-Please Copy
& Paste this text into a) an email, b) the Airservices online survey or c) your letter for the mail. Make any edits you'd like.
-Please note that we have skipped questions that aren't relevant to our suburbs.
-Do Not Change the below numbering in your submission as it aligns with Airservices essential numbering of questions.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO GO TO 3 QUESTIONS YOU'LL NEED TO COMPLETE IN THE RED TEXT BELOW
6am-10pm &10pm-6am
This
preferred option aims to: reduce
concentration of noise impacts by adjusting later sections of the departure
paths to avoid arrival paths used when the wind is from the north, tracking
over less densely populated areas.
1.1
How well do you think the following proposed change meets the stated aim of
this preferred option? Choose From Very Poorly, Poorly, Not Sure, Well, Very Well
Answer: Not Sure
2.1.1 What are the main benefits
and/or drawbacks of this change proposal that influenced your score?
Benefits:
-For Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore, Chapel
Hill & Brookfield, it's relocated onto more greenspace; relief is urgent
-Prior splitting, the distance each side of the path to homes appears fairer
-The split (38 west vs 74 north) seems fair as Brookfield, Upper Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore & Chapel
Hill are already burdened with 155 arrivals/day
-Less people overflown (146,000 vs New Path; 127,600)
-The north split is further from ‘Sensitive Receivers’ inc the Brookfield Showgrounds, School, Hall, Cemetery & 2 x Churches (our community hub/Listed Local
Heritage Place), Brookfield
Green Aged Care & Iona Aged Care (Kenmore)
Drawbacks:
-West path is even closer to Upp Brookfield & its school. 'Up to 46 flights per day' could increase by 80% in 10-15 years. (BAC’s growth
plans)
-Still clashes with arrivals paths. Brookfield, Upper Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore & Chapel
Hill are already over saturated with loud arrivals noise that travels up to 5km each side of arrivals paths (waking residents). Residents sandwiched between the current north/northwest/northeast/and night time paths hear all arrivals & all departures 24/7
-Is the departures path being moved far enough away to offer real reprieve when the wind changes, to reduce the concentration of noise (objective)
-The relocation of easterly departures to this path day and night will immediately increase flights by 20%. This path is already overloaded
-This solution does not consider the exposure to hundreds of flights out of Archerfield each week
3.1.1 Do you have any other
feedback on this preferred option?
Upper Brookfield, Brookfield, Kenmore
Hills, Kenmore and Chapel Hill are overwhelmed by this loud, busy & notorious
flightpath (thundering over this community up to 5 Km from the path). The number/frequency of flights is distressing residents day & night. Please use the old flight path predating the new runway or find a decent greenspace location for the departures/arrival cross over points at least 5km from peoples homes in all directions. The hundreds of weekly flights out of Archerfield should also be on the maps to understand our real lived experience, along with flight numbers stated on this fact sheets.
4.1.1 Please upload any images you would like to support your feedback on this option
Long Approach: 6am-10pm &10pm-6am. Short Approach 6am-10pm only
This
preferred option aims to:
•reduce concentration of flight paths and
associated noise by having more space between the three arrival paths
•reduce the number of people experiencing
both arrivals and departures by separating the arrival path from the north and
the departure path to the west
•reduce engine noise by keeping arrivals
higher for longer and letting aircraft glide as they descend
•reduce concentration of arrivals on the
long approach by introducing additional short approach connections.
5.1.2
How well do you think the following proposed changes meet the stated aims of
this preferred option?
Adjust
the long approach arrival paths to distribute flights? (Very Poorly, Poorly, Not Sure, Well, Very Well)
ANSWER: YOU WILL NEED TO CHOOSE YOUR ANSWER FROM THE ABOVE OPTIONS
Increase
altitude requirements on arrival paths? (Very Poorly, Poorly, Not Sure, Well, Very
Well)
Answer: Very Poorly
Introduce
new short approaches for the north-west and north-east paths? (Very Poorly, Poorly, Not Sure, Well, Very
Well)
Answer: Very Well
6.1.2 What are the main benefits and/or drawbacks of these change proposals that
influenced your score?
Long
Approach Benefits:
-Offers respite to Upper Brookfield, although the flight numbers will quickly grow
-ADD ANY OTHER POINTS HERE (LOOKING AT MAPS MAY HELP)
-Long
Approach Drawbacks:
-The new north path places extra load on Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore & Chapel
Hill who are also impacted by up to 112 departures daily + existing arrivals paths
-ADD ANY OTHER POINTS HERE (LOOKING AT MAPS MAY HELP)
-It
is unlikely that all aircraft will be at idle (gliding), They will be subject to speed or timing control instructions from ATC
-The
altitudes remain very low (5-7,000 ft) and are unlikely to make a difference in our community
-
Many residents in this community have tank water as their only drinking water, contaminates have now been found
Short
Approach Drawbacks:
-Only
up to 2 to 16 flights off this path a day
Short
Approach Benefits:
-Gives
respite to Upper Brookfield, Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore & Chapel Hill
7.1.2
Do you have any other feedback on this preferred option?
