QON from the Greens - 
Refer from approx - 42.39:
Okay now refer to the following QON for the Greens to the Dept aviation safety agencies ASA and CASA:
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 227
Portfolio question number: 227
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. What efforts have been made by ASA to consult with the community and affected
stakeholders regarding the design and implementation of new and amended flight
paths for the Sunshine Coast Airport? In particular, What consultation was done?
When? What consultation material was produced and distributed? By whom? Where
were consultation meetings held? How were the locations chosen? Which ASA staff
attended the meetings? What opportunities were provided for the community to ask
questions outside the formal consultation meetings? Is ASA satisfied that the
consultation program met its statutory obligations regarding consultation and its
Communication and Consultation Protocol? I understand that ASA was asked to
investigate why many households in affected communities did not receive
consultation material. Has that investigation been undertaken? What was the outcome,
and what actions were taken in response? What action has ASA taken to respond to
criticisms made by the Airport Noise Ombudsman in relation to poor consultation
practices around the flight path changes proposed for the Hobart Airport?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 228
Portfolio question number: 228
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. The TIEA submitted by ASA to CASA and the Minister does not include any
assessment of the impacts of the announced decommissioning of runways 18/36, and
intensification of use of runway 13/31. Does the ASA propose to submit a revised
TIEA that addresses those significant changes? If so, when? If not, why? The TEIA
does not reference any flight volume scenarios past May 2020. Will a further
assessment be done to account for changes? If so, when? Has ASA investigated a
range of potential flightpaths, or only those proposed in the TEIA? Did ASA invite
any parties, including the public, to nominate alternative flight paths in their
submissions? When assessing potential flight paths, to what extent did ASA have
regard to concerns about public perception raised by the Sunshine Coast Council,
rather than aviation safety, impacts on quarrying activities, or minimisation of
environmental impacts? Was the TEIA prepared in accordance with ASA's National
Operating Standard for Environmental Management of Changes to Aircraft
Operations? In particular, was the TEIA presented to the Minister / Department at an
early enough stage to allow for discussion of options? To what extent is ASA
responsible for assessing environmental risks, such as that presented by flyrock from
the Yandina quarry or the risk to migratory species of flightpaths over significant
wetlands? Why has ASA not restricted use of the shortened curve approach (crossing
the coast at Marcus Beach, over Lake Weyba) to severe weather, as recommended?
Why has ASA designed a Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) on a Required
Navigation Performance (RNP) procedure path which will consistently align all RNP
capable jet aircraft as they make a turn on arrival directly over the quarry site at
approximately 1500 ft?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 229
Portfolio question number: 229
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. CASA has previously advised the public that a quarry site at Yandina Creek had
been subject to a Danger Area application in 2014, but found to pose no threat to
aviation safety at the Sunshine Coast airport. However, documents released under FOI
indicate that no application was ever made or assessed. Following an investigation,
the Queensland Coordinator General asserted in a report that CASA "thinks that the
[Sunshine Coast] airport operations should close during blasting sessions" at the
quarry. Does CASA concede that no Danger Area application was received? Does
CASA intend to take any action to correct the public advice that the quarry had been
assessed and determined not to be a Danger Area? Is it CASA's view that the
Sunshine Coast airport should close during blasting operations at the Yandina Creek
quarry? If not, what was the basis for the Coordinator-General's assertion?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 230
Portfolio question number: 230
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. CASA has proposed to manage the risks posed by the proximity of the quarry to
flight paths by including a plume symbol on the Visual Terrain Chart, but not to avoid
overflights. When determining mitigation measures, did CASA consider the Regular
Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft operations from only the existing north-south
aligned 18/36 runway, or general aviation traffic under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) ?
Was CASA satisfied that the condition regarding the plume symbol was sufficient to
mitigate the risks from the quarry? The assessment documentation refers to the quarry
being 5 nautical miles from the aerodrome, which minimises risks of damage to
aircraft at the aerodrome from flyrock. Does the distance from the aerodrome have
any significance when assessing the risk of damage to aircraft flying over the quarry?
