Airport corp ‘misled’ public about over-the-Bay flights

A new report says authorities duped people into thinking a second runway would fix noise by directing flights over Moreton Bay.

Brisbane Airport Corporation second runway opening in July last year. Residents say BAC new flights over the Bay were not realistic. Picture: Beau Chenery

Airport authorities repeatedly told the public a new runway would fix noise issues by directing most flights over Moreton Bay, despite now saying tail winds make that too dangerous.

A scathing submission to an inquiry into aircraft noise said Brisbane Airport Corporation’s implementation of the runway and new flight paths was so flawed it needed to be done all over again.

BAC officials repeatedly said over the two decades leading up to the runway’s opening in July last year that over-the-Bay routes and simultaneous runway operations would be able to take much of the traffic from the airport. That was also the preferred operating model.

Then BAC Operations Manager, Cam Spencer, said in one 1999 report in The Courier-Mail that the parallel runways could direct 90 per cent of flights over the Bay.

“It might even get to 95 per cent for nine months of the year and only 80 per cent for the other three months,’’ he told the newspaper in September that year.

Justin O'Connor said when he did his due diligence before buying a unit in New Farm, there was no indication noise would be an issue. BAC forecasts specifically said there would be minimal impact on the suburb, but the reverse is now true. Picture: Renae Droop

But even back then, experts were warning prevailing winds would make those percentages hard to achieve.

“The capacity of the new parallel runway to support OTB (over the Bay) operations during the daytime and evening periods at post-COVID air traffic levels is in fact effectively zero,’’

Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance said in a detailed submission to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO).

“This fact should have been evident in 1999 given the project had been under long term consideration by BAC and Air Services Australia (ASA).

“Furthermore, now recent BAC estimates suggest that even if a 10 knot tailwind limit were to be implemented (it is currently five knots), it would permit the use of OTB modes during only very limited windows with low traffic, for example occasional use on a Sunday morning.’’

BFPCA chair David Diamond said the fact authorities repeatedly said the new runway would lower noise levels by allowing more flights over Moreton Bay had lulled the public into a “false sense of security’’.

That, and the extremely poor design of BAC’s consultation process and incorrect and misleading data, had served to minimise public opposition before the runway opened and new flight paths began.

Ribbons are cut to officially launch the second runway on July 12 last year. Picture: Matt Williams

Even today, online information available on BAC’s Flight Path tool still showed many suburbs receiving little to no air traffic and low noise levels when ASA’s own live noise monitoring shows significant levels, he said.

But a BAC spokswoman said any comments made before the EIS were not reflective of its communications during and since that period.

“From the outset of BAC’s public engagement program for Brisbane’s new runway, we have been very clear that OTB operations would be improved by the parallel runway system, and this has indeed been delivered,’’ she said.

“Throughout BAC’s extensive community engagement program for Brisbane’s new runway, it was widely communicated that the new runway would allow for greater use of over the bay operations, particularly overnight between the hours of 10pm and 6am.

“BAC advised that the new runway would allow around 60 per cent of all overnight aircraft operations to occur over the Bay (between 10pm and 6am).

“It was also communicated that the use of this mode of operation is dependent on four factors – visibility, cloud cover, wind speed and surface conditions.

“Since parallel runway operations commenced in July, 53 per cent of all aircraft movements have been over the bay and 72 per cent of night operations (10pm-6am) have been over the Bay.’’

Mr Diamond also said BFPCA could find no evidence of proper investigation of alternative runway designs or alternative flight paths being put forward for public review and comment.

“Our review of the environmental impact statement (EIS) and approvals process has found systematic deficiencies which have denied residents the opportunity to be consulted in a fair manner,’’ he said.

Ceremony at the second runway opening on July 12. Picture: Beau Chenery

“The incomplete and inaccurate noise forecasts are a critical deficiency of the EIS process. We believe it to be totally flawed.’’

Mr Diamond said because of that, they were calling on the Ombudsman to recommend a new EIS and public consultation be undertaken.

His report findings and recommendations are expected to be released mid-year.

Airservices Australia has announced they will conduct a Post Implementation Review of the flight paths, airspace changes and noise impacts of the new runway.

Mr Diamond said similar poor consultation and governance processes over airport noise impacts was now widespread in Australia, including on the Sunshine Coast.

The BAC spokeswman said its consultation went well beyond what was required and included a large range of contacts including leaflets, advertisements and information sessions.

“Three years of collaboration went into the design of the new flight paths, which were peer reviewed by experts from around the world to confirm they were the best possible outcome,’’ she said.

“Since the runway has opened, we have been monitoring how actual operation compares against the modelled estimates.

“As with any model, there is expected to be minor variations.

“The average noise level in the impacted areas is largely consistent with what was modelled in the EIS and subsequent communications.

“Nonetheless, we are aware of some instances where the number of flights of a particular noise level is different to what was modelled and communicated in the flight path tool.

“At this stage, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the data because of the small sample size and the impact that COVID has had on Brisbane Airport’s operations.’’

An alarming aspect of the BAC/ASA process was that Brisbane residents would be stuck with whatever changes it might make in future, he claimed.

“We believe this is a massive issue for Brisbane residents for the next 40 years plus. No other industry can behave like this,’’ he said.

“If they decide it will go up to 200 planes per day (from 150 at present), we will have no say.

“There needs to be a reassessment of all available airspace architecture alternatives and noise abatement strategies, to mitigate the unreasonable noise impacts created by the new Brisbane airspace design now and into the future.

“The airport development has delivered an acute and unreasonable noise impact well beyond levels anticipated by the community.

“Once COVID ends it’s going to go to another level for thousands of Brisbane residents.’’

BFPCA’s SUBMISSION FINDINGS

■ BAC used only broad and indirect methods to engage the community, which failed to adequately reach affected residents;

■ BAC insufficiently assessed the adverse health, welfare and financial impacts on affected communities. It also did not properly consider the high number of new residents expected to live in affected areas over the development period (and beyond);

■ Key noise information was communicated to the public in a misleading and complex manner that limited the community’s understanding, effectively concealing the full extent of the impact;

■ Viable airspace design alternatives were not provided, with significantly different noise profiles for the community to consider;

■ BAC used significantly understated noise forecasts in community consultation and in its impact assessment. Actual noise levels are expected to significantly exceed EIS estimates

Mr Diamond said there was clear evidence that BAC had “imposed its will for its own commercial benefits’’.

“This just isn’t about the residents currently impacted. Unless it’s fixed, this lack of accountability and governance will impact many more Brisbane residents in the years ahead,’’ he said.

“Across Australia this is happening from Hobart, to Perth and to the Sunshine Coast.

“BFPCA supports growth and a strong aviation industry but not without appropriate care or respect for its local community.

“We need a total review of our national regulators, in particular Airservices Australia, which in our Brisbane case appears to have acted more on behalf of BAC than the host community.’’

But BAC said it had been “very transparent in relation to forecast capacity’’, as far out as the year 2060.