Commissioner Rick King asking that they be cognizant of the real threats that exist.
And to keep our community safe.

Zero Expansion and its members would like to hear that there is tightening of security at MSP and our neighborhood airports in the Metro.

MAC Responds to FOIA from Request Zero Expansion

2011-06-24T17:15:00.000-07:00

MAC has emails dated 3-29-11 that reference Rick King and MAC appointment.

Once we receive them we will publish.

Our understanding is that both Rick King, Global Head of Technology and Operations Thomson Reuters and former US Attorney for Minnesota Tom Heffilfinger, both Eden Prairie residents, applied for the position.

Rick King was appointed to the MAC.

Both were at one time chairs of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission FCAAC.

Heffilfinger worked on a model security program with Mayor Nancy Tyra Lukens and was instrumental in negotiating with MAC on the Final Agreement.

King was appointed to the FCAAC by former Mayor Phil Young and was involved in securing funding for the 5,000ft expansion at Flying Cloud Airport, FCM.

Vicki Pellar Price on behalf of Zero Expansion members

RE: Zero Expansion serves Governor Dayton and the MAC with FOIA

2011-03-30T18:10:00.000-07:00

March 30, 2011

From: Victoria Pellar Price on Behalf of Zero Expansion
16526 West 78th St. #163
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
www.zeroexpansion.com
transportationtalk@yahoo.com

Governor Mark Dayton
Office of the Governor
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
mark.dayton@state.mn.us

Tim Anderson
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
tim.anderson@mspmac.org

ATTN: Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Request

Dear Governor Dayton and Tim Anderson,

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting access to emails, correspondences and phone calls between the Governor’s office and the MAC, Metropolitan Airports Commission related to the selection of Rick King (former head of the Eden Prairie Flying Cloud Airports Advisory Commission) as new commissioner on the MAC representing Eden Prairie. Please include documents from the time period between Jan and March of 2011. I represent members of the community group, Zero Expansion, who opposed the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport.
If there are any fees charged for searching or copying the records, please let me know before you fill my request. Or, please supply the records without cost or inform me of the cost if the fees do not exceed $10.00, which I agree to pay. Please follow the FOIA guidelines and respond within the allowed time period.

If you have any questions processing this request, you may contact me at the following telephone number:

Sincerely,
Victoria Pellar Price

Thunderbird Aviation Locked Gate

2010-10-10T08:28:00.000-07:00

How many years of complaining before the FAA/TSA played catch-up? Too many. What did it take to bring Thunderbird Aviation into compliance with security and safety, the 21st century risks, that are applicable to small aircraft and airports TOO?

Again, TOO long.

Who can forget their CEO telling the FCAAC, the city council that they WOULD NOT lock their gates.

Bottom line, the hassle free flights, they've been touting, are less free today.
Talk about an industry hanging on to the Lindberg days, refuting the real risks associated with accessible, open facilities and aircraft.

This is another no rules/no regulations industry that needs oversight by public activists who have no financial gain, only the result that they helped make airports and the communites they are in safer.

Candidate Questionnaire 2010

2010-10-07T11:42:00.000-07:00

Zero Expansion/transportationtalk 2010 Candidate Questionnaire is available online at http://www.prairiehomeliving.com

Zero Expansion members have a keen interest in understanding the positions of elected officials related to the airport.

There were nine candidates who responded and three who did not. The three were: Hann, Loon and Duckstad.

Zero Expansion is a 20+ year community organization dedicated to all parties abiding by the Final Agreement, being security and safety conscious at the airport and no further expansion at Flying Cloud Airport.

2010 Zero Expansion Candidate Survey Candidate List

2010-09-14T13:37:00.000-07:00

Hello Candidates,

Here is the 2010 Election Zero Expansion Candidate Questionnaire. Please respond back in the body of the email with a different color ink. Reply by Sept 27th. If we do not get a reply we will publish that you refused to participate.

Eden Prairie City Council

Kathy Nelson

Donna Azarian

Sherry Butcher

Dan Kitrell

Eden Prairie Mayor

Nancy Trya Lukens

Jon Duckstad

District 42 Minnesota State Senate

David Hann (R) (Incumbent)

Ron Case (D)

District 42B Minnesota House

Jenifer Loon (R) Incumbent

Ray L. Daniels (D)

There are ten questions. The deadline is Sept 27th, 2010.

We have also enlisted Zero Members to comment on what they are looking for in their candidates relative to the airport issue.

These will be published online.

Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team
www.zeroexpansion.com
transportationtalk@yahoo.com

Concern over Voluntary Curfew Oversight/Management of FCM

2010-02-28T09:50:00.000-08:00

There are a lot of concerned MAC, FCAAC members who are worried that MAC is wasting too much time and paper by contacting those who continue to violate the voluntary curfew, especially repeat offenders. So much so they want to send out fewer letters, less frequently, despite the frequency of the violations.

Scott Neal infers in his Blog, "How many times do we have to tell you" that "business is business, and what are they going to do."

http://edenprairieweblogs.org/scottneal/

Essentially MAC made a commitment to the city they don't want to keep. They committed and put in place a system, albeit a weak one, which would maintain some semblance of communication that would encourage users to fly within the curfew. Now they want to back off from what was initially a weak enforcement to begin with, so there will be nothing between the voluntary curfew, and violations of it.

This is just unacceptable.

Airport neighbors, who took this oversight measure to heart, even with the understanding it was voluntary, felt there was a layer of protection between them and flights at all hours of the night. This is a huge departure from a deterrent the public counted on; it's removal is not be be taken lightly.

We have received absolutely no indication from the FCAAC that they are looking into other ways for a procedure to put in place that would give residents more assurance that the curfew would have more oversight management. This doesn't surprise us since the commission under Rick King is highly focused on business interests first, which is of course reflects on the council majority who are equally focused on business interests. Scott Neal's blog entry affirms this.

What is the purpose of a "Good Neighbor" policy other than a misleading name for a policy that essentially is in name only. It's a farce. What are the guidelines and who adheres to them?

The FAA intentionally makes these curfews voluntary because a so called "mandatory" curfew would infringe on the flexibility that business aviation requires for safety as well as economic reasons, " according to the article below.

"In 2001 the said group from the article at the link below awaited copies of leases so they can examine them and determine what the county is offering tenants that would encourage them to sign an amended lease with curfew restrictions." ( Has this been tried at FCM?)

"The county has asked congressional legislators to submit legislation in Washington that would make the curfew mandatory That bill is supported not only by Westchester County, but by officials in nearby Greenwich, Conn., as well." ( Has this been attempted by the city of Eden Prairie?)

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-regional/10625526-1.html

FCM (MAC) has a record of non-compliance on issues of safety. One step to compliance on noise abatement would be to have information as accessible by phone as it is for West Chester Airport. That airport has a VERY CLEAR message to its users. We recommend you call the number and listen to the message. FCM only has a voice mail into Jenifer Lewis' office at MAC, we presume. Not a very good indication of how serious MAC is about instilling in its users the parameters of its noise abatement program on AIRNAV, a public user system for pilots on airports across the nation.

West Chester Airport- NOISE ABATEMENT PROC IN EFFECT CTC ARPT MANAGEMENT 914-995-4861.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KHPN

Flying Cloud Airport- FOR NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES CALL 612-725-6327. ACFT PLEASE FOLLOW VOLUNTARY NOISE ABATEMENT
(Flying Cloud Airport has a Jenifer Lewis voice mail when calling the noise abatement procedure phone number.)

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KFCM

What other things could be done to improve compliance?

We have not seen any effort to come out of the FCAAC that addresses the problem, other than to stop sending so many letters. The example given above shows that communication by the MAC to its users can always use improvement. We asked the city to include this correspondence in their meeting minutes and the example where MAC has failed to use every avenue of communication to relay to its users the noise abatement procedures at FCM.

One could say that a publicly accessible taped message is a proactive deterrent, while a letter after the fact of a violation, is a reactive measure. The airport needs both proactive and reactive measures to keep users in compliance. Considering the lack of leeway federal law allows, it's up to MAC to remain a friendly neighbor and use every tool at their disposal to keep Eden Prairie safe and quiet.

The Eden Prairie Council meeting where this issue is up for discussion is March 9th. Please send in your own emails and call and voice your opinions.

Texas attack revives debate over private jets

2010-02-28T09:48:00.000-08:00

Texas attack revives debate over private jets
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY

In late 2008, the Transportation Security Administration made a stunning and little-noticed projection: If a private jet flew into an urban office building, 3,000 people could be killed. That's a higher death total than in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The TSA used the estimate to justify a plan to impose security rules on 15,000 private jets, including requirements that jet operators check passengers against watch lists and keep weapons off their planes.

The proposal was labeled as potentially crippling to jet owners. More than 7,000 protest letters from private pilots, businesses and aviation groups forced the TSA to rewrite its plan. A new proposal is likely late this year, and security rules could take effect in 2011 — a decade after the 9/11 attacks.

TERROR REVIEW: Austin plane crash to be used for regulations

IN AUSTIN: Plane crash an echo of terrorism

The TSA's struggle to regulate private jets reflects the deep dispute over how much danger is posed by the planes, which fly in and out of thousands of airports with no TSA oversight. Even the Homeland Security Department is divided.

The TSA said large private planes "could be used effectively to commit a terrorist act." The Homeland Security inspector general said in a 2009 report that private aviation "does not present a serious homeland security vulnerability" requiring new TSA rules.

"There is a balance because we don't want to really restrict (private) aviation," said Vahid Motevalli, former head of George Washington University's aviation safety and security program. "But it shouldn't be totally ignored."

The jets the TSA is looking at are a small portion of the nation's 220,000 private airplanes. Most private planes are small, piston-engine aircraft individuals fly out of community airports primarily for recreation and instruction. The government considers those planes too light and too slow to cause major damage, although it does restrict those planes from flying above high-profile events such as the Olympics, the Super Bowl and national political conventions.

Small planes are receiving new scrutiny after Joseph Stack deliberately flew his four-seat, piston-engine plane into a Texas office building last week, killing himself and a worker in the building, which suffered extensive damage.

The TSA plans to review the damage to determine whether it should consider new security measures.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the crash shows private planes must be regulated. "It was horrific," said Rockefeller, Congress' leading advocate for imposing security rules on private flights. "It just shows what one person can do."

The overall reaction from Congress has been relative silence. Few lawmakers have made public statements or called for hearings into the Texas crash. Several experts said in interviews that the death toll shows the limited harm a small plane can cause.

"To me, it's just a risk you're going to have to accept," aviation-security consultant Rich Roth said. "There's nothing we could really do short of saying you guys can't fly planes."

Douglas Laird, another security expert, agreed. "You can do about as much damage with that plane as you could with an SUV loaded with fuel," he said. "I can't get agitated about it."

Roth said the dramatic TV footage of flames and heavy smoke billowing out of the seven-story office building in Austin could inspire copycats: "Unfortunately, I think every terrorist out there is looking at this and thinking, That looks kind of neat."

The Austin crash has mobilized private-aviation groups, which have been influential in countering TSA efforts to impose security rules on private jets.

The 400,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) said on its website that as soon as reports of the plane crash were broadcast, it got in touch with TSA officials to "provide detailed information" about private aviation "and maintain reason."

"AOPA is working to ensure there are no new regulations as a result of the incident," the organization said.

Ed Bolen, CEO of the National Business Aviation Association, said private-aviation groups have launched their own security initiatives aimed at spotting suspicious activity at small airports and suspicious purchases of private airplanes.

The crash last week doesn't suggest new rules are needed, Bolen said. "I think this has a lot to do with a troubled individual," he said. "I don't think it's a reflection of the industry."

###

TSA to roll Austin plane crash into terror review
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY

The Transportation Security Administration will review the fiery crash of a small plane into an IRS office building and use that information to shape future anti-terrorism regulations for the nation's 220,000 private airplanes.

The review is the first in which the TSA has studied a crash involving a private plane. It comes as the agency undertakes a controversial plan to regulate private jets, which currently don't face TSA security requirements such as passenger screening.

PRIVATE JETS: TSA struggles to regulate personal aircraft

IN AUSTIN: Plane crash an echo of terrorism

TSA Assistant Administrator John Sammon said the agency is hiring an aviation expert to study reports by the FBI and other agencies on the Feb. 18 crash in Austin that killed two and extensively damaged a seven-story building.

"We've commissioned folks to do a follow-up study as the results are being released to see what impacts it would have on our future decision-making," Sammon said. The analyst, who has not been named, will study the cause and extent of damage, including issues such as how the building's structure and composition affected the fire.

Sammon said the review would provide valuable information to help the TSA understand how much damage and how many deaths could be caused by a small plane flown into an office building.

"It may simply be a confirmation that for very small planes you're not going to see a lot of casualties. Or there may be something we're unaware of," Sammon said.

He said it is too soon to tell what rules, if any, may be changed as a result of the review. The TSA has never previously sought to regulate small private planes, and in the past has focused on 15,000 larger and faster private jets that it said in a report "could be used effectively to commit a terrorist act."

A 2008 TSA proposal, widely opposed by businesses and aviation groups, seeks to require private-jet passengers to be checked against watch lists. It also aims to require jet operators to keep weapons, including pocket knives, off their planes, and to force 315 airports used only by private planes to enact security plans.

Smaller planes haven't received much attention from anti-terror officials because the damage they can cause is generally much less than a large commercial airliner, which can carry several thousand gallons of fuel and reach speeds of over 500 mph. As of December 2008, there were 7,274 commercial and cargo planes operated by U.S. air carriers.

The pilot in last week's incident, Joseph Stack, 53, appears to have rigged his small Piper Dakota plane with extra fuel in order to do more damage. Stack, a software engineer disgruntled over tax problems with the IRS, may have had a 55-gallon drum of fuel in the four-seat, single-engine plane when he crashed into the building, said Capt. Jeff Solomon, Austin's acting fire marshal.

TSA planning to inspect shops that repair jets
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Thousands of airplane maintenance shops in the U.S. and abroad would get increased scrutiny to make sure they are not easy prey for terrorists looking to sabotage U.S. jets during routine repairs, a government proposal says.

Some experts and lawmakers have warned for years about potential terrorist saboteurs infiltrating airplane repair shops, and have urged security oversight. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says the greatest danger is posed by repair shops that are on or next to airports because a terrorist could take control of an airplane.

A TSA regulation proposed Monday would for the first time enable the agency to inspect airplane repair shops. If the TSA found a problematic repair shop, the agency would tell the Federal Aviation Administration to suspend the shop's operating license.

TSA Assistant Administrator Lee Kair said the new requirement "guards against the potential threat of an aircraft being destroyed or used as a weapon." The agency is soliciting public comments on the proposal and could finalize it later this year.

Airplanes ranging from small recreational planes to wide-body jets are repaired at more than 4,200 shops across the U.S. as well as at 700 shops abroad, in countries such as France, Germany, Singapore, Egypt and Jordan.

The shops include small operations that fix seat cushions and massive complexes that overhaul engines.

Some industry officials say lawmakers have overstated the potential threat posed by repair shops, noting that shops must be inspected and licensed by the FAA to work on U.S.-based planes.

New Noise Contact Information as of 2-28-2010

2010-02-28T09:42:00.000-08:00

The following link is best way to file a noise complaint through the www.MACnoise.com website: http://www.macnoise.com/complaint. The phone number to use to file aircraft noise complaints is still 612-726-9411.
The best way to contact MAC staff via email regarding aircraft noise questions is by using this email address: Info@macnoise.com.

RE: Zero Overview of MAC's LTCP

2009-12-03T15:30:00.000-08:00

NOTE: The FAA determines applicability of runway lengths first, not MAC and certainly not the MET COUNCIL and their hired consultants-

There is no indication of need for an extended runway until there are 500 or more ops to and from the airport a year by aircraft that would require it. That is hardly the case.

So, it could be coming in our future. We can only hope that when the time comes we can successfully fight it.

For now there is no plan to change the airports designation unless it's done under the table through the legislature by sticking it in a bill. Everyone should continue to express their opposition to this and they should make it their business to ASK elected officials where they stand on this issue.

OVERVIEW LTCP-

Page 12-

None of these figures trigger the need to study additional runways at FCM.

Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2 discusses the FAA recommendations for runway length. A runway length of 5,000 feet accommodates all small aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, and some large aircraft weighing less than 60,000 pounds. As described in Chapter 1, Runway 10R-28L is 5,000 feet long. The parallel Runway 10L-28R is 3,900 feet long and accommodates 100% of the small airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds. These figures are determined based on wet and slippery runway conditions, when more runway length is typically needed for operations. A runway length of 5,000 feet is the maximum allowed under Minnesota State law for a Minor Use Airport such as FCM.

The crosswind runway, 18-36, is currently 2,691 feet long but does not meet the recommended standard according to the FAA runway length tables. Also, as discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.5, the runway safety area and runway object free area are deficient for the Runway 36 end. The alternatives reviewed for this LTCP update focus on this runway, and are discussed briefly below, and in Section 4.2.

An analysis of runway lengths and wind coverage needs was completed for a variety of aircraft known to use Runway 18-36. The need for a crosswind runway is easily justified by the existing wind coverage, especially for smaller aircraft operating at the airport. Aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds are typically more susceptible to crosswind conditions.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the runway safety area (RSA) and runway object free area (OFA) for the Runway 36 end do not meet current FAA standards. The deficiency is approximately 63-feet; however, with some minor fence modifications, the deficiency can be reduced to 58-feet. In order for the FAA to provide federal funding for projects related to Runway 18-36, MAC must address the RSA and OFA issues.

ES.3.1 No Build Alternative

A "no build" alternative would include no runway improvements and no changes to the airfield within the 20 year planning period except for reconstruction of the south end of Runway 18-36 and construction of a north perimeter road.

Page 13 discusses-

The runway would be shortened by 58-feet. The current length is 2,691-feet; the ultimate length would be 2,633-feet.

This alternative addresses the RSA

Page16

Assessment Worksheet (EAW) requirements and the Federal FAA categorical exclusion checklist to identify the appropriate type of environmental review documentation.

As discussed above, there is no demonstrated need for additional runways or new hangar areas at the Flying Cloud Airport at this time. There are, however, various airside and landside improvements that are recommended for implementation in addition to the Runway 18-36 preferred alternative. They are itemized below:

MAC should continue pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation as a part of the on-going pavement maintenance program, including reconstruction of the south end of Runway 18-36 as a part of implementing the preferred alternative.
Completion of the south hangar area utilities shall be completed as new leases are executed and lot assessment fees are collected. Utilities include the installation of sanitary sewer, water, electric and/or natural gas services, and telephone.
Figure ES-1 shows a boxed out area adjacent to the south hangar area. This box identifies a potential expansion to the building area, should forecasts in future LTCPs identify a need for additional hangar space. As noted in this document, there is no demonstrated need at this time. However, if at some point additional space is needed, this location near midfield would work well.

MAC should take steps to provide a clear Taxiway Alpha object free area. Some of the 1950’s vintage hangars along the north side of Taxiway A actually lie within the taxiway object free area. MAC will work with these tenants over time as they plan on hangar redevelopment to eliminate obstructions to the taxiway.
MAC should continue discussions with the FAA relative to the ultimate relocation of the Air Traffic Control Tower to a location in the new south hangar area. The ATCT is not owned by the MAC. Its relocation will require the cooperation and assistance of the FAA.
MAC should continue the research and development of non-aeronautical land uses on airport property not needed for aviation use.
MAC should pursue continued cooperation with the City of Eden Prairie through the existing MAC/City agreements, the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, and on-going MAC/City staff interaction.
The plan recommendations are highlighted in Figure ES-1. Estimated costs and timelines for implementation are shown in Table ES-2.

xiv

CLASSIFICATIONS OF AIRPORTS VERY IMPORTANT-

Page 20-21

1.2.3 Metropolitan Council Classification

The Metropolitan Council classifies FCM as a Minor Airport. Under this definition, the airport has a primary runway length between 2,500 and 5,000 feet, with either a precision or non-precision approach. The airport can accommodate personal use and recreational aircraft, business general aviation and air taxi traffic, flight training and military operations (see Table 1-2).

Table 1-2

Page 33- FORECASTS

This chapter provides a summary of the aviation activity forecasts prepared for the Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Flying Cloud Airport (FCM). The forecasts are intended for use in subsequent facility requirements analyses for the airside and landside area development. A credible and usable forecast is critical to ensure that the type and size of the planned facilities are appropriate for future conditions. Forecasts are presented for an approximate 20-year time horizon, and include 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025. The forecasts are unconstrained and assume that the necessary facilities will be in place to accommodate demand except where noted.

The existing and projected socioeconomic conditions in the area and current general aviation activity are used to prepare the assumptions that form the foundation of the forecasts. Based aircraft forecasts for the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) airports are calculated and then allocated among the individual airports. Operations and peak activity forecasts for Flying Cloud are derived from the based aircraft forecasts. The analysis includes a set of high and low activity scenarios for the airport.

The assumptions inherent in the following calculations are based on data provided by the MAC, federal and local sources, and professional experience. Fuel cost assumptions reflect the recent major increase in oil prices. Forecasting, however, is not an exact science. Departures from forecast levels in the local and national economy and in the aviation industry could have an effect on the forecasts presented herein.

A copy of the full Activity Forecasts - Technical Report is contained in Appendix A of this document. The report includes background information, socioeconomic data, historical trends, and detailed descriptions of the assumptions for the forecasts. This chapter is a brief synopsis of that report as it pertains to the airport.

Page 33- Feet Mix and Based Aircraft-

The number of based aircraft at the Flying Cloud Airport is expected to gradually decline from 421 in 2007 to 401 in 2025. Microjets and other jets based at the airport are expected to increase over the forecast period. Microjets are forecast to increase from 0 in 2007 to 20 in 2025 and other jets from 23 in 2007 to 40 in 2025. The number of turboprop aircraft is expected to remain steady and the number of helicopters is projected to increase.

Most of the decline of based aircraft occurs in the piston engine category. Single-engine piston based aircraft decline from 336 in 2007 to 286 in 2025, and multi-engine piston based aircraft decline from 37 in 2007 to 27 in 2025. FCM is located in Hennepin County, which is projected to be one of the slower growing counties. This is a driving factor in the expected decrease in based aircraft.

Table 2-1 shows the results of the based aircraft forecasts for Flying Cloud.

Page 34-

Operations at Flying Cloud are forecast to decrease from 124,569 in 2007 to 97,154 in 2015 and then increase to 113,876 by 2025. Decreases are projected among single- and multi-engine piston and turboprop categories. Substantial increases are projected in microjets and other jets. By 2025, these two categories are projected to account for just over 20 percent of total operations at Flying Cloud, compared to about 3 percent currently.

Page 35- Peak Activity Forecasts

Table 2-3 shows the peak month, average day peak month (ADPM), and peak hour operations forecasts for Flying Cloud. The relationship between peak activity and annual activity was assumed to remain constant.

Peak activity forecasts for Flying Cloud Airport were estimated from FAA air traffic control tower records. Peak hour operations were assumed to be 12.7 percent of ADPM operations, consistent with the assumptions in the previous Flying Cloud Airport LTCP update from 1998. The peak month for the airport is July, and ADPM operations were estimated by dividing by 31 days. Peak hour operations at Flying Cloud are projected to decrease from 55 in 2007 to 43 in 2015 and then increase to 50 in 2025.

General aviation activity has historically been difficult to forecast, since the relationships with economic growth and pricing factors are more tenuous than in other aviation sectors, such as commercial aviation. This uncertainty is likely to carry over into the near future, given the volatility of fuel prices and the anticipated emergence of microjets. To address these uncertainties, and to identify the potential upper and lower bounds of future activity at Flying Cloud, detailed high and low fuel price scenarios are presented. These scenarios use the same forecast approach that was used in the base case, but alter the assumptions to reflect either a more aggressive or more conservative outlook towards fuel costs.

Page 37 Summary Forecast

The base case forecasts project a moderate decrease in based aircraft at Flying Cloud Airport. Operations are projected to decline through the 2010-2015 period and then begin to rise again later in the forecast, reflecting anticipated stabilization of oil prices at a new higher level. Although activity by piston powered aircraft is projected to decline, activity by higher performance turboprops and jets favored by business aviation is projected to increase significantly.

The forecast scenarios indicate that future fuel prices will have a major impact on the development of general aviation. Therefore, it is prudent to closely monitor actual aviation activity and modify the phasing of facility improvements if that activity materially departs from forecast levels.

20

Page 41- Runway Length Details/Requirements

Page 42

Flying Cloud Airport’s ASV is currently calculated to be 355,000, which is well above its current and projected (2025) annual operations of 124,569 and 113,876 respectively. It is also well above the high scenario 2025 year forecast of 157,204 annual operations. From the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5 (Airport Capacity and Delay), Flying Cloud Airport’s average hourly capacity was estimated to be 197 operations during VFR conditions and 59 operations during IFR conditions. Peak activity forecasts show 50 peak hour operations for the year 2025. Table 3-6 summarizes these numbers in terms of airside capacity.

Flying Cloud Airport has adequate runway capacity to support all of the forecast scenarios. This means that runway capacity will not be a contributing factor to any airport improvements.

3.2.2 Runway Length (Note this is Key: These planes described below are required to fly in and out of FCM more than 500 times a year AND THEY DO NOT. In order to support and extended runway , beyond 5,000ft it would necessitate these many ops. This info was in the emails Zero got from the Data Request to MAC.

Page 42

Based on the above criteria (not included here), the category of large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less is the critical grouping of aircraft for the Flying Cloud Airport since aircraft of this category will fly in and out of the airport more than 500 times per year; the runway length should be approximately 5,460 feet to accommodate 75 percent of these aircraft at 60% useful load and 7,000 feet to accommodate 75 percent of these aircraft at 90% useful load (each noted by a * in Table 3-7).

Page 43-

According to criteria found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, dated July 1, 2005, crosswind runway length should be 100% of the recommended runway length for the aircraft with lower crosswind capabilities. If the crosswind runway is designed to accommodate the same aircraft as the primary runway, it should be the same length as the primary. If it is designed for different (typically smaller) aircraft, it should be designed to accommodate the needs of those aircraft. At Flying Cloud Airport, the crosswind runway should be designed to accommodate smaller aircraft than the primary runway and therefore the recommended length of the crosswind runway is 2,760’ to accommodate 75% of these small aircraft up to 3,890’ to accommodate 100% of them.

Page 44-

3.2.5 Runway Safety and Object Free Areas

The Runway Safety Area (RSA) for Runway 10R-28L at Flying Cloud meets FAA requirements for ARC II with ½ mile visibility minimums (600 feet beyond the runway end, and 300 feet wide). The RSA for Runway 10L-28R meets FAA requirements for ARC-II with 1 mile visibility minimums (300 feet beyond the runway end, and 150 feet wide). For Runway 18-36, the RSA is 120 feet wide and extends 240 feet beyond the Runway 18 end but only 204 feet beyond the Runway 36 end. This is deficient by 36 feet. This will be addressed in the next chapter.

Page 47

The Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport (MSP) currently has an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR). This radar provides the MSP ATCT with flight data for aircraft operating within the Twin Cities area. Due to recent development within the City of Bloomington and other construction within the vicinity of the radar, it is partially shadowed by structures. This results in portions of some approach paths not being "seen" by the radar. While the shadowing is nothing more than an inconvenience at this time, additional development is proposed which would more significantly block the signal.

The FAA is currently reviewing the justification and possibility of constructing a second ASR to provide additional and overlapping radar coverage. Potential sites have been identified at MSP and at FCM. MAC continues to discuss the process and status with the FAA.

Page 47

3.5 Security Requirements

The airport has a full perimeter fence and gate system. The fence and gates have been maintained and upgraded over the years. Gates have historically been left open at the airport, but MAC is planning to close and lock gates on a permanent basis for safety and security purposes. To accomplish that, recent improvements to the gates include full power operation and telephone call boxes for controlled access into the airfield. Airport tenants can punch in a code to open the gates. Airport visitors can call a specific FBO business to get access to their facility.

3.6 Utility

Page 49 Runway Expansion

The Flying Cloud Airport currently has three runways, as discussed in Chapter 1. Alternatives for airport runways can include additional runways at an airport or runway extensions, depending on existing needs, forecasts, and airfield capacity.

4.1.1 Additional Runways

As shown in the forecasts for 2007, the number of operations was 124,569. In Chapter 3, the maximum number of operations the airport can handle, the annual service volume, was identified as 355,000 operations based on the existing three runway configuration. Therefore, from an airside standpoint, the airport is currently at 35% capacity.

The baseline 2025 forecast number of operations is lower than 2007. Under the high scenario, the 157,204 forecasted number of operations in 2025 would result in 44% capacity. None of these figures trigger the need to study additional runways at FCM.

4.1.2 Runway Extensions

As identified in the Chapter 1 inventory, Runway 10R-28L was extended to 5,000 feet long in 2009; Runway 10L-28R is 3,900 feet long; and Runway 18-36 is currently 2,691 feet long. A runway length of 5,000 feet is the maximum allowed under Minnesota State law for a Minor Use Airport such as FCM.

Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2 discusses the FAA recommendations for runway length. A runway length of 5,000 feet accommodates all small aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds, and some of the large aircraft weighing less than 60,000 pounds. The parallel runway length of 3,900 feet also accommodates 100% of the small airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds. These figures are determined based on wet and slippery runway conditions, when more runway length is typically needed for operations.

The crosswind runway, 18-36, does not meet the recommended standard according to these tables. Also, as discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.5, the runway safety area and runway object free area are deficient for the Runway 36 end. The alternatives reviewed for this LTCP update focus on this runway, and are discussed in Section 4.2.

Page 50-

An analysis of runway lengths and wind coverage needs was completed for a variety of aircraft known to use Runway 18-36. The need for a crosswind runway is easily justified by the existing wind coverage, especially for the smallest aircraft operating at the airport. Aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds are typically more susceptible to crosswind conditions.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the runway safety area (RSA) and runway object free area (OFA) for the Runway 36 end do not meet current FAA standards. The deficiency is approximately 63-feet; however, with some minor fence modifications, the deficiency can be reduced to 58-feet. In order for the FAA to provide federal funding for projects related to Runway 18-36, MAC must address the RSA and OFA issues.

The following alternatives address the RSA and OFA shortage. Costs for each alternative are shown in Chapter 7.

4.2.1 No Build Concept

A "no build" alternative would include no runway improvements and no changes to the airfield within the 20 year planning period. If a no-build alternative was selected for Runway 18-36, the only work that would occur within the planning period is the on-going required pavement maintenance. Runway 18-36 where it intersects with the parallel runways has been reconstructed in recent years as apart of the parallel runway extensions. The pavement at the south end of the runway, however, remains in poor condition. MAC continues to carry a reconstruction project for the south end of Runway 18-36 in the Capital Improvement Program to address the pavement conditions. As noted above, it is unlikely the FAA would fund such a reconstruction project unless the RSA and OFA deficiencies are addressed.

