Brussels region noise regulation

[KriVa]

You seem to be adamant on closing the airport, at least at night, without offering any real alternatives. Like I said, during nighttime SIDs are adjusted, Line-up positions are adjusted, the number of taxiing aircraft is restricted,... all to provide better living conditions for the neighbours of the airport. During nighttime, which you complain so much about, Flanders gets the brunt of the noise.
Don’t forget Brussels Airport also closes during three nights a week, reducing the overflights of Brussels City even more.
On top of that, nighttime operations provide quite a lot of jobs which daytime operations can’t possibly replace.
You argument sounds a lot like “move them somewhere else. I don’t care where, as long as it’s not here.”
I see your point, but the airport already does quite a lot to be a good neighbour, as I said before, is some tolerance and compromise really that much to ask?
EDIT: I just remembered BRU is making even more efforts as of late. They’re making fees more expensive for older, noisier aircraft and less expensive for newer, more fuel efficient and more silent aircraft.

[lumumba]

You seem to be adamant on closing the airport, at least at night, without offering any real alternatives. Like I said, during nighttime SIDs are adjusted, Line-up positions are adjusted, the number of taxiing aircraft is restricted,... all to provide better living conditions for the neighbours of the airport. During nighttime, which you complain so much about, Flanders gets the brunt of the noise.
Don’t forget Brussels Airport also closes during three nights a week, reducing the overflights of Brussels City even more.
On top of that, nighttime operations provide quite a lot of jobs which daytime operations can’t possibly replace.
You argument sounds a lot like “move them somewhere else. I don’t care where, as long as it’s not here.”
I see your point, but the airport already does quite a lot to be a good neighbour, as I said before, is some tolerance and compromise really that much to ask?
EDIT: I just remembered BRU is making even more efforts as of late. They’re making fees more expensive for older, noisier aircraft and less expensive for newer, more fuel efficient and more silent aircraft.

I now there is no simple answer and for sure all those jobs are important but my first post was just to put everything in perspective I also think it's crazy to use the canal route at night it's the most densely part of Belgium.

MOD edit: politically tinted text removed.

[Poiu]

BRU is making even more efforts as of late. They’re making fees more expensive for older, noisier aircraft and less expensive for never, more fuel efficient and more silent aircraft.

An effort to reduce noise or an effort to increase revenues and using noise as an excuse?
If you want to reduce noise you should simply ban noisy aircraft between eg 1130 en 630.
We also need a change of mentality, yesterday I saw my local supermarket selling onions from New Zealand! Do we really need to disturb people’s sleep for onions from New Zealand??
Same with the job argument, the tobacco industry creates a lot of jobs, so shall we permit smoking in public places again?
Do we need holiday flights returning at 3 o’clock in the morning? Airlines want their aircraft to operate 20h a day to be be able to offer cheaper tickets. Do we need to disturb people’s rest to allow cheap holidays? Increase the ticket price and do more day flights, this will even create more jobs.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to close the airport at night, but night traffic should only be allowed for delayed flights, silent aircraft and certain categories of goods.

[KriVa]

Do you really think those two cases are even remotely comparable?
Since fees will be significantly lower compared to the average now if an airline uses less noisy aircraft, I’d give the airport the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Why would they be the boogeyman? They have nothing to gain from bullying the surroundings.
Aircraft will make noise, there’s no going around that. Nighttime traffic is a big part of the operations at BRU for a lot of people. As I said before, departures are already forbidden three nights a week.
A compromise will always be necessary. The airport seems very willing to make that compromise, some of their neighbours less so.

[Poiu]

Do you really think those two cases are even remotely comparable?
Since fees will be significantly lower compared to the average now if an airline uses less noisy aircraft, I’d give the airport the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Why would they be the boogeyman? They have nothing to gain from bullying the surroundings.
Aircraft will make noise, there’s no going around that. Nighttime traffic is a big part of the operations at BRU for a lot of people. As I said before, departures are already forbidden three nights a week.
A compromise will always be necessary. The airport seems very willing to make that compromise, some of their neighbours less so.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that some flying should be allowed, but there should also be a change of mentality about what is allowed and what not.
Silent aircraft are available, so ban the noisy ones at night.
Would you accept your upstairs neighbour to start drilling at 3 o clock in the morning because electricity is cheaper at night? So why allow holiday flights at night to permit cheaper holidays? Tax the airline heavily for the night flight, so that it becomes cheaper to operate an extra aircraft during the day.

