[Peetwo]

Flight paths 'unlawful': court claim. Hobart Airport. Picture: Matt Thompson

Flight paths ‘unlawful’: court claim
MATTHEW DENHOLM
Hobart residents have taken court action to scrap flight paths in a case with potential national implications.

---

Residents hit by aircraft noise from Hobart’s new flight paths are taking legal action to have them scrapped, in a case that could have national implications.

The residents’ claim in the Federal Court alleges the new standardised flight paths were rushed to meet the time frame of runway extensions, and failed to consider key safety implications.

Justice Debra Mortimer has ordered mediation between the residents and Airservices Australia, with a trial to be held if the talks next month fail.

Depending on the outcome, the case could have far-reaching implications, including for residents fighting aircraft noise in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and the Gold Coast. A Senate inquiry is examining a Greens bill that would require authorities to give greater weight to such impacts.

Both residents behind the landmark Hobart case own homes well east of the city in a once quiet, rural area hard hit by the new arrival and departure flight paths for Hobart Airport, introduced in September.

In their joint application to the Federal Court, companies owned by residents Alexander Gray of Dunalley and John Kokavec of Murdunna seek to “quash” the flight paths.

Mr Kokavec and wife Sue own Smooth Island, near Murdunna. They bought the 58ha speck of land for $900,000 in 2013 to build a dream retirement home, but say that idyll has been shattered by aircraft noise.

Relying in part on admissions in internal Airservices documents, the claim also includes that the official who decided to adopt the new flight paths was not sufficiently senior to have done so.

As revealed by The Australian last month, internal Airservices Australia assessments concluded the new flight path’s stated objectives — greater efficiency and safety — had been undermined by failings.

The application to the court ­alleges Hobart’s runway extension required the decommissioning of a communications beacon and that this, in turn, required changes to the way arrivals and departures were managed.

“By taking into account the timing of the runway extension works program in the manner he did, the decision-maker did not give proper, genuine and realistic consideration … to aspects of the safety of air navigation,” the ­application says.

This included the fact that some aircraft could not use the new standardised flight paths ­because they lacked the required satellite navigation equipment.

The residents also allege the decision failed to provide standards for safe horizontal separation of aircraft, particularly those flying the same flight path with different speed capabilities.

They allege this failure increased the risk of “loss of separation” incidents, in which aircraft fly closer to each other than mandated in safety standards.

“The decision-maker did not consider whether the change … would result in an overall improvement of the safety of air navigation at Hobart Airport,” the application says.

Neither applicant in the case responded to requests for comments, while Airservices said it would take part in the ­mediation and had already committed to a review of the flight paths.

TICK..TOCK Harfwit, TICK...TOCK indeed -   


MTF...P2