Extent of industry input into the Runway 30 RNP-ARP flightpath design
Dear Airservices Australia,
I request documents showing correspondence between Airservices Australia, Qantas/Jetstar, and Virgin Australia related to the design and implementation of the current Runway 30 RNP-AR flight path.
Regards,
Andrew Terhorst.
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Terhorst
Airservices Australia (Airservices) acknowledges receipt of your request
for access to document under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
(FOI Act). I apologise for the delay in responding and confirm that your
request has been given the reference FOI 24-02.
You have requested access to the following documents:
“correspondence between Airservices Australia, Qantas/Jetstar, and Virgin
Australia related to the design and implementation of the current Runway
30 RNP-AR flight path..”
I note you have made a similar request (FOI 23-42) on 20 September 2023.
I intend to process this request in respect of correspondence dated 20
September 2023 to today’s date. Please let me know if you disagree. I
also note that the response to FOI 23-42 remains outstanding. I apologise
for this and commit to providing you a response on that request as soon as
possible.
The statutory period for processing your request is 30 calendar days
commencing from the day after the day the request for received, being 3
March 2024. In the circumstances, I seek your agreement to a thirty day
extension for the processing of your request and should be grateful if you
would confirm your agreement to this by return.
However, if your request captures documents that contains information
concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of another
organisation or individual (third party), Airservices is required to
consult with these third parties concerned before deciding on the release
of those documents: see section 27 of the FOI Act.
If consultation is undertaken with third parties, the initial 30-day
period for processing your request will be extended by a further 30 days
(see section 15(6) of the FOI Act).
Airservices may impose a charge for the work involved in providing access
to the documents you requested. We will notify you of any charges in
relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any
requested documents.
Please note that subject to certain exceptions, information released under
the FOI Act may later be published online on our disclosure log
([1]http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/abou...).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at
[2][Airservices request email] .
Regards,
FOI Coordinator
[3]A blue and black logo Description automatically generated
OFFICIAL
Dear MBX FOI,
You state: "I note you have made a similar request (FOI 23-42) on 20 September 2023.
I intend to process this request in respect of correspondence dated 20
September 2023 to today’s date."
FOI 23-42 is way, way, way overdue. If you look at the original correspondence related to FOI 23-42 the FOI Officer also asked for a 30 day extension to consult with the airline companies. Nothing happened after that.
Ryan Gould contacted me after I followed up and said personnel changes had been an issue. Again nothing after that.
I submitted this new request FOI 24-02 to stir things up. Why was my FOI 23-42 mishandled? I think the delays are unnecessary. Asking for a 30 day extension to consult with industry when you theoretically have consulted with industry already baffles me. It seems Airservices Australia is not open to public scrutiny and is obsfuscating here. The question is why?
FOI 23-42 is several months overdue. I deserve a proper explanation.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Dear Dr Terhorst
Please find attached the access decision in respect of FOI 24-02.
Regards
Marcus Bourget
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Alan Woods Building, 25 Constitution Ave
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
airservicesaustralia.com
OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Dear Dr Terhorst,
I’ve just noticed on your decision letter that it lists the date on which
we received your FOI request as 31 October 2023.
This is an error. We received your FOI request on 1 February 2024.
I apologise for this oversight.
Regards,
Marcus Bourget
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Alan Woods Building, 25 Constitution Ave
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
airservicesaustralia.com
OFFICIAL
From: MBX FOI <[Airservices request email]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 1:23 PM
To: Andrew Terhorst <[FOI #11063 email]>; MBX
FOI <[Airservices request email]>
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Extent of industry input
into the Runway 30 RNP-ARP flightpath design
OFFICIAL
Dear Dr Terhorst
Please find attached the access decision in respect of FOI 24-02.
Regards
Marcus Bourget
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Alan Woods Building, 25 Constitution Ave
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
airservicesaustralia.com
OFFICIAL
Dear MBX FOI,
I submitted the FOI request last year and again this year because staffing issues your side caused lengthy delays.
I see only one email from Virgin Australia, which puzzles me as I understand Airservices Australia consults with the airline industry prior to implementing flight paths. Correspondence includes invites to meetings with meeting agendas and written feedback from industry representatives.
I do not consider your response to my FOI to be adequate. I believe there is much more correspondence between Airservices Australia and Qantas/Jetstar and Virgin Australia regarding Runway 30 RNP-AR. Indeed, the email correspondence from Virgin Australia hints strongly at this.
Please dig a bit deeper. I suspect someone is withholding information.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
Dear MBX FOI,
Kindly respond to my last correspondence. Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Terhorst
In my access decision of 13 March 2024, I outlined the review rights
available to you in respect of my decision (refer Attachment A).
Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
Regards
Marcus Bourget
Authorised FOI Decision Maker
Alan Woods Building, 25 Constitution Ave
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
airservicesaustralia.com
OFFICIAL
Dear Airservices Australia,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Airservices Australia's handling of my FOI request 'Extent of industry input into the Runway 30 RNP-ARP flightpath design'.
Airservices has repeatedly stated Runway 30 RNP-AR was designed with industry input. The one email released suggests Airservices Australia is playing games. Not only is this disrespectful, it is childish and suggests Airservices Australia is not committed to transparency. I expect better from a government agency.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/e...
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Terhorst
I acknowledge receipt of your request for internal review. A decision will be provided to you by 12 May 2024.
Kind regards
Ben
FOI Coordinator
Alan Woods Building, 25 Constitution Ave
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
airservicesaustralia.com
OFFICIAL
Dear MBX FOI,
Thank you. By not attending to my request respectfully, you have created more work for yourselves. The FOI framework helps citizens understand how the government functions. It is bizarre that Airservices talks about community and industry engagement around flight paths, and the best it can do is show me one email from a Virgin Australia pilot. This suggests Airservices treats FOI requests with a high degree of cynicism. I expect higher standards from Airservices.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Terhorst
Please find the attached decision in respect of your request for internal review.
Kind regards
Ben
FOI Coordinator
Alan Woods Building, 25 Constitution Ave
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia
airservicesaustralia.com
OFFICIAL
Dear MBX FOI,
Thank you. I remain puzzled about the lack of industry consultation. I read somewhere the Pilots Association asked for a shortcut over my house. Perhaps I should have made my request more broad. It seems industry consultation is very selective.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst