Sand0rf
Topic Author
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:12 am

Dutch Safety Board: Schiphol has to improve traffic safety before growing

Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:18 am

The Dutch Safety Board (Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid) has done research on the safety of Schiphol and, in a report, has said that the safety of Schiphol has to improve before the airport should be allowed to grow. The problems are mostly due to complex procedures, runways that cross each other and the high number of runway changes during the day.

Report in English: https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2211/investigation-into-air-traffic-safety-at-amsterdam-airport-schiphol
Last edited by Sand0rf on Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
flyDTW1992
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:04 am

Re: Dutch safety board: Schiphol has to improve traffic safety before growing

Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:21 am

Related: The airport recently came out saying new slot awards will be extremely limited as the airport has reached capacity based on environmental and noise factors. It's caused some issues for ad-hoc cargo operations in and out of AMS for the past few weeks.
Now you're flying smart
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9971
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:50 pm

Main conclusion of the Dutch safety board (Onderzoeksraad voor de veiligheid):

Schiphol isn't unsafe at the moment, but in order to grow, the airport needs to reduce its current safety risks. Main points:
- Schiphol has six runways in all directions, because of changing wind direction. Runway interdictions are a risk. Personal shortage with the air traffic control doesn't help either.
- the runways are swapped regularly in order to spread the noise evenly to its surroundings, which increases the workload of air traffic controllers even further
- unclear whom is ultimately responsible for the safety. Accordingly to the OVV, the ministry of infrastructure needs to take control.

Conclusion:
“De complexiteit van de lay-out en vluchtafhandeling moet worden gereduceerd, bijvoorbeeld door het aantal wisselingen van baancombinaties te verminderen, de infrastructuur te vereenvoudigen en de noodzaak om banen te kruisen terug te brengen."

The complexity of the lay-out (infrastructure) and flight operations needs to be reduced, for example to reduce the number of runway combination changes, the infrastructure needs to be simplified and the need to cross active runways needs to be reduced.

Link in Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... d-schiphol

Reaction of the pilot association: Schiphol isn't unsafe and underpins the main conclusions of the OVV.
Link in Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... ichthouder


----------
So Schiphol needs to go further transformation in order to facilitated the projected growth.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
KLDC10
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:56 pm

Part of the answer could be to loosen environmental and noise regulations. As you note in your post, trying to manage noise is providing Air Traffic Controllers with a high workload, and one which is arguably totally unnecessary. Air Traffic Controllers are employed to safely manage air traffic - they shouldn't need to be worrying about complaints from the neighbors about noise.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146
737/738/739/744/748/752/763/772/789
A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/A346/A359
Q400/E170/E175/E190/CS300
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5815
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:39 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
Part of the answer could be to loosen environmental and noise regulations. As you note in your post, trying to manage noise is providing Air Traffic Controllers with a high workload, and one which is arguably totally unnecessary. Air Traffic Controllers are employed to safely manage air traffic - they shouldn't need to be worrying about complaints from the neighbors about noise.


Nice try. It's The Netherlands, not Texas. Quality of life of the people living around the airport does matter.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14897
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:01 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
KLDC10 wrote:
Part of the answer could be to loosen environmental and noise regulations. As you note in your post, trying to manage noise is providing Air Traffic Controllers with a high workload, and one which is arguably totally unnecessary. Air Traffic Controllers are employed to safely manage air traffic - they shouldn't need to be worrying about complaints from the neighbors about noise.


Nice try. It's The Netherlands, not Texas. Quality of life of the people living around the airport does matter.

How does being annoyed by aircraft every day but not as frequently solve anything? Why not rotate in a full day basis as winds allow?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
KLDC10
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:16 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
Nice try. It's The Netherlands, not Texas. Quality of life of the people living around the airport does matter.