It recommended that the no-build alternative include no changes to Runway 18-36, but that reconstruction of the south end and construction of the north perimeter road be completed within the planning period.

A no-build alternative also does not address the RSA and OFA issues. Therefore, the no-build alternative does not meet the needs of the airport.

Page 51

4.2.2 Shorten Runway 18-36

Page 52

4.2.4 Shift and Extend Runway 18-36

Page 56-

Quantifying Aircraft Noise

Page 58- According to what we see the noise contours were based on a lower number of ops than the 2025 preferred alternative numbers of forecasted ops. We would definitely want to get more explanation on this because the fleet mix has changed and the noise from larger jets is experienced differently. This is an area where questions should be asked.

Page 59- The noise experienced in the "normal hours of activity" does not account for the level of noise experienced when aircraft are flying outside of the voluntary curfew hours.

Page 72- Environmental Review-

Environmental review for the specific projects listed as recommendations in this LTCP lies outside the scope of a long term comprehensive planning document and any necessary environmental review will be evaluated as a separate process.

Want to see more on this.

Page 73- Land Use Compatibility-

Page 79- Land Use Compatibility Analysis

The MAC is in the process of convening a Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) that will include the respective Responsible Governmental Units (RGUs) that control land use development around the Flying Cloud Airport. This effort will address land uses around Flying Cloud Airport in the context of the preferred alternative runway zones and may result in modification to the safety zone dimensions and development restrictions outlined in this chapter. The airport zoning process is spelled out in detail in Minn. Stat. Chap. 360, 360.061 – 360.074 and Minn. Rules Chap. 8800.1200 and 8800.2400. Specifically, Minn. Stat. § 360.062 establishes that "airport hazards" endanger lives, property and airport utility and should be prevented, with consideration given to avoiding the disruption of existing land uses based on social and financial costs. In an effort to prevent the creation or establishment of "airport hazards," the statute states that "the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall request creation of one joint airport zoning board for each airport operated under its authority." The statute states that "A joint board shall have as members two representatives appointed by the municipality owning or controlling the airport and two from the county or municipality, or in case more than one county or municipality is involved two from each county or municipality, in which the airport hazard is located, and in addition a chair elected by a majority of the members so appointed."

The goal of the JAZB will be to develop a Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance for review and approval by the Commissioner of Transportation, for subsequent adoption by the Board and then by local municipalities. The Board will determine if the state model zoning ordinance provisions are appropriate for the Flying Cloud Airport or if modifications to the model are necessary considering the provisions of Minn. Stat. §360.066, subd. 1. The focus of this discussion is likely to be on the following:

MnDOT Model Ordinance – Minnesota Rule 8800.2100 and Minnesota Rule 8800.2400 (additional information on the MnDOT Model Zoning Ordinance is available on the Internet at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/avoffice/planning/zoning.html)
Flying Cloud Airport unique characteristics in the context of existing and planned land uses around the airport

Maintaining a "reasonable standard of safety" while considering the social and financial costs to the community
Minn. Stat. §360.066, subd. 1, which is especially instructive when addressing the question of balancing the safety with the social and economic impacts in the zoning process.
Page 83- (Our recommendation is for residents should try to get on the JAZB Board)

6.3 Non-Aeronautical Land Use Areas on Airport Property

MAC is currently analyzing the potential for non-aeronautical revenue-generating development at the Flying Cloud Airport and all of its Reliever Airports. Any parcels reviewed by MAC at FCM will be compatible with the airport and MAC will work with the City of Eden Prairie to ensure proper zoning exists. Upon completion of the Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) Zoning Ordinance as discussed above, MAC will be able to identify specific parcels for non-aeronautical use.

MAC LTCP Timeline (Long Term Comprehensive Plan

2009-10-24T20:03:00.000-07:00

Prepare Draft LTCP for review Oct. 13 to Nov. 20, 2009

Draft available for review November 23, 2009
30-day comment period Nov. 23 to Dec. 22, 2009
Review Comments and write responses Jan 2 to Jan. 22, 2010
Request Authority to submit to Met Council (FD&E) February 3, 2010

Contact:
Scott A. Kipp
Senior Planner

City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone 952-949-8489
skipp@edenprairie.org

MAC Public Hearing To Acquire More Property 11-4

2009-10-24T20:01:00.000-07:00

PUBLIC HEARING - CONCERNING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY NEAR FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT

MAC will consider acquisition of "certain property located proximate West of the Flying Cloud Airport located in Eden Prairie, MN...approximately 2.83 acres of Lot I, Block 1 Grace Church Addition...lying East of Hennepin County Road No. 4 and just North of its intersection with Spring Road.

Public hearing 10:00 a.m. on November 4, 2009 in the Commission Chambers located in Room 3048A of the Lindbergh Terminal.

Anyone wishing to submit information relating to this matter may appear at the public hearing and make an oral statement or present written material.

Persons wanting to make presentations at the public hearing may contact Richard Biddle 612.726.8100 with questions or detail about the hearing.

Written comments will be incorporated into the hearing record, provided that the comments are received at the public hearing or by 4 p.m. on Friday, November 6th.

MAC's Model Safety Security Program at FCM Not So Model

2009-08-04T18:07:00.000-07:00

The FAA rates Flying Cloud among highest in nation for incursions for the second time

Problems at the airport that were supposed to be solved after an FAA report citing Flying Cloud as the number 1 airport for incursions in 2002, still remain today in 2009, even after MAC told the public that they had created a model of safety and security at Flying Cloud as an example for all the other relievers. The problems that continue to plague the airport: unauthorized personnel gaining access to the airport through open gates, pilot error due to insufficient markings and signage—location of tower— all safety and security problems that were supposed to be addressed seven years ago.
From the Finance Development and Environment Committee, July 8, 2009.

“Flying Cloud Airport Runway Incursion Reduction Project
Gary Warren, Director – Airport Development, reported that the Flying Cloud
Airport (FCM) has an unfortunate history of runway incursions. From June 1,
2008 to May 31, 2009, FCM was ranked No. 6 on the nationwide list and No. 3 in
the Great Lakes Region for number of incursions per one million operations.
During that time period, FCM experienced eleven runway incursions. Since May
31, 2009, two additional runway incursions have occurred, likely pushing FCM
even higher on both lists.”

In 2001 - 2002, MAC worked closely with the FAA to implement recommendations to improve both the general security of the airport (fencing) and safety (taxiway guidance signage). Many of the improvements exceeded any requirements for this classification of airport (i.e. FCM is not a Part 139 airport). MAC also worked with the FAA to hold pilot forums and establish a public outreach program, and MAC began a drivers training program for airport operators and employees. These improvements helped tremendously over the past several years, bringing the annual number of incursions at FCM to only one or two per year, and zero in some years. However, in the past year, FCM has once again approached the top of the list for number of runway incursions.

Based on the current incursion ranking, the FAA is taking several steps to
address the troubling incursion problem including meeting with pilots to discuss
the incursion issue and best practices for operations; meeting with flight
instructors; providing FBOs with diagrams and incursion prevention tips to hand
out with fuel slips to transient pilots; implementing a nationwide program for
remedial training to pilots following deviations; holding pilot safety seminars and
providing other safety materials to pilots, the airport FBOs and air traffic.
The FAA views this issue as one of its highest safety priorities. They have
recommended that MAC implement certain airfield and landside improvements to
further reduce the possibility of runway incursions. The projects include installing
runway guard lights (alternating yellow wig-wag lights identical to those at MSP),
upgrading and installing key-pad locks and telephone capability at all airport
entrance gates, replacing the taxi lane “no vehicle” signage to be more definitive
and clear, as well as modifying the pavement markings at the end of taxi lanes to
alert vehicle operators when they are about to enter into the airfield environment.
The estimated cost for these safety improvements is approximately $1.3 million.
The FAA has pledged discretionary funding up to 95% of the engineering and
construction costs to expedite completion of theses projects as soon as possible.
Based on estimates, the MAC share of these costs is estimated to be $60,000 -
$70,000. This amount will not impact the reliever financial model regarding a
tenant surcharge for the project.
As a result, staff is requesting a CIP amendment in the amount of $1,300,000 to
include these projects in the 2009 CIP. The work will be conditioned on the
receipt of a federal grant.
Mr. Warren responded to questions regarding the penalties or training
requirements that occur following a runway incursion. He stated that the FAA
follows up with each deviation and determines the penalty and additional training
that is required.”

http://www.metroairports.org/mac/appdocs/meetings/Fde/Minutes/FDE_M_925.pdf

Latest News- Aviation consultants working with both MAC and the Metropolitan Council are recommending longer runways for Anoka and Flying Cloud. The initial hint of a potential 6,000ft runway came when Key Air, a fixed-based operator at Anoka, presented the MAC with a request. Shortly after communities affected by the two airports created Resolutions against any further runway expansions. Key Air withdrew their request months because of the economy and public resistance. But, the Met Council 2030 plan still includes Minor II designations for Anoka and Flying Cloud with a minimum of 4500ft and an open-ended maximum runway length. To expand these two airports beyond 5,000ft the law would have to be changed.

Met Council Meeting Minutes 7-16-09

2009-07-31T19:29:00.000-07:00

Metropolitan Council – July 16, 2009
9:00 a.m. Met Council’s offices; 390 No. Robert; St. Paul, MN
Aviation Technical Advisory Task Force Meeting
Wilbur Smith Report – Chapter 4 and 5 – Minor I and Minor II airport designations

Attendance – three from Wilbur Smith – Scott Sanders, WSA ssanders@wilbursmith.com : Eric Laing, WSA elaing@wilbursmith.com ; Lois Kramer; Kramer aerotek; lois@krameraerotrk.com;Chair – Jon Olson from Anoka County; Chauncey Case, Met Council, chauncey.case@metc.state.mn.us ; Connie Kozlak; Met Council; connie.kozlak@metc.state.mn.us ; Gob Vorpahl MAC bob.vorpahl@mspmac.org ; Bridget Rief; MAC; bridgt.rief@mspmac.org ; Merland Otto City of Mpls.; merland.otto@ci-minneapolis.mn.us Joe Leon, CCNM, PhillyJoe@usfamily.net; Richard Theisen MnDOT aero; dick.theisen@dot.state.mn.us ; Scott Kipp, City of Eden Prairie, skipp@edenprairie.org ; Barbara Haake AC/B advisory commission; trubador2@msn.com;Jack Plasch, Lexington MN, JackJulia86@msn.com: (NOTE: was there a “Kevin” there? And later a “Merlyn” came in (wearing a suit, back to me) Who is he?

Jon Olson from Anoka County called the meeting to order and from there, Chauncey Case led the meeting. Chauncey said there is a major change at MSP. Need to look at trends. Better understanding of the regional airport system. Data from airports similar to ours; system similar to the MSP region.
Classification with some revision. Remaining steps for this task force to be done. Consultants have slides. Scott Sanders, project manager from Wilbur Smith, started the slide presentation.

Wilbur Smith is 3/4ths of the way into the study. Info done; nine to ten months into the process – working on options. Flying Cloud 124,570 operations in 2007 to 111,007 in 2030 showing a -0.5% drop. AC/B from 86,840 to 77,650 from dates of 2007 to 2030 resulting in -0.5% drop (figures from Chapter Three).

Scott Sanders (and later, Lois Kramer) then showed Regional Systems similar to our airport system (peer airports) (Chapter Four): Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Mpls population 3,208,212; Detroit 4.4 million. Twin Cities has more operations; more reliever based and aircraft – a robust system. We are active and well developed. Other airports comparable to MSP. Are there apparent regional changes in the national system of hubs? What is the experience of airports when hubs are closed or downsized? With Delta/NWA merger the likelihood of further consolidation and capacity cuts are high, even it it is done on a system-wide basis.

Looked at St. Louis MO. How has Southwest Airlines started in other cities? Strategy going into small airports at perimeter of major cities; now going into major metro areas. Regional trends – divided US into three areas – western, central and eastern. Use FAA regions and consolidated them into these three areas. Used metro areas from 2000 to 2008 for enplanements. Population of region considered. Enplanements to population ratio and looked at average fares.

Eastern area has the most people (Columbus Ohio is the break point for the eastern region – 46%; Central has 34% of the population; Western has 20% of the population. BUT in 2000 the Central region handled the most enplanements (includes Mpls, Chicago, Dallas and Houston).

Looking at 2008, Central region has been declining; E/W regions have been growing. Central region is lagging except for Houston and Chicago Midway airports. West Coast – Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco are declining but mountain states growing. East and mountain states have the fastest growth. MSP pre-merger is holding its own. Las Vegas, Denver, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, New York’s JFK are the fastest growing hubs. Higher fares at fortress hubs divided by average miles per trip. MSP 16 cents per mile. Cincinnati 23 cents; Memphis 23 cents; NY 11 cents; Chicago O’Hare 13 cents; Atlanta 18 cents; St. Louis 18 cents; Kansas City 15 cents; Denver 14 cents; Miami 12 cents; San Francisco 12 center. MSP used to be higher with US airways, now lower. What happened at St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati? St. Louis was hub for TWA – bankrupt in 2001; bought by American and moved out. SW came into St. Louis. Connecting market got smaller. At St. Louis there was a 50% decline in departures; a 55% decline in enplanements.

Pittsburgh built around U.S. Airways. US left; deplanement down 45%; enplanements down 50%. Now no hub. LLC now carry 26% of the passengers at Pittsburgh. Now Pitt wants low-cost carriers. Low-cost carriers set prices lower at airports. Delta closed at Dallas/Fort Worth and Portland. Showed chart with blue circles where Delta and NW has hubs. Detroit and JFK in New York are used for International flights. What happened to Memphis? Too close to Atlanta – Believes more consolidation for NW and Delta coming. Delta has many “code share” partners.

Cincinnati – Not a closed hub – will reduce flights by 17% to 37%; looking at 50% down. High average fare/mile .23 cents. Cincinnati went from a big airport to a regional jet carrier with ranges of 1,000 to 1,500 miles – can serve with smaller planes. Scott: Lot of low cost service now into region around Cincinnati and can go there for lower fares (ie Dayton Ohio). Connecting passengers now are smaller numbers of people using connecting flights. Scaled back but still a hub. Delta is doing this. Salt Lake 2/3rds operated with Southwest. Delta carries 39% of passengers. Departures using smaller planes. Number of nonstop cities is getting smaller and smaller. Jon Olson asked about low cost operators in Duluth, Rochester? In Duluth, low cost but service once a week. In Cincinnati low cost came in quite a while ago. Southwest (SW) used to go to perimeter airports – but within 90 miles driving time but now SW is in major hubs. Showed slide with demand for service – this line steady but profits are all over the place. Hubs valuable but a mature national market – from 2002 has decline.

Lessons learned. Delta cuts back hubs. Excess terminal space at issue in St. Louis and Pittsburgh. Cincinnati (CVG) and Salt Lake regional hub model – the future for MSP. SW started in Denver in 2006 with 20 flights. Now in 2009 has 111 flights (just started to MSP) – these flights show non-stop. SW has 19 gates at Denver. W/SW look at Washington/Dulles; MSP, Boston and LaGuardia – go into a market and then announce new non-stop destinations – offering to shotgun of markets at first and then add. Detroit in 1987, Delta makes hard decisions. Connecting traffic moveable. MSP is at a “tipping point”. SW expansion in 2009 added four cities – in SW’s first four years in a city it expands quickly. Pay attention as to what SW is doing in other cities.

Laing: Looked at minor airports role. Two tiers. Higher end business planes use AC/B and FC airports. Lower recreational at the other minor airports. Recommends facilities according to role the airport plays within the system. MSP has the most services. ILS is located at the major International airport and at the Minor II airports (AC/B and FC). Minor I has non-precision approaches. Studies services and land side services…did this early on in the study. Evaluated each airport on the objectives Wilbur Smith laid out. Airports either met the objective or did not. 98% of all objectives were met in MAC’s system. Holman Field was lacking – no restaurant. Minor II met objectives. South St. Paul while not designated as in MAC’s reliever system has o approach lighting system and is called a minor I airport (they looked at the system plan; not just the comprehensive plan – everything is included).
MAC’s Metro system is well planned throughout the years. It is a “robust” system.

To be a Minor I or Minor II should have “x” to fulfill its intended role. Scott Kipp – Why change from Maximum length to Minimum length? Answer: Did not want to specify a maximum runway length for MSP – runways can be longer. Scott Sanders: the Legislature set the maximum length; we say that in our report. The max is set for Minor II airports. Connie – loads are important with no max. So we have minimums. Chauncey: We have plenty of capacity; planning for eventualities. Not looking at parallel runways at AC/B airport nor at a NW building area. Lake Elmo; no new runway.

Barbara: Why not list maximum runway when your proposal shows Intermediate starting at 6,000 foot runways? It leads one to assume that with Minor I ending at 4,500 feet and Minor II starting at that point that Minor II goes to 6,000 foot runways. Answer: No specifying of max because Legislature does this and we are just trying to show what a Minor II airport has an ILS, plus other extensive services. Runways should not be restricted – can extend when needed. Barbara: There was law that stated Intermediate from 5,001 to 8,000 feet in length (now removed with a Holman Field situation on taxation but it was in law) so everyone knew Intermediate started at 5,001 feet; now you are proposing 6,000 to 8,000 feet for Intermediate which means Minor II goes to 6,000 foot runways. Answer: This is just to show services and types of aircraft for this II designation – more corporate jets use Minor II airports.

Barbara: When was the subject of Minor I and Minor II brought up? Did this come from the Met Council? From MAC? From Wilbur Smith? Answer: Minor I and II came from the first meetings WS had with the Met Council. Minor II serves business aircraft. Barbara: When was the first meeting? Answer: Sometime last year. Barbara: Who first brought I and II up? Answer: Wilbur Smith Associates. Connie came into the discussion – said “this is just a task force report – not accepted yet by the Met Council”. Needs MAC plans before acceptance.

Barbara: Chauncey mentioned no parallel runways for AC/B airport – Bridget told us that parallel runways would be in her LTCP for AC/B airport. Could Bridget please comment on what MAC is going to recommend when Met Council says no parallel runways? Bridget was not asked to comment by this task force – no answer from Bridget. Chauncey appeared to back off his statement. Connie said Met Council would wait for MAC’s LTCP plan for AC/B airport.

Barbara: The citizens want the airport to remain with a maximum runway length of 5,000 feet. Homes were bought with the promise that this is a “minor” airport; Blaine zoned residential surrounding this airport. Real estate agents said there is a law that this airport will not exceed 5,000 foot runways. Mounds View on the south border of the airport was built up in 1940 before the airport was even built. Connie: yes, homes in Mounds View on the south side were always there. Other homes came later. Barbara: Yes, Blaine allowed those homes to be built around the airport – very nice homes. Connie: Can’t specify limitations at to runway length. Example Highway 65 – residents can’t oppose the width, necessity of moving traffic – has to serve the region. Same with airports – serve the region/needs. Jack – in other words the people have no say? Connie – they have public meetings. Jack – but the residents have no say. No answer.

WS – Holman Field has no restaurant (Joe Leon commented – restaurant was called “terminal restaurant”).

WS – All of the airports are great. It was stated (by whom?) that 5,000 foot length falls into the transport category. Investment will want precision approaches.

Scott Sanders (WS): Minimum recommendations for airports are only what is needed; not to restrict future plans. Chart with Facility and Service Operations – if you have land to accommodate it – then it goes into the Minor II category. 3,200 feet can land light jets; GPS approaches are now being looked for.

Next Steps: GIS elevation – Alternatives under consideration. Search Area A; NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) inclusion; Wipline; others. Develop cost estimates for alternatives. Have not looked at “drive time”. Will come to next Task Force meeting. Chauncey said search area “A” will be dropped. NPIAS for federal funding. Wipline may drop out of system – does not require full public access (Forest Lake will be discussed). Bridget – eliminate Forest Lake? Scott: Will look at it but Forest Lake may take more research. Bridget – better define minor category. Chauncey on Forest Lake: Discussions needed – system evaluation – serve community; sod to paved? Not a MAC airport. Forest Lake like an outstate airport.

Joe: “Drive time” WS – will go to Met Council for answer. Joe: Data projections? Do you go to MnDOT for this? Answer: No. Joe – increase in traffic around AC/B airport great from 1976 to 2006; three-fold increase in traffic. Connie: Traffic measured by the counties. Met Council forecasts traffic for the region. Employment, homes built-out bring in traffic. Scott talking about drive time from airport to airport; consider time of day.

WS back in two/three months with final few chapters. Chauncey- no date set; look at WS contract to see how much more is required. Full draft available for discussion. General steps: final draft goes to council’s transportation committee; prior to that it goes to transportation sub committee. Involve cities; update Policy Transportation Plan. Maybe not happen until 2009 – May 2010. Interest now limited to Policies and Guidelines will have updated 2030 document. In past had five-year aviation policy. Current plan could go four years more because it was just adopted in January 2009. Four years from today it will be required to be updated. Now with this study will amend transportation plan – need to look at transportation policy too. Fed has to OK safety Blue Law; this aviation may be changed independent of transportation plan. Decision on this coming at the end of this year. Chauncey: citizens had a say on long term comp plan. In Met Council local communities can have input. Connie: This defines how airports function. Plan for the region as a whole.

NOTE: SHOW WHY NOT NEEDED. Connie: Airport has a function. Maybe able to go to MAC for function. NOTE: Do what the REGION needs. Connie: No physical needs at AC/B right now for upgrading.

Joe: Safety has not been mentioned once. Need to think about safety – National Sports Center right at the north end of the runway. USA Cup starting next week. 3,500 young people will be coming to the sports center. In 2006 there were a number if air fatalities with charter companies. Higgins of National Safety Board says charter aircraft operators are essentially unregulated – rules not enforced. Ebersoll accident, Wellstone, Owatonna are some examples. If an accident took place at the AC/B airport we could lose 1,000 children. (Man in green shirt – who? -) stated that we are safer than anywhere else in the nation. Connie: We have safety embedded in the plans/standards. Airport zoning – runway protection zones (RPZ). Bridget: Zoning for AC/B airport will want zoning done around the airport with a zoning board. Analysis of accidents – size and length of the RPZ.

NOTE: No zoning around the airport – residential already there. Bridget – FAA needs to enforce it. Joe – Key Air fuel tanks above ground. Bridget – Tanks above ground can find leaks – underground could letch in to water table.

Meeting ended.

Letter to Congressman Erik Paulsen Opposing 6,000ft Runway

2009-07-26T14:58:00.000-07:00

Letter written to Congressman Paulsen (c/o Dan Wick)

As a strategist and trend forecaster in internet and web technologies, I make my living by observing, collecting and analyzing data points (i.e., connecting the dots), and subsequently creating scenarios from which a most likely outcome would result.

On the periphery of the issue surrounding Flying Cloud Airport runway expansion, the stopping of which has been championed by ZeroExpansion.org, it has become clear I can no longer stand on the sidelines when increased traffic, jet fuel scents, and noise violations occur on an accelerating basis.

CONNECTING THE DOTS

Here are some of the dots I've been collecting and analyzing:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is clearly planning for airport improvements, ostensibly to shift non-commercial (or light commercial) air traffic away from primary to reliver airports. I've gone through ZeroExpansion's links this weekend as well as various planning and analysis documents at the FAA website, but curiously there isn't an overall strategic plan nor are specific tactics spelled out relative to reliever airports such as Flying Cloud. Instead, any capacity analysis and planning is under the umbrella of Minneapolis/St. Paul airport and relievers are discussed with obscure terminology

Today's hub-n-spoke system is analogous to the circuit switching network we've known from our telephone system. You make a call, the telephony system opens one circuit, and you talk to the other party. ALL the space between your words, during pauses, and so forth is wasted...which is why telecom companies digitize and multiplex together phone calls to make it more efficient for their call carrying capacity. The FAA's NextGen system will clearly facilitate a significantly more efficient air traffic control system which will lead to a point-to-point system based on traveler demand. This point-to-point NextGen system is similar to the way the internet routes packets, and why voice over the internet (VoIP) is so efficient: packets move around as necessary, taking the most fortuitous route

Very Light Jets (VLJ's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_light_jet) promise to be one type of "packet" in that NextGen system and the lion's share of sales of these inexpensive, single jet aircraft have been to air taxi services. Though we've seen little movement in this area due to the severity of our recession, there is no question that they will play a key role in the travel world of the next decade

The current (and proposed) expansions of Flying Cloud airport in Eden Prairie are already having a negative impact on noise, the smell and scent of jet fuel (sometimes so significant at the Staring Lake park or while walking around the lake on its path that it causes one to pull a shirt over ones nose and mouth) that we're considering moving out of Eden Prairie as soon as our 14 year old son graduates from high school.

The infrastructure possibilities surrounding Flying Cloud airport point to its likely dramatic expansion (and in the words of one of my neighbors, "...a likely mini-Midway airport" pointing to the explosion of traffic, parking lots, fast food joints around the airport). With the former dump land being prime for parking, Pioneer Trail expanding from two to four lanes and the airport flanked by Flying Cloud Drive on one end and the Minnesota river on the other means that the "not in my backyard" argument will be somewhat obviated, were it not for the hundreds of homes below takeoff and those others in close proximity

Likely outcome? Any further expansion, or change in designation being proposed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission likely enabling significantly greater expansion, will make an otherwise pleasant community to live in one that people eschew.

I am against any additional expansion and ask that you take steps to ensure no change in status occurs and no further expansion beyond what's agreed to currently occurs.

Steve Borsch, Eden Prairie Resident

What's wrong with Met Council 2030 Plan? Everything..

2009-07-09T11:14:00.000-07:00

Zero Responses-

In 2003 the Met Council, the MAC and MNDOT used FAA grant money to do a study on two-tier reliever regional airports like Rochester, St Cloud, Duluth as relievers for MSP to create more of a state-wide system and alleviate capacity issues at the major hub.

We know that 80% of the St Cloud area drive to MSP to take a flight because varied routes aren't offered locally. Logically that means a good portion of the state are driving to regional hubs or as is most often the case MSP, because the regionals are going to offer much less in the way of flight options. That is of course why there is a national surge in growth at regional airports.

St Cloud appealed to Delta and Southwest to send them some flights; the response was that they had no flights to spare because of the downturn in demand.

The 2030 Draft Plan has revealed to us that in fact the major airlines are redirecting flights, but not to local regional hubs. Obviously this is a predatory business practice not a regional state-wide approach to transporation that accomodates residents in our state.

The Met Council has completely dumped this study evidently because capacity needs at MSP are not an issue, AT THIS TIME. But THIS flies in the face of what other states are doing, fortifying their regional air operations.

If the Met Council is going to hold up other airports in the nation as examples for what we should do locally, why are they cherry picking information? Why are they eliminating the potential of creating a state-wide reliever system, perhaps even run by MNDOT that would eliminate:

ZER0- The quasi private/public status of the MAC which is making aviation policy based on profit maximization, not their mandated purpose, which is to provide transportation for all.

ZERO- MAC has to come up with private non-aviation businesses at FCM to make the airport break even. To our knowledge that has not been accomplished. What this suggests is that they are a business using partial public funds to subsidize their own franchisees. Tell me what other business could do that?

Zero- All the information that came out of the Reliever Task Force Meetings indicated that the relievers were the least self sufficient GA airports of any in the nation. Why weren't those facts included in the Met Council Draft 2030 Plan.

Zero- This isn't an accurate, factual, unbiased transportation plan, it's a forward leaning corporate pitch that cherry picks information, thereby misleading the people and their elected officials.

Zero-This truly is an example of government at its worst working to ratchet up profits in one area of the state while the rest of the state has inferior transportation choices when it comes to flying or getting around, other than in a car.

ZERO-Just some quick thoughts. Add these questions/discussions and concerns to the record in blue:

The Met Council/ Consultant Documents contain a lot of contractions-
Critical particulars left out and why:

Zero- What is the max length of the MINOR II runway?
Zero- Why would the MINOR I law need to be changed when it is clear there is ample capacity at MSP and all the relievers because of slow growth and changed use?
Zero- Why is there a need for a new GA airport when the same doc says GA business and use has changed and is in a long downturn?

Zero-The growth in micro jets and VLJs as indicated is pure predilection. (More importantly neither of these types of aircraft would require a 6.000ft runway.)

Zero- Another contradiction and outdated premise is the oft used mandate that the MAC must use the relievers to redirect traffic away from MSP. In contradiction the document states MSP will not need any further expansions. They say MSP is cutting capacity and redirecting flights. Why is there a need to expand Anoka and FCM and add another reliever then? We've seen the comparison charts and don't see where any redirect of GA traffic away from MSP is at all indicated. GA traffic is not related to delays at major hubs. Cost of landing there dissuades most. The rationale to divert GA away from MSP was initiated decades ago, and is no longer applicable today and should be changed. If in fact roles have changed, as the documents state, than the old mandates should change.

Zero- You have Anoka and FCM classified differently as Key and Intermediate airports, yet they are both classified as Minor II airports. If Minor II airports have an ARC of B-II definition, how than can you lump Anoka into Minor II when it has a C III definition?

Minor II Airport – A Minor II Airport is defined as having an ARC of B‐II, including precision
instrument approach and a primary runway for all‐weather service with a minimum length of 4,500 feet. There is usually a mix of piston‐powered and turbine‐powered aircraft at these

airports. Minor II airports typically serve aircraft used for personal business and corporate

functions, as well as recreational aviators

The FAA groups aircraft into Aircraft Categories and Airplane Design Groups based on their

approach speed and wingspan, respectively. For example, an airport with a Beech King Air C90 as the

critical aircraft (approach speed – 100 knots and wingspan – 50.2 feet according to FAA documents)

would be designated with an ARC of B‐II.

8. Intermediate Airport is C III - that mean larger aircraft and runways up to 6,000ft (page 5-11)

Look at exhibit 5-3 on page 5-11.

Minor II

Wingspan- 49 to < 79

feet

DHC‐6‐300 Twin

Otter

King Air C90,

Citation II,

Citation III

Gulfstream III,

Canadair 600

Gulfstream II,

Gulfstream IV

Military

Intermediate III

Wingspan- 79 to <118 feet

Douglas DC‐3 Fokker F‐27 Airbus A320,

Boeing 727,

Boeing 737

Gulfstream V

Summary (page 5-14)

The airports in the Twin Cities Regional Airport System are classified by a variety of different methods,

each tailored to its specific purpose. The system has evolved to the point where there are more distinct

roles than exist in the previous system plan.

ZERO-The above statement is clearly not accurate. Use has devolved. The industry has lost pilots and types of aircraft and now it is trying to fill those shoes with aircraft that are virtually untested: Micro Jets and VLJs. The document states that the industry has lost pilots, hobbyists and certain types of aircraft use and a downturn in operations. That's not evoling, it's devolving. At present the forecasted growth in micro jets and VLJs are on paper only. Factories have shut down, or gone into bankruptcy. The FAA has only certified some of these new aircraft only in the past year. There is no reliable data to base potential growth or more importantly safety. YET, the new system plan fails to interprete the losses and instead focuses on pure theoretical projections.

