2025 | 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 thanks 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:
- Supplementary Budget Estimates 2024 / 2025 (4 Nov 2024)
- Budget Estimates 2024 / 2025 (28 / 29 May 2024)
- Additional Estimates 2023 / 2024 (12 Feb 2024)
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2024 / 2025
📺 Video recordings: Airservices; hearing date: 4 Nov 2024
Answers to Questions on Notice: Department of Infrastructure
125. Department’s review of Airservices performance in reducing noise levels
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
- In terms of the performance reporting and monitoring of Airservices that the Department conducts, what performance reporting and monitoring data has the Department collected and reviewed about Airservices’ performance in actually reducing noise and reducing the health and wellbeing harms associated with noise pollution experienced by Brisbane communities?
- a. Has Airservices managed to deliver any net noise reductions in Brisbane in the last four years as promised to communities?
- The Noise Action Plan currently being rolled out by Airservices contains no impact metrics. Airservices have been asked through AAB, through BACACG, through BFPCA, and during engagement sessions since the NAB started, to install proper assessment metrics and impact KPIs and measures, yet they refuse and to this date there are no proper ways provided to objectively assess whether any net noise reductions have been achieved or will be achieved. What is the Department’s position on this failure, and when will they intervene as part of their performance reporting and monitoring of Airservices?
Answer: While the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts does not oversee specific performance metrics for the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, Airservices Australia (Airservices) regularly reports on its progress through updates to the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB). These updates are published at https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-
vehicles/aviation/airports/brisbane-airport-community-airspace-advisory-board.
As part of Noise Abatement Procedure Reporting for Brisbane Airport, Airservices publishes monthly reporting on simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations (SODPROPS) usage at Brisbane Airport at https://aircraftnoise.airservicesaustralia.com.
In the development of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, Airservices has focussed on maximising flights over water through SODPROPS usage, increased over water departure paths and reducing concentration by implementing segregated modes of runway operation.
126. Meetings with airline representatives
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
Please table a detailed list of all in person or video-conference meetings held over the last 12 months with any member of staff of the Department’s Aviation Branch and any airport or airline representatives that did not include Airservices Australia. Please list date, name of meeting, purpose of meeting, attendees, length.
Answer: The Aviation Divisions within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts meet frequently with airport and airline industry representatives on a variety of aviation matters. If the Senator has a specific question about meetings relating to specific stakeholders and subject matter, the department will endeavour to answer that question.
127. Number of complaints for Airservices received by the department since 2023
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
- How many “Complaints about failure to provide regulatory oversight for Airservices Australia” has the Department received from the public since 2023 to now?
- What are the allegations of these complaints submitted by community members?
- How has the Department investigated and processed these complaints?
- How has the Department responded to complainants?
Answer:
- The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts received 1404 complaints to the Client Service inbox (clientservice@infrastructure.gov.au) as part of the “Complaints about failure to provide regulatory oversight for Airservices Australia” campaign.
The department also received identical emails addressed to Ms Marisa Purvis-Smith, Deputy Secretary Transport. 116 total emails were received between 15 May 2024 and 10 December 2024. - The issues raised include:
- a. Airservices’ removal of simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations as a day time priority operating mode from the Brisbane Airport Noise Abatement Procedures.
- b. Community engagement undertaken by Airservices, particularly through its Noise Complaints and Information Service, as well as the initial consultation undertaken for Brisbane Airport’s New Parallel Runway (NPR) through the approval process.
- c. Airservices’ flight path design for the NPR, which occurred between 2007 to 2020.
- d. Airservices’ compliance with a ‘ministerial condition’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which required Airservices to consider options to mitigate noise impacts, as outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement for the NPR, and undertake validation of uncertainties in the noise forecasts prior to the operation of the runway.
- The department has investigated, processed and responded to each complaint received through the client service inbox and online form.
Airservices is a corporate Commonwealth entity established by the Air Services Act 1995. While the department has responsibility in supporting the minister, the department does not have a regulatory role. Airservices’ Board and Executives are responsible for overseeing that Airservices carries out its statutory function. - Complainants to the client services email have been given information about Airservices’ governance arrangements and the department’s role and responsibilities and those of Airservices. Emails sent directly to Ms Purvis-Smith have been considered in context of issues associated with aircraft noise in Brisbane. These emails are also copied to Airservices.
128. Funding for a review of the Airport Act 1996
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
Has the Department sought resources in the forward estimates for a full and extensive review of the Airports Act 1996 and associated regulations beyond what was suggested in Initiatives 38 – 40 of the White Paper to address the Act’s flawed and inequitable consultation and assessment processes?
Answer: Noting that the White Paper a review be undertaken by 2030, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts was not allocated additional funding for this review in the 2024-25 Budget.
129. WHO’s health related noise metrics
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
- Is the Department’s strategic planning focused on enshrining the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) health related noise metrics in a fully reviewed 1996 Airports Act; Australian Standard AS2021:2015; the Airservices Australia ANEF approvals; and, in the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) applicable to all airports and military airfields in Australia?
- a. If not, what are the forward plans for the Department properly considering modern, evidence informed noise metrics to mitigate noise harm?
- Has the Department considered the long term national benefits of adopting the WHO researched international health related noise metrics?
- How is the Department responding to recent recommendations on community health from the WHO that the following new health related aircraft noise metrics be introduced to mitigate noise harm:
- a. maximum environmental night-time noise level below 40 db.
- b. maximum environmental day-time noise level below 45 db, and
- c. the inadequacy of all current aircraft noise metrics to properly protect the health and wellbeing of communities
Answer:
Initiative 36 of the Aviation White Paper details proposed actions in relation to the National Airports Safeguarding Framework and Australian Standard 2021:2015 Acoustics – Aircraft noise intrusion – Building siting and construction.
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts has submitted a proposal to amend Australian Standard 2021:2015 and will continue to engage with Standards Australia on possible changes.
The Department of Health and Aged Care has responsibility for environmental health impacts, and this includes health impacts relating to aircraft noise. The Department of Health and Aged Care has an Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) which advises on environmental health policy and environmental factors that impact health, which includes aircraft noise.
Further enquiries should be directed to the Department of Health and Aged Care.
Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices
95. Ongoing performance reporting and monitoring of Airservices
Senator Larissa Waters asked:
Senator WATERS: […] What data has been, or will be, provided to the department of infrastructure as part of the department’s ongoing performance reporting and monitoring of Airservices? As a follow-on, how will the department assess the impact of the noise action plan?
Mr Curran: I’m not sure the department is here.
Senator WATERS: They’re not even here?
Mr Sharp: That would be a matter for the department.
Senator WATERS: Could somebody take that on notice on behalf of the department, please?
Mr Sharp: We’ll take that on notice.
Senator WATERS: Thank you.
Answer: Airservices Australia provides the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts with quarterly progress reports against the Corporate Plan and SoE, additional reporting as requested, including financial and performance metrics, in accordance with the Statement of Expectations (SoE) for the period of 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025. Airservices also engages with the department on progress against the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, particularly through the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board.
132. Noise Action Plan for Brisbane
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
- Noise Action Plan for Brisbane changes currently being considered by Airservices involve adjusting the arrival flight paths for both runways. TRAX suggested that for the new runway (01L), arrival paths would shift slightly south by about 1-2 km, to overcome some flyability issues experienced during adverse weather conditions. For the legacy runway (01R), the arrival paths would move 4-5 km further south to maintain safe horizontal and vertical separation from aircraft landing on the new runway whilst allowing aircraft enough time to align with the Instrument Landing System before starting their final approach. To keep aircraft safely separated, will those landing on the legacy runway fly 1,000 feet lower than those landing on the new runway?
- a. Have those communities newly to be affected by aircraft noise pollution been notified of these proposed changes?
- b. Have any engagement sessions been held in those new locations?
- The Design Concepts in Sets 1 and 2 of the Phase 5 engagement aim to reduce the concentration of flights to the west of the airport. This concerns the high concentration and frequency of flights affecting areas to the west of the airport, which is partly due to the close proximity of the SMOKA arrival path (serving inbound traffic from the north and west) and the WACKO departure path (serving outbound traffic in the same directions). Airservices are investigating the possibility of repositioning the enroute waypoints (SMOKA and WACKO). Where will these waypoints be located in the future and what new communities will be impacted as a result of these changes?
- a. Have those communities newly affected by aircraft noise pollution been notified of these proposed changes?
- b. Have any engagement sessions been held in those new locations?
- Is it correct that the only proposition on the table as part of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane is noise sharing and no net noise reductions being planned?
- a. Some of the proposed flight path changes continue to use the same airspace over the same communities. How will this create any true noise reduction if the same communities continue to be overflown all the time?
- Why did Airservices prioritise Redlands and bayside communities for relief when communities in some 220+ other suburbs suffering night time departures over land are still waiting?
- When are Brisbane communities going to get an airspace design and management plan that prevents them from being overflown by both departures and arrivals as originally promised in the 2007 MDP/EIS?
- The Noise Preferential Routes flight path design has forced General Aviation (GA) lower from originally 1000 feet over many Brisbane suburbs. Why are Airservices not taking into account GA when designing flight paths, especially over communities such as Samford and Brookfield who rely on tank water?
Answer:
- Yes.
- a. communities potentially subject to these changes were included in community engagement activities across greater Brisbane which included a letterbox drop, newspaper advertising and targeted social media advertising.
- b. 6 in-person and seven online engagement sessions were held during August and September 2024, which were open to community members from any location.
- The potential to gain a noise improvement from relocating some waypoints is being investigated. At this time, a specific location for potential relocation has not been identified and as such Airservices does not yet know the communities that might be subject to this potential change.
- Increasing use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) offers the opportunity for net noise reduction.
- a. Package 3 of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane focuses on changes within the constraints of the existing airspace. This package aims to identify opportunities for improvements that can be implemented in a much shorter timeframe than Package 4 which is investigating improvement opportunities across the wider airspace operations. Package 3 can offer potential noise reductions for communities subject to the more frequent or concentrated operations, by sharing these operations with other communities.
- The flight path changes introduced on 28 November 2024, which result in communities in the Redlands area being overflown at a much higher altitude, were required to enable greater use of SODPROPS. The changes introduced the same flight paths for use in SODPROPS mode and in northerly wind parallel operating conditions (departures over water), reducing transition time in and out of SODPROPS and increasing its use. They also reduced the impact on the Redlands community, which is overflown when in SODPROPS mode.
By increasing our ability to operate in SODPROPS mode, communities affected by night-time overland departures receive less of these operations. - The proposed flight path change concepts presented to the community in August and September 2024, focus on reducing the concentration of aircraft movements on the most affected Brisbane suburbs, including locations subject to both arrivals and departures. Preferred designs resulting from this engagement will be presented to the community in mid-2025, after which a decision will be make on their implementation.
- Select portions of the airspace around Brisbane Airport were lowered by 1000ft to accommodate the new parallel runway operations. The airspace at the point at which aircraft join the runway aligned Instrument Landing System approach to both runways (over land and over water) was lowered from 3500ft to 2500ft. At this point, aircraft are at 3000ft on approach to the legacy runway and 4000ft on approach to the new runway. This airspace designation keeps General Aviation and commercial aircraft safely separated from each other.
The lowered airspace over land, is over an area bordered by Greenbank, Beenleigh, Forest Lake and Bellbowrie/Moggill. The area of lowered airspace does not extend to Brookfield or Samford, noting Brookfield has always had a 2500ft airspace ceiling (dating back as far as 2011). GA aircraft are permitted to fly at any altitude beneath the controlled airspace ceiling but must maintain a minimum altitude of 1000ft above ground level in built up areas.
133. Continuous descent approaches in Brisbane Airport
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
When will Airservices commence proper continuous descent approaches in Brisbane Airport?
Answer: Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) refers to an aircraft descending without level segments, maintaining a smooth descent profile throughout the approach until reaching the runway.
Airservices Australia is currently planning a limited application of CDO on selected city pairs at Brisbane, with some constraints on the arrival path to ensure arriving and departing aircraft are safely separated. These constraints could include some level flight segments which means the aircraft descent profile is not fully continuous. This is not unique to Brisbane and is common for larger airports around the world.
The limited trial of CDO, known as ‘predictable sequencing’, reduces air traffic control (ATC) intervention at higher altitudes. Predictable sequencing involves aircraft absorbing delays at high altitudes prior to top of descent.
A trial of predictable sequencing into Brisbane from the south is scheduled to commence from June 2025, joining predictable sequencing operations already introduced at Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.
134. Minimum climb gradients for Brisbane Airport
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
- Have any minimum climb gradients been specified in Brisbane Airport?
- a. If so, what are they?
- b. If not, when will Airservices finally enforce a minimum rate of climb on the SIDs (Standard Instrument Departure)routes and vectored routes serving Brisbane Airport to ensure aircraft achieve a higher altitude and reduce noise impacts on communities?
- On notice, please table a detailed list of climb gradients (minimum, maximum, average) being achieved by the most common aircraft departing Brisbane Airport for each SID.
Answer:
- All departure flight paths at Brisbane Airport include minimum climb gradients, generally to ensure departing aircraft are safely separated by 1000 feet from arriving aircraft where the paths cross. At Brisbane Airport, departures are prioritised to climb over arrivals to get these aircraft higher quicker and reduce noise impacts for communities.
- a. the actual climb gradients will vary to cater for a range of factors including:
- heavier aircraft that are not able to climb as quickly – generally larger international flights
- summer versus winter temperature differences – the warmer air in summer is much thinner, providing less lift and a slow climb rate
- straight versus turning flight paths – aircraft can climb more quickly on straight flight paths due to the lift gained from travelling into the wind.
- b. aircraft will typically depart as steep as their performance allows, well above the minimum gradient required for safety, as being higher sooner is more efficient.
- a. the actual climb gradients will vary to cater for a range of factors including:
- The following table provides a detailed list of climb gradients for Brisbane Airport flight
paths for the calendar year 2024 based on the performance of a Boeing 737-800 which is
the most common aircraft type.
135. SID Height Markers
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
- Will Airservices be reviewing the altitude constraints on the SIDs (Standard Instrument
Departure) when developing preferred options for the departure flight paths overland to
help aircraft fly higher over communities? - Will this then enable the prohibition of intersection departures trial to be repeated in
order to obtain net noise reductions as is the case everywhere else in the world where
this is done properly?
Answer: Analysis of the required altitude that aircraft would need to be at over suburbs closest to
the airport to result in an audible noise difference when prohibiting intersection departures
was shared with the Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Advisory Board (AAB). This
confirmed that the climb gradient required for departing aircraft is in excess of aircraft
capability. This explanation was accepted, and the action was closed by the AAB Chair.
136. Tight left proposal off Noise Preferential Routes for Brisbane Airport
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
Airservices are considering a specific design option for one or both of the overland departure routes that currently operate from the legacy runway between 10pm and 6am, serving flights with destinations in the north and west (the 19L WACKO and BIXAD SIDs). When will Airservices submit an application to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to obtain approval for introducing this non-standard procedure?
Answer: Airservices Australia is investigating a range of flight path changes through the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane including departure routes currently operating from the legacy runway serving destinations in the north and west. A further round of engagement will be conducted on these proposals in 2025. Any new proposals will be subject to 2 rounds of community and industry engagement. Any required Civil Aviation Safety Authority approvals will be sought after this engagement and finalisation of the design, including all required safety work.
137. Tailwind application to CASA
Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked:
- Are Airservices still working with Brisbane Airport on another revised safety case submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in order to obtain approval of the tailwind limitation to be relaxed from 5 knots to 7 knots?
- If so, can you please provide an update where this is at, and when this will be submitted. Have the various pilot industry associations been consulted and given a chance to review the revised safety case, and have they now endorsed the proposal?
Answer: Airservices Australia is providing support to Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) to develop an opt in trial of increased tailwind conditions at night. We understand that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided BAC advice that there is no regulatory approval requirement for airlines to opt into a trial of increased tailwind, and that BAC have progressed stakeholder engagement planning which includes pilot representative associations.
Budget Estimates 2024 / 2025
📺 Video recording: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts; hearing date: 28 May 2024
📺 Video recordings: Airservices; hearing date: 29 May 2024
Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices
91. Noise action plan – budget for Brisbane engagement for 2024-25
Senator Penny Allman-Payne asked:
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: […] What is the budget for the noise action plan for the Brisbane
engagement for 2024-25?
Mr Curran: The noise action plan budget in total over three years is $15.5 million. Your
question related to engagement specifically. That’s a subset of that, and I would have to
take that on notice as it relates to a mixture of our internal costs, consulting costs and
advertising and promotional costs to engage communities for financial year 2024-25. I have
to isolate it in that way. I can give you some information around advertising and
promotional cost activities for this year.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: We’re particularly interested in how the money is being spent and
the types of events that you are putting under the heading of ‘engagement’. Is it pop-up
events? Is it advertising? What is the line spend for engagement in that plan?
Answer: Airservices Australia has a budget of $1.25 million (excluding GST) for 2024-25 for
community engagement for the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane.
Costs for engagement activity include venue hire for face-to-face community engagement
sessions, print, radio and social media advertising, printing of engagement materials and
letterbox drops.
94. A380 Brisbane departures
Senator Penny Allman-Payne asked:
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Coming back to Brisbane, why are the nightly A380 departures
from Brisbane overland unable to stick to the published standard instrument departure
track and modelled heights for noise abatement?
Mr Curran: That’s a question I’d have to take on notice. I’m not aware for the A380 in
particular or which particular airline’s operations you’re referring to. It is the case that we
endeavour, wherever weather and traffic permit, to operate in a mode that I’ve referred to
in this committee before, SODPROPS, simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway
operations, which puts arrivals and departures over the bay. Wherever possible, that is the
mode that we seek to operate in sensitive times of the day, night-time and weekends. To
the extent that A380 operations occur overland, it would be because it was not possible to
operate in that mode over the bay. Then, as to the specific tracking of a flight on a given
day, there are myriad considerations. There could be weather factors. There could be a
range of factors. It would be difficult for me to give a precise answer other than to take on
notice that perhaps we can provide some data around that particular operation. If you could
be more precise on the time that the flight takes, we can then look into that.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: On notice, could you please provide a report of how often aircraft
are not flying the published SIDs across Brisbane and not meeting the published model
overflight heights for the last 12 months?
Mr Curran: I think we can do that on notice. There will be instances where that’s due to
weather and other matters.
Answer: There are 2 types of published Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs):
- a procedural SID with published flight paths, waypoints and height requirements; and
- a radar SID which uses compass headings.
Pilots may request a radar SID where aircraft may not be able to meet the procedural SID
height requirements due to weight, aircraft speed, aircraft type or atmospheric
temperature.
Air traffic control may require aircraft to deviate from a procedural SID to safely avoid conflicting traffic or due to weather such as thunderstorms or low visibility.
SIDs are designed to ensure the safe separation of aircraft and are not specifically designed for noise abatement.
Under the Noise Abatement Procedures for Brisbane, there is 1 SID height requirement noted for aircraft that depart over water at night, where they should remain over water until they have reached an altitude of 5,000 feet. During the period 1 June 2023 to 31 May 2024 the 6 aircraft that departed over water at night remained over water until they reached 5,000 feet.
A380s can only depart Brisbane Airport on a SID – either procedural or radar. Air traffic control will always assign a procedural SID but the pilot can request a radar SID if they cannot meet the requirements of the procedural SID.
Procedural and radar SID use for departures 1 June 2023 – 31 May 2024 (A380 aircraft)
| Number of A380 movements | Aircraft operating procedural Standard Instrument Departure path | Aircraft operating radar Standard Instrument Departure path |
| 367 | 246 (67%) | 121 (33%) |
The daily A380 departures from Brisbane operate one of the longest routes (14 hours) and are the largest passenger aircraft in operation. Due to aircraft weight and high passenger loading there are a higher proportion of aircraft that while they accept the procedural SID, may still deviate from the design heights or flight path corridor.
The procedural SID paths have altitude requirements at set waypoints to ensure the safe separation of aircraft (not for noise abatement). The table below shows how often A380 aircraft maintained the procedural SID and its design height requirements over the period 1 June 2023 to 31 May 2024. Note this data includes all A380 departures including those issued a radar SID which do not adhere to flight path corridors, thus affecting the total adherence percentage.
Procedural SID departures alignment with design corridor and height, 1 June 2023 – 31 May 2024 (A380 aircraft):
| Procedural SID design requirement | Number of movements | Number adhering to procedural SID design |
| Aligned with procedural SID (within 1NM (1.8 kilometre) corridor) | 367 | 160 (44%) |
| At or above design altitude at designated waypoint (applying 100ft (30 metre) tolerance) | 367 | At first waypoint – 226 (61%) At second waypoint – 343 (93%) |
95. Air traffic controllers in Brisbane
Senator Penny Allman-Payne asked:
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: This is a follow-up from committee question number 41 in
additional estimates 2023-24 regarding the number of air traffic controllers required in
Airservices’ terminal control unit in Brisbane. Airservices’ response was that Brisbane
operations require 39 air traffic controllers in Airservices’ terminal control unit to provide
full service and Airservices plans to have 46 controllers allocated to this air space by July 2024. How many air traffic controllers are available in the Brisbane terminal control unit
right now?
Mr Curran: I will ask my colleague Mr Craig Charker to see if he is able to answer that
question. Mr Charker: I might have to take that on notice for the exact number now.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: I’m somewhat surprised that that needs to be taken on notice,
given that you were asked that question at the last estimates. I would have thought that
was obvious question that would be asked again. Where is the recruitment, onboarding and
training program up to in Brisbane? Are you able to answer that question?
Mr Charker: I don’t have the details with me of the exact training program that’s being
undertaken at the moment, but we can get that to you.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Could you take that on notice, please? So I guess you can’t answer
whether the aspiration of 46 air traffic controllers in a month’s time is likely to be reached
for Brisbane?
Mr Charker: I don’t think we will achieve 46 in that timeframe, but again I’ll come back on
that.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: You said in answer to my earlier question that you’re not sure how
many there are. You’ve now just told me that you don’t think we’re going to achieve 46.
What is that based on? What is your assumption around how many are there now? Is it
more than 39?
Mr Charker: I don’t want to do the exact number, but my understanding is that there are
around 43 total air traffic controllers there, against that mature requirement of 39.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: If you can take the broader questions that I’ve asked on notice,
that would be helpful.
Mr Charker: Certainly.
Answer: As at 1 June 2024, 47.6 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) people were allocated to the Brisbane Approach roster, including 2 undertaking initial training.
96. Demand forecast until 2026
Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:
Senator McKENZIE: Your demand forecast that they’re claiming is out of date and conservative you’ve addressed, so what are you forecasting in terms of demand over this period, to June 2026?
Mr Logan: Off the top of my head—
Senator McKENZIE: Well, you’ve got a folder there; it might be in there. Mr Logan: The demand forecast was—sorry, Senator.
Senator McKENZIE: That’s okay. You’re obliged—in fact, required—to give full and accurate information to our questions, so I’m happy to wait.
ACTING CHAIR: If he doesn’t know it, he can also take it on notice. That’s within his rights. Mr Logan: I don’t have the specific numbers. I’m looking at the graph that I brought in.
Based on the graph, we were anticipating—and, again, I’ll clarify on notice—about a 20 per cent increase in traffic over the time period through to 2030, so we were looking over quite a long time period. What we have seen in comparison to that is that, in the 2023-24 financial year, the likely outcome forecast for this year is about three to four per cent higher than what was anticipated, and that three to four per cent, along with a small increase above that, we’d be looking to take off those activity forecasts in an adjusted price notification. The specifics I’d need to clarify on notice, but hopefully that gives you a sense of the orders of magnitude.
Answer: The original and the revised demand forecasts to June 2026 are as follows:
| Financial Year | 2024-25 | 2025-26 | Cumulative Growth |
| Original Forecast | 7.0% | 6.5% | 14.0% |
| Revised Forecast | 10.2% | 8.1% | 19.1% |
144. Phase 2 noise sharing options assessment document
Senator Penny Allman-Payne asked:
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Going to the phase 2 options assessment document that was
recently released by Airservices Australia: that document outlines five options for noise
sharing, is that correct?
Mr Curran: That is my understanding, yes.
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Based on that summary document put out by Airservices, it
appears the only option that will be progressed is option 5, which solely impacts the northwestern
suburbs and outskirts of Brisbane. If that’s the case, why aren’t there any
consultation sessions planned for north of the river?
Mr Curran: I don’t know that there’s been any determination made in that options
assessment as to a particular option or only one going through; I’ll have to take that on
notice. My understanding is there were a number of options progressing through to the
next phase of consideration. My recollection is there was one option not being taken
through, but I’d like to take that on notice. We have a fairly extensive pack on all the
different options that were being assessed and the criteria against which they were being
assessed—
Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE: Can I suggest that would be good because I’ve got the phase 2
options assessment summary in front of me, and next to most of the options it says, ‘This
option will not be progressed’, ‘This option will not be progressed’, ‘This option will not be
progressed’, ‘This proposal will not progress’—except for the last one. I would suggest that
that option paper says the only option that will be progressed is option 5— which, as I said,
is in the north-western suburbs and yet the consultations are happening south of the river.
That seems somewhat incongruous.
Mr Curran: That’s not my understanding, but I will take that on notice. If we were not
progressing an option that was an option that would have impacted communities south of
the river, we would still be consulting or engaging them on any determination not to
progress an option. But I will check with regard to the northern option you mentioned.
Answer: Airservices Australia (Airservices) engaged the community on the Phase 2 options throughout July and August 2023. This included sessions north of the Brisbane River at Brookfield, Samford Valley, The Gap, Everton Park, Paddington, New Farm and Hendra. Community engagement in May 2024 focused on flight path changes over suburbs to the south of the Brisbane River and thus engagement sessions were held in those locations. Engagement locations are selected based on the options being presented and the locations they have the potential to impact.
The Phase 2 options assessment was released on 21 May 2024 and was open for feedback until 16 June 2024. The Phase 2 options received very mixed community feedback, mostly based on the location of members of the community relative to the proposed noise sharing flight path. It was determined that these options would be better presented as part of a more holistic design, including all other arrival and departure paths, so community members could better assess the fairness of the noise sharing opportunity being proposed. The assessment outcome noted this option will not progress in this format but will be considered among broader noise sharing operations as part of Package 3 and 4 of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane. Option 5, a minor relocation of a waypoint to better align aircraft over greenspace between communities, was noted as being progressed, however this option will now also be considered as part of Package 3 and 4 due to the interdependency between this waypoint location and the other proposed noise sharing options.
146. Consultation with pilots and airlines
Senator Matthew Canavan asked:
Senator CANAVAN: You might have seen some of the pilots were scathing of the proposal.
Mr Curran: Yes.
Senator CANAVAN: Some of them claimed they hadn’t been consulted, although that
seemed to be disputed later. What’s the status of that? Have the pilots been consulted
about this proposed change?
Mr Curran: We are consulting. This is very much a change that impacts pilots and airlines. So
we are absolutely engaging in consultation with domestic and international airlines. I think
your comment there goes to the heart of some of the challenges that we have with this
issue. In terms of delivering better community outcomes by using a particular runway—
Senator McKENZIE: When did you last meet with the pilots to discuss this?
Mr Curran: I would have to check on the timing of that. We’ve been speaking—
Senator McKENZIE: You said, ‘international and domestic airlines’. When did you last discuss
this with international airlines?
Mr Curran: I’ll have to take that on notice. We’ve been working—
Senator McKENZIE: When did you last discuss this with domestic airlines?
Mr Curran: It would be in the last number of weeks.
Senator McKENZIE: Okay. On notice, I would like a full list. You come in and make flippant
remarks that you’ve heavily consulted with pilots.
ACTING CHAIR: Alright. Senator—
Senator McKENZIE: And we ask the pilots, and they say they are not consulted with. So I
would like to see the hard data—
ACTING CHAIR: Alright, but before you do that—
Senator McKENZIE: that tells us the dates and who you met with. Thank you
Answer: Airservices Australia, in conjunction with Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC), consulted with a cross-section of domestic and international airlines, industry associations and pilot unions from January to April 2022 when developing the Brisbane SODPROPS 7 Knot Tailwind Safety Case.
- Attachment A lists the stakeholders invited to participate in this engagement, and
- Attachment B lists the consultation dates for those stakeholders who chose to participate.
More recently, BAC has also engaged with a number of international and domestic airlines on a plan to trial the 7 Knots concept and provide a revised safety case submission to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
147. Flight height marker data
Senator Matthew Canavan asked:
Mr Curran: I listened to the evidence of Qantas at the Brisbane hearing, and I think that they were clear around the way that they managed their engines in terms of whether or not they actually took off any earlier. In terms of the height marker, aircraft are cleared above that height marker. It’s the minimum altitude that they need to be at. The aircraft were above that height marker, and, as we learnt through that process—
Senator CANAVAN: So they were above it? Mr Curran: Yes.
Senator CANAVAN: How do you know they were above it?
Mr Curran: Because we monitored their altitude and the noise associated with it. Senator CANAVAN: They’re claiming they didn’t—that the pilots just hit that marker.
Mr Curran: I recall the evidence that was given—specifically that that is the lowest altitude that you can be at. They are cleared to a higher altitude than the marker, which is, I think, 3,300.
Senator CANAVAN: On notice, can you get us some data on what percentage of flights were above that marker? Was there a baseline? Did you say, ‘Before the trial this was the flight path, and then after the trial this was the flight path’? What was the difference?
Mr Curran: We didn’t have the noise monitor. Senator CANAVAN: What was the point?
Senator McKENZIE: Wow, what a great research project! I wouldn’t be going back to uni with that project.
Senator CANAVAN: You said you collected it. Mr Curran: We did not have the noise monitor. ACTING CHAIR: One at a time.
Senator CANAVAN: You said you collected the data. Mr Curran: We didn’t have the noise monitor.
ACTING CHAIR: Hang on there, Mr Curran. Senator McKENZIE: Let’s do a research project.
ACTING CHAIR: I don’t think it’s helpful that everyone is yelling on top of each other. Senator Canavan.
Senator CANAVAN: You said you collected the data. Do you have that data?
Mr Curran: Yes, we do. We will provide that on notice. The point I was making is that we didn’t know ahead of time that we were going to do this trial, so we didn’t have a noise monitor sitting in this particular location.
Senator CANAVAN: This is not about a noise monitor, though. This was about assessing whether there had been—I think the issue here that I’m taking away, at least from your evidence, is that there was nothing obliging the airlines to hit a higher ascent. They just could. So how do we know they did or not? That’s the question. To what extent did they? Mr Curran: We can provide you that data on notice.
Answer: The published standard instrument departure routes used by jet aircraft departing from Runway 19R require aircraft to achieve a minimum altitude of 5000ft at ‘TOGIN’ waypoint (a waypoint is a geographical location used to define a flight path route). TOGIN waypoint is the ‘height marker’ referred to and is located near Mt Coot-tha.
Data for the months of April 2022 (during the period of the trial restricting the use of intersection departures off the new runway over the city) and
April 2024 (outside the trial period) indicates that aircraft achieved, and on average exceeded, the minimum altitude requirements of the standard instrument departure routes both during and after the trial:
- during the trial, 90% of jet flights were between 6,500ft to 10,600ft at the waypoint ‘TOGIN’, with an average of 8,500ft.
- outside the trial, 90% of jet flights were between 6,200ft to 10,500ft at the waypoint ‘TOGIN’, with an average of 8,000ft.
Please refer to Committee Question Number 44 (SQ24-000044) from the 2023-2024 Additional Estimates hearing for further details of the purpose and outcomes of the trial.
Additional Estimates 2023 / 2024
📺 Video recordings: Airservices; hearing date: 12 Feb 2024
Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices
41. Post-Implementation Review – Packages 3 and 4
Senator Janet Rice asked:
Senator RICE: For package 3 and package 4 to be implemented, what’s the time line?
Mr Curran: Package 3 is being developed throughout this year, for implementation into next year, and package 4 can start in parallel next year but will likely continue into 2026.
Senator RICE: And will require more staff.
Mr Curran: For the training et cetera, yes. I couldn’t give you an exact number at the moment, but we’re anticipating that the training load for a major change would require some additional staff. It’s not many staff; it’s a small number of licence-rated staff in those particular roles in Brisbane.
Senator RICE: So you’ve got a double-whammy going on, in that you are currently short of staff, compared with where you’d like to be in Brisbane, even to conduct your operations as normal, and then you’ve got this additional load that’s going to be required.
Mr Curran: I think that’s the point that Mr Harfield was making around the change program that we have coming with Brisbane, Western Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.
Senator RICE: You’ve said that you aren’t able to say now how many extra staff, compared with what you’ve got at the moment, will be needed for the implementation of package 3 and package 4. Could you take that on notice.
Mr Curran: Yes.
Answer: Brisbane operations require 39 air traffic controllers in Airservices’ Terminal Control Unit to provide full service. Airservices plans to have 46 controllers allocated to this airspace by July 2024.
The specific design and operational outcomes of Packages 3 and 4 have not yet been determined. Once this is finalised the associated procedures and training will be developed, and at this point any temporary staffing impacts will be identified.
42. Airservices – Employee Assistance Program
Senator Janet Rice asked:
Senator RICE: What’s the general advice that those EAP counsellors are providing to affected community members seeking help?
Mr Curran: I’ll have to take that on notice. As far as I’m aware, we don’t have any information about the specifics, much like with our employees. But there may be some general themes that we’d be able to provide, on notice, that might be relevant.
Answer: The EAP is a confidential counselling service that is made available to individuals and delivered by a psychologist or relevant professional.
43. Airservices – Brisbane Airport Runway during Daylight Savings
Senator Janet Rice asked:
Senator RICE: […] The CEO of Brisbane Airport Corporation wrote to the chair of the AAB, saying: ‘I am pleased to advise you that Airservices has facilitated an official Notice to Airmen update to its operations recognising that Brisbane’s new runway is not to be used for flights over the city from 10pm-6am [5am during daylight saving periods],’ … But wasn’t there already a practice, since the new runway opened, not to use it for flights over the city between 10 pm and 6 am?
Mr Curran: I might provide this quite precisely on notice for you. Certainly, we seek the preferred runway mode between 10 pm and 6 am, which is the mode we discussed before, SODPROPS. There are certain weather conditions in which SODPROPS cannot be implemented, so it is the case that SODPROPS do not occur all the time.
Senator RICE: SODPROPS, in general, between 10 and six. But this notice is actually saying that, during daylight saving periods, it only operates until five. The act, in practice, actually means there is increased early morning noise over Brisbane during daylight saving periods.
Mr Curran: I would like to take that on notice. There is a related matter in regard to turboprops—non-jet aircraft that were departing early from Brisbane. We implemented a change last year to cease that being able to happen. That was one of the changes we implemented last year. I am not sure whether we’re talking about the same thing or something different.
Senator RICE: It seems to me that there were restrictions in place between 10 and six, and now we are being told that in fact during the daylight saving period they stop at five. In fact there is extra noise between five and six.
Mr Curran: That’s certainly not the direction that we’re working towards, in terms of reducing impact. I’d need to check the details of that letter from the Chief Executive Officer of Brisbane Airport Corporation to make sure I’m answering the question correctly.
Answer: Brisbane Airport does not operate on daylight savings time. Consistent with all airport operations, the Brisbane Airport Noise Abatement Procedure (NAP) is based on local time and does not change when other states enter daylight savings time.
A Noise Abatement Procedure (NAP) relating to preferred runway use at night – 10pm to 6am local time – has been in place since the new parallel runway opened. This NAP restricts jet aircraft landing on the new runway when approaching over the city and taking off from the new runway when departing over the city. The new runway may be used for arrival or departure over the waters of Moreton Bay.
The NAP allowed departure of some turboprop aircraft between 5am and 6am from the new runway over the city. This aimed to clear some conflicting traffic to allow Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) to continue to operate for jet aircraft as the peak traffic period approaches. Engagement was undertaken based on recommendation 2.4 c) of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane to reduce the impact of aircraft operations during night-time periods which included removing the turboprop departure from the new runway. Turboprop aircraft can depart the legacy runway over the Lytton industrial estate to ensure that SODPROPS can continue to operate and to minimise noise impacts on the Brisbane community.
44. Airservices – SID Height Markers
Senator Janet Rice asked:
Senator RICE: You say that it’s available, but could you take on notice getting the analysis of how much higher the planes actually were over particular communities?
Mr Curran: Yes. We can provide the quarterly reports that we’ve published as well as the full-length departure noise benefit trial from Perth from 2012.
Answer: The noise improvement trial was recommended by the previously established Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum (BAPAF) based on community feedback it had received. The aim of the trial was to restrict the use of intersection departures off the new runway over the city. It did not extend to changing aircraft climb gradients or height requirements at particular locations.
The trial was undertaken on the basis that aircraft using the full length of the runway would gain altitude more quickly with the additional runway length compared with using a shorter departure from an intersection of the runway. The community requested this trial through BAPAF in the belief that intersection departures were creating more noise as aircraft would be at a lower altitude than using the full-length departures. The outcomes of the trial resulted in a less than one decibel difference as aircraft gained slightly higher altitudes earlier, but not sufficient altitude to make a perceptible noise difference over residential areas.
Following completion of the trial, the results were consulted with the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB) which replaced the previous BAPAF, who requested further investigation be undertaken to understand what the establishment of a minimum climb gradient or height requirement could mean for the trial results or noise improvements. This was completed by Airservices and the results were presented in November 2023. It was identified that to have a perceptible noise difference (greater than 3 decibels) at the first community overflown from the new runway (Ascot), aircraft would need to be 50 per cent higher. This would involve a climb gradient of 24 per cent. We engaged with airlines and were advised that this climb gradient is in excess of the capability of most aircraft. Aircraft that could not meet the climb gradient would have to be diverted off the Standard Instrument Departure, resulting in newly overflown communities.
The noise improvement trial ran from February 2022 to February 2023, with quarterly reports provided on the Brisbane Airport Flight Path Changes Post Implementation Review page on Engage Airservices.
The aircraft altitudes achieved during the trial are detailed in attached table.
45. Airservices – Breakdown of Expenditure on Consultants and Community Engagement Services
Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:
Senator McKENZIE: How much are we spending on consultants and community engagement services?
Mr Curran: Throughout 2023, I can give you the expenditure for our Brisbane activities. The total spend in relation to Brisbane was $373,017. I can give you some breakdown of that, if you wish.
Senator McKENZIE: On notice will be fine.
Answer: The figure of $373,017 detailed by Airservices at the hearing is for specific engagement activities for Brisbane, including newspaper and radio advertising and letterbox drops.
The total contract value issued in 2023 for consultants to support community engagement activity was $230,300 (excluding GST) for Brisbane. This included:
- $100,000 (excluding GST) for additional community engagement personnel to support
engagement events; and - $130,300 (excluding GST) to review and record feedback submissions.
46. Airservices – Total FTE for Community Engagement and Consultation
Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:
Senator McKENZIE: I want to go to community engagement. How many FTEs do you currently employ for community engagement and consultation?
Mr Curran: I will have to take on notice the total FTE for community engagement.
Answer: Airservices Australia’s community engagement team consists of 11 full time equivalent (FTE).
47. Airservices – SODPROPS data for Brisbane Airport
Senator Matthew Canavan asked:
Senator CANAVAN: […] Are you able to provide the SODPROPS data to us for both day and night-time operations in a spreadsheet format for the Brisbane airport since the last estimates?
Mr Harfield: Yes, we can, Senator.
Senator CANAVAN: Just to be clear, that should include the dates, the number of SODPROPS flights and hours of operations of SODPROPS as well.
Answer: Please refer to Committee Question Number 55 (SQ23-004806) from the 2023-2024 Supplementary Budget Estimates hearing for Brisbane SODPROPS data for the period 1 June 2023 – 30 September 2023.
Brisbane SODPROPS data for the period 1 October 2023 to 29 February 2024 is provided in Attachment A.
49. Airservices – SODPROPS data for Brisbane
Senator Matthew Canavan asked:
Senator CANAVAN: I don’t know exactly what the metric should be. I would have thought there would be some measure here that you benchmark and say, ‘This many people for this amount of time were impacted previously, and now because of what we’ve done we’ve achieved a reduction in X amount.’
Mr Curran: Perhaps to convert these into percentages might be more meaningful for committee members. The data I have to share with you today is the total minutes it has been available that we’ve used SODPROPS— the change that I was talking about—which was 27,132 for the second half of last calendar year. Those are the sort of meaningful metrics that we can give to communities. We can also give those by time of day—daytime, evening and nighttime. And typically when we find and engage with communities there are more sensitive hours obviously than others. They are very interested in those kinds of details as well. We do publish this data on our website on a quarterly basis.
Senator CANAVAN: Are you saying 27,000 hours you’ve used these SODPROPS?
Mr Curran: Yes.
Senator CANAVAN: Am I right to say those 27 hours previously—that’s over a year, is it?
Mr Curran: It’s over six months from June to December 2023.
Senator CANAVAN: If without the use of these SODPROPS, would those 27,000 hours have been flying over people’s houses?
Mr Curran: I don’t think we can just draw that straight conclusion. We have had SODPROPS in use. We’ve sought to use it more, and so there’s probably another level of detail we would need to provide you on notice.
Senator CANAVAN: I am trying to assess what we have done or the impact. That doesn’t work either. Maybe you can take that on notice. Can we get an estimate of what has been the impact of the changes on people living in Brisbane?
[…]
Senator CANAVAN: You said you used SODPROPS before. […] What was it for the six months for the second half of 2022?
Mr Curran: I would have to take that on notice.
Senator CANAVAN: Can you get me going back to 2019, before COVID. Once we get too far back we will start getting into the COVID period. Can you get me the last six months of 2019 and going forward?
Mr Curran: I can’t go earlier than the runway opening, which was in July 2020, because we weren’t using that mode of operation. I can go back to the runway opening in July 2020.
Senator CANAVAN: Yes, okay, because it’s still coming up as an issue, that’s all.
Answer: The use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) in Brisbane aims to maximise flights over water and minimise the impact on the community.
The following table provides data on total SODPROPS availability and movements since the introduction of the new runway. SODPROPS was not possible prior to the new runway commencing operations.
| Year | SODPROPS availability (shown in hours) | SODPROPS availability (shown in minutes) | SODPROPS movements |
| 2019 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2020 (from 1 August) | 892.4 | 53545 | 4836 |
| 2021 | 1583.6 | 95015 | 9266 |
| 2022 | 1229.1 | 73748 | 8196 |
| 2023 | 766.3 | 45976 | 4661 |
In general, 50% of all operations in Brisbane will be over water due to the orientation of the parallel runways – either arrivals occur over water and departures over land, or arrivals over land and departures over water, depending on the prevailing wind conditions at the time.
SODPROPS seeks to increase the percentage of over water operations by having both arrivals and departures occur over water, when conditions allow. SODPROPS is the preferred operating mode at night, reducing the impact on communities at sensitive times.
The impact of using SODPROPS mode since runway opening in 2020 is that approximately 13,000 flights did not operate over communities close to the airport.
128. AIRSERVICES – Community Engagement
Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:
- Can you provide a list of all 2023-24 engagement projects or programs you have ongoing?
- When was your last community pop up event? Where was it?
- How does Airservices compare value for money on time performance?
- How much of the annual budget is on stakeholder engagement?
