2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021

Estimates of government expenditure are referred to Senate committees as part of the annual budget cycle. This opportunity to examine the operations of government plays a key role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. One of the most significant features of the procedure for examining estimates is the opportunity that senators have to question officers of the public service directly. BFPCA has engaged the Australian Parliament’s Senate Estimates process to hold the government to account for Brisbane Airport’s excessive noise pollution experienced by Brisbane residents.

BFPCA is grateful to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for asking the following questions. BFPCA also thank the offices of various Senators named below for their support in tabling these questions.

On this page we publish video recordings and document answers provided to Questions on Notice (QoN). These written answers can also be retrieved from the Senate’s website.

On this page:

• Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023 (25 Nov 2022)
• Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023 (31 March 2022)
• Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022 (14 Feb 2022)

Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023

📺 Video recordings: Airservices; hearing date: 25 November 2022

Video Part 1 of 3

Video Part 2 of 3

Video Part 3 of 3

Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices

196. Marketing promotion and communication for workshops – 10 to 15 September 2022

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: No, I don’t think so. I would like to know what the marketing promotion and communication was for those 10 to 15 September workshops, because my feedback is that, unless you knew somebody that was in the know, you didn’t know it was on. What budget and resources had been allocated and spent on advertising and promoting the community workshops?
Mr Curran: I will take that on notice.
Senator McKENZIE: Do you have that detail?
Mr Curran: I don’t have the numbers for that.
Senator McKENZIE: It’s Senate estimates; we like to know how much you have spent on things. On notice, then, I want all ad copies placed in print, radio, TV or digital media channels and how much money was spent on all of those. Is it the case that you only advertised these workshops on your registration-only Engage Airservices website?
Mr Curran: No, that’s not the case, but I’ll take that on notice with the other two questions
you have asked me to take on notice.

Answer:

a) The Post Implementation Review (PIR) has been ongoing since July 2021 receiving extensive media attention as demonstrated below:

• In the year prior to the sessions (1 August 2021 to 30 September 2022) over 1,200 social media and editorial articles were recorded
• At the release of the Trax International final report on 22 August 2022, 95 social media and editorial articles were recorded
• At the release of the community workshop dates on 25 August 2022, 10 social media and editorial articles were recorded
• The PIR was also being actively monitored and promoted by community groups and members of parliament.

b) Three major media outlets that have consistently reported on the Brisbane PIR were notified by media release of the September 2022 workshop sessions (Brisbane Times, The Courier-Mail, Australian Aviation).

c) 11 media articles appeared in September 2022 discussing the PIR recommendations, including an extended ABC Radio interview on Mornings with Rebecca Levingston, with a total audience reach of 34,000. As a result of the extensive outreach, it was determined that paid advertising was not required.

d) Other channels used to promote the workshops include:

• Engage Airservices alerts to approximately 1,800 registered users
• Briefings to 3 members of parliament, as well as correspondence to 14 members of arliament/senators in August 2022 requesting that they share workshop details with constituents
• Update to Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) to advise of the workshop program. This followed agreement with BFPCA’s President that Airservices would advise the release of new information so BFPCA could share with their network
• Update to Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group on 6 September 2022 which includes eight Federal and State members of parliament.

e) Three full day drop-in engagement sessions were hosted in November 2022 to enable more detailed discussion of the draft PIR report

• 83 social and editorial articles were recorded over the November 2022 period, peaking at 30 articles at the time of release of the dates and locations of the sessions and a further 15 at the time of the last session
• Briefings held with three members of parliament post the workshops.

197. Number of complaints regarding aircraft noise at Brisbane Airport

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

How many complaints has your team received between 12 July 2020 and now about the aircraft noise at Brisbane Airport?

Answer: The Noise Complaints and Information Services (NCIS) received 14,019 complaints and enquiries from 2,956 complainants between 12 July 2020 and 31 October 2022. The table below provides a breakdown of the number of contacts by month.

Airservices notes that the complaints and enquiries data for the period 12 July 2020 to 28 February 2022 has been retrospectively updated. The complaints and enquiries database is dynamic and minor changes can occur as in-progress complaints and reviews are completed. This has resulted in minor variations with the data in the response to Committee Question Number 108 (SQ22-000252) from the 2021-2022 Additional Estimates hearing (see below). The updated data shows that the Noise Complaints and Information Services (NCIS) received 9,733 complaints and enquiries from 2,095 complainants between 12 July 2020 and 28 February 2022.

236. Key messages document

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

The “Key Messages” document discussed with Senator Allman-Payne at estimates on 28 November 2022 notes Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) can reduce noise by increasing “over the bay” operations at night. What work is being done to achieve that at Brisbane airport?

The draft PIR report does not include any quantification of the anticipated positive benefits of proposed measures. Please outline the anticipated measure of associated net noise level reduction and/or net flight number reduction for each proposed measures (using absolute numbers of flights, rather than percentages).

The Key Messages document says that “movements along the east coast of Australia are set to double over the next 20-30 years.” What information is that projection based on? Does it account for any reduction in flights as fuel costs rise, or the future availability of high-speed rail?

Answer: Airservices, as part of the Brisbane Airport New Parallel Runway Post Implementation Review (PIR), has identified several opportunities related to Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS). These include developing an Air Traffic Control (ATC) Operating Plan to examine options to extend the use of SODPROPS and implement associated design enhancements. This will also include examining opportunities to improve over-the-water departure paths that fly over communities after they cross the coastline to increase height, maintain over water for longer or travel further east.

Airservices is currently trialling the extension of SODPROPS operations from 6am to 8am on Saturday and Sunday mornings, and on Saturday evenings from 8pm to 10pm, when weather conditions allow. Please refer to Committee Number 240 (SQ22-000836) from the 2022-23 Budget Estimates hearings for data on the increased use of SODPROPS and aircraft directed over the water.

