Study proves dispersion plan unsafe for runway 02/20 EBBR

OO-VEX · Post by **OO-VEX** » 10 Sep 2004, 00:20

Hello,

I've found an article in 'De Standaard Online' which quotes a study by the Dutch Aviation and Airport Consultancy (AAC) that it is not safe to use runway 02/20 in the dispersion plan. AAC says that this runway isn't an adequate runway as it is shorter and sloping and because of this handicaps it shouldn't be used with backwind. It is not the safest solution to use this runway when other runways are available. And because more people live in the approach zone of runway 20, using this runway doesn't meet the purpose to trouble less people.

Also the Belgian Cockpit Association (BeCA) shares the opinion of the AAC, to use the runway only when there is a strong wind from the north or south.

here is the whole article (only in dutch):

http://www.standaard.be/nieuws/binnenla ... D=GHP8M2K0

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 10 Sep 2004, 09:04

Also very interesting, not about the dispersion plan, but otherwise there will be too many topics

: http://www.tijd.be/nieuws/artikel.asp?Id=1364484

De Croo says Brussels Airport MUST grow. They need to create a real intercontinental network like London or Paris. (only in dutch)

pilatus · Post by **pilatus** » 10 Sep 2004, 10:02

I think it is still better to concentrate the flights and isolate the houses that are effected or propose the people to sell their houses. I'm sure you will find people that wanted to buy those houses and to sign a contract that they will not complain about the airport. If you think that almost always rwy 25R/L is in use this would be much better. Even during our night operations we can use 1 rwy and even then there is the possibility to use one night the 25L and the other the 25R. Nevertheles I still hope we stay at Bru as I love my job and hope that I can still do it in the future.

Greetz,

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 10 Sep 2004, 10:52

I totally agree with you pilatus. THe best solution as already claimed by many people, is simply to concentrate the flights over the least populated region and then to isolate the concerned homes. Spreading is just useless, because everybody will "suffer" (except me of course

) from those flights and everybody will then try to make DHL leave

Chris

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 10 Sep 2004, 13:14

I've always found De Croo one of the more "intelligent" politicans. Glad we finally have someone pro!

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 10 Sep 2004, 13:25

Why not use rwy 25L/R for landings and 7L/7R for take off during the night (11pm-6am). (Unless headwind of over 7kts). This will avoid flying over the most dense areas. And for the relatively few people living under the 25L/25R path: They can or stay and sign a contract not to whine, or they move with funds of the goverment and with the available grounds you build light industrial zones or just farmers land.

This procedure is also done at LAX where all planes land on the 6s/7s and take of from the 24s/25s, so in the opposite direction. However with this procedure they take off over the pacific and land from over the ocean thus flying over no houses. between 2100-0700 local time.

I watched these procedures meticously last year when I stayed in the Sheraton LAX hotel which had a magnificent view on rwys 25s/7s.

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 10 Sep 2004, 13:29

How can you ever take-off in the complete opposite direction of landings on the same rway? Thats even more dangerous!!! I wonder how much pressure this would put in ATC...

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 10 Sep 2004, 13:38

Ofcourse you don´t take off and land at the same time and this would only work during the night since otherwise you will run into capacity problems.

For example a flight takes off at 7L at 0100Z another one at 0102Z and the 3rd one at 0104Z. At 0112Z these 3 flights are already at least over 20miles out of brussels and now you can land some flights on the 25s. You start vectoring an aircraft to 25L or R (you can even do parrallel approaches (not completely parrallel though as 25L and 25R are a little too close to eachother). Either way at 0115Z the arrival plane is certainly established on rwy 25L or R and lands at 0120Z at that time a second arrival is also on the approach path and lands at for example 0123Z and at 0125Z the 3rd plane lands. At 0127Z a plane takes off again and the story starts again = 3 planes take off then 3 planes land each half hour.

In 1 hour you thus have 12 planes landing or taking off. Or between 11pm-6am you have 84 nightflights. Or in 1 year (365days) you have 30440 night flights.
In my calculations i took the 2min seperation rule for take offs ... for landings planes (commercial planes such as 737 and 747) need on average 5-8 nautical miles of horizontal separtion for the same runway. At a speed of 140 knots or about 250km/h and an approach path of 15nm approx 27km it takes 6.5minutes. if you need 5-8nm of separation thats about 3minutes apart. In other words you could land 10 planes and have 15 take offs each hour. Or 25 movements on 1 rwy/hour or 63875 flights in theory between 11pm-6am. So if i took 12 flights/hour that is certainly not overexagerated.

In case the winds are over 7kts ... you will need to use the current rwy usage. Capacity will be slightly bigger then

If it works in LAX why wouldnt it work in Brussels?

Edit: added some calculation information

pilatus · Post by **pilatus** » 10 Sep 2004, 13:49

It is indeed no problem to land and take off in oposite direction. I did it a few weeks ago in Ebaw. The 29 was in use but for training we asked the Vor/Dme on the 11. ATC had no problem with it and they kept an F50 of VLM at the holding 29 till we started the missed apr procedure. Even with 2 rwy like Bru it is completely no problem. You use 25L for landing and 07L for take off.

Greetz

killerwhale65 · Post by **killerwhale65** » 10 Sep 2004, 16:39

lol, comparing EBAW to EBBR ... how funny

pilatus · Post by **pilatus** » 10 Sep 2004, 16:52

I don't know what some of you guys have at this forum. Is is really so pleasant to shoot at everything. I just made an example that it is possible to operate in opposit directions. Jezus, stay with the topic please.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 10 Sep 2004, 19:39

Don't worry Pilatus, we understood you (at least I did)

It could indeed be an interesting solution to make landings and T/O in the opposite direction, especially when you know that there are many fields and thus less people living in the surroundings of 25L.

I didn't knew that LAX was using this kind of operations, but could someone mybe tell us how many night flights there are in LAX ??? It would be interesting to compare the number of night mouvments of both airports.

In 1 hour you thus have 12 planes landing or taking off. Or between 11pm-6am you have 84 nightflights. Or in 1 year (365days) you have 30440 night flights.

Very interesting calculation, but in your way of reasoning you took account that there won't be any peak hour. I'm sure there are peak hours during each night where many DHL flights depart or land at the same time, while there must also be some down times where nearly no mouvment is goiung on.
So in my opinion it's not as easy as you said to make such operations.

Chris

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 10 Sep 2004, 21:29

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is the sixth busiest cargo airport in the world, handling more than 2 million tons of origination and destination air cargo in 2003.

http://www.lawa.org/lax/

On average about 168000 cargo flights a month departed or arrived in LAX in 2003. (24hours/31days). I dont find any number on night flights though.

Check the following site at for example 6:02am on 10 September 2004. You will see a departure on rwy 25L and a arrival for the 6s.
http://www4.passur.com/lax.html

Concerning my calculations .. yeah it was ofcourse simplified, however at 1 hour you could have in theory 25 flights/hour. (with my basic calculations, so don´t take this number too seriously either especially since I don´t know how well ATC can use both 25L and 25R at the same time, I´m pretty sure they re too close to eachother to have full parrallel approaches possible, but there could be enough distance between them to have semi parrallel approaches (someone of BIAC or belgocontrol please update me on this).

If I checked a random date on the Biac website then at the busiest hour there were 21 flights in 1 hour ... From Monday 06/sep/2004 23:00 till Tuesday 07/sep/2004 05:59. There were 31departures (16 departures between 4-5am) and 50 arrivals of which were (20 arrivals between 2300-0000 local time). = 81 nightflights.

So it could work I think ...

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 10 Sep 2004, 21:52

As you say we don't know exactly how ATC does this in real, but what do you mean with semi simultanious landings. ?

Chris

golf1411 · Post by **golf1411** » 11 Sep 2004, 09:03

It's no surprise that De Croo wants an expansion of Zaventem.
De Cubber, I think it's a construction company, has worked on the airport for many years. This is a company financed by De Croo so he will be happy if there comes an expansion of Zaventem. On the trucks is also mentioned DC (De Cubber, but also De Croo).

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 11 Sep 2004, 11:15

Avro wrote:As you say we don't know exactly how ATC does this in real, but what do you mean with semi simultanious landings. ?

Chris

Well full parrallel approaches would be like in Atlanta one plane at 27L and one at 26R http://www.airliners.net/open.file/566940/L/ and here is one of 2 planes taking off at the same time (27R and 26L) http://www.airliners.net/open.file/086803/L/, or the same procedure can also be applied in Amsterdam ... a plane can land and be on approach for 18R and another one at 18L at the same time in any kind of weather from clear skies to overcast at 500ft mist, 1/2SM visibility etc. For the simple fact that the runways have enough horizontal seperation.

When the runways are closer to eachother (like i believe in brussels) you have 2 possibilities or you can do visual approaches at the same time like here in San Francisco (here the runways are really close to each other though) http://www.airliners.net/open.file/486967/L/ but then the weather needs to be good enough (you can´t do this when you are in mist or clouds nor during the night I believe). In the other case you can use 1 rwy for take off and 1 rwy for landing (which is mostly done in Brussels and even Frankfurt etc), for the arrival runway you use then 5-8nm of seperation depending on the plane, and the departure runway you use about 2minutes between each departing aircraft for wake turbulence.

So what do I mean with semi parrallel approaches. Since I believe the runways in Brussels 25L and 25R are a little too close to eachother you cannot have in IFR weather 2 planes on a simultaneous approach (i.e both 3nm from the treshold (which would be possible in AMS or ATL). In case you would use 1 rwy for example 25L for landing you would have 1 plane 3nm from the treshold and the following would be at least 8nm from the treshold and the 3rd plane 13 or more nm from the treshold, with semi parrallel approaches you could have 1 plane again 3nm from 25L the other could be 5-6nm on 25R and the 3rd plane 9nm from 25L. So hence you can land more planes at the same time.

But again I would like to have a confirmation about these approaches by someone of Biac or belgocontrol.

Post by **Kapitein** » 11 Sep 2004, 14:17

In BRU there is no problem with simulteneos approaches. If the weather is fine and the both runways are fully in use, they do it all the time. It's even mentioned on the ATIS.

Only when there is, I believe, CAT II and III operations than they only land on 25L and take off 25R.

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 11 Sep 2004, 17:35

Brubiac wrote:In BRU there is no problem with simulteneos approaches. If the weather is fine and the both runways are fully in use, they do it all the time. It's even mentioned on the ATIS.

Only when there is, I believe, CAT II and III operations than they only land on 25L and take off 25R.

Okay and the reason why no CAT II and CAT III simultaneous approaches are used is because the runways are too close to each other?

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 13 Sep 2004, 09:09

Thanks for confirmation Brubiac.