Noise dispersion around EBBR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BE
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise dispersion around EBBR
I was wondering if EBBR was the only airport that has a noise dispersion plan.
This plan was thought out by a politician to give everyone around the airport their share of noise polution.
The chief at EBBR TWR decides which runway to use but his first rule is not the prevailing wind but the 'daily menu' that was decided on by the responsible minister. It only takes into account the day of the week and the time of day..... The chief can overrule the schedule but then has to go to another list to see what runway he can use..... And you can be sure that he will have to go and defend himself when he does not follow the 'menu'.
Another result of this (that seriously annoys me and my colleagues sometimes) is that SIDs are not specific anymore. E.g.: after departure, RT at 700' to intercept radial *** to ABC. No specification is given as to where or on what course the radial is to be intercepted. That way some pilots almost take a direct course to ABC while others make a sharp turn to intercept the radial as soon as possible.... We brought this to the attention of the procedures people but they just brushed it off 'because this way the noise is dispersed'....
This plan was thought out by a politician to give everyone around the airport their share of noise polution.
The chief at EBBR TWR decides which runway to use but his first rule is not the prevailing wind but the 'daily menu' that was decided on by the responsible minister. It only takes into account the day of the week and the time of day..... The chief can overrule the schedule but then has to go to another list to see what runway he can use..... And you can be sure that he will have to go and defend himself when he does not follow the 'menu'.
Another result of this (that seriously annoys me and my colleagues sometimes) is that SIDs are not specific anymore. E.g.: after departure, RT at 700' to intercept radial *** to ABC. No specification is given as to where or on what course the radial is to be intercepted. That way some pilots almost take a direct course to ABC while others make a sharp turn to intercept the radial as soon as possible.... We brought this to the attention of the procedures people but they just brushed it off 'because this way the noise is dispersed'....
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGLL has a runway alternation system, which is designed with a similar goal in mind. Weather overrides the choice of runway though, with the westerly runways being preferred up to a 5 knot tailwind (with a dry runway and no significant crosswind).
The system is really pretty simple (except for the rules regarding the transistion from night to day alternation).
The system is really pretty simple (except for the rules regarding the transistion from night to day alternation).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Centre of old Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question to EBBU:
I wonder whether the sharp turns to the radial won't produce a risk of overshooting that radial. Has a safety case been made to examine this risk e.g. against inbound traffic?
Are there any RNAV routes at EBBR? I suppose not since there are virtually no SID's.
At HRW with its similar noise preferential runway system, a/c follow at least the established SID or RNAV route, don't they Foghorn?
Fyi, for Amsterdam Schiphol (where a third north/south rwy was built for noise abatement reasons which turns out to produce the highest number of complaints ever, both from the locals against noise as well as against the 20+ minutes taxiway drive from the pilots) there is a pretty informative web page giving an overview of all arrival and departure tracks flown on the previous day. The web page is in Dutch but the pictures speak for themselves (arrival traffic in orange and departing traffic in green)http://www.crosnet.nl/index.cfm?page...dagbaangebruik for the traffic during the day and http://www.crosnet.nl/index.cfm?page...chtbaangebruik for the night traffic.
Is there a similar overview page for EBBR or other airports?
SIDs are not specific anymore. E.g.: after departure, RT at 700' to intercept radial *** to ABC. No specification is given as to where or on what course the radial is to be intercepted. That way some pilots almost take a direct course to ABC while others make a sharp turn to intercept the radial as soon as possible....
Are there any RNAV routes at EBBR? I suppose not since there are virtually no SID's.
At HRW with its similar noise preferential runway system, a/c follow at least the established SID or RNAV route, don't they Foghorn?
Fyi, for Amsterdam Schiphol (where a third north/south rwy was built for noise abatement reasons which turns out to produce the highest number of complaints ever, both from the locals against noise as well as against the 20+ minutes taxiway drive from the pilots) there is a pretty informative web page giving an overview of all arrival and departure tracks flown on the previous day. The web page is in Dutch but the pictures speak for themselves (arrival traffic in orange and departing traffic in green)http://www.crosnet.nl/index.cfm?page...dagbaangebruik for the traffic during the day and http://www.crosnet.nl/index.cfm?page...chtbaangebruik for the night traffic.
Is there a similar overview page for EBBR or other airports?
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EBBU, I may be, inadvertently, responsible for the system..
One quiet night, many years ago, a departing B707 came direct to Maastricht freq, prior to take off, on RWY20. He requested direct DIK which was a left turn out over the city, instead of the SID which went right after take off. Via the land-line I asked if he was released, to the annoyance of the Brussels controller, who said I could do whatever I wanted - later used as my defense, a release was obtained.( in fact, he made a very impossible suggestion about what I could do with it
) So I cleared him direct, and for good measure threw in, no speed restriction. Apparently the switchboard was still being swamped with complaints about the noise some three hours later.
Strangely enough we never got a repeat of such an early transfer
One quiet night, many years ago, a departing B707 came direct to Maastricht freq, prior to take off, on RWY20. He requested direct DIK which was a left turn out over the city, instead of the SID which went right after take off. Via the land-line I asked if he was released, to the annoyance of the Brussels controller, who said I could do whatever I wanted - later used as my defense, a release was obtained.( in fact, he made a very impossible suggestion about what I could do with it
) So I cleared him direct, and for good measure threw in, no speed restriction. Apparently the switchboard was still being swamped with complaints about the noise some three hours later.Strangely enough we never got a repeat of such an early transfer