To reduce the limitations on SODPROPS due to weather conditions, Airservices has applied to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for an exemption to the Manual of Standards Part 172 – Air Traffic Services, to increase the tailwind nomination criteria for SODPROPS at Brisbane Airport from 5 knots to 7 knots.

Airservices is not able to provide the anticipated measure of associated net noise level reduction or net flight number reduction for each proposed measure as no changes have been proposed in tracks, nor have the noise and change in aircraft numbers been predicted based on seasonal weather conditions.

The aircraft movements forecast for the next 20-30 years is outlined in the Executive Summary of Brisbane Airport’s 2020 Masterplan, which can be accessed at: https://www.bne.com.au/sites/default/files/docs/Brisbane-Airport-2020-Master-Plan_0.pdf

237. Flight numbers and projections

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

The number of flights experienced by Brisbane residents significantly exceeds the daily flight numbers specified in the EIS for the parallel runway. The draft PIR report makes no mention of the anticipated increase in flight numbers associated with Airservices’ aggressive growth strategy including Airservices’ support for BAC’s recently announced third airport terminal. Given that Airservices has estimated the growth in flights associated with the establishment of a third terminal in order to plan and design for the implications on the Brisbane airspace, please provide information regarding the volume and routing of the anticipated flight numbers:

• Predicted in the 2007 MDP/EIS
• In November 2022
• Projected for 2027
• Projected for full capacity during the 2032 Olympics.

Answer: Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) developed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Major Development Plan (MDP) as part of its approval process for the New Parallel Runway (NPR) project. Table 2.4d in Chapter A2 of the EIS/MDP provides aircraft movement forecasts at 5 yearly intervals for 2004-05 to 2034-35, which were prepared by BAC. The EIS/MDP documents can be accessed on BAC’s website at: https://www.bne.com.au/corporate/projects/bne-projects/completed-projects/brisbanes-new-runway/planning

Actual aircraft data taken from Airservices’ Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System (NFPMS) indicates there has been 170,000 movements between November 2021 to October 2022.

The Brisbane Airport 2020 Master Plan provides annual aircraft movement forecasts for the years 2018-2019 to 2040-41. These forecasts were developed by BAC prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and prior to the announcement of the host city for the 2032 Olympics. Updated forecasts will be required for the Brisbane Airport 2025 Master Plan. The Brisbane Airport 2020 Master Plan can be accessed on BAC’s website at: https://www.bne.com.au/sites/default/files/docs/Brisbane-Airport-2020-Master-Plan_0.pdf

Aircraft will use the same runways and flight paths as current aircraft subject to the changes made in response to PIR recommendations, which will consider flight path routing as part of the design process. The Flight Path Design Principles guide Airservices Australia’s design, development and decision-making regarding flight paths. The Principles can be accessed on Airservices’ website at: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Airservices-Flight-Path-Design-Principles.pdf

238. Retirement Incentive Scheme

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Airservices introduced a Retirement Incentive Scheme (RIS) in 2021 for employees between 56 and 65. Please provide a table outlining how many employees have left the organisation since Oct 2021, including their role, years with AA, and whether they left as part of the RIS.

What was the total cost of the RIS?

How many of the positions / work functions that left since Oct 2021 have been re-advertised by Airservices?

How will Airservices meet the workforce demands for more ATCs, support staff and especially experienced senior flight path designers required to implement the measures Airservices has adopted in the Brisbane draft PIR report?

Answer:

a. Table 1 shows how many employees departed Airservices between 1 October 2021 and 8 December 2022, their role, whether they left as part of the RIS, and length of service.

Table 1: Employee departures 1 October 2021 – 8 December 2022

b. The total cost of the RIS was $58 million.

c. The RIS offered an incentive to eligible operational employees aged 56 years or older as at 30 June 2021 and expected to retire within the next three years, to bring forward their retirement date. The RIS allowed Airservices to focus our operational recruitment pipeline on the anticipated loss of skill due to retirement, and to employ, train and develop new recruits in time for the projected return of air traffic, whilst recovering the overall operating costs from accrued employee benefit liabilities at a time of significantly reduced revenue due to the pandemic.

The roles of employees who departed Airservices over the period October 2021 – 8 December 2022 via:

• voluntary redundancy have not been advertised as these roles are no longer required or did not meet new capability requirements
• resignation or other exits have been advertised where required.

d. Recruitment for roles to maintain required staffing levels to meet service requirements is undertaken as part of Airservices’ overall workforce management. Airservices is fully compliant with staffing requirements nationally to ensure the safety of airlines, airports and the travelling public.

239. Noise investigations

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

How many noise improvement investigations has the NCIS team conducted anywhere in Australia for any airport annually since 2018?

Answer: Nil

240. SODPROPS Procedures

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Following on from Airservices’ response to QoN #65 SODPROPS procedures (Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023 – 31 March 2022), please provide: 

• the current documentation guiding ATCs in Brisbane comprising “triggers, capacity considerations and time required to change to SODPROPs from other modes” 
• the improved version Airservices suggested it would have released by June 2022 (if not released, please provide an updated timeframe for release) 
• data on the actual improvements to the occurrence of SODPROPS as a measure of time (not percentages) since these new guidelines have been released. 

Answer: 

The documentation which sets out the modes of operation at Brisbane Airport includes: 

Brisbane Enroute Supplement Australia (ERSA) https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/FAC_YBBN_01DEC2022.pdf 

Departure and Approach Procedures (DAP) https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/AeroProcChartsTOC.htm#B 

Temporary Local Instruction TLI_22_0151: Trial of Expanded SODPROPS use was published on 8 July 2022 to clarify roles and responsibilities and support decision-making for Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) mode selection at Brisbane. The SODPROPS extension of hours trial and TLI_22_0151 are reviewed 3 monthly to ensure the ongoing safety of operations. The last review occurred on 10 November 2022 where Airservices reaffirmed air traffic services were provided in accordance with acceptably safe practices. A copy of TLI_22_0151 is at Attachment A. 

