Things that go bump in the night,

(12-11-2018, 06:25 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Another day, another Australian PFAS issue

PFAS report reveals contamination at RAAF base, while MFS begins investigation at station.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-1...s/10603984

Tick Tock

While on PFAS a long but fascinating read on SMA (Sydney Metro Airports) commissioned reviews into the presence of PFAS and other soil contaminants at Bankstown and Camden airport sites... Confused

Quote:31/10/18 Documents relating to the presence of PFAS at the Bankstown and Camden Airports (FOI 19-006) PDF: 19361 KB

Also on the Harfwit led ASA front, the Hansard is out from the recent Senate wet lettuce public hearing into the performance of Harfwit and his merry band of OneSKY trough feeders:  https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea...nt=Default

Quote:Senator GALLACHER: I'm going to go to the Brisbane and Adelaide situation. Mr Harfield, you were saying that the TRA assessment is not a CASA requirement. You were saying it's up to Airservices to conduct that and you were saying that there's no agreement with ICAO that a TRA should be undertaken prior to changing their crew. Is that what you're telling me in that letter you've written?

Mr Harfield : I'll hand over to the chief fire officer to provide the detail. But, currently, as it stands, we determine the staffing numbers to the category, which are approved by CASA. The TRA model is not part of the current regulatory suite but part of the regulatory review that has been undertaken. It is expected that it will be put into the regulations next year. But I'll ask the chief fire officer to go into further detail.

Mr Wood : I want to say, first up, that we strongly support the use of task resourcing to develop staffing levels, and, in fact, Airservices was a very early user of this type of methodology; perhaps we were the first. Our staffing levels are built on task-resourcing methodology.

Senator GALLACHER: But you're not using it.

Mr Wood : Yes, we do. Our staffing levels are built on task-resourcing methodology, but it's not the model currently published by ICAO. We did support and encourage ICAO to build and include a staff-resourcing methodology in its documentation, and it has it. It has a recommendation to use it, and we've been in discussion with CASA in recent times to have that model reflected in the current Australian regulatory framework. But, at the moment, it's not in there. We are underway, though, to commence a review using staffing resourcing methodology.

Senator GALLACHER: Are you aware of a letter from the Hon. Michael McCormack to the United Firefighters Union of Australia Aviation Branch in Brisbane, which says: 'CASA has confirmed previous risk assessments completed by Airservices in relation to operational staff numbers for ARFFS were endorsed by CASA and are now due for review. CASA has advised Airservices they should complete the ARFFS staffing assessment based on the ICAO standards and recommended practices related to the TRA process.'

Mr Wood : Yes, I am aware of that. Our staffing levels are currently approved by CASA. They are built on task-resourcing methodology, not the current ICAO model. We are currently building that framework. We expect to have it finished by the end of the year. In 2019, we'll be reviewing our staffing levels at all locations under a new TRA framework that is built around the guiding principles set by ICAO.

Senator GALLACHER: How does that relate back to Mr Harfield's letter—which says what? It doesn't put TRA at the centre of the piece? What is your response, Mr Harfield? You came back to us and said: 'CASA has nothing to do with TRA. It's our business and ICAO haven't done whatever.'

Mr Wood : I can—

Mr Harfield : The letter states that we support the TRA; we're implementing the TRA per the ICAO methodology. The current situation is that we use a task-resource analysis model to build our staff numbers, which isn't exactly the same as the new ICAO model, and we build up the staff numbers and then CASA approves those staff numbers. That's what the letter says.

Senator GALLACHER: So, cutting through all of this, in Adelaide you've operated with a certain number of firefighters in the curfew hours. You're proposing to reduce those firefighters. Is that correct?

Mr Harfield : We're currently—

Senator GALLACHER: You're investigating.

Mr Harfield : We're investigating the fact that currently the regulation requires a cat. 5 overnight, which is during the curfew hours, because it's outside public transport operations. That staffing level is one officer and two firefighters. We've historically staffed Adelaide at five firefighters and we're currently looking at why it is above the regulations.

Senator GALLACHER: Just on Adelaide, on that point, if you've got one officer and two firefighters, can you fight a fire in a plane?

Mr Harfield : I'll hand that to the chief fire officer.

Mr Wood : In a certain sized plane you certainly can.

Senator GALLACHER: 'In a certain sized plane'? Are you going to know which plane's going to be on fire?