The safety of aircraft matters more. So too does the ability of Air Traffic Controllers to do their job effectively. Far better for a homeowner to have to put up with an airplane flying overhead every now and then than for an accident to occur because the controllers are overworked and forced to deal with frivolous issues like noise control. If you buy a house close to an airport, you must be prepared for the consequences of that decision.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146
737/738/739/744/748/752/763/772/789
A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/A346/A359
Q400/E170/E175/E190/CS300
 
downdata
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:37 am

If quality of life matters so much why the heck do those people move so close to the airport??? Why are builders allowed to build so close to the airport??? Isn't it all about $$$ in the end, and people's safety is a lesser concern than $$$s?
 
UWPAviation
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:36 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:49 am

I lived in Chicago for 13 years. ORD's runway 4R landing pattern went right over my house. 13 years non stop everyday, you just get used to it. I have a good friend now who's backyard runs into train tracks and I always ask how do you live with that noise? And he just says he's used to it, he's been at the residence for 5 years and doesnt even hear them anymore.

I remember I got so good at knowing what was flying over my house when it was something cool like a large body aircraft id run out and grab a picture with my phone. Yes its annoying at first but to us it was part of living in Chicago. Heck some days we had MDW's take off pattern and ORD's landing pattern going over our subdivision. Thats just what you get living in Chicago
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9649
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:49 am

Well, I've flown in to AMS quite a lot of times and often they keep you level at 2-3000' for a very long time before you catch the glide slope and start descending at a lower thrust setting. Maybe they could be more like LHR and LGW and try to give the aircraft continuous descend to compensate for less evenly spread distribution of traffic to make life easier for the atc.
That is a way to reduce noise (and emissions)
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12484
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:24 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
KLDC10 wrote:
Part of the answer could be to loosen environmental and noise regulations. As you note in your post, trying to manage noise is providing Air Traffic Controllers with a high workload, and one which is arguably totally unnecessary. Air Traffic Controllers are employed to safely manage air traffic - they shouldn't need to be worrying about complaints from the neighbors about noise.


Nice try. It's The Netherlands, not Texas. Quality of life of the people living around the airport does matter.

If they were so concerned about "quality of life," then why the heck were they STUPID enough to move next to a major airport?!
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:37 am

What some people complain about I would (almost) KILL to have! To be in that proximity of the air traffic of a major world air hub?? Dream come true for me.
Great Lakes, great life.
 
PanzerPowner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:39 am

I'll buy anyone's house from who ever wants to move out from the surrounding area of Schiphol, especially near the Polderbaan.
Well uh, I obviously decided to refine this but i dont know how.
 
robsaw
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:14 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:58 am

LAX772LR wrote:
If they were so concerned about "quality of life," then why the heck were they STUPID enough to move next to a major airport?!


Funny thing how major airports tend to be located near densely populated large cities.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12484
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:06 am

robsaw wrote:
Funny thing how major airports tend to be located near densely populated large cities.

Even funnier how those people only received a 101yr heads-up that the airport was there. :roll:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:18 am

robsaw wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
If they were so concerned about "quality of life," then why the heck were they STUPID enough to move next to a major airport?!


Funny thing how major airports tend to be located near densely populated large cities.


It's also funny to note the use of the word "stupid". It has a tendency to bounce right back...

Have you ever looked at a map over Holland, LAX772LR, or been there to see it first hand? That's one densly populated place. There are very few spots in the Netherlands (if any) where an approach path could be planned over an area with very few inhabitants. As robsaw notes, authorities apparently like to have major airports near the major cities. With your reasoning, we'd still be running noisy jet engines without regard to noise factors. Airline activity doesn't have the last say when it comes to noise regulations. There has to be a give and take mentality. The airport is there, and it will not go away, the same goes for the people living there. I'm often amazed by airport localization, BMA in Stockholm and MIA in Miami as only two examples where airports are really close to residential areas. I'm sure there's a history where both the airports and the cities has grown closer and closer to each other over the years, and new airports should be carefully planned in order not to disturb too many on the ground. In this case, AMS is trying their best to ease the pain for the people around the airport. Obviously, that cannot come at the expense of safety, but with the right staffing, it seems to be possible to manage. If the workload becomes too great and ATC personnel is too hard to find, one solution could be to cut down on the number of movements instead of increasing the noise exposure. I guess that's for the people in the Netherlands and their government to decide.
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:30 am