Use of SODPROPS increased by 137 hours in the four months following the release of TLI_22_0151 (528 hours between 9 July 2022 and 9 November 2022, versus 391 hours between 9 March 2022 and 8 July 2022). This resulted in an additional 799 aircraft movements being directed over the water (3,664 movements between 9 July 2022 and 9 November 2022, versus 2,665 movements between 9 March 2022 and 8 July 2022).

247. Recommendations released by Post Implementation Review (PIR)

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Airservices Australia advised on 31 August 2022 that they “will adopt all recommendations in the recently released Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR) Independent Review Final Report by Trax International (Trax).” What budget and resources are required and have been allocated to each of the four proposed work packages and over what time frame? How will Airservices resource the additional work required to adopt and implement all the recommendations?

Answer: Airservices Australia’s (Airservices) Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR) Final Report, which addresses all Trax International recommendations, includes a number of recommendations to develop options. These options will need to be consulted with the community and other stakeholders and will determine the work required and therefore cost associated to implement the specific options. Airservices has initially allocated $15 million to the project as part of Airservices investment program. The timeframe for implementation is: Package One Q3/Q4 2022, Package Two 2023, Package Three 2024 and Package Four 2025.

Airservices is committed to progressing all the recommendations of the PIR. A Project Management Office (PMO) with a dedicated Project Manager to oversee and coordinate the implementation of all the recommendations is being stood up which will determine total resourcing required for the project. Further information can be provided to the Senate Committee once the PMO is established. The PMO will be established by end Q1 2023.

249. TRAX recommendations

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

In Senate Estimates 22 March 2021, Airservices referred to flight path design as their “bread and butter.” Why did Airservices fail to implement ANY of the TRAX recommendations for noise mitigation and abatements when the new airspace was launched on 12 July 2020?

Why did Airservices have to spend $590,450 (GST exclusive) on these external consultants just to be told of recommendations that should be your “bread and butter” – as you say – in the first place? How does Airservices justify this expenditure as value for taxpayers?

Answer: The New Parallel Runway (NPR) opened on 12 July 2020, introducing new flight paths to accommodate parallel runway operations. In accordance with Airservices’ National Operating Standard, Post Implementation Reviews (PIR) are conducted 12 months after airspace and flight path changes to confirm actual noise and aircraft operations.

Airservices held initial workshops with the community to determine the PIR Terms of Reference in October 2021. The Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum (BAPAF) was established on 24 September 2021. As a result of feedback from the community workshops held in 2021 and BAPAF recommending an independent third party review, in January 2022, Airservices engaged Trax International (Trax) to conduct an independent review to make improvement recommendations across all aspects of the design and conduct of Airservices PIR of Brisbane’s airspace.

Trax’s engagement provided Airservices and stakeholders with the confidence that all noise improvement opportunities had been considered and the outcomes were safe, feasible and balanced. Community feedback of the appointment of an internationally experienced independent third party was favourable.

Given that Trax was appointed after the opening of the new runway its recommendations were unable to be considered in the airspace design and commissioning of the new parallel runway at Brisbane Airport in 2020.

250. Complaints and inquiries relating to aircraft noise at Brisbane Airport

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

How many complaints and inquiries relating to aircraft noise at Brisbane Airport has the Noise Complaints and Information Services (NCIS) team received between 12 July 2020 and now? Please provide a monthly breakdown of the number of complaints received online, by phone, and by post, and list the suburbs in which the complainants live.

Answer: The Noise Complaints and Information Services (NCIS) has received 14,019 complaints and inquiries from 2,956 complainants between 12 July 2020 and 31 October 2022. One complainant submitted more than 1,000 of these complaints, and another 20 complainants submitted more than 100 complaints each.

Attachment A provides a break-down of the number of contacts by the contact methods of online, phone and post that relate to Brisbane Airport.

Attachment B lists the suburbs of complainants that have contacted NCIS in relation to Brisbane Airport.

251. NCIS for Brisbane Airport

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

In response to the answer received to QoN #109 (Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022), Airservices states that, “there have been no noise improvement suggestions submitted to the NCIS for Brisbane Airport to date.” – This is factually incorrect. Community complaint submissions to the NCIS have included recommendations for noise improvements including calling for an airspace redesign, a curfew, a Brisbane Long-Term Operating Plan, and increasing the time period that SODPROPS are in use.

1. Why has the NCIS team not followed its own procedures, which state that, “if we identify any noise improvement opportunities in the course of our investigation we will see to influence and persuade the relevant parties to implement this solution”?
2. Section 4.3 of the NCIS procedures states that, “Noise improvement investigations will be documented in an Investigation Report.” – How many noise improvement investigations has the NCIS team conducted anywhere in Australia for any airport annually between 2018 and now. Please provide a table outlining the Investigation Report identification number, airspace, nature of the improvement investigation, the outcome of the investigation, and the impact on noise abatement / amelioration / minimisation to date.

Answer: Airservices undertakes noise improvement investigations in different parts of our organisation, depending on the scope and complexity of the suggested improvement. Some improvement suggestions will come via the Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS), while others may be requested through Community Aviation Consultation Groups (CACGs), be identified through Post Implementation Reviews (PIRs), or be requested direct to our operations or community engagement teams. As a part of our continuous improvement process, we are currently reviewing the NCIS procedures manual.

All noise improvement suggestions received by the NCIS for Brisbane were forwarded to the Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR) team for their consideration and inclusion in community engagement.

