BRU can no longer use the 02

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 14 Dec 2004, 19:26

According to the VRT Journaal, BRU can no longer use runway 02 because it's too close to a village. This means also the end of the dispersion plan. When BRU is still using the 02 after 3 months, the government must pay 25000 (?) EUR for each movement.

I hope this info correct because I wasn't listening with my full attention so please don't shoot me ...

PS: does someone know the adress of that Peggy?

dna · Post by **dna** » 14 Dec 2004, 19:34

The info is correct blackhawk. I saw it on the news too.

Dave

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 14 Dec 2004, 19:48

how the hell can you call yourself a judge if you are incapapable of doing your job correctly?
are pilots really gonna land above tailwind or crosswind limits? I do not think so!!!
they say landing on 02 is unsafe. And what about landing on 25 with cross or tailwind? please as a judge think a little bit further then the complainers.

EBAW_flyer · Post by **EBAW_flyer** » 14 Dec 2004, 20:40

And what about landing on 25 with cross or tailwind?

No, the only alternative on the 02 is the 07R (VOR/DME) or 07L (currently no IAP I believe, there was one for a short period). Let them use these

. They go right over the City of Brussels. And when there's some fog (like the past 2 weeks), they just have to divert to EBCI, EBOS or EBAW

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 14 Dec 2004, 21:23

Hi everybody.
The 02 can still be use but not as much as today.
they have to come back to the sitation of before.
The 02 has to be used when necesery.
Regards
Pat

Robin_Bamps · Post by **Robin_Bamps** » 14 Dec 2004, 21:32

I found this on VRTnieuws.net (sorry, only Dutch):

Deel van spreidingsplan is in kortgeding geschorst

di 14/12/04 - Een deel van het spreidingsplan voor de nachtvluchten van minister Bert Anciaux (Spirit) is in kortgeding geschorst. Het plan dateert van begin 2004. Bewoners van de oostrand klaagden over het drukke gebruik van de landingsbaan 2. Die is volgens hen onveilig en levert veel geluidshinder op. De rechter geeft hen nu gelijk en vindt dat een woongebied zo dicht bij de luchthaven niet kan. Een argument waarmee ook de noordrandbewoners naar de rechter kunnen stappen. Wanneer de landingsbaan over drie maanden nog gebruikt wordt, moet er een dwangsom betaald worden van 25.000 euro per vlucht. De opvolger van minister Anciaux, Renaat Landuyt (SP.A), heeft al aangekondigd dat hij in beroep gaat tegen de uitspraak.

Regards, Robin Bamps.

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 14 Dec 2004, 21:38

hi everybody and I found this. Selon une lecture du jugement à l'une de celles-ci, l'Etat est sommé de prendre les mesures qui s'imposent pour que les riverains de la piste 02 retrouvent la situation qui prévalait avant la mise en oeuvre du plan Anciaux. La piste 02 ne peut être utilisée que dans des conditions beaucoup plus limitées que dans le plan élaboré par l'ex-ministre fédéral de la Mobilité.
Le SOIR
Regards
Ciaooooo
Pat

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 15 Dec 2004, 01:57

Calm down!
.
This was a "kort geding", a "short notice / quick trial": the judge only accepted the fact that it is unsafe to live that close to an runway. That's all folks. And don't we all agree that it's unsafe to live near an airport? As is it unsafe to live close to a fuel station (explosion), close to a nuclear power plant (terrorist attack), close to a railway line (trains could derail), whatch out for a river (floods...). In a "kort geding", the judge only looks if there are enough arguments FROM THE DEMANDING PARTY that are reasonable. Crosswinds, tailwinds, knots, emergency, congestion in the air, safety of pax and crew: that's for the appeal case.
.
The minister of Transport already said that he will appeal against this judgement (that court case will also be a "kort geding"). But even if "we" loose this appeal: we'll have to wait till this matter is being handled by the Court in "Eerste Aanleg", where both parties can take as much time as they want to explain their arguments to the judge. It's then when BIAC can argue that 02 was operational, long before Peggy Cortois and others bought their home there, and it will be that trial where a judge will find out about landing with tailwind.
.
This case however is important, as is the appeal against. If Cortois & co also win the appeal "kort geding", 02 will be closed till the full trial.
.

waldova · Post by **waldova** » 15 Dec 2004, 08:11

If a judge decided this today, then how is it possible that in Ostend they just signed that a new house complex can be build next to the runway!! Somethimes I don't understand my country.

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 15 Dec 2004, 09:46

So, what is the decree. Is 02 operational or will be used only when necessary or has been closed.

Post by **Kapitein** » 15 Dec 2004, 10:31

>>> De rechter geeft hen nu gelijk en vindt dat een woongebied zo dicht bij de luchthaven niet kan. <<<

Absolutely wright, so everybody that lives there must have the chance to move to the desert or the moon. Than they can complain about the sand and the dust that flies around and makes to much noise

sab319 · Post by **sab319** » 15 Dec 2004, 11:18

This is getting ridiculous...

waldova · Post by **waldova** » 15 Dec 2004, 11:22

That is the exact word to use here:

Ridiculous!!!

By the way a comment from my duthc friends here at my university:

How can a judge decide wheter to use a runway or not! Who gives him that power?

Well I totall agree with that! How is it possible that a judge has the power to do that?
Shouldn't they also then close some dangerous roads in Belgium where houses are built too close to the road and the possibility exist that drivers drive into your house?
Really ridiculous!!!

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 15 Dec 2004, 11:56

In flemish we would say .... "apenland".

In flanders we even got this far that probably everywhere gliderflying is forbidden .... due to too noisy

(this was the case in Ursel and Wevelgem if I recall correctly)

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 15 Dec 2004, 12:04

Stay with the fact please. This was a "kort geding" / quick trial, and a judge in kort geding doens't have to study the dispersion plan and he's not interested in the number of movements: he simply has to say if it's dangerous to live near that runway, yes or no. The judge said yes.
.
The minister and/or Biac will appeal, and they will ask the judge to allow that 02/20 may be used in case of severe weather conditions, strong tailwinds or crosswinds, and in case 07L/25R and 07R/25L are both unavailable.
.
Somewhere in 2005, this matter will be discussed one again in court "Eerste Aanleg": the judge then has to study the dispertion plan and he has to listen to the minister and Biac.
.
May 02/20 still be used now? Depends on mrs Peggy Cortois: if she sends a bailer (huissier de justice - gerechtsdeurwaarder) to Biac and this bailer hands over a copy of the judgement, 02/20 is out of order. If Cortois doesn't want to pay for the bailer, 02/20 stays open.
.
To be continued, don't worry...

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 15 Dec 2004, 12:23

I do not think it is a bad news. The 02 can still be used in case of strong wind, like it was before the Anciaux.

Otherwise, I think that a very good news will be to cancel the Anciaux plan because this plan is the source of all problems. If the situation come back like before Anciaux, and if there a good solution for houses near the concentrated ways, then the airport will be able to grow. With Anciaux plan, it will never grow. This decision will force the government to change his mind.

Zorba · Post by **Zorba** » 15 Dec 2004, 13:10

This will probably be the start of many of these complains! I think now all the action-groups will do the same!

They said there were 350 flight during day and 30 at night ... not so much imo !!

Aviation in Belgium is getting out of control ...

sn-remember · Post by **sn-remember** » 15 Dec 2004, 13:41

LX-LGX wrote: he simply has to say if it's dangerous to live near that runway, yes or no. The judge said yes.
..

Has this risk ever been quantified ?
By whom ?
How, when and where?
What were the conclusions ?

I am personally skeptical about a significantly increased danger in the vicinity of an airport.

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 15 Dec 2004, 16:30

why would it be more dangerous to live under 02 then under for example 25L?

Flying_Dutchman · Post by **Flying_Dutchman** » 15 Dec 2004, 16:44

Which runway is exactly the 02

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/589301/L/

None of the 3 runways are so close to a village.