I'm not so sure an increase in traffic at AMS (which is the subject of this thread) will be allowed unless the noise issues are handled in a satisfactory way. If ATC doesn't have enough staff to satisfy both requirements, authorities may come to the conclusion that instead of simplifying the approach patterns, traffic may have to be reduced in order to maintain safe operations and at the same time comply with noise regulations.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:24 am

As nearly everywhere in Europe and in the non rural US regions, the solution ultimately can only be found in a drastic reduction of short and intermediate distance air traffic. Planes are not any good means of mass transportation, even if one may build large planes even for short distances. One single level sixteen carriage ICE train takes approx. 850 travelers without cramping them, the TGV Duplex in two class configuration takes more than 1,000 travelers. A high speed night train system - including sleepers and couchettes - will help to avoid early morning rushes on airfields. Who would want to travel JFK-ORD in the early morning if there was a possibility of comfortably getting to Chicago by night train in a bed or at least stretched on a couch within 10 hours from 10pm (ET) to 7am (CT)?

Best,

Ferroviarius
 
FromCDGtoSYD
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:29 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:25 am

Well... so long for the AMS is LHR's 3rd runway.....
 
FrancisBegbie
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:22 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:18 am

LAX772LR wrote:
robsaw wrote:
Funny thing how major airports tend to be located near densely populated large cities.

Even funnier how those people only received a 101yr heads-up that the airport was there. :roll:


Housing prices in the Amsterdam region are by far the highest in the Netherlands. All of sudden a great priced house/apartment becomes available, someone buys it, moves in, opens a window and realizes why it is so cheap. Make the walk of shame by moving out again or pick up the phone and start complaining?

(The Green leftist party won big in the election 1 month ago and may join the ruling coalition. Cars and airplanes are the great Satan to them and they have already floated ideas for massive taxation of commuters and air travel. So complaining about the airport is far from as useless as it would be in the US)
 
OO-VEG
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 5:31 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:19 am

Residential areas in itself a safety danger. AMS knows that very well from the 1992 El Al Crash, a plane that tried to make an emergency landing after losing 2 engines dug itself into highrise appartment buildings of Amsterdam.

So regardless some statements that people choose to live near the airport and have to cope with it. It IS a problem, and as an airport you do have the obligation to try to make the live of your nearby residents as comfortably as possible, many of those people work at the airport or are frequent customers. That also means you treat these people the right way by distributing burdens as much as possible.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7091
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:11 pm

No issues, lead the world and build circular runway.
 
axiom
Posts: 867
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:12 pm

Can we check the absurd assumption that housing markets are governed by unfettered choice? Housing affordability (and income) hugely limit who can live where. It's offensive to say people who live near polluters all "chose" to do so, for example -- it flies in the face of reality and wreaks of ideology and privilege.

At the same time, who is to say that the value of regulated air traffic isn't higher than that of the obverse? Perhaps the people of the Netherlands have leveraged their democratic institutions to communicate their values.
 
Jetty
Posts: 971
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:09 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So Schiphol needs to go further transformation in order to facilitated the projected growth.

There is no projected growth in terms of aircraft movements, AMS is maxed at 500.000 aircraft movements till 2021 and will come very close to that number this year. Any growth after that still has to be negotiated.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:32 pm

downdata wrote:
If quality of life matters so much why the heck do those people move so close to the airport??? Why are builders allowed to build so close to the airport??? Isn't it all about $$$ in the end, and people's safety is a lesser concern than $$$s?



Believe it or not safety and environmental quality are not mutually exclusive, you can try to have both, as most civilised countries do. In countries that don't give a damn about their inhabitants maybe you'll find a lack of environmental regulation. I doubt you'd want to live there.

People's safety is a concern, a plane actually crashed into an apartment building at AMS, and killed 39 people on the ground. Though I guess the people who died only have themselves to blame for living near an airport? How many people has planes colliding on the ground killed due to noise regulation?

This all reminds me of people who rant about regulation of pollution, which actually kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, because it's the 'lefty green agenda' or something but demand 'something must be done' after a terrorist kills 2 people.
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:48 pm

If AMS was allowed to handle as much air traffic as they wanted to (using the runway configuration they have now) what would it be? Even though AMS is maxed out at 500,000 aircraft movements per year, I'm sure they could handle much more than 500,000. In conclusion, what is the maximum aircraft movements AMS can handle with the runway layout they have now?

While this is unrelated, is runway 04/22 (Oostbaan) even used by planes much? It seems too short for most traffic and maybe it could be shut down. It is only around 6,000 feet.
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:08 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
Part of the answer could be to loosen environmental and noise regulations. As you note in your post, trying to manage noise is providing Air Traffic Controllers with a high workload, and one which is arguably totally unnecessary. Air Traffic Controllers are employed to safely manage air traffic - they shouldn't need to be worrying about complaints from the neighbors about noise.


It's like asking pilots taking off from SNA to not power back after take off. Noise abatements regulations exist at many airports in the world and should be respected. If AMS cannot cope with the extra work, it has to look at hiring more staff or technology that would help to manage the load.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:31 pm

Ferroviarius wrote:
the TGV Duplex in two class configuration takes more than 1,000 travelers. A high speed night train system - including sleepers and couchettes - will help to avoid early morning rushes on airfields. Who would want to travel JFK-ORD in the early morning if there was a possibility of comfortably getting to Chicago by night train in a bed or at least stretched on a couch within 10 hours from 10pm (ET) to 7am (CT)?


As you mention, train is well developed in Europe and for short to medium distances is a far better choice than flying. However do not think that train do not generate nuisances. Where I live just outside Paris, TGV leave the Montparnasse Station to join the technical center for maintenance/cleaning and run through our town. The noise from the train fans (a loud low frequency annoying noise) is heard until late at night at more than 500m from the tracks, keeping most of us from a good night sleep. Suddenly GA aircraft on their landing path to LBG are almost a pleasure.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
KLDC10
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:53 pm

ro1960 wrote:
It's like asking pilots taking off from SNA to not power back after take off. Noise abatements regulations exist at many airports in the world and should be respected. If AMS cannot cope with the extra work, it has to look at hiring more staff or technology that would help manage the load.


I'm afraid that I consider the noise abatement regulations at SNA to be equally ridiculous. There has been an airstrip on that site since at least 1923, and the noise abatement regulations came into force in 1985. So that's a full 62 years between the airport opening and the regulations - you'd think that 60 years would be sufficient notice for those doing the complaining, right? There's plenty of other real estate in Orange County, and the noise abatement regulations are only there to satisfy people who bought a house next to an airport and then claimed to be shocked by the noise from aircraft overhead. The only good thing about the regulations from an enthusiast's perspective is the need to make full-power takeoffs.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146
737/738/739/744/748/752/763/772/789
A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/A346/A359
Q400/E170/E175/E190/CS300
 
User avatar
Iemand91
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:01 pm

NichCage wrote:
While this is unrelated, is runway 04/22 (Oostbaan) even used by planes much? It seems too short for most traffic and maybe it could be shut down. It is only around 6,000 feet.

Everything can and may land on the Oostbaan apart from the A380. They will pretty much only land there during heavy storms, especially heavy southwestern storms.
Sometimes they line up for the Oostbaan but divert at the last moment to runway 24 (Kaagbaan).
The approach is directly over the center of Amsterdam so it causes quite a lot of noise issues.