Answer:
- 2023-24 Engagement Projects in progress as at 29 February 2024:
- Flight Path Changes:
o Noise Action Plan for Brisbane;
o Western Sydney International Airport – supporting Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts;
o Melbourne Aircraft Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) Trial;
o Gold Coast Airport Noise Monitoring Review;
o Sunshine Coast Airport Airspace Changes Post Implementation Review;
o Hobart Community and Industry Suggested Alternatives;
o Port Lincoln Airport – New Arrivals Approach to Runway 01; and
o Increased Surveillance Services for 4 Towers – Hobart, Launceston, Mackay and Rockhampton. - National PFAS Management Program (landholder engagement):
o Rockhampton Detailed Site Investigation (DSI)
o Gold Coast DSI;
o Launceston DSI;
o Melbourne DSI;
o Hobart DSI; and
o Canberra DSI.
- Most recent community event was on 20 January 2024: Western Sydney International Airport drop-in session at Arncliffe
- The Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (BITRE) reports the on time performance of major domestic airlines each month. Airservices also reports this data in its Australian Aviation Network Overview reports. On time performance may be affected by a range of factors including weather, airlines, airports, and air navigation service providers.
- The 2023-24 Airservices Community Engagement business unit budget is $3,330,260 inclusive of resourcing, advertising and venue hire.
Larger programs also include community engagement budget (inclusive of resourcing, advertising and venue hire):
- Noise Action Plan for Brisbane: $1,850,000;
- Western Sydney International Airport: $1,100,000; and
- National PFAS Management Plan: $497,000.
132. AIRSERVICES – Continuous Descent Technology (CDT)
Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:
- Does Airservices have any priority list for the implementation of CDT, if so, please provide a list in order of priority?
- What airports are planned to have CDT implemented over the next ten years and by what date?
- Are there any constraints on implementing CDT at all major airports and what, if any, are they?
- Will CDT be implemented at Sydney Airport? If so, by what date?
Answer:
- Following is the list for implementing Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) in the order of priority:
a. Melbourne
b. Sydney
c. Perth
d. Brisbane - The initial plan to implement CDO, is for 4 high-density airports listed below. Based on the outcome of the trials on these initial 4 airports, expansion of the CDO will be considered for other airports.
a. Melbourne – trials commenced in December 2022, with a plan to transition into routine operations in Quarter two (Q2) 2024;
b. Sydney (only specific to arrivals from oceanic) – trials planned to commence in Q4-2024;
c. Perth – trials planned to commence in Q4-2024; and
d. Brisbane (specific to arrivals from oceanic) – trials planned to commence in 2025. - Complexity of the airspace (e.g. current airspace design, special use airspace, flight paths, volume/mixture of traffic etc.) can constrain CDO’s implementation.
- Please see response to question 2b.
134. AIRSERVICES – Brisbane Suburbs noise complaints
Senator Janet Rice asked:
- Please provide an updated list of the suburbs where complainants reside that have contacted the Airservices Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) in relation to Brisbane Airport or Archerfield Airport over the period July 2020 to February 2024.
- What budget has been allocated to the resource the NCIS team in the last and in this financial year?
- What proportion of the budget and NCIS resources is going to deal with complaints from Greater Brisbane considering that the volume of complaints is greater than all other complains across the country combined?
Answer:
- Attachment A lists the suburbs of complainants that have contacted the Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) in relation to Brisbane Airport over the period July 2020 to February 2024 [227 suburbs].
- Attachment B lists the suburbs of complainants that have contacted the NCIS in relation to Archerfield Airport over the period July 2020 to February 2024 [153 suburbs].
- The 2023-24 Airservices NCIS budget is $1,122,134. In 2022-23 the NCIS budget was $765,505.
- Approximately 37 per cent of NCIS resources were allocated to Brisbane complaints in
- This is based on the proportion of total complaints responded to nationally and those responded to for Brisbane.
135. AIRSERVICES – SODPROPS extended weekend hours
Senator Janet Rice asked:
From 7 May 2022, Airservices announced the SODPROPS Weekend Extension Trial, which reintroduced SODPROPS from 6-8am Sat/Sun and 8pm-10pm Sat.
- Why has Airservices stopped producing reports on this trial for more than 12 months now?
- How often have ATCs actually been able to put Brisbane Airport into SODPROPS mode during those extended weekend hours over the last 12 months?
- Please provide the missing data in the same format as in the 2022 quarterly reports, including:
- Total hours of SODPROPS between 6am – 8am on weekends
- Number of flights directed over the bay between 6am – 8am on weekends
- Total hours of SODPROPS between 8pm – 10pm on weekends
- Number of flights directed over the bay between 8pm – 10pm on weekends
- Total hours SODPROPS was used over a 24 hour period
- Number of flights directed over the bay during SODPROPS operations.
Answer:
- Reporting on the trial ceased when the trial ended in February 2023. The trial enabled more aircraft to operate over water and therefore away from communities, and as a result, it was determined to adopt the trial on a permanent basis, where weather and safety conditions permitted its use.
As part of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, recommendation 1.4, Airservices is developing public reporting to increase transparency of operations which will include SODPROPS use, Noise Abatement Procedures use, aircraft tracking and altitude and noise complainant and complaint reporting. - The total hours and number of aircraft movements achieved during the ongoing extended SODPROPS hours over the past 12 months (1 February 2023 to 31 January 2024) are provided below.
| Saturday and Sunday 6am to 8am | |
| Total hours weather and safety conditions permitted the use of SODPROPS between 6am – 8am on weekends | 12.8 hours |
| Number of flights directed over the bay during SODPROPS between 6am – 8am on weekends | 200 |
| Saturday and Sunday 8pm to 10pm | |
| Total hours weather and safety conditions permitted the use of SODPROPS between 8pm – 10pm on weekends | 38.9 hours |
| Number of flights directed over the bay during SODPROPS between 8pm – 10pm on weekends | 364 |
| Total SODPROPS 24 hours, 7 days a week | |
| Total hours SODPROPS was used over this period | 729.2 hours |
| Number of flights directed over the bay during SODPROPS operations | 4582 |
To operate SODPROPS, specific weather conditions are required including:
- dry runway;
- less than 5 knots in either direction (tailwind);
- cloud base not lower than 2500ft; and
- visibility of a minimum of 8km.
As a low capacity mode, total traffic of less than 20 arrivals per hour is also required to operate in this mode.