Conflicting opinions about the dispersion plan of BRU

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 18 Apr 2006, 19:09

well, the more dispertion, the more people will complain. Because if they get 1 or 10 planes per hour above their head, thats the same (at least for this kind of people).
On the other hand, if you concentrate flights, less people will get more flights. Less people means less complaints. And then you can start to find other solutions for this lower number of people (insulation paid by the government for example). And this is how the situation was before 1999. And guess what? We did not have much complaints back then although there were much more noisy planes.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 18 Apr 2006, 20:09

Really good job Mr Landuyt! Finally someone who will take a serious decision after we had several ministers who did nothing for years.

And if someone has critics, why don't you try, you will see how hard it is. It's very easy to say this and that from our chair.

I'm living in "de noordrand" and in the neighborhood of the A12 and I can tell you that whole circus is a big circus of some individuals.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 18 Apr 2006, 20:46

For sure that people from noordrand will no longer complain lol.

Atlantis wrote:Really good job Mr Landuyt! Finally someone who will take a serious decision after we had several ministers who did nothing for years.

And if someone has critics, why don't you try, you will see how hard it is. It's very easy to say this and that from our chair.

I'm living in "de noordrand" and in the neighborhood of the A12 and I can tell you that whole circus is a big circus of some individuals.

Post by **sn26567** » 19 Apr 2006, 09:07

Zenfookpower wrote:As long as air traffic safety is the number ONE consideration, what is wrong then with equal dispersal.. How else can you guys resolve this..? An approach of "not in my backyard" will doom the airport and its employement.

Well, unfortunately, air traffic safety is the last thing these politicians have in mind. The logic way would be to let the weather conditions decide which runway is in use. But this consideration prevails only when there are strong winds. And of course, since the winds in Brussels are mostly coming from the Southwest, the North "rand" would get most flights. But it is also the leaset populated area around the airport, thus where the costs of insulating houses would be the lowest. Logics would again command that this solution is selected. But we are in Belgium, where politics spoil everything. The Landuyt decision will antagonise a maximum of people.

In brief:
- Let the weather decide which runway to choose: most flights will take off from 25R to the North
- The North is the least populated area. A tax on every take-off would pay for a correct phonic insulation of the houses in that area.
- Result: a minimum of complaints...
- ...and a bright future for the airport.

Too simple?
-
-

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 19 Apr 2006, 13:08

sn26567 wrote: Too simple?
-
-

Yes, because in Belgium we have a saying: why do it the easy way if you can do it much more complicated?

Zenfookpower · Post by **Zenfookpower** » 19 Apr 2006, 13:26

Thanks for the update...and good luck..

xeno · Post by **xeno** » 19 Apr 2006, 17:02

sn26567 wrote: a correct phonic insulation of the houses in that area.
Too simple?

not really an easy task IMO: where will you draw the frontiers to determinate which areas will be insulated? How can you objectively measure noise and determine if someone suffers from it?

I think a possible insulation programm will trigger some more decades of studying en discussions...

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 19 Apr 2006, 19:55

Not agree. You have sonometers which are very objective. There are some calculations taking into account the noise level and frequency. There are several international norms (OMS), indicating what level are permitted. So all these stuffs into consideration, and you can draw a real cadaster (not a mathematical one) and then act properly : determine zone than will become nomansland, and other insulated.

The only thing that is required, is objectivity, and will.

xeno wrote:
not really an easy task IMO: where will you draw the frontiers to determinate which areas will be insulated? How can you objectively measure noise and determine if someone suffers from it?

I think a possible insulation programm will trigger some more decades of studying en discussions...

xeno · Post by **xeno** » 20 Apr 2006, 12:10

On the contrary, noise is a very subjective issue!

For example:

I live in Diegem, directly under the 25R flightpath and with 90% of the weekly departures, but you won't hear me complaining about the noise.

Other surrounding regions/inhabitants of the airport (much further away from the airport!) would start a rebellion only because they have one day of traffic

NIMBY...

pascal-air wrote:Not agree. You have sonometers which are very objective. There are some calculations taking into account the noise level and frequency. There are several international norms (OMS), indicating what level are permitted. So all these stuffs into consideration, and you can draw a real cadaster (not a mathematical one) and then act properly : determine zone than will become nomansland, and other insulated.

