New Gates at the end of the A pier?

[Atco EBBR]

And what would be the problem with creating 2 dedicated platforms? One at W41 for runways 25R and 20 and one at the start of runway 07R for runways 07R and 02?

Probably just the cost... You need to install a dedicated system to collect the (toxic) de-icing fluids.

[Stij]

Hi Atco EBBR,

I agree, but what happens to all those fluids now? It must be better to have them locally used then dispersed?

Kind regards,

Stij

[Flybe]

And what would be the problem with creating 2 dedicated platforms? One at W41 for runways 25R and 20 and one at the start of runway 07R for runways 07R and 02?

Probably just the cost... You need to install a dedicated system to collect the (toxic) de-icing fluids.

And a logistical nightmare for the deicing teams, having to move from platform to platform whenever runways are changed (which I expect to happen often in winter conditions as snow also needs to be removed from the runways). Either that or investing in extra equipment and extra people being on standby to hurry to the other platform when runways change (because you will be still deicing an aircraft at the first platform, while others already move to the other platform). -> hardly costeffective.

Lots of factors have a play in this, it's not as easy as it looks.

Kind regards,
Pieter

[Atco EBBR]

Hi Atco EBBR,

I agree, but what happens to all those fluids now? It must be better to have them locally used then dispersed?

Kind regards,

Stij

I know that at M there is such a system, for the other de-icing platform (stand 322?), I'm not sure but I assume it's there. I think it is necessary to get your environmental permit ("milieuvergunning")

[Stij]

And a logistical nightmare for the deicing teams, having to move from platform to platform whenever runways are changed (which I expect to happen often in winter conditions as snow also needs to be removed from the runways). Either that or investing in extra equipment and extra people being on standby to hurry to the other platform when runways change (because you will be still deicing an aircraft at the first platform, while others already move to the other platform). -> hardly costeffective.

Lots of factors have a play in this, it's not as easy as it looks.

Kind regards,
Pieter

Sure it's more complicated then we think, but still, if the wind and the snow come from the west, you tak off from 25r or 20 so you would still use the same platform, the same with winds frm the east.

Correct me if i m wrong but i don't see anybody taking of from 25l even in a snowstorm...

Cheers,

Stij

[Tomskii]

Firstly, making a dedicated de-icing platform around the W41 area would be stupid.

Reason 1: Not all flights have to pass there, only the heavy's pass via W41. The rest is B1

But sending every flight that needs de-icing (be it heavy or medium) to W41 is no problem at all. Btw W41 is not dedicated to heavy traffic, nor is B1 only used by mediums. It just comes down to TORA needed

True, I should have phrased that correctly. But you'll never see a medium plane take off from W41 Anyways. (At least not in my knowledge) Thing is for medium aircraft, a taxi to W41 would take longer, and would probably cause even more delays than it would do now. (just a wild guess)

@Above: 25L will probably be used for takeoffs as well this summer as they will be working on the 25R for a couple of weeks again (renewal of the concrete next to the runway if I understood well).

But in normal circumstances it might only happen once a year that they use 25L and that's very exceptional.

[tolipanebas]

You'll never see a medium plane take off from W41 Anyways. (At least not in my knowledge)

Actually, It happens quite regularly during rush hour that trafic from the uneven stands at the B pier (or south of them) is made to cross RW20 midway and then proceeds via the W taxiway to the full RWY length: the E-jets from bmi regional are regular users of W41 for instance, and those are definitely no big planes.

Hence my suggestion to make a de-icing platform at W41 (i.e. for widebodies and that trafic), whereas another platform at B1 would cope with planes coming from the A Pier and the northside of the B pier.

Will this solve everything?

Nope, because as you've rightfully pointed out, it's only good in case of westerly departures, but then it would already be a huge step forward compared to what we have to cope with now and what we may expect this winter now that K is gone, and as you can see from another post of mine made today, its not like Brussels Airport company has no margin left for investment which would help justify part of their extremely high fees. However, they prefer building a non-essential connector building stuffed with even more shops.