[KriVa]

Holiday flights during the night are actually are relatively small minority. Most movements during the nights come from cargo ops, for whom flying their aircraft during the day simply isn’t an option if they want to remain viable.
The largest instigator for that trend is actually online-shopping. People all want overnight delivery, but the packages need to be moved from large warehouses to the clients, a large part of that happens through the air simply because shipping via road isn’t fast enough.

[Conti764]

Do you really think those two cases are even remotely comparable?
Since fees will be significantly lower compared to the average now if an airline uses less noisy aircraft, I’d give the airport the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Why would they be the boogeyman? They have nothing to gain from bullying the surroundings.
Aircraft will make noise, there’s no going around that. Nighttime traffic is a big part of the operations at BRU for a lot of people. As I said before, departures are already forbidden three nights a week.
A compromise will always be necessary. The airport seems very willing to make that compromise, some of their neighbours less so.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that some flying should be allowed, but there should also be a change of mentality about what is allowed and what not.
Silent aircraft are available, so ban the noisy ones at night.
Would you accept your upstairs neighbour to start drilling at 3 o clock in the morning because electricity is cheaper at night? So why allow holiday flights at night to permit cheaper holidays? Tax the airline heavily for the night flight, so that it becomes cheaper to operate an extra aircraft during the day.

You have a valid point. However, night flights are a reality, onions from New-Zealand are a reality as are cheap holiday flights. Simply banning them from BRU would make them move elsewhere. Loss of income for BRU and loss of jobs.

[Poiu]

night flights are a reality, onions from New-Zealand are a reality as are cheap holiday flights. Simply banning them from BRU would make them move elsewhere. Loss of income for BRU and loss of jobs.

Hence my remark we need a change of mentality, by keeping the onions from New Zealand, the noisy aircraft at night, the cheap holidays, etc you are only giving arguments to those who want a night ban.
By restricting night flights to delayed flights, flights by the most quiet cargo planes and for necessary goods only you may have a chance to keep the airport open at night and keep at least part of the jobs.
Otherwise, I am afraid a night ban, like in almost all big cities will be the only long term outcome. That long term could be very short depending upon the results of Sunday’s elections.

[jan_olieslagers]

The matter of aircraft noise, and the possible re-federalisation of the responsability, has not exactly been a hot issue in the campaign... So no, I do not think the upcoming elections will make much of a change, whatever the outcome.

PS even more politically, I quite agree that we need a switch in mentality: we need to forget the short-term thinking à la Test-Aankoop/Test Achats that makes us buy IKEA furniture and McDonalds fastfood - and onions from New Zealand. And cheapo rubbish from China. Such a change in mentality can not come by law, however, it requires a slow evolution through education.

[Poiu]

The matter of aircraft noise, and the possible re-federalisation of the responsability, has not exactly been a hot issue in the campaign... So no, I do not think the upcoming elections will make much of a change, whatever the outcome.

Climate is a hot issue in the campaign though.

[jan_olieslagers]

Yes, but if the matter is discussed after the elections (which I doubt) then it will not be because of climate, but solely to decide who will be in charge henceforth: Belgium or the regions. For me it ought to be Europe, so as to level the field for all players.

[Boavida]

Just to put everything in perspective 9% of the workers are coming from Wallonia 14% from Brussels 77% from Flanders for me you can divide the hassle in the same proportion and the problem will be resolved!

Anyway that was always my feeling it's not our national airport it's the Flanders International Airport always I have to insist before they start speaking French and it's with fireback!

http://m.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20190521_04415325

Excellent proposal. Flanders International sounds very good.

Why should the airport bear the name of the city that wants to sabotage it, anyway?

