Getting Information out:SMAAC issued dozens of public
announcements, media releases, and these ran in newspapers and blogs.I was
twice interviewed by TV stations, and at least 4 of our Forums were
covered by radio and TV reporters.Since 2006, we operated a website, and since
2009, an interactive forum/blog.I write a twice monthly
aviation column for MN2020.Dick Saunders and I wrote over a dozen columns for
Southside Pride.Warnings:In 2002, the Noise
Oversight Committee was formed after the MAC revised the Part 150 SIP,
understating noise exposure and canceling the Extended Sound Insulation Program
(ESIP).The Mayor attempted to restore the ESIP but a NOC recommendation was
rejected.It wasn't SMAAC that concentrated on relief where
the planes no longer fly.We fully advised Council Members serving as NOC
delegates, the Mayor, and your legislators.What you can do:
Help SMAAC.Bring your complaints to our blog.Join SMAAC.In 2007 and 2009,
flights were routed over your neighborhood, excused by
MSP runways being closed for construction.I can tell you that your leguslators
and Council Members did next to nothing about it. Call
Congressman Ellison and tell him you support his efforts with FAA on the
overflights and hub.Making Sense:It is complicated, and the
airlines spend a fortune keeping it so.Here is the simpler analysis.Noise and
loudness is perceived, and measurements are calibrated
subjectively."Harmful" noise was related to noisy environments, such as steel
mills, and hearing loss.Overflight noise can be "averaged" and
compared to harmful noise, but so what?Ah, but the "what" is built into a model
that denies real harm, and is the legal basis for noise
regulation.Studies that show overflights are harmful independent of average
noise levels, and that has been our issue recently.Thank you
for this message. I will of course call you, because your protests are valid
and you should understand why they are politically, health, and safety.
.--Jim SpensleyMinneapolisOn Sun, 25 Sep 2011 19:53:19 -0500"Karl
StarrChristopher Jan Haug"<email obscured>:Jim Spensley -
Thank you for your posting on this topic.
From your profile information on
eDemocracy.org, itappears you have beenhighly involved for many years with
issues related tolivability in southMineapolis as regards to airport noise.I
thank you foryour history of involvement and leadership.
Unfortunately,
your posting is more than a litleunsatisfying on a couple oflevels:
1) You say that SMAAC has been aware of these
proceduralchanges, but itappears that you and your organization did NOTHING
toget the word out aboutthese changes
to the hundreds of households in theStandish-Ericsson /Keewaydin neighborhods
who have been afflicted by a hugeincrease
inaircraft takeoff noise over the past several months.What gives withthat?Do
you not care about us because we
are outsidethe traditionalareas that have suffered from aircraft noise
pollutionfor the past 40years?
2) Your posting doesn't actualy make a lot of sense tome.I really
don'tunderstand what you are trying to
say.Perhaps you areso deep into thisissue that you assume everyone knows what
you do andspeaks the same
insiderspeak as you.I just don't get it.I want to know ifthere's anything atall
the residents of
Standish-Ericsson / Keewaydin cando to eliminate orameliorate this new
afflication.
I'd be grateful for a
clarifying post from you.Otherwise, you may feelfree to contact me directly to
discuss:612.816.5736.
- Karl
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Jim <email obscured>:
The South
Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) has beenaware of MSPprocedural changes for
years and predicted substantiallymore flights overthe Standish-Ericcson,
Longfellow, and generally northof MSP and east ofBloomington Avenue in
Minneapolis.We observed earlier changes in air traffic controlparameters
thatincreased the over-flights.The changes supporting highrates of runwaysuse
and more noise in the subject area
started 7 yearsago when the NoiseOversight Committee and the Metropolitan
AirportsCommission
approvedchanges in flight patterns.Previously, departures on the parallel
runways limited-- to an
extent --noise exposure by flying a "profile" that decreasedpower settings
andrate-of-climb as aircraft passed
over the airportperimeter and continuedfor a few miles.Thye North parallel
runway is longerthan
needed for mosttake-offs, and it ends about a mile from the westairport
property line atCedar
Avenue.The new procedure increased noise exposure compared tothe old
procedurefor sound-insulated
areas near MSP along the runwayheadings, but becausehigh power settings and
rates-of-climb were allowed,aircraft wereconsiderably higher passing over the
"65 DNL"margins as mapped then.Aa a
consequence of both higher allowed power settings(more source noise)and climb
rates, many aircraft could and did attain1,500 altitude whileover the airport
property.However, as MSP becamebusier at peak
hours,departing aircraft turned off the runway heading toclear the runway for
thenext
operation.As explained by FAA at a public forum on rates andsafety at MSP, a
takeoff or landing
every minute per runway is scheduled.Adeparting airlinerrolls onto the runway
as soon as a landing airplane hastouched down, radiosreadiness to the Tower,
tests engines, and starts itstake-off run as soonas the
landed aircraft clears the runway.Go towww.quiettheskies.org andclick on the
link December 2010 Forum
Report.Consequently, a turn made by the departing aircraft --away from
theadjacent runway of course
Rest of post
-- reduces the risk of beingovertaken should thefollowing aircraft trying to
land a minute or lessbehind aborts
the landing-- a fly-around.These early lift-off, turning ASAP,departures are
thesource of the
increased traffic.By the way: overflights, due to noise or air
pollution,correlate withincreased
health risks.SMAAC will continue to monitorthis blog, butoffers a broader
discussion in the SMAAC BULLETIN BOARDFORUMS at the aboveweb-site.James R.
SpensleyHale Page Diamond Lake,
MinneapolisAbout Jim
Spensley:http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/2zgRh68fRck5pCQyA09IehView full
topic, share on Facebook and
more:http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/eiISD75Vmi4q8FlrAyskOSpecial
Feedback - Are the new forum rules working
foryou?http://blog.e-democracy.org/posts/1299- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -To post: mpls-staneric@forums.e-democracy.org or"Reply-to-All"
tocomment publicly.To leave: Put "unsubscribe" - or for digest write"digest on"
- insubject.Forum Home:http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls-staneric- - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Need help?
http://e-democracy.org/supportHostingthanks:http://OnlineGroups.Net