BRU can no longer use the 02
Moderator: Latest news team
Wind leading to RWY change was between 090-110 ° up to 15 kts. That's 5kts tailwind for RWY 20 if you ask me...
Alternative for 25L/R-20 (according to dispersion plan) was 02/07.
Other thing: temp was all day above 25° C (Stephenson screen) so if you'd like to calculate density altitude... (QNH 1008)
RWY change was absolutely the correct decision (if safety is the primary issue, of course...)
Alternative for 25L/R-20 (according to dispersion plan) was 02/07.
Other thing: temp was all day above 25° C (Stephenson screen) so if you'd like to calculate density altitude... (QNH 1008)
RWY change was absolutely the correct decision (if safety is the primary issue, of course...)
First of all: I am strongly against all those anti BRU 'not-in-my-back-yard' committees, and strongly in favour of the expansion of brussels Airport as an international airport, and in favour of always letting the tower decide which runway to use.TWR wrote:Wind leading to RWY change was between 090-110 ° up to 15 kts. That's 5kts tailwind for RWY 20 if you ask me...
Alternative for 25L/R-20 (according to dispersion plan) was 02/07.
Other thing: temp was all day above 25° C (Stephenson screen) so if you'd like to calculate density altitude... (QNH 1008)
RWY change was absolutely the correct decision (if safety is the primary issue, of course...)
But when I look at the EBBR METAR's of the last 120 hours, I don't see these 15 KNT winds you're talking about, I don't see any gusts either, and even if I would, a 110 15KTS wind is still no tailwind for 20 (only crosswind, but it's the same crosswind for 02). So the reason for the 02 choice must be something else. But what?
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/weather/surface ... ursStr=120
-
SAB-OM
Tower supervisors must take more parameters in consideration than only the wind - but it's one of the primary factors...
METAR is not the source for the runway decision
(the METAR is not updated continuously... it's an average indication of the local weather situation)
tower must use the wind currently "blowing" at the threshold of the active runway (which can be different from the METAR and also different from the wind at 100ft, 500ft or 1000ft)
every runway has its own wind measurements at the threshold (read via the "impulsphysic" gauges in the tower)
in short: METAR only is not enough to decide on the active rwy
those comitees should better sue eachother instead of bashing BIAC ...
I wonder how those comitee people go on vacation or on business trip??? by car?? don't think so ....
METAR is not the source for the runway decision
(the METAR is not updated continuously... it's an average indication of the local weather situation)
tower must use the wind currently "blowing" at the threshold of the active runway (which can be different from the METAR and also different from the wind at 100ft, 500ft or 1000ft)
every runway has its own wind measurements at the threshold (read via the "impulsphysic" gauges in the tower)
in short: METAR only is not enough to decide on the active rwy
those comitees should better sue eachother instead of bashing BIAC ...
I wonder how those comitee people go on vacation or on business trip??? by car?? don't think so ....
Indeed RWY- use is decided upon ACTUAL wind conditions, not METAR.
Even the reported wind on ATIS is not actual. I'm talking about wind parameters as displayed to the ATCOs.
RWY 20 was in use for dep, and believe me; 5 kts in the back with high temp/ short RWY DOES make a hell of a difference. Fortunately, all pilots flying widebodies refused that RWY for dep...
Politicians have decided if RWY 20 is U/S (0 kts tailwind allowed, remember?) ATC should revert to RWY 02/07.
If action commitees have better wind readouts than Belgocontrol, maybe they should sell their system to Belgocontrol. That would be an honourable way of making money on someone else's back.
If not: f**k off !
End of discussion.
Even the reported wind on ATIS is not actual. I'm talking about wind parameters as displayed to the ATCOs.
RWY 20 was in use for dep, and believe me; 5 kts in the back with high temp/ short RWY DOES make a hell of a difference. Fortunately, all pilots flying widebodies refused that RWY for dep...
Politicians have decided if RWY 20 is U/S (0 kts tailwind allowed, remember?) ATC should revert to RWY 02/07.
If action commitees have better wind readouts than Belgocontrol, maybe they should sell their system to Belgocontrol. That would be an honourable way of making money on someone else's back.
If not: f**k off !
End of discussion.
Why aren't there people who react against those actiongroups? When you look at the news you always see those guys who are against the airport. But you see no one who is pro the airport. We have to react! 
The 'Oostrand' won their trial, what's next: closing RWY 20, after that: closing 25L and 25R. Because that's the reaction of the other actiongroups.
The 'Oostrand' won their trial, what's next: closing RWY 20, after that: closing 25L and 25R. Because that's the reaction of the other actiongroups.
I live in the final approach path for runway 20 (app. 10 miles out), and I pray consistently for consistent winds from 170 at 18 knots. Cause I love planes. So I'm not from an action committee, I hate action committees, I'm just a curious aviation enthousiast who likes to know how runways are assigned. And I believe runway 20 should be in use for landing FAR more often 8)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't METAR reports always include significant gusts (if there are any). And isn't it so that though METAR wind speeds might sometimes differ a couple of knots from the real-time rwy threshold measurements (which I know can be heared on the TWR frequencies each time an aircraft gets cleared for landing or take-off if you would have an air receiver), but they never more than that. As far as I remember, they have always been a pretty precise 'wrap-up' of the winds of the last half hour. And the winds (not the direction nor the speed) are not even close to the threshold (for a dry 20/02, that's 5 knots tail) at which it justifies runway 02. Winds from 090-110 degrees is an almost pure crosswind on runway 02/20, so tail/head wind is not the factor here.
