Brussels region noise regulation
Moderator: Latest news team
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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
http://www.tijd.be/politiek_economie/be ... 4-3137.art
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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.
@EBBU : using two runways for T/O and LDG is anything but a problem.
-
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 08 May 2007, 09:38
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
Ha...I thought Belgocontrol was already split or let's say under one side influence.
-
- Posts: 291
- Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 16:59
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
If we split Belgocontrole thus this means that we have one in Brussels one in Walonie and one in Flanders...
Hasta la victoria siempre.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
what does a "split" of such a generalist entity means ?
Any details ?
Any details ?
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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 ?
Could we now talk about compromise ?
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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.
Last edited by Passenger on 23 Feb 2017, 16:13, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
Those numbers are wrong. All south DEP trafic overflies Brussels. You have to add those figure (around 40000 DEP) to the 5261...Passenger wrote: ↑23 Feb 2017, 16:07I 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
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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.
After having been attacked by terrorists from the European capital of terrorism now the NIMBY's think it's their turn. An evil pact.
Last edited by Jetter on 23 Feb 2017, 16:22, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
From the map its clear its almost 100% of traffic. Who needs a study with funky numbers ?
Then "another airport" should play the role of malpenza.
EBBE is the best one for the job, as its right on the language border.
So obvious indeed. Bru should be as linate. Business only.A philosopher from Brussels has the solution: shrinking BRU to 4 million passengers.
Then "another airport" should play the role of malpenza.
EBBE is the best one for the job, as its right on the language border.
Last edited by Acid-drop on 23 Feb 2017, 16:25, edited 2 times in total.
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
No, you are still wrong. And at this stage you show a willingness not to understand. DEP trafic is about 70% above Brussels.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
Can be a real solution, and to develop Charleroi, rail station, etc... For the good of the country.Jetter wrote: ↑23 Feb 2017, 16:21 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.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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!)...
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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.Passenger wrote: ↑23 Feb 2017, 16:07I 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.
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?
As a former Swedish Prime Minister asked about Trump the other day: "what did he smoke yesterday?"sn26567 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2017, 14:33 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
If something needs to be done, it is to dismantle it completely and replace it by Eurocontrol
Last edited by convair on 23 Feb 2017, 17:00, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
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.convair wrote: ↑23 Feb 2017, 16:49
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?