[Atco EBBR]

Actually, It happens quite regularly during rush hour that trafic from the uneven stands at the B pier (or south of them) is made to cross RW20 midway and then proceeds via the W taxiway to the full RWY length: the E-jets from bmi regional are regular users of W41 for instance, and those are definitely no big planes.

That's right, I send them there myself regularly... Sometimes even SN's 737's ask for full length...

@Above: 25L will probably be used for takeoffs as well this summer as they will be working on the 25R for a couple of weeks again (renewal of the concrete next to the runway if I understood well).

But in normal circumstances it might only happen once a year that they use 25L and that's very exceptional.

I doubt we'll be using 25L for departures this summer. I don't see any system in which that would work. 25L is badly suited for departures because there's no taxiway that goes to the beginning. (C1, the first taxiway on 25L is already +/- 1km from the threshold). So, if an a/c would need full RWY 25L for departure, it would have to backtrack, taking up a lot of time. For this reason, single RWY 25L would be a nightmare...

An alternative would be 25L for departures and 20 for arrivals, but that would only be marginally better... In this configuration, all departures have to cross the arrival RWY and you have to be careful giving take off on 25L in respect with the arrivals on RWY 20...

The best option with 25R out of use would of course be 02/07R, weather permitting. With westerly winds, imo there are only two options, 20 single RWY or 20 for departures and 25L for arrivals. Capacitywise, there's not a lot between them, but personally I prefer 20 for departures and 25L for arrivals. This has the adventage of being able to line up the departures without problems (whereas with single 20, you can only line up after an arrival - obviously...). An arrival on 25L can be instructed to vacate C4 and hold short RWY 20 for departing traffic or if unable C4, to vacate via C6 and be clear of RWY 20 relatively quickly. Then you can give take off to the departure on RWY 20 up until the next arrival on RWY 25L is 2 - 2.5 miles final (depending on speed of the arrival, wind, type of traffic departing, type of company departing... )

Apologies if this explanation is too technical...

[tolipanebas]

Not at all, quite interesting and understandable to me...

While we are at it: I personally find it a pitty is that under easterly departures, we are not allowed to depart from 07L, especially when parked at the north side of the airport. I may be missing the full picture here, but it just doesn't make much sense to go standing in line at 07R for up to 20 minutes, especially not when planned on a NIK, DENUT or HELEN SID!

BRU has 2 parallel RWYs similar in layout to LHR, but they are not using them nearly as efficiently as is being done overthere, that much is a given. Is this because they don't want to invest in a taxyway to the beginning of 25L, nor in ILS on the 07s and thus stick to using the 02 instead? LHR has all of the above and could thus get rid of its transversal (shorter) 3rd RWY, which may be cheaper in all.

[Atco EBBR]

Not at all, quite interesting and understandable to me...

While we are at it: I personally find it a pitty is that under easterly departures, we are not allowed to depart from 07L, especially when parked at the north side of the airport. I may be missing the full picture here, but it just doesn't make much sense to go standing in line at 07R for up to 20 minutes, especially not when planned on a NIK, DENUT or HELEN SID!

BRU has 2 parallel RWYs similar in layout to LHR, but they are not using them nearly as efficiently as is being done overthere, that much is a given. Is this because they don't want to invest in a taxyway to the beginning of 25L, nor in ILS on the 07s and thus stick to using the 02 instead? LHR has all of the above and could thus get rid of its transversal (shorter) 3rd RWY, which may be cheaper in all.

The problem with departures from 07L is that you need a much bigger gap between arrivals on the
02 (5-6 nm as opposed to 3-4 nm). Normally, traffic from brucargo will get 07L, because they usually depart outside the arrival peak and to avoid excessive taxi (espacially with a 747...). Sometimes businessjets from abelag also get 07L, but this is ad hoc. In fact, when it is possible to give 07L to lets say an avro from stand 140 - so in light to medium traffic - I don't think you'll gain much. C6 is almost always offered to shorten taxi to 07R, which makes the difference in taxiing to 07L or 07R much smaller, and when you're lined up on 07L, you stand a good chance of waiting a couple of minutes for your gap on 02, or because there was a NIK, HELEN or DENUT-departure from 07R (in which case of course you have to wait until that traffic crosses the extended axis of 07L before giving take-off to traffic on 07L...)