Long
Approach: Residents in Brookfield, Upper Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore & Chapel Hill are
already disturbed by departures and arrivals noise, this approach offers no reprieve when the wind changes
(package objectives). Please find a decent greenspace location for the departures/arrival cross over points at least 5km from peoples homes in all directions. The hundreds of weekly flights out of Archerfield should also be on the maps to understand our real lived experience, along with flight numbers stated on this fact sheets.
8.1.2
Please upload any images you would like to support your feedback on this option
6am-10pm & 10pm-6am
This
preferred option aims to:
•reduce the concentration of
flights over communities to the south by separating the departure path to the
south-east earlier and moving eastern departures to the new runway
•streamline transition into and
out of SODPROPS, where both arrivals and departures take place over water,
enabling greater use of this mode.
9. 2.1
How well do you think the following change proposals meet the stated aims of
this preferred option?
Separate
south-east and south departure paths earlier (Very
poorly, Poorly, Not Sure, Well, Very Well)
Answer: Very Poorly
Move eastern departures from the legacy
runway to the new runway (Very poorly, Poorly, Not Sure, Well, Very
Well)
Answer: Very Poorly
10.2.1 What are the main benefits and/or
drawbacks of these change proposals that influenced your score?
Benefits: Nil
Drawbacks:
-Introducing eastbound
departures to the existing west bound departures
path (southerly winds) places
significantly more load onto thousands of already distraught residents (across densely
populated inner-city eastern & western residential/rural) struggling with the volume & frequency of flight movements on notoriously loud path. This is not in line with package objectives
-Seems silly to burden these residents further for the failed SODPROPS operations that will diminish over time (current 2% usage with a ceiling of 5%)
11.2.1 Do you have any other feedback on
this preferred option?
I
am strongly opposed. The existing & notorious overland westbound departures
track carries large international aircraft flying at low altitudes. It is the
noisiest path in Brisbane. The frequency is already unbearable. Intrusive,
unacceptable noise levels can be heard as far as 5km away from the path. It can
take no additional load (including the proposed ‘up to 21 eastbound flights per day’ or
the doubling of BAC flight movements).
There
are already too many flights coming overland. Increasing traffic over areas already
experiencing high noise exposure contradicts the stated goal of reducing the
frequency and concentration of operations over affected suburbs. It is not
equitable or sustainable. It will further
degrade the quality of life for thousands of residents.
Please
don’t implement this path for the sake of SODPROPS that ASA has advised will
diminish overtime.
12.2.1 Please upload any images you
would like to support your feedback on this option
10pm-6am
We propose trialling this new option when
Brisbane Airport Corporation undertakes planned runway works in 2026. The trial
would be used to determine if planes remain entirely over industrial and
airport land while turning and to assess community noise benefit.
25.4. Do you think this option.... ?
Would have a positive noise outcome
for the wider Brisbane community (Definitely Not, Probably Not, Not Sure,
Probably Yes,
Definitely Yes)
Answer: Definitely Yes
Should
be used at night when jets can’t take off directly over the water (Definitely Not, Probably Not, Not Sure,
Probably Yes, Definitely Yes)
Answer: Definitely Yes
26.4.
What are the main benefits and/or drawbacks of this proposal that influenced
your score?
Benefits:
-Trial
(including noise monitoring) so residents of Wynnum can test the impact
-The
population overflown is significantly less (383,300 people)
-Gives
relief to thousands of residents who are affected by both arrivals &
departures 24/7
-No
residents are impacted by 70dB and 328,200 fewer residents impacted by 60dB (if
this information is accurate once trialled)
-Operational
in only southerly winds. SODPROPS remains the preferred mode (until it is
phased out)
27.4.
Do you have any other feedback on this new option?
Uncertain
regarding the Impact on Wynnum and if flights will stay over industrial and
airport land. Our area needs relief.
28.4. Please add upload any images you
would like to support your feedback on this option
General
feedback
29.
Do you have any further general feedback on Package 3 proposals?
In Brookfield, Upper Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore & Chapel Hill, many of the options place additional load
to those already significantly impacted 24/7, in contradiction to objectives. Many of our semi rural
communities rely on tank water (as their only source of drinking water); contaminates have been found.
29.
Do you have any further general feedback on Package 3 proposals?
In Brookfield, Upper Brookfield, Kenmore Hills, Kenmore & Chapel Hill, many of the options place additional load
to those already significantly impacted 24/7, in contradiction to objectives. Many of our semi rural
communities rely on tank water (as their only source of drinking water); contaminates have been found.