This section identified a need for an airport role suitable for

bringing a new airport into the system without imposing burdensome facility and service objectives.

ZERO-What is this about? Bringing a new airport into the system, for what? The summarization of this chapter is that business is in the dumps and would be for a long time. Another contradiction.

Additionally, a need to distinguish between the Minor Airports that primarily serve business aviation and

those that focus on personal and recreational aviation was identified. The previous regional aviation

system plan was modified to account for these needs and facility and service objectives were identified

for each of these airport roles. Based upon the information gathered in the Inventory chapter and the

criteria established in this chapter, each airport was assigned to one of the defined roles.

In the next section, the system will be analyzed by comparisons to peer airport systems, and

assessments of each airport’s respective performance in relation to the recommended facility and

service objectives that are based on the roles assigned in this chapter.

ZERO- FAA rules dictate open access to all, certainly an airport can not refuse to accomodate an aircraft from landing or taking off because it might not fit into the specific role of that particular airport as long as the runway length can accomodate them. The proposed plans feel far out of the scope of the all encompassing FAA rules that pertain to OPEN ACCESS, NO IMPEDIMENT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, that would seem to make the role fixation another way to spend taxpayer money to accomodate growth projections that have no historical basis or real numbers.

Summary (Page 4-35)

As of the summer 2009, MSP and the metropolitan regional system are tracking reasonably well with

respect to other comparable systems and other hub airports, which indicates that it is a mature system

that needs little in the way of expanded facilities. Declines in activity reflect a national response to a

deep and likely prolonged recession and volatile fuel prices. Airlines continue to cut or redirect capacity.

Discretionary business and general aviation activity is down significantly. The peer review of other

airports suggest that Delta has in the past made hard decisions to close or scale back connecting hubs at

Dallas‐Ft. Worth and Cincinnati. These network changes resulted in considerable loss of enplanements

(and revenues) at the affected airports. St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are all grappling with excess

terminal space following changes in hub status. Revenue diversification and redevelopment of airport

property are top priorities at these and other airports that have experienced cutbacks in aviation

activity. Review of airport hubs by region indicates that the eastern region and mountain states are

experiencing the largest growth. Further analysis into fleet mix, service levels, and economic conditions

are needed to better assess why the airports on the West Coast and in the central region appear to be

growing more slowly or languishing. Finally, Southwest’s entry into the MSP market is very positive.

Experience at other airports where Southwest has recently started service suggests that additional nonstop

cities are likely to be added at MSP once the economy improves or Southwest can redeploy existing

aircraft.

ZERO-These bolded statements would indicate that there is no need to expand further. But the rest of the information and planning in the document contradicts that.

ZERO-We find the documents to be contradictory; we find they overestimate need when it comes to new types of operations that are virtually, historically untested, particularly when it comes to safety and actual numbers, which is unknown. We find this to be a highly irresponsible route to what should be sound and sane, sustainable aviation planning.

ZERO-There is no balanced approach exemplified here. We have only to look at the statements made about MSP to understand that the airport is OVERBUILT and has more than it needs for much longer than they identified and all because the so-called planners didn't account for the drastic downturn, due to 9-11 and now the recession and worsening economic picture.

ZERO-The 2030 plan, as we see it now, is fiscally and practically in no where land; in light of history, that in itself, makes this Draft Plan from the area's transportation planners highly suspect .

FAA upholds agency decision on jet ban at SMO

2009-07-09T11:12:00.000-07:00

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT

FAA upholds agency decision on jet ban

The Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday upheld an earlier decision by an FAA hearing officer to prevent the city of Santa Monica from banning private jets with fast landing speeds from the municipal airport.

In a 57-page opinion, FAA officials rejected an appeal by the coastal city, which contended that it had the power to ban jets for safety reasons and that its policy did not discriminate against types of aeronautical activity.

City officials challenged a May 14 FAA report that concluded the controversial jet ban "unjustly and unreasonably" discriminates against specific aircraft.

The FAA upheld part of that ruling -- that the ban violates the terms of federal grants received by the airport. Agency officials also said that the city does not have the authority to ban certain types of aircraft.

The city contends that jets with faster landing speeds, such as Gulfstreams, Cessna Citations and Challengers, are at risk of running off the runway and crashing into surrounding neighborhoods. Such aircraft, however, have never crashed at the airport and their safety record is better than that of propeller planes at the facility, the FAA hearing officer concluded.

Santa Monica now has the option of challenging the FAA decision in federal court.

-- Dan Weikel

MET COUNCIL'S CONSULTANTS OMIT MAX RUNWAY LIMIT FOR MINOR II AIRPORT

2009-07-09T05:41:00.000-07:00

The Met Council placed Flying Cloud Airport into the new Minor II category in their draft report. They say once the airport has 5,000ft it will become a Minor II airport.

Of course the drawback is that the State Legislature recognizes Flying Cloud as a Minor I airport with a limit of 5,000ft.

The new Minor II redesignation in the Met Council's 2030 Aviation Plan puts the airport at minimum runway length of 4,500ft and gives no maximum.

They would have to go and change the law to make FCM officially a Minor II airport.

You have to ask yourself how a government agency could hire consultants, produce miles of paper, charts, graphs and number comparisons and not include the maximum runway lengths?

By all indications, the documents spelld trouble and make an illogical, contradictory case for the expansion of some relievers and the addition of another reliever.

Despite saying that MSP does not require any more capacity and its based airlines are actually rerouting aircraft to other hubs leaving ample room for growth, they state that the MAC's mandate is to reroute smaller traffic away from MSP.

The aviation downturn is trending long term and that includes commercial and non-commercial corporate operations, despite this they say there will be growth in micro jets and VLJs.

But guess what? Neither of these aircraft require a 5,000ft runway.

Small planes, small airports. That's the new expansion plan. According to the Met Council MSP is finished expanding.

The idea is we'll all buy one of these microjets or VLJs like an air taxi and jet off in our 400 mile an hour flying SUV.

The problem is the FAA certification for these new types of aircraft was so recent and now the manufacturers are in bankruptcy and or have shut their doors, aren't hiring, well you get the picture. They are so new there are no concrete numbers indicating whether we need to factor them in as legit operations requiring a longer runway.
Which of course they don't need. That's just one of the contradictions.

BTW, both industries/GA and major airlines are in the dumps and the only qualifiers that the Met Council's consultants are looking at are projections.

As for MAC? They have a committment to Eden Prairie not to expand, so they're staying in the background and letting the Met Council take the heat. However they've been part of the process, and they're definitely crossing the line--their legal committment not to support a further extension.

Do they really think we believe for a minute that the MAC had nothing to do with the aviation planning and it's only the MET COUNCIL who is going to put pressure on the legislature to change the law?

Their own spokesperson said in a Star Tribune article, that the MAC has a process in place to lengthen runways with the legislature; the Met Council said that only MAC is responsible for the change in runway length in the same article.

So, you think we lost the 5,000ft battle, and now we're done?

Well, the battle is far from over. And remember what we've always told you: when you have an airport in your midst, you have a problem that does not go away.

Microjet/VLJ article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14015732/

Flying Magazine says microjets won't have the safety record of business/corporate jets which are less safe than commercial jets.

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=405&print_page=y

How much are they? Microjets cost around $1.5 million. And that would not include the pilot, maintenance, gas and all. You can buy fractions of an aircraft and not put out that kind of money..but which one of us has that kind of money in the first place?

What's more concerning is to think of what the sky over our community would look like with many of our neighbors in flying SUVs dotting the skies with voluntary restrictions.

It is referred to as Highways in the Sky. And the FAA has had it on their drawing board for years.

DO WE WANT A HIGHWAY IN OUR SKY?

For those of you who can, we recommend that you attend the Met Council meeting July 16th where the Minor II redesignation will be discussed.
July 16, 2009

9:00 a.m. to Noon

Conference Room LLA

Metropolitan Council Offices

390 Robert Street North

St. Paul, MN 55101

Contact: chauncey.case@metc.state.mn.us and ask him what the runway length max is for a Minor II reliever. We've asked and have yet to receive an answer. The Met Council docs are up at www.zeroexpansion.org.

LATEST CORRESPONDENCE TO ZERO FROM CHAUNCEY CASE, MET COUNCIL- TODAY 7-9-09

"Vicki: I have your comment about the runway length issue, and it will be included as part of the on-going discussion on airport classification (Agenda item 4) at the July 16th Task Force meeting."

LINK-

http://news.cnet.com/Cheap-microjets-take-to-the-skies/2100-11395_3-6065935.html

Key Air Withdraws Request for 6,000ft Runway

2009-06-16T04:17:00.000-07:00

Facing growing opposition by north metro cities, Key Air has withdrawn the study request it submitted to MAC.

By MARIA ELENA BACA, Star Tribune

Last update: June 4, 2009 - 11:04 PM

Citing economic considerations, Key Air, the operator of the Anoka County-Blaine Airport, has withdrawn its latest bid for a controversial 1,000-foot extension to the airport's east-west runway.

Cities ringing the airport in south Blaine, fearing that the extension would be a precursor to a change in status for the minor reliever airport, had mobilized in opposition to the concept, when it came before the Anoka County Board last fall, and now, when it reappeared as a study request to the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

In late November, amid a growing public outcry, county officials abruptly canceled a public forum in which airport and county personnel were to field concerns about extending the runway from 5,000 to 6,000 feet. Recently, Brad Kost, Key Air president and CEO, called Gary Schmidt, the MAC's director of reliever airports, to withdraw the study request.

"We were working to get additional information from them," said MAC spokesman Patrick Hogan. "Their initial submittal didn't provide a strong argument for why they needed the additional length."

Kost was traveling Thursday and was unavailable for comment. A MAC statement said, "Key Air indicated that, given the current business climate, this was probably not the time to invest in expansion of the runway."

The Anoka County-Blaine Airport was built to handle mostly corporate and private jets. The east-west runway was extended from 4,000 to 5,000 feet in 2006.

Hogan and others emphasized that the extension was never meant to facilitate full-size passenger and cargo jets. But many folks who live in the flight path mobilized against the extension, citing safety and noise concerns.

The Blaine City Council was set to discuss a resolution Thursday night reiterating its stand in opposition to any change in the airport's status, and to any runway extension that would make a status change more likely. As of Thursday afternoon, the resolution had been tabled.

The cities of Mounds View and a handful of other north metro cities all had passed similar resolutions.

Tom Riley, a Blaine resident who has been active in Concerned Citizens of the North Metro, which had led opposition to the runway extension, called the announcement "wonderful news." But he and others agreed that the discussion probably isn't over.

Idea still alive

"We're going to continue to watch this in the event there's a change of mind [about] other attempts to increase the length of the runway," he said. "We'll still be watching the MAC and Key Air. I'm still guarded that something could come up in the future, but I'm glad to hear that the Key Air did withdraw."

Economic development issue

But the news was not greeted with universal enthusiasm.

Jon Olson, division manager of public services for Anoka County, was one of a handful of people who worried that the proposal was sunk -- for now -- by misinformation and fear. A 1,000-foot extension would not allow for 737s or huge cargo planes, and a change to intermediate status would require an 8,000-foot runway and a lot more alterations.

"When we entered into an agreement with Key Air, we understood that their target group was business aircraft, and that's why Anoka County was interested in the project, to attract new and possible business people to Anoka County," he said. "That's still the goal of Anoka County, economic development, jobs and growth for our area. Does this withdrawal of the request change our goals? I don't think so."

Hollis Cavner, tournament director for the 3M Championship, lives in Blaine, near the end of the runway. He took his concerns directly to Key Air. What he learned didn't mesh with the rumors, which he blames for the demise of the extension. He said the expansion could have brought jobs and business to the region.

"I live at the end of the runway; if anybody was going to be hurt I was going to be hurt," he said. "But I have a feeling a lot of this was driven by [rumors], which is a shame."

Maria Elena Baca • 612-673-4409

Opposition, economy killed runway project at Blaine airport

2009-06-12T09:34:00.000-07:00

Opposition, economy killed runway project at Blaine airport
Key Air CEO says the Anoka County-Blaine Airport extension doesn't make sense -- for now.

By MARIA ELENA BACA, Star Tribune

Last update: June 6, 2009 - 9:47 PM

The volume of the opposition had everything to do with Key Air's decision to withdraw its request for an extended runway at the Anoka County-Blaine Airport, said President and CEO Brad Kost.

Combined with the sour economy, the project just didn't seem worthwhile -- now.

"This is such a distraction from where our major focus should be," he said. "Based upon the reaction from the local community and the distraction to our local businesses, the environment is not right for this right now. ... What we need to do is keep the business open and running and really start to build for the future."

On Thursday, the Oxford, Conn.-based aviation company withdrew its request that Metropolitan Airports Commission look into increasing the east-west runway length from 5,000 to 6,000 and the load-bearing capacity to allow for larger business jets.

Still, Kost and the residents opposed to any extension agree that the issue isn't dead, and both are gearing up for the day when the issue comes back.

Kost, whose company is one of a handful of fixed base operators at the airport, maintains that safety issues remain when larger business jets -- think Gulfstream -- need to land on a 5,000-foot runway, especially in inclement weather. For many aircraft, 5,000 feet doesn't allow for much of a margin of error, he said.

Barbara Haake, co-chairwoman of Concerned Citizens of the North Metro, which opposed any extension, doesn't buy it.

"Once they get 6,000, they're going to want seven and they're going to want eight and it's all going to be couched in safety," she said, noting that another 3,000 feet of space is there, even if it's not designated runway space.

She and others maintain that an extension would bring increased traffic and ever-larger planes. She agrees that safety is key, although her group approaches the issue differently. In a conversation Friday, Haake recalled the 2001 story of a Mounds View garage destroyed by a falling airplane, less than half a mile from the airport.

"We do have safety issues and always will have them when you have homes right alongside of [the airport]," she said. "It could have gone into a home and injured more people."

Kost sounded genuinely distressed by the tenor of the discussion. City councils in Lino Lakes, Lexington, Mounds View and Circle Pines have passed resolutions in opposition to any extension. Blaine was set to discuss a similar resolution on Thursday night before the Key Air announcement was made.

"My concern is now we've got a lot of individuals out there and a lot of communities that really feel the airport is not a good neighbor, and that's absolutely not the case," he said. "It's too bad. The major tragedy about this is that this runway extension would have created lots of highly needed jobs for the community. ... Stimulus money would have been available, and that may not be the case when we revisit it down the road."

Still, Kost, who has been criticized widely for trying to move a proposal through without community input, said he will do things differently next time.

"I probably would do roundtables with community members, municipalities, people in housing communities adjacent to the airport," he said. "I would like to sit down and explain our objectives ahead of time. ... I would welcome any type of discussion with anybody at any time that would help them understand who we are and what we are and what we're trying to accomplish."

He acknowledged, though, that this probably wasn't the time to push hard on the proposal. This is the second time since last fall that public opposition has grounded Key Air's attempt at a runway extension.

"Right now the economic conditions in the Twin Cities area have deteriorated pretty dramatically," he said. "Worse than that is the economic conditions of aviation in the Twin Cities."

Others noted that no one can predict the future, or how an improved airport would affect business development in the area. Already, the airport has been upgraded with approach lighting, an instrument landing system and other infrastructure improvements.

As it is, representatives from some of the area's heavy hitters -- Aveda, Infinite Campus and the National Sports Center -- said they don't use the Anoka County airport much. And its draw to potential investors is impossible to quantify.

"The airport is a tool and an asset for marketing to businesses that may benefit from that," said Blaine City Manager Clark Arneson. "Frankly right now I don't know what an additional 1,000 feet means from an economic development standpoint. That's part of the discussion that would come forward."
But Kost maintains that's not the only reason to do it.

"The most important thing for me is that it's safety," he said. "We're defying gravity every day. That's what we do with these aircraft."

Maria Elena Baca • 612-673-4409
-------------- -------------- -------------- - - -- -------------------------

Key Air pulls controversial airport runway request

Friday, 05 June 2009

by Tim Hennagir
Life Editor

Key Air LLC, an executive charter company based at the Anoka County-Blaine Airport, has withdrawn its comprehensive planning request for a controversial east-west runway extension.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was verbally notified Thursday (June 4) that the company wanted its March 19 written request removed from official consideration.

“They did not have time to put anything in writing,” said Patrick Hogan, the MAC’s public affairs and marketing director, who issued a news release.

Key Air had requested the MAC consider expanding Runway 9-27 to 6,000 feet and increase the east-west runway’s double-wheel capacity to 95,000 pounds.

The runway is currently rated at 60,000 pounds. The MAC had asked for additional information to determine whether or not a study of the matter was justified.

The Metropolitan Council classifies Anoka County-Blaine as a minor-use airport and current Minnesota law limits to minor runway lengths to no more than 5,000 feet.

Dennis Probst, the MAC’s planning and environmental deputy executive director, said sufficient airport facilities exist to safely meet current operations.

“We will not consider a runway extension as part of our long-term planning,” he said in MAC release, adding in a interview the comp plan would stay status quo.

Hogan confirmed Thursday that Brad Kost, Key Air’s chief executive officer and president, had contacted Gary Schmidt, the MAC’s director of reliever airports.

According to Schmidt, while Kost didn’t provide a specific reason for withdrawing the request, the current downturn in general aviation was a discussion point.

“The timing was just not right to pursue a 6,000-foot runway,” Schmidt said Thursday.

Key’s Air request removal speeds up the comp plan process, he said.

Kost said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon that nationwide, the general aviation industry has lost 12,000 sector jobs during the last six months.

“Right now, Key Air wants to focus on rebuilding our business and protecting our employees and investment at the Anoka County-Blaine Airport,” Kost said.

Kost admitted current opposition to the proposed runway expansion played a role in the company’s decision. However, he said the company wasn’t giving up.

“At some point down the road, we still want the extension,” Kost said. “If and when that time comes, we will sit down with the cities involved and explain things.”

Barbara Haake is a former state legislator, current Mounds View resident and one of the lead organizers of Concerned Citizens of the North Metro (CCNM).

The grassroots organization formed earlier this year to oppose any proposed runway expansion at the Anoka County airport or any classification change.

“We are thrilled and happy to see this, but we still have reservations,” Haake said in an interview. She wanted assurances about future airport planning.

Haake was referring to comp plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council and the MAC. “We need to have any future threat of a longer runway laid to rest for 40 years,” she said.

The MAC has been recognized as a “very good” seven-county area agency, but Haake said statewide aviation planning would be better model to support.

Blaine City Manager Clark Arneson said Thursday afternoon the city had reviewed the MAC press release confirming Key Air was withdrawing its runway request.

“This dramatically changes the issue,” Arneson said during a Blaine City Council workshop Thursday. Citizens opposing airport expansion were in attendance at the meeting.

Arneson said the action by Key Air would maintain the MAC’s 2030 comprehensive plan for the Anoka County-Blaine Airport as a “status quo” document.

Thursday’s night, council members had been scheduled to review a draft resolution opposing a change in airport classification from minor to intermediate.

The council resolution also contained language that opposed legislative efforts to upgrade the airport’s classification at the state, regional or federal level.

Prior to discussion, Arneson said that Councilmember Dick Swanson wanted to present a revised resolution that specifically addressed Key Air’s request.

Arneson recommended the council indefinitely table the draft resolution. He said in 1999, the city had previously passed a resolution against classification.

Furthermore, Arneson said language in Blaine’s adopted comprehensive plan clearly addressed the city’s position regarding the airport’s status.

“The comprehensive plan is the strongest document we have,” he said. “It’s a legal document as opposed to a policy statement contained in a resolution.”

With Key Air’s withdrawal of its request Arneson said there are no current public or private proposals for a longer runway with more weight capacity.

Councilmember Mike Bourke asked if the MAC could revive a runway improvement plan at a future date.

Arneson’s reply restated the MAC’s news release. “The MAC is saying two things,” he said. “First there’s no current proposal and second, the airport is operating OK with the infrastructure that’s in place.”

Councilmember Wes Hovland asked if in the future if the city could amend its comprehensive plan to specifically address runway requests like Key Air’s.

Arneson recommended against such action.

Typically, comprehensive plans are general planning documents that don’t contain such detailed content, he told the city council.

Councilmember Dave Clark said the city’s current comp plan addressed the city’s policy position and would carry more weight with the Met Council.

“We simply dodged a bullet here,” Clark said. He was making a point Key Air’s removal of its MAC comp plan request placed the issue in a temporary holding pattern.

Clark suggested a change in the petition procedure used by local government entities (cities and the county) before requests were submitted to the MAC.

Councilmember Katherine Kolb agreed with Arneson that the comp plan was “much stronger” from a policy standpoint as opposed to a new resolution.

Mayor Tom Ryan said he wanted Key Air’s comp plan request to be honored by the MAC because such an action would have resulted in true transparency.

“I wished it would have come through,” Ryan said. “Then, we would have really seen what this is all about. We would have known more about the facts.”

Councilmember Russ Herbst said Key Air’s decision had ended the issue for the time being. “It’s over for now,” he said. “We can bring up a resolution next year.”

Clark requested staff research ways to amend the petition procedure and suggested Arneson report Key Air’s decision during the council’s regular meeting.

Lexington City Council member John (Jack) Plasch spoke at open forum after Arneson read portions of the MAC news release the city had received.

Plasch wanted the city to still approve a resolution. He said it was important for Blaine to support surrounding that had passed similar council resolutions.

Lino Lakes, Lexington, Mounds View and Circle Pines have passed city resolutions that strongly state opposition against development of longer runways

“Why can’t the council vote on this resolution and join the other communities? “ Plasch asked. “Even though Key Air withdrew, they will be coming back.”

Ryan restated the council’s concurrence during the workshop, that comp plan language would supersede a resolution. “It’s as clear as a bell,” Ryan said.

Tim Hennagir is at editor.blaineslplife@ecm-inc.com.

Zero Expansion to Draft Resolution following CCNM's Against 6,000ft Runway

2009-06-12T09:21:00.000-07:00

Here is a sample of CCNM's Draft Statement of Purpose

DRAFT: Statement of Purpose for CCNM

6/8/09

We the Concerned Citizens of The North Metro (CCNM), acknowledge the relentless pressure to build and expand Airport capacity, we wish to preserve the current definition of minor airports as those with runway lengths of 5000 feet and under, stand for the protection of our property values and quality of life, and OPPOSE ANY EXPANSION to the Anoka County-Blaine Airport beyond its current size, runway length of 5000 feet and depths-now or in the future.
In order to fulfill our goals CCNM will:
~ Inform taxpayers about the undemocratic push to expand Airport capacity
~ Convince the public to oppose the diversion of taxpayer funds to benefit a private business.
~Ask the public to resist any decision making by public officials which benefits private enterprise at the expense of the public good.

~ Advance an effort to have aviation planning be instituted on a comprehensive and STATEWIDE basis.
~ Provide the encouragement and means for voters to be involved in the political process as rightful stakeholders in the decision making process.

FCAAC Meeting Overview from May 28th, 2009

2009-06-02T16:30:00.000-07:00

MAC/ FCAAC Meeting Overview from May 28th, 2009
Barbara Haake

6,000ft Runway Potential First Alarm Bell-A resident in the audience asked whether FCM would ever have a 6,000ft runway.

Bridget Reif of MAC’s response: “There has been no request so the answer is ‘no’”. This should sound an alarm in everyone’s head; there is no request so “no”, there are no plans for a 6,000 foot runway at the Flying Cloud airport because no one has requested it.

What MAC should have said: No, there will no 6,000 foot runways at FC; there is a law that limits all minor airports to 5,000 foot runways and there is no deviating from that law. MAC sees no need to enlarge any of its minor airport or to spend any money on minor airport expansions beyond our current plans because we already have a major airport, one intermediate airport and five minor airports all located within a 30-mile radius of the center of the metro area.

Don’t be fooled - MAC has the space to put a 6,000 foot runway in at Flying Cloud. Yes, it looks a little “tight” for this to happen but you are getting a 5,000 foot runway with 2,500 feet on each end of that 5,000 foot runway as the “runway protection zone” (RPZ) so in effect, there is a runway with 10,000 foot of length and if it went to a 6,000 foot pave runway, it still does not need anything longer than that 10,000 foot of length (no lengthening of the RPZ zones on each end of a 6,000 foot runway).

It appears MAC also bought more land to the west – across Charlston Road. MAC “moved” a street on the east side of Anoka airport to accommodate the runway expansion and RPZ zone it needed when it built out our E/W runway from 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet in length in June 2007. Moving roads is no challenge to MAC. Pay attention to exact configuration of the land that MAC owns at FCM airport.

MAC is working on their LTCP Long Term Comprehensive Plan and will present it after the fact, the public will have no input. This is the “chance” for the public to have input into the LTCP process that MAC is undertaking – MAC does NOT bring the public in until the very end – after they have talked to the airports’ tenants and after they have talked to the cities. At these tenant/city meetings, they really say NOTHING – they don’t really tell anyone what is going to be in the plan so NO ONE has anything to “react” to. This is the same thing that is going to happen to residents when these public meetings are held this summer.

The format will encompass a bunch of separate areas around a room where citizens can “walk” around and talk to MAC people on a one-on-one basis. This is a plan, as far as I can tell, to limit a “crowd” mentality that lets everyone hear what everyone else is saying; stops us all from agreeing with a speaker; and stops us from really letting MAC know the COLLECTIVE views of the public.

MAC/FCAAC informational meeting long on disinformation.
One of the questions from a resident answered incorrectly by Rick King, chair of the Flying Cloud Airports Commission, was that there was no economic loss for the city because of the expansion. In fact, when acreage was bought by MAC the city lost around a million dollars a year in property taxes. More money was lost to businesses locally. There is no informational page on the city’s web site that gives out that kind of information. While the city is very interested in improving the airport’s web site and making it user friendly, they have not provided easy- to- find access to facts about the Final Agreement, the EIS, MAC’s commitments, and the city’s economic losses.

What was not explained by anyone, from the FAA, the city, MAC, not one of them is that the FAA is responsible for whatever happens AFTER the plane leaves the land. MAC is responsible for what happens on land. This means that a plane going away from its correct flight path is a FAA problem, not MAC’s. Flying too low is FAA’s problem, not MAC’s. And yet, MAC is taking on all of the noise complaints that are done IN THE AIR. I think we all need to make the FAA more accountable for the low flying, noisy aircraft that bothers us all. Or the FCAAC should be doing this. They are not.

IN FACT, IF the FAA becomes more uncomfortable by hearing about noise complaints and low flying aircraft, maybe the FAA will change some of ITS rules that currently won’t allow a mandatory restriction for planes flying during the dark of night or early morning hours.

This is what we hear from MAC: “We (MAC) took federal funds therefore we (MAC) have no control over aircraft flying at all hours of the day or night.” This is what MAC espouses when there are noise complaints from residents.

Athletic Fields here today, gone tomorrow-If MAC can renege on their commitment to keep the runway at 5,000ft they can and will renege on anything they see fit. MAC is “allowing” the city to have an “athletic” and a park area on its land now. This is just a “place-holder” for them. Remember Rich Acres at MSP (the NW corner of MAC’s MSP land)? Rich Acres was a golf course on MAC’s airport land – it was there with a twenty-year lease. When that lease was up, MAC destroyed the golf course, put in a new SE to NW runway with cargo hangers in that area. Just where is FC’s “athletic/park” area? Could it be available for future runway lengthening at FC? For hanger space?

No one asked about the weight bearing capacity at FC airport. Why build out a 5,000 foot runway at 60,000 lbs. double wheel weight (and spend the money) if MAC even “thought” there might be a possibility of a 6,000 foot runway at FCM? Just a question to ask… On the other hand, with the “money” MAC seems to get, they could just add cement to the 5,000 foot runway and add another 1,000 feet at the 95,000 lbs wheel weight - the same thing they are planning for our AC/B airport.

Eden Prairie residents knowledgeable- they were concerned with the trees – landscaping will be a bare minimum because of bird strikes and the threat of incursions from animals. This is MAC’s land and for “safety” reasons, it really needs to be a barren piece of land. They can’t have aircraft landing on top of “hazards”. Also, they really need to get rid of the wildlife on the property. That is why the Office of the Interior responded to the expansion in the EIS, by commenting that “no alternative sites” had been considered because of the potential for bird strikes. The airport is adjacent the Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge.

It was interesting to hear that they cannot plant shrubbery to hide the fence because security has to make sure there are no “holes” in the fence for wildlife to pass through (they did not mention terrorists). MAC does not follow FAA guidelines and continues to leave gates open. This presents a considerably more serious risk. The FAA knows this, has advised airports to address open gates and MAC does nothing.

Noise and more noise...and EIS is necessary because there will be environmental impacts
For MAC, the technical all knowing experts to tell the public it won’t be nosier, that larger planes are less noisy, is about as dishonest as it gets. Projects like the FCM expansion can’t happen without an Environmental Assessment of Impacts. Unfortunately projects like these are rubber stamped too often despite the negative impacts to a community.

If MAC is trying to help the residents in its monitoring of noise then they should really spend the money. Chad Leveque of MAC implied it would be too expensive for an modular noise monitoring system to be built around the airport to measure sound – monitor noise levels. Chad said public funds cannot be spent on limiting sounds – can’t resist operations (per the 1990 Airport Noise Capacity Act – ANCA).

If noise contours are being updated on the current declining operations, they are not going to be accurate when flights are resumed. This means that the noise contours will be contracted so MAC will report that there are fewer homes being affected by noise. This will save MAC money if there should be any mitigation costs due to homeowners to insulate their homes from airport noise.

Noise considered a problem for the last five years, indicated by two previous surveys. But not the last survey which revealed NO indication of noise annoyances- When Eden Prairie talked about the city survey and the decline in number of residents protesting noise from the airport, it neglected to say that “there has been a decline in the number of operations at the FCM airport and this probably would be the reason for the decline in noise complaints.” But, noise complaints are up by more than half in comparison to the last five years, yet MAC says the only reason this is the case is because people know how to report via internet. MAC says most of the noise complaints are coming from two people.

The Property Value Debate- Who wins it?
The last resident to speak was a realtor who said property values drop near an airport. The resident stated that people who support airports say this does NOT happen. MAC’s representative responded by saying that maybe properties around MAJOR airports have some devaluation but this is not true around MSP. If you go back fifty years when World-Chamberlin was just a small “major” airport, the homes held their value but when the airport became MSP in the 1960’s the homes lost their value and yes, they have “held their value” since then at the same lower value they had back in the 60’s. If there were no airport near them, they would have a higher property value than they have with MSP nearby today.

Barbara Haake is a former Mounds View Representative to the Legislature. In 1999 Haake proposed a bill in the Legislature to limit Minor Runway lenghts to 4,000ft. Barbara is a member of Concerned Citizens of the North Metro (CCNM).

FAA Considers Curfew At Bob Hope Airport

2009-06-02T05:22:00.000-07:00

FAA Considers Curfew At Bob Hope Airport
Tue, 02 Jun '09

Decision Expected By November 1st

As is so often the culprit, noise has been an issue for the communities surrounding Bob Hope Airport in the San Fernando valley, including Burbank. Late last week, the FAA notified the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority that its application for a curfew was essentially complete, and that started the clock on a 6 month review process. While the airport authority has some additional paperwork to file, a mandatory curfew could be in effect by the November 1st.

According to the San Fernando Valley Business Journal, the study was begun 9 years ago to meet requirements set out by the FAA to show that a curfew is reasonable and nonarbitrary; does not create an undue burden on interstate commerce or the national aviation system; does not conflict with federal law; makes efficient use of navigable airspace; and allowed for adequate opportunity for public comment.

A report in The Burbank Leader said a study on the proposed curfew found that the airport authority and the FAA would save some $59 million over 10 years if it were implemented. The bulk of the savings would come from not having to insulate houses affected by the noise. That would outweigh the $48 million in costs to airlines, passengers, general aviation, and others by restricting airline activity between 10 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. Some exceptions, including emergencies and medical flight aircraft would be allowed.

FBO's report that at least 24 aircraft owners say they would relocate their airplanes to other airports if the curfew is imposed, but that might not entirely solve the problem. The Business Journal notes that Los Angeles World Airports, the owner and operator of Van Nuys, is looking at its own ban on certain jet aircraft at the Valley airfield to reduce the noise impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=5875f29f-ceaa-4119-95bc-06ffd38e3f3e

Burbank Airport Undergoes Part 161 Study for Mandatory Noise

2009-06-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

Burbank Airport Undergoes Part 161 Study for Mandatory Noise Curfew

Bob Hope Airport Considers Nighttime Curfew Application

BURBANK, Calif. – Jan. 28 - Bob Hope Airport’s $6 million Part 161 Study and application for a full nighttime curfew from 10 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. moved a step closer to submission to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today when a subcommittee of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority – owner and operator of Bob Hope Airport – recommended that the full nine-member Authority Commission adopt a revised version of the study when it convenes February 2.

Airport consultants prepared the revisions following a two and a half month public comment period on the original draft report in the spring of 2008. Comments received at the time from nearby residents overwhelmingly favored the proposed curfew. However, comments from aviation users, Los Angeles World Airports, residents near Van Nuys Airport and from the FAA itself raised issues that needed to be further addressed before the study could be submitted.

“Our consultants believe these revisions will meet the first hurdle we face – fulfilling all
requirements relating to the completeness of the document. If the FAA agrees we have fulfilled those requirements, it is our hope that FAA will subsequently concur with the consultants’ findings that a mandatory curfew at Bob Hope Airport is a cost-effective method of achieving meaningful nighttime noise relief,” said Authority President Bill Wiggins.

“We have given our absolute best effort over the last eight years in order to honor the commitment of this airport to the surrounding community to do all it possibly can to achieve nighttime noise relief. No other airport in the country has gotten this far since the Part 161 process took effect in 1990,” he added.

The Authority began the Part 161 Study in 2000 with the goal of identifying a cost effective measure to significantly reduce nighttime noise. It has followed a rigorous process prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration for airports wishing to establish new restrictions on access to airport facilities by quieter Stage 3 aircraft.

The study concludes that the benefits obtained by implementation of a full mandatory curfew at the Bob Hope Airport exceed the costs to the aviation industry, and will result in quality of life improvements for hundreds of thousands of Burbank, Glendale and Los Angeles residents that are affected by nighttime aircraft operations.

Monetized benefits of a full mandatory curfew amounting to $67 million would outweigh costs to airlines, passengers, cargo carriers and general aviation totaling $48 million, according to the study findings. New access restrictions are required to have a positive benefit-cost ratio under Part 161, although achieving a positive ratio is not a guarantee that FAA will approve a proposed measure. The $67 million in benefits of the proposed curfew are largely based on savings that would occur by a reduced need for residential acoustical treatment near the airport with a curfew in place.

The revised study includes additional analysis on the impacts of expected shifting of aircraft operations that would result from implementation of a curfew at Bob Hope Airport.

These impacts include noise and air pollution at other Southern California airports expected to receive some of these shifted flights. The study finds that the impact of noise resulting from forecasted flights that might shift to Van Nuys and LA/Ontario International Airport is well below the threshold of significant impact established by FAA. Likewise, the air quality impact from shifted flights to both Van Nuys Airport and LA/Ontario International Airport falls within the de minimum threshold using the FAA’s air pollution emissions modeling program. The Authority previously adopted a resolution that expressed its support for a similar nighttime curfew on Stage 3 aircraft at Van Nuys Airport, so that those residents could enjoy the same nighttime sleep benefits that residents near Bob Hope Airport would enjoy if the FAA approves the study. Van Nuys Airport has not yet proposed such a curfew.

http://aci-na.org/index/todaysnews_021009e

2009-06-01T19:21:00.000-07:00

Santa Monica Airport Appeals FAA Ruling

City officials narrowly made a deadline on Friday to file an appeal challenging an FAA hearing officer's ruling that an ordinance banning jets from Santa Monica Airport put the municipality in violation of its federal obligations.

Hearing officer Anthony Palladino sided with the Federal Aviation Administration earlier this month on several major points in its argument that the 2008 ordinance was illegal, finding that the ban discriminates against certain classes of aeronautical activities and the operation of the airport. The hearing was held in March in response to the FAA's administrative review on the jet ban last year.

The FAA's associate administrator for policy, planning and the environment would need to issue a ruling on the appeal by July 8, representing the agency's final position on the matter. If found unfavorable to City Hall, another challenge is expected with the federal appellate court.

City officials have argued that the jet ban is necessary to protect residents who live in homes just 300 feet from the end of the runway, which they believe lacks adequate safety measures, fueling fears that a plane could one day overshoot it. The FAA has presented several safety options, including installing a series of concrete beds meant to give way under the weight of an aircraft. The proposals were dismissed last year as being inadequate, leading to the adoption of the ordinance.

http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2009-05-29-59661.113116_Appeal_filed_with_FAA.html

Blaine to Join Other Cities in Creating Resolution Against Change in Reliever Designation and Runway Length

2009-05-21T03:14:00.001-07:00

Blaine to Join Other Cities in Creating Resolution Against Change in Reliever Designation and Runway Length

Blaine council asks city staff to draft runway resolution
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Blaine council members have directed city staff to prepare a draft

resolution that will state their position on expansion at the Anoka

County-Blaine Airport.

by Tim Hennagir
Life Editor
Blaine council members have directed city staff to prepare a draft resolution that will state their position on expansion at
the Anoka County-Blaine Airport.
While city leaders recently concurred regarding the directive, review of a possible airport classification change won’t
continue until the full council is available.
Councilmembers Dave Clark and Russ Herbst were absent when City Manager Clark Arneson gave a long-term airport
comprehensive plan update May 14.
Arneson summarized an April 30 meeting that he, Bryan Schafer, community development director, and Mayor Tom
Ryan attended at Blaine City Hall.
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff met with area city leaders, administrators and citizens last month for
background regarding airport planning.
Connecticut-based Key Air LLC, a fixed-base operator at the airport, has asked the MAC to consider its request for
adding 1,000 feet to an east-west runway.
The executive aviation charter company filed documents in March that also seek to increase Runway 9-27’s double-wheel
weight capacity to 95,000 pounds.
Bridget Rief, the MAC’s assistant director of airside development, said April 30 that the status of Key Air’s request would
be decided sometime before July.
Completion date
During last week’s Blaine council workshop, Arneson told the council that the MAC estimates a June 2010 completion
date for the airport’s revised comp plan.
The plan provides a 20-year look ahead at airport facility needs and possible development, as well as aircraft operations
forecasts (take offs and landings).

“We will be in this planning process for a year,” Arneson said. “The MAC will dissect Key’s Air’s information and decide
whether to put it in the plan.”
Ryan said Key Air’s runway request is an attempt to address its future airport needs. He added the company had
presented a large amount of data to the MAC.
Important information
Six attachments that were sent with Key Air’s March 19 MAC letter contained aircraft performance data, a company
presentation and federal aviation guidelines.
Dennis Probst, planning and environmental deputy executive director with the MAC, has stated Key Air’s request didn’t
include detailed information.
Several MAC departments will review the request, and an independent study of the information would be completed
HNTB Corp., a national consulting firm.
Councilmember Mike Bourke asked about cargo aircraft using a longer runway at Anoka. Arneson said smaller planes
currently deliver medical shipments.
“Those aircraft take off and land, but let’s be careful with the term cargo,” Arneson said, adding it’s not practical for FedEx
or UPS planes to do the same.
Currently, there are 437 aircraft based at the airport. That number is expected to decrease to 414 in 2025; operations
also are expected to decrease, he said.
Council comments
Councilmember Dick Swanson asked Arneson if a runway extension request would have been brought forward if it had
not been suggested by Key Air.
“Key Air is the main reason for the one-year process,” Arneson said, referring to the public meeting, MAC committee and
board of commissioners review.
The Metropolitan Council also has a critical role in the long-term comprehensive planning process for the six smaller
reliever airports operated by the MAC.
“The Met Council is really the parent organization for the MAC,” Arneson said. “This [request for inclusion] is only step one

if they do put it into the comp plan.”
Ryan said the council could be dealing with the airport issue many years into the future, and Key Air’s request review was
entirely in the MAC’s hands.
Arneson pointed out that any development of a longer runway would require a change in state law to upgrade the
airport’s status from minor to intermediate.
County questioned
Councilmember Wes Hovland asked about Anoka County’s involvement in Key Air’s hangar and terminal that were built in
a corner of the airport.
Two years ago, Anoka County entered into a public-private partnership with the Anoka Airport Development LLC and the
MAC to foster the new facility construction.
The east-west runway at the Anoka airport was extended from 4,000 to 5,000 feet, taxiways improved and an Instrument
Landing System (ILS) was added.
Key Air LLC developed its corporate jet facilities within the 39-acre Northwest Building Area as part of a unique subleasing
agreement with Anoka County.
Anoka County issued approximately $20 million in general obligation bonds to finance most of the runway, taxiway and
other airport improvements.
As part of its municipal contribution, the city of Blaine owns and operates water and sanitary sewer lines serving the new
hangar development area.
The MAC contributed $2 million in federal airport improvement program grants and $450,000 in airport entitlement funds
to help complete facility work.
Last November, a controversial runway resolution presented to the Anoka County Board’s Airport Committee was
dropped when public opposition surfaced.
“Let’s face it. Anoka County started this ball rolling,” Ryan said. “You could be sitting here 10 years from now talking about
this,” he said during discussion.
Bourke said Key Air should have thought about its facility needs before making its investment. “I don’t want any part of
endorsing a runway extension,” he said.

Resolution suggested
Swanson was critical of the company’s business plan. He suggested during the workshop city staff draft a resolution so
the council could state its position.
“The problem with drafting a runway resolution is the process hasn’t even started yet,” Ryan said.
Swanson said that he wanted the resolution brought to a public meeting.
Hovland said he wasn’t opposed to a longer runway but was opposed to runway weight or airport status changes.
Swanson said the city won’t pay for either.
“Where do you draw the line?” Hovland asked. Ryan replied: “If the MAC doesn’t recommend [Key Air’s request for a longer
east-west runway,] it’s gone.”
Bourke was also critical of the MAC’s recent effort to pursue higher revenue-generating and long-term leases for Airport
Park and the Blaine Soccer Complex.
Arneson reminded council members they would know by early summer or the fall if MAC staff had decided to include Key
Air’s request in the comp plan.
Other cities sound off
Bourke asked Arneson how other cities around the Anoka County-Blaine Airport had responded to a possible runway
expansion or change in classification.
Arneson said Lino Lakes, Lexington, Mounds View and Circle Pines had passed city resolutions against development of
runways longer than 5,000 feet.
Spring Lake Park’s opposition to the controversial runway expansion stalled out March 16 when a heavily amended
resolution failed on a 4-1 vote.
According to Arneson, some of the resolutions approved by neighboring cities had statements that were not factual and
contained inflammatory wording.
Swanson said he wanted to see city staff draft a resolution that was non-inflamatory and included information about the

financial cost of a longer runway.
Hovland said if the city did develop its own resolution, it would be important to take into consideration Blaine’s recently
completed comprehensive plan.
Bourke agreed with Swanson, but he wanted Blaine’s resolution to show some support for surrounding communities and
their position on the issue.
“I’d like to see staff research a position similar to Dick’s, with full concurrence,” Bourke said. “Then, we’ll need to have the full
council here to review it.”
Barbara Haake is a former state legislator, current Mounds View resident and one of the lead organizers of Concerned
Citizens of the North Metro (CCNM).
The grassroots organization formed earlier this year to oppose any proposed runway expansion at the Anoka County
airport or any change in classification.
In an e-mail, Haake said CCNM representatives were planing to attend this Thursday’s (May 21) Blaine City Council
meeting and speak during open forum.
According to Haake, a Blaine citizen will request that council members pass a resolution opposing any proposal that
includes runways longer than 5,000 feet.

Tim Hennagir is at editor.blaineslplife@ecm-inc.com.
ABC Newspapers

2009-05-20T11:20:00.000-07:00

Holman Field: What can be built in the flight path?
Planners are taking into consideration public safety vs. economic development in downtown St. Paul.

By CHRIS HAVENS, Star Tribune

Last update: May 19, 2009 - 11:07 AM

The public's safety is being weighed against a host of economic factors as officials try to work out a plan that will dictate what can be built in the flight path of the St. Paul Downtown Airport.
The state-mandated plan is about 30 years past due and intended to minimize damage if a plane crash were to happen. At the same time, officials say, existing buildings, potential development and job creation need to be factored in.
That balancing act, given the airport's urban location, means the plan will probably be less restrictive than state minimum safety standards that have sizable no-build areas off the ends of runways. St. Paul says it could lose thousands of potential jobs and $2 million in annual property taxes if it adopted the state's standards.
"There's a tradeoff in everything we do today," said Gary Workman, director of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's aeronautics office. MnDOT administers aviation safety, and the commissioner ultimately signs off on the plans.
"How many people do you have to have killed at an intersection before you put in a stop light?" Workman asked. "You can't put stoplights at every corner."
Aviation crashes are rare, but many that do occur happen within 2 miles of airports. Last summer, eight people died when a small jet crashed off the runway in Owatonna, Minn. Between 1988 and 2007, eight accidents were attributable to the St. Paul airport, according to a 2008 safety study by consultant HNTB. Four people died in a rare midair collision that dropped remnants of two planes in Lowertown in 1992.
The study showed that the probability of a crash at the St. Paul airport is less than one in 10 million flight operations.

Airport has big impact

St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said the airport, also known as Holman Field, is critical to the region. A 2005 Wilder Research study estimated that it brings in about $112 million to the local economy.
It also has attracted noise complaints and other community dust-ups over the years.

The airport serves mostly corporate jets, as well as some general aviation and military traffic. It's one of the busiest in the Metropolitan Airport Commission's six reliever-airport system. The biggest safety concern is the airport's 6,500-foot-long main runway.
Using a less-restrictive safety zone plan could potentially yield an additional $2.1 million in annual property taxes and create 8,500 jobs and 1,800 housing units, according to a city analysis. State minimum standards, it said, would yield $107,000 in annual property taxes and create 1,900 jobs and no new housing.
State safety zones are divided into two components, "A" and "B." The A zone doesn't allow for any structures, while the B zone allows some limited building. The B zone prohibits schools, churches and other uses that draw lots of people.
Developers who wanted to build across the river from the airport in years past were warned about possible conflicts with the flight path.
A 16-acre site slated for housing under the Lafayette Bridge never came to fruition.
Planning for a new $185 million Lafayette Bridge is moving along and could bring potential problems because a new bridge will be east of the existing one, jutting closer into the airport flight path and possibly pushing hazardous power lines farther east.
There has been talk of putting a minor-league ballpark in Lowertown, near where a Central Corridor light-rail maintenance facility is expected to go. That could be a problem because of the number of people it would draw.

Plan is way overdue

According to Minnesota law, every airport in the state must have a safety-zoning land-use plan -- or be in a good-faith process of developing one -- to receive state and federal money for projects. The MAC, which is responsible for implementing safety ordinances at the seven metro-area airports it operates, hasn't followed through with its relievers, despite a 1973 document saying that it would.
Chad Leqve, manager for aviation noise and satellite programs for the MAC, said the agency is in a unique position because it controls airports, but the cities the airports are located in control land use. "Over the years, we've been making a good-faith effort."

A joint airport zoning board, or JAZB, was convened in the early 1980s to create a safety zone ordinance for the St. Paul airport. Significant process was made, but things stopped when the city wanted the MAC to indemnify it against potential legal action by property owners who might lose the use of their land. That was in 1983.
Little happened since until last year, when the MAC agreed to indemnify St. Paul.
When asked what prompted the recent push to get a zoning ordinance, officials from St. Paul, MAC and MnDOT didn't have a specific reason.
"We have been acting as if the zoning ordinance was there," Coleman said.

Projects continued

Even though there has been no zoning ordinance, millions of dollars have flowed in over the years for projects ranging from a controversial flood wall around the St. Paul airport to runway safety improvements.
Workman, who has been in his post two years, said he couldn't speak to why nothing was done sooner to get plans in place. Had he been in charge in previous years, he said he probably would have permitted the money to go to the MAC because many of the projects were for safety improvements.
"You don't invest millions in a facility and let it deteriorate because of a lack of zoning," Workman said.
Now, however, St. Paul and officials from South St. Paul and West St. Paul, have been working with the MAC for more than a year to put a safety zone plan in place.
It probably will be less restrictive than the state's recommendations. An airport may deviate from those with the approval of the transportation commissioner. That was done in 2004, when then-Commissioner Carol Molnau signed off on relaxations of the safety zone plan around Minneapolis-St. Paul International to accommodate big-dollar development in Bloomington. It was against the recommendation of MnDOT aviation safety experts.
The St. Paul airport discussion continues, and the public will have a chance to weigh in on a proposed plan after the group working on it meets in June to decide a hearing date.

Star Tribune Chris Havens • 612-673-4148

2009-05-12T22:48:00.000-07:00

General Aviation Sounds Mayday as Fat Cats Ditch Their Jets

Nothing symbolizes corporate excess in this economy like a private jet, and scores of companies are ditching them to bolster their images and hold the bottom line. It's a trend that could hurt the aviation industry, undermining one of the last manufacturing sectors the U.S. still dominates.

Corporate giants ranging from Bank of America to Time Warner are grounding planes amid a faltering economy and pressure from critics who say jets are a luxury they cannot afford and taxpayers should not subsidize. Shareholders and pundits aren't the only ones telling CEOs to fly commercial with the rest of us. A judge recently told Ritz Camera, which is closing more than 400 stores, to get rid of the jet it started leasing a few months before filing for Chapter 11.

The trend has the general aviation industry in a nosedive. Shipments are down 7.1 percent and 12 percent of the manufacturing workforce has been laid off. Unemployment in Wichita, Kansas, the Detroit of general aviation, has climbed from 3.9 percent to 6.7 percent in the past year. The aviation industry and those who watch it call the backlash against corporate jets misguided and fear it will have grave repercussions.

"Corporate aviation has become a whipping boy," says Charles Mayer, vice president of marketing at Hawker Beechcraft, the nation's largest privately held aviation company. "But it's crucial to the U.S. economy on several different levels."

It's hard to look at a company that's asking Washington for help and argue it needs a plane. And no one denies the bone-headed decision by the CEOs of the Big Three automakers to fly to last fall's bailout hearings aboard private jets did nothing to help the aviation industry's case.

"It's what sparked the shift in public opinion," said Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association.

But there are legitimate arguments for big companies owning planes. Only 10 percent of the nation's 5,000 general-use airports have scheduled airline service, and most of those flights serve just 70 domestic markets. It doesn't help that airlines cut service to nearly 100 cities in the past year.

"Lots of people think executives use corporate jets to avoid flying commercial, but it's much more about a lack of commercial availability," Bolen said. "You try flying commercial out of Salinas, Kansas see how far you get."

Others argue that flying commercial isn't the best use of time for a CEO. A flight that can take all day when you consider the time it takes to get to the airport, deal with security, sit on the tarmac and make your connection can requires just a few hours in a private plane. That's one reason Starbucks is keeping one of its three jets even after laying off 1,800 people.

"We're keeping one plane to provide safe, secure and efficient transportation of key Starbucks employees as well as accomplish travel that would not otherwise be possible using scheduled services," the company told Wired.com in a statement. "We believe this is an appropriate approach with regard to the current economic situation."

None of that flies with Chuck Collins, a researcher with the Institute for Policy Studies. The group has led the charge against corporate jets, arguing they are a bane to society.

"The case against private jets is undeniable: They pollute more, fail to pay their fair share of the air traffic system and leave us vulnerable to security risks," Collins said. "They undermine the social cohesion of our country at our expense."

Collins wrote a 30-page study called "High Flyers: How Private Jet Travel Is Straining the System, Warming the Planet, and Costing You Money" that argues corporations shouldn't have planes. He says they harm the environment, clog our strained air traffic control system and cost shareholders and taxpayers billions.

But general aviation, a class that includes the planes many CEOs have at their disposal, is a big part of the economy. It provides 1.2 million jobs and generates $150 billion annually. It's one of the few areas where the United States maintains a positive trade balance, and American manufacturers hold more than 70 percent of the market. That's compared to 53 percent for personal computers and 25 percent for the auto industry. Almost half of the planes built here last year were exported, and last year's backlog of planes that have been ordered but not yet manufactured or delivered stood at $80 billion.

Business jets are typically powered by two engines and seat as many as 10 people. The Cessna Citation, built in Wichita, is the world’s best-selling model. Other popular planes include the LearJet 45XR, General Dynamics Gulfstream V and the Hawker 4000.

Perhaps we should say they were popular. AIG, CitiGroup, Time-Warner, Bank of America and Alcatel-Lucent are among the scores of firms getting rid of their planes. It's done more than force their executives to experience the joy of flying commercial. It's shaken the manufacturing industry.

Thanks to layoffs at Cessna, General Dynamics and Hawker Beechcraft, over 12,000 general aviation manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent months, but it's not just the plane makers that are hurting. Pilots, mechanics, dealers and others who make their living serving those planes are also feeling the heat. Jay Mesinger, who runs a corporate jet brokerage business in Colorado, says his sales plunged 50 percent in 2008 and he expects further drops this year. With orders for new planes being deferred and the market flooded with used aircraft, firms that supply the manufacturers with everything from seats to avionics are downsizing, too.

Nordam, a Wichita-based firm that manufactures aircraft interiors and composites, has laid off 411 people in the past eight months. That's 22 percent of its workforce. Other suppliers, including Rockwell Collins and Teledyne Continental Motors, have cut production and staffing.

Others fear the drop in sales could stifle innovation. Mayer, the Hawker Beechcraft VP, says a decline in aviation would force an industry he says is responsible for such innovations as anti-lock brakes and modern navigation systems to invest less in research and development. He said corporate jets showcase some of the best technology the U.S. has to offer, such as composite materials. He compares the industry's current position to that of the Detroit automakers 30 years ago, and fears it will slip if the backlash continues.

"We dominate, but we are starting to see some serious competition on the horizon," he says. "A healthy (general aviation) industry creates jobs and drives innovation. It represents the future, not the past."

Collins concedes aviation manufacturing centers like Wichita would be hurt by a shift away from corporate jets, but says it's a necessary transition toward more sustainable transportation.

"I'd rather take the money we're using to subsidize corporate jets and use them to build a real high-speed rail system in this country," Collins says. Nor does he believe corporate planes are an essential part of doing business. "We had a thriving business sector 10 years ago, and not everyone had private jets."

Kimberly DuBord, an analyst with Briefing.com, says the people arguing about whether or not CEOs should be flying in corporate jets overlook more fundamental problems facing corporate aviation.

"This is much bigger than a handful of Fortune 500 companies grounding their fleets," she says. "Ultimately, it's the issues facing the global economy that will decide the fate of this industry.

"It’s a significant part of our manufacturing base," she said. "My gut is that if it took a big hit, the impact would be profound."

http://www.wired.com/cars/coolwheels/news/2009/05/corporatejets0513#

MAC Violates TSA Security Rules to Save Money

2009-05-04T20:52:00.000-07:00

The Metropolitan Airports Commission cut back on security, according to MAC spokesman, Patrick Hogan, in order to save money.

The investigative report was on Minneapolis Channel 5 at 10PM Monday night, May 4, 2009.

2009-04-23T21:51:00.000-07:00

Bird Strikes: FAA attempts to keep them off the record

The Washington Post’s April 23rd article, “LaHood Snubs Plan to Keep Data on Bird Strikes Secret,” reveals that the Transportation Department will not go along with the FAA’s proposal to keep Bird Strikes secret.

“The FAA quietly posted the proposal in the Federal Register last month and requested public comment. The agency immediately came under fire for the proposal, which came on the heels of an incident in January in which a flock of geese brought down a US Airways flight, forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing on the Hudson River.”
LaHood said that FAA efforts to keep information about bird strikes secret "doesn't really comport with the president's idea of transparency."
"I mean, here they just released all of these CIA files regarding interrogation, and . . . the optic of us trying to tell people they can't have information about birds flying around airports, I don't think that really quite comports with the policies of the administration," he said. "It's something that somebody wanted to put out there to get a reaction. We got the reaction, and now we're going to bring it to conclusion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042202057.html

In the Final FEIS for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport there is a letter from the United States Department of the Interior to Jan Garvey of the FAA. The letter is in response to the expansion at Flying Cloud Airport and Bird-Aircraft Hazards. In this section on page 3 of section C, they state that the FEIS failed to follow the FAA guidance in the Advisory Circular No 150/5200-33 entitled “Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports.” The FAA objected to the FWS’s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) proposed establishment of a refuge unit near a relatively small airport, citing the Advisory Council as a basis for its objection.

The document goes on to say that the expansion proposal is being considered against public safety. They state that other alternatives which avoid public safety are not being presented in the DEIS.

The letter goes on to state that the DEIS does not contain a complete discussion of alternatives.

This was addressed in the Final Record of Decision when the FAA ruled that aircraft must be diverted away from the Minnesota Wild Life Refuge. This leaves no alternative other than to fly over populated areas on the south and west side of the airport.

http://www.macnoise.com/pdfs/relievers/fcmeis/FEIS%20Sec%204(f)%20Eval%20Vol%201%20June%202004.pdf

Currently the Metropolitan Airports Commission had razed every plant and trees on the southwest side of the airport where the 5,000ft runway will be installed, adjacent Mitchell and Spring Roads.

Tim Anderson says this area will be replanted with prairie grass and a very small number of trees. He stated that this was done solely for the purpose of grading the runway and not for bird strike threats.

The hills surrounding FCM on the south side of the airport have been planted to dissuade attractiveness to birds.

Bird Strike Committee USA is a volunteer organization directed by a 10- to 15-person steering committee consisting of 2-3 members each from the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, aviation industry/airlines, and airports. Their web site is run by John Ostrom, Chair, BSC-USA, Metropolitan Airports Commission at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport.

Studies indicate only about 20% of bird strikes to civil aircraft at Part 139-certificated (passenger service) airports in USA are reported. Less than 5% of bird strikes at General Aviation airports are reported.

http://www.birdstrike.org/

2009-04-23T21:48:00.000-07:00

FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT

FAA to Propose New Safety Rules for Life Link Helicopters

A rash of fatal medical helicopter crashes has killed 35 people in a two year period. The National Safety Transportation Board, which makes recommendations to the F.A.A., and air safety experts, has criticized the agency for not moving more quickly to improve medical helicopter safety.

The new rules will require medical helicopters Life Link Link that operates out of Flying Cloud Airport to use additional safety equipment, including collision avoidance systems.

The F.A.A. has taken the position in the past that helicopter operators could make safety changes quicker if they acted voluntarily. But, the F.A.A.’s director of flight standards, who testified at a Congressional hearing recently said that the agency, “while recognizing the industry’s voluntary actions, would soon begin a rulemaking proceeding to mandate the use of certain safety equipment and procedures.”
Air Methods Corporation/Life Link operates out of Eden Prairie. Air Methods Corporation has more than “800 medical helicopters that are currently estimated to be operating in this country, airlifting the sick and injured, often under emergency conditions,” according to the New York Times, April 22, 2009 article.

“In the last decade, the industry has doubled in size, and many of the aircraft are operated by for-profit companies. Safety experts contend that competition among companies for flights has added to the risks.

The industry includes publicly traded companies like the Air Methods Corporation and PHI Inc., as well as smaller privately held operators.
While the F.A.A. plans to begin the rulemaking procedure later this year or early next, the rules will first undergo a public comment period and may not take effect until 2011.

Among other measures, the F.A.A. proposal would include a requirement that medical helicopters have so-called terrain awareness and avoidance systems, which warn of nearby terrestrial obstacles.”

http://www.airmethods.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home

http://www.edenprairie.org/vCurrent/upload/contents/228/Revised%20Life%20Link%20III%20Helicopter%20Procedures.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/23copter.html

2009-04-23T00:20:00.000-07:00

TO: Legislators, Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC, Metropolitan Council and others.

DATE: April 21, 2009

RE:Reliever Airport Redesignations Based on Faulty Economic Premise

On April 7, 2009 residents met from several area organizations including Concerned Citizens of the North Metro (CCNM) and Zero Expansion of Eden Prairie. These groups have begun a collected effort to oppose the 6,000-foot MINOR II airport runways redesignation in law proposed by local aviation transportation planners. (Current law 5,000-foot MINOR airport runways: MS473.641 Subd. 4. Read more at www.ccnm6.com and www.ZeroExpansion.com )

There is strong community opposition to expansion at the reliever airports going back to the 1970's, but there has never been a comprehensive statewide plan that considered and carried out the utilization and promotion of small airports and regional airports around the state.

Thus our groups’ adage: "If there is such strong opposition to something, you need to propose an alternative."

Actually the economic impact premise is just a relocation of current businesses to other suburban areas – it’s just "robbing Peter to pay Paul". It is another faulty premise that one state/city needs to be pitted against the other (i.e. TIF) to "capture" economic growth when all growth benefits the collective body regardless of where it is located within the same state or region.

Study after study by the U of M, General Accounting Office (GAO), to name a few, have identified an underdeveloped regional airline network in Minnesota which has led to capacity issues at MSP. MnDOT recommended other regional airports to be developed so they could absorb additional demand for air service.

We believe there should be a statewide aviation planning group/committee/agency that plans for growth in the state's northwest area, its southern area and the area to the northeast. This is the only way capacity issues can be addressed at MSP in the future.

This means: Northwest ( St. Cloud ), south ( Rochester ) and the northeast ( Duluth ) - ALL of these "areas" could be considered to be the State’s/Regional INTERMEDIATE airports (with the length of runways 5,001 feet long or longer. St. Cloud has a 7,000-foot runway.). There is no need to have another intermediate airport in the Metro's seven-county area.