In response to question 5.1 this reference to NCIS procedures is related to aircraft activities outside controlled airspace, where Airservices has no authority to change operations. The relevant section of the NCIS procedure states:

3.3.4 Activities outside controlled airspace

While we also manage contacts about aircraft noise-related issues that occur outside controlled airspace, Airservices has no powers to require solutions to be implemented in relation to such contacts. If we identify any noise improvement opportunities in the course of our investigation we will seek to influence and persuade the relevant parties to implement this solution.

In response to question 5.2, since 2018, Airservices has conducted 17 noise improvement investigations. The NCIS has not conducted the investigations due to nature of the operations which require specialist expertise, for example qualified flight path designers to implement.

In addition, Airservices has conducted PIRs in four locations. All complaints, suggested noise improvements and general feedback received by the NCIS for locations subject to PIRs is provided to the PIR project team.

252. QoN #119 on ACP 047-19

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

In response to the answer received to QoN #119 (Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022), CASA tabled ACPs submitted by Airservices and reviewed by CASA OAR since 2019. Please provide a detailed explanation in lay terms of why “an incorrect holding pattern direction for inbound aircraft to Brisbane” had to be fixed in ACP 047-19, and what “oversight associated with the new parallel runway project” had to be corrected with ACP 065-20? What were the safety implications and risk assessments of these flaws and oversights for Brisbane residents and passengers prior to the identification of these issues?

Answer: Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) 047-19 was submitted to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to change the name of the holding pattern from ‘Gold Coast Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range (VOR)’ to ‘GOMOL waypoint’ and the associated routes connected with this holding pattern. The holding pattern is approximately 94 kilometres from Brisbane Airport after aircraft pass through Gold Coast Airport airspace. The flight procedure was updated when a coding issue for flight management systems was identified. To minimise the risk of incorrect interpretation of the holding pattern an ACP was submitted to CASA. The holding patterns are above 10,000 ft (3 kms) above ground level.

The Brisbane Airport new parallel runway (NPR) project meant areas of Brisbane airspace were extended to ensure the Brisbane Airport NPR flight paths were within controlled airspace. This created an overlap with military restricted areas within Brisbane airspace.

ACP 065-20 was submitted to CASA to remove the overlap of the military restricted areas by reducing the height of the military restricted areas to be below the Brisbane Airport NPR flight paths. There were no safety implications for Brisbane residents as a result of ACP 047-19 or ACP 065-20.

Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023

Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices

63. Trax International Interim Report publication

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Airservices released the Trax Interim Report on its website on 1st April 2022, and then quickly removed the press release and report the same day. However, two media outlets ran the story anyway. (https://www.miragenews.com/airservices-releases-trax-interimreport-756060/ and https://www.nationaltribune.com.au/airservices-releases-trax-interimreport/) What happened here? Why was the press release and report removed from the website?

Answer: Airservices was preparing to release the Trax International Interim Report as well as Airservices response to the Report while coordinating with relevant stakeholders, including the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and the Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum (BAPAF). The Report was inadvertently published on Friday 1 April 2022 prior to finalising stakeholder consultation and was re-published on Monday 4 April 2022, unchanged.

64. Trax International Interim Report recommendations

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

As a result of this temporary release on 1st April 2022, the document “Airservices Implementation Approach to Trax International Interim Report, March 2022” has been publicly cached by Google. It shows that there are 49 noise improvement opportunities that Trax identified. Can you please justify for each of the 49 recommendations why Airservices decided not to introduce such measures when the new airspace was launched on 12 July 2020?

What budget has been allocated to carry out and implement these 49 Trax recommendations, and over what timeframe?

Answer: Trax International (Trax) was engaged by Airservices in December 2021 to provide an independent assessment of the Brisbane New Parallel Runway Post Implementation Review (PIR). Airservices has committed to examining all operationally safe and feasible opportunities which provide an overall net benefit and are supported by the community and stakeholders. The Trax Interim Report and the Airservices Implementation Approach can be accessed at: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/airservices-releases-trax-interim-report/.

The design of Brisbane airspace was undertaken between 2007-2019 and based on pre-pandemic air traffic forecasts. The operation of Brisbane Airport and its airspace has been significantly impacted by the effects of COVID-19 resulting in unexpected traffic patterns, aircraft types and noise impacts. Airservices is currently undertaking the PIR to identify improvement opportunities subject to community and industry consultation. Airservices is also progressing a range of near-term improvement opportunities, including nine identified in the Trax Interim Report.

The implementation of changes will be funded as part of regular operating budget and no fixed budget has been allocated. The timeframe will be determined following the receipt of the final report from Trax and engagement with community, industry and government stakeholders on the feasibility of implementing options identified within the report.

65. SODPROPS procedures

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Trax recommendation #8 suggests that the instructions to air traffic controllers in Brisbane for the operation of SODPROPS are currently not “clear and unambiguous,” and recommendation #9 indicates that there are no proper “decision-making criteria for the use of SODPROPS.”

• Why has Airservices not provided clear and unambiguous instructions right from the start?
• Why has Airservices not provided decision-making criteria for the use of SODPROPS?
• Considering that BAC and Airservices conveyed an expectation to Brisbane residents in the 2007 MDP/EIS and associated community engagement that SODPROPS would be the number 1 priority mode, will Airservices now install performance and decision-making criteria to significantly increase the time period that SODPROPS are in use?

Answer: In the Trax International Interim Report, improvement opportunities are identified in relation to instructions for the use of SODPROPS.

The report identifies an improvement opportunity to consolidate documentation to assist both pilots and air traffic controllers on the triggers, capacity considerations and time required to change to SODPROPs from other modes. In relation to SODPROPs decisionmaking criteria, the report does not identify that decision-making criteria do not exist, it identifies that these criteria could be further enhanced to support decision-making. Airservices supports these improvement opportunities.

