Details of Hobart airflight path change pre-2017
Dear Airservices Australia,
I refer to the changes made by Airservices Australia to the pre-2017 Hobart flight path.
The changes made by yourselves now directs low landing flights directly over communities including my home at Primrose Sands. Airservices's main objective is safety so I cannot understand why the choice to directly impact people’s health and living space was ever considered???
I know you are currently working through your time lengthy Review but I want to know why the original flight path pre-2017 some 13km East over the water is not seen as the safest option.
I would like information from you regarding the following.
Q: When assessing changes to the existing pre 2017 flight path who instigated the Review of the flight path and what were the main drivers of the change?
Please provide documents, memos or emails relating to this process.
AirServices Australia Doc - Proposed Design Development Process page 4 …The designs that provided flight paths to and from the east of Hobart Airport were determined to provide a total net benefit.
Q: What were the listed benefits and to whom did they apply?
Q: Correspondence around re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path over the water East of Dunalley.
Yours faithfully,
Cathy Minnucci
OFFICIAL
Good morning Cathy
Thank you for your enquiry. Under the Freedom of Information Act you can only seek access to pre-existing documents, rather than answers to specific questions.
Your request appears to seek responses to questions (necessitating the creation of new documents), rather than seeking access to existing documents and therefore cannot be processed under the FOI Act.
If it assists, you can find a significant amount of information on the Hobart Airspace Review, including the reasons the changes were made, on our website here https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/....
You can also participate in ongoing community engagement through our page here: https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/..., which also gives you the ability to pose questions like those below to the Community Engagement team.
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 find it very problematic to grasp how Airservices Australia cannot provide some document, memo or email that identifies who instigated the review of the pre-2017 flight path and reasoning behind its change.
It defies logic that no written process took place when changing this flight path.
ASA document: HOBART RUNWAY 30 STAR Review Report November 2017 lists that during 2016, CASA conducted an Aeronautical Study of Hobart and released a report in February 2017.
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of the CASA Feb 2017 Report
ASA document: Hobart Airspace Design Review – Final Report March 2019 – (page 4) Proposed Design Development Process …The designs that provided flight paths to and from the east of Hobart Airport were determined to provide a total net benefit.
Q: What were the listed benefits and to whom did they apply?
I have underlined the sentence. Surely whoever did this Report and approved its release can provide documentation around the “total net benefit” of the designs.
Q: Correspondence around re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path over the water East of Dunalley?
My understanding is this is currently being reviewed as a possible option to alleviate the enormous health and safety issues that you have created over our community.
Yours sincerely,
Cathy Minnucci
OFFICIAL
Good evening Cathy
CASA's Feb 2017 Aeronautical Study of Hobart is publicly available here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...
I have also attached it to this email for your reference.
I have also attached another publicly available report titled "Review Report - Hobart Runway 30 Star" which explores the reasons for the change, why a reversion to the original flight path was not available (paragraph 5.2.1 may be of particular interest) and a comparison of alternate flight paths considered.
If you would like to submit an FOI request for further information, it could in part seek the document that sets out how "the designs that provided flight paths to and from the east of Hobart Airport were determined to provide the total net benefit" as referred in the March 2019 Hobart Airspace Design Review (page 4 under the heading "Proposed Design Development Process").
However, we will need a little more information around the type of "correspondence around re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path" that you're interested in. This could potentially capture a wide range of information, some of which you may not be intending to capture - for example, expressions from community members seeking this outcome and our responses to them. It could also cause the request to be too large for us to process.
Could you provide some more information on the specific correspondence that you're seeking, noting the content of the attached documents?
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,
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of the request, and the final signed approval that resulted in the pre- 2017 flight path.
Re: Proposed Design Development Process - What were the listed benefits and to whom did they apply? Documents you made reference to seem to only list airline safety and fuel savings to the benefit of corporate stakeholders and government bodies.
In regard to your own document – the final report March 2017....
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of your documents that specifically lists the benefits (if any) that were attributed to our community.