Currently the very small Twin City Metro Area under MAC's jurisdiction has ONE MAJOR airport, ONE INTERMEDIATE airport and FIVE MINOR airports. The metro area is saturated with options for aviation use. ALL of these SIX "reliever" airports are located within a radius of just about 10- to 15-miles from the Twin Cities' MSP MAJOR airport hub.

Just how saturated should the metro airspace be? SAFETY has to be the main concern and it is not safe to have so many airports within this small Metro area. The problem has been the aviation and transportation planners have concentrated only in the Metro area which consumes the lion’s share of the available aviation dollars. A good indicator of the problem is that 80% of St Cloud area’s commercial passengers drive to MSP because their local regional airport was not as well equipped and does not offer enough flights.

Airport security and safety are not just limited to aircraft activity at reliever airports; it also includes the security of the airport installation itself (information from Homeland Security). Unlike commercial airports many of the security measures at GA airports are voluntary, not mandatory.

If, as the Metropolitan Council and the Legislature say, they are planning for a statewide transportation plan to include a wide variety of multi-modal travel and a boost to economic development for "outstate" cities/towns, then upgrading these other intermediate airports (St. Cloud, Rochester, Duluth) should benefit outstate growth.

We need aviation to be a statewide discussion; not just a discussion for the Twin City Metro area!!!

If you want to hear more about this, please email Barbara Haake at ccnm@ccvnm6.com or Vicki Price at transportationtalk@yahoo.com and we can make an appointment to meet with you, answer questions and/or elaborate more on the issue.

Signed:

ZeroExpansion/Eden Prairie

Vicki Price

Mark Michelson, Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission Member

Eden Prairie:

Tom Heffelfinger, former U.S. Attorney for Minnesota

Nancy Tyra-Lukens, former Eden Prairie Mayor

Ron Case, Eden Prairie Councilmember

Jan Mosman, former Eden Prairie Councilmember

Concerned Citizens of the North Metro (CCNM):

Barbara Haake, Mounds View; member of Anoka County-Blaine Advisory Commission

Ron Holch, Lino Lakes

Barry Rice, Lino Lakes

Larry Hudy, Circle Pines

Scott Lipa, Blaine

Rhonda Sivarajah, Anoka County Commissioner

Joe Flaherty, Mayor of Mounds View

Email, Call, Write your legislators and elected local officials. Creating a Resolution against publicly is just upholding the Final Agreement. We need our representatives to make sure the law is NOT changed.

Your Neighbohood Zero Expansion Team

www.zeroexpansion.org

transportationtalk@yahoo.com

2009-04-23T00:08:00.000-07:00

New Moon Scape on Flying Cloud Property

All shrubs removed for new runway. According to MAC the ground will feature prairie plants and a few trees.

The MAC denies that the land was razed for Bird Strikes.

MAC’s NEW Dead Zone off Spring Road-

The west side of MAC’s property facing Spring Road has been razed. We surmise it’s a clearing attempt to eradicate plants which are a haven for wildlife. Trees, shrubs, and anything remotely resembling a natural covering is being removed. The slope is beginning to look like a moon surface.

The Spring Road route to 212 and Miller Spring are now a Dead Zone.

If you look at highways, roads, new transit stations, they are all landscaped beautifully to create sound and aesthetic barriers. Not so aviation. While most of these alternate modes of transport follow public input on aesthetics that can also serve in functional ways to alleviate noise and even pollution, and assist animals with crossings, aviation falls way short of any compatible standard for humans and or animals.

MAC has continuously compared the new 5,000ft runway to the 312.

No way. Thousands of people use the 312 daily. A handful of corporations and wealthy fliers will use the new runway.

In short, aviation is a form of transportation whose operations demand a high price from the environment and from the community. Though we realize that safety is a concern and bird strikes are a real danger to airports and their neighbors, we also feel that large jet operations have no place in the heart of a community and the MN River Valley Wildlife Refuge, which makes it an incompatible location.

Though MAC has told us more silent planes will reduce noise, that’s not so great, if in fact it's true, because it will make it that much more difficult to keep birds away. And the most important fact is that much larger jets will have access to the airport. The consequences are a heightened bird strike risk.

Questions to ask MAC include:

Do flight paths at particular airports cross with bird migratory paths?

Can improved technologies prevent birds from being sucked into engines?

Does the airport have a trained biologist present to help mitigate the problem?

Larry Hawkins of the US Department of Agriculture says, "Our prevention tactics include habitat modification, removal of wildlife, if necessary, and hazing." He says, “Hazing can involve everything from setting up brightly colored scarecrow-type balloons that frighten birds to audible scaring.”
The latter involves "setting off a device that's like a 4th of July screamer-type firecracker" whenever flocks of birds are spotted.

That wouldn't be great for the airport's neighbors to the immediate north and south.

IN THE FLIGHT PATH-

The “risk zone” for aircraft is during takeoffs and landings.
According to Bird Strike Committee USA, an organization that strives to reduce bird and other wildlife hazards to aircraft, three types of birds represent 75 per cent of all reported bird strikes. These are waterfowl (31 per cent), gulls (26 per cent) and raptors (18 per cent).

"Imagine driving your car and a bee hits your windshield. You may not even notice," Hawkins says. "If a pigeon collides with your windshield, you may suffer cracked glass. But if you hit a turkey, the entire front grill of your car could be destroyed."
Bird collisions with aircraft are similar, in that minor strikes occur on a regular basis. It is only when the strike affects passengers, or leads to costly damage, that such events come to light.
Smaller birds, such as starlings, can damage planes, especially if the aircraft collides with a flock.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/01/19/2469256.htm

2009-04-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

Six Gates Open at FBOs, Flying Cloud Airport on Saturday April 11, 2009 See Images Below...

The GA Industry

General Aviation encompasses all civil aviation, except military aviation and passenger and scheduled cargo service. Some basic statistics available regarding the industry:
• More than 19,000 landing facilities nationwide, including heliports, lakes, and dirt landing strips in remote wilderness areas as well as GA airports near urban settings that rival the size and scope of some air carrier airports.
• More than 200,000 GA aircraft in the U.S. are responsible for 75% of all air traffic.
• FAA certificated and non-certificated aircraft range from one-person ultralights and powered parachutes with extremely limited range and payload capabilities to helicopters, seaplanes, vintage, fabric-and-wood biplanes, experimental airplanes, four-seat single-engine airplanes, twin turboprops, and large and small business jets.
• GA accounts for over 1.3 million jobs, with nearly $20 billion in annual earnings. Its direct and indirect economic impact exceeds $102 billion annually.
• There are more than 630,000 certificated pilots in the U.S., most of whom conduct GA flight operations.
• GA transports approximately 145 million passengers annually in aircraft of all sizes for business and personal reasons.
• An estimated 58% of all GA flights are conducted for business and corporate travel.
• Commercial, non-scheduled flights (charters) are also a component of GA, with more than 22,000 pilots flying some 14,700 aircraft for this industry segment during 2001 alone.
• GA aircraft are used for a wide range of flight operations including personal/family transportation, training, MEDEVAC, transporting medical supplies, emergency services, rescue operations, wildlife surveys, traffic reporting, agricultural aviation, firefighting, and law enforcement.
(Sources: December 2003 FAA Administrator’s Fact Book; GA Serving America www.gaservingamerica.com; National Air Transportation Association)
Version 1.0

Considering the size of the industry, which surpasses commercial aviation, yet there are no mandatory restrictions related to security at these thousands of airports nation wide. They are all voluntary.

The reason is simple. Money.

The FAA is pursuing a highways in the sky program which would fly out of these same airports across the nation.
Does it make sense, when their facilities don't have to follow comprehensive security guidelines that are mandated?

Though locked gates are recommended, the FBOs at Flying Cloud Airport leave them unlocked all day long. If each FBO has surveillance equipment that monitors the gates it would be better. But, even that won't stop someone from getting through who isn't authorized. Because the monitors are probably checked by someone in the office, human error is a component. It is doubtful that they are hooked up the police. Are thy hooked up to alarms? It would be advisable, but we don't know if that's the case. Only automatic locked gates can accomplish a secure airport and eliminate personal error. Much has been said about too much security inhibiting business. But the same rationale that's applied to keeping them open is the same rationale for why monitoring them without locking them doesn't work. Because it won't keep the bad guys out. The only thing that will is locked access gates that require a keyed access and a human verification.

On Easter Sunday, there was open access at Modern Avionics and Executive Aviation.
There were no closed gated areas. All access points were wide open.

RECOMMENDED SECURITY ACTION ITEMS FOR FIXED BASE OPERATORS

This document contains recommended Security Action Items (SAIs) for Fixed Base Operators (FBO). The safe and secure operation of general aviation activities calls for the utmost vigilance by not only general aviation aircraft operators but also the FBOs providing aircraft support services. Because a significant number of airports are in close proximity to populated areas, security at these FBOs is of utmost importance.

Most of the measures recommended in these SAIs were included in Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Information Publication A-001, Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports, dated May 2004, which is available on the TSA website at: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/ga/editorial_1113.shtm. The SAIs listed in this document complement the guidance in the 2004 publication, but the recommended actions have been reorganized to make them more applicable to FBOs.

The TSA has confirmed the value of these recommended measures during discussions, outreach sessions and security reviews with partners representing FBOs. TSA is issuing these voluntary action items as measures that FBOs should consider when they develop, implement or revise security plans or in other efforts to enhance security.

These action items are intended to provide guidance to FBOs as they implement security measures best suited to their particular circumstances. Where any SAI appears to conflict with an existing law, regulation, rule, or TSA security program now in place, the provisions of the law, regulation, rule, or security program must be followed.

TSA recognizes that no one solution fits all locations and circumstances, and the suggested security measures may not be suitable for all FBOs, especially for smaller-sized entities. These security action items allow for flexibility of implementation based upon the existing security posture of a particular facility. Where applicable, the goal of the participating FBO operator should be the adoption of these action items to the fullest extent practicable. FBOs are encouraged to use the Airport Characteristics Measurement Tool found in Appendix A of TSA’s Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports, Information Publication A-001, May 2004, to assess characteristics that apply to their facility. The security action items are presented in six categories: 1) General Security Measures; 2) FBO Security Coordinator; 3) FBO Security Coordinator Training Outline; 4) Aircraft Security; 5) Transient Pilots; and 6) Reporting Suspicious Activity.

General Security Measures

A. Ramp Security Measures
FBO operators should consider the following security measures:


1. Secure or monitor access doors and gates from each FBO to the aircraft ramp. These entry points should be accessible only to FBO employees or other authorized individuals;

2.Prohibit taxicabs from entering the aircraft ramp under any circumstance. All passenger transport vehicles, such as limousines and rental cars, should
be properly identified and approved by the FBO before permitted onto the ramp;

3.Require authorized airport vehicles accessing the ramp to be driven by properly trained and credentialed individuals wearing a valid airport security badge that authorizes presence within that area of the airport.

4.Lighting and Cameras
FBO operators should consider installing outdoor security lighting and

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/ga_fbo.pdf

2009-04-11T14:08:00.000-07:00

ASI Jet Center
Flying Cloud Airport
Eden Prairie, MN
April 11, 2009
One Gate Open
Approx Time: 3:00PM

2009-04-11T14:06:00.000-07:00

Thunderbird Aviation
Flying Cloud AirportEden Prairie, MN
One Gate OpenApril 11, 2009
Approx Time: 3:00PM

2009-04-11T14:00:00.000-07:00

Executive Aviation
Flying Cloud Airport
Eden Prairie, MN
Two Open Gates
April 11, 2009
Approx 3:00PM

2009-04-11T13:57:00.000-07:00

Modern Aviaonics
Flying Cloud Airport, Eden Prairie, MN
Two Gates Open
Saturday April 11, 2009
Approx 3:00PM

2009-03-17T19:12:00.000-07:00

The Eden Prairie City Council voted to unanimously adopt a Resolution to oppose the Met Council's proposed plans to change the Reliever Minor designation from one of 5,000ft to a Minor I and Minor II designation of which Anoka and Flying Cloud would be designated as Minor II airports with up to 6,000ft runways.

2009-03-17T19:11:00.000-07:00

Video 2 Eden Prairie City Council Adopts Resolution to oppose change in reliever designation.

2009-03-17T19:07:00.000-07:00

Video 1 Eden Prairie City Council Approves Resolution to oppose change in reliever status-

2009-03-11T19:57:00.000-07:00

MAC proposal to reclassify metro airports sets off debate
By LAURIE BLAKE, Star Tribune
Last update: March 11, 2009 - 8:08 PM

This is an update March 17-09 the Headline was changed three times:
First it was MAC, than Met Council, and than Proposal to reclassify ..
Can you just imagine who contacted the Strib and requested the change?
You know the game "hot potato," where no one wants to get caught holding the potato?

Worried that a new Metropolitan Council classification for small reliever airports could open the door for further expansion at Flying Cloud Airport, Eden Prairie city officials are lining up against the change.
Currently, the Met Council defines all small metro-area airports in Flying Cloud's size range as "minor" airports. In the future it wants to use two classifications: Minor I for three airports with runways shorter than 4,500 feet and Minor II for two airports with runways longer than 4,500 feet.
Flying Cloud and Anoka-Blaine Airport in Blaine would fall into the Minor II category.
The Met Council insists that the new designation merely would reflect current activity at the airports and would not drive expansion. But Eden Prairie's City Council unanimously opposes the change and is expected to adopt a resolution to that effect Monday.
Mayor Phil Young said the city doesn't have reason to believe that "the mere change of that definition" would lead to a change at Flying Cloud, but "it is not in our best interest to have uncertainty in definitions and have people believe that the change in definition by the Met Council might lead to an argument down the road that the airport could be further expanded and the runways further lengthened."
Vicki Pellar Price, a representative of the Zero Expansion residents group which has fought expansion at Flying Cloud, is sounding the alarm over the proposed change. She said putting aside the "bureaucratic jabber" at the Met Council, the "role change and Minor II status they're contemplating for Anoka and Flying Cloud Airport will result in one thing -- runways over 5,000 feet."
Flying Cloud Airport is in the midst of a multimillion-dollar runway expansion that will extend its north parallel runway by 300 feet to 3,900 feet and its south parallel runway by 1,220 feet to 5,000 feet. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) expects the longer runways to attract more flights by larger planes to the airport, and Zero Expansion is concerned about an increase in airport noise.
Blaine and Anoka County officials are not tracking the change in definition, but Blaine has held a longstanding position on keeping its airport as a minor airport and opposing runway expansion beyond 5,000 feet, said City Manager Clark Arneson.
Extending minor airport runways beyond 5,000 feet would require a change in the state law. The law now prohibits minor airports from being upgraded to intermediate airports by capping minor airport runways at 5,000 feet, said Met Council senior planner Chauncey Case.
The area's only intermediate reliever airport, defined by a runway of at least 6,000 feet, is the St. Paul Downtown Airport, also known as Holman Field, Case said.
The proposed definition change has come up in a review that will lead to an update of the airport chapter of the Met Council's Transportation Policy Plan next year, or possibly later, said council spokeswoman Bonnie Kollodge.
The exact runaway lengths for any given airport are not determined by the council's system plan but by the long-term plan for each individual airport. Those plans are developed by the MAC, Kollodge said.
From the MAC's standpoint, "a change in the current categories is not necessary," said spokesman Patrick Hogan. "If we have a need to expand an airport beyond a minor use airport, there is already a process in place where we can seek approval from the Met Council and the state Legislature."
But, Hogan added, "At this time we don't have any intentions to expand any of our airports beyond the categories that they currently hold."

http://www.startribune.com/41123822.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBDia_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7DYaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUs

2009-03-08T05:07:00.000-07:00

"TOP 10 REASONS TO STOP EXPANSION AT FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT"

This blog report comes your way from Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, a growing western suburb of Minneapolis with 56,000 residents. The report challenges the claims contained in a recent letter to President Obama from Ed Bolen, President and CEO of the National Business Aviation Association. This is part one of our Report.

Who is NBAA?

The NBAA is a lobbying group made up of more than 8,000 international owners and manufacturers of business jets and light aircraft, air taxi, charter and pilot training services, suppliers and on-site aircraft maintenance services. The organization is pressing for longer runways at many small airports around the country as part of a plan by the FAA to expand small-jet service over the next 20 years.

Who is Zero Expansion?

Zero Expansion is a small but vocal group of residents that has been fighting a proposed 1,000-foot extension to one of Flying Cloud's three runways for more than 20 years. Flying Cloud is one of six "reliever" airports owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to redistribute the flow of small aircraft from the flow of the five hundred commercial jets using the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) daily.

The NBAA's Mr. Bolen is wrong to advocate expanded use of small airports for business jets, which need longer runways for safe operations. Here are 9 reasons why we urge fellow opponents to join us now to fight back.

Reason No. 1 -- Mr. Bolen is incorrect when he says that it’s the current economic crisis that has caused a downturn in business aviation. Flying Cloud, for one, has been operating in the red long before the current slump. The facility has experienced an annual decrease in operations over the past decade. That's due to three main factors: 1) the tripling of aviation fuel prices between 2005 and mid-2008, 2) the rising cost of maintaining and storing customer aircraft, and the newer risk of rising unemployment faced by many aviation hobbyists. Consequently, the numbers of private pilots who can afford to fly is shrinking.
Additionally, we all know that even multi-million-dollar corporate jets are under attack these days, especially those owned by banks bleeding "stimulus dollars." Even the wealthy few owning private jets were -- until lately -- gulping twice at the thought of spending $20,000 to fuel up for a three-hour flight. Did you know that an hour flying in a private jet burns as much fuel as driving your car for a year?

Reason No. 2 -- In his letter to President Obama, Bolen failed to point out that General Aviation is the most highly subsidized form of air travel. It has grown because the Federal Government has continued to infuse taxpayer dollars into a system used largely by private aircraft. To illustrate our point, an independent group called the Institute for Policy Analysis says the following:
"Corporate and private jets are exempt from the array of taxes levied on every commercial plane ticket. That includes the 7.5 percent federal ticket tax, the $3.40 segment fee, the $4.50 passenger facility charge, and the $2.50 TSA security fee charged the customer. For their part, corporate and private jets pay only a 21.9-cent-per-gallon fuel tax.
The result, says the FAA, is that commercial aviation foots 95 percent of the nation's aviation bill, even though it uses only 73 percent of the FAA’s services. Meanwhile, general aviation uses 16 percent of the services, but pays just three percent of the cost.

Reason No. 3 -- General aviation's safety record is known to be significantly worse than that of commercial airliners. Big airliners have a fatal crash rate of 0.34 incidents per million flight hours flown. That's approximately 50 times safer than General Aviation's crash frequency.

Reason No. 4 – There are 18,000 small airports around the country that create air and water pollution risks that are not regulated by the federal government. State pollution control agencies that measure such pollution at metropolitan airports do not do not measure particulate matter at small airports. After reviewing MAC's Environmental Impact Statement for the Flying Cloud expansion, the FAA determined that CO levels per the allowable100 tons per year based on the Proposed Action in the EIS would in fact exceed the allowable EPA limit for the year 2010.( FAA Record of Decision.)

Reason No. 5 --Business aviation supporters represent scant numbers when compared to the millions of Americans whose physical health and right to a peaceful quality of life may be threatened by local air operations. Yet, those most affected have no voice other than their federal and state legislators to counter the many lobbyists deployed by the business and recreational aviation industry. This is not an even exchange! There is virtually no national citizens' group, no community voice for our quality-of-life issues. The general aviation industry and its partner, the federal government, have done a terrible injustice to millions of us who’ve been left out of the conversation.

Reason No. 6 -- A runway extension process at a small airport can be started almost casually. In Eden Prairie, several local corporations decided to approach the FAA for service right in their own communities rather than 5 to 10 minutes from their homes or businesses. And sadly there has been no cost/benefit analysis conducted to determine why they couldn’t use the other existing 5,000-foot runways. No comparisons were done to justify MAC's $80-million investment over the past 20 years to support an estimated 20 -- that's right 20 -- business aircraft flights expected daily once the lengthened runway opens. Meanwhile, Flying Cloud's average daily traffic has fallen to 165 ops from 400 a decade ago.

Reason No. 7 -- General Aviation has for years decried mandatory restrictions, aircraft free zones and flight restrictions, claiming that such measures would raise their operating costs. Now they're actively bucking enhanced security measures recommended by the Transportation Security Administration to reduce threats near general aviation airports. In short, business aviation seems to want nearly free flight without any mandatory rules, while stricter guidelines remain on commercial aviation.

Reason No. 8--General aviation gains support from some agencies that use tax dollars to create public relations campaigns designed to dispel community dissent over airport expansions! This must be stopped.

Reason No. 9 --The NBAA fails to point out that the rise of fractional and time-share business jet operations contrived under FAA rules has resulted in fewer business trips booked on commercial flights. Business aviation receives federal subsidies and the FAA circumvents the rules of the game to allow these "rent-a-jets" at non-primary, non-commercial airports.

Reason No. 10 -- Overall, the Flying Cloud runway expansion project our community has been fighting is unnecessary for four reasons: 1) the availability of the three aforementioned alternative relievers near Eden Prairie; 2) the likely continuation of weak economic conditions 3) the deficiencies in the project approval process to date and 4)the lost opportunity for higher use of the land banked by MAC for two decades when some of it could have been generating additional residential and commercial property taxes. This is hugely wasteful spending and poor planning
that should not be allowed to continue.

In summary, Zero Expansion urges President Obama to do two things:

1) Cut general aviation pork and create an organization within the government that looks at general aviation finance and rulemaking with community quality-of-life in mind.

2) Freeze all small airport spending until such time as Congress can bring about more accountability from the General Aviation industry and the FAA.

If you are concerned about these issues, Zero Expansion invites your immediate support. To join the cause of Zero Expansion, please do one of the following four things:
a) Send a fax to President Obama at 202-456-2461
b) Place a phone call to The White House at 202-456-1111
c) Mail him a letter at:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Finally, forward a copy of your message to Zero Expansion at:
e-mail: transportationtalk@yahoo.com

DO IT TODAY!
_____________________________

2009-02-07T18:21:00.000-08:00

No Taxpayer Funds For An Industry that wants to undercut TSA security rules

Private pilots balk at idea of TSA oversight

Hearing shows outcry against extending security rules.
By Jim Tharpe

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, January 09, 2009

The federal agency that oversees airport security ran into withering opposition Thursday in Atlanta over a controversial proposal to extend to private aviation many of the screening and other rules that now apply to commercial airlines.

About 200 pilots, directors of corporate flight departments and aviation entrepreneurs from across the Southeast packed a conference room at the Renaissance Concourse Hotel to blast the proposal as not only counterproductive, but a threat to the very survival of business aviation.

“Does [the Transportation Security Administration] have their head in the sand?” asked Ray Boyd, who lives near Madison and owns a jet-leasing company in Athens. “The whole program needs to be scrapped. It’s obvious TSA does not understand general aviation.”

Boyd’s comment earned him a raucous standing ovation from others in the audience, filled mostly with critics of the proposed new rules. The rules would require things like fingerprint-background checks on pilots, restrictions on items that can be carried on private aircraft and checking passengers against terrorist watch lists.

The proposal would extend security rules to planes as small as most twin-engine aircraft commonly used by charter and air taxi services. The smallest private planes —- those under 12,500 pounds takeoff weight —- would not be affected.

The Atlanta hearing was the second of five around the nation to gather comments on the TSA’s proposal.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, TSA has increasingly tightened security at airports served by airlines. However, private aviation has been largely excluded from those rules, and some safety experts believe that omission creates a gaping opening for terrorists that must be plugged.

The aviators attending Thursday’s hearing did not buy that argument, saying the mandates would cost them money and do little to prevent a terrorist attack.

“The terrorists are not in the boardrooms or in our aircraft,” said Mark Chaney, director of aviation for Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated in Charlotte. “They will be where you are not looking.”

Many at Thursday’s hearing said any security crackdown should apply only to aircraft of more than 100,000 pounds, which would limit the impact to larger private jets.

Atlanta-based TSA spokesman Jon Allen said the proposed rule changes are just that —- a “proposal.” He said hearings will play an important role in a decision.

“It’s feedback that we value, and it will be considered as the rule-making process continues,” Allen said.

However, some at the hearing said they think the TSA has already made up its mind.

“I’m very concerned this will be crammed down our throats,” said Jared Boyd, a private pilot who lives in Buckhead.

Clif Port, chief pilot for McKee Foods Transportation in Chattanooga, said the TSA proposal would cost his company $100,000 a year.

“The imposition of this proposed regulation will, in fact, result in the terrorists’ objective of crippling our free society and profoundly altering our democratic way of life,” Port said.

Pat Epps, president of Epps Aviation at DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, told TSA officials that the provision requiring passengers to be checked against a list of terrorists makes no sense in the close-knit business aviation community.

“We know who our passengers are,” Epps are. “We’re not letting strangers on our airplanes.”

Said Epps of TSA’s 260-page proposal: “I think it’s a huge waste of time and effort. Your time could be better spent somewhere else.”

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2009/01/09/tsajets.html?cxntlid=inform_artr

2009-02-03T18:44:00.000-08:00

SUBJECT: PORK CHOP

The $82,900,000 expansion at the Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie is pure PORK and your action to stop it is needed.

PORK is a project that benefits a few at the expense of many taxpayers. 97% of the air traffic at the airport is recreational or flight training that does not need longer runways. Operations at the airport are down 50% from the 1994 level.

PORK is a project that does not provide a competitive rate of return on investment. This project actually will have a negative return on investment. A study finds that 1,421 people in Eden Prairie will be in an area that will be “incompatible” for living and a far greater number will have increased noise levels. This will cause property values to relatively decline by far more than any conceivable benefit by the expansion.

PORK is a project that does not have wide-spread public support. If this were a public referendum it would be rejected by 90% of the residents of Eden Prairie, based on discussions with my neighbors.

This Pork needs to CHOPPED out of the budget and it is your responsibility to do just that.

2009-01-31T09:42:00.000-08:00

Jim Oberstar appearing at Minnesota Capitol January 29,2009
Joint Hearing Transportation Committee
Oberstar talks about goals for the 111th Congress

Stimulus Package-

Invest in Nation's infrastructure
Vis a vis creating jobs
Reduce Congestion
Create more competitiveness
Improve daily lives
Security
Global climate change
Stewardship
Create jobs
Invest immediatly in shovel ready projects

(Aviation included- When responding to Rep Mike Beard, he said that 100% funding will be available for airports.)
When he responded to Zero Expansion's question about using discretionary funds for non-primary airports like Flying Cloud, he said there would be no General Aviation funding. That was definitely a contradictory response.)

Oberstar high on transit; said stimulus would create jobs with a trickle down effect: skilled workers, parts, products, shipping, etc.. He disagreed with Dick Day's sentiments that the stimulus would create jobs short range. Oberstar stated that there would be residual effects that would continue to stimulate the economy.

He also noted that it was user fees/taxes that helped build the nation's highway system.

He called for Amtrak funding, investment in high speed rail. He also mentioned that in Europe they have airlines that partner with train lines to co-share, provide the complete trip.

He said there should be commerce corridors specifically for trucks, for safety and for cost.

Livibility- land use and rural transportation

Transit- Increase Funding

NO EARMARKS- No state or legislative earmarks. Specific formula to allocation of funds that must be equitable.

He advised community representatives to work around Pawlenty's no-transit position by forming common groups to lobby and work on behalf of transit.

2009-01-21T12:46:00.000-08:00

COMMERCIAL VERSUS PRIVATE AVIATION
Which is safer?

"Photo courtesy http://philip.greenspun.com"

There are a lot of myths out there. Here are some answers from the FAA.

How dangerous is flying? There are 16 fatal accidents per million hours of general aviation. It is fairly safe to assume that when a plane crashes and someone dies, everyone on board dies. By contrast, the death rate for automobile driving is roughly 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles. Car crashes don't always kill everyone in the car so let's use this statistic as provided, which is for an individual traveling in a car rather than for the entire car. So considering that the average airplane accomplishes a groundspeed of at least 100 miles per hour, those million hours of flight push the occupants of the plane over more than 100 million miles of terrain. Comparing 16 fatal accidents to the 1.7 rate for driving, we find that flying is no more than 10 times as dangerous per mile of travel. And since most accidents happen on takeoff or landing, a modern fast light airplane traveling a longish distance might be comparable in safety to a car.

We can also look at safety per hour. This makes sense for recreational pilots who have the alternative of spending a few hours flying around or spending those hours taking a scenic drive. If the average speed of car travel is 50 miles per hour, those 1.7 deaths occur in 2 million hours of driving. This makes general aviation, with 16 deaths per 1 million hours, roughly 20 times as dangerous per hour than driving.

Risk management is much easier with airplanes than with cars. In a car, you are constantly at the mercy of other drivers. If an 18-wheeler crosses the yellow line, you're toast. Except in the immediate vicinity of a busy airport, traffic is seldom an issue for pilots. If you die it is because something went wrong with your plane or because you flew it into the ground by mistake.

If you don't want to die like JFK, Jr., who became disoriented on a dark and hazy night over water, don't fly at night or don't fly at night unless you're absolutely sure that it will be clear with a bright moon. If you don't want to die when a 25-year-old part fails in mid-air, get a new airplane.

If you're really really scared, try flying commercial. Big airliners have a fatal crash rate of 0.34 per million flight hours, approximately 50 times safer than general aviation. Try to avoid that final commuter hop, though. Those smaller turboprops crash 10 times as frequently per hour of operation, making them only 5 times as safe as general aviation.

Source:

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/

2009-01-08T14:36:00.000-08:00

What Can You Afford: A Charter or a commercial business flight if your are traveling alone, for business or for pleasure?

PREMIUM JETS
STANDARD JETS

One-Way Round Trip One-Way Round Trip
LIGHT JET: $3,800 $2,400 $3,400 $2,000
MEDIUM JET: $5,900 $3,800 $5,100 $3,100
HEAVY JET: $8,000 $5,300 $6,800 $4,500
U.S. Hourly Rates Effective 5/1/07

The Tables Shown provides an estimated base price per hour on selected available aircraft.

Aircraft Seats Hourly Rate Daily Minimum
Gulfstream IV 13 $5,500 3 hrs
Gulfstream III 9/13 $4,500 2.5 hrs
Challenger 601 10 $4,300 2.5 hrs
Citation III 7 $2,800 2 hrs

http://www.celebrityjet.com/hourly.asp

$1,065.20 Round Trip Regular Air Fare from MSP to DTW, one person-
Approx Flying Time 2 hrs

So, if you are flying as a business group, the fare is about $400 per person if you are flying in a Citation III. But that's $400 times around 7 seats, which is $2800.00
So, if you are a family of 7 you'd have to pay $2800.00 to charter a flight for 2 hours. Commercially that would cost you $7,000.00. So, why aren't more people flying privately? They aren't and it's a good question to ask. Though General Aviation would like them to, Commercial Airlines obviously wouldn't.

But, if you are going to a major hub city, and flying into a small airport, you'd have to travel farther by land to reach your destination.