Mr Wood : That is the level that's provided at Adelaide at the moment. It's important that we continually review our operations at all locations to ensure the safe, effective and efficient delivery of services so—

Senator GALLACHER: I'm all for safe, efficient delivery of services, but I'm not in favour of introducing additional risk. My simple advice has been that, in order to fight a fire in a plane, you need a couple putting the fire out and you need somebody standing by to rescue. Now, can you do that?

Mr Wood : Let me explain, Senator. We're doing some work at the moment. We have five staff on duty at the moment, and we have no plans to change that number. What we are doing is a safety review to understand why we're providing these additional staff over and above the level approved by CASA. There may be some very good reasons for that. So the work we're doing will assess location-specific risks, the emergency response profile at Adelaide during the curfew period, the number of diversions and other things that happen during that curfew period, and the availability of support services. This safety work, which is due to be completed in the next couple of months, will then be fed into the TRA framework that I just mentioned that we expect to be finished by the end of the year. But let me assure you, Senator—

CHAIR: I don't mean to interfere with your line of answers or the senator's questioning, but I have listened carefully twice now whilst the senator has asked you a question and you haven't answered it. His question was quite simple, and I will invite him to repeat it in his own words: with respect to a certain number of personnel, are they capable of dealing with an event of a plane crashing? Can I ask you to ask the question again.

Senator GALLACHER: If there's a fire on the Toll freighter and it's adjacent to 18 other bays, six of which have aircraft on, will three people be able to operate safely and effectively?

Mr Wood : The CASA approval says yes, Senator. We have five staff currently on duty, and we—

CHAIR: Mr Wood, this is going to get longer and louder. You're a professional in the space. The senator's question is very, very clear about whether there's a capacity. I personally don't give a continental fig about who thinks what. I'm interested in your professional assessment as to whether they can respond in those circumstances, so I'd ask you to confine your answer to the burden of the question.

Mr Wood : Could you repeat the question again, please, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: With a reduction to a team of three, will they be able to efficiently and safely handle a fire on an aircraft at Adelaide Airport?

Mr Wood : During the curfew period?

Senator GALLACHER: Yes.

Mr Wood : If it's a freighter fire, freighters do not have passengers on board, so in terms of extinguishing the fire, controlling the fire and protecting escape paths I would say the answer is yes.

Senator GALLACHER: If it is, say, a medical evacuation, a flying doctor service where it has two nurses, a retrieval team, a couple of pilots and a patient, would they be able to respond?

Mr Wood :
That would be debatable, and that's why we need to do the safety work.

Senator GALLACHER: 'Debatable'? It's either yes or no. You were very definitive on freight.

Mr Wood : That's right, but, remember, Senator, we've just said that freight—

Senator GALLACHER: If you've got a passenger on a stretcher, you've got two nurses, you've got an ICU drip-feed, you've got doctors and you've got pilots—

Mr Wood : Correct, so it is a slightly higher risk than the freighter aircraft with two people on board. I expect there could be four to five people on the flying doctor plane. That's why, perhaps, we have the additional staff, and that's what we're looking into to support that and to do the work to find out.

Senator GALLACHER: You know that we've got a magnificent retrieval centre at Adelaide Airport, and that's why we're saving so many people in road accidents these days, because it is a 24-hour facility and the flying doctor does absolutely marvellous work. In the event that there's a problem with one of those planes, can you say categorically that you could efficiently and safely operate?

Mr Wood : Yes, I can, depending on the size of an aircraft. If it's a PC-9—I think they probably operate there—the category 5 level service will certainly, clearly, be able to extinguish the fire, protect the escape paths—

Senator GALLACHER: And category 5 is—refresh the committee's memory—one and four?

Mr Wood : No, category 5 is one and two. We currently provide one and four, and that's what I am saying. We're not proposing to change that level at the moment. We are saying we need to understand why.

Senator GALLACHER: The other question then is: if ICAO says you need people fighting and retrieving and other people standing ready to assist firefighters who get into trouble, how do you do that in that circumstance?

Mr Wood : That's not what ICAO actually says. What ICAO says is that we need to extinguish the external fire, protect escape paths and assist those who can to get off, to escape, and then the rescue will more than likely be undertaken with the assistance of responding services. The rescue of occupants may then occur with the assistance of other responding services. That's why we have it.

Senator GALLACHER: If someone is on a stretcher on a flying doctor plane, I presume that would be the rescue?

Mr Wood : Correct, depending on the situation. Let me just reinforce that we have more staff than the CASA approval level. We have no plans to change that level at the moment.