Given the potential risk to overhead aircraft of flyrock from hazardous activities like
blasting, was the quarry operator ever advised to apply for a Restricted Area
declaration? If not, why? The Joint Experts in the quarry operators' planning appeal
recommended an exclusion zone for airspace around the quarry with a 2nm radius up
to an altitude of 3,000ft. Was this information provided to CASA / OAR? If CASA /
OAR received a copy of the Joint Experts' recommendations, what action was taken
in response to the recommendation? Has any independent assessment been made of
blasting impacts and suitable vertical dimension limits for the quarry? If so, who
undertook the assessment/s and what was the outcome of the assessment/s? If no
assessment was made, why not? Does CASA or OAR have any relationship with Mr
Guselli, expert witness for the quarry operator, that could give rise to an actual or
perceived conflict of interest? What consideration has been given to minimising the
risks posed by the quarry by re-designing the flight path? Why has this option not
been pursued?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 231
Portfolio question number: 231
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. What is the current status of negotiations to develop a Blast Management Protocol
for the quarry? Who has been consulted? Has CASA received a copy of a Blast
Management Protocol for review? What is the anticipated timeline for finalising the
Protocol? Will an aeronautical study be undertaken to inform the final Blast
Management Protocol?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 232
Portfolio question number: 232
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. On 30 May 2019, the airport leaseholder, Palisade, published the Airport Master
Plan 2040 announcing the closure of the existing 18/36 runway. That runway was
cited as an additional safety mitigation measure in 2013, and the 2014 EIS
recommended that the runway be retained as an alternate to address operational
efficiency problems and mitigate safety implications posed by blasting activity. Given
the proposal to allow RPT jet flights to directly overfly the quarry on approach to
runways 13 and 31, has CASA reviewed the implications of closing runway 18/36 or
undertaken any fresh risk assessment? The Airspace Change Proposal for the airport
lodged in July 2019 and related EIA did not refer to the proposed decommissioning of
runway 18/36. Why did CASA accept the proposal? Has advice been sought from
CASA regarding Code E aircraft being parked on the southern apron to the east of the
current terminal building, encroaching into 18/36 runway? If so, who sought the
advice? When was the advice sought? What advice was provided? Has advice been
sought from CASA about separation distances between parked Code E aircraft,
taxiways and the runway centre line in relation to the eastern end of runway 13/31? If
so, who sought the advice? When was the advice sought? What advice was provided?
MTF...P2
Refer from approx - 42.39:
Okay now refer to the following QON for the Greens to the Dept aviation safety agencies ASA and CASA:
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 227
Portfolio question number: 227
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. What efforts have been made by ASA to consult with the community and affected
stakeholders regarding the design and implementation of new and amended flight
paths for the Sunshine Coast Airport? In particular, What consultation was done?
When? What consultation material was produced and distributed? By whom? Where
were consultation meetings held? How were the locations chosen? Which ASA staff
attended the meetings? What opportunities were provided for the community to ask
questions outside the formal consultation meetings? Is ASA satisfied that the
consultation program met its statutory obligations regarding consultation and its
Communication and Consultation Protocol? I understand that ASA was asked to
investigate why many households in affected communities did not receive
consultation material. Has that investigation been undertaken? What was the outcome,
and what actions were taken in response? What action has ASA taken to respond to
criticisms made by the Airport Noise Ombudsman in relation to poor consultation
practices around the flight path changes proposed for the Hobart Airport?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 228
Portfolio question number: 228
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. The TIEA submitted by ASA to CASA and the Minister does not include any
assessment of the impacts of the announced decommissioning of runways 18/36, and
intensification of use of runway 13/31. Does the ASA propose to submit a revised
TIEA that addresses those significant changes? If so, when? If not, why? The TEIA
does not reference any flight volume scenarios past May 2020. Will a further
assessment be done to account for changes? If so, when? Has ASA investigated a
range of potential flightpaths, or only those proposed in the TEIA? Did ASA invite
any parties, including the public, to nominate alternative flight paths in their
submissions? When assessing potential flight paths, to what extent did ASA have
regard to concerns about public perception raised by the Sunshine Coast Council,
rather than aviation safety, impacts on quarrying activities, or minimisation of
environmental impacts? Was the TEIA prepared in accordance with ASA's National
Operating Standard for Environmental Management of Changes to Aircraft
Operations? In particular, was the TEIA presented to the Minister / Department at an
early enough stage to allow for discussion of options? To what extent is ASA
responsible for assessing environmental risks, such as that presented by flyrock from
the Yandina quarry or the risk to migratory species of flightpaths over significant
wetlands? Why has ASA not restricted use of the shortened curve approach (crossing
the coast at Marcus Beach, over Lake Weyba) to severe weather, as recommended?
