Chapter 4Flight path design
4.1This chapter outlines the current approach of Airservices Australia (Airservices) to flight path design and airspace management in Australia and describes Airservices' Flight Path Design Principles, which inform its decision-making in relation to flight paths.
4.2The chapter then looks at inquiry evidence detailing concerns raised with Airservices' flight path design, comments on the flight path design process for Western Sydney International Airport (WSI), and considers an alternative approach to flight path design—the United Kingdom's (UK) altitude based airspace management policy.
Australian airspace and flight path design
4.3Management of Australian airspace for civil and defence aviation purposes is shared between Airservices and the Australian Department of Defence (Defence). Airservices manages non-military airspace, and some military airspace, providing air traffic control services and equipment to 'maintain a safe and efficient flow of air traffic'. Airservices ensures that aircraft are separated and sequenced during arrival to and departure from airports. Whereas Defence provides air navigation services and infrastructure, as well as air traffic services and rescue and firefighting services, at military air bases.
4.4Daily management of civil aviation airspace is handled by air traffic controllers, who are trained and employed by Airservices. Airspace is managed according to procedures specific to each airport; these include 'standard instrument procedures for departures and arrivals' and 'noise management and abatement procedures'.
4.5Aircraft in managed airspace use flight paths. Flight paths are like 'highways in the sky' which 'define the anticipated routes of aircraft both in the enroute phase of flight as well as when arriving and departing from an airport'. While ideally aircraft would fly the most direct route for speed and fuel efficiency, this is not always possible due to safety and noise considerations. Runway location and orientation is a key factor in determining flight paths and there is more flexibility in the design of departing aircraft than for landing aircraft. There is also some deviation from exact flight paths in daily practice, due to weather and environmental conditions.
4.6According to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (Infrastructure Department/the department), flight path design 'must comply' with:
relevant national and international practices and regulations for 'safe and efficient air navigation and aircraft operations' and
be compatible with 'the operational performance of the current and anticipated future aircraft fleets that could be expected to use an airport'.
4.7As well as being responsible for most of the flight path design relating to major airports, Airservices is required to design noise abatement procedures along with those flight paths.
Concerns with Airservices' flight path design
4.8Inquiry participants were concerned about the timing, processes, and technical quality of Airservices' flight path design, and critical of the principles applied by Airservices and the department in decision-making on flight paths.
4.9Evidence from noise-affected residents demonstrated anger, frustration and concern with Airservices' flight path design practices. Brisbane resident, Mr David Swan said:
Given the level of effective control Airservices exercises over information and flight path design there is little scope for the community, and particularly sections of the broader community, to have objections to such decisions and related processes meaningfully addressed. This is an issue that has been identified in numerous inquiries and reviews.
4.10The issue of consultation, including Airservices' consultation processes and procedures, is discussed in the next chapter of this report. This section focuses on the policies and approaches adopted by Airservices to inform its flight path design.
4.11Guided by its Flight Path Design Principles, published in October 2020, Airservices submitted:
We aim to minimise the impact of aircraft operations on the community where practicable. This includes designing flight paths to avoid overflying residential areas, where possible, and consulting with the community and aviation industry on proposed flight path and airspace changes to achieve the best outcome, balancing the needs of all stakeholders.
4.12The Flight Path Design Principles (shown below) stipulate that safety is the first priority and always applies. According to Airservices, the remaining Principles 'are not weighted' and are 'considered equally in the flight path change process'. However, not all Principles 'apply to every flight path change'.
Figure 4.1Airservices Flight Path Design Principles
Source: Airservices Australia, Flight Path Design Principles, October 2020, p. 5.
4.13Residents Against Western Sydney Airport (RAWSA) submitted that Airservices' design and implementation of flight paths 'is a major generator of noise impacts on communities living near airports and under flight paths'. Under its current policies, Airservices is able to 'continually ignore' community and environmental impacts because the Principles 'structurally inhibit adequate risk management assessments and treatments, regarding noise impacts'. In particular:
Under the heading of 'Purpose' the [Airservices] Flight Path Design Principles document states:
'We need to manage the impacts of aviation activities and this requires a careful balance of ensuring safety, operational efficiency, protecting the environment and minimising the effects of aviation noise on communities, wherever practicable.'
4.14RAWSA argued the caveat 'wherever practicable'—which is only applied to the community and noise principle—means that Airservices will only consider noise impacts if the principles relating to 'Aviation Efficiency and Operational Matters, are not affected'. RAWSA noted the Principles document contains many similar examples:
The frequent use of qualifying terms such as; 'to the maximum extent possible; as far as is possible to do so; where possible' are 'aviation favoured escape clauses' built into Principles relating to protection of people and environments. No such 'where possible' qualifiers are included in principles that may impact other operational factors or constrain airport operations.
The terms; 'taking into account other operational factors' and 'while not constraining airport operations and economic benefits' make it quite clear that aviation profits are considered more important to Government and its Agencies, than adverse impacts on people and the environment.
4.15Mr Trevor Neal from RAWSA said it is reasonable that safety is the first priority, but 'efficiency, profitmaking and operational issues' should be lowerpriority than 'the environment [and] the protection of people'.
4.16Longstanding SACF member, Mr John Clarke recommended the Long-Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport (LTOP) principles, as outlined in Chapter 3 of this report, be 'embodied in Airservices flight-path design principles and in all of their operating procedures'. In his submission, Mr Clarke explained that an earlier draft version of the Principles included a strong focus on 'designing flight paths that minimised the community impact'. This approach was 'diminished' in the final version, and a 'principle of fairly sharing aircraft noise' was deleted.
4.17The Mount Glorious Community Association noted that Australia has 'regulatory regimes' to manage the impacts of development and growth, but 'seemingly no effective regulatory oversight of how the use of airspace directly above communities can be changed'. Similarly, the Carlton River, Primrose Sands, and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group (Flight Path Opponents Group) quoted a noise-affected community member who said:
Aircraft flight paths design is not being directly regulated by the government, this should change. These paths use the space and air above our houses and although they are a transport corridor they are not treated as such during the approval process. They should be lodging DAs (Development Applications) at the councils like everyone else does when building a house or a road and give council planners, planning authorities, and residents an opportunity to comment and approve or reject their proposals.
4.18In contrast, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) said Australia's airspace regulators, service providers, airlines and airports 'all contribute to safe and appropriate flight path design that is informed by community expectations'.RAAA supported existing policies and concluded that community expectations 'need to be carefully balanced with aviation safety as well as the other economic and social contributions' of aviation.
4.19In its submission, Airservices highlighted the complexity of flight path design and the need to balance competing priorities. However, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO), Mr Kieran Pehm said, until recently 'industry has completely dominated the philosophy, the reason for being, of Airservices'. In designing flight paths, Airservices would never have previously sacrificed 'industry factors' to mitigate noise:
It wouldn't have even occurred to Airservices, that they should use a longer flight path rather than a shorter one, until fairly recently. It's only very recently they're starting to look at it and take it into account as a factor. I don't think, internally, they have worked out how they are going to do that and what weight it should have.
4.20In addition, ANO submitted that, under current rules, airport operators can contract independent flight path designers when proposing new flight paths. These are reviewed by Airservices with 'little or no regard to the noise impact on communities', and the ANO did not identify any basis for proposed designs to be 'rejected or modified on the basis of community impact'.
4.21RAWSA proposed that Government modifies Airservices' Flight Path Design Principles to ensure that principles related to minimising noise and environmental impacts are given 'more importance and applied before Principles related to "Aviation Efficiency and Operational Matters"'.
4.22Pilots and airlines were also critical of Airservices' airspace management. Chief Technical Pilot, Flight Operations at Qantas, Captain Alex Passerini, said 'the airspace procedure design is quite inefficient' and there is a 'need to find a balance between the noise and the environmental aspects'.
4.23Virgin proposed establishing 'clear guidelines for balancing community and industry needs in flight path design', saying these measures would achieve 'quieter and more efficient operations at Brisbane Airport, benefiting both the local community and the aviation industry'. Similarly, Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) suggested government should develop 'a framework for noise and emission trade-offs that can be consistently applied' and should 'mandate engagement with State and local planning authorities at flight path design stage, to minimise noise impacts on residential areas'.
4.24Sydney Airport highlighted the need to balance noise mitigation with carbon emissions reduction, saying:
… designing airspace and flight paths in a manner designed to minimise noise impacts could result in a significant increase in flight time and therefore carbon emissions. Achieving better noise and emissions outcomes are both vitally important and Sydney Airport believes that achieving an appropriate balance is important and that emissions outcomes also need to be considered when any change to noise outcomes is being considered.
4.25The Flight Path Opponents Group criticised Airservices' over-reliance on the Matters of National Environment Significance (MNES) database when conducting environmental assessments, saying 'local knowledge is essential for proper environmental assessments' of proposed airspace changes.
4.26Some inquiry participants suggested Airservices' flight path designs should be subject to review by an external party. Airservices submitted that, following its experience with Brisbane's new parallel runway, it has 'taken the learnings of Brisbane and [is] looking at the inclusion of external independent assurance review in other projects … [and to] have validation by a third party of [its] designs'.
Timing and delays
4.27Timing of flight path design was also criticised. Mayor of Wollondilly Shire Council, Mr Matt Gould described the recent WSI flight path Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process as 'fundamentally flawed', saying decisions were made and runways were already being built before the flight path EIS consultation process, significantly impacting 'the ability to mitigate a lot of these issues':
If we were looking at genuine investigation and planning and genuinely trying to get this right then all of that work should have been done beforehand. We should have had a review of the flight paths for both airports and incorporated them.
4.28Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) was concerned that the WSI flight path EIS does not include flight path design for the final stage of the airport's development—second runway operations. According to WSROC, this 'presents a critical deficiency in assessing impacts to current and future communities'.
4.29While the timing of flight path design in relation to the MDP and EIS processes is not determined by Airservices, the committee also heard evidence that Airservices' design and consideration of noise abatement procedures is frustratingly slow. Tasmanian resident, Mrs Sharon Fotheringham suggested Airservices should be held to a 'strict time frame' for flight path design, saying:
For 7 years, and it is still ongoing, my community has been seeking a positive solution to Runway 30 Flight Path and [Airservices] has still not made a decision. In fact, I hold the opinion unless forced to do so the current situation will remain indefinitely and never change because this is an easy out for [Airservices].
4.30According to the department, planning for WSI was produced using the ANEC contour (instead of the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)), which is 'based on the preliminary flight path design and forecast flight movements'. This approach provides at least a preliminary measure for the community.
4.31Airservices acknowledged that its response to past consultation processes has been inadequate. However, new interim CEO, Mr Rob Sharp, said 'our commitment to improvement is that we will work to find the best solutions that are within our power to deliver'. Despite this assurance, the ANO reported that Airservices is struggling to create processes that would allow it to successfully integrate outcomes of community engagement into the work of its operational areas:
In designing and repositioning flight paths, a transparent process for achieving a fair balance between community feedback and industry, environmental and other relevant considerations is continuing to be developed.
4.32Mr Pehm recommended Airservices apply its Community Engagement Standard for Flight Path and Airspace Change Proposals to all flight path changes and use it to 'benchmark permanent flight path and airport changes made by any proponent, such as airport operators or local councils'. He argued that 'the profile' of community engagement and noise mitigation must be raised within Airservices, and that Airservices should explore international systems and techniques for noise mitigation and seek to improve its practices.
Hobart flight path changes
4.33Issues arising from flight path changes at Hobart Airport provided a key example for the inquiry of the problems with Airservices' processes, and its consideration of community impacts in decision-making.
4.34As outlined in Chapter 1 of this report, Airservices introduced flight path changes at Hobart Airport in September 2017. The new flight paths and procedures used new technologies to standardise arrival and departure routes, allow for increasing flight traffic, reduce complexity for pilots and air traffic controllers, and enable pilots to improve fuel management and reduce emissions using on-board systems.
4.35According to the ANO, which investigated complaints about the changes in 2018, the changes were sudden and unexpected, immediately impacting residents, including in areas that were previously not overflown. Airservices conducted minimal consultation prior to commencing the change, and its subsequent engagement was poorly-handled and inadequate.
4.36Mrs Fotheringham described her seven-year involvement in the process, and said:
This flight path was placed directly over the most populated area of the Tasman Peninsula and affects approximately 8000 residents. There was little or no consultation with residents. This is totally unacceptable as planes are operating on this path 20–22 hours a day, dB readings are as high as 90, height of planes is approx. 2000 feet or less and decreasing rapidly over the homes and we have been informed there will be, as stated previously, no curfew.
4.37In response to community anger, Airservices has:
implemented some minor changes to the flight paths;
considered and initially rejected a proposal to trial Noise Abatement Procedures (NAP);
been investigated by the ANO; and
subsequently, reversed its decision and commenced the NAP trial.
4.38Airservices' initial rejection of the NAP trial further angered noise-affected residents, who took part in the consultations in good faith. According to the ANO:
Airservices' Community Engagement section prepared a detailed, thorough assessment of relevant evidence and material to propose a modest recommendation for the trial of a NAP. The reasons for rejecting that recommendation by senior management appeared to be partially irrelevant and/or arbitrary and undermined any confidence in affected community members that their interests had been fairly and properly taken into account.
4.39The ANO was highly critical, saying Airservices must 'prioritise the implementation of recommendations' arising from community consultation and its own reviews, ensuring that 'the responsibilities of decision makers and relevant considerations are clear to all relevant sections of Airservices'. New internal procedures should be implemented that 'require publication of the outcome and reasons for the final decision', and Airservices should implement 'appropriate training in the updated processes to ensure understanding and compliance across all sections'.
4.40Dr Andrew Terhorst, committee member of the Flight Path Opponents Group, argued that a shift in culture and priorities is needed at Airservices. Community impact should be 'given equal priority to flight safety' and must be 'genuinely considered' by Airservices, with 'mechanisms … for shared decision-making and accountability'.
4.41On notice, Airservices explained that the NAP trial 'has been implemented to better share the noise between the existing arrival flight paths', taking noise levels closer to what was historically anticipated.Airservices is also:
… commencing engagement in November 2024 with the community and industry on a suggested change from the Post Implementation Review which would shift the [Required Navigation Performance – Authorisation Required flight path] two to three kilometres to the east over less populated areas. The proposed shift has the potential to reduce impacts for some communities, noting the current impacts that have been experienced were higher than those that were originally modelled.
United Kingdom altitude based airspace management
4.42During the committee's Canberra hearing, Airservices and aviation transport officials from the Infrastructure Department were questioned on international approaches to flight path design. Specifically, Airservices was asked about the United Kingdom's (UK) 'altitude based' airspace management, which Airservices outlined in the appendices to its submission.
4.43In October 2017, the UK Government issued new Air Navigation Guidance to the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which set the Government's expectations for CAA. The 2017 Guidance defined environmental objectives CAA must implement 'when carrying out its air navigation functions', as well as guidance to CAA and the wider aviation industry on 'airspace and noise management'. The introduction to the new Guidance stated:
The Air Navigation Guidance 2017 is the result of [a] review of the government's airspace and noise policy. In addition to being statutory guidance to the CAA on environmental objectives in respect of its air navigation functions, the revised guidance also includes details on the [Secretary of State]'s role in the airspace change process.
Unlike the Air Navigation Guidance 2014, which this version of the guidance now replaces, the new guidance is aimed not just at the CAA but we also expect that it will be taken into consideration by the aviation industry. It also acknowledges the important role which local communities have in the airspace change process.
4.44The new Guidance aimed to 'strengthen the UK's airspace change process and its transparency, particularly with respect to how local communities are involved within it'; and to 'emphasise that the environmental impact of aviation must be mitigated as much as is practicable and realistic to do so'. To support these objectives, the Guidance introduced 'altitude based priorities', which 'should be taken into account when considering the potential environmental impact of airspace changes', including noise:
(a)in the airspace from the ground to below 4,000 feet the government's environmental priority is to limit and, where possible, reduce the total adverse effects on people;
(b)where options for route design from the ground to below 4,000 feet are similar in terms of the number of people affected by total adverse noise effects, preference should be given to that option which is most consistent with existing published airspace arrangements;
(c)in the airspace at or above 4,000 feet to below 7,000 feet, the environmental priority should continue to be minimising the impact of aviation noise in a manner consistent with the government’s overall policy on aviation noise, unless the CAA is satisfied that the evidence presented by the sponsor demonstrates this would disproportionately increase CO2 emissions;
(d)in the airspace at or above 7,000 feet, the CAA should prioritise the reduction of aircraft CO2 emissions and the minimising of noise is no longer the priority;
(e)where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks; and
(f)all changes below 7,000 feet should take into account local circumstances in the development of the airspace design, including the actual height of the ground level being overflown, and should not be agreed to by the CAA before appropriate community engagement has been conducted by the sponsor.