A continuous improvement approach to documentation and procedures is consistent with the Airservices Safety Management System, and work is underway to implement documentation improvements by June 2022 as outlined in the Implementation Approach published on the Airservices website.

66. Brisbane Airport Flight Path Changes Post Implementation Review

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Why is Airservices spending money on a lengthy review that only prolongs people’s suffering rather than implementing the missing noise abatement procedures that have been suggested to Airservices since July 2020 by the community, airlines and air traffic controllers?

Answer: Post Implementation Reviews (PIRs) of flight paths and airspace are considered best practice and inform future change considerations and decision-making, and identify potential opportunities to improve noise outcomes or operational efficiency.

Airservices is currently undertaking work on Noise Abatement Procedures requiring aircraft to remain on the standard instrument departure path until they reach 10,000 feet and will explore further opportunities through the PIR.

67. Independent flight path review consultant selection

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

In response to the answer received to QoN #105 (Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022), Airservices confirmed that Trax International was engaged by Airservices on 20 December 2021.

• How many other consultants were considered for this contract?
• Who were they?
• How were they identified?
• What were the reasons they were not chosen for this contract?
• When and how was this contract publicised to prospective tenderers?
• Was this opportunity published on the AusTender website?

Answer: Please refer to Committee Question Number 105 from the 2021-2022 Additional Estimates hearing (SQ22-000249) regarding the engagement of Trax International. Trax International was engaged via a limited tender procurement process. Consistent with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules limited tenders are not required to be published on the AusTender website.

69. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Major Development Plan (EIS/MDP) Ministerial conditions for Brisbane Airport New Parallel Runway

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

In compliance with s160 of the EPBC Act, Airservices wrote to the Minister for the Environment on 27/05/2005 notifying that airspace management associated with Brisbane Airport’s new runway will have a significant impact on the environment (EPBC 2005/2144).

Please provide a copy of the ministerial approval conditions that were imposed on Airservices by the Minister for the Environment Malcolm Turnbull on 12/09/2007 as well as the Final Assessment Report issued 04/12/2007.

Please detail when and how Airservices met its ministerial conditions under EPBC 2005/2144 pertaining to “taking into account options to mitigate noise impacts outlined in the draft Environmental Impact Statement and Major Development Plan (EIS/MDP) and supplement, and validation of the uncertainties inherent in the forecasts when conducting the safety case and environmental assessment of the proposal, prior to operation of the New Parallel Runway.” (see Department of Infrastructure & Transport FOI 22-146 released 18/02/2022)

Answer: Please refer to Committee Question Number 76 from the 2022 – 23 Budget Estimates hearing (SQ22-000445) for Conditions of Approval for the New Parallel Runway Major Development Plan.

The Final Assessment Report is held by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Airservices does not hold a copy.

Airservices met its ministerial conditions relating to noise impacts through the finalised airspace design for Brisbane Airport which included endorsement of noise modelling assumptions in the Brisbane New Parallel Runway Airspace Design: Noise Footprint Comparison to the 2007 Environmental Impact Statement and Major Development Plan (May 2018).

70. Development of a Long Term Operating Plan for Brisbane

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Further to the answer received to QoN #107 (Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022 – see attached), why has Airservices not voluntarily developed an LTOP for Brisbane, rather than waiting for a Ministerial direction?

Answer: Airservices will consider all safe and feasible opportunities for noise improvements as part of the Brisbane Airport Flight Path Design Post Implementation Review, including a Long Term Operating Plan, which would need to be consulted with Brisbane Airport, the airlines, relevant government agencies and the community. In addition, Airservices engaged Trax International to provide an independent assessment and recommendations which will further inform improvement opportunities. Airservices’ PIR Report will be published in October 2022 and will propose improvements for how Brisbane Airport and the airspace will operate in the long term.

Currently, the operation of Brisbane Airport and its airspace is in accordance with relevant ministerial approvals provided under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Airports Act 1996.

71. Feedback received on the Standard Arrival Vertical Navigation (STAR VNAV)

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

In response to the answer received to QoN #112 (Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022 – see attached), Airservices states that it “has received feedback regarding the efficiency of the Standard Arrival Vertical Navigation (STAR VNAV) profiles” from major airlines. What feedback has been received? Please table airline name providing feedback, date, a summary of their feedback, and Airservices’ response.

Answer: During November and December 2021, Airservices received feedback from the major airlines (Qantas Group, Virgin Australia, Alliance Airlines) regarding the efficiency of the Standard Arrival Vertical Navigation (STAR VNAV) procedures at Brisbane Airport. The feedback primarily related to:

• the height requirement to cross between 7000 and 5000 feet at both DAYBO and TAPUL waypoints as part of the Runway 01L MORBI STAR procedure
• the 230-knot speed restriction at PAMBU waypoint that could lead to difficulty in meeting the subsequent height requirement at ATRAX waypoint
• the height requirement at VATRO waypoint (cross at 3000 feet) on the Runway 01R TEBOT/UGTUG ALPHA STAR procedures (from the north east)
• the ‘ESNAV’ waypoint at or below 8000 feet requirement resulting in a flat profile for the remainder of the SMOKA 9A Runway 01L/R STAR procedure.

As part of the Post Implementation Review (PIR) process, Airservices is conducting a holistic review of the design of all STAR procedures at Brisbane to balance industry need for efficiency, safety and environmental performance with community noise outcomes.

Answers to Questions on Notice: CASA

72. Review of flight designations

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Under the Airspace Regulations 2007, s15 CASA is obliged to review any designations of air routes and airways under s11 at least once in each period of five years.