But mostly it's only used by small General Aviation.
Some aviation photo's on my Flickr-page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iemand91/
 
76er
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:13 pm

Iemand91 wrote:
Everything can and may land on the Oostbaan apart from the A380.


Plus some 744F carriers won't allow their crews to land on 22 either.
 
oOfredOo
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:07 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:36 pm

NichCage wrote:
If AMS was allowed to handle as much air traffic as they wanted to (using the runway configuration they have now) what would it be? Even though AMS is maxed out at 500,000 aircraft movements per year, I'm sure they could handle much more than 500,000. In conclusion, what is the maximum aircraft movements AMS can handle with the runway layout they have now?

While this is unrelated, is runway 04/22 (Oostbaan) even used by planes much? It seems too short for most traffic and maybe it could be shut down. It is only around 6,000 feet.


The oostbaan is used for GA and business jets. Since LHR and DXB both handle more than 400K movements, I'd say at least double that. Wind direction and runway crossings limit further movements. Most runways have usage restrictions in either a direction, between 11pm and 6am, or can only be used as a secondary runway though. At least you'd have to remove some of those restrictions.

Because runway utilisation is low, Schiphol covers a very large area of very expensive land near Amsterdam. There are even more restrictions on construction in approach paths for several runways, further reducing possibilities to build. I've been told (but cannot confirm) that the total land area that is affected by Schiphol is as large as the province of Utrecht. So probably in comparison to other airports, noise disturbance is less frequent for surrounding residents. It's at a cost though.
 
DDR
Posts: 1632
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:07 pm

Is aircraft noise really a problem today? I understand that 707s, DC-9s, and such were loud, but today's engines are much quieter. There is an apartment complex less than a mile from ATL and it's mostly crew members who live there. They say they don't even hear the planes anymore.
 
User avatar
Iemand91
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:36 pm

76er wrote:
Iemand91 wrote:
Everything can and may land on the Oostbaan apart from the A380.


Plus some 744F carriers won't allow their crews to land on 22 either.

That's interesting, Do you know why?
Is it because if the way they have to get to the cargo-platforms?
Some aviation photo's on my Flickr-page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iemand91/
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:31 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
It's like asking pilots taking off from SNA to not power back after take off. Noise abatements regulations exist at many airports in the world and should be respected. If AMS cannot cope with the extra work, it has to look at hiring more staff or technology that would help manage the load.


I'm afraid that I consider the noise abatement regulations at SNA to be equally ridiculous. There has been an airstrip on that site since at least 1923, and the noise abatement regulations came into force in 1985. So that's a full 62 years between the airport opening and the regulations - you'd think that 60 years would be sufficient notice for those doing the complaining, right? There's plenty of other real estate in Orange County, and the noise abatement regulations are only there to satisfy people who bought a house next to an airport and then claimed to be shocked by the noise from aircraft overhead. The only good thing about the regulations from an enthusiast's perspective is the need to make full-power takeoffs.


It's all black or white with you. Unfamiliar with the word nuance.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:56 am

Ferroviarius wrote:
As nearly everywhere in Europe and in the non rural US regions, the solution ultimately can only be found in a drastic reduction of short and intermediate distance air traffic. Planes are not any good means of mass transportation, even if one may build large planes even for short distances. One single level sixteen carriage ICE train takes approx. 850 travelers without cramping them, the TGV Duplex in two class configuration takes more than 1,000 travelers. A high speed night train system - including sleepers and couchettes - will help to avoid early morning rushes on airfields. Who would want to travel JFK-ORD in the early morning if there was a possibility of comfortably getting to Chicago by night train in a bed or at least stretched on a couch within 10 hours from 10pm (ET) to 7am (CT)?

