It has now been revealed that CASA has rated Hobart Airport as ‘high risk’ following last year’s string of serious safety incidents - see article below from The Weekend Australian.
Airservices has not accurately published our feedback so we ran an ad in the Aviation section of The Australian today
New information appears to show that Airservices pressured consultant Tania Parkes to change her report to suit the outcome it wanted.
A reminder that the submission deadline for Airservices Australia's proposed new Hobart flight paths has been extended to Monday 7 January 2019.
The Hobart flight path review is at a critical point, with the submission period about to close on 7 January 2019.
Unfortunately, Airservices is not prepared to work with community stakeholders to develop workable flight path solutions based on a combination of local knowledge and technical expertise.
The story of Airservices Australia’s so-called community consultation on Hobart flight path changes would be farcical if the impact wasn’t so serious for affected communities.
Finally, after a year long review, and an unexplained 3 month delay, Airservices Australia has released it promised ‘greenfields’ flightpath options for public consultation.
Unfortunately there were no options provided to enable genuine consultation, only a single very complex plan which, underneath, differs little from what was proposed in November 2017.
Airservices has announced it will now not publicly release proposed new flight paths until 31 October 2018, despite announcing in early August that its review was 'on track'. It has cited 'significant community feedback' as the reason for the delay, as well as the flight path design being 'technical and complex'.
We are pleased that Airservices's appears to be finally taking flight path redesign in Hobart seriously, we want to be sure that it really is starting from a 'blank piece of paper' and not simply tinkering with the problematic 'RNP1 SID/STAR system' which has already generated significant safety and efficiency issues, as well as imposing unwanted noise on communities.
Airservices must genuinely consider all the options for Hobart, including a range of flight paths (including visual navigation) to promote efficiency, ground-based navigation for flexibility, and radar surveillance for, safety - just like any other capital city airport.
As mentioned in an earlier post, implementation of SIDs and STARs in Hobart generated a large spike in safety incidents where arrival and depature paths cross at about 7000ft over the town of Richmond. Aircraft flight management systems were unable to meet the altitudes specified in the design, creating a serious hazard with many breaches and at least three 'loss of separation' incidents.
According to an article in The Australian, residents of Dunalley and Murdunna are taking Airservices Australia to court over the implementation of flight paths. They allege that safety was not Airservices's first priority as it claimed, because the decision was driven solely by the need to move a navigation beacon to accommodate runway works at Hobart Airport and key safety implications were not considered.