• Are flight path designations that are a result of CASA approved ACPs considered an instrument under section 15?
• Does the five year period commence with the ACP approval date?
• Has CASA already scheduled these reviews for the Brisbane ACPs that were approved on 31/10/2018 and 26/08/2019?
• How are these reviews conducted, that is, what noise minimisation criteria are being considered by these reviews as required by the Australian Airspace Policy Statement?
• How can the public provide input into these reviews?

Answer: Under subregulation 11 (1) of the Airspace Regulations 2007, the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) may, in writing, designate air routes and airways in Australian-administered
airspace.

On 30 May 2013, CASA ceased designating air routes and airways, as Australian air routes are better described in Airservices Australia’s Designated Airspace Handbook. CASA did not designate any air route or airways as a result of the Brisbane Airspace Change Proposals (ACP) that were approved on 31 October 2018 and 26 August 2019.

73. Airspace Change Proposal stakeholder consultation

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

In response to the answer received to QoN #121 (Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022 – see attached), CASA states that it “conducted its own consultation on the three ACPs mentioned above in accordance with CASA’s standard ACP processes.” For each of the Brisbane ACPs approved on 29/10/2018, 26/08/2019, 24/10/2019, and 04/12/2020:

• Who did CASA consult? When?
• What noise minimisation was factored into these consultations as required by the Civil Aviation Act 1988, s9A(2) and the Australian Airspace Policy Statement? What were the outcomes of these consultations

Answer: In response to Committee Question Number 120 (see Attachment A), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) provided a list of eight Airspace Change Proposals (ACPs) received by CASA since 1 January 2019 relating to Brisbane Airport airspace. CASA provided further information about the consultation process for these specific ACPs in Committee Question Number 121 (see Attachment B).

29 October 2018 (ACP045-18 – OP18/278): CASA did not conduct its own consultation on this ACP, as Airservices Australia (Airservices) undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken.

The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise. The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise minimisation.

26 August 2019 (amendment to ACP045-18 – OP18/278): CASA did not conduct its own consultation for the amendment of ACP045-18, approved on 26 August 2019, as Airservices undertook consultation with airspace users and the community. CASA was satisfied with the documentation Airservices provided to
demonstrate adequate consultation was undertaken. During Airservices’ Stakeholder Engagement Program, CASA requested that Airservices conduct further consultation with specific airspace user groups.

The CASA Environmental Specialist reviewed documents including the Airservices produced Environmental Assessments, the 2007 EIS/MDP and the above consultation. CASA concluded the obligations of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 s9A(2) had been satisfied and no changes were made as a result. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise. The Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018 did not require consideration of noise minimisation.

24 October 2019 (ACP047-19 – OP19/273): As this ACP included editorial changes only, consultation was limited to CASA, Airservices and Defence. The only change associated with Brisbane was a name change for a waypoint to comply with an ICAO obligation. The location, nature, function, and use of the waypoint were not changed.

CASA determined that the above editorial change of name did not require further environmental assessment and did not consult on noise minimisation.

4 December 2020 (ACP065-20 – OP20/325): On 13 November 2020, CASA wrote to nearby airspace users: Archerfield Airport, Redcliff Aeroclub, Moreton Bay Council, Basair, and Pathfinder Aviation, seeking their feedback on the Aviation State Engagement Forum (AvSEF) consultation and inviting comment. No responses were received. CASA also conducted consultation with airspace users through the AvSEF between 17 and 25 November 2020. Two responses were received. One was a question which was answered, and the other was an indication of no objection.

CASA determined that the above minor corrections to two existing Danger Areas were required to reduce the likelihood infringements of controlled airspace. As the changes were directly related to ACP045-18, and should have been included in that ACP, CASA relied on its previous assessment. CASA did not explicitly consult about aircraft noise in this instance.

Answers to Questions on Notice: Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

74. Climate change impact assessment

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

The recent extreme flooding events in Brisbane resulted in delays and disruptions. Due to flooding of the runway access taxiways, the legacy runway had to be closed and all traffic pushed onto the new runway, leading to significant noise.

What post-event impact assessment is the Department conducting to improve these situations in the future?

Answer: Brisbane Airport Corporation, as the operator of Brisbane Airport, is responsible for determining whether any post-event impact assessment would be required following the extreme flooding event experienced in Brisbane in late February and early March 2022.

75. New modelling regarding impacts of flood events

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

The modelling of sea level rises in the MDP/EIS for the New Parallel Runway dates back to prior to its 2007 approval. Has more recent modelling been done to ascertain impacts on the two runways of more frequent flood events? If so, please provide that modelling.

Have any climate change adaptation measures been planned as a result of modelling?

Answer: The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications is not aware of any recent modelling on the impact of flooding on Brisbane Airport runways.

76. 2007 MDP/EIS validity and extension

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

• Please table the original 2007 conditions that were attached to the runway development for both the MDP under the Airports Act and the EIS under the EPBC Act and associated legislation.
• Please list any variations or amendments applied for and / or approved to the MDP after its original 2007 approval?
• Was the MDP/EIS’s validity period extended at any time after its original 2007 approval? If so, why? What assessment occurred to justify an extension? Who approved the extension?

Answer:

• The requested documents are attached as follows: Attachment A – Decision on controlled action – EPBC – 2007 09 13 and Attachment B – Conditions of Approval NPR MDP 2007
• A Minor Variation to the New Parallel Runway Project Major Development Plan was approved by the then-Minsiter for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, on 8 February 2011 under section 95(2) of the Airports Act 1996. The variation related to a realignment of the Kedron Brook Floodway Drain.
• No.

