Aviation24.be

Here is the list of violations Google auto translate: 1) Failure of the takeoff procedure SOPOK LIMA on runway 19 which imposes a left turn at 700 feet off the runway , the Turkish cargo has neither complied with the imposed rate of climb or turned left off the track but took off straight on runway...

ok. 1) you say the C-130's are slow. How many times is that speed you value so much really critical? And you refer to the C-130's as slow, but are they really? besides: we have them anyway, so the cargo capacity is there. A concorde would get it there even faster. So what, in the end, you and me ha...

When the airport is below minima, we can (and do) keep aircraft on the ground, but we are not allowed to withhold clearance to land... I just wonder if it's a wise thing to do, landing at an airport below minima. Also looking at insurance etc... The thing is BRU is using what I would call 'non stan...

When the airport is below minima, we can (and do) keep aircraft on the ground, but we are not allowed to withhold clearance to land...

I just wonder if it's a wise thing to do, landing at an airport below minima. Also looking at insurance etc...

That's how I interpret it as well... I just hope they will find something soon. First and foremost for the sake of the relatives, but also for the sake of aviation. If you don't know anything , you can't start looking for solutions...

I suppose that they thought of that as well and that that's why it took so long to come forward with this information...

Depretair wrote:I don't see any departures out of bru now, and many holding acfts.
Is the fog responsible for this?
What are the minima for T/O in foggy conditions?

Minimum visibility of 150m RVR. If the airport would be closed due to the fog, that would be a first for me...

operational ATC reason is that another word for work to the rule? No, it is not. It is a long story, but I'll keep it short: since the last update of the AIP (7/3 if I'm not mistaken) there are new SIDs for RWY 07R/L (aka 'Leuven rechtdoor'). However, not all controllers are yet properly trained fo...

EBBU wrote:Imho it looks more like a visual approach than vectors for ILS approach to me...

Yes indeed, the controller who would give vectors for such an approach is overdue for a refresher methinks...

bartusek wrote:February after Valentine's day - good moment fot RNAV photos !

Probably, Photo of 2014 ???
CES789 Wenzhou-Rzym FL360 M984 A332 B-5941

Very nic pic! Looks very photoshopped

PS: the reason why it's FL431 and not FL430 is to allow you to keep you flight level when flying into and over countries like China that use metric flight levels with 1000ft seperation. Flight levels are FL321, 331, 341,...

Thanks for that info, Bracebrace, I was wondering about that...

Smell of smoke in the cockpit...

So after the star, you vector aircraft to finals is that it? So we dont have to fly the entire INstrument approach... I don t get it why is a shorter way to finals not allowed anymore? It is much more economic... Political interference... All that work they're putting into the single european sky t...

He's talking BS The approach procedure for 01 for arrivals from the east is FLO - BUB - north of brussels and then a left hand circuit. Up until a few months ago, when traffic permitted, we gave a shortcut from FLO over Beauvechain to long final 01. Wathelet is saying that that wasn't adhering to th...

FLO BUN and a long left hand circuit... so I guess at least 50 nm more than the right hand circuit overhead beauvechain that was allowed until recently...

I could be mistaken...

again OODWI

Gear unsafe indication, returned after +1 hour burning fuel. Safe landing.

The big problem for me is that they do not take into account the tailwind during approach, but only on the ground. In BRU, now already too often you have up to 15-20 kts tailwind on approach, with winds calming down sometimes as low as 50ft. On those occasions, I report this to the tower, and mostl...

I don't think it would be possible to put any gates on the west side of the connector, it's enough of a problem with the current stands as it is. For example, traffic pushing back from stands 143 and 145 have to pull forward until abeam stand 151. Meaning that during their push, they are interfering...