[Passenger]

Update with 3 reports (EN-FR-NL) by the Aviation department - federal government:

In English:

Report, published 31/05/2019:
https://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/defaul ... 310519.pdf

In French:

Background:
Le premier rapport d'étude d’incidences relative à la problématique des nuisances sonores dues à l’exploitation de l’aéroport de Bruxelles-National, commandée par le Ministre de la Mobilité, François Bellot a été remis à l'Administration. Le présent rapport concerne la phase I de l’étude qui vise à fournir une photographie de la situation actuelle afin d’objectiver, de manière scientifique, indépendante et transparente, l’activité de l’aéroport (en sa globalité) et l’application de toutes les règles et procédures aéronautiques (mesures de sécurité, mesures de restriction d’exploitation, routes aériennes et leurs conditions d’utilisation, normes de vent, ..) au regard des nuisances sonores engendrées. Une seconde phase en cours de réalisation devra proposer des pistes de solutions alternatives permettant l’atténuation des nuisances sonores. Cette seconde phase pourra également faire évoluer les constations de la phase I qui doivent dès lors être considérées comme provisoires à ce stade. Durant cette première phase, Envisa a traité les déclarations et opinions entendues des parties prenantes conformément à son expérience et à son expertise scientifique. Un large panel d’acteurs du dossier a été rencontré (associations de riverains, BAC, Belgocontrol, compagnies, Régions, administrations, …).

Reference page:
https://mobilit.belgium.be/fr/transport ... incidences

Report in FR - published 31/05/2019:
https://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/defaul ... 310519.pdf


In Dutch:

Background:
Het eerste verslag van de door de minister van Mobiliteit, François Bellot, bestelde milieueffectstudie over de problematiek van de geluidshinder ingevolge de exploitatie van de luchthaven werd aan de overheid bezorgd. Dit verslag slaat op de eerste fase van de studie, die erop gericht is de huidige toestand in kaart te brengen om de activiteit van de luchthaven (in zijn geheel) en de toepassing van alle luchtvaartvoorschriften en -procedures (veiligheidsmaatregelen, exploitatiebeperkende maatregelen, vliegroutes en gebruiksvoorwaarden ervan, windnormen, ...) op een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde, onafhankelijke en transparante wijze te objectiveren tegenover de geluidshinder die eruit voortvloeit. Een tweede fase loopt momenteel en moet alternatieve oplossingen voorleggen die kunnen leiden tot een afzwakking van de geluidshinder. Deze tweede fase kan ook er ook voor zorgen dat de vaststellingen uit de eerste fase evolueren, waardoor deze vaststellingen in dit stadium als voorlopig moeten worden beschouwd. In deze eerste fase heeft het studiebureau Envisa de gehoorde verklaringen en standpunten van de stakeholders verwerkt op grond van zijn ervaring en van zijn wetenschappelijke deskundigheid. Er waren ontmoetingen met een breed panel van actoren in dit dossier (verenigingen van buurtbewoners, Brussels Airport Company, Belgocontrol, luchtvaartmaatschappijen, Gewesten, administraties, ...).

Reference page:
https://mobilit.belgium.be/nl/luchtvaar ... ctenstudie

Report in NL - published 03/06/2019:
https://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/defaul ... 310519.pdf

[sn26567]

Executive Summary, chap. 1

This study is independent, and Envisa treated the recorded statements and opinions of
stakeholders in accordance with our scientific expertise and experience.

The perceived significance of aircraft noise impact and the effectiveness of its management,
depends not only on the noise impact itself but also on a complex blend of non-acoustic factors
such as, inter alia, regulation, governance, perceived ownership and benefits, community
engagement and communications and the rate and number of changes to overflight patterns etc.

In discussions with BRU stakeholders, it has become clear that the study, in addition to its core
work of delivering an independent assessment of noise impact for BRU, should also consider
certain key areas of the governance framework for BRU noise management and the causes of
related litigations

It is clear from a detailed review of complaints and discussions with stakeholders that the
perception of significant noise extends far beyond the average modelled noise contours at which
aircraft noise might normally be considered to be significant for major decision-making purposes.
It is also clear that there has been a greater number than normal of significant changes to aircraft
procedures and overflight patterns during the last two decades, that have raised the profile and
perceived significance of aircraft noise around BRU for many of the local communities. The effect
of these numerous changes, whilst they can be assumed to have been well-meaning, have reduced
community tolerance and acceptance of aircraft noise and have set one community against
another. It is also apparent that historical noise management and associated decision making has
been at least in part, driven by weight of complaints rather than scientific evaluation. It has been
reported to Envisa that BRU aircraft noise may have been used for political purposes. It is also
apparent that the policy and regulatory framework for BRU aircraft noise has been fragmented
and inconsistent partly as a result of what would have otherwise been logical dissemination of
powers on key topics such a land-use planning and environmental regulation. It is also apparent
that in common with many other airports, land-use planning restrictions inappropriate
development in the vicinity of BRU has not been sufficient to prevent encroachment of residential
and sensitive receptors into areas significantly affected by aircraft noise. The presently applied
judgement to operate a fair and equitable dispersal plan based on runway selection, is based on
crude geographical distribution and does not accurately control the number of residents being
overflown at differing heights and hence noise levels. There are no agreed parameters on what
constitutes acceptable dispersion or acceptable accuracy for the operating procedures.

It is also apparent that any increasing traffic throughout and the potential for climate change may
further change BRU noise distribution patterns. These observations for the natural evolution of
the existing situation at BRU have also been considered in this study.

The importance of aircraft noise around BRU is also heightened by the airfield orientation and
proximity to the Brussels conurbation. This was decided decades ago when aircraft were far less
frequent and had totally different flight characteristics and operating procedures than the present
aircraft fleet and airspace. This will be considered in Chapter 2 of this study, but it can be stated
now that decisions for significant changes to BRU runway infrastructure, airport relocation, or
demand re-distribution depend on far more significant factors than aircraft noise and will not be
solved with this study. Nor can detailed noise analysis for such options be undertaken without
detailed design, which does not presently exist – some general very high-level observations on this
political topic will however be offered in the completed Envisa report.

Understanding the noise pollution impact of existing BRU activities and operations, however,
remains the key area of focus for this Chapter of the study. Because of the history of aircraft noise
at BRU, the study scope includes noise from aircraft operating at some distance from the airport
and outside of the noise contours that would normally be considered to describe significant noise.
These key areas of focus are further described herein.

Examples of key operational practice findings for the present BRU situation:
• Aircraft operating into and out of BRU are being operated correctly in accordance with
approved and published procedures
• Runways are being selected in accordance with what can be described as a genuine
attempt to comply with the runway use judgement
• Aircraft noise performance and height keeping is appropriate to good practice – but as at
other airports, further improvement may still be possible
• Collaboration between operational stakeholders is rudimentary at present, but very recent
developments in Collaborative Environmental Management at BRU may see this improve
• Noise microphone penalties are being levied against modern aircraft that are being
operated in accordance with their operating procedures. It is not clear what purpose this
serves, but it will distort the stated legal policy of fair and equitable distribution of aircraft
overflight since pilots will seek to avoid overflight of these microphones.

In conclusion, for this chapter of the report, it is noted that there are a number of systematic
problems which need to be addressed, including:
• Fragmented and inconsistent governance
• Poor collaboration between stakeholders
• Poor communication and outreach to all community stakeholders
• Failure to assess impact prior to implementing decisions
• Past history of frequent changes to airspace organisation based on dubious criteria

These will be studied further, and solutions proposed in Chapter 2 of this report.

[sn26567]

Executive Summary chap. 2

The judgement that mandated this report, required an independent and scientific developed solution to
aircraft noise at BRU that would reduce or stop the present continual noise related litigations. A scientific
assessment of the existing noise impact was provided in Chapter 1 of this report. This Chapter 2 also
provides some initial analysis of potential operational solutions to some of the highlighted issues.

In preparing Chapter 1 however, Envisa has found the much of the noise related problems around BRU
have been stimulated by non-technical and non-scientific factors including:
• multiple arbitrary changes to where and how aircraft fly;
• fragmented regulation and governance;
• lack of coherent and commonly agreed aircraft noise policy;
• poor public communications and engagement (evidenced by widespread lack of understanding
amongst many stakeholders);
• nimbyism driving political and judicial decision-making;
• lack of clarity on the application of operational rules;
• public uncertainty as to where, when or how aircraft are supposed to fly;
• despite general good application of operational rules, some exceptions where less than optimal
application were found (some potential solutions are provided in Ch2)
• communities being set against neighbouring communities; and,
• loss of public trust

The solutions to these factors are not scientific but are more structural and process related. Whilst
solutions to these kinds of structural issues may be widely practiced, and can by suggested, no external
agency has the power impose these – they transcend pure noise management. These issues need to be
solved before any overall commonly agreed scientific or technical noise management solution can be
designed.