4.45Mr Peter Curran, Deputy Chief Executive Officer at Airservices Australia confirmed that Australia does not currently have any similar policy. He described the UK's approach as providing 'a balanced outcome' for flight path design between 4000 and 7000 feet, 'community bias' below 4000 feet, and 'industry bias' above 7000 feet. In contrast, in Australia, 'noise and community' concerns are always given 'equal weighting' with 'environmental and efficiency' and 'operational principles'.
4.46Mr Curran reported that he has previously worked in the UK and believes the altitude based approach is 'effective in that environment', but 'it's not the approach that we've taken to date in Australia'. He said:
That kind of thinking helps to guide flight path design work and is clearly helpful in the context of the UK. That approach isn't the case in Australia today. We have our flight path design principles, which we also provided as an attachment to our submission, and those flight path design principles really inform the broad approach to how we undertake design. But we don't have that level of specificity…
4.47Asked how such an approach could be implemented in Australia, Mr Curran said it would be a matter of government policy, and Ms Stephanie Werner, First Assistant Secretary of Domestic Aviation at the Infrastructure Department suggested it could be implemented through a change to Airservices' Flight Path Design Principles.
4.48In response to this suggestion, Mr Curran indicated it would be possible to 'take a different approach to seek to put some banding there', but Airservices would need to conduct new consultations before 'making any such choices', as there would be implications for industry, and possibly for communities. However, Mr Curran concluded that an altitude based approach is 'something we're aware of and it's a valid way of approaching the problem'.
Better integrated flight path design
4.49Another issue with flight path design was the decision of Airservices—and of the Government in relation to WSI—to limit the design of flight paths to individual airports, rather than undertaking a broader review of associated airspace.
4.50Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF) participants, including Mr Bob Hayes, argued that WSI flight path design should be 'integrated and coordinated' with the flight paths for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport (KSA). Despite inevitable interactions between KSA and WSI's flight paths, impacts and scheduling, SACF participants reported that a request from SACF to be included as part of the expert steering committee for WSI had been refused by the Minister. SACF Community Representative for the South, and Community Representative for the Sydney basin on the LTOP, Mr Kevin Hill argued that the department should set up a 'whole-of-Sydney-Basin community forum' to ensure community representatives could advocate holistic solutions.[49]
4.51Linden resident, Ms Krista Forsstrom proposed that the Government establish a Federal Inquiry to redesign Sydney Basin Airspace, and the Blue Mountains City Council recommended a 'full review of airspace design and architecture for the Sydney basin as a whole', in order to more equitably share noise impacts across communities.
4.52In its submission to Aviation Green Paper, Qantas also supported a wholistic approach to Sydney basin airspace design, saying:
While a review of the Sydney Basin will be completed when the second parallel runway is constructed at Western Sydney Airport, this is not scheduled until passenger numbers reach 37 million per annum which is projected to occur in around 25 years. A comprehensive review of the Sydney Basin flight paths now would deliver significant operational benefits, improve fuel efficiency and reduce related emissions.
4.53Asked to comment on these suggestions, departmental officials explained that the proposed flight paths are based on the airport plan approved in 2016. That plan required designers to 'minimise any impact on the existing noise-sharing arrangements for Sydney [KSA]', so the panel designing WSI's flight paths has 'not taken a look at the whole basin because we were specifically asked not to do so'.
4.54Similar suggestions were made by noise-affected residents in Brisbane in relation to that city's flight paths. Mr Robert James submitted:
The flight path design for the NPR in Brisbane was shoe horned below existing flight paths. Flight paths serving other airports that fly over Brisbane were left unchanged & the NPR flight paths had to be squeezed into the space below. This is a clear indication of the deliberate mismanagement by [Airservices] as a complete redesign of airspace around Brisbane would have allowed for more elevated flights producing a fraction of the noise than those now experienced.
4.55Airservices was asked if there would be benefits to conducting a holistic review of flight paths in Brisbane; Mr Curran replied:
The thought of doing a broad basin redesign of all flight paths would entail a significant community engagement, significant industry engagement and significant safety work. We'd look to make the changes necessary to get benefits for community and to balance that with industry. I think the plain answer is: we'd make as much change as we have to to get outcomes, but as little as possible.
