Strange twitter account about Antwerp airport take-offs

[luchtzak]

I came along these tweets:

8/6 12:59 Sterke schendng @Belgocontrol_NL rgls? Cessna 525A CitationJet CJ2 1833ft/m (max 1000) @AntwerpAirport @JokeSchauvliege @BenWeyts

8/6 07:03 ng stds onsympathiek vroeg, zvl lawaai maken Nextgen Partners:OOJCV ->?? @AntwerpAirport @JokeSchauvliege @BenWeyts

https://twitter.com/overAntwAirport

I don't understand why this twitter account is complaining about Antwerp departures ?

[KriVa]

Probably one of the 3-4 people who made up 90%, or even more, of the complaints last year.
Leaving aside the incorrect use of units, I wonder where a maximum rate of climb of 1000 fpm is published in the AIP? Not only that, but the numbers seem to be very specific, without registrations mostly... This points to FR24 or similar being the source of the 'data', which is known to not exactly be reliable when it comes to that type of data.
In other words, nothing to see here...

[luchtzak]

Maximale stijgsnelheid tussen 800 en 3000ft = 1000ft/min. Deze vlucht steeg gemiddeld aan 2833ft/minuut of 2,8 x wat toegelaten is...

??

[KriVa]

I'm not quite sure what they aim to prove with that limitation. After having looked a bit further, it is indeed in the AIP. However, the faster an aircraft climbs, the less people will be impacted by the noise, in my eyes.
Also, they seem to try and infer that these infringements, if you can even call them that, are reducing safety, by their choice of words. This, of course, is not the case.

[jan_olieslagers]

it is indeed in the AIP

That is unexpected. Is it specific to this aerodrome, or to certain bits of airspace, or is it a general limitation? In other words: in what section of the AIP did you find it?

I agree that it is made to look like infringing upon safety, and I cannot see why either; as long as the "envelope" for the given aircraft type is respected.

[KriVa]

In the AIP, EBAW specific, AD 2.21 Noise abatement Procedures

This climb profile is specific to EBAW, since for example EBBR has different noise abatement procedures.

[PttU]

Get those people on of those:

[DIBO]

I tried (unsuccessfully) to find out how long this EBAW noise abatement procedure exists. It looks outdated, maybe based on propeller aircraft?? Anyhow, V2+15 without the 1000ft/min seems more sensible. Giving the totally different 'noise landscapes' on both runway ends, different procedures should be implemented. Jets departing on rwy11 should climb to at least 1500ft (=over mostly unpopulated area) before reducing thrust. The SID's should also be improved, on rwy 11 straight ahead climb to 2000ft before turning, should keep aircraft more over less populated areas.

Although the "tweeter" is behaving as a green fundamentalist (far worse than a 'neuter') and should be charged with a stalking offence, he has a point. If there are noise abatement procedures, they should be strictly adhered to (after updating/improving these procedures). EBAW aircrew/airport authorities/ATC are much too careless with applying/imposing the noise-related ruls/procedures. The rule "Weather and traffic permitting, ATC will use RWY 11 in preference to RWY 29 for departing aircraft with a weight exceeding 5 700 KG" is never enforced. A similar (but opposite) rule should be implemented (and enforced!!) for arrivals.

[ironspan]

So DIBO, and because of 1 (ONE) tweeter, you conclude that airport authorities/ATC/EBAW aircrew are careless and not following procedures. EBAW has been bashed for too long by green and socialist parties, there are already too many 'rules' in this country, to the extent that nothing, but nothing is progressing (think about Oosterweel, the Eurostadion, the Brussels airport noise penalties, Uplace, etc). Go back a few years, big works were announced for EBAW: a new extended tarmac, new parallel taxiway, new runway surface, new approach light system, new back-up generator, new... and what was realised: a small new terminal building. Everything else is postponed... It is because of the 'fear' for these fundamentalists and neuters that nothing happens, so please, do NOT support them or give them any arguments.
Thanks to 'luchtzak' and 'kriva' for their positive remarks.

[DIBO]

So DIBO, and because of 1 (ONE) tweeter, , you conclude that airport...

Pretty stupid, unfounded conclusion. I don't need an insane tweeter. I've been on/at/around/near/over the airport for 45 years, monitored thousands of hours ATC comm's (yes, with the appropriate license), I intensively monitored/documented the past couple of years the heavier traffic, especially TUI's E190 (what a beauty!). Although I totally have no knowledge on scientific noise footprint analysis, I know what a 6:30 am Sunday morning E190 approach over the city does, to the pro/neutral/contra airport opinions of the affected inhabitants... Don't behave like an ostrich... accept that EBAW is an noise sensitive airport and behave accordingly, so that we can keep the positive support for the airport. Start lobbying politicians/chamber of commerce/investment banks/EU-funding/... whatever, so that E190 E2's can be based at ANR as soon as available, which allows doubling of the flights with still a lower total noise/environmental impact.
Or be shortsighted and bring in dozens of daily flights with Ryanair's 738 SFP's, and kill the airport (as an exaggerated/extreme example).
It's also nonsense that all the infrastructure works are stopped out of 'fear' for the fundamentalists. It's all about budgets/economics/priorities. The most bold move against the Greens is the expensive tunnel, removing the first physical obstacle for a rwy extension (which will never happen). The airport is not yet a money generating machine, so sustained passenger growth while maintaining the public's support (!!) is essential. And don't underestimate the power of social media, even in the hands of a (facts based) lunatic...

