Breaking news: Brussels Noise regulations are not illegal

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 11 May 2006, 21:43

According to the VRT, also the last dispersion plan is now cancelled by the court.

The last three weeks flights took off in the direction of the Oostrand. It were those people, again, who went to the court and asked also penaltys. The court don't want those penaltys.

According to Ringtv news, mr Landuyt will launch a new plan tomorrow. It will be discussed next week.

For the safety of our airport and our jobs it will be the best way to go back to the situation before 1999. Then they can discuss in a further stage what the best solution will be for the airport.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 11 May 2006, 21:56

On Monday, Mr Landuyt, the Brussels government and the Flemish government are going to sit around the table to discuss the current situation for Zaventem.

JulietHotel · Post by **JulietHotel** » 12 May 2006, 09:27

VG wrote:I Say Bomb Those Complainers because there building more houses and so more complains each year

i hope there come's finnaly soem good people to buy houses in other states

Of course, since 2000 it is the houses that have moved below the aircraft routes, not the contrary... :frantic:

Now let's be a little bit serious for once and stop generalizing and always blaming the group of people you do not belong to.

It is true that houses keep on being built close to the airport. That happens in a lot of places, just have a look in Diegem, less than 1 km just in the axis of RWY 25R. Some people say that this is encouraged by the region...
But these few cases are "the trees hiding the forest". And sorry but the "forest" was often there before the airport (or at least before its commercial expansion) and certainly before some politics started playing around with aircraft trajectories.

Stability is needed to preserve the airport activities, and you will not achieve it without going back to the situation of 1999, with some minor adaptations if necessary. And that remains valid whether or not Brussels noise regulations are applied.

PiperPA19 · Post by **PiperPA19** » 12 May 2006, 12:42

I did not read the whole thread but, I was a bit calculating. 450.000 complaints a year, that's 1264 a day or 53 an hour. wow

Zenfookpower · Post by **Zenfookpower** » 12 May 2006, 13:03

JulietHotel wrote: .................... Stability is needed to preserve the airport activities, and you will not achieve it without going back to the situation of 1999, with some minor adaptations if necessary. And that remains valid whether or not Brussels noise regulations are applied.

Can someone explain to outsiders what this is all about.."Back to the situation of 1999.." I don't understand this.. less planes..? let the traffic controllers and not the politicians make the decisions ..? ..what else...?

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 12 May 2006, 14:50

Zenfookpower wrote: Can someone explain to outsiders what this is all about.."Back to the situation of 1999.." I don't understand this.. less planes..? let the traffic controllers and not the politicians make the decisions ..? ..what else...?

Ok here are the 1999 situation, but may be I made some mistakes (thanks to correct me).

- main takeoff runway 25R
- main landing runway 25L
- 02/20 never used with 07 (security)
- 02/20 used only when 25 are unavailable (because of maintenance or winds). It represents about 3% of the traffic.
- limitations for 25 runways: 8 knots without gust for tailwind, 15 or 20 knots (don't remember exactly) for crosswinds
- takeoff spread over 3 main routes: Brussels, Noordrand and Oostrand (night and day), no difference

This situation has been changed in 2002 for night flights (same runway usage, but all departures for nights were concentrated over Noordrand) and that was the beginning of the problems... In 2004, because of Noordrand complaints, the spreading plan was decided, and then the amount of complaints starts to dramatically grow since 2004.

Concerning planes, in 1999 there were more planes and more noisy than in 2006.

JulietHotel · Post by **JulietHotel** » 12 May 2006, 16:25

I think you're absolutely correct pascal-air, that's basically how it worked:

- A kind of "natural dispersion" of take-offs over the 3 main areas, based on destination.
- Nobody annoyed by landings (mainly no-construction zone overflown).
- Safety first: stability, minimum use of crossing RWYs, maximum use of the 2 main parallel RWYs unless strong down/cross winds required using RWY 02/20 (and you could only blame the wind when that happened!)

In short: common sense...

Zenfookpower · Post by **Zenfookpower** » 12 May 2006, 16:48

Thanks Pascal-Air and JulietHotel....So that 1999 plan did worked, was safe and was driven by "common sense"..

I can only do this.......

and wish you guys good luck.. TNX

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 12 May 2006, 22:57

pascal-air wrote:[
This situation has been changed in 2002 for night flights (same runway usage, but all departures for nights were concentrated over Noordrand) and that was the beginning of the problems... In 2004, because of Noordrand complaints, the spreading plan was decided, and then the amount of complaints starts to dramatically grow since 2004.

Concerning planes, in 1999 there were more planes and more noisy than in 2006.

And it was Brussels minister Durant who started with it. Just for the elections she decided to concentrate all the flights over the Noordrand and no more flights over Brussels.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 12 May 2006, 23:28

I didn't read all the topic I admit

However people are always arguing about dispersion vs. concentration of the sound around the airports.
It seems people focus on that part of the noise issues. Why don't they also try to reduce the global noise level around an airport ? This can be done in many ways.

The people in Belgium should have a look at our neighbours. In AMS they do it/will do it in a very clever way. Just give the airlines with less noisy planes cheaper landing/operating fees than for noisier planes. If there are slot restrictions, give the best slots to the airlines operating with quieter planes. In this way the airlines will automatically tend to use quieter aircraft if it becomes economically attractive for them. So instead of just asking or setting "regulations", why not force them in some way to gradually replace some types of planes. IMHO it's a very clever way to do it.

Of course the problem of the dispersion/concentration persists, but I think that the global noise level is another major issue. But unfortunately I have the impression that nobody tends to work on that latter part here in Belgium.....

Another thing which should be done as in AMS is to define several zones. And in some zones to prohibit the construction of new houses !! It's nonsense to allow people in 2006 to build their homes under the approach path of the BRU, the people will sooner or later complain !! I'm sorry to say but the authorities are creating a part of the problem themselves ..

Some fruit for thoughts

Chris

PS: Still working on the noiseless engine

JulietHotel · Post by **JulietHotel** » 15 May 2006, 09:49

Atlantis wrote:
And it was Brussels minister Durant who started with it. Just for the elections she decided to concentrate all the flights over the Noordrand and no more flights over Brussels.

This is not entirely correct. Mrs. Durand was at that time federal minister of mobility, and the concentration was agreed at the level of the federal government Verhofstadt 1. Financial compensations for overflown people were foreseen but never came (or at least the plan had to be abandoned before and Mrs. Durand had to leave the government).

And to be fair, the "dispersion" plan put in place by Mr. Anciaux and continued by Mr. Landuyt was also agreed at federal government level (this time Verhofstadt 2).

So I totally agree with Avro when he writes:

I'm sorry to say but the authorities are creating a part of the problem themselves .. .

and think the only way forward is... going back to the situation of 1999.

By the way some of the possible solutions mentionned by Avro, and more, are in the last document of the airport mediator (30 pages based on facts), which is unfortunately only available in French at:
http://www.airportmediation.be/fr/docs/ ... 202006.pdf

Mr. Landuyt only commented this report by saying that... he did not ask for a report and he had a problem with the mediator. Difficult to find constructive solutions in this context...