But you are right, BRU could work much more efficiently with an ILS on 07L. That way you could work with 25R/L as preferential system, 07L/R as best alternative (with some loss of capacity due to useless SID's on 07R and no simalteneous arrivals on 07L and 07R) and only use the 02/20 when absolutely necessary... However, the straight-in approach for 07L goes straight over the royal palace of Laken...

If you would go down this route, the only thing needed imo is an extra exit taxiway B4 on 07L in between existing B3 and B5, because, most arrivals on 07L miss the B5 exit and then taxi quite slowly to B3...

[tolipanebas]

But you are right, BRU could work much more efficiently with an ILS on 07L. (...) However, the straight-in approach for 07L goes straight over the royal palace of Laken...

I know, but it's no problem in London for instance, where both Buckingham Palace (in the east) AND Windsor Castle (in the west) are under the approach path to LHR.

If you would go down this route, the only thing needed imo is an extra exit taxiway B4 on 07L in between existing B3 and B5, because, most arrivals on 07L miss the B5 exit and then taxi quite slowly to B3...

Indeed, that would be advisable.

I doubt it will happen anytime soon though: I think the church of Diegem may be another problem for a straight in ILS on the 07L

[Atco EBBR]

I know, but it's no problem in London for instance, where both Buckingham Palace (in the east) AND Windsor Castle (in the west) are under the approach path to LHR.

Let's just say it is a political problem...

I doubt it will happen anytime soon though: I think the church of Diegem may be another problem for a straight in ILS on the 07L

Correct, and btw, that is also the reason why sometimes the Americans (american, united, delta) request 25L iso 25R for departure...

But why don't we switch it around: 07L for departures, 07R (with ILS) for arrivals? And perhaps in good visibility ad hoc arrivals on 07L...

[tolipanebas]

But why don't we switch it around: 07L for departures, 07R (with ILS) for arrivals? And perhaps in good visibility ad hoc arrivals on 07L...

I have no idea why there is no ILS on the 07R, other than that those arrivals would lead right over the centre of Brussels, which is a political no go as well I suppose?

The same question can be asked also today: why is there a clear preference for the offset VOR 07L over the straight in VOR 07R approach, whenever BRU has no other option but to use the 07s?

[Atco EBBR]

But why don't we switch it around: 07L for departures, 07R (with ILS) for arrivals? And perhaps in good visibility ad hoc arrivals on 07L...

I have no idea why there is no ILS on the 07R, other than that those arrivals would lead right over the centre of Brussels, which is a political no go as well I suppose?

It would make a lot of people in 'de oostrand' very happy, not that I would aim to please these people...

The same question can be asked also today: why is there a clear preference for the offset VOR 07L over the straight in VOR 07R approach, whenever BRU has no other option but to use the 07s?

I think it's because if an arrival would miss the C3 exit - which isn't unlikely - it's quite awkward to vacate via C2 or - certain go around if traffic behind - C1. Of course that could be fixed rather easily with a new taxiway and in any case, for me 07R as arrival RWY would be only marginally worse than 07L...

[Stij]

Gentlemen,

thank-you VERY much for this really constructive interesting discussion! I really enjoyed reading it! It's a relief to read this after a lot of bashing discussions.

Cheers,

Stij

[sn26567]

Gentlemen,

thank-you VERY much for this really constructive interesting discussion! I really enjoyed reading it! It's a relief to read this after a lot of bashing discussions.

Cheers,

Stij

I was thinking the same. Is this due to the fact that it was a discussion between professionals, whereas you and me are only amateurs?

My answer is definitely "No": everyone can contribute to a discussion in a positive way, it's just a matter of spirit. Thank you guys!

[Tomskii]

Actually, It happens quite regularly during rush hour that trafic from the uneven stands at the B pier (or south of them) is made to cross RW20 midway and then proceeds via the W taxiway to the full RWY length: the E-jets from bmi regional are regular users of W41 for instance, and those are definitely no big planes.

That's right, I send them there myself regularly... Sometimes even SN's 737's ask for full length...

@Above: 25L will probably be used for takeoffs as well this summer as they will be working on the 25R for a couple of weeks again (renewal of the concrete next to the runway if I understood well).

But in normal circumstances it might only happen once a year that they use 25L and that's very exceptional.

I doubt we'll be using 25L for departures this summer. I don't see any system in which that would work. 25L is badly suited for departures because there's no taxiway that goes to the beginning. (C1, the first taxiway on 25L is already +/- 1km from the threshold). So, if an a/c would need full RWY 25L for departure, it would have to backtrack, taking up a lot of time. For this reason, single RWY 25L would be a nightmare...

An alternative would be 25L for departures and 20 for arrivals, but that would only be marginally better... In this configuration, all departures have to cross the arrival RWY and you have to be careful giving take off on 25L in respect with the arrivals on RWY 20...

The best option with 25R out of use would of course be 02/07R, weather permitting. With westerly winds, imo there are only two options, 20 single RWY or 20 for departures and 25L for arrivals. Capacitywise, there's not a lot between them, but personally I prefer 20 for departures and 25L for arrivals. This has the adventage of being able to line up the departures without problems (whereas with single 20, you can only line up after an arrival - obviously...). An arrival on 25L can be instructed to vacate C4 and hold short RWY 20 for departing traffic or if unable C4, to vacate via C6 and be clear of RWY 20 relatively quickly. Then you can give take off to the departure on RWY 20 up until the next arrival on RWY 25L is 2 - 2.5 miles final (depending on speed of the arrival, wind, type of traffic departing, type of company departing... )

Apologies if this explanation is too technical...

It has been done in previous works, so except for your perfectly correct explanation, 25L has already been used as a departure runway because the wind did not allow to use a different RWY during the works.

Not at all, quite interesting and understandable to me...

While we are at it: I personally find it a pitty is that under easterly departures, we are not allowed to depart from 07L, especially when parked at the north side of the airport. I may be missing the full picture here, but it just doesn't make much sense to go standing in line at 07R for up to 20 minutes, especially not when planned on a NIK, DENUT or HELEN SID!

BRU has 2 parallel RWYs similar in layout to LHR, but they are not using them nearly as efficiently as is being done overthere, that much is a given. Is this because they don't want to invest in a taxyway to the beginning of 25L, nor in ILS on the 07s and thus stick to using the 02 instead? LHR has all of the above and could thus get rid of its transversal (shorter) 3rd RWY, which may be cheaper in all.

Cargo & GA is allowed to take off from 07L though but indeed pax flights for Apron 1 north are not allowed to take of from there.

PS: I do not see where you would be able to place that TWY to 25L as FYI there is the fuel hold there as well standing in the way and there is no room for now due to the road next to the fence, thus the TWY would only be used for airplanes with a fairly little small wingspan.

[B.Inventive]

we takeoff from 25R up to 1700' straight ahead, and we know we cross laeken, more than often at low altitudes and high power settings (at least higher than approach)
why not put either an offset ILS (LDA) on 07L, this will already reduce weather minima and I suppose (not sure, atco's jump in please) and your minimum separation...
Other option might be to put in an MLS system and vary the approaches throughout the day?(morning on say 050 inbound, evening on 100 inbound) .... though not many airliners are actually equipped with this system, it is an 'option' on almost all of them...

[B.Inventive]

Actually, It happens quite regularly during rush hour that trafic from the uneven stands at the B pier (or south of them) is made to cross RW20 midway and then proceeds via the W taxiway to the full RWY length: the E-jets from bmi regional are regular users of W41 for instance, and those are definitely no big planes.

That's right, I send them there myself regularly... Sometimes even SN's 737's ask for full length...

@Above: 25L will probably be used for takeoffs as well this summer as they will be working on the 25R for a couple of weeks again (renewal of the concrete next to the runway if I understood well).

But in normal circumstances it might only happen once a year that they use 25L and that's very exceptional.

