FAA pulls plug on MSP's compromise takeoff plan

  • Article by: Pat Doyle , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 19, 2014 - 9:28 PM

Citing safety risks, the agency gives up on limiting the use of new takeoff technology, for now. Officials say look for the FAA to try again.

  • 33
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mattaudioFeb. 19, 1411:46 AM

The safety risk and environmental impacts are nearly 100% caused by the bunching of operations (banks). It's the equivalent of saying a road is congested from 4 to 6 PM but sees nearly no use at 6:15 PM - is the sensible outcome to push technology that is questionable at even making things safer? Or does it make sense to improve safety and lower impacts by spreading out the use of the airport over time and lowering the peak operations per hour? Clearly the latter.

stingballFeb. 19, 1412:02 PM

This is good news if you live in Richfield and parts of South Minneapolis. For the past 4 years, we have gotten pounded by increased flights over our area due to the spreading out of the flights paths over non-noise mitigated areas. Flights that used to go over the Crosstown highway corridor are now being widely dispersed due to a near-collision of airplanes that occurred. Delta has also moved many of its newer, quieter airplanes from MSP to Atlanta and replaced them with older, noisier ones. RNAV implementation will bring much needed and overdue noise relief to most of Richfield and parts of South Minneapolis. Edina residents and officials would be OK with Richfield continuing to get the brunt of the noise but that would not be fair. I'm glad the FAA is not giving in to a vocal, influential group of citizens at the expense of many other citizens who are not as politically connected.

mattaudioFeb. 19, 1412:20 PM

Stingball, true to a degree, but not the whole picture. Half of the RNAV departure paths are over non-mitigated areas (roughly headings 360 and 270) over Powerderhorn/Lake Hiawatha and Richfield/Edina.

stingballFeb. 19, 1412:36 PM

mattaudio, correct. I said MOST of Richfield and PARTS of South Minneapolis. No plan will be perfect for everyone. The best plan is the one that provides noise mitigation for the most people while negatively impacting the fewest. Admittedly, Richfield residents who live along the Crosstown highway corridor would likely be negatively impacted by RNAV departure implementation. But this isn't happening anyway, just RNAV arrival implementation.

woostermanFeb. 19, 1412:40 PM

Reading the FAAletter, it seems RNAV will be used for landings but not for takeoffs, so the pain of the real noise will continue to be spread around. I think this is a fair compromise that doesn't subject any one neighborhood to constant noise.

strib4Feb. 19, 1412:50 PM

Stingball: I agree with you that whichever plan provides the most noise mitigation for the most people is good. However, RNAV will basically subject far more people to far more noise. You're completely wrong on that point.

GaviotaFeb. 19, 14 1:35 PM

This statement by Strib reporter Pat Doyle--“For now, the agency’s decision means it won’t move forward with its plan to use the technology on any runways at MSP”—seems to be in conflict with: “While departures will be handled for now under current air traffic control procedures, the FAA will use the new technology for routing arrivals, which wasn’t controversial.” Which is it? Also, the RNAV plan for departures was to go into effect this summer. Can we now assume that in its latest stance, the FAA has given up the “summer of 2014” start and has now cited no specific dates for its “future” implementation?

IHATELOGINS0Feb. 19, 14 1:38 PM

The answer has always been simple. I chose not to live by the airport, or anywhere in the vicinity of the airport or anywhere near even the vicinity of the airport.

rcarlson07Feb. 19, 14 1:59 PM

the safety argument appears to be a smokescreen. the FAA is evidently intent on forcing its new technology on metro areas that have spent years working out balanced noise maintenance arrangements. with one stroke, the FAA will throw all that in the trash and drastically change health and property values in certain neighborhoods in south Minneapolis and Edina. that being the case, this use of eminent domain should be paid for by compensation to the affected homeowners.

happytrailsFeb. 19, 14 2:04 PM

Looks like the Minneapolis neighborhood group 'Fair Skies' won't be happy to hear this news! I always found it funny that they named their group Fair Skies, but didn't want any flight tracks over their expensive houses. How is that 'fair'? They wanted to push for the status quo of letting us in Richfield continue to get pounded with noise. Yes, we will still get noise, but at least there will be some relief in new flight tracks.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters






question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question