It is likely that the public expect a ‘silver bullet’ noise management solution to be provided by this report
that will remove the BRU aircraft noise issue for every individual reader of this report. Sadly, this is not
possible. The problems have existed for many years and even though some rapid improvements are suggested in this report, it will take time to design and agree the ultimate solutions. Even then, aircraft
noise can be expected by anyone living near a major airport and no single solution will protect everyone
all the time.

To enable a single scientific solution for the entire noise problems around BRU to be produced however,
a specific and commonly agreed set of policy objectives for the solution to achieve would be required. No
external agency can impose such policy on a State since the balance of sustainability required can only be
determined (hopefully inclusively) by that State. The economic and social benefits delivered by the
National airport, are significant, and these need to be “politically” weighed against the negative impacts.

A commonly agreed BRU noise policy is a prerequisite for any agency to determine the optimum
operational solution for that policy. For example, are the noise policy objectives to:
• have the least number of people severely affected by aircraft noise?
• overfly the least number of people?
• avoid all tranquil areas?
• avoid all sleep disturbance from aircraft noise?
• offer some respite to every population?
• distribute aircraft on an equitable basis?
• have a successful BRU airport?
• ensure planning law effectively prevents encroachment of inappropriate development?
• maximise economic benefit?
• avoid all unacceptable aircraft noise for every individual within a defined distance from BRU?
• to prioritise those most severely affected by aircraft noise even if it means overflying some more
densely populated areas further out?

These objectives are not fully compatible with each other and nowhere are these kinds of objectives set
down as a commonly-agreed Belgian BRU aircraft noise policy that explains how, when and where such
objectives are to be realised.

The closest thing to such a policy is the BRU Noise Action Plan (responding to EU Directive 2002/49/EC),
but this does not appear to be commonly-agreed and does not clearly state what the policy objectives are.
It also seems to focus on delivery of existing rules and as such does not provide a basis to design a new
independent noise solution for BRU.

Until a harmonised and commonly agreed policy process is completed therefore, no external agency can
provide the hoped for scientifically derived ‘silver bullet’ operational noise solution called for by the
judgment.

Policy should drive the scientifically assessed operational solutions and not the other-way around.
In addition to providing candidate technical solutions for short-term improvements to existing noise
management operational rules and practices, this report therefore provides advice on the structures and
processes that would be required to:
• Agree the principles to be applied to noise management at BRU (and possibly for all Belgian
airports)
• Agree an overall aircraft noise policy for BRU (and possibly for all Belgian airports)
• Avoid arbitrary interventions and uncertainty
• Harmonise aircraft noise governance and regulation for BRU
• Develop commonly agreed solutions and the rules to deliver these
• Enhance public understanding, engagement and trust (over time)

No external agency can impose a purely noise driven solution to the present problems related to aircraft
noise from BRU. Such solutions will require common agreement to the desired outcome and should be
produced inclusively and not arbitrarily. This must come from inside Belgium and from the involved
stakeholders and affected parties, taking into account wider sustainability implications and not just aircraft noise.

[Passenger]

The new gouvernment agreement at the Brussels Capital Region is brace brace brace for Brussels Airport and the airlines.

Text in Dutch: see Page 95-96 (I haven't found the text in French yet):
https://assets.bruzz.be/2019-07/BHG_20190718_NL_0.pdf

Met het oog op de preventie van en de strijd tegen geluidshinder en trillingen in de stedelijke omgeving zal de Regering toezien op de uitvoering van het plan “quiet.brussels”, dat op 28 februari 2019 werd goedgekeurd.

Wat de overlast door het vliegverkeer boven Brussel betreft, is de Regering van oordeel dat de levenskwaliteit en de rust van de Brusselaars van prioritair belang zijn voor hun gezondheid. Zij betoogt dat de activiteiten en de infrastructuur (onder meer de landingsbanen) van de luchthaven Brussel-Nationaal aangepast moeten worden aan de nabijheid van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest en zijn dichtbevolkte gebieden.