[ironspan]

To DIBO:
1. I thought that discussions on professional forums like 'luchtzak.be' would remain civilised and not insulting. Calling me stupid, an ostrich or being shortsighted is therefore inappropriate
2. You may have followed EBAW for 45 years, so did I. And I have seen a gradual change of the people mindset around the airport, mainly because the many 'mis-informations' which were given by some political parties. We had at that time B-737-200 flying every day, of which the noise footprint is much worse than today's (silent) E190s. These parties only wanted (and still want) one thing: close the airport and sell it to the highest real estate developer (can you imagine how many billions this would bring to the state!)
3. An E190 landing at 0630 just does do nothing to the inhabitants. It is 1 flight per week and only in the summer, not a landing every 2 minutes!
4. Nobody is asking for Ryanair to come (I did not even mention it!), EBAW has never had the intention to become CRL or EIN. EBAW will remain a small regional airport with limited holiday flights.
5. The tunnel has been built, but you are now already predicting that the runway will never be extended. If it is about economics that investments have now been stopped, then nothing will happen anymore on EBAW. According to you the airport is not a money-making machine, and additional traffic is not supported because we are a 'noise-sensitive' airport. How logical is that for an argumentation? Do you apply the same argumentation to the railway investments? Then the NMBS can close their books tomorrow
6. Oosterweel, Eurostadion, etc are not stopped because funds or budgets, but purely because of shortsighted (yes, now the word is used correctly) political parties, looking for short-term gains (remember Patrick Janssens 180 degrees change on Lange Wapper?)
7. TUIFly started flying 2 years ago, and now you are asking that they should invest in E190 E2s, but they just bought the current 190s! How economic is that? That means that also when VLM (hopefully) starts-up, they cannot operate F70s because, according to your argumentation, these aircraft would make too much noise (or they should fly only on mid-day) So they should keep on flying with +20-year old F50s, because they do not have the money to buy CS100 or E190 E2s...

Although I noticed that in the past you were also quite strong about EBAW's noise issue on other topics on this forum, I am asking you to support what we have achieved so far at EBAW. It is nowadays very trendy to follow the NIMBY-principle (look at the comedy around Brussels Airport), let's resist this while remaining POSITIVE.

[PttU]

3. An E190 landing at 0630 just does do nothing to the inhabitants. It is 1 flight per week and only in the summer, not a landing every 2 minutes!

10 aircraft might cause 10 times the noise, but they don't cause 10 times the irritation. The same way "only one" aircraft doesn't generate only 1% or 0.1% of the anger "a landing every 2 minutes" can cause. I can imagine no-one cares if there is one more daily flight departing at 0630 at EBBR, but it will make a serious impact if the same would happen at EBAW.

We had at that time B-737-200 flying every day, of which the noise footprint is much worse than today's (silent) E190s.

Although I noticed that in the past you were also quite strong about EBAW's noise issue on other topics on this forum, I am asking you to support what we have achieved so far at EBAW. It is nowadays very trendy to follow the NIMBY-principle (look at the comedy around Brussels Airport), let's resist this while remaining POSITIVE.

The fact that you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. No-one wins if you overload the neighbours with noisy aircraft early in the morning, late at night and all week and weekend long. Yes they could have known this could happen when they bought a house near the airport. But there's something like "living together", and neither these twitter actions help, but neither does it help to make noise just because you can.

Like DIBO mentioned before:

If there are noise abatement procedures, they should be strictly adhered to (after updating/improving these procedures). EBAW aircrew/airport authorities/ATC are much too careless with applying/imposing the noise-related ruls/procedures. The rule "Weather and traffic permitting, ATC will use RWY 11 in preference to RWY 29 for departing aircraft with a weight exceeding 5 700 KG" is never enforced. A similar (but opposite) rule should be implemented (and enforced!!) for arrivals.

If you CAN be more neighbour-friendly, I think you SHOULD. Technology and knowledge has evolved since the B737-200 timeframe, so use it and evolve.
If other noise-sensitive airports (but honestly: which airport isn't) can survive and thrive, like LCY or BMA, I'm sure ANR can too.

[ironspan]

Apparently I did not make myself clear. I am not asking for B737-200s to come back, I am not asking for Ryanair to start flying at EBAW, I am not asking for 10 E190s taking off at 0630 every day, I am not blaming people that bought a house around the airport and started complaining, I am not asking to become a 2nd Charleroi!
I only want to protect what we have built up so far. For years the future of this airport has been in doubt, now finally we see some light and a new carrier is flying 3 to 4 return flights a day, and, hop, there are people who want to impose new rules (use E190 2s, no early or late take-offs or landings, no F70s, etc), not only in the left-wing press but also on this forum! I wish we would have LCY or BMAs traffic, that would be great (you know how many E190s are taking off from LCY per day!). It will never be enough for the fundamentalists, if we only have 1 Cessna 150 making touch and go's, still they would complain. In Eindhoven and Rotterdam they also have noise issues, but they don't try to kill the traffic they have.
That is why I reacted, give Tuifly some space, embrace new initiatives, don't start nagging about 1 start at 0630, but be positive, support the airport, try to give it a sustainable growth and listen to the neighbours (not to the fundamentalists or those 3 or 4 persons who make 80% of the complaints around EBAW).
For me this discussion is now closed
Thanks

[EBAW_flyer]

In the AIP, EBAW specific, AD 2.21 Noise abatement Procedures
Using full take-off thrust climb with the maximum gradient compatible with safety until passing through 800 FT QNH. Then reduce thrust so as to maintain V2 + 15 KT and climb at a rate of 1 000 FT/MIN until 3 000 FT QNH. Above this altitude, resume normal climb procedure.

This is the strangest noise abatement procedure in the world

Maybe they mean a climb rate of at least 1000FPM (normal in a jet at V2+15).

By the way: LIDO translates this as "Noise Abatement Procedure: Use ICAO Standard NADP1"
NADP1 still gives the option of reducing thrust between 800ft (min) and 1500ft (Max), with acceleration at 3000ft.