If you are landing at a major hub, landing fees are higher. Would that affect the costs?

The question is how many families would hire a charter in contrast to how many businesses would hire a charter for a business meeting?

There has been no neutral analysis on whether average income families would switch from commercial airlines to private.

Could safety be the reason why?

Read the article above on safety.

2009-01-08T08:00:00.000-08:00

Air Security Could Involve Private Jets

By CHRISTINE NEGRONI

Published: January 5, 2009

One of the biggest convenience’s of private aviation is the speed with which passengers can get on the plane and off the ground. But that may be about to change. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing to extend to private aviation many of the security rules imposed on commercial airlines. Those include requiring fingerprint-based background checks on pilots, checking passenger names against a government watch list and restricting what items may be carried onto the airplane.

The proposal could affect 10,000 previously exempt air operators, including not only wealthy businessmen like Microsoft’s co-founder, Paul Allen, who owns a Boeing 757, but also fractional jet ownership companies and even some recreational fliers.

The proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the Transportation Safety Administration to include private jets has angered many. Organizations representing private airplane owners have complained so vigorously that the Transportation Department has extended the comment period for the proposal and scheduled a series of public meetings. The first will be held Tuesday at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, one of the nation’s busiest for private and corporate aviation.

“Businesses have airplanes in order to transport what they produce, sometimes because it’s too difficult or impossible to carry onto an airliner,” said Ed Bolen, president of the 8,000-member National Business Aviation Association. “Tool companies that can’t take their own products, sporting goods companies that can’t take their own products on to their own airplanes, that doesn’t make sense.”

Even airplanes the size of commercial airliners, if operated privately, are currently exempt from the 9/11 security measures. It is this inconsistency that prompted the proposed regulation.

In its notice, published in the Federal Register last October, the Transportation Security Administration suggests that the improvements in safeguarding public air carriers have shown the weaknesses in private operations. “Terrorists may view general aviation aircraft as more vulnerable and thus attractive targets.”

In an interview, Christopher White, a spokesman for the security agency, said: “What we’re looking to do is address risk based on size and weight. Whether it’s public or private doesn’t matter. It’s based on the weight of the plane.”

The proposal would affect owners of any airplane weighing more than 12,500 pounds — considered “large” by federal standards. For the most part, these are jet aircraft. But even a Beechcraft King Air 350, a twin-engine turboprop that seats 11, would be included.

The idea that large planes are flown for the most part by large companies that can afford to hire a security chief, pay to check passengers against the watch list and security auditing is a misconception, according to the business aviation association.

Eighty-five percent of its members are small to midsize businesses, the association says, and many of the planes they fly are small enough to fit, nose to tail, across the width of a Boeing 747.

“The size of the aircraft they have picked is very, very small,” Mr. Bolen said. “To suggest that an airplane weighing 12,500 pounds is similar to a commercial transport airplane doesn’t hold water.”

On Tuesday, more than a hundred aircraft owners are expected to argue that the proposed rule will have a major impact on general aviation. For the smaller operators, in particular, they say, the requirements may be too onerous.

“We want the feedback from the community. We need their input to be able to make sure it works for everyone,” said Michal Morgan, general manager of business operations for the T.S.A. Final action on the proposal is not expected before late spring.

The Westchester meeting is the first of five scheduled nationwide, a response to the request from the general aviation industry and a letter to the Department of Homeland Security from Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican who is a private pilot.

“My focus is rare antique airplanes and rare vintage warbirds,” Mr. Graves said. “Some of these not-for-profits, they give rides to help support the upkeep and maintenance of the airplane, and this will place an undue burden on them.”

Private jet owners are also angry that the security agency is proposing to hand security functions over to private companies, notable since the T.S.A. was created after 9/11 in part because of concerns that private companies had failed to adequately screen passengers at commercial airports.

In seeking to significantly expand the number of airplane operators subject to security, the T.S.A. would depend on private firms that it would certify.

“They’re expanding their regulatory scope so dramatically and outsourcing regulatory oversight,” said Andy Cebula, executive vice president for government affairs at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. “That’s like the most basic responsibility of government to go out and enforce its regulations.”

Hiring security experts to conduct audits on so many private airplane operations is expected to be the most expensive part of the regulation. Airplane operators would pay about 83 percent of the total costs, estimated at $196 million annually. The T.S.A. calculates that would represent about $44 a flight.

The price is certain to be a large part of the debate at the public meetings, with proponents of general aviation arguing that the T.S.A. is trying to fix something that is not broken and the government arguing that reducing the risk of using airplanes as terror weapons is worth the increased supervision.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 6, 2009, on page B1 of the New York edition, NYTimes.

2009-01-08T07:58:00.000-08:00

Gulfstreams on the cheap

Tuesday January 6th 2009

IF YOU want to buy a second-hand corporate jet, you could be spoiled for choice at present. The Guardian reports on a glut in the market, with a used Gulfstream G550 (pictured), which would have cost around $58m six months ago, now selling for a mere $50m-55m.

It seems that executives are deciding either that they can no longer afford the planes’ expense, or that their decadent associations are unsuitable in a depressed financial environment. The heads of Detroit’s Big Three carmakers discovered the truth of the second observation when they were excoriated for going to Washington for November's bail-out hearings in their own planes. Both General Motors and Ford subsequently closed down their flight operations, shortly before the government announced that the companies would be required to divest their planes as part of the bail-out package.

The difference from the heady days of March 2008, when Gulfstream showed off the designs for its new top-of-the-range G650 is immense. Now, in the words of Richard Santulli, the chief executive of Netjets, which arranges part ownership of private craft, “The jet market stinks”.

The industry is frustrated at what it sees as a misrepresentation of its operations. Ed Bolen, the president of the National Business Aviation Association, which represents the business-jet industry. told his members that the media had taken “a sensationalist view of not only the use of business aircraft by the Big 3, but the utilization of business aviation for any company, anywhere”.

Gulliver happens to agree with Mr Bolen. There is clearly a sound business case to be made for the use of corporate aircraft. Unfortunately for Mr Bolen, this argument—that it is actually a waste of money for the highest-paid execs to sit around at commercial airports, catch connecting flights, etc—does not go down well at a time when the biggest salaries are coming under ever closer examination, and unemployment is rising.

Expect that Gulfstream to be even cheaper in six months' time.

Source: The Economist

2008-12-31T18:12:00.000-08:00

Cessna CJI

Usual Forward Leaning Projections Don’t Fly

Evidently Tim Ashenfelter of ASI Jet Center thinks Eden Prairie residents are pretty uninformed. Tim wrote that “he’s experiencing a surge in the need for services” at his Fixed Based Operation at Flying Cloud Airport, Eden Prairie News, December 31, 2008.

Tim’s take flies in the face of news that the entire industry is experiencing a severe downturn, not a surge.

Richard Santulli, the chief executive of Netjets, the private jet company owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company led by Warren E. Buffett says the “The jet market stinks.”

And Santulli ought to know.

To control costs, companies including Citigroup and Time Warner are selling their jets. Alcatel-Lucent has allowed leases on two jets to expire without renewing them and has put its third jet up for sale.

According to the New York Times, “jet brokers, who normally have a worldwide clientele, say the market has constricted abroad in recent months as well.

“Our inventory is up dramatically, and demand is way down,” said Josh Messinger, of J. Messinger Corporate Jet Sales, a jet broker.

The NYTimes reported that “Congress stripped away the deductibility of personal travel for executives in 2004 by allowing companies to deduct from taxes only the rough amount of a first-class ticket, far less than private jet travel costs.

Corporate chiefs concerned about public scrutiny are more inclined to look for alternatives than to return to the airlines. Some are examining whether they should take delivery of planes already ordered. One company had been looking to upgrade its two planes. “Now they are weighing whether or not to buy new planes or keep what they have,” Mr. Quinn said.

Some are downsizing. “Some of these guys just move the deck chairs around,” he said. “They get rid of the big planes and go to fractional ownership, or they go to charter, or they come back into the marketplace with a leased plane,” he said.

But every part of the private jet industry has been affected. Netjets lets people buy a fractional ownership in planes, and it sells Marquis jet cards that give customers access to the fleet in 25-hour increments. Those businesses, too, are seeing a slowdown.

“People have lost a lot of money, and are careful about how they spend it,” Mr. Santulli said.

“I have never seen it like this,” said Mike Silvestri, the chief executive of Flight Options, which sells shares in jets as well as plans that cover a fixed number of hours a year of private jet use. “Customers are just not flying as much.” Some customers are stretching out the hours bought for a single year over a longer period.

Flight Options has laid off 134 people, including 104 pilots, and hopes it will be able to bring them back.

Mr. Santulli said that the jet market usually picks up three months after the stock market has reached a bottom. There is no indication of an uptick yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/25jets.html?em

Business Travel online reported in October of 2008 that “despite the lift commercial capacity cuts can give private aviation, and that must be what Ashenfelter is talking about, in October of 2008 Honeywell said "taxes, user fees, noise regulations and ease-of-use issues such as temporary flight restrictions in the United States" continue to pose concerns on flight usage among corporate flight departments. Still, Honeywell said companies continue to expand their fleets. The forecast reports shows this year has set a "record delivery pace" for business jets, representing the fifth consecutive year of expansion "since the last industry slowdown in 2003."

But, while the business aviation market continued to set records in aircraft deliveries in 2008 and is on target to surpass them again in 2009, the industry forecast released points to some weakening in demand among corporate flight department deployments of private aircraft.

http://www.btnonline.com/businesstravelnews/headlines/frontpage_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875465

So what you have from ASI's Ashefelter is information based on forward leaning aviation projections from one corporate subsidiary to the more objective reporting from at least three different jet brokers. Also an article in the Alliance for Aviation Across American gives even more contradicting evidence that Tim Ashenfelter is selling rather than telling.

In October this year, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that "with a weakening economy and aviation gasoline at $5.49 a gallon, Paul DeSanctis is selling his Piper Seneca twin-engine airplane.

"It's very expensive to maintain and operate," said the technology manager at Commerce Bank in Mount Laurel. "With all the uncertainty in the economy, it's maybe not the best time to have a toy. Obviously, an airplane is not a necessity."

Airport officials here and across the country are seeing a decline in corporate and private flight activity: More airplanes are parked on tarmacs. The inventory of used jets for sale is at its highest level since 2003. Fewer students are enrolling in flight schools.

And demand is down in the last 30 to 60 days for charter flights, said Herb Hortman, owner of family-run Hortman Aviation Services Inc. at Northeast Philadelphia Airport.

"People can only pump $60 or $80 in their car fuel tank so many times - that money has to come from somewhere," Hortman said.

The National Business Aviation Association, representing companies that use business aircraft, has seen "a slowdown in virtually every measure of business-aviation operations," said Ed Bolen, president of the Washington-based trade group. "We're seeing from a 5 percent to 18 percent change vs. the same time last year."

Corporations are flying their business jets less frequently, or are consolidating executives' trips to cut costs.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., based in New Jersey, confirmed last month that it was shutting its aviation operation at Trenton-Mercer Airport, selling four aircraft and dismissing about 32 pilots, mechanics, and other aviation personnel. "It is part of our continuous improvement efforts to reduce corporate overhead," pharmaceutical company spokeswoman Sonia Choi said.

The business-jet market in the United States is also showing signs of peaking, although the backlog of orders remains strong, and deliveries next year will be at record levels, according to a Wall Street report.

UBS Securities L.L.C. analysts David Strauss and Cristina Fernandez said in the report that business-jet flight activity - takeoffs and landings - was down 18 percent in August from the same time a year earlier. That included declines at the three busiest corporate aircraft airports: Teterboro, N.J.; White Plains, N.Y.; and Washington-Dulles, Va.

The analysts said business jets manufactured by Dassault Aviation had the largest decline, 12 percent, in takeoffs and landings in the first eight months through August, with Bombardier Aerospace down 11 percent; Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 9 percent; Cessna Aircraft Co., 6 percent; and Gulfstream International Group Inc., 3 percent.

"Demand for business jets is largely a function of corporate profits," Joseph Nadol, JPMorgan Chase & Co. aerospace and defense analyst, noted in a recent report. With U.S. corporate profit growth likely to decline this year, a slowdown in business-jet deliveries could occur by 2010 and a production decline is likely in 2011, he wrote.

But strong business-jet orders in other markets, such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America, should help mute the downturn, Nadol said.

The U.S. market is "still growing, but slowing down," said Roger Whyte, Cessna senior executive vice president. "The real growth is in other places. We are seeing a bigger percentage of international sales."

While orders for new aircraft are lower this year than last, the Wichita, Kan., manufacturer of general aviation aircraft still has a $16 billion backlog of orders.

Danielle Boudreau, spokeswoman for Bombardier Business Aircraft, which makes the Learjet and longer-range Global Express private jet, said there was a "softening" of the U.S. market, but stopped short of calling it a slowdown.

John Butterworth, general manager at Atlantic Aviation at Philadelphia International Airport, has seen "a dramatic downturn in business. We're probably 30 percent off our business, year over year. Fuel sales are a good reflection of how the business is going. The fuel sales are way down."

Butterworth said that based on conversations with pilots and salespeople, "there is a glut of used aircraft on the market for sale."

Back to Eden Prairie's ASI Jet Center, we realize Tim is just trying to stay in business and is at best a salesman, but even wealthy Eden Prairie residents who could afford to charter or purchase aren’t buying at all, and certainly not at
regular prices.

The reality is the economy is grounding many of Flying Cloud’s users. According to one airport manager in Philadelphia “people are not interested in buying airplanes right now. "Everybody is scared. I'm seeing fuel sales down, maintenance is down, flying is down."

http://www.aviationacrossamerica.org/pubs/Economy_grounding_.cfm

But, you’re not going to hear what is a national fact from MAC or any of Flying Cloud staff, it users or anyone directly associated with the airport.

It's always a PR heyday in Eden Prairie. Numbers of operations have steadily decreased each decade, though noise disturbances continue to increase; how do you do that? While the industry is suffering from a severe economic downturn, fees, and restrictions are on the horizon, and MAC turns a blind eye....

2008-12-03T17:15:00.000-08:00

Response to Scott Neal’s Commentary: “Responds to questions about airport decision,” Eden Prairie News October 30, 2008

In his October 30th Commentary, Scott Neal crossed over the line, placing himself into the political realm with inflammatory accusations totally inappropriate for a city manager.

Neal knows, on the basis of Ron Case’s victory November 4, that three quarters of Eden Prairie’s residents supported Case because of his airport position. That includes residents who are Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Neal’s insinuation that residents who ran the ad were trying to smear Mr Aho with partisan smears is just blatantly false.

The arm twisting, who to defend? Neal isn’t just defending Brad Aho, one of his biggest supporters of the now infamous letter to our Federal Legislators delivered in March of 2007 on behalf of federal funding for the airport expansion, he is also defending himself.

1. First he wrote the letter, which was obviously with the approval of Young, though he continues to deny it, using the word expansion and then Neal retracted it and sent another letter using the word, improvements. Regardless of which word Scott Neal used, the letter’s intent was lobbying for federal funding for the expansion, the expansion we fought for 30+ years and spent $700,000.00 to obtain some restrictions and give the city a legal document to defend against further expansions.

2. The ad provided factual evidence of a “change in direction” by the city, a change that Brad Aho has continually defended. While Sherry Butcher and Kathy Nelson thought it was a serious enough issue that needed a Resolution of Neutrality to assure residents that the council would remain neutral, Brad Aho, Phil Young and Jon Duckstad did not support the Resolution of Neutrality, but only confirmed that Scott Neal’s original letter, before he wrote a retraction letter, was acceptable.

March 29, 2007 EPN, Aho said he didn’t have a problem with the letter that was sent to legislators, "I don’t see that the council or the city has preformed or done anything that would be contrary to the agreement that we have and that should be viewed as negative by the citizens, either people that are for or against the airport. It’s not something that needs retraction," he said.

3.The ad placed by Concerned Citizens couldn’t have been more straight forward and factual: it revealed the words of a council member, Brad Aho, who resisted any action to support a retraction of Neal’s initial letter asking for federal funding, who also didn’t support Sherry Butcher’s Resolution to maintain a neutral position towards the airport expansion.

4. The ad contained emails between Neal and Tim Anderson of MAC which not taken out of order or out of context. The only thing the public didn’t get to see because of space and expense was the sequence of events that took place around those two emails.

5. Neal stated in his response that “Brad Aho was a leader in responding to the resident’s concerns.“ That’s not at all what the record shows. Butcher and Nelson were leaders, because they were the only council members who recognized that the public’s view of Neal’s letters to Federal Legislators and the Legislative Airport Agenda, which was never publicly aired or even discussed by the council prior to the Agenda’s approval in February of 2007, and passed in a whole-sale vote with packets of other materials which were given nothing more than an Aye; the letter’s eventual trip to D.C. only became publicly known days before it left Minnesota.

6. Residents never knew an Airport Legislative Agenda or a letter lobbying Federal Legislators existed until March of 2007.

7. The emails between Tim Anderson and Scott Neal, which were obtained several weeks before the ad that came out on October 23, showed that it took more than an agreement to get the FAA to fund the 5,000ft runway. It took city support because, as was stated at the March 6, 2007 Eden Prairie Chamber meeting, “it was not easy to get funds from Washington D.C. “ The two emails from February and March reveal a significant change from one of neutrality to one of support for lobbying for funds for the expansion.

Was this a big change from Neal’s previous attitude about the expansion? You bet. In 2004 Scott Neal said on his blog:

“The airline industry is not flush right now, so all this discussion of expansion may just be for naught."

Scott Neal, 2004

What do all the emails, recovered through a Data Practices Request to the city in September show?

• The city went beyond what the Final Agreement mandated of them and advocated on behalf of MAC.

• They went beyond what was stipulated in the Final Agreement and actively lobbied for Federal Funds on behalf of MAC, not for “aesthetic improvements, or security, or environmental protection,” but for the funds necessary to expand the 5,000ft runway and build new hangars. (Note: the existing hangars are owned by individuals, not MAC. They have to paint or refurbish them with their own funds.)

• There was something mentioned by MAC’s Tim Anderson of sewer and water, but MAC ultimately paid for that by them selves.

• The Chamber played a significant role in helping MAC and the city meet. The Chamber has always been pro-expansion and fought against the city’s efforts to resist the expansion, supporting MAC’s plans instead of bolstering the city.

• In January of 2007 Scott Neal sent Anderson an email asking what he could possibly ask of National Legislators concerning improvements at Flying Cloud.

http://www.zeroexpansion.org/images/Page2CityEmails07.jpg

• There was no mention in these emails by either Neal or Anderson of “security, aesthetics or environmental protection” other than a reference to sewer and water funding, which was already allocated from MAC’s own CIP, Capital Improvement Funds or annual Federal allotment of $150,000.00 for GA airport infrastructure.

• In Anderson’s email Feb 1st to Scott he asked Neal if the city would tell Ramstad and senators that the city “supports the expansion and say the city was now okay with it.” Neal responded to that Feb email on March 7th, the day after the Eden Prairie Chamber meeting saying “this is the message that we’ll communicate to Jim Ramstad.”

www.zeroexpansion.org

Note that there is nothing in the emails or in the discussion at the Chamber meeting which stated that the funding MAC was seeking was for anything other than the 5,000ft runway and new hangars.

What’s not in the emails is a clear explanation of what funding was missing in order to complete the project at that date March 7, 2007:

A. Water and Sewer and Shorter Runway extension were allocated before the March 6, 2007 Chamber Meeting. (EP Chamber Meeting Minutes, March 6, 2008)
B. At the Chamber meeting on March 6, 2007 what was discussed was the $22M they didn't have. (EP Chamber Meeting Minutes, March 6, 2008)
C. They didn't have money for the longer runway or the hangars. That constituted the $22M. (EP Chamber Meeting Minutes, March 6, 2008)

8. Historically Aho has been quoted more than any other council member with the exception of Phil Young in support of Neal’s original letter requesting federal funding for the expansion. Aho’s contention is that the council is doing nothing more than supporting the Final Agreement. NO. The council went beyond upholding the Final Agreement and actively lobbied for Federal Funds on behalf of MAC.

Zero Expansion has never questioned the city or Council’s support of the Final Agreement. What they’ve questioned is the city under the leadership of new council majority, which includes Aho, for going beyond the Agreement and advocating on behalf of MAC for federal funding, not for “security, or aesthetic improvements or environmental protection,” but for funding for infrastructure and extending the 5,000 ft runway.

The simple fact is Aho is part of a “change in direction” by the current city council.

Since when did the Final Agreement state that the city of Eden Prairie, as part of the Final Agreement, was bound to seek Federal Money to promote any part of the expansion of the airport?

Neal should have recused himself from any comment since he is complicit. Neal was aware that Zero Expansion served the city with Data Practices requests. He should not have written a commentary in defense of a council member who was one of his biggest defenders, other than Phil Young. It indicates an ethical problem that has existed since the city decided to take a new supportive role in lobbying for Federal Funds on behalf of MAC.

Timeline-

January 2007- Airport Legislative Agenda created by City without any public disclosure.

January 29, 2007- Emails back and forth between Neal and Anderson about what to talk about to legislators in D.C. about Flying Cloud Airport.

February 2007- Tim Anderson sends email to Scott Neal asking if the city would let our National Legislators know that the city is OK with the expansion and supports federal funding for the project.

February 2007- Council Members voted on large packet which included the Legislative Airport agenda without any discussion or disclosure to the public.

March 6, 2007- Chamber has a meeting about funding of Flying Cloud Airport where MAC, city staff, Mayor Young attend. The minutes reveal that all the funding for the project is allocated except for the 5,000ft runway and the new hangars.

March 7, 2007- Neal replies to Tim Anderson’s email from Feb which asks the city to tell national legislators including Jim Ramstad that the city now supports the expansion and federal funding for it. Neal states that’s what he will tell Jim.

March 11th 2007- Neal presents the letter requesting funding for the expansion to our National Legislators.

March 2007- Eden Prairie Residents confront the city on what they deemed an action that “changed the direction” from one of neutrality to one of support for the project that included lobbying for Federal money for the expansion.

May 2007- Both Scott Neal and Phil Young write commentaries in the EPN denying any role in getting funding for the project (expansion), but only for improvements.

May 15, 2007- Zero Expansion proposes a Resolution of Neutrality to the city. City won't adopt it and won't allow Zero Expansion to participate in workshop discussion.
http://zeroexpansion.com/open_letter_to_community.html

June 2007- Sherry Butcher’s Resolution was defeated by Young and Aho at the council workshop. She later brought it up as a motion, which did not carry the same weight, in council chambers; the motion was approved.

2008-07-14T19:23:00.000-07:00

Why Zero Expansion is not making a presentation Tues night. A response to the Mayor.

We think the video is an integral part of the presentation. This issue deserves whatever council function would allow video and a discussion of why the voluntary curfew isn't working. We know that letters are not being sent out to every violator and as long as there are no consequences for violating the noise curfew, voluntary or not, it isn't working now and can't work in the future. MAC can measure till forever, inaccurately or accurately, and as long as there are no penalties, there will continue to be violations.

The city didn't spend a million bucks to get nothing and nothing is what we have. Without a stronger position from the city on the side of residents, the money spent was a waste.Now instead of having a city that was always willing to go to bat for residents concerning ALL their interests, we have a city who has aligned themselves with special interests, e.g. Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, airport businesses and users, corporations who use FCM as their neighborhood jet stop, NOT RESIDENTS.

What transpired is the city (Lorene McWaters) told us from the first phone conversation that we couldn't use the video because others were using the IT/presentation equipment and it might mess up the system. It would seem that the City of Eden Prairie should have a system that is workable for any and all, providing ample time is given. We contacted the city the first week in July. We were then told by Lorene that Scott would call directly. He said on the phone that video wouldn't give enough time for others to speak and that the system wasn't able to accommodate us. He said he would provide the URLs to the council; I said I would bring my own lap top, which could have played the video without the use of the system. He said no. So, which is it: the system couldn't handle another IT/program presentation, or the city doesn't allow them, or the city clearly doesn't want them, in our case? In his email Scott conveyed they don't allow videos at Open Podium, period. Than why did the city go to all the trouble of telling us the system couldn't be set up for it, that there wouldn't be enough time for others? Shades of the Washington D.C. fiasco: say and do one thing, than change the story you tell residents.

This problem is not going to go away until the city and MAC start taking residents as seriously as they take special interest groups.

The July 1st videos are up at YOUTUBE and at www.zeroexpansion.org.

Now it's time to take part in the summer YOUTUBE Airport Walk and send in your early AM videos to the city, post them on YOUTUBE yourself.

NO RESULTS WITHOUT ACTIONS!

Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team
Our commitment is to community and quality-of-life... www.zeroexpansion.orgtransportationtalk@yahoo.com

2008-07-14T14:16:00.000-07:00

MAC CANCELS NOISE MONITOR PROGRAMMING WITH LOCHARD

July -08- As of January 2008 MAC cancelled their noise monitoring contract with Lochard, a national company with over 150 airport clients. A Lochard representative told Zero Expansion that MAC has created their own in house software program to save money.

http://www.lochard.com/

Noise Related Links:

Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) Technology Transfer Program: http://www.its.berkeley.edu/techtransfer/

Noise Pollution Clearinghouse: http://www.nonoise.org

Transportation Research Board: http://www.trb.org

Boeing's Airport Noise Regulation Information: http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/noise/airports.html

The Aviation Home Page: http://www.avhome.com

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM): http://www.astm.org

Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA (INCE): http://www.ince.org

Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise and Aviation Emissions Mitigation: http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/partner/index.html

Acoustical Society of America: http://asa.aip.org/

Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise (FICAN): http://www.fican.org

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): http://www.icao.int

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): http://www.faa.gov

2008-07-01T05:17:00.000-07:00

What's in a Voluntary Curfew?

The Voluntary Curfew at Flying Cloud Airport that was agreed upon and is in the Final Agreement is from 10PM to 7AM.

We know on a frequent basis this curfew is broken. An example is the video taken on

July 1st, Tuesday at approx 5:49AM, 6:00AM, 6:04AM and 6:11AM showing 4 airplanes

taking off within minutes of each other.

This is a common daily occurence; other neighbors have taken video of take-offs during the voluntary curfew.

The public has the onus of reporting violations to the curfew, which according to the Final Agreement includes especially sensitive hours for operations between 6:00AM and 7:00AM.

This time limitation is being violated on a daily basis.

Why aren't the city of Eden Prairie and our council members doing anything about it? The city must hold MAC accountable to the agreement?

Why aren't they?

Final Agreement States:

3.5 Voluntary Restraint on Nighttime Aircraft Operations and Recommended
Procedures for Early Morning Departures. MAC shall implement a program
of voluntary restraints on Nighttime Aircraft Operations, except operations
between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. conducted to meet Nighttime Currency
Requirements. Within six months of the effective date of this Agreement, MAC
shall identify and evaluate specific operational procedures that would limit the
noise impact of aircraft operations between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., which
procedures could include, but are not limited to, dispersion of aircraft departures,
defined flight routes, or noise abatement departure procedures. Upon completion
of this evaluation, MAC shall adopt those operational procedures that are
mutually acceptable to MAC and Eden Prairie.

http://www.edenprairie.org/vCurrent/upload/contents/228/Final%20Agreement%20between%20City%20and%20MAC.pdf

MAC's Noise Curfew: Per the Operational Implementation Plan, MAC has implemented a voluntary restriction on operations during the quiet hours, 2200 to 0700 local time.

http://www.macavsat.org/fcmprocedures

The period of 2200 hours to 0700 hours is when most people are resting and are most sensitive to noise intrusions. To help mitigate the effect of airport operations on the surrounding community, the following nighttime restrictions are in effect.

*A. Per the Operational Implementation Plan, MAC has implemented a voluntary restriction on operations during the quiet hours, 2200 to 0700 local time.

1. Operations during the quiet hours are acceptable if they are conducted for the purposes of meeting nighttime flight currency requirements, pre-approved by the airport manager, or is a medical or public safety emergency.
B. No training may be conducted in the traffic pattern between the hours of 2400 local and 0700 local.

C. Intersection takeoffs at the airport are discouraged at all times. There may be no intersection takeoffs between the hours of 2200 local and 0700 local.

D. Any aircraft not meeting Federal Air Regulation Part 36 is prohibited between the hours of 2200 local and 0700 local.

2008-07-01T05:11:00.000-07:00

Flying Cloud Airport Voluntary Curfew 10PM to 7AM
Approx Time of Take-off: 6:11AM
Date: July 1, 2008

2008-07-01T05:04:00.000-07:00

Flying Cloud Airport Voluntary Curfew 10PM to 7AM
Approx Time of Take-off: 6:04AM
Date: July 1, 2008

2008-07-01T04:57:00.000-07:00

Flying Cloud Airport Voluntary Curfew 10PM to 7AM
Approx Time of Take-off: 6:00AM
Date: July 1, 2008

2008-07-01T04:50:00.000-07:00

Flying Cloud Airport Voluntary Curfew 10PM to 7AM
Approx Time of Take-off: 5:49AM
Date: July 1, 2008

2008-06-19T05:33:00.000-07:00

LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN

Dear City Council Members, Local State Representatives and National Legislators,

STOP THE PORK FUNDING TO EXPAND ONE RUNWAY 1,000FT AT OUR LOCAL GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT TO THE TUNE OF $12 MILLION PLUS.

Flying Cloud Airport is going ahead with the extension of a runway to 5,000ft in order to bring in a new class of jet aircraft that will have a negative impact on our community. The (MAC) Metropolitan Airports Commission acknowledges these impacts in their EIS.

The community has fought against the expansion for over 20 years and now when the airport’s operations have diminished annually to its lowest number in decades, when gas is at an all time high, when private users of the system refuse to pay user fees, and continue to get subsidized by the Federal Government and the public, we believe it’s time for government to step in and stop the pork.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission was entrusted to be an overseer of aviation by the Legislature on behalf of the people of Minnesota, not on behalf of a handful of corporations who want their corporate jets to operate out of their own backyard airport. There will be three other General Aviation airports with 5,000ft runways in close proximity to MSP, so it’s entirely unnecessary to expand an airport in a community that opposes it.

At around $900 for a one way trip for a private jet, it is very unlikely that many Eden Prairie residents will be flying out of FCM anytime soon.
The need is outweighed by the demands for improvements to other public infrastructure. While the 494 out of Eden Prairie was recently expanded, you can get on it every week day at 4PM and find yourself sitting in your car for 30 minutes before you get to the 35W or the Mall of America. It should take 5 minutes.

What is as disconcerting as this unnecessary expansion that serves literally only a handful of pilots is the aviation users lack of concern for the noise disturbances they cause, what’s on their minds is only the price of Avgas and user fees. The top concern of community residents is property values, and quality-of-life. The two don’t mix; but what’s most impactful is that massive numbers of residents endure the greatest negative effects and the greatest negative cost to their quality-of-life while a very few aviation enthusiasts enjoy some dubious benefits. FAA and MAC are decidedly pro-aviation at the expense of residents and neighbors.