Best,

Ferroviarius

An improvement in train baggage options would be required, IMHO. I've traveled around much of Europe by train, and except for the long-distance trains, there's very little space to stow anything larger than a carry-on, and no option for a checked baggage. If you have a suitcase of any size, you may well be relegated to a very uncomfortable jump seat in the very noisy space at either end of the carriage.

As to AMS, they would also need some serious re-thought of the terminal to accommodate any greater volume. The last few times I've been through there, it's become insanely crowded and slow to move through. On a separate rant… all the automation they've added seems to actually slow things down. The automated carry-on scanners send way more bags for secondary screening than they pass.
 
YYZatcboy
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:15 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:32 am

Wouldn't use of RNP GNSS approaches have a better effect? Keep the aircraft over mostly farm land and curve around towns a bit better? Could work for 6 and 18R. That coupled with continuous idle descent for the arrivals and transitions should help ease the noise especially from the east and south.
DH1/3/4 MD11/88 L1011 A319/20/21/30/50/80 717 727 735/6/7/8/9 744 762/3 77E/W E40/75/90 CRJ/700/705 CC150
J/S DH8D 736/7/8 763
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3912
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:02 am

Iemand91 wrote:
But mostly it's only used by small General Aviation.


That's because the GA terminal is located on Schiphol East near this runway. Shutting it down would mean all GA traffic would have to use other runways and thus have longer taxi times to get to the GA terminal. Imagine a Cessna C-172 landing on the Polderbaan and then taxiing all the way to the other end of the airport. The Oostbaan is also the only runway with with a full VFR approach circuit, all other runways only got IFR approach routes.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3912
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:16 am

Iemand91 wrote:
76er wrote:
Plus some 744F carriers won't allow their crews to land on 22 either.

That's interesting, Do you know why?
Is it because if the way they have to get to the cargo-platforms?


Mostly because they're too heavy and therefor need more runway length. The Oostbaan can only carry a limited amount of weight. It's the oldest runway the airport has and was not designed for the large and heavy aircraft we see today.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:20 am

LAX772LR wrote:
If they were so concerned about "quality of life," then why the heck were they STUPID enough to move next to a major airport?!


Ah yes, this is definitely a top 3 A.net myth - that if you live within 20 miles of an airport you have no right to ever try to make the situation better or even to stop it from getting worse.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9971
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:42 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
If they were so concerned about "quality of life," then why the heck were they STUPID enough to move next to a major airport?!


Ah yes, this is definitely a top 3 A.net myth - that if you live within 20 miles of an airport you have no right to ever try to make the situation better or even to stop it from getting worse.


I would say, it is an opinion and everyone is entitle to his own opinions. I see that they are trying to balance economy with ecology, most of the time the economy wins.
A new cabinet is formed, it will most likely be a green-centrum-right cabinet so it will be interesting to see what they will do with this.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12484
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:57 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
If they were so concerned about "quality of life," then why the heck were they STUPID enough to move next to a major airport?!


Ah yes, this is definitely a top 3 A.net myth - that if you live within 20 miles of an airport you have no right to ever try to make the situation better or even to stop it from getting worse.

People who make piss-poor choices, taking secondary priority to economic development, is no myth. Fortunately happens all the time.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Iemand91
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:00 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Iemand91 wrote:
76er wrote:
Plus some 744F carriers won't allow their crews to land on 22 either.

That's interesting, Do you know why?
Is it because if the way they have to get to the cargo-platforms?


Mostly because they're too heavy and therefor need more runway length. The Oostbaan can only carry a limited amount of weight. It's the oldest runway the airport has and was not designed for the large and heavy aircraft we see today.

Ah, okay. Makes sense. I haven't been to Schiphol in stormy conditions but landing those big aircraft on the small runway is a awesome sight to behold.
Breaking away to the Kaagbaan would look great too, especially since they're already that low when turning.
Some aviation photo's on my Flickr-page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/iemand91/
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:42 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

Ah yes, this is definitely a top 3 A.net myth - that if you live within 20 miles of an airport you have no right to ever try to make the situation better or even to stop it from getting worse.