Senator GALLACHER: Not to be too cynical about this, but your funding model is on passenger numbers?

Mr Harfield : No, it's not. It's based on movements.

Senator GALLACHER: Just refresh my memory. What have the movements at Adelaide Airport been in the last 10 years? There's been something like a 50 per cent increase?

Mr Harfield : I would have to take that on notice, but it has been growing at a reasonable rate.

Senator GALLACHER: It has been growing at an exponential rate. So there is no funding pressure coming on your decision here, is there?

Mr Harfield : No, it's not, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER:
There's no funding pressure. That's very clear, because the airport has just built a bloody hotel to accommodate the increased traffic. So there's no funding pressure on this evaluation?

Mr Harfield : Correct.

Senator GALLACHER: That is very clear. Now, if we get out of Brisbane—

CHAIR: Sorry, so as not to lose a train, if Senator Patrick has questions in this space, can we—

Senator PATRICK: I am happy for Senator Gallagher to continue, and I will flick across when we deal with the—

CHAIR: All right. You let me know, Alex, when you think it is a suitable time to transition.

Senator GALLACHER: Can we get the situation in Brisbane. It appears as if the decision is driven—and, once again, let's get this on the record. Brisbane have just put a new runway in. You've put a new fire station in, haven't you?

Mr Harfield : We're in the process of building one with the new runway coming on line in two years, yes.

Senator GALLACHER: Presumably, that would indicate an increase in traffic?

Mr Harfield : Yes, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: So, once again, you are driven off movements—right?

Mr Harfield : Correct.

Senator GALLACHER: So there is no funding pressure evident at these airports in relation to these outcomes?

Mr Harfield : No, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: So they're clearly not driven off any funding pressure whatsoever?

Mr Harfield : No, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: Okay. There's mention made of the reduction in A380 flights to one or two a day and that you're going to take a resourcing decision, which will be that, when there isn't an A380 programmed, you'll reduce it down and, when there is, you'll move it up? Is that how I should understand the proposal?

Mr Harfield : No. That is what used to occur in Brisbane. An A380 is a category 10. The operations are staffed to the relevant category. An A380 is a category 10. Other aircraft are category 9. So, without the A380, Brisbane is a category 9 station, and it used to operate at category 9 and then move to a category 10 during the A380 movements. The model that we have put in, which is aligned to what has been operating in Perth for the last two years, is: now that there is one A380 flight a day, or two movements, we have gone to 24-hour staffing at the category 10 level.

Senator STERLE: In Perth?

Mr Harfield : In Perth that has been for the last two years, but also in Brisbane since 1 September. So they are at category 10 level 24 hours a day, even though there is only an hour and a half of the day where they need to be at category 10, when they could be at category 9 for the rest of the day.

Senator GALLACHER: And you're not changing that?

Mr Harfield : We're not changing that at the—

Senator GALLACHER: So that is 17 firefighters?

CHAIR: Let's hear the tail of that answer. You are not changing that at the moment?

Mr Harfield : No, that was the change made on 1 September, and that is the category 10 level of 14 staff, and the previous category, category 9, is 10 staff.

Senator GALLACHER: So where did the 17 staff come into it?

Mr Harfield : I will hand that to the chief fire officer to explain that.

Mr Wood : That started many years ago. At a time when there were responses to non-aircraft emergencies such as fire alarms and the like and that response level would impede an ability to provide the right level of service, the category of service, at greater than one per cent, we would introduce what's called an additional domestic response vehicle and three people to be able to respond to those emergencies.

Senator GALLACHER: That's incidents in the terminal?

Mr Wood : Well, generally, yes. We maintain our own service performance indicator of maintaining that service level at 99.9 per cent across the country. If that gets exceeded—in other words, we respond to more of the responses such as in the terminal—then we would look at why, and one of the reasons could be that we're doing too many of those responses. In that case, we would work out whether or not we would need an additional three people to respond to those emergencies so we could keep our category level intact at our 99.9 per cent level.

Senator GALLACHER: Where is the efficiency with these three people who have gone? I mean, you had 17. You responded in the terminal, around the airport and you had your 14. Now you only have 14. Does that mean you only have 11 to put out an A380 fire and three could be somewhere else?

Mr Wood : No, it doesn't. The staffing level for an A380 or a category 10 aircraft is 14 staff.