Committee view
4.56The committee agrees that safety must be the number one priority in airspace management and flight path design. This is not up for debate. However, the balance of other priorities is more complex.
4.57In its Flight Path Design Principles, Airservices contends that it gives 'equal weighting' to three other major considerations—'noise and community', 'efficiency and environmental', and 'operational'. Regardless of whether the Principles conform with Airservices' enabling legislation (discussed in the next chapter of this report), evidence to the inquiry has shown that they often result in flight path design which communities feel benefits the aviation industry over the needs of people.
4.58The document provides no clear guidance to Airservices' technical staff, or the community, on how community considerations should be weighted against the (often conflicting) principles of efficiency, environmental impacts, and operational concerns. As such, Airservices' Flight Path Design Principles provide little clarity or reassurance to noise-affected communities. Community members also feel there is a lack of transparency around how the principles are applied in practice—Airservices does not adequately explain or justify its decisions.
4.59Clearer guidelines and more transparency are needed.
4.60Attitudes, tolerances, and community expectations around aircraft noise have changed, and flight volumes have increased, increasing the impact of aviation on Australian communities. In this context, it is critical that airspace is managed in a way that seeks to reduce that impact in a balanced way.
4.61The committee believes that Airservices is unlikely to modify its approach to flight path design and airspace management without explicit direction from government. The Minister for Transport should outline an expectation that Airservices will adequately consider the noise impacts arising from significant new and altered flight paths and apply appropriate weighting in each case.
4.62The committee notes that altitude based airspace management—a requirement in the UK since 2017—puts the needs of communities first in regards to airspace change of use applications and flight path design below 4000 feet. As this is where noise impacts on communities are the greatest, airspace managers are required to 'limit and, where possible, reduce the total adverse effects on people'. Australia has no similar approach at this time.
4.63The Government should move Australian guidelines to an altitude based approach, developed in response to Australian conditions. This would provide clearer guidance to Airservices Australia and help build confidence in affected communities that their issues are being adequately considered. The altitude based approach appears to work well in the United Kingdom. While there may need to be some modifications to adjust it for Australian conditions, there is no reason why such a system could not work here.
4.64The committee recommends that the Australian Government moves Australia's flight path design principles towards an altitude based priorities approach—with a view to prioritising minimising noise for communities, and for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks (below a certain altitude). The Government should conduct an expert review to establish what altitudes should be set for Australian conditions.
4.65If the Government's review determines that a more nuanced approach to flight path design is warranted, Airservices should be directed to update its Flight Path Principles in line with ministerial directions.
4.66The timing of flight path design in relation to the major development (MDP) approval process is a key concern for communities. Under the current regulatory regime, detailed flight path design is often the final step, conducted long after the primary consultation processes for a new runway have been concluded. When these flight paths inevitably diverge from earlier modelling, communities can experience understandable distress and anger.
4.67The issue of timing for flight path design in relation to the statutory approvals process is further considered in Chapter 6 of this report. However, timing is also an issue for aviation industry stakeholders, who often wait excessively for finalisation of their flight path change requests. It is the committee's view that flight path change requests should be treated in a similar way to traditional development applications, with a clear, transparent process, public updates, and a predictable, standardised timeframe.
4.68The committee recommends the Federal Minister for Transport issues a direction stating that Airservices must respond to Flight Path Change Requests within a reasonable and clearly articulated timeframe, and publicly explain any delays.
4.69The idea that Airservices' flight path designs should be subject to review by an external party had merit. However, the committee suggests that only changes resulting in significant community impacts should be subject to referral for review, and that such reviews should be commissioned by the new, independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
4.70The committee recommends that changes to flight paths and airspace management that result in significant community impacts should be subject to referral for review by the new, independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
4.71The committee also sees merit in the idea of approaching flight path design in metropolitan areas in a more wholistic manner to ensure efficient use of airspace and equitable noise-sharing can be maximised. As such, the committee suggests that, in cases where an airport in a metropolitan area adds a new or expanded runway, Airservices considers conducting a full-scale review of the airspace in the greater metropolitan area.
4.72The committee recommends that, in cases where an airport in a metropolitan area adds a new or expanded runway, Airservices considers conducting a full-scale review of the broader airspace in the greater metropolitan area.