We don’t want an unsafe, subsidized airport eating away at our tax dollars while the public suffers inadequate roads and bridges in Minnesota.
The 1,000 ft expansion of one runway which will cost an additional $12 million and serves such a meager constituency and leaves residents immediately impacted, without recourse, is just not good public policy. This is an example of the kind of pork Congress was supposed to eliminate because it does not in any way serve the general population. STOP THE AVIATION PORK. NO 5,000FT EXPANSION AT FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT.

Sincerely,
Eden Prairie Resident:
Name:
Address:
Email:

Send to:

Cut and paste text into email or URL contact links:

James Oberstar-http://wwwc.house.gov/oberstar/zipauth.htm
Jim Ramstad-http://www.house.gov/ramstad/contact_jim.html
Amy Klobucher-http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://klobuchar.senate.gov
Norm Coleman-http://coleman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Eden Prairie City Manager-Scott Neal- sneal@edenprairie.org
Governor Tim Pawlenty-tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
Erik Paulsen-rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn
David Hann-651-296-1749 or http://www.davidhann.org/contact.htm
Maria Ruud-rep.maria.ruud@house.mn
Phil Young-pyoung@edenprairie.org
Brad Aho- baho@edenprairie.org
Sherry Butcher- sbutcher@edenprairie.org
Kathy Nelson- sbutcher@edenprairie.org
Tim Anderson of MAC- TAnderso@mspmac.org
Chauncey Case of Met Council- Chauncey.case@metc.state.mn.usa

2008-06-07T04:42:00.000-07:00

Thousand of small planes in a decade?

Very light jets concern some pilots, air traffic controllers.
USA Today (6/4, 3A, Levin) reports that very light jets (VLJs), which "began commercial service in the Southeast last year," could potentially "clog congested airline routes" and are "raising safety concerns, according to air-traffic controllers and airline pilots." Carriers using the aircraft "say they will revolutionize air travel by making it more practical and affordable," but air traffic controllers say that VLJs "are so much slower than larger airline jets that controllers must keep them out of the normal highways in the skies whenever traffic is heavy." And while this is not currently an issue due to the relatively small numbers of VLJs in commercial service, "if hundreds of the jets began filling the skies it would be difficult to accommodate them without major delays." Additionally, "[p]ilots are concerned because" VLJs "are exempt from having to carry several major safety systems required in airliners" such as "the warning system designed to prevent mid-air collisions." USA Today notes, "NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration predict there could be thousands of the small jets within a decade."

2008-06-02T16:24:00.000-07:00

Aerial View of FCM

Important Commentary: " FUN MEETING WITH MAC? "

It was a beautiful Saturday morning, May 31st, in Eden Prairie (Finally!) and then planes started buzzing all around ruining my and my family’s tranquility. It started off with one noisy jet taking off at approximately 6:40 A.M. (my day to sleep in) which is still within the voluntary curfew (meaning it should have waited another20 minutes). After that, I read an "official” city of Eden Prairie public meeting notice about the Flying Cloud Airport expansion that’s supposed to be good for a few businesses and one or two rich folk.

Oops! There went another plane. The card states the meeting is on June 12th from 7-9 pm at Henn. Tech College. Most Eden Prairie Residents did not get the city mailing inviting us to hear about details of the expansion, which the F.A.A. recently approved even though no business seems to think its worth paying their own money for.

Last I heard, the Metropolitan airports Commission was looking for private corporate donations and or free government handouts (what was $9M to expand the longer runway, now exceeds $11M in grants), to pay for lengthening the longer runway to allow larger jets, that according to MAC’s own E.I.S. should more than triple airport noise for thousands of Eden Prairie homeowners. The EIS clearly shows there will be an increase in jet noise, but it does not show that it could cause hundreds of millions of dollars in financial damages to the City of Eden Prairie, its residents and businesses!

As presented by a previous city finance director, and then current Mayor Jean Harris, the city will in total loose over 100 million dollars in taxes and fee revenue. According to my calculations, as a business owner and financial advisor, the lost business revenues from reduced home building and related family and business expenditures (because of F.C. airport using 660 build able acres) could easily reach 150 million every year not including inflation.

I don’t believe the Eden Prairie Chamber of commerce has any idea of how much spending (Financial development) it would take to build, decorate and furnish 3,000+ new Eden Prairie homes. Not to mention $30,000 + per year per family in local spending on food, clothing, entertainment , utilities, ect. The financial benefit of lengthening two runways at Flying Cloud airport, so that five passenger jets instead of 3 passenger jets, can land is quite minimal for 99 percent of E.P residents and businesses.

As an ex FCAAC commissioner I think it would be fun and prudent to go to this meeting and try to find out who the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce and its member Mayor Young are trying to please and why. Other then the rich guy who wants to bring his larger jet from St. Paul to Eden Prairie (because it is a shorter drive for him).

Oops! There go two more planes. I would like Eden Prairie citizens and businesses owners who will suffer a reduced standard of living, increased noise + air pollution, lower property values, and loss of business revenues to identify and boycott airport users which would likely benefit from a F.C. airport expansion. Likely candidates would be Elliot and Executive Aviation, Super value , Peters Aviation and possibly Grand Casinos.

Come to this meeting and ask what companies would encourage M.A.C and the chamber of commerce to ask for millions in grant money (FREE $ for them, paid in taxes by us) to complete an expansion that will benefit almost no one. We all have a lot to lose, so why not go to the meeting and ask which politicians and businesses are more important then 40 percent of Eden Prairie residents.

SEE YOU THERE - BRING FRIENDS ! !

Gary Demee / ex F.C. Airport Adv. Commissioner , 23 year E.P. resident and business owner

P.S. the noise complaint line phone number is 612-726-9411 or @ https: www.macnoise.com/complaint.

2008-05-10T06:33:00.000-07:00

WHICH OFFICIALS, POLIITICIANS AND CORPORATIONS ARE USING FLYING CLOUD?
Santa Monica Airport to Ban Larger Jets that would have access to FCM with longer ruwnay.

In California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and first lady Maria Shriver prepare to leave from Santa Monica Airport on an official trip to Mexico in November 2006. The governor commutes almost daily from his Brentwood home to Sacramento using the airport near his home, Santa Monica Airport, a GA airport similar to FCM. A ban on large jets could sent him farther afield.

If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger loses precious access to the neighborhood Santa Monica Airport he uses to fly to Sacramento, he can thank his own brother-in-law, Bobby Shriver.

The Santa Monica City Council voted in March to ban large private jets from using its airport for fear that planes like Schwarzenegger's Gulfstream IV could crash into neighboring homes if they overshoot the 4,987-foot runway. Shriver is on the council, which voted unanimously for the prohibition.

The ban is on hold, however, after the Federal Aviation Administration obtained a temporary restraining order on Monday. A federal district judge is expected to review the matter May 15.

The Republican governor commutes almost daily from his Brentwood home, often using Santa Monica Airport when flying within California, Shriver said. Schwarzenegger and business travelers prefer Van Nuys Airport or Los Angeles International for longer trips since runways at those airports can accommodate the added weight of extra plane fuel.

For Schwarzenegger, reaching the Van Nuys Airport can mean a 14-mile drive, including a nine-mile slog on the congested I-405 freeway, compared with a trip less than half the distance on city streets to Santa Monica.

Shriver said he hasn't heard from Schwarzenegger yet, but he expects to.

"Arnold will come up with something like, 'Now I have to go all the way to Van Nuys because of Bobby and his communist friends,' " Shriver said, doing his best Schwarzenegger impression with an Austrian accent.

He said he's not sympathetic with the people who've complained to him: "You know, get in the back of your limo and make your calls."

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said he does not know whether the governor is aware of the pending ban.

"I can verify that he has used that airport and other area airports," McLear said.

The FAA contends that local governments have no authority to ban aircraft from airports. It has been negotiating with Santa Monica for several years in response to concerns about the runway's safety.

The Gulfstream IV is a category "C" plane, which has an approach speed faster than the ordinance's maximum of 139 miles per hour.

"These aircraft, category 'C' and 'D' jets, have been landing safely at that airport for years and years and years," said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "The issue of safety has to do with the 4,987-foot runway, and all of these planes have performance specifications that show they can land and take off on a runway of that length."

The Santa Monica Airport has been in operation since 1917 and was surrounded by farmland until World War II, said Martin Tachiki, Santa Monica deputy city attorney. During the war, Douglas Aircraft Co. built planes there, and homes for workers sprouted up nearby. It is now surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhoods and on another side by a business park in the land-scarce community.

"Our airport is very tightly constrained," Tachiki said. "There are homes within 300 feet of the ends of the runway. We're concerned because we have no runway safety area. If there's an overrun, an aircraft could conceivably leave the airport boundaries and go into homes."

The growth of fractional-jet services like NetJets has enabled more people to use larger, more luxurious planes without having to buy them outright, Shriver said. In 2007, the airport had about 26 takeoffs and landings daily involving "C" and "D"-size planes, which make up about 7 percent of its traffic.

Shriver said most of the planes affected belong to business travelers, not celebrities.

The governor's plane has come under fire previously for its impact on the environment and for its $12,800 hourly cost, paid for by donors, when he goes on trade missions and campaign trips. Schwarzenegger pays for his own daily flight costs and for carbon credits that finance environmental projects to offset his emissions.

Schwarzenegger routinely flies between Santa Monica and Sacramento, about a 50-minute flight. Each hour, his Gulfstream jet emits as much as 4.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to the online luxury journal Helium Report. That's roughly equivalent to what a small passenger car produces over the course of 8,000 miles.

Shriver, an environmentalist, said he thinks the Gulfstream planes have a significant emissions impact, but he is sympathetic to the governor's need to have private transportation because of his popularity.

"He's a person a lot of people wanted to talk to before he was governor," Shriver said. "The privacy concerns are significant. He's buying carbon credits … I think he's probably doing the best he can."

Shriver drew attention after the governor removed him and director Clint Eastwood from the California Park and Recreation Commission earlier this year. McLear previously said the governor only wanted to give other Californians a chance to serve, but Shriver suggested the governor was disappointed in their opposition to a toll road through San Onofre State Beach.

He said he wasn't bitter about his removal from the commission – and he said it had no impact on his decision to vote for the airport ban.

Sacramento Bee, 2008

2008-03-27T21:28:00.000-07:00

Airport noise violations up

It’s not even spring, and in the first two months of 2008, there were 296 noise complaints at Flying Cloud Airport. Though the numbers of complaints tripled, the MAC says only 26 people are doing the complaining. There are thousands of people being impacted by the same noise, but when MAC puts the onus of voluntary noise curfews on the public, MAC really isn’t seeing the real numbers of noise disturbances. MAC won’t tell us who the repeat violators are and noise disturbances continue to rise despite a record decline in numbers of flights.
The result of increased noise will be lower home values around the airport. This will hit all impacted homeowners right in their pocketbooks. Lower home values also mean less taxes for the city, and value depressed neighborhoods. Cause and effect really do exist, but in MAC’s world, it’s convoluted by theories, multiplier effects and FAA rulings that offer a distorted picture of aviation’s impact on communities.
The voluntary noise curfew is not working; there are no repercussions to violators; so before the thermometer hits 40 degrees and (FCM) Flying Cloud Airport activity begins its busy season here are a few changes MAC should make:
* Onus of reporting on operators/MAC with a self-monitoring system, more repercussions to violators.
* MAC to disclose actual nighttime operations data to public.
* Web site data MAC provides accounts for half of the total operations at FCM. MAC doesn’t disclose that fact on its Web site; MAC needs to do so.
It’s up to our local representatives to act on our behalf to get more protection for residents against noise disturbances. E-mail local council members, legislators and MAC to find out how willing they are to go to bat for our quality of life.

Floyd Hagen
Eden Prairie

GA tax Issue stalls Senate Funding Bill

2008-02-29T20:01:00.000-08:00

The AOPA reports that the FAA reauthorization funding is stalled in the Senate.

According to the AOPA, "there will not be an FAA funding bill this year “based on the GA community’s inability to compromise,” said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Feb. 28 Senate Commerce Committee hearing. “I blame it on them because we can’t work it out.”

Well, we should know all about that. It's GA's way or the Jetson Highway!!

"Rockefeller supports the $25-per-flight user fee (TAX) for turbine aircraft. He says it's necessary to pay for modernization of the air traffic control system. Rockefeller also contends that general aviation is not currently paying its fair share of the costs of operating ATC."

We agree with that!

"But his colleague on the committee, Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), disagreed. To say that general aviation killed the FAA funding bill for the year is “a bit of an unfair statement,” said Sununu. He noted that GA has supported bills that “bring us to a much more equitable and proportionate sharing of the costs” of the ATC system."

"Sununu said that he and other members of the Commerce Committee opposed the $25 user fee because it would have significant administrative costs and be difficult to oversee."

Don't believe it!

“We have a system in place for collecting revenues to support this modernization and that is an aviation fuel tax,” Sununu said. “And the proposals put in place...significantly increase fuel taxes on general aviation.” He said the Finance Committee’s tax bill (S.2345) and the House FAA funding bill (H.R.2881) accomplished the goals of raising enough money for ATC modernization and more equitably distributing costs among different classes of users without imposing user fees."

The system he is referring to is to a great extent public money, paid by public users of our public air transportation system that go into the General Fund.

"The current aviation tax system has been extended until June 30. Congress must either pass a new FAA funding bill before then or extend the status quo once again. While the House has done its part, the Senate has not passed a final bill. The Senate Finance Committee approved an aviation tax bill (S.2345) that increases jet fuel taxes 65 percent, while S. 1300, the bill from the Commerce aviation subcommittee (chaired by Rockefeller), includes the $25 user fee. Those two bills have to be reconciled before the Senate can pass a final FAA funding bill."

February 28, 2008

The Bottom line is GA is using more and more of the system, but they don't want to pay their way, they want the public to take the hit.

Speak up and tell our Senators, no public subsidies for GA....

2008-01-31T15:52:00.000-08:00

Why is an Airport Technical Assistance Program (AirTap) having Forums called AIRPORT IMAGE MAKING??

AirTap is the acronym for the Airport Technical Assistance Program, a statewide assistance program for aviation personnel that offers education and information resources, training programs, technical assistance, access to experts, and printed materials.
Does a program exist that offers assistance to communities impacted by airports? The answer is no.

The most recent AirTap forum, evidently their fourth annual event according to their web site, was attended by 70 people from general aviation airports and community government.

The AirTap forum was sponsored by Minnesota AirTAP (housed within CTS, the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota ) and the Mn/DOT Office of Aeronautics , in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Minnesota Council of Airports. .
The topic of the latest October 2007 AirTap Forum was Airport Image Making.
For those of you who missed Laura Neuman’s Power Point presentation to the Flying Cloud Airports Commission meeting in January, it was a technical overview of methods MAC could employ to reduce noise/emissions at the relievers. The presentation provided the FCAAC with information that might help eliminate the consistent abusers of voluntary restrictions. At the previous MAC meeting, Zero Expansion was asked to include pro-active measures in their presentation. So, the organization complied. The presentation also included a link to a web simulcast on aircraft emissions that will take place Feb 13-08: You can watch it at:
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s webcast on 2/13/08 related to aircraft emissions’ impact on air quality and technologies and strategies to reduce it.
http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/ConferencesWorkshops/AircraftForum/AircraftForumAnnouncement.pdf
The audience at the FCAAC meeting in Jan 08, made up mostly of pilots, Fixed-base operators (FBOs), representatives from Chamber of Commerce and other pro-airport types got to hear and see the proactive measures provided in a Power Point presentation.
The audience’s reaction to all this new information on impacts and ways to reduce them was less than cordial. It was as if they had seen and heard something so unpractical, so unscientific, that they could do nothing but react with disbelief and antagonism.
One FBO operator who spoke that evening told everyone that Zero Expansion resorts to scare tactics by using cartoon images of 747’s in their advertising. That cartoon image was used in the early days of the organization, years ago. But, the comment and others were similar to it, indicated that nothing had changed in the discourse: it’s the same general disconnect that has always been the case between the community and the users of airports.

Nevertheless, Zero Expansion’s victory is that the organization has managed, with its scant resources, and meager funds to successfully and truthfully describe the airport: noisy, intrusive and damaging to home values and quality-of-life. Ironically, though the industry paints us negative, they’re the ones still desperately trying to describe themselves....

As the picture relays the public doesn't have very much representation on this issue. Some people are resorting to the only method of control available to them.

It's a nationl problem and as jet use increases, especially, in small communities, the problem will only increase...

2008-01-17T16:35:00.000-08:00

JAMA, Journal American Medical Association Report

FACTS: Journal of the American Medical Association
From 2002 to 2005 General Aviation represented 91% of all aviation crashes and 94%of all aviation fatalities.
Overall, 46% of general aviation crashes occur at airports.
Alcohol-impaired flying is a well-established risk factor for general aviation crashes.

The above facts and the following information come from a JAMA, Journal American Medical Association study done in April of 2007 on General Aviation and Public Safety.

General aviation accounts for the vast majority of aviation crashes and casualties. Although crash rates have decreased somewhat, the crash fatality rate of general aviation has not changed in the past 20 years. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, aviation safety efforts have centered on improving aviation security, including the security of small airports and airstrips used primarily by general aviation.

General aviation crashes are a little-recognized public safety problem even though they account for the great majority of aviation deaths. The general aviation crash fatality rate has remained at about 19% for the past 20 years while the overall airline crash fatality rate has declined from 16% from 1986 through 1995 to 6% from 1996 through 2005. The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are. In recent decades, while major airlines have improved seat strength, revised exit row configurations, and used more fire retardant materials, few improvements have been made in general aviation aircraft, in part, because federal regulations only require safety improvements for entirely new aircraft models.

Besides being a public safety concern, general aviation intersects with medicine directly in at least 2 ways. First, transporting patients from crash sites and between medical facilities is more hazardous than generally recognized, and EMS flight crew members have an occupational injury death rate that is 15 times the average for all occupations. One EMS helicopter in 3 being likely to crash during a life span of 15 years, few EMS helicopters have crash-resistant fuel systems. Second, physician pilots crash at a higher rate per flight hour than other pilots. It is possible that physicians are more likely than other pilots to buy high-performance aircraft that require more time for mastery than their schedules may allow. In addition, physicians may take risks (e.g., fly when fatigued or in bad weather) in order to meet the demands of a busy medical practice. From 1986 through 2005, a total of 816 physician and dentist pilots were involved in general aviation crashes; of them, 270 (33%) were fatally injured. Physician and dentist pilots accounted for 1.6% of all general aviation crashes and 3.0% of pilot fatalities (Carol Floyd, BS, National Transportation Safety Board, written communication, February 2, 2007).

JAMA. April 11, 2007-Vol297, No. 14

2008-01-17T14:42:00.000-08:00

Laura Neuman making a Power Point presentation to the Flying Cloud Airports Advisory Commission

Zero Expansion's Presentation to the FCAAC on Jan 10, 2008
MAC, Pilots and Operators and Chamber of Commerce Representatives in the Audience

Airport News

The case for the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport, no longer a case….

January 2008

Do you remember MAC telling us that aviation operates in cycles and every five or ten years, growth necessitates rethinking the need for more capacity? Well, most of us remember. MAC’s claim has always been that the relievers needed to deter smaller planes from landing at MSP so the hub could handle the growing numbers of flights. MAC included this in the EIS.

Well, according to a Jan 2, 2008 article in the Star Tribune, MSP takeoffs and landings have decreased every year for the last three years at MSP. The decline caused the airport to go one notch below its statewide status to 13th busiest airport in the nation.

One of the reasons for the decline is NWA. The article didn’t state why, but one would naturally assume bankruptcy and activity that doesn’t originate out of the Twin Cities’ hub, but out of NWA’s other hub airports, as reasons for decreasing numbers.

The question we need to ask MAC is why aren’t they factoring the decreasing numbers into their future plans? The expansion of the relievers was based on forecasted growth. The volatility of the industry has made future projections and projects based on projections fiscally imprudent. The expansion at Flying Cloud was based on growth that hasn’t materialized, because operations at FCM have been decreasing annually for a decade.

Who has fiscal oversight of MAC?

Never ending battle for airport land versus community development…

The other newsworthy item reported by the Star Tribune this week is the battle for land at Crystal Airport, a reliever in the community of Crystal. The city wants to develop 430 acres, but MAC has declared that Crystal, what they say is the state’s fifth busiest airport, stay open for business.

In a 12 to 3 decision, the MAC cited a yearlong study by MAC staff showing the airport’s financial viability. Sound familiar? In our case, MAC got an outside group to do the study, but they provided them with the stats. Sound unbiased?
Crystal officials want to close the airport, which sits on a 430-acre parcel near Hwy. 81. The area had been eyed for redevelopment by the city for years, much like Eden Prairie’s developable acres that were removed from our tax role when MAC bought land to expand the airport.
ReNae Bowman, Crystal’s Mayor, told the MAC commission that “she thinks personal aviation is declining nationwide and Crystal Airport is not being used to its full potential.” Can you imagine our Mayor, Councilmember Aho, John Duckstad, or Pat Mulqueeny of the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, who have been pro-expansion, admitting to the fact that personal aviation is declining?
“ MAC Commissioner Robert Mars, who voted to close the airport, said he wanted to hear more from residents, business people and community leaders in Crystal because he didn't think the MAC should be limiting development and growth in the city. Déjà Vous.

Mars said, “There are airports all over, and just because 20 years ago we put an airport in Crystal doesn't mean it needs to stay there," he said after the meeting. We couldn’t have said it better. It’s what we’ve been saying for almost 20 years. The problem has always been there isn’t sufficient proof of need to spend millions of dollars just for the benefit of a few corporations. If in fact Crystal closes, there could be more operations transferring over to other airports, especially Flying Cloud. This change was not incorporated into the EIS.

2008-01-01T13:14:00.000-08:00

Runway Safety
How Safe Are We?

Midway Crash of 2005

The Teterboro and Midway crashes of 2005 brought a serious problem to the attention of the public sector. Because airport runways often intersect with busy streets, heavily used commercial and business areas as well as neighborhoods with private homes, airport use often overlaps more and more into non-airport sectors. The insufficiencies of runway length and the close proximity to non-airport use have made airport runways and airports less safe. Thus, the surrounding community is less safe. There was a recent article in the Star Tribune about the head of Minnesota’s DOT, Carol Molnau, who lessened the safety areas around MSP, in order to allow for more commercial use closer to the airport. Two recent examples that have prompted the FAA to rewrite the safety margins and even include barrier mechanisms to stop a plane from crossing the airport barrier are the Teterboro and Midway crashes of 2005.

Santa Monica airport, a general aviation airport similar to FCM, has an ongoing dispute with the FAA over their runway safety areas, which are deficient, according to the FAA’s own standards. The FAA wants to build an arrestor bed to inhibit crashes and also buy out neighbors. Santa Monica Airport recently banned what is called, C and D aircraft from using the airport. These aircraft are larger private jets, like ones that will use FCM if the airport is expanded. They have approach speeds of 120 knots.

Santa Monica Airport (SMO) jet operations soared from 4,829 jet operations in 1994 to 18,100 in 2006. Federal standards for C and D aircraft are 1,000-foot runway safety areas, which neither Flying Cloud Airport nor SMO have. If a 5,000ft runway was installed at FCM it would have to be realigned to incorporate the new safety area measurements. Santa Monica will begin a litigation process with the FAA, which airport neighbors can use to lobby their local Congressional representatives to pass new legislation governing airports in favor of safety for nearby residents. The FAA has the legal upper hand. But, many feel the FAA never had any objectivity in promoting airport expansions in terms of safety versus access.

Right now the FAA wants to buy out Santa Monica homeowners and construct an arrestor bed. The community is opposed. The SM city council will reconvene in Jan of 2008 with their findings from a meeting in Washington in December of 2007. This is right the time for everyone living near a small airport to contact your federal representatives and tell them community safety comes before airport operations.

What’s important to understand is that these small airports, in particular, were originally constructed for non-jet, non-commercial small aircraft operations. With time these uses have been changed to mostly jet, quasi-commercial, larger aircraft operations. The original intent and use has been altered. So when we hear from the aviation community that neighborhoods have grown around the airports, we know that’s only one part of the problem.

Teterboro- Reliever Airport in the New York System 2005 Crash

Challenger CL-600, bound for Midway Airport in Chicago, skidded into a brick warehouse. The jet slid across Route 46, a line of 20 to 30 westbound vehicles was stopped by a red light. Investigators examined a trail of destruction that included 1,000 feet of skid marks, a flattened fence, a path across six lanes of Route 46, two twisted cars on the highway and others in a parking lot, a massive gouge in the warehouse wall and a mangled and burned aircraft.
NTSB officials declined to speculate on whether ice had formed on the wings in the 22-degree cold. Such icing has contributed to crashes of other CL-600s and similar models, manufactured by Bombardier of Canada.
This was a fractionally owned aircraft- The registered owner of the plane was 448 Alliance LLC of Dallas, said Jim Peters, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration. The aircraft was listed among the inventory operated by Darby Aviation of Sheffield, Ala., and it also was operated by Platinum Jet of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., he said.

The drama began about 7:20 a.m. The jet was hurtling northeast on Runway 6, a 6,000-foot stretch of tarmac.(Airport has two runways, 6,000 and 7,000 ft.) But the plane didn't appear to leave the ground, witnesses said, and it skidded for 1,000 feet, crossed a patch of grass, flattened a security fence and sliced into the eastbound lanes of Route 46. It continued across the highway, striking two cars, sliding across a parking lot, destroying two cars and crashing into the warehouse occupied by a clothing distributor.

Midway Airport in Chicago-2005 Crash

The NTSB said Midway airport's runways are simply too short, and the crushed concrete safety zone, the extensions on the runways, should have been in place before the crash. Midway is 65% commercial, but its longest runways does not exceed 6,500 ft.

Midway is one of almost 300 commercial airports nationwide that don't have FAA-required 1,000-foot safety zones at the end of runways to slow planes that overshoot landings. Congress has passed a law that would force all airports to comply with the FAA requirement or provide alternatives by 2015.

FCM does not have the legal 1,000 ft buffer now and a new extended 5,000 ft runway would have to be realigned to meet the new requirements for landing distance for planes weighing 60,000lbs or more. (A new FAA rule allowed these larger planes into small airports.)

2008-01-01T13:06:00.000-08:00

What we don’t know can’t hurt us?

General Aviation and Public Safety

The crash of a Challenger CL-600 bound for Midway Airport that happened at Teterboro Airport, a reliever airport in the New York system of airports.

FACTS:

From 2002 to 2005 General Aviation represented 91% of all aviation crashes and 94%of all aviation fatalities.

Overall, 46% of general aviation crashes occur at airports.

Alcohol-impaired flying is a well-established risk factor for general aviation crashes.

The above facts and the following information come from a JAMA, Journal American Medical Association study done in April of 2007 on General Aviation and Public Safety.

General aviation accounts for the vast majority of aviation crashes and casualties. Although crash rates have decreased somewhat, the crash fatality rate of general aviation has not changed in the past 20 years. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, aviation safety efforts have centered on improving aviation security, including the security of small airports and airstrips used primarily by general aviation.

General aviation crashes are a little-recognized public safety problem even though they account for the great majority of aviation deaths. The general aviation crash fatality rate has remained at about 19% for the past 20 years while the overall airline crash fatality rate has declined from 16% from 1986 through 1995 to 6% from 1996 through 2005. The higher fatality rate for general aviation crashes may be because such aircraft are not as able to withstand impact forces and protect occupants from death and severe injury as commercial aircraft are. In recent decades, while major airlines have improved seat strength, revised exit row configurations, and used more fire retardant materials, few improvements have been made in general aviation aircraft, in part, because federal regulations only require safety improvements for entirely new aircraft models.

Besides being a public safety concern, general aviation intersects with medicine directly in at least 2 ways. First, transporting patients from crash sites and between medical facilities is more hazardous than generally recognized, and EMS flight crew members have an occupational injury death rate that is 15 times the average for all occupations. One EMS helicopter in 3 being likely to crash during a life span of 15 years, few EMS helicopters have crash-resistant fuel systems. Second, physician pilots crash at a higher rate per flight hour than other pilots. It is possible that physicians are more likely than other pilots to buy high-performance aircraft that require more time for mastery than their schedules may allow. In addition, physicians may take risks (e.g., fly when fatigued or in bad weather) in order to meet the demands of a busy medical practice. From 1986 through 2005, a total of 816 physician and dentist pilots were involved in general aviation crashes; of them, 270 (33%) were fatally injured. Physician and dentist pilots accounted for 1.6% of all general aviation crashes and 3.0% of pilot fatalities (Carol Floyd, BS, National Transportation Safety Board, written communication, February 2, 2007).

JAMA. April 11, 2007-Vol297, No. 14

2007-12-14T15:03:00.000-08:00

2007-12-14T14:41:00.000-08:00

Our future, if larger jet planes utilize Flying Cloud Airport (FCM)?

On June 30th, 2007, a Citation Aircraft crashed and skidded into a house using a 4, 875ft runway at Conway Airport in Arkansas . The pilot, passenger and occupant of the home were all killed. According to the airport’s web site there has been consideration of relocating the airport. This November, 2007, the Friends of Sunset Park in Santa Monica , CA , because of years of community effort, approved a ban on larger, faster jets like the Citation. This is the same kind of jet that will use FCM if the runway expands to 5, 000ft, that's around hundred and fifty feet more than the Conway airport and less than 50ft longer than Santa Monica ’s 4, 973 ft long runway.

After years of community effort, the Santa Monica City Council unanimously approved a ban on the largest, fastest, jets currently using the airport, jets that will only use Flying Cloud Airport if it's expanded. The 7-0 vote to approve the ban came despite a last-minute threat from the Federal Aviation Administration to use "all available means'' to fight the ordinance so that "no aircraft is denied access to SMO (Santa Monica Airport).''

The FAA wants the city to buy and tear down homes that are in danger, a notion the Mayor of Santa Monica called "offensive and absurd.'' A Santa Monica Councilman said such a buy-and-demolish policy would lead to even bigger planes using the airport, which would create a need for more homes to be leveled, ad infinitum.” Zero Expansion agrees because that’s exactly what happened here in Eden Prairie . MAC bought developable land and put a plan in motion to expand the airport and the runways.

Right now the city of Santa Monica is putting pressure on the FAA on a national front. Not the kind of pressure our council leadership put on Washington to advance the expansion of Flying Cloud airport and extension of the runway, bringing in larger aircraft like the Citation that crashed this summer and killed an occupant of a home, but the opposite kind of pressure: pressure not to allow bigger planes into an airport.

Reps. Henry Waxman and Jane Harman of CA, along with the two top-ranking members of the House Transportation Committee and the FAA will sit down with Jim Oberstar and talk about Santa Monica ’s stance regarding the danger from overruns. They are looking at the possibility of legislation or an agreement with the FAA that would recognize that SMO's ( Santa Monica Airport ’s) homes are in close proximity to the runways and allow it to address the safety issue apart from the FAA's general regulations.