Senator GALLACHER: Okay, so if there is an emergency in the terminal, what happens if they both occur at the same time?

Mr Wood : If they both occur at the same time then with the emergency in the terminal, like at any other location—and that can happen at any location; Brisbane or otherwise—the officer in charge of that response makes a decision about where the priority is and whether or not they would respond to the emergency, or continue with the emergency that they've got. But keep in mind, Senator, with the model we have at the moment the advantage is that with the 14 staff and the situation where you'll have an additional vehicle, that's a domestic type vehicle, we can staff it within the 14. The number of staff in the vehicles required for category can still remain in situ to meet the category requirements and the regulated response times while the domestic response vehicle is attending to the situation in the terminal, wherever it is.

Senator GALLACHER: So these reductions in your contention, in both of these cases, Adelaide and—sorry, Mr Wood, what's your title?

Mr Wood : Chief fire officer.

Senator GALLACHER: You're the ultimate decision-maker in terms of efficiency and safety outcomes, I take it?

Mr Wood : I'm the standard setter for the fire service, yes. In terms of any adjustments to service levels locally, if they're in addition to the minimum standard, that's usually a matter for the local manager based on assessment of the location's specific risks.

Senator GALLACHER: The evidence we've heard here today is that there is no funding pressure at either Adelaide Airport or Brisbane Airport that is driving these changes. These are task risk assessments, and they are about ultimately reducing the number of firefighters available at both airports?

Mr Wood : They're not about—

Senator GALLACHER: Ultimately, they'll result in that if they are successful.

Mr Wood : Not necessarily. The review at Adelaide may indicate we need an increase in firefighters—may do.

Senator GALLACHER: Okay, so I'll put this to you: potentially you could review an increase of firefighters in Brisbane and Adelaide, or alternatively the review could reduce firefighters in Brisbane and Adelaide?

Mr Wood : There's no further review in Brisbane, unless aircraft activity changes again. That's now set, unless that changes.

Senator GALLACHER: So in the event that there's an incident in the terminal and an incident on an A380, someone has to cut the baby in half and make a decision as to which one to respond to?

Mr Wood : In that situation, but this is all risk assessed through—

Senator GALLACHER: By you.

Mr Wood : Airservices has a very precise risk assessment framework with risk specialists to help us through that work. With the current model in Brisbane the level of risk has not increased.

Senator GALLACHER: And you signed off on that and you're comfortable with Brisbane.

Mr Wood : I haven't signed off on Brisbane. That's been a local matter with the deputy chief to sign off on that change, because the service that we're providing is above what the minimum standard could be.

Senator GALLACHER: But surely ultimately you would have to be comfortable with it.

Mr Wood : If it's a change to a national standard, such as when we review the staffing level of Adelaide and we're going to use that new task-resourcing model, I will certainly need to sign that off. It'll be a change to a national standard. In terms of a change to the operating model against an existing standard at any location, the deputy chief fire officer in charge of that region is accountable for that change.

Senator GALLACHER: Well people are certainly putting it to me that in Brisbane there is an increase in risk and an unacceptable increase in risk. You reject that?

Mr Wood : I do, because—

Senator GALLACHER: That's all right. You reject it; that's fine.

Mr Wood : Yes, I reject it.

Senator GALLACHER: In Adelaide, once again, it's a simple proposition—I don't work at the airport; I travel through it often enough—where people are saying to me that if it goes ahead as a reduction then that will also increase risk and, in the event there is an incident, it will curtail their ability to respond. Do you accept or reject that?

Mr Wood : The risk work needs to determine that, and that's what is underway at the moment. The outcome of the safety work will determine the inputs to go into the staffing level review under the new framework, and that will determine the appropriate level of staff at Adelaide—or any location.

Senator GALLACHER: And you've mentioned that you obviously benchmark your airports, so if Adelaide was to be reduced, who would be next? Anybody, or is there no other airport in that category?

Mr Wood : We review our operations on an ongoing basis. We align our service delivery to the aircraft activity. If aircraft numbers increase and the size of aircrafts increase, generally the service increases. Likewise, if the frequency in number and size of aircraft reduce, that could potentially lead to a reduction. That's how it works.

Senator GALLACHER: That appears slightly contradictory, because obviously Brisbane and Adelaide have increased, but you have reduced.

Mr Harfield : We haven't reduced in Adelaide at all.

Mr Wood : No, we haven't reduced. We have not changed anything in Adelaide.

Senator GALLACHER: You're proposing to reduce it.