No, I'm sure there's another (good) reason in the decision, and I would really like to know which one...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't METAR reports always include significant gusts (if there are any). And isn't it so that though METAR wind speeds might sometimes differ a couple of knots from the real-time rwy threshold measurements (which I know can be heared on the TWR frequencies each time an aircraft gets cleared for landing or take-off if you would have an air receiver), but they never more than that. As far as I remember, they have always been a pretty precise 'wrap-up' of the winds of the last half hour. And the winds (not the direction nor the speed) are not even close to the threshold (for a dry 20/02, that's 5 knots tail) at which it justifies runway 02. Winds from 090-110 degrees is an almost pure crosswind on runway 02/20, so tail/head wind is not the factor here.
No, I'm sure there's another (good) reason in the decision, and I would really like to know which one...
(for a dry 20/02, that's 5 knots tail)
ArthurV, your info is not correct,
AIP AD2.EBBR-16 Preferential rwy system
...preferential rwy system is not the determining factor...
For rwy 20/02 for departing acft from 0500 to 2159; when rwys are dry or wet and the cross and/or tail wind component exceed(s) respectively 15 kts and 0kts (gusts included).
...
if the reported wind is 090° 15 kts for rwy 20 then
COS 110 X 15 = 5,13 kts tailwind
that's 5,13 kts too much.
ATC simply played by the rules...
ArthurV, your info is not correct,
AIP AD2.EBBR-16 Preferential rwy system
...preferential rwy system is not the determining factor...
For rwy 20/02 for departing acft from 0500 to 2159; when rwys are dry or wet and the cross and/or tail wind component exceed(s) respectively 15 kts and 0kts (gusts included).
...
if the reported wind is 090° 15 kts for rwy 20 then
COS 110 X 15 = 5,13 kts tailwind
that's 5,13 kts too much.
ATC simply played by the rules...
And even the wind is not the only factor. I spook with a A300 Cp of our company and he also told me that visibility, rwy lenght, load etc has an influence on the rwy choiche. If you ask me it is not possible that those thinks can be regulated via court. It is urgent necessary that there is coming a law that forbids that people can go to court for those things
I do not understand in Belgium the way all these complaints are given so much credibility, Surely alot of jobs are on the line with the success of an airport. Also one thing I will never understand is how people can complain about something that has been there 50 years before them and they knew when they moved there that an AIRPORT was there. Why move next to something if you will complain about the noise and the danger? Just stay away or deal with it.
Ciao Ciao
Giancarlo
Ciao Ciao
Giancarlo
Hello Giancarlo, welcome to Luchtzak.
It might as difficult for you to understand the Belgian situation at Brussels airport as it is for us to understand the Italian situation with Alitalia
In fact, the people who live under the landing path of rwy 02 did not have many problems until the Anciaux dispersion plan. Planes were landing on 02 only if the weather imposed it, which is not very often.
But Minister Anciaux said that this was unfair (he lives in the North, where most flights take off) and he wanted to noise to be distrubuted to all the neighbours of the airport, and not only himself. What about safety and security in that decision? He didn't care...
If I had bought an expensive house in the quiet neighbourhoods of Kraainem, Wezembeek-Oppem or Tervuren, I would be equally angry...
It might as difficult for you to understand the Belgian situation at Brussels airport as it is for us to understand the Italian situation with Alitalia
In fact, the people who live under the landing path of rwy 02 did not have many problems until the Anciaux dispersion plan. Planes were landing on 02 only if the weather imposed it, which is not very often.
But Minister Anciaux said that this was unfair (he lives in the North, where most flights take off) and he wanted to noise to be distrubuted to all the neighbours of the airport, and not only himself. What about safety and security in that decision? He didn't care...
If I had bought an expensive house in the quiet neighbourhoods of Kraainem, Wezembeek-Oppem or Tervuren, I would be equally angry...
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
-
Sabena_690
- Posts: 3378
- Joined: 20 Sep 2002, 00:00
As much as I dislike Anciaux, I would be surprised if he took this decision for electoral reasons. In contrast of a huge number of politicians (both from Flemish and Walloon political parties) who are only complaining about the "noise" so that the people would re-elect him/her during the next elections, Anciaux decided to make a 'democratical' dispersion. 'Democratical' is put between brackets, because for example inhabitants of Brussels find that bothering them with only a few nightflights is already a crime, so they only get a very small % of the total number of flights.Sn26567 wrote:But Minister Anciaux said that this was unfair (he lives in the North, where most flights take off) and he wanted to noise to be distrubuted to all the neighbours of the airport
There are only 2 options: a) a maximum dispersion of flights (which is not the case at the moment) and b) a concentration of flights (which also isn't the case at the moment).
