Community Engagement pertaining to changes to the Runway 30 from 2017 through 2019
Dear Airservices Australia,
I appreciate your provision of the meeting records and decisions related to the alterations of Runway 30's flight path from 2016 through 2022.
I'm particularly interested in the specifics of community engagement throughout this process. From the documents provided, it's noted that some communities expressed a preference against over-water flight paths. However, one community may have disproportionately influenced the flight path's redesign. My concern is that Airservices Australia may have overlooked the potential impact on other communities, which could face a higher burden from the alterations in the flight path.
The absence of any response or feedback to the new flight path design from community members implies that the engagement process might have been insufficient or inadequately publicized.
To better comprehend why specific communities were seemingly disregarded, I'm requesting documentation related to the stakeholder engagement plan, including its budget. Additionally, I would appreciate access to a record of all community submissions and detailed minutes from all community engagement meetings.
Furthermore, I'm seeking to understand the party responsible for the noise modelling of the new flight path and to receive a technical explanation as to why there might have been inaccuracies in their predictions. I look forward to your response and thank you in advance for your assistance.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Terhost
Before progressing to another FOI request, have you reviewed the publicly available Hobart Airspace Design Review - Consultation Summary Report? It appears to address what you are seeking.
You can find it here:
https://ehq-production-australia.s3.ap-s...
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
I'm grateful for the document link you shared; it offered much of the information I needed.
However, it's puzzling why Airservices Australia appeared to disregard many of the community concerns articulated in the consultant's report.
The report emphasizes that the population of Primrose Sands is significantly larger than other surrounding areas. Yet, Airservices Australia chose to establish the flight path directly over it, disregarding numerous recommendations to relocate the proposed path further east, between Connelly's Marsh and Dunalley.
I'm eager to understand the specific reasons behind the dismissal of these recommendations. What led the flight path design team to overlook community concerns and route the flight path over Primrose Sands? I would anticipate that the design team would have recorded their decision-making process for such contentious design choices.
Furthermore, I'm intrigued as to why the final 2019 design didn't elicit any interest or feedback. This absence of response should have signalled potential publicity problems. I'm keen on examining the minutes from the meetings where this was discussed before the submission of the new flight path design to CASA for approval.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
Dear MBX FOI,
Your link refers to the "Hobart Airspace Design Review - Consultation Summary Report". Is there a more detailed report? If so, I would like to include this in my FOI request.
Please advise.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Hi Andrew
At this time there is no active FOI request - it is not clear from the below if you are seeking a specific document (and if so, what that document would be) or a response to your queries.
Have you looked through the Post Implementation Report for the Hobart Airspace Design, which includes links to a vast amount of reports on the subject?
You can find it here: https://ehq-production-australia.s3.ap-s...
If you are instead seeking questions to your specific question you may wish to utilise the established question processes for the Hobart Community here https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/....
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
I get an access denied message when attempting to access the documentation you refer to in this link:
https://ehq-production-australia.s3.ap-s...
I am after internal documents that explain why the flight path designers chose to discount the concerns of Primrose Sands residents. The Runway 30 ARP-RP flight path was placed over one of the larger communities (Primrose Sands) despite the ARP-RP flight paths concentrating aircraft traffic along a very narrow corridor. I want to know who decided this was a good idea and why this idea was sanctioned. I am after internal memos/emails and flight path design team meeting minutes discussing this.
I am happy to have this FOI request reviewed if you think this is not clear enough.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Hi Andrew
Apologies that the link is not accessible - you can find all documents on this page https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/.... A link to the PIR can be located on the right hand side of the screen, about half way down.
As for the potential FOI request, we need a little more on the specific document that you are hoping to seek. Would a good description be "Airservices Australia's decision to discount the concerns of Primrose Sands residents"?
Otherwise you may note that the former request disclosed the entirety of the decision package for the 2019 Hobart Airspace Review and included the job titles of the relevant Airservices and CASA staff that approved the changes and includes the totality of the reasons for that change. This would seem in part to address your queries.
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
Thanks. I read through the documents provided. The decision to cease over-water flights and relocate the flight path over Primrose Sands bothers me. I want to know why Airservices Australia allowed a few privileged individuals to influence its decision. The 2017 flight path was the least disruptive to most people. A small vocal minority got their way at the expense of the majority. The 2019 flight path impacts more people. Many people do not understand why this was allowed to happen.
As per your suggestion, my FOI request can be reframed as follows:
"What factors influenced Airservices Australia's decision to discount the concerns of Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett residents? What was the internal justification for moving a flight path that passed over less densely populated regions at a higher altitude (greater than 4000') to one that passed over a more densely populated region at a much lower altitude (around 2000`), knowing (a) the Runway 30 NRP-AR flightpath would concentrate the number of jet aircraft flying over Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett, and (b) that aircraft movements at Hobart Airport were projected to increase significantly?"
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Good morning Andrew
Under the FOI Act you can only seek access to previously existing documents rather than answers to specific questions. If you would
to continue with your FOI request you could frame it as follows:
The final documents that contain the following information related to the 2019 Hobart Airspace Design Review:
(a) the factors that influenced Airservices Australia's decision to discount the concerns of Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett residents; and
(b) the internal justification for moving a flight path that passed over less densely populated regions at a higher altitude (greater than 4000') to one that passed over a more densely populated region at a much lower altitude (around 2000`) knowing (a) the Runway 30 NRP-AR flightpath would concentrate the number of jet aircraft flying over Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett, and (b) that aircraft movements at Hobart Airport were projected to increase significantly.
Could you please advise if you would like to submit a new request with the scope as set out above.
Please note that this request may result in the decision package being released to you again, as it contains the reasons as to why the flight paths were changed.
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
Thank you for your helpful suggestions. Here is my revised request:
Documents that contain the following information related to the 2019 Hobart Airspace Design Review:
(a) Factors that influenced Airservices Australia's decision to discount the concerns of Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett residents
(b) The internal justification for moving a flight path that passed over less densely populated regions at a higher altitude (greater than 4000') to one that passed over a more densely populated region at a much lower altitude (around 2000`) knowing (i) the Runway 30 NRP-AR flightpath would concentrate the number of jet aircraft flying over Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett, and (ii) that aircraft movements at Hobart Airport were projected to increase significantly.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Good morning Andrew
We acknowledge receipt of your FOI request seeking:
Documents that contain the following information related to the 2019 Hobart Airspace Design Review:
(a) Factors that influenced Airservices Australia's decision to discount the concerns of Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett residents
(b) The internal justification for moving a flight path that passed over less densely populated regions at a higher altitude (greater than 4000') to one that passed over a more densely populated region at a much lower altitude (around 2000`) knowing (i) the Runway 30 NRP-AR flightpath would concentrate the number of jet aircraft flying over Primrose Sands/Carlton River/Forcett, and (ii) that aircraft movements at Hobart Airport were projected to increase significantly.
The statutory deadline for decision on this request is 22 June 2023. You will be provided with a decision on this request by or on this date unless the timeframe is extended (for example due to charges being issued or third party consultation required).
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
Kindly advise when I can expect my requested information. By law, you should normally have responded by June 21, 2023.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Mr Terhost
Please find attached the decision on the request FOI 23-14.
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.