Why has ASA designed a Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) on a Required
Navigation Performance (RNP) procedure path which will consistently align all RNP
capable jet aircraft as they make a turn on arrival directly over the quarry site at
approximately 1500 ft?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 229
Portfolio question number: 229
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. CASA has previously advised the public that a quarry site at Yandina Creek had
been subject to a Danger Area application in 2014, but found to pose no threat to
aviation safety at the Sunshine Coast airport. However, documents released under FOI
indicate that no application was ever made or assessed. Following an investigation,
the Queensland Coordinator General asserted in a report that CASA "thinks that the
[Sunshine Coast] airport operations should close during blasting sessions" at the
quarry. Does CASA concede that no Danger Area application was received? Does
CASA intend to take any action to correct the public advice that the quarry had been
assessed and determined not to be a Danger Area? Is it CASA's view that the
Sunshine Coast airport should close during blasting operations at the Yandina Creek
quarry? If not, what was the basis for the Coordinator-General's assertion?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 230
Portfolio question number: 230
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. CASA has proposed to manage the risks posed by the proximity of the quarry to
flight paths by including a plume symbol on the Visual Terrain Chart, but not to avoid
overflights. When determining mitigation measures, did CASA consider the Regular
Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft operations from only the existing north-south
aligned 18/36 runway, or general aviation traffic under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) ?
Was CASA satisfied that the condition regarding the plume symbol was sufficient to
mitigate the risks from the quarry? The assessment documentation refers to the quarry
being 5 nautical miles from the aerodrome, which minimises risks of damage to
aircraft at the aerodrome from flyrock. Does the distance from the aerodrome have
any significance when assessing the risk of damage to aircraft flying over the quarry?
Given the potential risk to overhead aircraft of flyrock from hazardous activities like
blasting, was the quarry operator ever advised to apply for a Restricted Area
declaration? If not, why? The Joint Experts in the quarry operators' planning appeal
recommended an exclusion zone for airspace around the quarry with a 2nm radius up
to an altitude of 3,000ft. Was this information provided to CASA / OAR? If CASA /
OAR received a copy of the Joint Experts' recommendations, what action was taken
in response to the recommendation? Has any independent assessment been made of
blasting impacts and suitable vertical dimension limits for the quarry? If so, who
undertook the assessment/s and what was the outcome of the assessment/s? If no
assessment was made, why not? Does CASA or OAR have any relationship with Mr
Guselli, expert witness for the quarry operator, that could give rise to an actual or
perceived conflict of interest? What consideration has been given to minimising the
risks posed by the quarry by re-designing the flight path? Why has this option not
been pursued?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 231
Portfolio question number: 231
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. What is the current status of negotiations to develop a Blast Management Protocol
for the quarry? Who has been consulted? Has CASA received a copy of a Blast
Management Protocol for review? What is the anticipated timeline for finalising the
Protocol? Will an aeronautical study be undertaken to inform the final Blast
Management Protocol?
https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...ations.pdf
Question on notice no. 232
Portfolio question number: 232
2019-20 Additional estimates
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications on 9 June 2020—
(1. On 30 May 2019, the airport leaseholder, Palisade, published the Airport Master
Plan 2040 announcing the closure of the existing 18/36 runway. That runway was
cited as an additional safety mitigation measure in 2013, and the 2014 EIS
recommended that the runway be retained as an alternate to address operational
efficiency problems and mitigate safety implications posed by blasting activity. Given
the proposal to allow RPT jet flights to directly overfly the quarry on approach to
runways 13 and 31, has CASA reviewed the implications of closing runway 18/36 or
undertaken any fresh risk assessment? The Airspace Change Proposal for the airport
lodged in July 2019 and related EIA did not refer to the proposed decommissioning of
runway 18/36. Why did CASA accept the proposal? Has advice been sought from
CASA regarding Code E aircraft being parked on the southern apron to the east of the
current terminal building, encroaching into 18/36 runway? If so, who sought the
advice? When was the advice sought? What advice was provided? Has advice been
sought from CASA about separation distances between parked Code E aircraft,
taxiways and the runway centre line in relation to the eastern end of runway 13/31? If
so, who sought the advice? When was the advice sought? What advice was provided?
MTF...P2