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of the Airservices Australia correspondence to either Airservices Australia or other Aviation / Government bodies directly related to re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path over the water East of Dunalley?
Yours sincerely,
Cathy Minnucci
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Cathy
Does the following accurately describe the documents that you are seeking?
- the final signed approval that resulted in the pre-2017 flight path;
- the document that sets out how "the designs that provided flight paths to and from the east of Hobart Airport were determined to provide the total net benefit" as referred in the March 2019 Hobart Airspace Design Review (page 4 under the heading "Proposed Design Development Process");
- the document that sets out the benefits (if any) to the Primrose Sands community in changing the flight paths around Hobart in 2017; and
- correspondence to either Airservices Australia or other Aviation / Government bodies directly related to re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path over the water East of Dunalley.
Note that the last part of your request will likely require the review of a significant amount of correspondence received from the public over the last 6 years and may cause it to be too large to process. You may wish to reduce its scope, for example by excluding correspondence from the public. Alternatively you can also review our reports on community consultation, some of which are attached for your reference.
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,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for providing me with some documents.
I have found the Airservices Australia website difficult to navigate at times, so it has been appreciated.
Your question of …does the following accurately describe the documents that you are seeking?
The answer is no.
I will try again.
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of the request, and the final signed approval that resulted in the change to the pre- 2017 flight path?
I would have thought this should be a signed one-page management decision type document for each??
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of your document/s that specifically lists the benefits (if any) that were attributed to our community when proposing the change to the pre-2017 flight path?
Each document you provide seems to only list aviation safety and flight management.
A true net benefit analysis should have included and listed the benefits and the harms of your flight path decision. In particular its impact on communities living directly underneath this new flight path change.
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of the Airservices Australia correspondence (from the top three tier levels of management) to either Airservices Australia (i.e. Internal – between own departments) and /or other Aviation / Federal Government bodies directly related to re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path over the water East of Dunalley?
I am not looking for correspondence from the public but from Airservices Australia management who directly action these types of decisions.
Thanking you again.
Cathy Minnucci
OFFICIAL
Good morning Cathy
Thank you for the further information below. To proceed could you let me know which "community" is being referred to in the following part of the request?
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of your document/s that specifically lists the benefits (if any) that were attributed to our community when proposing the change to the pre-2017 flight path?
I ask because our suggestion of "Primrose Sands community" was not adopted in the amended request.
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....hoping you can also address the other questions I have submitted.
In regards to your request for clarification around “our community”, I find it extremely odd that the initial reporting did not research those community areas that would be most affected by all your changes – in particular Primrose Sands. I would have to questions the true value of the whole flight plan process and the professional consulting reports you obtained.
In regards to my question I meant Primrose Sands, Carlton and Forcett but in order to get a valid response I will expand a little.
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of your document/s that specifically lists the benefits (if any) that were attributed to “our community” known as the Southern Beaches when proposing the change to the pre-2017 flight path?
The Southern Beaches area encompasses Lewisham, Forcett, Dodges Ferry, Carlton, Primrose Sands and Connelly’s Marsh.
Thanking you
Cathy Minnucci
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Cathy
I think the following request is what you are intending to seek and am actioning the request on that basis. Let me know if it is not what you are intending to request and we can change it as needed (which will affect the statutory deadlines).
We acknowledge receipt of your FOI request seeking:
- the final signed approval that resulted in the change to the pre-2017 flight path
- the document that lists the benefits (if any) that were attributed to the Southern Beaches community (Lewisham, Forcett, Dodges Ferry, Carlton, Primrose Sands and Connelly’s Marsh) when proposing the change to the pre-2017 flight path
- correspondence authored by Airservices Australia (from the top three tier levels of management) to either Airservices Australia (i.e. Internal – between own departments) and/or other Aviation/Federal Government bodies directly related to re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path over the water East of Dunalley.
The statutory deadline for decision on this request is 24 July 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,
By law, Airservices Australia should normally have responded promptly and by July 12, 2023, and this has not occurred.
I request that this matter be addressed by a more senior manager.