As long as this stays a political debate (once again illustrating how politicians of French- and Dutch speaking don't seem to agree about anything), no real solution will be found in my opinion.
Brussels Airlines - Flying Your Way
I can see your point but I will still say if you dont want noise dont move into the near vicinity of an airport. People reap the benefits of flights and jobs these places create yet complain when at time it does not suit them.If I had bought an expensive house in the quiet neighbourhoods of Kraainem, Wezembeek-Oppem or Tervuren, I would be equally angry...
Either way I guess it would seem im bias because im pro aviation but sometimes things are as simple as not placing yourself in the way of danger/hassel.
Ciao Ciao
Giancarlo
This area has always been quiet, except when winds made it necessary to land on 02 (a fewdays per year). People knew that and built or bought houses, often at high prices because it was the green belt of Brussels, at the same time close to the city and very quiet.Volare wrote:I will still say if you don't want noise don't move into the near vicinity of an airport.
The flights were concentrated over some 20,000 inhabitants of the North of Brussels (the least populated area), as it fits for safety reasons. But the brother of Anciaux is a lawyer and an active member of the action committee for the North of Brussels. And everything changed.
Now it is not 20,000 people who are suffering from noise, but hundreds of thousands!
As I have always advocated in this forum, the best and least expensive solution is to "concentrate" the flights over the least populated area and pay these people enough to insulate their homes. The dispersion plan was a major mistake of the previous government.
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
I don't think your figures are completely right: if you check demographical figures, the "Noordrand" would be the 2nd most populated area aroudn BRU.sn26567 wrote: The flights were concentrated over some 20,000 inhabitants of the North of Brussels (the least populated area), as it fits for safety reasons.
As I have always advocated in this forum, the best and least expensive solution is to "concentrate" the flights over the least populated area and pay these people enough to insulate their homes. The dispersion plan was a major mistake of the previous government.
Also, concerning the number of overflown people, you have to make a big difference in landing via 02 (more people involved) than departing via 20
FYI: I'm not an adept of the action committees
Like most of you, I've been following this subject these last few weeks, months and even years.
All I can say is indeed 'ridiculous'. This is turning into a cold war between inhabitants around the airport. Each time the government comes with a new solution, there always are some suroounders who think they deserve the right to not being bothered by whatsoever, even though chances are quite high they decided to come and live there áfter the airport was built.
Solution A obsets inhabitants living to the east of Brussels. They go to court and the judge says those inhabitants are right. The government has to obey the judge's ruling, and comes with solution B, which is not a solution for the inhabitants living to the north of Brussels. Now it's their time to go to court. And so on, and so on.
If nobody, has the courage to settle this dispute once and for all, BRU will have a serious problem in the years to come. And, let's not forget all those happy people who went to court might have to go to AMS, FRA, CDG or LHR to catch their flight of the year to their favourite Spanish coast. They even might have to wait weeks instead of days for their new CD (bought via the internet) to arrive...
Now that I think of it, I think I'll file a lawsuit against the Belgian railway operator, NMBS. There is a track not 50 meters from where I live, and I just can't stand the noise everythime a train passes. Hey wait, the E-19 highway is also not so far away, and frankly, sometimes, depending on wind conditions, I can 'hear' some cars. That bothers me, I think this noise pollution must stop. I even might make some good money out of it.
Do we really have to take it how this country and its economy are slowly being destroyed by not even one tenth of a percentage of its inhabitants who really must complain of something they clearly chose for? I mean, come on. Let's stop al this nonsense. Because, after all, that's exactly what it is: nonsense!
Ivan
All I can say is indeed 'ridiculous'. This is turning into a cold war between inhabitants around the airport. Each time the government comes with a new solution, there always are some suroounders who think they deserve the right to not being bothered by whatsoever, even though chances are quite high they decided to come and live there áfter the airport was built.
Solution A obsets inhabitants living to the east of Brussels. They go to court and the judge says those inhabitants are right. The government has to obey the judge's ruling, and comes with solution B, which is not a solution for the inhabitants living to the north of Brussels. Now it's their time to go to court. And so on, and so on.
If nobody, has the courage to settle this dispute once and for all, BRU will have a serious problem in the years to come. And, let's not forget all those happy people who went to court might have to go to AMS, FRA, CDG or LHR to catch their flight of the year to their favourite Spanish coast. They even might have to wait weeks instead of days for their new CD (bought via the internet) to arrive...
Now that I think of it, I think I'll file a lawsuit against the Belgian railway operator, NMBS. There is a track not 50 meters from where I live, and I just can't stand the noise everythime a train passes. Hey wait, the E-19 highway is also not so far away, and frankly, sometimes, depending on wind conditions, I can 'hear' some cars. That bothers me, I think this noise pollution must stop. I even might make some good money out of it.
Do we really have to take it how this country and its economy are slowly being destroyed by not even one tenth of a percentage of its inhabitants who really must complain of something they clearly chose for? I mean, come on. Let's stop al this nonsense. Because, after all, that's exactly what it is: nonsense!
Ivan