People who make piss-poor choices, taking secondary priority to economic development, is no myth. Fortunately happens all the time.


You're still wrong. Every person has any opportunity to make the place the live better and they have every right to. It doesn't mean that the local government has to oblige, but it is part of local governments prerogative. Not yours. It's not to say there shouldn't be repercussions for a person's choices, but rather that it doesn't preclude them from attempting to make their neighborhood a better place. However, according to you those people should either be begging

to have 10x the planes fly over their house or they should be targeted for worse quality of life by their local government. Both of your premises are absurd and you should keep you judgement of others lifestyle to your angry self.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:59 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
It's like asking pilots taking off from SNA to not power back after take off. Noise abatements regulations exist at many airports in the world and should be respected. If AMS cannot cope with the extra work, it has to look at hiring more staff or technology that would help manage the load.


I'm afraid that I consider the noise abatement regulations at SNA to be equally ridiculous. There has been an airstrip on that site since at least 1923, and the noise abatement regulations came into force in 1985. So that's a full 62 years between the airport opening and the regulations - you'd think that 60 years would be sufficient notice for those doing the complaining, right? There's plenty of other real estate in Orange County, and the noise abatement regulations are only there to satisfy people who bought a house next to an airport and then claimed to be shocked by the noise from aircraft overhead. The only good thing about the regulations from an enthusiast's perspective is the need to make full-power takeoffs.


What is the problem? Noise abatement regulationd are there to make life more pleasant for everyone around the airport, with no significant downside. Airports tend to be near populated areas, I'm sure plenty of people living near airports were well aware what they were getting into and don't complain, but still appreciate a little effort to reduce the impact. Seems a pretty sensible compromise to me. Believe it or not, politicians aren't elected purely to serve the interests of airlines and plane geeks, they have to balance everyone's interests.

Why when noise abatement is perfectly safe and practical you get so angry about I don't really understand.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18093
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:02 pm

Eh... Norwegian, JetBlue, US3, ME3, TK, and the LCCs of Europe thank the Nimbys. So Does Airbus, as this will help sell A321LRs when the hubs aren't available to accommodate the growth (FRA and LHR are already saturated and CDG needs a connecting terminal arrangement). AMS won't be perceived to suffer, the growth just must go elsewhere.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12484
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:52 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
Ah yes, this is definitely a top 3 A.net myth - that if you live within 20 miles of an airport you have no right to ever try to make the situation better or even to stop it from getting worse.

People who make piss-poor choices, taking secondary priority to economic development, is no myth. Fortunately happens all the time.

It doesn't mean that the local government has to oblige, but it is part of local governments prerogative. Not yours. It's not to say there shouldn't be repercussions for a person's choices, but rather that it doesn't preclude them from attempting to make their neighborhood a better place.

I'm guessing you're attempting to make some manner of refutation with this, but it falls well short of the threshold of reality.

People make foolish choices (like choosing to live next to a major airport) but lose out in the face of progress, all the time. That's a simply a fact, whether you choose to recognize it as such or not.

Sure you'll have rare examples like NRT and LHR where enough of them can jointly stifle progress for years (or even decades) on end; but in the end, new runways get approved, new land gets annexed, new flight paths are undertaken and the I-chose-to-live-by-an-airport-now-I'm-offended-by-noise crowd takes second fiddle, almost every time; eventually--- inevitably.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
treetreeseven
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:18 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:05 am

LAX772LR wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
People who make piss-poor choices, taking secondary priority to economic development, is no myth. Fortunately happens all the time.

It doesn't mean that the local government has to oblige, but it is part of local governments prerogative. Not yours. It's not to say there shouldn't be repercussions for a person's choices, but rather that it doesn't preclude them from attempting to make their neighborhood a better place.