De Regering is zich ervan bewust dat het nodig is de problematiek van het luchtverkeer aan te pakken in constructief overleg en in samenwerking met de andere beleidsniveaus en verenigingen van omwonenden. Zij zal in de daartoe voorziene overlegruimten dus blijven pleiten voor een stabiel en evenwichtig kader en voor objectieve en transparante vluchtprocedures. Daartoe zal de Regering bij de federale regering de volgende prioriteiten verdedigen:
– het ontzien van de dichtst bevolkte gebieden en de veiligheid van het luchtverkeer moeten gelden als prioritaire criteria bij het uittekenen van de nieuwe routes;
– een onafhankelijk openbaar orgaan oprichten dat de geluidsoverlast veroorzaakt door het vliegverkeer boven de huizen controleert;
– de uitbatingsuren van de luchthaven wijzigen om de nachtperiode, boven Brussel, uit te breiden van 22u tot 7u; een begrenzing instellen van de tonnage van de vliegtuigen die toelating krijgen boven Brussel te vliegen; en "quota counts" vastleggen en toepassen met het oog op de naleving van de geluidsnormen (maximum 200 ton tussen 22u en 7u);
– een epidemiologische studie uitvoeren om de daadwerkelijke gevolgen van het vliegverkeer voor de gezondheid van de bewoners op wetenschappelijke wijze te onderzoeken;
– een schadevergoedingsfonds oprichten om oplossingen aan te reiken voor het isoleren van de gebouwen waar vliegtuigen overvliegen.

Het besluit betreffende de bestrijding van geluidshinder voortgebracht door het luchtverkeer, dat in werking trad op 1 januari 2000, is tot op vandaag nog altijd het enige juridische wapen voor de Brusselaars om zich te verdedigen. De Regering zal alle mogelijke rechtsmiddelen blijven aanwenden om ervoor te zorgen dat het besluit volledig nageleefd en niet in vraag gesteld wordt. Daarenboven zal, gezien het spreidingsbeleid dat van toepassing is boven de dichtbevolkte gebieden, het netwerk van geluidsmeters worden uitgebreid, zodat het alle vliegroutes boven het gewestelijk grondgebied bestrijkt. Er zal ook een geluidskadaster worden opgesteld.

Meer algemeen zal de Regering nadenken over de mogelijkheid om een systeem in te voeren voor de directe inning van de milieuboetes, enerzijds om deze gemakkelijker te kunnen beheren en verwerken en anderzijds om de effectiviteit van de boetes door een snellere verwerking te verhogen.

[flightlover]

Won't comment on this as any remark will be seen as political and thus not allowed on this forum.

[jan_olieslagers]

Agreed that we should avoid political comments, though they are not strictly forbidden.
Still: when reading this kind of text, it is crucial to read what is NOT written. In this text I see no indication of rigourous action, judicial complaints, or such; so I understand that negotiation and compromise will stand their chance. Good news, I should think.

[Passenger]

Still: when reading this kind of text, it is crucial to read what is NOT written. In this text I see no indication of rigourous action, judicial complaints, or such; so I understand that negotiation and compromise will stand their chance. Good news, I should think.

Strange. I do see that judicial strength. And quite obvious, actually, in the two last paragraphs.
Translated by Google:

The decision on the fight against noise pollution caused by air traffic, which entered into force on January 1, 2000, is still the only legal weapon for the people of Brussels to defend themselves to this day. The Government will continue to use all possible legal means to ensure that the decision is fully complied with and not questioned. In addition, given the dispersal policy that applies to densely populated areas, the network of noise meters will be expanded to cover all flight paths above regional territory. A sound register will also be set up.

More generally, the Government will consider the possibility of introducing a system for the direct collection of environmental fines, on the one hand to make it easier to manage and process and, on the other hand, to increase the effectiveness of fines through faster processing.

On top of that, a politician from Ecolo (French Greens) is the new Brussels minister for Environment, Climate and Health. Hence the "..will consider the possibility..." in the last paragraph can be shortened to "will..."

[jan_olieslagers]

Reading political texts is an art and a science by itself; and I am not claiming expertise, rather the contrary. For as little as I know, it is important for each contributing party to score some wins, a few points that they can show as successes to their supporters - while at the same time avoiding firm promises.