Right now FCM’s runway that parallel Hwy 212 does not have legal buffer. Most airports don’t have illegal buffers, which the FAA has recently addressed after runway crashes at Chicago ’s Midway Airport and Teterboro Airport in N.J.

In 2006 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) started requiring all turbojet operators to land with a 15 percent safety margin by Sept.1 2006; it will still partly be up to operators to determine when an additional landing safety assessment is needed.The FAA also recommends inhibitor walls to stop a plane from crashing into streets or homes. Santa Monica rejects this concept.

Watch Santa Monica ’s fight closely. What’s important is that all these small airports are experiencing totally different types of operations that aren’t compatible with small communities. That’s the bigger issue. It’s not just about runway safety, it’s about noise and environmental pollution from jet exhaust and more chemical usage from industries, like smaller GA airports, exempt from TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) reporting to the EPA.

Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team

Our Commitment is to Community and Quality of Life

www.talktrans.org
www.zeroexpansion.org
transportationtalk@yahoo.com

2007-11-30T04:22:00.000-08:00

Santa Monica Airport Experiences Drop in Prop Use and Expansion of Jets
OUR FUTURE IN EDEN PRAIRIE???

New York Times
By REBECCA CATHCART

Published: November 24, 2007

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Nov. 23 — Virginia Ernst sat on her living room couch, her face turned toward the ceiling. The high-pitch grind of a jet engine split the air about 100 feet above her home.

“That’s a Challenger,” said Margaret Williamson. “No,” Ms. Ernst replied, “it’s a Citation. It reminds me of a dentist’s drill.”

The Challenger and the Citation are popular lines of corporate jets. The Citation is louder, explained Ms. Ernst, in her mid-60s, but the Challenger is bigger, and shakes her house’s windows and walls. Either way, the jets, and others like them, are a source of frustration to residents, who complain of not only their roaring engines but also their noxious fumes.

Since the 1960s, both Ms. Ernst and Ms. Williamson have resided beneath the flight path of planes arriving at Santa Monica Airport, one of the oldest general aviation airports in the country and among those closest to residential neighborhoods. Ms. Ernst’s house is 300 feet from the only runway, Ms. Williamson’s is 50 feet closer, and the noise in recent years has only worsened. Jet traffic here has almost doubled since 1999 to19,000 takeoffs and landings so far this year, says the airport’s manager, Bob Trimborn, even as traffic of small piston-driven planes has declined.

The rise in private-jet travel is being driven in part by long check-in and security lines at major airports. Those waits make private flying attractive to wealthy travelers, while at the same time fractional-jet-ownership companies are making it possible for more corporations to send their executives off in style. The developments have stoked the anger of residents here, who say jet fumes endanger their health and jet noise threatens their sanity.

“You’ve got the celebrities, you’ve got the power players here,” said Bill Rosendahl, a city councilman in neighboring Los Angeles. “Frankly, I say to the super-rich, go to another airport,” because “this is an environmental issue that affects real people.”

The 227-acre airport was built in 1919, when the land for miles around was largely open fields. But with the 1921 opening of the Douglas Aircraft Company here and then the end of World War II and the Korean War, a residential building boom swept the area, spurred by demand from Douglas employees and returning military pilots.

In 1984, after a series of lawsuits, the City of Santa Monica, which owns the airport, signed an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration not to limit jet traffic there. The agreement (which also imposed some regulations on engine noise) does not expire until 2015, but a number of public officials, among them Mr. Rosendahl, Assemblyman Ted W. Lieu and Representative Jane Harman, are working for an early change to what they describe as a pact that has outlived its time. They are pushing for both state and federal legislation that would limit the size and number of jets at the airport.

Opponents of that effort say Santa Monica, one of 249 “reliever” airports across the country that help unclog congestion at major airports nearby, must remain open to all types of jets using Los Angeles International, five miles to the south. Indeed, any bill limiting jet operations would have to supersede both the 1984 accord and existing law.

“Under federal law, the airport cannot restrict the type of aircraft that can land,” said Bill Dunn, vice president for airports at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. “The problem is that people live right next to the airport because of poor local planning decisions.”

The flight paths extending from the runways of Santa Monica and Los Angeles International Airports converge over the Pacific. That means the airports have to coordinate inbound and outbound flights in an elaborately choreographed dance. “We shuffle our cards into their deck,” Mr. Trimborn said.

That can lead to idling engines at Santa Monica that send exhaust out across Bundy Drive, the four-lane thoroughfare that separates the airport from the homes of Ms. Ernst and her neighbors, including the founder and director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution, Martin Rubin. Mr. Rubin stood on the sidewalk the other day, pointing to nearby homes and speaking of cancer cases there that he says are tied to airport pollution.

But it is hard to link pollution to specific sources, said Philip M. Fine, manager of atmospheric measurements for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the air pollution control agency for all or parts of four Southern California counties. Dr. Fine ran a recent study of air quality around Santa Monica Airport that was financed by a federal grant to measure toxins in the air around general aviation airports. The study, he said, found levels of lead and other toxins in the community around the airport here “well below” federal and state limits.

That is little comfort to the Rubin family and others who fault the study for not noting levels of acrolein, a harmful byproduct of jet fuel known to cause respiratory irritation.

“We’ve always had a nice westerly breeze here,” said Mr. Rubin’s wife, Joan. “But now the breeze brings the jet fumes in. They smell like kerosene and burn your throat.”

Marc Carrel, deputy chief of staff for Representative Harman, is also skeptical, saying too little time passed between the boom in private-jet traffic and the study.

“It’s sick to say, but you need a long-term impact to see long-term effects,” Mr. Carrel said.

Mr. Trimborn, the airport’s manager, says he is not the bad guy. Citing the binding nature of the 1984 agreement, he said: “I try to be as open and honest as possible all the time with residents. If I tell someone this plane’s not going to fly over your house and then it does, they’ll be angry with me. But I don’t tell them that. They know I can’t control it.”

He pointed to a photograph, dated 1924, on his office wall. It showed a row of five Douglas World Cruisers, biplanes with exposed seats. Back then, neither local land-use planners nor anyone else “saw a Gulfstream IV flying out of Santa Monica and going to the East Coast,” he said.

“We’re dealing with development over many years,” Mr. Trimborn added. “So the dynamic between the airport and the community, that’s inescapable.”

2007-11-05T11:14:00.000-08:00

Let's dispense with the political turkey dressing and get to the non-political hard-boiled truth

The hurdles for the expansion are falling away, according to Rick King, the chair of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission, who says it will be the FCAAC’s job to help the community understand what it will mean if the airport is expanded.

Last week's Eden Prairie News article demonstrates that King doesn’t understand some very elemental truths about an EIS and the reasons that would necessitate one in relation to this project, which are significant increases in noise and pollution impacts.

Though King says the group attempts to educate people, we think the commission NOW functions as an advocacy group for MAC, airport businesses and certainly the new council leadership. With the exception of one member, we haven’t seen any of them, individually or collectively reach out to our organization which represents residents most impacted by the airport.

But, we’ve just heard Zero Expansion has been invited to make a presentation in January to the commission? Would that be after MAC has finalized their funding? We question why in January, when they really should have been talking to us back in March. That's when we attended a city council meeting and stated that marketing the airport wasn’t part of the commission’s mandated function.

Kings says MAC will make funding decisions in December. The question we want to ask, funding for what, both runways? He didn’t elaborate. According to the information that was gleaned from the Chamber meeting spring 2007, MAC didn’t have enough money to expand the longer runway.

If you all recollect, MAC sought the help of the Chamber and the Airports Advisory Commission to work together to come up with private funding. In January, right after Phil Young took office, a legislative agenda, including a request for federal money to expand the airport was shoved through the council’s approval process and hand delivered to our federal legislators. Mind, city managers serve those who are elected to create city policy; City Managers manage what the Mayor and council create.

If the hurdles are falling away, we have several people on the council to blame, Brad Aho, Phil Young (both expressed pro-expansion positions) and John Duckstad. Despite their denial of any pro-expansion efforts, the factual history associated with these so-called hurdles disappearing is the result of actions our Mayor and city council leadership took. They collectively voted against our Resolution and were steadfast in their denial of any change in position.

Common sense dictates that no matter how quite new technology purports to be, enough of these supposedly quite aircraft won’t be very quite. King neglects educating the public about the SATS program or Highways in the Sky, which FAA and NASA are promoting. Yes, the plan is for all of us to fly our own planes to more destinations, instead of driving. We’ve come to understand and detest congestion on the ground, imagine how we are going to feel about having it right over our heads in our own neighborhoods without any mandatory restrictions?

We only wish that for once we could dispense with the political turkey dressing and get to the non-political hard-boiled truth: the expansion will create more noise, more pollution and decrease property values around the airport as traffic increases.

The Bombardier and the Falcon that will be added to the FCM mix are aircraft that are denied access to Santa Monica Airport, because they are nosy, big and fast. These planes fly at much higher speeds and have larger wing spans. Flying Cloud was not designed to service planes this size or speed. These aircraft can travel anywhere in the world 4,500 nautical miles non-stop. So, basically they will function as a corporate or fractional imitation of the commercial jet; the difference is convenience. The runway extension is for these aircraft, not the aircraft already using FCM.

Contrary to what Rick Kings says, the runway extension will not make operations for the existing fleet mix safer.

The FCAAC and council leadership have failed to represent their constituents, the 75% of us acknowledged by the survey, who are impacted by the airport.

Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team

Our Comittment is to Community Quality-of-life...

www.talktrans.org

www.zeroexpansion.org

transportationtalk@yahoo.com

Write your Council Representatives and Be Heard!

2007-10-25T04:56:00.000-07:00

Heart of the Problem: the past local election’s impact, resident input and city governance.

The veto pen doesn’t come without repercussions. On a city level we felt the pinch with school referendums, which resulted in more money coming out of our pockets, not less. Now, one of Eden Prairie ’s historic houses could be put on the chopping block and many of us are asking why? When you consider the city lost over 126 million for land MAC condemned to expand Flying Cloud, we could own a handful of Smith Douglas More Houses, because we’d have more revenue from development of the land than an expanded reliever airport.

The heart of the problem: the past local election, resident input and city governance.
The most recent resident survey, paid with tax-payer dollars, hasn’t been reflected in the BAC’s (Budget Advisory Commission) recommendations or council discussions. Why? As tax-paying residents, I can’t imagine any one of us agreeing to pay for a survey with public feedback, that the city isn’t using as a tool to assess what the public wants?

The city’s survey doesn’t jive with the results of the election. Although residents want lower taxes, they also want amenities, and they’re willing to pay for them. Could it be pre-election promises just aren’t in sync with post election realities?

Residents rated city taxes and services as fair and were almost evenly split on increases and decreases to taxes for services. A mandate to lower taxes isn’t born out by the survey results. Though residents said they can live without certain services the city provides, those weren’t included in the BAC’s cuts, such as television programming, which we pay for, but don’t watch. Instead some of the things residents value, like open space and preservation of space, were included on the BAC’s list of possible cuts.

An important assessment tool, the survey has been ignored by the BAC and the council. Plymouth , Minnetonka , Burnsville and Woodbury do not have a BAC, which is an added layer of government, another expense. That’s the way the reinstatement of the Airports Advisory Commission was perceived by Brad Aho and Phil Young back in 2005; neither wanted it. But the BAC, a concept Phil Young pushed his entire tenure as a councilmember, now appears to function less as a voice of residents and more like a political action committee.

Cleaning up lakes, reduction of traffic and speeding and better lighting at recreational areas are things residents want, according to the survey, which would require more tax dollars be spent. Yet, none of these were addressed by the BAC or the council. Bearing out what residents have always felt 72% are bothered by airport noise, documented by noise complaints MAC receives, which indicate complaints tripled this year, at a time when operations are at an all time low.

The Flying Cloud Airports Advisory Commission and the BAC are “marketing” tools for the current council leadership to sell residents a very different agenda than previous councils: call it their agenda, more accurately their indifferent agenda.

Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team
Our commitment is to community and quality-of-life
Gary Demee

2007-09-29T08:06:00.000-07:00

Elected Representatives Finally Paying Attention?

Twelve Minnesota legislators held a public hearing on Wednesday, Sept 19th at the Eagan Community Center for over two hours and listened to Mayors, City council-members and residents of communities complain about Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) actions.

What they heard wasn’t pretty, especially for MAC Chair, Jack Lanners, their lawyers, staff and commission members, who were obviously out of their usual comfort zone: environmental and state law violations, private funding for expansions, lax security at reliever airports, ignoring data and conclusions from its own consultants, and MAC meetings held during the business day at MSP, which require more security clearances than boarding a plane. Listening to the dozens of complainants, it appeared that many of MAC’s statutory purposes are being patently denied to their intended recipients:

“(1) to promote the public welfare and national security: serve public interest, convenience, and necessity..” (2) assure the residents of the metropolitan area of minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and (3) promote the overall goals of the state’s environmental policies and minimize the public’s exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.” (Minn. Stat.§473.602)

Despite the current means for legislative oversight, Representative Mark Buesgens (R) was taken aback by the unanimous discontent with MAC; it was clear to him that the MAC was overdue to be “reconstituted.” Representative Linda Slocum (DFL) said, “We need to do something dramatic.” There will be hearings at the Capital in the near future by the Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs and Transportation Working Group.

I want to know why no representatives for Eden Prairie were at the hearing? There was no sign of Erik Paulsen or David Hann. Maria Ruud was scheduled to attend, but couldn’t make it. No matter where they personally stand on MAC’s malfeasance, how could they not attend and gather information? How could they have no interest in issues that directly impact residents? Where were Eden Prairie City Council Members and the Mayor? The Mayor seems to be interested only in attending a private, closed-to-the-public Chamber of Commerce meeting with MAC for the purpose of discussing private funding options for the expansion, not about what negatively impacts residents.

Shouldn’t our representatives attend a public meeting dedicated to a better understanding of the degree to which MAC is not complying with their mandated obligations for safety and security to the people who reside in airport communities?

2007-09-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

Bad Community Relations!

Which Eden Prairie Companies are going to privately fund the runway expansions?
Will the runway(s) be named after them or their facilitators: Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce or new council leadership...?

MAC's CIP for runway 10R/28L to 5,000 ft, to the tune of $11M, set for 2009 expansion

It wasn't too long ago, pre-Mayor Young, that Scott Neal told us our worry over the airport expansion was for naught, because there were no funds (Scott Neal's Blog). Enter Phil Young and a first ever Legislative Agenda requesting federal funds for the airport; enter the letter delivered to Federal Legislators requesting funding for the expansion on behalf of businesses and Chamber of Commerce; enter Chamber of Commerce meetings with MAC, the Mayor and a representative from the FCM Advisory Airports Commission which included a discussion of airport funding and private business involvement in securing funding; enter the Airports Advisory Commission plans to align with the Chamber in business development and marketing the airport: the result is funds that weren't even imaginable to MAC are on their CIP for 2009.

Let our local representatives know that we hold them responsible ....

No one on the MAC or on the city level has been willing to tell us which companies are going to privately fund the runways?

In other words, it's alright to have your company known for contributing to a hockey arena, but they don't want their name associated with a runway?

THIS WILL NOT STAND. WE HAVE ALREADY ASKED THAT QUESTION IN A DATA PRACTICES REQUEST TO MAC, WHICH THEY FAILED TO RESPOND TO.

THE ONLY THING THAT CAN CHANGE THE WAY MAC AND THE CITY DO BUSINESS is YOU!

Less than 1% of Flying Cloud's users need a 5,000ft runway, so why put one in?
The legislature is going to conduct hearings on reconstituting the MAC?
MAC obtained land in Eden Prairie without going through the legal loopholes.
MAC's EIS is inadequate and rubberstamped by an agency that has never rejected a MAC EIS.
Flying Cloud's noise complaints are three times last year's complaint numbers.
Operations at Flying Cloud are the lowest in a decades.
Jets are nosier than piston aircraft.
MAC has never agreed to follow all the security guidelines.

EMAIL AND TELL THEM NO EXPANSION.

Governor Tim Pawlenty-tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
Erik Paulsen-rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn
David Hann-651-296-1749 or http://www.davidhann.org/contact.htm
Maria Ruud-rep.maria.ruud@house.mn
Phil Young-pyoung@edenprairie.org
Brad Aho- baho@edenprairie.org
Sherry Butcher- sbutcher@edenprairie.org
Kathy Nelson- sbutcher@edenprairie.org
Tim Anderson of MAC- TAnderso@mspmac.org
Chauncey Case of Met Council- Chauncey.case@metc.state.mn.usa

YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD ZERO EXPANSION TEAM
WWW.TALKTRANS.ORG
WWW.ZEROEXPANSION.ORG
TRANSPORTATIONTALK@YAHOO.COM
http://wwwzeroexpansion.blogspot.com/

Our commitment is to community and quality-of-life...

EVERY NOISE COMPLAINT GOES ON RECORD AND MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
Contact the Airport Noise Complaint Line: Phone in your noise complaints or other airport complaints to: 612-726-9411 or macapps@macnoise.com
FILE NOISE COMPLAINT ONLINE AT THIS URL: http://www.macnoise.com/complaint
COMPLAINT GUIDELINES: http://www.macnoise.com/pdfs/community-outreach/complaint_guidelines_2006.pdf

2007-09-19T20:26:00.000-07:00

Mark Michelson of Eden Prairie speaks on behalf of Zero Expansion

One after another, neighboring airport communities, residents and city officials, talked the same talk in front of a panel of legislators and MAC officials. The old same lingo, it’s been the same for years: MAC has failed to provide accessible public venues where residents can air their complaints; MAC has failed to legally comply with requests for information; MAC has failed to comply with legal protocol in doing business; MAC has failed to keep their promises; MAC has been less than honest in their dealings with the public. One resident after another with another version of the same complaints. You could see the expressions on the legislators’ faces.. Finally Representative Linda Slocum (DFL) and Mark Buesgens ( R) echoed the audience: MAC needs to be reconstituted; something dramatic needs to be done…
Legislative Hearings on MAC Governance will begin soon...

2007-09-19T19:40:00.000-07:00

Public Hearing September 19th, 2007 on Metropolitan Airports Commission Governance Issues at 7:00 PM, Eagan Community Center.
Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Rep. Debra Hilstrom, Chair and the and Transportation Working Group, Rep Frank Hornstein, Chair

Statement Zero Expansion, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Presented by Mark Michelson

Zero Expansion has existed since the 1980s and is well experienced with the actions of MAC relating to Flying Cloud. Many of our members have also interacted with MAC in an official capacity on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie as Airport Advisory Commission Members or City Council Members.

It has become apparent to us that MAC has lost sight of its purpose to serve the residents of Minnesota, and instead serves only aviation industry interests. Specifically, MAC’s philosophy has become to expand aviation, no matter what the actual need, no matter what the actual cost to citizens, without regard to economics, environmental or human impact. That was not what Minnesota Legislators intended when MAC was created.

Minnesota Statutes Section 473.602 lists MAC’s purposes. MAC is supposed to “assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures.” MAC is also supposed to “promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports.” From its actions, it’s clear that MAC ignores these purposes.

First, for example, MAC has violated environmental laws. MAC has not disclosed all environmental impacts from the proposed expansion at Flying Cloud, including toxic emissions from aircraft, cumulative noise effects, and increased traffic concerns. Residents have continuously asked for more detail on noise impacts, which have never been provided. MAC has illegally condemned private property, including residences in Eden Prairie, for a proposed expansion prior to receiving EQB or FAA’s EIS approval for the project.

There is a fundamental flaw with the environmental review process when the EQB is merely a rubber stamp for MAC. The EQB has never found a MAC EIS to be inadequate, leaving residents’ with only one option— litigation in order to find the truth out about a proposed project— which is cost-prohibitive to ordinary folks and to MAC as an organization. MAC has made the environmental review process meaningless.

Second, MAC has violated state laws by refusing to provide the public with data according to the State’s Data Practices Act. In fact, the Minnesota Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD), a state organization that helps citizens with such requests, believes that MAC is often negligent in complying with data requests. IPAD had to issue an advisory opinion requiring MAC to produce documents that were unlawfully withheld from our organization. It should be fundamental that a government agency, that is not elected or responsive to the people it serves, conduct its business in the open, with full disclosure to the public. MAC constantly withholds information from the public.

Third, we have found that MAC plays loose with the truth. For example, MAC has falsified data in its EIS regarding the number of stopovers from Flying Cloud to other metro airports. A 1997 MAC survey of six FBOs showed 16-29 stopovers a year. In its Supplemental EIS, MAC reported 8,300 stopovers. When confronted that this number was impossible because it equaled more than all business jets reported at Flying Cloud, MAC made up a new number of 2,500 stopovers a year, stating that respondents to the survey taken seven years ago made a mistake, even though the printed survey results clearly showed 16-29 stopovers a year.

Instead of providing the truth, MAC changes its story depending on who the audience is: MAC says there's plenty of federal and MAC money available for Flying Cloud expansion, and then tells the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce that money is so tight that private funding is required. MAC condemns private property for expansion, yet often compromises buffer safety zones. As another example, when MAC negotiated with the City of Eden Prairie and reached a final agreement in 2002, a huge part of the agreement was MAC’s promise that the pavement strength of the runway would prohibit larger jet aircraft from landing. Even though MAC warranted its representations in that agreement, MAC never revealed to the city that FAA had previously prohibited pavement strength as an absolute ban on aircraft weight, rendering a large portion of MAC’s side of the bargain with Eden Prairie useless.

Fourth, MAC ignores data and conclusions from their own consultants which are contrary to expanding Flying Cloud. Operations and based aircraft have steadily declined at Flying Cloud for the last decade. Multiple surveys taken by MAC show that very few aircraft would move their operations to Flying Cloud, even if it were expanded. MAC’s study of seven comparable reliever airports in the U.S. most similar to Flying Cloud that expanded their runways from 4000 to 5000 feet showed no increase in operations attributable to lengthening the runway. According to MAC’s information and consultants, the $83 million dollars to expand Flying Cloud will have no discernable impact at FCM or MSP.

Finally, MAC has compromised on security at the reliever airports. MAC has refused to implement the Department of Justice’s security recommendations at Flying Cloud, such as keeping gates closed and locked at all times. Even though the gates at Flying Cloud will open automatically upon approach of a car, MAC allows them to remain open to anyone because airport businesses prefer them to be open. Remember that in February 2005, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security Intelligence’s confidential report states that Al-Qaeda, jihadist and Islamic-based terrorists groups are looking to use aircraft in “the largely unregulated” area of general aviation, including corporate jets, private planes, helicopters, and other unscheduled aircraft. (Star Tribune, March 14, 2005, Noncommercial Planes and Helicopters Offering Terrorists Particularly Tempting Targets, a Confidential Government Report Concludes.) The report concludes that “[a]s security measures improve at large commercial airports, terrorists may choose to rent or steal general aviation aircraft housed at small airports with little or no security.” Also remember that in our own Metro area, Crystal and Blaine airports have experienced attempted thefts of aircraft. MAC has been quoted in the Star Tribune as being proud of its slim security expenditures. Is that something to be proud of?

MAC has continually violated its mandated assurances to the people of Minnesota, particularly those of us who are impacted by MSP and reliever airports. They have continually side-stepped the procedures and processes that ensure that Minnesotans will not be affected by harmful environmental impacts. We ask our legislators to form a non-partisan oversight commission of the MAC and put all expansions and construction on hold until there is a full accounting of need, economic viability and negative environmental impacts.

2007-09-14T13:09:00.000-07:00

Before any MAC budget is voted on ( which will happen in the next two months) the legislature needs to step in and hold MAC accountable.

The South Metro Airport Action Council has been fighting the MAC for as many years as Zero Expansion's been around and longer. They've been urging the Minnesota Legislature to pay more attention to goings-on at Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport.

Finally, a Joint Committee of the Minnesota House has scheduled a public hearing September 19th on Metropolitan Airports Commission governance issues and the effects of the airport on the surrounding neighborhoods -- including, but not limited to, airport noise. The Hearing convenes at 7:00 PM in the Eagan Community Center.

Jim Spensley of SMAAC says "The decisions made by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) too often escape both public attention and legislative oversight." according to Spensley, SMAAC President. "We thought dismantling the noise compatibility program, quietly settling the massive fuel leaks matter in 2003-04, getting fined for excessive pollution in 2004-05, refusing to discuss the collision of two airliners at a gate in 2005, bungling an environmental hearing in 2006 and turning over the Lindbergh Terminal to Northwest Airlines and its affiliates in 2007 might have raised more eyebrows in St. Paul."

SMAAC Vice President Gerry D'Amour related that the current runway re-construction project resulted in numerous problems that should have been reviewed and coordinated. D'Amour said "Citizens were rudely rebuffed on three occasions. The MAC held hearings on its capital improvement plans, including the runway closure and re-construction project, but always refused a quantitative review of how safety, noise, and environmental regulations would apply during a period of increased operations on the remaining runways."

SMAAC will tell the Joint Committee that MAC surely 'took liberties" with the legal conditions for MSP expansion, most likely exceeding the authorities defined in Minnesota law and the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

SMAAC is going to ask the Minnesota Legislature to look at:

1. Limiting further gate expansion at MSP's Lindbergh Terminal for safety and economic reasons.

2. Most, if not all, airport commissioners should be selected by the Legislature in a more open way.

3. More Legislative audits and oversight is needed on the MSP capital improvements program.

4.The legislature should begin planning for a second or much larger replacement airport.

In a statement on its Internet site, SMAAC stated that its Board of Directors realizes that citizens will complain about noise and other aggravations (at the Hearing), but then the buck will be passed from MAC to FAA to airlines to Congress, to municipalities, and to State agencies.

SMAAC objects to how MAC handles neighborhood issues. On airport noise, citizens are basically stifled. The MAC staff still records noise complaints made by telephone and holds quarterly meetings about noise. But neighborhood representatives were dropped from the noise advisory committee, citizen requests to hold Commission meetings and public hearings in a more accessible location were ignored.

Sound familiar? Eden Prairie doesn't even have a representative on the MAC commission. Zero Expansion's position is that $90M for a runway expansion for less than a handful of larger aircraft is a decision that has been rubber stamped by the Met Council, another agency without an Eden Prairie voice, and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.

Where has our legislature been? There is no fiscal/project/environmental oversight of MAC? Read the Mayor of Edina's opinion piece in the Star Tribune, 9-14-07. He's talking about politics getting in the way of governing. The Governor's appointments to the MAC commission are political; his appointment to MNDOT was polictial. Look at the outcome. In a July 18th Strib article on the Minnesota economy, John Adams, a University of Minnesota regional and urban affairs specialist said, "the state has failed to invest in assets ranging from highways and bridges to education." But, we can't say that about MSP expansions. It's been infrastructure galore for NWA at the price of failed safety on the roads.

2007-09-10T12:35:00.000-07:00

Metropolitan Airports Commission has little oversight or community input

TAKE ACTION NOW

The Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs and Transportation
Working Group is sponsoring a legislative field hearing on governance
issues for The MAC (The Metropolitan Airports Commission) on WEDNESDAY, September 19, 2007, 7:00 PM

Rep. Debra Hilstrom and Rep Frank Hornstein are sponsoring this
hearing on Metropolitan Airports Commission governance issues and the
effects of airports on the surrounding neighborhoods. Our local legislators, whose constituents live near Flying Cloud Airport, are not part of the discussion. Ask yourself why?

We think airport commissioners should represent communities affected by airport noise and growth. Eden Prairie does not have a representative on the MAC commission. Why? There is no one representing Eden Prairie residents who lives in Eden Prairie or near Flying Cloud Airport. We think unnecessary airport expansions should be limited according to economic feasibility and need! We think the legislature should act to check the airport industry's influence over how the state spends money at the MSP and the relievers.

We want a community representative and more community accountability from The MAC. The Legislature and our local legislators need to hear from you before Wednesday, September 19th!

Contact:
Rep Paulsen, Erik 651-296-7449 or email rep.erik.paulsen@house.mn
Rep Hilstrom, Debra 651-296-3709 or rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
Senator Hann, David W. 651 296-1749
Rep Hornstein, Frank 651-296-9281 rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn
Rep Ruud, Maria 651-296-3964 or email rep.maria.ruud@house.mn

Thank you for making a difference
Your Neighborhood Zero Expansion Team

2007-09-08T11:15:00.000-07:00

Public’s tax dollars subsidize bike racks and private aviation under Oberstar’s Reauthorization Plan

According to a Minneapolis Star Tribune article, “Cycling’s Political Tour De Finance,” July 29, 2007, Representative Jim Oberstar, (D- MN) the chair of the House Transportation Committee, has a propensity for cycling… and pork.

Though Oberstar vowed he wouldn’t slip unvetted spending into a funding bill, that’s exactly what he’s done by providing an amendment to the House FAA reauthorization bill that will allow airport funding for bike storage facilities at airports.

It all started with a cyclist in Minneapolis who had his bike trashed by airport personnel. The cyclist contacted Oberstar who got an $8,000 contribution to his campaign for reelection. While bike enthusiasts might be cheering, millions of commercial flyers should be absolutely irate.

If Oberstar weren’t an avid, maybe too avid, bike enthusiast, would he bother? Where’s the demand? The enthusiasm we need to save millions of lives, by screening onboard cargo has taken Congress six years to get serious about. The 9-11 report recommendations to screen potentially dangerous cargo only passed Congressional muster six years after-the-fact, while bike storage got an immediate pass.

Minnesota’s new transportation go-to-guy, who promised no earmarks or special interest influence, has among his top contributors the AOPA (Airline Operators and Pilots Association), according to opensecrets.org. The organization of 412,000 members, who are opposed to user fees in the aviation reauthorization that runs out this Sept 30th, seem to have more clout with Oberstar than the 740 million commercial airline passengers, who the FAA predicts will increase to 1 billion by 2015.

Oberstar supports the current funding system which continues to depend on public ticket taxes to subsidize private aviation users. According to smarkskies.org the public and the airlines are paying 94% under the current funding system while private users of the system are only paying 6%.

Smartskies.org says private jet aircraft in the United States grew from roughly 1,800 aircraft in 1970 to 18,000 aircraft in 2007. If they can pay for their own private jets, or pay to hire one, why can’t they afford the $25.00 per flight user fee the Senate Bill mandates?

FAA forecasts an increase in business aviation operations which will supersede commercial flights and double over the next 14 years. Put that in context with commercial aviation flights which will increase one third by 2015 and you have the potential for an increase in security risks and “proximity events,” (less degrees of separation between aircraft).

The rap on Oberstar is that instead of making flight safe for the millions and soon to be billions of commercial flyers, he’s supporting a reauthorization bill that requires public ticket taxes to subsidize someone else’s use of their private plane.

The current funding mechanism runs out Sept 30th. Call Oberstar and tell him to support the public’s tax dollar going toward safety/security, not the private or business use of smaller aircraft.