Metropolitan Airports Commission: Glossary of Terms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
City of Lake Elmo 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPENDIX
City of Lake Elmo 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPENDIX CONTENTS: A. Background Report B. Glossary of Terms C. Jurisdictional Review & Comments D. Resolutions E. Meeting Minutes F. Capital Improvement Plan G. Sanitary System Ordinances & Agreements H. Water Supply Plan This page is intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A. Background Report (Prepared: April 25, 2017) City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 This page is intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction, Context and History 1 Community Character 7 Demographics and Households 10 Housing 22 Economic Overview 33 Land Use and Growth Management 38 Natural Resources 44 Transportation 46 Parks and Open Space 49 Community Facilities 52 Living Healthy 54 Introduction, Context & History This background report is the first step in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) development process, and it will be refined throughout the process as needed to ensure that it captures the current characteristics of the community. The intent of the following inventory and analysis is that will help facilitate the development of a Plan that is based in reality, is responsive to current and anticipated market trends, and respects the community’s vision for the future of Lake Elmo. The purpose of the background report is to provide a comprehensive ‘snapshot’ in time of the City of Lake Elmo today by providing a baseline of information, 1 data and analysis about the community. Coupling this information with local and regional trends will help inform and guide the planning process by establishing a foundation from which the Plan can be developed. The City of Lake Elmo is a community with diverse resources that offers residents and businesses an exceptional quality of life, and to maintain that quality and to help facilitate this planning effort, it is important to understand the City as it is currently. -
Constraints for STOL Operations in South Florida Conurbation Cedric Y
Constraints for STOL Operations in South Florida Conurbation Cedric Y. Justin June 2021 Based on research previously published: Development of a Methodology for Parametric Analysis of STOL Airpark Geo-Density, Robinson et al. AIAA AVIATION 2018 Door-to-Door Travel Time Comparative Assessment for Conventional Transportation Methods and Short Takeoff and Landing On Demand Mobility Concepts, Wei et al. AIAA AVIATION 2018 Wind and Obstacles Impact on Airpark Placement for STOL-based Sub-Urban Air Mobility, Somers et al., AIAA AVIATION 2019 Optimal Siting of Sub-Urban Air Mobility (sUAM) Ground Architectures using Network Flow Formulation, Venkatesh et al, AIAA AVIATION 2020 Comparative Assessment of STOL-based Sub-Urban Air Mobility Operations in Massachusetts and South Florida, Justin et al. AIAA AVIATION 2020 Current Market Segmentation ? VTOL CTOL CTOL CTOL CTOL Capacity ? 200-400+ pax Twin Aisle Are there 120-210 pax scenarios where Single Aisle an intermediate solution using 50-90 pax STOL vehicles and Regional Aircraft sitting in- Design range below 300 nm Commuters between UAM 9-50 pax Flight time below 1.5 hours Thin-Haul and thin-haul 9 to 50 seat capacity operations exists? 4-9 pax Sub-Urban Missions 50-150 nm Air Mobility 4 to 9 revenue-seats Missions below 50 nm Urban Air Mobility 1-4 pax 1 to 4 revenue-seats 50 nm 300 nm 500 nm 3000 nm 6000+ nm Artwork Credit Uber Design Range 2 Introduction • Population, urbanization, and congestion Atlanta, GA Miami, FL Dallas, TX Los Angeles, CA have increased steadily over the past several decades • Increasing delays damage the environment and substantially impact the economy Driving time: 8 min. -
2011 Annual Report to the Legislature
2011 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE PREPARED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOISE PROGRAM OFFICE MARCH 2012 2011 Annual Report to the Legislature Metropolitan Airports Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4 1.0 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN ...................................... 6 2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MSP) ..................................... 7 2.0 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 MSP AIRPORT FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 8 2.1.1 Airfield ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.1.2 Terminal 1- Lindbergh ............................................................................................... 10 7 2.1.3 Terminal 2-Humphrey ................................................................................................ 11 2.1.4 Light Rail and Bus Transit ........................................................................................ 14 2.1.5 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update ......................................................... 14 2.1.6 MSP 2020 Environmental -
Labels Facility Managers
Bruce Visser Kathleen Ryan Norman County/Ada/Twin Valley Airport D00 Aitkin Municipal Airport - Steve Kurtz Field AIT PO Box 9 109 - 1st Ave NW Ada MN 56510 Aitkin MN 56431-1307 Jim Hanson Kreg Anderson Albert Lea Municipal Airport AEL Alexandria Municipal Airport - Chandler Field AXN 73950 - 275th Street 2604 Aga Drive Clarks Grove MN 56016 Alexandria MN 56308 Greg Ruether Bruce Budahn Appleton Municipal Airport AQP Austin Municipal Airport AUM 149 South Munsterman 710 - 21st Street NE Appleton MN 56208 Austin MN 55912 Craig Taylor Bill Masterson Backus Municipal Airport 7Y3 Bagley Municipal Airport 7Y4 1633 24th Ave SW PO Box 178 Backus MN 56435 Bagley MN 56621-0178 Adam Forsberg Karen Weller Baudette International Airport BDE Bemidji Regional Airport BJI 1103 Airport Road NW 3824 Moberg Dr NW, Suite 101 Baudette MN 56623 Bemidji MN 56601 Dan Gens Terry Baird Benson Municipal Airport - Veterans Field BBB Big Falls Municipal Airport 7Y9 1410 Kansas Ave PO Box 196 Benson MN 56215 Big Falls MN 56627 Kevin Hovila Luke Steier Bigfork Municipal Airport FOZ Blue Earth Municipal Airport SBU PO Box 196 7575 Highway 169 Bigfork MN 56628 Blue Earth MN 56013 Kenneth Reichert Steve Wright, Director Bowstring Airport 9Y0 Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport BRD 47703 Nutmeg Road 16384 Airport Road, Suite 5 Deer River MN 56636 Brainerd MN 56401 Dave Bohmer Chris Fredrick Brooten Municipal Airport/John O. Bohmer Field 6D1 Buffalo Municipal Airport CFE 1080 Front Street, Box 400 212 Central Ave Brooten MN 56316 Buffalo MN 55313 Brian Pogodzinski Lucas Milz -
2019Annual Report
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp ANNUAL 2019 REPORT Greetings: While the year 2019 might seem an already distant time in the wake of 2020’s world-changing COVID-19 pandemic, it was a period of tremendous growth in the aviation industry. 0LQQHDSROLV6W3DXO,QWHUQDWLRQDO$LUSRUW 063 HQMR\HGDQRWKHUUHFRUG\HDUVXUSDVVLQJPLOOLRQSDVVHQJHUVIRUWKH¿UVWWLPH International travel reached new heights with new service to Dublin, Mexico City and Seoul. And nearly two dozen new restaurants joined the ranks of MSP’s award-winning concession program. The Metropolitan Airports Commission’s (MAC) reliever airport system also saw an increase in the number of aircraft operations and the number of aircraft based there. Work continued on a multi-year project to expand and modernize Terminal 1’s vintage ticketing and bag claim facilities, and a new 5,000-stall parking ramp took shape in preparation for its 2020 debut. The MAC also began planning and increasing investments in its reliever airports, helping ensure the Twin Cities will continue to enjoy not only the largest, but also we believe the best, airport system in the nation. We’re not alone in holding that opinion. In 2019, for the third consecutive year, Airports Council International named MSP the Best Airport in North America in its size category based on passenger surveys. In short, 2019 was a year of tremendous promise that illustrated the close connection between air transportation and a strong HFRQRP\+LVWRU\KDVVKRZQWKDWDYLDWLRQERWKGULYHVDQGEHQH¿WVIURPHFRQRPLFJURZWK±DQGLWZLOODJDLQZKHQWKHFXUUHQW crisis is behind us. -
A Conceptual Design of a Short Takeoff and Landing Regional Jet Airliner
A Conceptual Design of a Short Takeoff and Landing Regional Jet Airliner Andrew S. Hahn 1 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681 Most jet airliner conceptual designs adhere to conventional takeoff and landing performance. Given this predominance, takeoff and landing performance has not been critical, since it has not been an active constraint in the design. Given that the demand for air travel is projected to increase dramatically, there is interest in operational concepts, such as Metroplex operations that seek to unload the major hub airports by using underutilized surrounding regional airports, as well as using underutilized runways at the major hub airports. Both of these operations require shorter takeoff and landing performance than is currently available for airliners of approximately 100-passenger capacity. This study examines the issues of modeling performance in this now critical flight regime as well as the impact of progressively reducing takeoff and landing field length requirements on the aircraft’s characteristics. Nomenclature CTOL = conventional takeoff and landing FAA = Federal Aviation Administration FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation RJ = regional jet STOL = short takeoff and landing UCD = three-dimensional Weissinger lifting line aerodynamics program I. Introduction EMAND for air travel over the next fifty to D seventy-five years has been projected to be as high as three times that of today. Given that the major airport hubs are already congested, and that the ability to increase capacity at these airports by building more full- size runways is limited, unconventional solutions are being considered to accommodate the projected increased demand. Two possible solutions being considered are: Metroplex operations, and using existing underutilized runways at the major hub airports. -
(FCM) Zoning Process: Informing a Mn/DOT Path Forward
Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Zoning Process: Informing a Mn/DOT Path Forward A Review of the Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) Process and the Draft Airport Zoning Ordinance B A RPZ RPZ A B C Zone Chad E. Leqve Director of Environment Metropolitan Airports Commission Mn/DOT Airport Zoning Advisory Group Meeting June 12, 2014 Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Zoning Process Presentation Outline Existing Federal Airspace and Land Use Provisions Why are We Zoning? Goal of the FCM Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) FCM Safety Considerations Economic Impact of Zoning around FCM Proposed Draft FCM Zoning Ordinance Airspace and Land Use Provisions Informing a Mn/DOT Path Forward Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Zoning Process Runway Safety Zones – Federal Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Federal Guidance: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Dimensions Rwy. 18 Rwy. 36 Rwy. 10L Rwy. 28L Rwy. 28R Rwy. 10R Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Zoning Process Federal Structure Height Restrictions: FAR Part 77 Primary Surface – aligned (longitudinally) with each runway and extends 200 ft from each runway end with a width of 120 ft to 1,000 ft depending on the runway’s classification. Approach Surface – longitudinally centered with the runway and extends beyond the primary surface at a slope and to a distance based on runway classification. Horizontal Surface – horizontal plane 150 ft above the established airport elevation. Constructed by swinging arcs around the end of the primary surface with a radius of either 5,000 ft or 10,000 ft based on the runway’s classification. Conical Surface – 20:1 surface extending 4,000 ft beyond the horizontal surface. -
United States Rocket Research and Development During World War II
United States Rocket Research and Development During World War II Unidentified U.S. Navy LSM(R) (Landing Ship Medium (Rocket)) launching barrage rockets during a drill late in the Second World War. Image courtesy of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. and jet-assisted takeoff (JATO) units for piston-pow- Over the course of the Second World War, rockets ered attack fighters and bombers. Wartime American evolved from scientific and technical curiosities into rocket research evolved along a number of similar and practical weapons with specific battlefield applications. overlapping research trajectories. Both the U.S. Navy The Allied and Axis powers both pursued rocket re- and Army (which included the Army Air Forces) devel- search and development programs during the war. Brit- oped rockets for ground bombardment purposes. The ish and American rocket scientists and engineers (and services also fielded aerial rockets for use by attack their Japanese adversaries) mainly focused their efforts aircraft. The Navy worked on rocket-powered bombs on tactical applications using solid-propellant rockets, for antisubmarine warfare, while the Army developed while the Germans pursued a variety of strategic and the handheld bazooka antitank rocket system. Lastly, tactical development programs primarily centered on both the Army and Navy conducted research into JATO liquid-propellant rockets. German Army researchers units for use with bombers and seaplanes. Throughout led by Wernher von Braun spent much of the war de- the war, however, limited coordination between the veloping the A-4 (more popularly known as the V-2), armed services and federal wartime planning bodies a sophisticated long-range, liquid-fueled rocket that hampered American rocket development efforts and led was employed to bombard London and Rotterdam late to duplicated research and competition amongst pro- in the war. -
Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission (LEAAC)
Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission (LEAAC) MEETING AGENDA May 26, 2021 3 p.m. This meeting is being held via TEAMS* only Join via computer or tablet: Click here to join the meeting Join via phone by calling: 612-405-6798 Meeting ID 589785142# 1. Overview by Airport Manager -Information 2. Introductions -Information 3. Bylaws Approval -Action 4. Election Discussion -Information 5. Work Plan -Action 6. Mobile Sound Monitoring Study -Information 7. Aircraft Operations and Noise Complaints Summary -Information 8. Public Comment (3-min. per comment) -Information 9. Member Comment -Information 10. Set LEAAC meeting schedule -Action 11. Adjourn * For assistance with meeting accommodations or using TEAMS, please contact: Jennifer Lewis, MAC Community Relations Coordinator [email protected] or 612-486-2420 Phil Tiedeman, MAC Airport Manager, 3275 Manning Ave., Box 2, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Email: [email protected] Phone: 763-717-0001 DRAFT BYLAWS OF LAKE ELMO AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION (LEAAC) ARTICLE I The name of this organization shall be the Lake Elmo Airport Advisory Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission." By appointing representatives to this Commission, the appointing authorities do hereby endorse the purpose and goals as identified in these bylaws and authorize and support the Commission as an advisory body to the respective appointing bodies. ARTICLE II PURPOSE AND GOALS GOAL: This Commission is formed to further the general welfare of the community and the Lake Elmo Airport, a public airport in Baytown Township, County of Washington, state of Minnesota, through minimizing or resolving problems created by the aircraft operations at the airport. -
LE SUEUR AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 31, 2019 Virtual Meeting 4:30 P.M
LE SUEUR AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 31, 2019 Virtual Meeting 4:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order (Welcome New Members) 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of minutes from December 5, 2019 meeting 4. Projects Update – Silas Parmer A. Property Acquisition B. Taxi-lane Extension C. Taxi-lane Rehabilitation 5. CIP Update – Silas Parmar 6. EDA Partnership – Newell 7. Airport Manager Report 8. Next Meeting: May 28 or June 2 or June 3, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. 9. Adjourn Airport Administration Office 1500 North Commerce St., Le Sueur, MN 56058 Phone (507) 665-9941 • Fax (507) 665-9948 Minutes of the Airport Commission December 5, 2019 Members Present: Scott Schlueter, Jack Roberts, Debra Wilbright and Chairperson Krogmann Members Absent: Darrell Kolden Others Present; Airport & Facilities Manager Andrew Cemenski, Public Services Director Rich Kucera, Silas Parmar, Airport Consultant/Project Manager from Bolton & Menk and Mike Doherty. The Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Krogmann in the Council Chambers at the SRE building at the Airport at 4:30 PM. Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Schlueter, seconded by Commissioner Roberts to approve the September 5, 2019 minutes with the correction of Commissioner Schlueter and not Commissioner Roberts for meeting with the EDA, all voted in favor. Projects Update – Silas Parmar: Reported by Silas Parmar, Airport Specialist/Project Manager Discussion on the taxilane extension project, taxilane rehabilitation project and T-hanger project. Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Wilbright to recommend to the City Council to rehabilitate the south taxilane project. All voted in favor. -
Mndot Statewide Airport Economic Study
MINNESOTA Statewide Airport Economic Impact Study 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TOTAL ANNUAL STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR ALL MINNESOTA PUBLIC AIRPORTS STUDY MAC ALL PUBLIC ANNUAL TOTALS AIRPORTS AIRPORTS AIRPORTS Employment 13,147 80,890 94,037 Payroll $570.1 million $3.9 billion $4.4 billion Spending $1.0 billion $12.8 billion $13.8 billion Photo Credit: Emmanuel Canaan Annual Economic Activity $ 1.6 billion $16.6 billion $18.2 billion Note: For more information on the MAC studies, visit metroairports.org. STUDY OVERVIEW ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR ALL PUBLIC AIRPORTS Minnesota is served by an extensive system of 133 public general aviation and commercial ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT ANNUAL PAYROLL service airports that provide essential transportation links, support aviation 94,037 $4.4 B services, and generate a significant amount of economic activity. Starting in late 2018, the ANNUAL ECONOMIC ANNUAL SPENDING ACTIVITY Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Office of Aeronautics studied 126 of these $13.8 B $18.2 B airports to measure their economic impact on the state economy. Throughout this document these 126 airports are referred to STUDY & MAC AIRPORTS as “study airports.” This map shows the geographic location for study and MAC airports. Economic impact results from studies conducted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), for their seven airports in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Area, are incorporated to provide a comprehensive summary of the annual economic impacts generated by all 133 public airports. Since a similar approach was used to estimate impacts for the MAC airports, the findings from the two separate efforts are combined to produce an overall statewide total, as shown in the table on this page. -
Advisory Circular 120-62
fw 3 Advisory U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Circular ’ AdminisWation Qlbject: TAKEOFF SAFETY TRAINING AID bte: g/Q/g4 AC No. 120-6.2 Announcement Of Availability Initiatedby: AFS-210 Change; 1 PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) announces the availability of a joint industry/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Takeoff Safety Training Aid to help air carriers and pilots increase safety during the takeoff phase of flight. a. The FAA recommends early consideration of the information contained in the aid and use of the material, as appropriate, for training aircrews. This AC also highlights certain key items, concepts, and definitions that each air carrier or operator should address in their respective operational procedures and crew qualification programs. b This circular applies to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121 operators. However, many of the principles, concepts, and procedures described apply to operations under FAR Parts 918 129, and 135 for certain aircraft, and are recommended for use by those operators when applicable. 2 BACKGROUND. Takeoff accidents resulting from improper rejected takeoff (RTO) decisions and procedures are significant contributors to worldwide commercial aviation accident statistics. For those takeoffs that are rejected, and for takeoffs made under certain environmental conditions and with certain system failures, risks could be reduced by a higher level of flightcrew knowledge and by the use of improved procedures. Due to the risks and the accident statistics associated with takeoffs, a joint FAA/industry team studied what actions might be taken to increase takeoff safety. These studies included simulation trials and in-depth analysis of takeoff accidents and incidents.