Brussels region noise regulation

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11734
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by luchtzak »

Established02 wrote: 11 May 2017, 18:42
luchtzak wrote: 11 May 2017, 18:00 Magma Aviation too has indicated that it will leave Brussels Airport if ...
What cargo flights does Magma operate at BRU?
747 flights, quick Google Search https://www.aviation24.be/search/?cx=00541 ... 3235791j32

teach
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by teach »

luchtzak wrote: 11 May 2017, 18:01 Brussels Airport press release about Air Cargo Global leaving

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/air-car ... s-airport/
And they're moving to ... Liege? Nope, of course not! Prague and Amsterdam it is! Another carrier leaving not just the airport, but the country. And taking the jobs with them. Just like all the others who have left and will leave, despite all the idiots claiming those carriers could just be moved to other Belgian airports. A few weeks until Magma does the same, and they too will leave the country.

User avatar
Established02
Posts: 1623
Joined: 16 Oct 2002, 00:00

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Established02 »

teach wrote: 11 May 2017, 19:07A few weeks until Magma does the same
Has anyone seen an aircraft of Magma in recent weeks, months or years?

Several years ago we could frequently see a 747 with MAGMA titles.

But since Air Cargo Global started operations at BRU, I have not anymore seen an aircraft with MAGMA titles.

Jetter
Posts: 480
Joined: 06 Nov 2015, 21:07

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Jetter »

Acid-drop wrote: 11 May 2017, 16:01"those who wants to move forward will always find a solution, those who wants to get stuck will always find excuses".
Yeah, and you know what that solution is? Moving to another airport of course. Why be bothered by the insane Belgian politicians and unions if there are no such issues in AMS and PRG i.e.? :roll:
Jet... gone
Yangtze... gone
Global... gone
Magma... almost gone
EasyJet... almost gone

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11734
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by luchtzak »

New instructions on how to take off at Brussels Airport


DjengisKhan
Posts: 7
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by DjengisKhan »

Established02 wrote: 11 May 2017, 18:42
luchtzak wrote: 11 May 2017, 18:00 Magma Aviation too has indicated that it will leave Brussels Airport if ...
What cargo flights does Magma operate at BRU?
As far as I know, it was Magma that was chartering the aircraft of Air Cargo Global to transport their cargo. Until 2015, they where using aircraft of Turkish airline ACT Airlines, some of which had the "Magma"-titles.

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11734
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by luchtzak »

DjengisKhan wrote: 11 May 2017, 22:25
Established02 wrote: 11 May 2017, 18:42
luchtzak wrote: 11 May 2017, 18:00 Magma Aviation too has indicated that it will leave Brussels Airport if ...
What cargo flights does Magma operate at BRU?
As far as I know, it was Magma that was chartering the aircraft of Air Cargo Global to transport their cargo. Until 2015, they where using aircraft of Turkish airline ACT Airlines, some of which had the "Magma"-titles.
Image

Hue

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Hue »

mad_fab wrote: 11 May 2017, 17:54 Well, this only concern early morning flights, right? So the capacity at that time shouldn't be much of a problem.
FR requests full length for departure rwy 25R 24/7.

Hue

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Hue »

Homo Aeroportus wrote: 11 May 2017, 17:26 relocating the RWY25L threshold will alleviate the problem especially because, thanks to the necessary parallel TWY to be built also, this will enable spreading the departures over two runways.
But even this is not an "easy solution".
1 runway for arrivals and 1 runway for departures is safer and offers more capacity imo than mixed operations on both 25L & R.

mad_fab
Posts: 163
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by mad_fab »

Hue wrote: 12 May 2017, 13:34 FR requests full length for departure rwy 25R 24/7.
Well.. does that even make sense?

Passenger
Posts: 7267
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Passenger »

mad_fab wrote: 12 May 2017, 14:40
Hue wrote: 12 May 2017, 13:34 FR requests full length for departure rwy 25R 24/7.
Well.. does that even make sense?
I would say: give it to them. But let them wait there and give priority to all intersection departures. Till Ryanair understands that they are not the only airline who wants to avoid the fines by using full length.

shockcooling
Posts: 230
Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 17:18

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by shockcooling »

There is a catch in their procedure, the departures towards the south start with a left turn at 1700 ft, the earlier you turn, the shorter the departure is. I think that's their only aim

teach
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by teach »

Hue wrote: 12 May 2017, 13:43
Homo Aeroportus wrote: 11 May 2017, 17:26 relocating the RWY25L threshold will alleviate the problem especially because, thanks to the necessary parallel TWY to be built also, this will enable spreading the departures over two runways.
But even this is not an "easy solution".
1 runway for arrivals and 1 runway for departures is safer and offers more capacity imo than mixed operations on both 25L & R.
It most certainly doesn't offer more capacity, quite the opposite.

Poiu
Posts: 897
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Poiu »

teach wrote: 13 May 2017, 08:17
Hue wrote: 12 May 2017, 13:43
Homo Aeroportus wrote: 11 May 2017, 17:26 relocating the RWY25L threshold will alleviate the problem especially because, thanks to the necessary parallel TWY to be built also, this will enable spreading the departures over two runways.
But even this is not an "easy solution".
1 runway for arrivals and 1 runway for departures is safer and offers more capacity imo than mixed operations on both 25L & R.
It most certainly doesn't offer more capacity, quite the opposite.
Teach, I think you misunderstood HUE, landing capacity can be increased by using the two runways, but it makes you loose more in take off capacity, so the overall capacity decreases. Using 25L for take off would considerably reduce landing capacity. You could use it occasionally for departures in the 5nm gap between a landing heavy and a medium behind without loosing capacity though.

Poiu
Posts: 897
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Poiu »

Passenger wrote: 12 May 2017, 14:48
mad_fab wrote: 12 May 2017, 14:40
Hue wrote: 12 May 2017, 13:34 FR requests full length for departure rwy 25R 24/7.
Well.. does that even make sense?
I would say: give it to them. But let them wait there and give priority to all intersection departures. Till Ryanair understands that they are not the only airline who wants to avoid the fines by using full length.
So we put SN's 330s who take off from full lenght at the back of the queue as well?

teach
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by teach »

Poiu wrote: 13 May 2017, 09:30 Teach, I think you misunderstood HUE, landing capacity can be increased by using the two runways, but it makes you loose more in take off capacity, so the overall capacity decreases. Using 25L for take off would considerably reduce landing capacity. You could use it occasionally for departures in the 5nm gap between a landing heavy and a medium behind without loosing capacity though.
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Mixed operations from both runways would always give you a higher overall capacity than having one runway dedicated to landings and one to take-offs. Cases in point: Gatwick and Heathrow. Gatwick operates a single runway in mixed mode, and achieves some 55 movements per hour. Heathrow achieves some 80 - 85 per hour, with dedicated runways for take-offs and landings. That's less than 45 per runway, vs 55 at Gatwick.

Passenger
Posts: 7267
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Passenger »

Poiu wrote: 13 May 2017, 09:36
Passenger wrote: 12 May 2017, 14:48 I would say: give it to them. But let them wait there and give priority to all intersection departures. Till Ryanair understands that they are not the only airline who wants to avoid the fines by using full length.
So we put SN's 330s who take off from full lenght at the back of the queue as well?
We keep the normal take off clearance for aircraft that, technically, do need the full length. But aircraft that can take off safely from an intersection, and who have done this till now, have to show fairplay towards the others.

Belgocontrol said in their reaction (11th May) to Ryanair's announcement that the airport cannot handle it when all aircraft would do this: Belgocontrol wijst daarnaast op een capaciteitsprobleem. "Mochten alle piloten op deze zelfde wijze willen opstijgen, dan heeft dat zware gevolgen voor de capaciteit van het luchtverkeer op de luchthaven".

Translated: Belgocontrol points towards a capacity problem. If all pilots would like to take off like this (= the Ryanair-way), it will have serious consequences for the airport capacity".

Poiu
Posts: 897
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Poiu »

teach wrote: 13 May 2017, 12:08
Poiu wrote: 13 May 2017, 09:30 Teach, I think you misunderstood HUE, landing capacity can be increased by using the two runways, but it makes you loose more in take off capacity, so the overall capacity decreases. Using 25L for take off would considerably reduce landing capacity. You could use it occasionally for departures in the 5nm gap between a landing heavy and a medium behind without loosing capacity though.
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Mixed operations from both runways would always give you a higher overall capacity than having one runway dedicated to landings and one to take-offs. Cases in point: Gatwick and Heathrow. Gatwick operates a single runway in mixed mode, and achieves some 55 movements per hour. Heathrow achieves some 80 - 85 per hour, with dedicated runways for take-offs and landings. That's less than 45 per runway, vs 55 at Gatwick.
LHR has a lot more heavies than LGW. Landing and take off roll are longer so reduced capacity.
If alternating TO/LDG would create extra capacity LHR would be dong it on both runways.

teach
Posts: 740
Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by teach »

Poiu wrote: 13 May 2017, 12:50
LHR has a lot more heavies than LGW. Landing and take off roll are longer so reduced capacity.
If alternating TO/LDG would create extra capacity LHR would be dong it on both runways.
The number of heavies is largely irrelevant in the way LHR operates: thy bundle heavies together for both take-offs and landings, meaning they only lose capacity when a heavy is followed by a smaller plane. This isn't realy somehing that's up for debate you know: mixed ops means larger capacity.

The only reason LHR doesn't use mixed ops today is because of exactly the reason this topic exists: aircraft noise. At LHR, the compromise has for many years been to use one runway for landings, the other for take-offs, and in the case of westerly operations, to switch both at exactly 3pm. That way the people under the approach only have to tolerate the planes flying over their houses for half the day. That's the ONLY reason they've got those separated ops. In fact, scrapping the runway alternation scheme has been proposed as a way to increase capacity at LHR, but local councils want nothing of it. See this press release as an example: http://www.cookham.com/forum/index.php? ... 683.0;wap2 As the article states, mixed runway ops would mean an extra 45.000 movements at LHR per year.

Poiu
Posts: 897
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: Brussels region noise regulation

Post by Poiu »

teach wrote: 13 May 2017, 16:16
The number of heavies is largely irrelevant in the way LHR operates: thy bundle heavies together for both take-offs and landings, meaning they only lose capacity when a heavy is followed by a smaller plane. This isn't realy somehing that's up for debate you know: mixed ops means larger capacity.
I was not talking about wake turbulence, but about runway occupancy time!
A heavy 747 rolls for 60 seconds a 737 for 40, the number of heavies does have a serious impact on capacity.

Post Reply