Yours sincerely,
Cathy Minnucci
OFFICIAL
Dear Cathy
As referred in the acknowledgement issued to you for this request, the statutory deadline for decision is 24 July 2023.
You will be issued with a decision on or by this date.
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.
OFFICIAL
Good afternoon Cathy
Please find attached the decision on your request FOI 23-15.
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 reply and attached documentation.
My apology if I was not clear enough but I need further information.
In regard to the final signed approval that resulted in the change to the pre-2017 Hobart flight path I had expected to see a document signed by the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government?
I was of the opinion all flight changes need to be approved at a higher Government level than Airservices Australia?
If this document exists, could I please obtain a copy.
In regard to the true net benefits, I thank you for your reply.
True net benefits are a balance between actual benefits and actual harms.
Every possible negative influence: noise pollution, air pollution, and flight volumes bombard our living space. Our quiet community has been transformed into an aerial freeway. You changed the pre-2017 Hobart flight path without any consultation to our community.
The document FOI 23-15 Document 5 under “Stakeholder Consultation” listed under Key Messages that “the proposed flight paths will not overfly new residents”, so how did we come to this situation where we have an estimate of over 10,000 flight per year directly over Primrose Sands, Forcett and Carlton River where flights previously never existed?
In regard to re-instating current Hobart flight path back to pre-2017 flight path I find your reasoning quite odd given that the new navigational technology and flight tracking would provide greater coverage and the distance between Primrose Sands and East of Dunalley is only 13km.
The pre-2017 flight path has been found to be solid and safe over considerable years and now you note that suddenly reverting back “would result in decreased safety for aircraft and passengers travelling into Hobart Airport, and safety is Airservices’ paramount consideration”.
Unfortunately, I am unable to find logic in your comment.
I do not think “safety” is the prime driver of your Hobart flight changes, but rather greed and a pandering to commercial interests at the expense of our community.
You have not been able to provide any documentation that officially approved the current Hobart flight path that continues to drown the communities of Primrose Sands, Forcett or Carlton River with noise, air pollution, and volume of flights.
You mentioned it is not an option for Airservices Australia to revert back to the pre-2017 Hobart flight path but maybe it should be, given the short distance East to the open sea of only 13km!!
Yours sincerely,
Cathy Minnucci
OFFICIAL
Dear Cathy
You have been provided with Airservices' record of decision to change the flight paths in 2017 at Hobart Area, implementing the recommendations of CASA to introduce SIDS and STARS at that location. This aligns with your request. The decision also provided reasons as to why certain documents you sought do not exist.
The reasons as to why reversion to the previous flight paths are not possible were drawn from the attached 2017 document. Please see paragraph 5.2.1.
If you have specific questions that you would like responded to I recommend contacting the Community Engagement team - the FOI function is for requesting access to specific documents that are in existence prior to your request. You can contact them here https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/....
You may also be interested in the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's investigation into complaints regarding the 2017 change which you can find here: https://ano.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/20....
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 reply.
I have checked many of the links you provided and thank you for listing them.
In regard to my initial requests…
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of the request, and the final signed approval that resulted in the change to the pre- 2017 flight path?
You provided an internal AS document relating to implementing the recommendations of CASA to introduce SIDS and STARS at that location.
From this, I am assuming that all flight path approvals are signed off between CASA and AS not by the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of your document/s that specifically lists the benefits (if any) that were attributed to our community when proposing the change to the pre-2017 flight path?
You replied no community total benefit analysis was undertaken.
From this I am assuming community impact is not factored into your flight planning.
Q: Can I please obtain a copy of your document/s that specifically lists the benefits (if any) that were attributed to our community when proposing the change to the pre-2017 flight path?
You have stated that no option exists to return pre-2017 flight path back 13km East over water. As mentioned with greater air coverage and tracking with your new guidance systems this decision seems illogical and lacking in common sense given the destructive health impact of noise, volume of flights, and air pollution you have served up to our Primrose Sands community.
Yours sincerely,
Cathy Minnucci