Brussels region noise regulation

[sn26567]

Somebody asked for the Flemish proposal. It is plain unacceptable, as it de facto splits Belgocontrol:

http://www.tijd.be/politiek_economie/be ... 4-3137.art

[Crosswind]

Lots of people here argues that, leaving in proximity of an airport leads to accept the noise. You are damn right , that's why it would be no problem at all for the Noordrand to keep more flights above their heads... The arguments is valid in any case. So what ? Why so many flights over Brussels ?

@EBBU : using two runways for T/O and LDG is anything but a problem.

[Desert Rat]

Ha...I thought Belgocontrol was already split or let's say under one side influence.

[Shengenzone]

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/3804/Belgie/vi ... eren.dhtml

[lumumba]

If we split Belgocontrole thus this means that we have one in Brussels one in Walonie and one in Flanders...

[Crosswind]

what does a "split" of such a generalist entity means ?

Any details ?

[Passenger]

Why so many flights over Brussels ?

The facts from University Ghent contradict your statement. Compared to Flanders, Brussels has very little flights. The facts have been posted here a few times - I'm not going to repeat it.

[Crosswind]

Passenger: many of us have answered you. Brussels get the majority of the DEP flights (and UGent does'nt say the contrary).

Could we now talk about compromise ?

[Passenger]

Brussels get the majority of the DEP flights (and UGent does'nt say the contrary).

I have always thaught that figures are the same in Dutch, in French and in English. Apparently, they are not. In French, it seems that 5.261 is more then 38.565 (number of flights). And it also seems that, in French, 3.600 is more then 10.300 (= inhabitants in "severe noise areas").

And please, stop saying that the figures from Universiteit Ghent are about departing and arriving aircraft. They are not: they are the figures for departing aircraft only.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20170222_02745025

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20170221 ... n=61864353

edited : 5.261 and 38.565 are the number of flights, and not "inhabitants" as I initially posted.

[Crosswind]

Brussels get the majority of the DEP flights (and UGent does'nt say the contrary).

I have always thaught that figures are the same in Dutch, in French and in English. Apparently, they are not. In French, it seems that 5.261 is more then 38.565 (inhabitants). And it also seems that, in French, 3.600 is more then 10.300 (= inhabitants in "severe noise areas").

And please, stop saying that the figures from Universiteit Ghent are about departing and arriving aircraft. They are not: they are the figures for departing aircraft only.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20170222_02745025

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20170221 ... n=61864353

Those numbers are wrong. All south DEP trafic overflies Brussels. You have to add those figure (around 40000 DEP) to the 5261...

[Passenger]

Those numbers are wrong. All south DEP trafic overflies Brussels. You have to add those figure (around 40000 DEP) to the 5261...

The only error in my post has just been corrected.

[Jetter]

A philosopher from Brussels has the solution: shrinking BRU to 4 million passengers. http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/luchthave ... -b93970fe/

After having been attacked by terrorists from the European capital of terrorism now the NIMBY's think it's their turn. An evil pact.

[Acid-drop]

From the map its clear its almost 100% of traffic. Who needs a study with funky numbers ?

A philosopher from Brussels has the solution: shrinking BRU to 4 million passengers.

So obvious indeed. Bru should be as linate. Business only.
Then "another airport" should play the role of malpenza.
EBBE is the best one for the job, as its right on the language border.

[Crosswind]

Those numbers are wrong. All south DEP trafic overflies Brussels. You have to add those figure (around 40000 DEP) to the 5261...

The only error in my post has just been corrected.

No, you are still wrong. And at this stage you show a willingness not to understand. DEP trafic is about 70% above Brussels.

[Crosswind]

A philosopher from Brussels has the solution: shrinking BRU to 4 million passengers. http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/luchthave ... -b93970fe/

After having been attacked by terrorists from the European capital of terrorism now the NIMBY's think it's their turn. An evil pact.

Can be a real solution, and to develop Charleroi, rail station, etc... For the good of the country.

[gumblebee]

edited : 5.261 and 38.565 are the number of flights, and not "inhabitants" as I initially posted.

If the number of airplanes taking off over Brussels is so low, why is the Brussels region noise regulation such a big problem? If I read some comments, grave enough to shut the whole airport down.

[Yuqu12]

So what are you going to do then? Move 48.000 jobs to Charleroi and Liège? The workers from Flanders will really like that idea (not!)...

[Crosswind]

So what are you going to do then? Move 48.000 jobs to Charleroi and Liège? The workers from Flanders will really like that idea (not!)...

48000 ? Why not 100000, a billion ? Stop this pure drama alstublieft. Noise restrictions has nothing to do with a - potential - lossjob situation.

The fact is : Flanders do not want noise.

[convair]

Brussels get the majority of the DEP flights (and UGent does'nt say the contrary).

I have always thaught that figures are the same in Dutch, in French and in English. Apparently, they are not. In French, it seems that 5.261 is more then 38.565 (number of flights). And it also seems that, in French, 3.600 is more then 10.300 (= inhabitants in "severe noise areas").

And please, stop saying that the figures from Universiteit Ghent are about departing and arriving aircraft. They are not: they are the figures for departing aircraft only.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20170222_02745025
edited : 5.261 and 38.565 are the number of flights, and not "inhabitants" as I initially posted.

Have a closer look at that map in Nieuwsblad then: it is obvious that ALL departing flights fly first over the Brussels region, albeit MOST OF THEM for a (very) short time. The problem is that, during that short time, they are still at low altitude when the noise level is the highest. If you trust the figures from University of Ghent, you cannot seriously and honestly deny that.

But, of course, the nuisance is not contained to these areas, nor to the Brussels region and an acceptable and balanced compromise (there is NO real solution!) MUST be found by and for all populations involved.

Would a 6:30 am limit (among other measures, like more adequate dispersion of take-off routes) be thinkable?

Somebody asked for the Flemish proposal. It is plain unacceptable, as it de facto splits Belgocontrol:

http://www.tijd.be/politiek_economie/be ... 4-3137.art

As a former Swedish Prime Minister asked about Trump the other day: "what did he smoke yesterday?"

If something needs to be done, it is to dismantle it completely and replace it by Eurocontrol

[Crosswind]

But, of course, the nuisance is not contained to these areas, nor to the Brussels region and an acceptable and balanced compromise (there is NO real solution!) MUST be found by and for all populations involved.

Would a 6:30 am limit (among other measures, like more adequate dispersion of take-off routes) be thinkable?

I tend to agree. Concerning dispersion now. Northern departures are splitted in four different ways, which gives less pressure to the noordrand. On the other hand, to the south, all DEP's are concentrated on a single sector, which gives a intense impact on the same inhabitants, every day.