Thank you to all community members who provided feedback on Airservices’ Recommendation 4 assessment report and outcome. We appreciate the time taken to provide this feedback.
We received submissions from 47 individuals. 42 of these noted opposition to the decision, requesting it be reconsidered. Three submitters noted support and two did not state a specific position, providing more general feedback.
We have considered the feedback in detail, providing responses directly where questions were asked or clarification was sought. No feedback received has presented an issue not previously considered or a matter requiring further consideration and investigation that might require the original decision to be rejected.
As such, Airservices’ decision not to proceed with the relocation of the short approach to the east will remain unchanged. It was not considered reasonable to shift all southern runway end operations over the same area without the opportunity for respite.
The feedback received has led to some updates to the assessment report. This includes:
- Additional information in Section 2.2.2 explaining the two-kilometre corridor that is used for assessment of population directly overflown.
- Additional information in Section 2.2.3 explaining how community feedback informs the factors considered in assessments and why matters raised by communities are given regard in these assessments.
- Minor corrections to section references and caption numbers.
- Amendments to the size of the circles in Figure 11 to clarify that the area of cumulative impact does not include the area over water immediately south of these locations.
We received feedback questioning the inclusion of cumulative impact as a consideration in the assessment and stating that this information was not presented to the community during the engagement period, thereby not enabling community feedback on this matter. Assessment of the cumulative impact of the proposed change was in fact an outcome of the engagement. The subsequent assessment report review period has afforded the community the opportunity to review and provide feedback on this consideration. Had the information been supplied as part of initial materials presented during the engagement period, the opportunity for community feedback would be the same.
We also note receipt of feedback suggesting the assessment of Noise Abatement Procedure effectiveness should have been done prior to the last round of engagement. Airservices’ detailed assessment is conducted following community engagement on the preferred design to ensure all relevant factors are given regard to in this assessment. Airservices was committed to retaining this NAP given its success in reducing impacts on current short approach communities. Its effectiveness became more important following identification of the new areas of cumulative impact, as the ability to provide respite for these communities became a focus. The community was afforded the opportunity to review and provide feedback on this consideration as part of the assessment report review period.
Airservices acknowledges that not all community members are pleased with this outcome however, as stated in the assessment report, it was not deemed reasonable to remove all aircraft operations from one community, and to place them over another already subject to more operations in total and with no opportunity for respite.
This concludes Airservices’ investigation of the Post Implementation Review community suggested improvements.
We thank all communities for their active participation in this program.
Thank you to all community members who provided feedback on Airservices’ Recommendation 4 assessment report and outcome. We appreciate the time taken to provide this feedback.
We received submissions from 47 individuals. 42 of these noted opposition to the decision, requesting it be reconsidered. Three submitters noted support and two did not state a specific position, providing more general feedback.
We have considered the feedback in detail, providing responses directly where questions were asked or clarification was sought. No feedback received has presented an issue not previously considered or a matter requiring further consideration and investigation that might require the original decision to be rejected.
As such, Airservices’ decision not to proceed with the relocation of the short approach to the east will remain unchanged. It was not considered reasonable to shift all southern runway end operations over the same area without the opportunity for respite.
The feedback received has led to some updates to the assessment report. This includes:
- Additional information in Section 2.2.2 explaining the two-kilometre corridor that is used for assessment of population directly overflown.
- Additional information in Section 2.2.3 explaining how community feedback informs the factors considered in assessments and why matters raised by communities are given regard in these assessments.
- Minor corrections to section references and caption numbers.
- Amendments to the size of the circles in Figure 11 to clarify that the area of cumulative impact does not include the area over water immediately south of these locations.
We received feedback questioning the inclusion of cumulative impact as a consideration in the assessment and stating that this information was not presented to the community during the engagement period, thereby not enabling community feedback on this matter. Assessment of the cumulative impact of the proposed change was in fact an outcome of the engagement. The subsequent assessment report review period has afforded the community the opportunity to review and provide feedback on this consideration. Had the information been supplied as part of initial materials presented during the engagement period, the opportunity for community feedback would be the same.
We also note receipt of feedback suggesting the assessment of Noise Abatement Procedure effectiveness should have been done prior to the last round of engagement. Airservices’ detailed assessment is conducted following community engagement on the preferred design to ensure all relevant factors are given regard to in this assessment. Airservices was committed to retaining this NAP given its success in reducing impacts on current short approach communities. Its effectiveness became more important following identification of the new areas of cumulative impact, as the ability to provide respite for these communities became a focus. The community was afforded the opportunity to review and provide feedback on this consideration as part of the assessment report review period.
Airservices acknowledges that not all community members are pleased with this outcome however, as stated in the assessment report, it was not deemed reasonable to remove all aircraft operations from one community, and to place them over another already subject to more operations in total and with no opportunity for respite.
This concludes Airservices’ investigation of the Post Implementation Review community suggested improvements.
We thank all communities for their active participation in this program.
Hobart Post Implementation Review Recommended Actions.pdf (420 KB) (pdf)
Recommendation 4 - RNP-AR relocation
Noise levels associated with the movement of an A320 aircraft on the RNAV approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of a B712 aircraft on the RNAV approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of a B738 aircraft on the RNAV approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of an A320 aircraft on the RNP-AR approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of a B712 aircraft on the RNP-AR approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of a B738 aircraft on the RNP-AR approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of a A220 aircraft on the RNP-AR approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of a A220 aircraft on the RNP-AR approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of a A220 aircraft on the proposed RNP-AR approach to RWY 30
Noise levels associated with the movement of an A320 aircraft on the proposed RNP-AR approach to RWY 30