15 October 2005: D-day BRU

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 04 Dec 2005, 11:11

That's indeed the best for everyone. In that time there were less complains and there were a lot more movements and noise aircrafts then now.

The majority of the people, local communities are asking to go back to the situation of 1999. That's why I don't understand Landuydt when he says "that's juridical impossible". I don't understand it. It can be that difficult and everyone is satisfy and there will be no trials anymore to fight against the dispersion plan.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 04 Dec 2005, 18:44

Today I saw on a site of one of those action groups that they took over an article of Knack, 2 december 2005. The article was saying that BRU will be an ordinary airport with only 17 million pax. It will loose in the near future it's flight connections with AMS, FRA, CDG and LHR. The pax will use the HST. They said also that BRU can't be used by transit pax.

What there sources are, I don't know but it's just redicilous. It's just the opposite. SNBA was using the HST from CDG to BRU but they stopped with it because it was not working. SNBA staff waited at the perron for the pax with lunch in plastic bags, etc, etc.
The HST is riding for years from BRU, not from the airport, to London, it has not effect on the flight routes.

I have my doubt's of this article. I read every day Knack online and I didn't saw that article. The way it was writing was very strange for Knack, if it was from Knack.

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 04 Dec 2005, 20:06

Yeah, there are many disscussions about scrapping all regonal services.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 04 Dec 2005, 21:03

It's he first time I heard from it, it was never a discussion on this site.
Rather the opposite, there were discussion that SNBA would start up flights from BRU to AMS. But it was not on this site. And in my opinion not a good idea because KLM is serving AMS to BRU very good with a large number of flights a day.

xeno · Post by **xeno** » 05 Dec 2005, 12:46

sn26567 wrote:
SN_fan wrote:What was the situation before 1999?
The safest and only intelligent one: the runways were chosen in function of the atmospheric conditions!

Please let's go back to the pre-1999 situation

Safety should prevail, no question about that. But there's more to it than just chosing the active runway.

What about flight routes? If a runway has to be chosen in function of atmospheric conditions, the next logical step wouldn't it be that an airplane directly flies to it's target without making unnecassary diversions? (cfr. the reversed "S" pilots have to make on a low altitude to avoid BXL)

Post by **sn26567** » 05 Dec 2005, 14:36

Atlantis wrote:There were discussion that SNBA would start up flights from BRU to AMS. But it was not on this site. And in my opinion not a good idea because KLM is serving AMS to BRU very good with a large number of flights a day.

The KLM flights between BRU and AMS carry mainly pax connecting to other international KLM flights, and very few pax connecting in BRU to SN African or other international flights (probably none). SN could thus open a feeder service from AMS for its African flights, but will probably not do so because they would have a low load factor.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 05 Dec 2005, 16:51

xeno wrote: Safety should prevail, no question about that. But there's more to it than just chosing the active runway.

What about flight routes? If a runway has to be chosen in function of atmospheric conditions, the next logical step wouldn't it be that an airplane directly flies to it's target without making unnecassary diversions? (cfr. the reversed "S" pilots have to make on a low altitude to avoid BXL)

First, you have two types of flight routes, SID and STAR. For landing, the usual way is a direct ILS flight in approach. Some airports are using other approach (VOR/DME, ILS but not in the axis of the runway (Sion), or complex approach combining vor / dme / ils not in runway axis ) like nantes. However, these approachs are complex, and because if that less safe than a direct straight-in approach. So I think that for EBBR, ILS and direct straight-in approach must be preserved. Airports that are using other approachs are doing this because of environment obstacles (mountains, building, seveso sites...)

The second flight routes are for departure. And departure routes are quite more complex indeed:

first you must avoid conflict with land path, go around procedures, and aircraft right turning or left turning etc...

Then you must avoid conflict with other airports.

So, it is logical to go directly to the direction of the destination ? Not necessary. Today, most of the planes (about 50 % right turn when departing) and the other half left turn. Before 1999, i think that 33% left turn 33% right turn and 33% didn't turn.

pascal

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 07 Dec 2005, 20:07

Now there is trial started at the court of Leuven. 236 citizens of Kortenberg asking 25.000 euro of penalty's per habitant if the dispersion plan will stay.

That's not all. They asking also to use the same, or approximately the same, noise restrictions like those in Brussels. They ask also to forbid the noisiest overflying aircrafts.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 10 Dec 2005, 10:34

This is the best in weeks.

You all know that tomorrow the NMBS will use a new railtrack from Leuven to the airport, more particular in Nossegem.
The local community of Kortenberg asked one stoptrain because a lot of their citizens are working at the airport. Now they have to take a train in the direction of Leuven and there take an other to go to the airport. But it's not only Kortenberg, also Herent is now asking to have a stoptrain.

Wasn't it Kortenberg who started this week a new trial in Leuven and asked 25.OOO euro per airplane per citizen who makes to much noise????????

This is the perfect example: you take advantage of the airport but you don't want the noise.

It's unbelievable.

Source: www.vrt.be

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 10 Dec 2005, 12:59

It is just a hype to say "Hi, we also have a problem with noise (but we do want to have benefits of the airport region => tourists, clients,...)"

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 17 Dec 2005, 18:44

The actiongroup Bruxelles Air Libre wants to go to court and force the judge to take a final decision about the flights above Brussels and specially about the noise restrictions. This actiongroup wants 25.000 euro per a/c who flies above Brussels. In fact this group is asking the judge to forbid airlines to fly over the 19 Brussels communities because the population is very high.

In meantime there is a "possible" birth of a new actiongroup: Haren, Neder-Over-Heembeek. After some weeks they will decide if they will be a real actiongroup.

Source: actienoordrand, Het Nieuwsblad.