Additional Estimates 2021 / 2022

📺 Video recording: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications; hearing date: 14 February 2022

Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices

78. Noise Monitors

Senator Tony Sheldon asked:

Senator SHELDON: I just want to ask a question regarding the noise monitors. Is there an intention to install permanent noise monitors in Balmoral, Hawthorne, Northgate and Wavell Heights? This is regarding Brisbane Airport.
Mr Harfield: I’ll ask Mr Curran to answer that specifically.
Mr Curran: At this stage, there’s no decision been taken to install new permanent noise monitors. There are a range of temporary noise monitors that have been deployed across Brisbane during the PIR—post-implementation review.
Senator SHELDON: The temporary ones are at Balmoral, Hawthorne, Northgate and Wavell Heights—is that correct?
Mr Curran: A number have been deployed, and certainly Balmoral was one. I’d have to take it on notice to confirm exact locations, but I believe there are a couple of other locations further away from Brisbane Airport that are being looked at as well.

Answer: Airservices has temporary noise monitors in place at Bardon, Carina, Hamilton, and New Farm. An additional temporary noise monitor currently at Samford will be placed at various locations throughout the Post Implementation Review (PIR). This monitor is planned to be relocated from Samford to Wavell Heights by the end of March 2022.

Brisbane Airport Corporation has a temporary noise monitor in place at Cedar Creek. This was previously placed at Balmoral and Brookfield. Brisbane Airport Corporation will move its temporary noise monitor to Northgate to evaluate noise impacts during the full-length runway departure trial.

104. Response to Brisbane Airport Advisory Forum recommendations

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

The Brisbane Airport Advisory Forum released its first Quarterly Progress report on 19 Jan 2022. It recommended an independent specialist advisor be appointed to review and make recommendations on all aspects considered by the Airservices Australia Post Implementation Review. What is Airservices doing in response to this recommendation?

The QoN response we received on 22 December 2021 (QON 109/21) confirmed Airservices was engaging an independent specialist advisor on airspace design, operations and PIR engagement. Is this advisor additional to the advisor recommended by the Brisbane Airport Advisory Forum?

Answer:

1. Airservices Australia has appointed Trax International to review and make recommendations on the Brisbane Airport Flight Path Changes Post Implementation Review.
2. No.

105. Details on the engagement of Trax International

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

On what date was Trax International engaged by AirServices as specialist advisor? How was Trax identified and selected as the preferred consultant? How many other consultants were considered? What are the terms of engagement (length, value of contract)? Has Airservices Australia, the Brisbane Airport Corporation or CASA had any previous engagement or relationship with Trax or key Trax personnel?

Answer:

1. Trax International (Trax) was engaged by Airservices as a specialist advisor on 20 December 2021.
2. Airservices made a decision to engage an independent specialist advisor with expertise in aviation regulation, air traffic management, economics, community engagement, noise analysis and aerodrome operations. Airservices considered the limited market for these highly specialised services, along with the need for independence from Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC). Trax, a United Kingdom based company, was identified as best meeting these requirements. Trax brings significant international experience having delivered similar airspace change initiatives at some of the world’s busiest airports, including London’s Heathrow Airport. The value of the contract totals $590,450 (GST exclusive) and includes travel expenses capped at $60,550, for services rendered from 1 January 2022 to 30 April 2022.
3. Trax have previously been engaged by Airservices to produce a piece of international best practice research focusing on the approach to airspace design and community engagement in other countries and jurisdictions. Trax have confirmed that they have had no previous relationship or engagement with CASA or BAC.

106. Extension of SODPROPS

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Airservices has accepted Forum recommendations to implement a 12 month trial of extending SODPROPS, removing intersection departures and requiring jets to remain on departure paths until they reach 10-12,000 feet. Are you satisfied that these measures will collectively achieve significant noise abatement? What is that view based on? 

Answer: 

Airservices commenced 12-month trials on 24 February 2022 to extend SODPROPS operating hours on weekends between 10pm and 8am, and to remove intersection departures for aircraft departing on the new parallel runway towards residential communities. 

A Noise Abatement Procedure (NAP) requiring jet aircraft to remain on the Standard Instrument Departure (SID) path until reaching 10-12,000 feet will be implemented by 31 March 2022. 

The conduct of the trials will be reported on regularly to determine the success of the measures. 

107. Long-term Operating Plan for Brisbane Airport

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Has Airservices received any Ministerial Direction to prepare a Long-Term Operating Plan for Brisbane Airport? 

Answer: 

No. 

108. Brisbane Airport aircraft noise complaints

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

How many complaints and inquiries relating to aircraft noise at Brisbane Airport has the Noise Complaints and Information Services (NCIS) team received since 12 July 2020? Please provide a monthly breakdown of the number of complaints received online, by phone, and by post, and the suburbs in which the complainants live. 

Answer: 

Regarding Brisbane Airport, the Noise Complaints and Information Services (NCIS) received 9,727 complaints and inquiries from 2,175 complainants between 12 July 2020 and 28 February 2022. 

• Attachment A provides a breakdown by contact method. 
• Attachment B lists the suburbs in which complainants live. 

Attachment A – Brisbane Airport noise complaints by contact method 

Attachment B – Origin of Brisbane Airport noise complaints 

109. Noise improvement investigations for Brisbane Airport

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

How many noise improvement investigations has the NCIS team conducted since 12 July 2020 in response to noise complaints from Brisbane Airport? How many noise improvement investigations relating to Brisbane Airport were referred to the Flight Path Change Process? What were the overall outcomes and impact of the NCIS team’s activities in relation to noise improvement at Brisbane Airport since 12 July 2020? 

Answer: 

The Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) manages complaints and enquiries about aircraft noise and operations. Submissions to the NCIS are not the mechanism for identifying noise improvement opportunities for Brisbane Airport. The Brisbane Airport Flight Path Post Implementation Review (PIR) has been established to investigate noise improvement opportunities and improvement options. 

There have been no noise improvement suggestions submitted to the NCIS for Brisbane Airport to date. 