I doubt we'll be using 25L for departures this summer. I don't see any system in which that would work. 25L is badly suited for departures because there's no taxiway that goes to the beginning. (C1, the first taxiway on 25L is already +/- 1km from the threshold). So, if an a/c would need full RWY 25L for departure, it would have to backtrack, taking up a lot of time. For this reason, single RWY 25L would be a nightmare...

An alternative would be 25L for departures and 20 for arrivals, but that would only be marginally better... In this configuration, all departures have to cross the arrival RWY and you have to be careful giving take off on 25L in respect with the arrivals on RWY 20...

The best option with 25R out of use would of course be 02/07R, weather permitting. With westerly winds, imo there are only two options, 20 single RWY or 20 for departures and 25L for arrivals. Capacitywise, there's not a lot between them, but personally I prefer 20 for departures and 25L for arrivals. This has the adventage of being able to line up the departures without problems (whereas with single 20, you can only line up after an arrival - obviously...). An arrival on 25L can be instructed to vacate C4 and hold short RWY 20 for departing traffic or if unable C4, to vacate via C6 and be clear of RWY 20 relatively quickly. Then you can give take off to the departure on RWY 20 up until the next arrival on RWY 25L is 2 - 2.5 miles final (depending on speed of the arrival, wind, type of traffic departing, type of company departing... )

Apologies if this explanation is too technical...

It has been done in previous works, so except for your perfectly correct explanation, 25L has already been used as a departure runway because the wind did not allow to use a different RWY during the works.

Not at all, quite interesting and understandable to me...

While we are at it: I personally find it a pitty is that under easterly departures, we are not allowed to depart from 07L, especially when parked at the north side of the airport. I may be missing the full picture here, but it just doesn't make much sense to go standing in line at 07R for up to 20 minutes, especially not when planned on a NIK, DENUT or HELEN SID!

BRU has 2 parallel RWYs similar in layout to LHR, but they are not using them nearly as efficiently as is being done overthere, that much is a given. Is this because they don't want to invest in a taxyway to the beginning of 25L, nor in ILS on the 07s and thus stick to using the 02 instead? LHR has all of the above and could thus get rid of its transversal (shorter) 3rd RWY, which may be cheaper in all.

Cargo & GA is allowed to take off from 07L though but indeed pax flights for Apron 1 north are not allowed to take of from there.

PS: I do not see where you would be able to place that TWY to 25L as FYI there is the fuel hold there as well standing in the way and there is no room for now due to the road next to the fence, thus the TWY would only be used for airplanes with a fairly little small wingspan.

Concerning 25L for t/o: atco is right... it is really a nightmare but it does work... but to be very honest, there are more nightmare situations at brussels... f.e. why they always seem to split up the ground sector when it's calm?????? and vice versa....(no kidding, experienced this more than 5 times over the last 3 months)
de icing is simply something .... well... no words for it... couldn't be worse... Even at milano MXP they're better at this... (and they are ITALIANS.....)

[Stij]

PS: I do not see where you would be able to place that TWY to 25L as FYI there is the fuel hold there as well standing in the way and there is no room for now due to the road next to the fence, thus the TWY would only be used for airplanes with a fairly little small wingspan.

from what Google Earth tells me there's already an (old) unusedtaxiway next to the fuel farm. Fro the fence around it to the cantre of that taxiway is around 50m, so there's 10m reserve for an A380 Could be that's not enough, I don't know, further away there's also enough space, the only problem is the tunnel... apart from the NimBy's of course: nor Steenokkerzeel, nor Zaventem are going to like this.

But, here's a theory, correct me if I'm wrong please and tell me when I annoy you:

Hub in Bru with Western or southern winds
Incoming waves: Landing on 25L and 25R. Taking of from 20 taking into account incoming traffic on 25L
Outgoing waves: Landing on 25L. Taking of from 25R and 20 taking inro account incoming traffic on 25L

Now, if 25L would be longer (in the direction of Leuven) so it wouldn't intersect with 20 anymore, we probably still would have to take incoming traffic into account on 25L in case of a go around, don't we?

Cheers,

Stij