Mr Wood : No, we're not 'proposing'; we're doing a review and we'll see—

Senator GALLACHER: Do you want me to show you the memo? I've got a memo that says, 'This is all about saving money on rosters.'

Mr Wood :
That is incorrect. Let me assure you, there are no plans to change the staffing level in Adelaide until we've done a safety review. The outcome of that review, which considers all of the location specific issues, will be fed in our new task resourcing framework, and that will determine the appropriate staffing level during the curfew period

 Of all the members of the RRAT Committee Senator Gallacher seems to have the innate ability
to very quickly cut a swathe through the layers of bureaucratic horse pooh and spin. Shame that to date all his efforts have effectively come to naught... Blush

Electric Blue Harfwit is still there flapping his gums and double chin while collecting a 600K salary and non-KPI'd 80k bonuses for basically being inept and having a very thick skin - UDB!  Dodgy    

MTF...P2   Cool
Reply

ELECTRIC BLUE AND HIS AVERSION TO FOI REQUESTS

“Secret documents reveal toxic threat beneath Sydney Airport”

You have to love how the Government and it’s agencies try their best to hide the truth. Disgusting creatures. From the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh;

https://www.smh.com.au/national/secret-d...50nfn.html

Some extracts as follows;

‘A pool of poisonous water underneath Sydney Airport contains some of the highest levels of toxic firefighting chemicals seen on Australia’s eastern seaboard, according to test results that were buried from the public after they were handed to authorities six years ago’.

And;

‘Over a decade of testing the extent of the contamination footprint has remained shrouded in secrecy’.

And;

Under freedom of information laws the Herald has now obtained a series of confidential reports from Airservices Australia - the government organisation providing firefighting services to airports’.

Perhaps under FOI, the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh could also look into what is buried beneath Bankstown airport, how it was approved, who knew about it, exactly what it is that is buried under it, and why it has been kept hushed up for many years?? I’m sure the local residents would like to know about what eeks in to the Georges River and then their homes every time it floods!!

Tick Tock Miniscule Mc’Do’nothing.
Reply

(12-25-2018, 12:38 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  ELECTRIC BLUE AND HIS AVERSION TO FOI REQUESTS

“Secret documents reveal toxic threat beneath Sydney Airport”

You have to love how the Government and it’s agencies try their best to hide the truth. Disgusting creatures. From the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh;

https://www.smh.com.au/national/secret-d...50nfn.html

Some extracts as follows;

‘A pool of poisonous water underneath Sydney Airport contains some of the highest levels of toxic firefighting chemicals seen on Australia’s eastern seaboard, according to test results that were buried from the public after they were handed to authorities six years ago’.

And;

‘Over a decade of testing the extent of the contamination footprint has remained shrouded in secrecy’.

And;

Under freedom of information laws the Herald has now obtained a series of confidential reports from Airservices Australia - the government organisation providing firefighting services to airports’.

Perhaps under FOI, the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh could also look into what is buried beneath Bankstown airport, how it was approved, who knew about it, exactly what it is that is buried under it, and why it has been kept hushed up for many years?? I’m sure the local residents would like to know about what eeks in to the Georges River and then their homes every time it floods!!

Tick Tock Miniscule Mc’Do’nothing.

For soil contamination for Bankstown Airport see from page 388 - here: https://infrastructure.gov.au/department...OI-log.pdf

Quote:Contamination Investigation – Site 2 (Drover Road)
Bankstown Airport

1 Introduction

Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Jacobs) was commissioned by Bankstown Airport Limited (BAL) to undertake a contamination investigation of the proposed development site known as Site 2, Drover Road (referred to hereinafter as the site) located on a portion of airside land at Bankstown Airport, NSW. Based on information provided by BAL, the footprint of development at the site will occupy an area of approximately 35,000 m2.

The location of the site is presented as Figure 1-2.

This report details the works undertaken during the contamination investigation undertaken at the site, field observations and the sampling results and analysis with an assessment against the limits listed in Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 (the Airport Regulations), Table 1 – areas of an airport generally and those guidelines endorsed by the NEPC National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site
Contamination) Measure 1999 as revised in 2013 (NEPM 2013).

The investigation was undertaken in general accordance with the Jacobs Proposal for Contamination and Geotechnical Investigations – Proposed Sites 1, 2 and 3, Bankstown Airport dated 15 March 2016 and subsequent email for additional sampling dated 16 May 2016 and 9 August 2016.