The NCIS received 9,727 complaints and enquiries from 2,175 complainants relating to Brisbane Airport operations between 12 July 2020 and 28 February 2022. The NCIS has analysed this data to identify the suburbs most affected by the opening of the new runway and the issues raised by complainants (such as time of day, number of flights, flight path, type of operation). This analysis is being considered as part of the PIR to identify noise improvement opportunities. 

110. Removal of SODPROPS at Brisbane Airport

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Further to the answer received to QON #115, what “operational factors” precluded the use of SODPROPS as Mode 1 for Brisbane? Why were these operational factors assessed as significant enough to prevent SODPROPS being used? What was the assessed risk classification of these operational factors? 

Answer: 

The operational factors include tailwind and cross wind limits, aircraft movement numbers and weather conditions. In addition, the interaction with other airspace, in particular Amberley means that the Standard Terminal Arrival Route for SODPROPS cannot be used when Amberley airspace is active. 

The cumulative risk associated with these operational factors made the risk of daytime SODPROPS unacceptable. 

111. Length of time incorrect rule set was applied

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Further to the answer received to QON #116, please confirm that the incorrect rule set was applied only on one 30 minute period? 

Answer: 

Yes. 

112. STAR VNAV profiles major airline correspondence

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Further to the answer received to QON #119, what correspondence has Airservices received from major airlines regarding the efficiency of STAR VNAV profiles (prior to intercepting the glidepath for the assigned instrument approach)? Does Airservices accept that if aircraft are in fact lower and slower on the current STAR VNAV profiles that there would be an increase in noise for residents under the flightpath? What supports that conclusion? 

Answer: 

Airservices has received feedback regarding the efficiency of the Standard Arrival Vertical Navigation (STAR VNAV) profiles. 

The current height requirements on the STARs must be maintained to ensure separation from the Standard Instrument Departure (SID). This may result in aircraft flying lower and slower. 

Answers to Questions on Notice: CASA

119. Brisbane Airport – Routes covered under Airspace Change Proposals

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman has stated that Airspace Change Proposals (ACPs) required to implement the new flight paths were approved by CASA on 31 October 2018 and 26 August 2019, however the approval did not cover all existing routes. Is this correct? 

Please provide details of CASA’s final analysis and recommendations regarding the 2018 and 2019 ACP approvals, including any changes or conditions imposed. 

Answer: 

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) approved the initial Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) on 29 October 2018. Airservices Australia provided additional information on waypoint and air routes names, which CASA approved on 26 August 2019. 

Existing air routes within Brisbane airspace that were not changing in association with the commencement of the new parallel runway were not included in the approval. 

When reviewing ACPs, CASA considers several components, including: 

• airspace classification 
• instrument flight procedure containment 
• air routes 
• aviation specific consultation and any potential effect on visual flight rules operations in the Brisbane basin area, as a result of the new parallel runway 
• air traffic control sectors 
• class E airspace frequency boundaries, and 
• flight information areas.

CASA did not impose any conditions with either ACP approval. 

120. Brisbane Airport – List of Airspace Change Proposals received by CASA

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Please provide a list of all ACPs received by CASA since 2019 relating to Brisbane Airport’s airspace, including file number, date received, name of submitting entity, overall objective, CASA outcome (approved / rejected), and the date the outcome was advised to the proponent. 

Answer: 

Please see table below containing all Airspace Change Proposals (ACP) received by CASA since 1 January 2019 relating to Brisbane Airport airspace.

121. Brisbane Airport – Airspace Change Proposal stakeholder consultation

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

1. Was CASA satisfied that appropriate stakeholder consultation occurred as part of its assessment of all ACPs? On what basis? 
2. Did CASA conduct its own consultation or instruct the proponent to conduct additional consultation with regards to these ACPs? 

Answer: 

1. Yes. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) considered five of the eight Airspace Change Proposals (ACP) were emergency or minor editorial changes that did not require consultation. The three remaining ACPs provided sufficient evidence of consultation. 
2. Yes, CASA conducted its own consultation on the three ACPs mentioned above in accordance with CASA’s standard ACP processes. 

122. Awareness of Airservices approach at Brisbane Airport

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Further to the answer received to QoN #122, is CASA aware that Airservices used independent approaches at Brisbane Airport for a period of time when the applied standard did not meet the ICAO requirements? What action did CASA take in response to this omission? 

Answer: 

In June 2021, during regular surveillance Airservices Australia advised the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) that Independent Parallel Operations were not used at Brisbane, due to a combination of reduced traffic and incomplete training of controllers in the Brisbane Parallel Runway Monitor Role. 

On 16 July 2021, CASA issued a safety finding for variation from the ICAO requirements, specifically the lack of an appropriate risk assessment for the single person ‘monitor’ position. 

In response to the safety finding, Airservices confirmed Independent Parallel Operations have not commenced at Brisbane. CASA has requested Airservices provide evidence of compliance with ICAO requirements before commencing Independent Parallel Operations at Brisbane. 

Answers to Questions on Notice: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

35. Trax International – Terms of engagement

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Senator WATERS: Noting what you’ve just said, are you aware of how Trax was identified and selected? Mr McClure: Not specifically, no. Senator WATERS: Do you know anything about the terms of engagement, the length and the cost et cetera? Mr McClure: They’re all going to be made public, if they’re not already public. They have been engaged for a period of time. I would have to take the specifics on notice. Airservices could answer the question more specifically. Senator WATERS: I think they are on at 10.30 tonight, so I can’t guarantee that anyone will have the stamina to be asking them in person. If you wouldn’t mind taking that on notice, that would be really helpful. Thank you. 

Answer: 

Please refer to Committee Question Number 105 from the 2021-22 Additional Estimates (SQ22-000249) from Airservices Australia.