Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MSP Runway Rebuilding Means Landings On 17!  
User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2215 posts, RR: 8
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

The lead article in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune says Runway 12R/30L will be closed for reconstruction between August and November.

The reconstruction will result in takeoffs on the 35 direction of brand new runway 17/35, and landings in the 17 direction. There will also be more takeoffs and landings over St Paul on 4/22.

The full article can be read here:

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/938487.html

The same pattern will be repeated next summer when 12L/30R will be rebuilt.

I'm sure the airlines are not going to like the loooooong taxi from the gates to the threshhold of Runway 35 for takeoff!


Seaholm Maples are #1!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCharlienorth From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1119 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

I grew up under the approach to rwy 4,miss the airlines and airplanes of the 60's and 70's. Would love to do this approach just to see the old 'hood from the air.

User currently offlineJSquared From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

Quote:

In Highland Park, James Janssen already is bracing for a noisy summer. He said his home sits on high ground, directly below the approach path. "You can smell the jet fuel," he said of the planes that now swoop over his house. "It is loud. They are right on my roof.

The noise is at its worst at night, he said, when late-arriving cargo planes rumble into the airport. He said he has complained to the Airports Commission as late as 2 a.m. "That is when we lose it," he said. "It wakes up the little children on the block."

I've never understood how people who choose to live close to the airport get upset when they hear airplane noise - in the vast majority of cases, the airport was there first! How could you not know what you were in for?


User currently offlineDc-9-10 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 584 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2520 times:

Quoting JSquared (Reply 2):
I've never understood how people who choose to live close to the airport get upset when they hear airplane noise - in the vast majority of cases, the airport was there first! How could you not know what you were in for?

There is a variety of reasons why people live so close to the airport. First the resident might have been living in that same house for 30 to 40 years or more when the daily airport activity was no more then maybe one flight an hour, now it is flight after flight after flight.

If they are a new home owner, realtors have tricks to get people to think the noise is not that bad, such as showing the house during a slow time at the airport (ex. Sunday afternoons). Also the problem is that developers see any unused land and think (especially during housing booms) to develop residential communities and city and county officials are going to let the developments happen because the tax income is too great to ignore, even though the airport does everything in its power to stop it.

Dc-9-10


User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting Dc-9-10 (Reply 3):
Also the problem is that developers see any unused land and think (especially during housing booms) to develop residential communities and city and county officials are going to let the developments happen because the tax income is too great to ignore, even though the airport does everything in its power to stop it.

One of the things LAS did was to have the DOA buy the land as noise mitigation. Sometimes they'd have it rezone it commercial or industrial and then sell it back. Of course this lead to problems because their apprasier got in trouble for undervaluing parcels of land during the boom of 2004. Then the people who got hold of the land tried to have it zoned back to something more profitable.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

The good news is that the DC-10s are gone, and that the DC-9s are going away. I live in the opposite direction of highland park, but still in the path of the runway, some miles out (probably about 10 miles), and the DC-9s are usually the only ones we really hear very loudly at all.

I'm glad the work is getting underway, and while i love the planes landing parallel to the interstate, and this is the easiest runway to spot for (well, either of the 12/30 runways), it'll be nice.

As for the added taxi time, MSP is a very prompt airport, I'm sure it won't cause too much trouble, and let's be honest, it's not as bad as SAN or PHL can be for taxi times.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2215 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting Dc-9-10 (Reply 3):
developers see any unused land and think (especially during housing booms) to develop residential communities and city and county officials are going to let the developments happen because the tax income is too great to ignore, even though the airport does everything in its power to stop it.

I think it was really smart of Eagan to develop much of the land under the approach paths to the 30s southeast of the airport as warehouse / industrial space. If you're going to have development next to an airport, that's the ideal kind.

There would be a lot fewer NIMBYs ruining things if more cities had done what Eagan did.....



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

The section they're replacing was laid in 1960. I didn't realize it was that old.

Mark


User currently offlinePilottim747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

More information: Runway closure will bring noticeable airspace changes -- MSP Update Blog (01/14/07)


Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting Dc-9-10 (Reply 3):
There is a variety of reasons why people live so close to the airport.

A big reason is that it is cheap because it is near a noisy airport. Mr. Nimby buys a cheap house near the airport, complains about the noise and tells the city council that it is hurting the property value.


User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1035 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2020 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 5):
The good news is that the DC-10s are gone, and that the DC-9s are going away

Good news? Are you kidding me? That's all tragic!  smile 


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3502 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 5):
The good news is that the DC-10s are gone, and that the DC-9s are going away.

As for the DC-9s...I don't believe you. There would be at least five related threads in civ-av if the Diesel Nines were going anywhere in the near future.  Wink



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2529 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1966 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For those of us who live close to a major airport, noise can certainly be an issue. But here in ATL, at least, the airport was here FIRST!

However, I chose to accept that issue for the convience of easy access, what with the horrible traffic issues here in metro Atlanta. A daily (and nightly) nightmare!

That being said, after so many years of enduring the noisy blasts of hundreds of JT-8's every day and night things have improved here. Yeah, I miss the old birds, but the newer ones are sooo much more quiet.

I would imagine the folks at MSP would agree, even the supposed "hush-kitting" of those JT-8's hasn't done much.
Would hate to be too close to a line up of '9's waiting to take off!

 twocents 



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineJSquared From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 12):
I would imagine the folks at MSP would agree, even the supposed "hush-kitting" of those JT-8's hasn't done much.
Would hate to be too close to a line up of '9's waiting to take off!

I thought the DC-9s were loud until I heard one of Champion's 727s overhead... now THAT is one noisy aircraft!


User currently offlineJerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 253 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1785 times:

Quoting JSquared (Reply 13):
I thought the DC-9s were loud until I heard one of Champion's 727s overhead... now THAT is one noisy aircraft!

Like a rocket!

 Smile  Smile



L10/D9S/D10/M80/M88/732/733/734/735/73G/738/72S/757/762/763/320/319/318/ERJ
User currently offlineAf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

In the summer many times a 747 will takeoff on runway 4/22 towards Bloomington. At first its silent, then a 747 is screaming over my house. I don't mind the noise. I would like to have 4/22 be used more.


It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Landings On MAN Runway 24L posted Tue Jul 6 2004 01:42:03 by GKirk
US Air Landing On 17/35s At MCO posted Fri Dec 22 2006 20:29:26 by ROA757
Day Of The Open Doors At MUC, On 17/09 posted Wed Sep 13 2006 22:18:10 by A342
Seattle Airport Incident On 7/17 posted Wed Jul 19 2006 03:55:59 by Abrelosojos
Jetblue Unprofitable On 17 Of Last 20 New Routes posted Sat Mar 11 2006 14:20:49 by Lowecur
How Are Loads On NH1 On 2/17 & NH2 On 2/20? posted Thu Feb 9 2006 02:31:42 by Brokenrecord
CAT 3 Landings On 737 posted Fri Dec 23 2005 19:32:20 by LGWspeedbird
UA954 - A 744 On 17 Dec? posted Sun Dec 18 2005 20:13:05 by FiveMileFinal
Stansted On 17 November...Aanything Special? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 14:16:41 by BBJII
New MSP Runway Opens Today posted Thu Oct 27 2005 10:42:38 by Acidradio