Runway 12 departures
Airservices Australia’s 2 year review of its failed implementation of SIDs and STARs at Hobart Airport has created more problems for communities and airlines by splitting jet and light aircraft (‘non-jet’) departures:
Communities in southeast Tasmanian that were wrongly overflown by arrivals are, instead, now overflown by up to 35 jet departures per day during summer
Affected residents and businesses were not consulted about this decision
The noise assessment conducted in reaching the decision was ‘seriously flawed’ according to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and once again routes large passenger jets over communities never previously overflown
The decision unnecessarily adds more than 40km to all jet flights departing Hobart, which equates to $500,000 per year in airline fuel costs, and 1.4 million kg of carbon dioxide discharged into the upper atmosphere
The simple solution to fix this problem is to swap the track taken by jets (‘jet SID’) with the path taken by light aircraft (‘non-jet SID’)
Background
Following its airspace review, Airservices moved the jet departures departing to the south (i.e. on Runway 12) closer to newly overflown communities, even though this option was not canvassed in public consultation sessions. As of November 2019, this path is used by jet aircraft to take off into southerly and easterly winds at Hobart Airport.
The change was made to accommodate a new departure path for light aircraft, known as a ‘non-jet SID’, in the airspace used by all aircraft for 50 years prior to September 2017.
Because Hobart Airport does not have radar, there must be 5 nautical miles horizontal distance between the jet SID and non-jet SIDs.
The effect of this change is to push jet departures back out over the Dunalley and Connelly’s Marsh area, affecting these and other newly overflown communities along the south east coast. Jet aircraft can now be clearly heard and seen from Marion Bay beach. Consequently, the jet SID path is approximately 40km longer than the non-jet SID path.
Why it’s wrong
It’s costly
Airservices has said the non-jet SID will prevent departing light aircraft from delaying jets. However, only two light aircraft per day use the non-jet SID, whereas currently up to 35 jets per day use the jet SID. The jet SID requires an additional 10,000km per week to be flown by commercial operators, compared to the non-jet path. That’s about 35,000kg of jet fuel extra each week over summer, or 455,000kg per year.
It’s noisy
In its final report, Airservices predicted there would be 5 ‘noise events’ per day over 60 decibels on the new SID - yet since implementation departing aircraft measured a minimum of 60dB, with aircraft noise regularly recorded at over 80dB. That’s up to 35 aircraft per day over 60dB - 7 times what Airservices predicted, and enough to exceed its own threshold for conducting a full environmental assessment.
It’s not working
Early indications are that light aircraft are incapable of executing the turn and climb requirements to fly on the non-jet SID, and it appears that air traffic controllers are having to manually direct them in order to avoid collisions with crossing jets on the arrival track from Sydney. Apart from being yet another example of Airservices’ poor design practices, this negates the whole point of SIDs which is to have safe separation ‘built in’, reducing the load on controllers.
It’s unnecessary
With only two light aircraft per day using the non-jet SID (if it actually worked), jets are unlikely to be delayed anyway, so where is the benefit?
What’s required
Airservices must immediately review the operation of the Runway 12 jet and non-jet SIDs on the grounds off safety, efficiency and environmental/noise impact.
It’s clear that a shorter jet SID is easily achievable, e.g. by aligning with the path of the non-jet SID. This would effectively return flight paths to pre-September 2017 locations - which worked safely and efficiently for over 50 years, and with less than one noise complaint per year on average.
If Airservices insists on the seemingly unnecessary complication of having to manage jets and light aircraft departures separately, then swap the jet and non-jet SIDs. This would still reduce noise impact on communities not previously overflown, cut down flight times and reduce fuel burn.
What you can do
Lodge a complaint about the Runway 12 jet SID - we need to let Airservices know this change was implemented without proper consultation or noise assessment processes, and is still an issue. Here's how.
If you don't receive a response in 21 days, escalate your complaint to the ANO. She is aware that our communities were incorrectly treated as previously overflown and your complaints will feed into a broader review she is doing on Airservices' poor consultation practices. The more complaints the better.
If you or family members are tech-inclined, download and collect noise data on departures using this new Explane app. We've been recording between 60dB and 80dB for departures - significantly above the Airservices threshold. The more records we get, the more accurate the data - we'll use this to demonstrate that Airservices noise modelling is incorrect. It's fairly easy: just press the microphone icon, point it at the plane, wait 10 seconds and press submit. See results here - select Australia as the country, choose your 'city' (e.g. Dunalley) then go to pages 3 and 4.)
