Brussels - rwh 20 for take offs

[tgdxb]

We - in Brussels - are facing insane politicians forcing acft to use rwy 20 for T.O.
I am hearing the flying crews saying the same.
Do we need an air crash on a densely populated area to make people think twice?!

[Avman]

No more populated than those areas overflown by 25R departures, so I don't get your point at all. However, I do agree that politicians should stay out of ATC operations.

[tgdxb]

if you are from Brussels ya better check the maps and drive around. Rwy 20 takes you straight into the most populated areas of Brussels and jut check altitude of acft taking off... so low that I could say hi to the captain!!!!

[TopBunk]

tgdxb

Sounds like you are one of those anti-aviation people more concerned with your back garden than safety, ie ok for the people on the 25(R) departure tracks to have the noise so long as it's not me.

Departures off 20 will be at a higher altitude than arrivals onto 02, which happens I guess about 10% of the time.

[tgdxb]

Topbunk,
you got it wrong, I am actually an aviation fanatic and do exercise a profession in aviation.
Have you been on the ground? Based on your comments I have some doubt. BTW what did happen at LHR when you open the public hearing re. the new T5? How would British citizens react if West Drayton or the Hampshire ATC centre - of which I am forgetting th name now - would disperse landings & T.O. all around London? Hmmmmm....
My view of a cost-effective way to address this and night T.O. disturbance is (1) to concentrate the noise and support people most impacted and (2) to use longer rwy when you have got them.
Just take into account that people under 25R have been there for ages and that any newcomer can't ignore the issue.
When I came to live where I am now, there were no T.O. on rwy 20, no night traffic and I can't find any traffic forecast traffic at BRU pointing out to this as a possibility.
I love aviation but I hate insensible decisions, which is definitely what it is on using rwy 20.
Now it is up to you to believe me or not.
Wish you a nice weekend.

[Avman]

Yes tgdxb , I know Brussels very well and you are talking through your hat!

[tgdxb]

Avman,
given you know Brussels you should be aware of what I say and describe in my posting.
I do accept you may disagree dependent on where you live but I would love people to prove me wrong in what I am saying.
Anyway thks to all for your open comments which is why I value such a forum. It helps understand why we ar ein such a nightmarish situation around the airport.

BTW Avman are you working for BelgoControl?

[Avman]

Rwy 20 is a perfectly adequate runway. Why should there be any additional risk of an a/c crashing on departure because it's using 20? If an aircraft was to crash just after departure on 20 it would indeed come down in a populated area. However, my valid argument is that this would be no different to a departure on 25R or 25L (yes, 25L is sometimes used by US carriers). Many airports around the world are surrounded by highly populated areas. So, I don't see what your point is, other than personal rather than a real concern for your community. If aeroplanes over your house worry you, why did you move in to a house in such close proximity to a runway? Oh, and finally, RWY 02 has been regularly used for arrivals for years, thus overflying the same "populated area". Don't aeroplanes crash on landing too! Yet this has apparently never bothered you. You and many others may not enjoy the noisy consequence, but there is no inherent compromise to safety in a/c using RWY 20 for departure.

[TopBunk]

Avman - I agree with you. I would ask that 'aviation friendly' tgbxd tells us exactly where he lives in relation to the 20 take off path. One thing is for sure, I bet he doesn't live anywhere near the 25R take off path!

[tgdxb]

TopBunk,
pls do not be so contentious. Everyone has the right of his opinion, including you. And I do respect it.

Avman,
you didn't answer whether you are working for BelgoControl?
In short, answers tosome of your points:
- I do live just under turning point of widebodies after T.O.
- I moved in in 86 - 02 was only used and to a maximum of 15-20 days/year. We knew it & accepted it, especially because of low noise level at landings.
- this part of Brussels was known to be quiet and pleasant, except for these 20d of 02 use and T.O. overfly from 25L or 25R. They were high enough not to ovely disturb.
- There are no studies available in the 90's forecasting nightly T.O. and such a repeated use of 20.
- 25L & 25R being longer permit higher rotate speed and climb rates provided this rule is enforced by Belgocontrol which I doubt.
- Given the altitude of oveflying widebodies, their rotate point must be quite down 20!!!!!
- why not close the airport 23:00-07:00 as do most of the surrounding airports?
- BRU is a second zone airport anyway given it missed its window of opportunity and is now so happy and dependent on DHL & charter flights (dixit P. Klees recently).
- 02 could not be used for T.O. because it is not long enough & downwind, dixit a BelgoControl executive. I repeat, a,n executive.
- people ruling or applying the rules aren't usually living in the areas affected. So, difficult to believe they understand the consequences of their decision.
- and no, I am not isolated and you will see this more & more. Just ask the airport mediator about the number of complaints files. After all, our part of Brussels get ABSOLUTELY NO benefits from the airport.

[mutt]

tgdxb,

As a regular cargo operator into BRU, I have to state that you have one of the most annoying set of noise policies that we have to deal with in Europe.

If the rules become any more stringent, we will seriously consider moving our operations to Liege or even Ostend. If a number of other operators followed our lead, just think what it would do to your house prices with the rising unemployment surrounding the airport!


Mutt.

[Rwy in Sight]

Since I don't have a Brussels National (or Zaventem) plan in mind would someone be kind enough and explain me which Communities are affected by the use of Rwy 02/20 and 25R/L

For some reasons the idea o fbasing aeronautical decisions in financial clout and / or political influence crossed my mind.

Yours truly,

Rwy in Sight

[tgdxb]

Hi Mutt,
re. the value of my real estate - well consider I did try to sell it recently because I had enough of it. Believe it or not but it lost 20% of its value due to recently increased noise disturbance!!!!!! So I am even losing on my own money for things that other people are benefitting from.

Due to my involvement in the aviation business I'll tell you my personal conviction that BRU should be closed and a new airport built elsewhere. Everyone would benefit from it: Brussels & surroundings first, but Belgian economy, as well, through the huge building work and the operators thks to reduced infighting.

If our politicians and all reasonable people could think a bit before taking stupid decisions...

Rwy in Sight,
it is a fact of the matter that BRU benefits most to the Flemish community w/ more than 93% of employees overall, including the operators.

I am French speaking and when I wanted to get a job at SN some while ago I was told about the imbalance in favour of French speaking people and the need to hire more Flemish. Let's think about it. Food for thought...

[Avman]

tgdxb the more I read your posts the more I'm convinced that you have one big chip on your shoulder. No, make it chips!


02 could not be used for T.O. because it is not long enough & downwind

Apart from the fact that 02 has been used for take-off regularly for years (or did you mean to say 20), what absolute tosh! No pilot will accept using a runway if it is outside his aircraft's performance limits.

[tgdxb]

Avman,
I am accepting your statement.
I would just add that the pilots I have been talking to are speaking differently from you and this is why I wanted some sort of additional feedback.
At least you could not deny that 25L & 25R are longer than 20 and why did we extend 25L if the 20 length was sufficient(ly comfortable)? Remember, the public sector went about expropriating people - or at least buy their ground - to extend 25L.
The more we go on about this thread and the more I am getting concerned.
One thing this all teaches us is that such decisions should not be unilateral and... all... concerned parties should be part of it so as to get their buy-in. We very much feel this wasn't the case and that everything is done to wipe us off. Remember, this is not only my position. I understand that more than 10,000 complaints were filed with the airport mediator, although I reckon I do not know about the specifics of each.

[Rwy in Sight]

Re the 10,000 petitions, I feel that a petition against the state (central or communal) for reason of noise is seen as an easy way to get some relative quick cash. Zaventem has been there for 40+ year and people just came around realizing how annoying is. SInce enviromental concerns become more important.

Give airline business a break

Rwy in Sight

[tgdxb]

Rwy in Sight,
... because it is getting beyond limits and out of control!!!!!!!
Any clever business management system puts in place measurement and metrics as well as control systems to make decision makers accountable. I'd like to see this in the case of BRU.
Some 'smartly' biased politicians and uncontrolled airport authorities make decisions about airport operations which are not necessarily agreed to by the community surrounding them. Like it or not, we have the right to express our disagreement as much as you do about us. Period.
BTW I would prefer this forum to be a panel for exchanging views and clarifications rather than blames. We might all benefit from better understanding each other's opinion and seeking solutions... together.

[Daysleeper]

We might all benefit from better understanding each other's opinion and seeking solutions... together.

But the only solution you will accept is the closing of BRU at night and the unemployment of 8000 people. If you moved to BRU in the 1980s then you would have had 727, DC-9 early 737s etc etc all of which are FAR noisier than anything operating today.
Again I point out that you do not get NO benifit from the airport. DHL alone provide over 200 million in tax to the Beligian Govt.
As to the location of BRU, plenty of airports around the world are as close to the cities they serve as communities have expanded towards the airports initialy remote location. Why do cities expand TOWARDS airports? Because airports provide JOBS.

And if as you claim safety is your motivation why are we doing turns at 700feet off runway 20 to avoid overflying the local community. It would be much easier for us just to climb straight ahead.

[Soddit]

tgdxb

Do you really think that the communes ( those beneath the RW20 departure path)of St Peters Woluwe,Zaventem and Tervuren are <<the most densely populated in Brussels>>?I would be most curious to know the basis for your assertion.

[tgdxb]

when you see how quiet BRU is throughout the day I would start filling in these slots before expanding night traffic. I see that many leading European airports are closed at night (see LHR to only name one & I believe FRA may also be one). What makes BRU so different and so critically employment dependent that there is absolutely no other choice but increasing night T.O. on 20. And why is all this T.O. traffic systematically over us on Sundays between 5:12AM and 17:00?
Soddit,
I would say, they are the most densely populated ones for taking off a/c still at low altitude, thus when noise is the highest and most disturbing. The rotate speed will be lower than on 25R and therefore climb rate will be affected. I have been overflown by a/f taking off from 25R since I moved here and have pretty much accepted it, although it may be noisy, as well.

[Oshkosh George]

I have to say this,even if it has been said thousands of times before.

I will NEVER,EVER,EVER understand people who buy houses near airports and complain about noise!

Also I think rotation speeds do NOT differ on different runways!

[tgdxb]

Oshkosh George,
you are right in a sense.
However when you do not have any choice but staying close to schools you can't move far away from the town.
Then you buy and you only have landing a/c overflying you. This, you accept because it is your responsible decision. And everyone in the aviation world tells you that rwy 02 is only used as a backup in case of northern winds.
Then you investigate and you are told by specialists that the BRU expansion plans are to extend 25L & maybe 25R to increase capacity & accept larger widebodies.
Etc. Etc.
A few years later someone (who is this someone? and why didn't he consult in advance instead of unilaterally deciding?) decides to open the airport to night traffic (while other major airports do close at night!). And then for the same good reasons someone (another one or the same one? but still unilaterally) decides that 20 is more appropriate for T.O. than the longer 25R.
It makes you think about where is the growth management there?

[Oshkosh George]

No airport can afford to stay where they are. They are a business,and need to develop.

I'm afraid this would have been in MY head while looking for property,and if 4-5 aircraft a night would bother me(which wouldn't!),then I would look elsewhere.

I'm sorry,you don't have my sympathy.

[tgdxb]

Oshkosh George,
how smart you are...
BTW 4-5 T.O a night?! This is a good one! I wish it were only 4-5.
Have you ever been lately in BRU? But you knew this, didn't you?

[Daysleeper]

Looks like tgdxb gets his way. Thousands of jobs to go in BRU as DHL moves out to Vatry or Leipzig.


But not till 2008.

[tgdxb]

at least the number of night T.O. will not increase

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Well, tgdxb, I trust you've slept peacefully the last couple of nights. Now you just need to imagine either loosing your job or paying increased taxes and generally see the Belgian economy go in reverse.

Secondly, your understanding of our business makes me belief that you really don't know the first thing of what we, as evidenced in your suggestion that DHL could just start flying in the daytime. The ignorance of that suggestion speaks volumes of your knowledge of the express business.

But you got it your way and we shall be off in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we'll do our best to utilise 20 for take-offs, and just for your benfit we'll see if we can't get Kalitta to operate their -100 whales a bit more often than at present.

[tgdxb]

Flip Flop Flyer,
with a bit more cleverness and change management this collective failure might have been prevented. It wasn't as an obvious case for DHL as you seem to imply. I am convinced the airport's future lies with pax traffic & not courier not even cargo.
Onesightedness & Globalisation excesses have created this situation. This is... my... humble opinion, obviously.
Anyway I hope I will be out of range of this airport as soon as possible whether in country (but maybe there would be a new airport there in the next 15 years and some other bright postings would keep claiming that 'how damned could Igo and buy a house there?') or as an expat.

[Soddit]

Ah,tgdxb

How was it for you at 0545 local time this morning?And no,it wasn't DHL this time or indeed any other freight carrier.All blasting straight over Wezembeek.The earth fair moved.

Perhaps you could start a petition to make Zutendaal the new national airport?It's got all the requirements.It's in Belgium.It's got a long runway - even matches the colour of the surrounding countryside- good road links along the E314.You might even attract a low cost carrier and call it Luxembourg North.:D

[Daysleeper]

How can you claim that globilisation causes these problems then say you want to be an expat. It cuts both ways. You really have no idea about the world do you tgdxb. Then you say that an airports future lies in pax traffic. Well for BRU it does now, cause there is no freighter company that will touch it with a barge pole. Gotta hope that the current Belgian pax airlines are more successful than Sabena etc etc etc.

I dont think I have seen such a comprehensive dismantling of a nations aviation assets since the British Labour govt of the 60's killed our manufacturing business. The Belgian Govt should be ashamed of itself.

[mutt]

tgdxb,

With the completion of the runway construction we are rescheduling our B747 operations back into BRU. At least you wont think that the MD11 is the noisest anymore :) Unfortunately any Sunday operations will of course comply with the preferrential runway system defined by the airport, so you can expect RWY20 departures! Check out the appropriate Jeppesen chart and you will see the runway schedule.

Please dont blame us, the airport decides the runway, pilots MUST file a written report if they dont comply! :(

BTW, LHR is open at night~! (Operates a Quota system)


Mutt.

[tgdxb]

Mutt,
I don't care because I am going to be an expat again! Soon!!!!!!
LHR open at night? That's new. Must be especially for you then so that you can post such 'constructive' postings which help resolve problems rather than create them.

Soddit,
I would say, moving courier, cargo & charter traffic out of BRU has all my support.

[tgdxb]

just in case you still have doubts that I am not an isolated case and nor is Belgium, I recommend you go and see my latest posting in the DHL forum (re. the MAN noise disturbance case study). Very interesting to see this is happening in the UK. I have seen many others which I could add to the list if you are interested!;)

[tgdxb]

this is for my better undertanding given I am not a pilot :ok:
what happens on rwy 20 in case of aborted T.0.? Do the pilots consider they have enough length to stop the a/c without reaching the end of the rwy?
as a pax I would care about this very much; it's about our (yours & mine) lifes, too, after all...

[mutt]

tgdxb,

Regardless of the runway, all takeoff calculations are conducted in accordance with the appropriate regulations (JAR/FAR). These regulations state that an aircraft must be capable of accelerating to a speed called V1, originally this was a decision speed. If an event occured to that speed the takeoff was aborted and the aircraft had to stop on the runway/stopway, if an event occured after that speed the takeoff was continued. The continued takeoff is calculated assuming that an engine has failed.

There are a lot of variables in these calculations, but the result should be the maximum weight for that particular runway.

RWY20 is no different to any other runway.

Mutt.

[tgdxb]

mutt, thks for this. I would assume that depending on a/c config, weather conditions, pax/cargo load, etc. the distance to reach V1 will vary, right? Under V1 the T.O. can be aborted. And I guess the decision to abort while V1 has not been reached is not taken based on the rwy length left. So what happens then when a widebody close to V1 needs to abort on rwy 20?

[mutt]

Tgdxd,

The process can also work backwards, based upon the runway length, slope, surface condition, wind, thrust rating, flap setting, temperature, obstacles, runway strength and even NOISE, the maximum weight for a specific runway is derived.

The crews then have a choice, if the aircraft/fuel/payload weight is less than that Maximum runway weight, then that runway can be used. If the weight is greater, then either another runway will be selected or flaps/thrust changed. Failing that either payload or fuel must come off the aircraft (Resulting in a technical stop for fueling)

So once again you will see that RWY 20 isn’t any different to any other runway, the weight may be less, however the aircraft will be legally capable of complying with the legal requirements.

Taken from a comment in R&N…Yes, there are 2/3 guys at the front of these aircraft. Quite often they are high time people who are intent on living to their retirement. I want my pension fund to cry in their beer with what they've had to pay me. I (and I'm far from alone) have self-interest very high on my personal agenda.
I work on the premise that if I'm OK, so is everybody else. It's called Responsible Hedonism.

I thought that was an excellent statement. Please don’t think that crews will endanger their lives or yours needlessly. RWY 20 is available for use, its listed on the preferential runway list, crews will continue to use it provided its safe to do so.

As for your question So what happens then when a widebody close to V1 needs to abort on rwy 20?. It aborts! Its planned to stop by the end of the runway/stopway.

Mutt.

[tgdxb]

Mutt,
thks. Id di find out indeed that V1 is not VR and that it could be the same on longer rwys. And your whole posting makes a lot fo sense, of course.

Now this AM I was overflown by a B747-400 and from my estimate it must have been around 1,500 ft. Doesn't this indicate that it must have taken off quite heavy and quite near to the end of the rwy given I am living about 5 km from it? What could have V1 be in such a case (local weather was 6C, scattered clouds, low wind, don't know the pressure but rather increasing pressure).

BTW where in ME are you based?

[TopBunk]

tgbxd

Now this AM I was overflown by a B747-400 and from my estimate it must have been around 1,500 ft. Doesn't this indicate that it must have taken off quite heavy and quite near to the end of the rwy given I am living about 5 km from it? What could have V1 be in such a case (local weather was 6C, scattered clouds, low wind, don't know the pressure but rather increasing pressure).

5km or about 2.7nm at 1500 ft sounds about right for a normal 747-400 departure.

You cannot infer from that however what its weight was! What is 'heavy', what is 'quite near the end of the runway'?

Typically on all modern aircraft you use the amount of thrust necessary to lift the weight of the runway. This means usually you will not need to use full power, even at maximum weights if the runway is over about 3000m. The benefits of using less power are (1) Less wear and tear on the engines = longer life & less risk of failure (2) Less noise generated by the engines. Disadvantages include a shallower climb out angle (so lower at a given range from the runway). Overall the noise profile from full vs lower power is probably about neutral.

From experience of the 747-400, you typically rotate about 3/4 of the way down the runway whether and calculate the amount of thrust needed to do that. In effect what you do is calculate the max temp at which you could take off given the actual weight, and schedule that amount of power. Typically for a 747-400 at max weight the V1 would be somewhere between 140-160 kts and the Vr about 170 kts.

[tgdxb]

thks topbunk, as I said I am not a pilot - although I dreamed to be - and therefore enjoy learning more about how these 'animals' are flown.
Is my understanding then right that the altitude of the overflying B747 could have been higher with more engine power at T.O. but this would have generated more noise and fuel consumption, obviously? Is it right that a 15 deg climb rate still is reasonable for a B747?
Also I do not quite understand why this one was so low relative to others passing over my house?

One more question - you suggest a rotate at about 3/4 down the rwy. Now does this mean that the longer the runway the longer - potentially - the speed at which you rotate? And maybe the higher the climb rate?

what I meant w/ \'heavy\' and \'close to the end of the rwy\' is that I deducted that if it were quite loaded (I assume it was a freighter), it must have needed more rwy to reach VR given the climb rate was not \'steep\'. Again pls correct me if I am wrong.

[biacman]

:p This is a nice topic i would like to take part.
I am working at EBBR airport and i live in the past of RWY 25R!!
And i can tell you that aircraft over my head are making less noise
than the "tramway"crossing along my street.My sealing is shaking and will soon collapse with that tram.
If aircraft are making so much noise ,i don't understand why people are almost fighting to get a land at Steenokerzeel,Diegem?and Zaventem to build their house.
People living in the area of the airport had good prices for their house,and what about the "anti-noise wall" that has been built?
So,i really wonder what push people to live there knowing they have an airport nearby...just my 2 cents

[tgdxb]

biacman,
I am glad to see you confirming my earlier expressed opinion that a/c taking off from 25R are perceived to be less noisy.

[tgdxb]

if any chance I am still interested by an answer to my posting of 14/11 17:12.
Thks for anyone willing to answer it.

[mutt]

tgdxb

Is my understanding then right that the altitude of the overflying B747 could have been higher with more engine power at T.O.
Without knowing the takeoff weight of the aircraft, its hard to know if the aircraft was heavy and using full takeoff power or light and using derated thrust.

Is it right that a 15 deg climb rate still is reasonable for a B747?
Don’t confuse angle of attack with climb angle. 8-10% is a more reasonable climb angle for a heavy 747. Using that figure, at 5000 meters, you could expect the aircraft to be at a height of 400-500 meters.
One more question - you suggest a rotate at about 3/4 down the rwy. Now does this mean that the longer the runway the longer - potentially - the speed at which you rotate? And maybe the higher the climb rate?
Generally speaking the length of the runway doesn’t impact the rotation speed. For a 300,000 kgs aircraft you will use the same V-speeds for a 10,000 ft or 15,000 ft runway. However, the longer runway does offer more flexibility, it is possible to use a reduced takeoff thrust rating or increase the V-speed on the runway to get a higher climb rate. This is airline specific, we will reduce thrust but don’t use the higher V-speed method on the -400.
You must understand that we WANT to use ALL of the runway, we have the ability to takeoff with approx 65% of the available takeoff power in the -400 depending on the aircraft weight runway combination. That thrust reduction dramatically reduces our engine costs as the engine is able to operate at lower temperatures. This is perfectly legal and safe.
Without knowing the airline and their procedures, its extremely difficult to give accurate answers, there are many ways to operate the same type of aircraft. For example, there is a noise monitor right off the end of RWY20, this airline may have decided that using reduced takeoff thrust would create a lower noise footprint and hopefully not trigger the noise monitor!

Mutt.