This report has been generally prepared in general accordance with the requirements specified for a Detailed Site Investigation as detailed in the NSW EPA (1997) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites.

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

TICK TOCK goes the Harfwit Hobart flightpath clock -  Rolleyes

This might start to get a bit messy for the Can'tberra village idiot i.e Dear Old Harfwit?? 

Via the Oz:

Quote:Flight path threat to tourism
[Image: c612d43dd49ba77282a653b69ab2cee2]12:00AM MATTHEW DENHOLM
The success of Matt and Vanessa Dunbabin and their $1.5 million contribution to Tasmania is under threat from a new jet route.




New flight path threatens top-end Tassie tourism



Surveying a wild coast of forested headlands, rocky islands and deserted sandy beaches, Matt and Vanessa Dunbabin contemplate the looming destruction of a dream.

As fifth-generation custodians of a secluded corner of Tasmania’s rugged southeast, the Dunbabins have spent years and at least $1 million diversifying their historic 6000ha Bangor sheep farm into a thriving tourism destination.

However, their stellar success and $1.5m contribution to the local economy is under threat from a new east coast jet arrival route.

Airservices Australia, the airspace agency already under fire for bungling the introduction of new flight paths for burgeoning Hobart Airport, has decided on revisions, including a new east coast jet arrival route.

It would direct flights arriving from Sydney and Brisbane down Tasmania’s east coast, close to Maria Island, before crossing the entire width of the Dunbabins’ expansive property on the Forestier Peninsula.

The couple’s Bangor Vineyard Shed business, a green shoot emerging from the ashes of the region’s catastrophic 2013 bushfires, copped a dramatic increase in aircraft noise from the last flight path revamp, imposed in September 2017.

Airservices’ revised plan now threatens their latest business endeavour — gastronomic, cultural and historical experiences centred on Lagoon Bay involving local chefs, guides and eco-tourism enterprises.

Mr Dunbabin said 15 jets a day would fly about 4000 feet above the bay, where high-end guests pay top dollar to wine, dine and explore the property where Abel Tasman’s expedition hoisted the Dutch flag in 1642.

“Tasman anchored under what will be the new flight path,” he said.

“The business we’ve established out here is so dependent on that immersive, natural experience and the beauty and tranquillity of Lagoon Bay.

“That experience is incompatible with aircraft noise.”

Noise from the existing 45 flights to the property’s west had already affected the experience at their wine and oyster restaurant; now the new flight path threatened to destroy their Lagoon Bay eco-tourism operation.

“We won’t be able to conduct the business there,” Ms Dunbabin said.

Other local tourism businesses also are deeply concerned, including e-mountain bike tour operator Ben Rea, who offers top-end clients experiences at Bangor and Maria Island, which he also believes will be affected.

“The people making the flight path design decisions have been given parameters that include no understanding of what we’re doing here,” Mr Rea said.

Locals say consultation has not appeared genuine, and they have tried unsuccessfully to persuade Airservices bosses, including chief executive Jason Harfield, to visit the area to discover the impact of their decisions. They are “mystified” as to the rationale for the change.

Air­services has argued the redesign is to ameliorate noise impacts, but locals say this argument is Orwellian.

“This actually makes things worse — new people will be directly overflown, and for many the planes will now be right in their face,” said Joe Holmes, of the South East Coast Lifestyle Association.

Airservices said the proposed changes would “optimise the use of Tasmania’s airspace and support the economic growth of the state”.

“This is a complex process that requires us to balance the needs of a range of stakeholders without compromising safety,” a spokeswoman said.

“We believe our proposed flight paths will achieve the best overall outcome for the people of Hobart and Tasmania. We will consider all feedback before introducing the final designs in late 2019.”

However David Patman, of the South East Coast Lifestyle Association, said it appeared Airservices was imposing new standardised departure and arrival flight paths — known as SIDS and STARS — to avoid investing in longer-term solutions to Hobart Airport’s growth.

“Airservices … are trying everything to force a regional airport air traffic management solution on to Hobart,” Dr Patman said.

“Every other capital city and major airport has multiple air traffic control options, including the use of radar. But in Hobart, Airservices want to make SIDs and STARs the only option, so aircraft have to fly extra miles and noise is concentrated all in one area.

“Yet Hobart’s passenger traffic is more than double the federal government’s threshold of one million passengers per year to be upgraded … to a Class C capital city airport, which requires radar.”
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)