I'm guessing you're attempting to make some manner of refutation with this, but it falls well short of the threshold of reality.

People make foolish choices (like choosing to live next to a major airport) but lose out in the face of progress, all the time. That's a simply a fact, whether you choose to recognize it as such or not.

"Progress"

Sure you'll have rare examples like NRT and LHR where enough of them can jointly stifle progress for years (or even decades) on end; but in the end, new runways get approved, new land gets annexed, new flight paths are undertaken and the I-chose-to-live-by-an-airport-now-I'm-offended-by-noise crowd takes second fiddle, almost every time; eventually--- inevitably.

Maybe, maybe not. If over the years 1 million people end up living near an airport, they tend to have a lot of pull with local governments which they staff and pay tax to.
 
KLDC10
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:55 am

Planetalk wrote:
What is the problem? Noise abatement regulationd are there to make life more pleasant for everyone around the airport, with no significant downside. Airports tend to be near populated areas, I'm sure plenty of people living near airports were well aware what they were getting into and don't complain, but still appreciate a little effort to reduce the impact. Seems a pretty sensible compromise to me. Believe it or not, politicians aren't elected purely to serve the interests of airlines and plane geeks, they have to balance everyone's interests.

Why when noise abatement is perfectly safe and practical you get so angry about I don't really understand.


To begin with, I'm not "angry" about it at all. It is possible to make an argument without shouting you know.

The noise abatement regulations at SNA often require a close-to-full-power takeoff. When that is happening at only one or two airports, then the effects are largely negligible, but if the practice was to become more widespread, we'd soon be looking at increased maintenance and fuel costs resulting from consistent full-power takeoffs. Sure, they can be quite fun from one perspective, but the added wear and tear on the engines is really unnecessary.

Also, and I consider this to be a more important point; I am firmly of the opinion that, during critical stages of flight, the primary concern of the pilots should be safely flying the plane. Adding noise abatement regulations adds another layer of activity on the flight deck during the most critical stages of flight. That is not to say that pilots are incapable of multi-tasking, but having to juggle more activities than necessary can increase the risk of an error somewhere along the way. The more focused the pilots are on their primary objective, the better. For the same reason, we have the 'Sterile Cockpit Rule' under 10,000ft, to help ensure that pilots aren't caught up in frivolities during a critical phase of flight.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146
737/738/739/744/748/752/763/772/789
A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/A346/A359
Q400/E170/E175/E190/CS300
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: AMS can't grow because of safety concerns - Dutch safety board

Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:26 pm

Planetalk wrote:
KLDC10 wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
It's like asking pilots taking off from SNA to not power back after take off. Noise abatements regulations exist at many airports in the world and should be respected. If AMS cannot cope with the extra work, it has to look at hiring more staff or technology that would help manage the load.


I'm afraid that I consider the noise abatement regulations at SNA to be equally ridiculous. There has been an airstrip on that site since at least 1923, and the noise abatement regulations came into force in 1985. So that's a full 62 years between the airport opening and the regulations - you'd think that 60 years would be sufficient notice for those doing the complaining, right? There's plenty of other real estate in Orange County, and the noise abatement regulations are only there to satisfy people who bought a house next to an airport and then claimed to be shocked by the noise from aircraft overhead. The only good thing about the regulations from an enthusiast's perspective is the need to make full-power takeoffs.


What is the problem? Noise abatement regulationd are there to make life more pleasant for everyone around the airport, with no significant downside. Airports tend to be near populated areas, I'm sure plenty of people living near airports were well aware what they were getting into and don't complain, but still appreciate a little effort to reduce the impact. Seems a pretty sensible compromise to me. Believe it or not, politicians aren't elected purely to serve the interests of airlines and plane geeks, they have to balance everyone's interests.

Why when noise abatement is perfectly safe and practical you get so angry about I don't really understand.


Exactly my thoughts. It's all about making compromises.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos