How do I register?
Airservices Australia have launched the Post-Implementation Review (PIR) portal for the new parallel runway, and we encourage all residents affected by noise pollution from Brisbane Airport’s flight paths to register and subscribe for updates. Follow the below three step process. A help guide is also available here.
Update #6: Brisbane PIR Community Information Sessions Oct 2021
Airservices have advised today on 28 Sep 2021 that they will be hosting Community Information Sessions in October.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions affecting the number of people allowed in indoor venues, and to provide a meaningful opportunity for discussion between Airservices and the community, sessions are limited to 50 guests but will also be Livestreamed.
Not sure what questions to ask of Airservices in the Oct 2021 info sessions?
Here are some suggestions. Please use this form to submit your questions. You can submit the form multiple times.
Why was Airservices able to quietly remove over-the-bay operations (SODPROPS) from day-time priority 1 mode when that was a key noise abatement measure in the approved MDP/EIS?
In Sydney and other parallel runway airports, SODPROPS are used more often than in Brisbane. Why is their use in Brisbane so limited as a noise abatement strategy?
How will Airservices ensure it achieves the MDP/EIS target to increase overnight over-the-bay (OTB) utilisation to 90%?
What budget has been allocated to advertise and promote the PIR to the wider Brisbane communities across 130+ suburbs?
Why did Airservices violate its own design principle that residential areas overflown by departing aircraft should not also be overflown by arriving aircraft?
The Airports Act requires the impacts of the NPR once completed to be considered, even if the potential impacts had not been evident in the 1st instance. How will Airservices do that?
How will Airservices ensure the PIR process is independent considering it is inherently conflicted in conducting a review of its own implementation performance and design outcomes?
Why is the 2007 MDP/EIS not included in the scope of the PIR?
Why is the upper airspace high-level route structure not included in the scope of the PIR?
Why does Airservices rely on the community’s suggestions for alternatives to improve outcomes when in Senate Estimates your CEO suggests that is YOUR bread and butter?
Why does the draft PIR ToR not include any KPIs with regards to articulating how transparency, independence, objectivity and integrity will be embedded in the PIR process?
Why is the scope of the PIR limited to noise impacts when there is strong evidence of other negative impacts that should also be considered, e.g. the potential contamination of tank drinking water?
What is the proposed decision-making process to assess alternatives and evaluate trade-offs between competing principles?
What was the role and involvement of BAC in Airservices arriving at a flight path design that maximises the airport’s profit at the expense of noise abatement procedures for the community?
Why did Airservices allow BAC to conduct inadequate community engagement focusing on residents living within a 5km radius of the airport when the nearest residence is 6.7 km away?
How is conflict of interest managed in the relationship between Airservices and BAC, and how does Airservices prevent the risk of collusion and regulatory capture?
Why did Airservices design flight paths that maximise the airport’s capacity to 110 flights an hour without any proper noise abatements when this capacity is not needed for years to come?
Why are arriving aircraft flying on average much lower over Brisbane than at other airports, which causes aircraft to be on higher power further increasing fuel consumption and noise?
The reduction of noise under the Legacy flight paths seems to be caused by COVID-19. So what does Airservices actually mean by noise sharing here?
Sydney Airport operates guided by a Long-Term Operating Plan (LTOP) – why doesn’t Brisbane have one?
BAC say in their promo video: “There was no rule book for this. There was no guidelines or anything. We had to make this one up.” Why did Airservices allow BAC to make things up?
Update #5: Airservices reschedule information sessions after community pressure
BFPCA expressed our strong reservations and concerns considering the short notice given to communities about the proposed information sessions on 22nd and 25th Sep 2021 with the dates being set during school holidays, numbers being capped at 50 people, and the level of difficulty for interested people to RSVP and ask questions. As a result, Airservices have now announced that they will reschedule these information sessions for some time in October 2021.
Update #4: Airservices announce PIR community information sessions
Yesterday, 14 Sep 2021, 5.30pm, Airservices sent emails to people subscribed to the PIR engagement portal informing them of two upcoming community information sessions for the Brisbane Airport Flight Path Changes Post Implementation Review (PIR). They will be held on Wednesday 22 Sep and Saturday 25 Sep 2021.
Information about these events and how to RSVP can be found on the Airservices Engage website here. To access this website, make sure you register and subscribe following the three steps listed above.
Update #3: BFPCA’s feedback on PIR draft Terms of Reference
The Post-Implementation Review (PIR) has been presented by Airservices and the responsible Minister as an opportunity to review the implementation process, and to identify improvements to the airspace design. Unfortunately, the proposed scope of the PIR will almost certainly produce an outcome without any meaningful improvement.
Airservices are effectively “marking their own homework,” and the organisation lacks the necessary independence to complete an effective review. It is evident that Airservices has been unable to deliver a fair and transparent process for the community to date, and BFPCA does not have the confidence that Airservices is capable in doing so in the PIR. Independent leadership of the PIR is imperative to deliver an impartial and unbiased review.
The proposed process to develop improvements and solutions is equally of concern. The current airspace design is operationally inefficient, does not meet the normal safety assurance principles, and ignores most of Airservices’ own best practice design principles that were in place during the airspace design phase. The proposed reliance on the community to suggest solutions to these issues in a highly complex network of flight paths appears to be an exercise designed to avoid Airservices fulfilling its core mandate. Airservices should instead lead the development of alternatives, supported by an independent technical advisory group to better inform all stakeholders about the range of alternatives possible.