The only thing that is required, is objectivity, and will.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 20 Apr 2006, 12:44

No it is not definitively subjective. Noise is noise. What is subjective is the perception of noise... But noise and perception of noise are two different things.

And of course, complaining depends both on both the perception of noise and the noise itself.

Perception of noise depends on: (non-limitative)

+ the level of the noise (in db)
+ the duration of the noise (in seconds)
+ the frequency of the noise (in hertz) some frequency are better supported than other)
+ the frequency of the event (number / hours)
+ the hour of the noise (week, end, night or day time)
+ the situation of the person (urban, non urban)
+ if the situation is new for the person or not
+ etc, etc

But for me, the perception of noise can be directly mapped to the complains origin: if people complains this means that noise has bad effect of them.

So may be the solution is to take both into account:
+ density (in order to be more efficient and drop the number of complains),
+ avoid more the area with a bad noise perception,
+ insulate or expropriate (depending on the noise contour) where the noise does not respect OMS recommendations

Pascal

xeno wrote:On the contrary, noise is a very subjective issue!

For example:

I live in Diegem, directly under the 25R flightpath and with 90% of the weekly departures, but you won't hear me complaining about the noise.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 20 Apr 2006, 20:28

jan_olieslagers wrote: Could you elaborate on these? Your list seemed rather complete to me!

Agreed again; but should all negative effect be taken as a serious ground for government decisions? One major negative effect for many NIMBY's must be the lesser of value of their houses - could they not have foreseen that themselves? And if they were too stupid, have they a right to blame government (i.e. the country), or even worse to demand compensation from them?

No I can't elaborate on things because I am not an expert. But may some more things I can add but may be there are right may be not:

+ indeed, buying a house that is expensive in a part of brussels that were preserved from aircraft and now that is flown yeah this could be a new point that can influence the perception of noise. And you can not say that east of brussels and part of walonia were used to be flown, this is not definitely the case: Rixensart, Grez-Doiceau, La Hulpe, Waterloo and the east of brussels were not been used to be flown, and it can be easily demonstrated. Moreover, these cities are not the cheapest one. So I think that some some contries, the argument to say they bought there because this is cheaper is completly false (just go on immoweb and look at prices...)
+ another point could be the difference, between the regions : walonia, brussels and flemish. They are definitely different in the way of mind, leave etc so this cultural aspect can be taken into account

And I am not an expert but for me, all those point have to be taken into consideration, if we want to get a real and acceptable solution. And of course, the solution could be only a compromise, it is impossible to make everybody happy.

But the real problem, and everybody knows it, is that the point of view is different between people and regions. And I think that no one must loose, no one must win: in other words, compensations have to be done, to people and regions that will be affected. That is the only solution. So if you give compensations, the less people impacted, the best. That's the good way of mind I think...

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 21 Apr 2006, 18:26

Both the flying law and new dispertion plan have been approved: http://www.vrtnieuws.net/nieuwsnet_mast ... ndex.shtml

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 21 Apr 2006, 21:32

More specific info in this article.

http://tijdnet.tijd.be/nieuws/artikel.asp?Id=2218793

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 21 Apr 2006, 21:58

killerwhale65 wrote:
Both the flying law and new dispertion plan have been approved.

Yes, that's what Landuyt (the honourable minister of Transport) said: it's approved.

The truth is that laws are approved by the Parliament, not by a minister. Today, the Board of Ministers only approved the proposal of law that Landuyt has presented to them. Presented once again, because the document that has been approved today (2005A61460.026) was presented a first time on 9th June 2005.

This document, our world famous dispertion plan, is now transferred to the federal Parliament, where all MP's from the political majority are expected to vote yes. Which is, with local elections in October, not that obvious.

- - -

Official statement (only available in FR and NL, not in English - no copyright):

Ministerraad van 21 april 2006

De Eerste Minister vestigde de aandacht op enkele grote dossiers die de ministerraad goedkeurde. Hij besprak in de eerste plaats de beslissing om de procedure voor asielaanvragen te versnellen. Sinds november is het aantal aanvragen gedaald tot een duizendtal per maand. Maar de achterstand blijft aanzienlijk. Door de hervorming van de Raad van State, waar die achterstand zich bevindt, en de verbetering van de procedure, zal men tegelijk de achterstand kunnen inhalen en de nieuwe asielzoekers beter beschermen. Het tweede grote dossier dat de ministerraad goedkeurde is de verlenging van de overgangsperiode voor België de grenzen voor werknemers uit de nieuwe lidstaten van de EU opent. De ministerraad nam een koninklijk besluit aan dat de procedure vastlegt voor de aanvraag van arbeidsvergunningen en arbeidskaarten voor de knelpuntberoepen. De ministerraad keurde ook de wet over de spreiding van vluchten goed. De tekst kan nu aan het parlement worden voorgelegd. De wetgever zal over de criteria kunnen beslissen, terwijl de gewesten verzocht worden om een geluidskadaster op te stellen. Men zal verder onderhandelen om een samenwerkingsakkoord tussen de gewesten de federale overheid te sluiten.

Conseil des Ministres du 21 avril 2006

Le Premier Ministre a mis en évidence quelques grands dossiers à l'issue du Conseil des Ministres. Il a notamment épinglé la décision d'accélérer la procédure en matière de demandes d'asile. Depuis le mois de novembre, le nombre de demandes a baissé pour ne plus atteindre qu'un millier par mois mais l'arriéré reste important. Une réforme du Conseil d'Etat où se situe cet arriéré et une amélioration de la procédure doivent à la fois résorber l'arriéré et mieux protéger les nouveaux demandeurs. Le deuxième dossier important approuvé par le Conseil des Ministres est la prolongation de la période transitoire pour l'ouverture des frontières aux travailleurs des nouveaux pays membres de l'Union européenne. Le Conseil a aussi approuvé l'arrêté royal fixant la procédure relative à la demande d'autorisation d'occupation et de permis de travail pour les emplois dits difficiles à pourvoir. Le Conseil des Ministres a par ailleurs approuvé définitivement le texte de la loi sur la répartition des vols, texte qui peut donc être transmis au Parlement. Le législateur va donc pouvoir discuter des critères tandis que les régions sont priées d'établir un cadastre des bruits. On continuera par ailleurs à négocier en vue d'un accord de coopération entre le fédéral et les Régions.

pascal-air · Post by **pascal-air** » 21 Apr 2006, 22:38

From my point of view the new dispersion plan just brings two new things:

on saturday , all departure will take off from 020,
and the second point, if takeoff can not be preformed from 020, the best runway will be used (for example 07).

in other words, what does it mean, is in fact that 02 for landing will not be used always, but could be used in case of wind. For example, the plan says:

if a runway can not be used, the best oriented runway will be used. But in most cases, if runway 020 ca can not be used, this means also there are tail winds, so tail winds on runway 25 also and then 02/07 will be used for take off & landings.

So MR & PS are saying this is a good news for Brussels, personally I do not see why... In what ?

Whatever, taking off from 020 was attacked on the State Council (Conseil d'Etat) one year ago and they won. Today, I learned they will take a new action at the Council, in emergency.

On the opposite side, I learned that the flemish government does not agree with new Landuyt plan, because it does not spread enough on the Brussels area. They will probably take a Council action in emergency too...

As conclusion, the nightmare continues....

Post by **airbuske** » 21 Apr 2006, 23:01

Belgium is not the only country with problems.

With the opening of T4 and T4S
and the new runways at Madrid Barajas
there are a lot of neighbours complaining.

Also at Amsterdam there are problems.

People want to travel fast these times.
LCCs are giving everybody the chance to
travel.

But people don't like the negative things like
noise etc.
But it doesn't care were you put an airport
there will be always be noise somewhere and there will be always
people complaining.

Don't forget that an airport is very important.
Employment , economy , taxes ...

What can a law and dispersion change at the situation ?

But yeah , this is Belgium....

Zenfookpower · Post by **Zenfookpower** » 22 Apr 2006, 00:00

Trying to understand what is going on..!! It is "cheap" ( on a English forum ) to refer to French and Flemish news articles.. Why having this topic here on the English version.. You all Belgiums might as well continue this thread in your native language .. I will continue to "google" the news and get the updates that way..

Post by **Bruspotter** » 21 May 2006, 17:22

Hi

I have a question , sice I am making a statement about the noise regulations at Brussels airport as exam for school.

About a year ago...there stood a fine of €25000 per movement on RWY 02 , wich had to be payed. Where did that money go to? Did it ended up in someway in the hands of the habitants of the Noordrand and other villages around the airport?

Best regards: Yannick

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 21 May 2006, 17:48

You can ask the people of those comites itselfs. I think nobody of us can give you the correct answer.

They are easy to find on the net.