The proposed exclusion of the 2007 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the high-level route structure from the scope of the PIR is also a critical omission. Exclusion of these will prevent the PIR from identifying the issues of most concern to the community, and limit the design flexibility needed to resolve the concerns in the most effective way.
BFPCA have submitted a written statement with detailed feedback proposing 23 critical amendments to the PIR Terms of Reference (ToR). You can read BFPCA’s full submission to Airservices here.
Update #2: Comment on the PIR draft Terms of Reference by 5 Sep
Airservices have released their draft Terms of Reference for its Post-Implementation Review (PIR). The PIR is the primary way Airservices evaluate whether its flight paths are up to scratch following changes it puts in place at airports across Australia. This process starts off by determining what’s in scope and then will progress to the actual review component – the process taking between 12-18 months.
The Terms of Reference (also shortened to ToR) is the document that defines what Airservices will consider as part of its PIR – the scope – and is what is up for comment now.
Setting aside the fact that it is unethical and a conflict of interest for the body who designed the flight paths to also be the umpire of them, BFPCA has major concerns that Airservices’ scope for the PIR is deficient.
We need you to comment on the PIR ToR by 5 Sep 2021 and ask for the following to be included as “in scope:”
- EIS 2007 data and modelling as the base comparison for all items reviewed;
- Community engagement for 2007 EIS paths and community engagement during the two rounds of changes post 2007 EIS;
- Design of the NPR new ‘super highway’ flight path and its compliance to best practice noise abatement practices and Airservices design principles;
- Establishment of the ‘super highway’ and the unsustainable inward and outward-bound traffic and its compliance with Airservices stated principle of not moving noise across communities;
- Full evaluation of the BAC airport operating modes decision (ie. mixed parallel simultaneous operation) and the impacts on the flightpath design and the resultant noise and other environment outcomes;
- Preparation and presentation of accurate and detailed total system Flightpath aircraft movement and noise impact modelling options at varying scenarios of air traffic volumes, operating modes and noise abatement procedures (these should all be unconstrained scenarios);
- Detailed review of aircraft operating caps and curfews as best practice noise abatement controls across the world and applicability to Brisbane Airport;
- Effectiveness of community engagement and need for an independent and funded community lead forum providing advocacy and resources for communities in fly over zones (ie; covering safety, health, lifestyle and financial impact outcomes);
- Accuracy of Community Engagement data as to traffic volumes and noise levels across Brisbane and in particular, areas sensitive areas with Tank Water supplies and those regions not identified as having any noise impacts including; Upper Brookfield, New Farm and Samford Valley. This also includes ceasing and rectification of the operations design for communities not consultation or where significant there is (or will be) significant change in noise EIS commitments.
Remember this isn’t yet the full review component – so while it’s important to include a bit about your story so the submission is personalised, you will be asked for more complete feedback later in their process.
Update #1: BFPCA’s stance on the PIR
A PIR is a structured Airservices-internal process to review performance of the new flight paths to date and suggestions for change. BFPCA welcomes any attempt to fix the mess that BAC and Airservices have inflicted on the community. And there is no doubt that all impacted community members need to strongly engage and make their feelings known.
BFPCA is concerned that this is the organisation that over the last 15 years has:
- effectively worked as a partner with BAC in allowing a private organisation to secure maximum airspace capacity without any reasonable regard to the health, wellness or financial impact on the impacted host community;
- allowed the unrealistic headline claims of ‘over the bay operations and minimal noise impact’ to be consistently sold to a trusting community;
- supported grossly inaccurate flight path data, disaggregated aircraft movement numbers and inaccurate noise modelling;
- and is also the organisation that for a decade had been widely criticised in internal, external, ANO and Senate reports and inquiries for its poor community engagement and response.
To now expect that an internal review by the same organisation that to date has failed to accept any issues with the Brisbane flight path design will now have the energy, leadership and courage to wipe the slate clean and deliver a real best practice outcome that correctly balances all stakeholder interests is hard to accept.
We saw last week the Airservices CEO attempt to answer a number of Brisbane flight path related senate estimate questions (initiated by BFPCA). Our observation was of a leader who either:
- was not aware of any community issues with the Brisbane flight paths;
- was not interested in being briefed on the Brisbane flight paths issues;
- or thinks the Brisbane flight paths are a great success.
We, as severely impacted residents, must demand ‘real’ air space best practice starting with a new design from scratch not band aid solutions, tinkering at the edges or a timely bureaucratic distraction to quell recent media heat or hopefully circumvent a potentially damning Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) report.
BFPCA applauds any meaningful PIR review but we hope it’s not another ‘smoke and mirrors’ exercise that has worked so effectively for the new flight path proponents over many years. We trusted but Airservices failed us.
We still await on hearing of any interest from Airservices as to the sobering BFPCA Community Survey results that were issued last week.
Can we now expect leadership from within Airservices with an appropriate level of ‘People before Planes’ mindset to solve the problems? Time will tell. If it is to happen it must be led from the Chair and the Board. What has been dished up over the years by the Executive Management team across numerous states does not pass any test.
Any PIR process or outcomes should not pit communities in Brisbane against each other. Similarly, the PIR must not bamboozle communities with technical and jargonistic arguments about why the terrible status quo is the best option. Wholesale change is what’s needed – not bandaid solutions.
We plan to engage where possible in the PIR in a positive manner. However, Airservices has further damaged its standing in the community, and it is now reasonable for the community to be less trusting, the onus is on Airservices to demonstrate that they are a trustworthy organisation now. We won’t be fooled again.