Four options in Airservices Australia review of flight paths into Hobart Airport

UPDATED: A DECISION on flight paths over southern Tasmania is expected on Wednesday, with four possible alternatives put forward after a review. MAP: SEE THE AREAS

Changes to flight paths into Hobart Airport raised the ire of Forestier Peninsula residents, forcing a review of the changes.

A DECISION on flight paths over southern Tasmania is expected on Wednesday, with four possible alternatives put forward after a review.

Since last month Airservices Australia has been reviewing flight path changes into Hobart Airport that were made in September.

The changes would have resulted in up to 50 planes a day flying over Boomer Bay, Dunalley and other Forestier Peninsula towns.

MORE: FLIGHT PATH BACKLASH FORCES RETHINK

Airservices Australia said the changes were made to organise aircraft movements on to standard routes, but backtracked and announced it would examine possible alternatives.

As part of the review, the authority has revealed four possible flight paths, with a decision expected during a meeting at Hobart Airport on Wednesday morning.

MORE: NEW FLIGHT PATHS PROMPTS PETITION FROM RESIDENTS

The alternatives are:

1 CONTINUE with the same path over the Forestier Peninsula.

2 A PATH over Connelly’s Marsh and Sloping Main similar to the previous approach.

3 PLANES flying from the east of Maria Island and between Dunalley and Murdunna, for flights arriving from Sydney and Brisbane

4 A ROUTE over Kettering, Oyster Cove, Snug and Bruny Island as an approach for planes arriving from Melbourne and Adelaide.

A map showing the areas of possible new flight paths into Hobart Airport.

The final two alternatives would require Airservices Australia submitting a proposal to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which could take a year to process because of environmental and community assessments. If the two proposals failed to get through CASA, the first two options would be used.

Bream Creek’s Joan Ward estimated up to 700 people were affected in the Sorell area and more in the Tasman Peninsula area.

Ms Ward said there were 300 signatures on a petition to be lodged to Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester calling for changes.

“Airservices Australia have changed the goalposts a couple of times and they’re not giving us accurate information in terms of the reasons,” she said.

“First off they told us the reason was for safety. Then it was fuel efficiency [and] now the latest thing is a navigation beacon has been moved and now we’re told it’s been put back. We want the flight paths reversed back to what they originally were.”

Joan Ward, of Bream Creek, says hundreds of people in the South are affected by the new flight paths. Picture: MATT THOMPSON

Airservices Australia said on its website that a report of the review would be published on Wednesday.

“The report will set out the alternatives ... and the reasons why each was determined,” the company said.

“It will also contain a summary of the issues raised in the community feedback and complaints.”

A REVIEW of flight paths options over southern Tasmania has revealed four possible options — including one trajectory over North Bruny Island.

Since last month, Airservices Australia has been reviewing flight path changes into Hobart Airport made in September.

The changes would have resulted in up to 50 planes a day flying over Boomer Bay, Dunalley and other Forestier Peninsula towns, concerning residents.

Airservices Australia said the changes were made to organise aircraft movements on to standard routes, but backtracked and announced it would investigate alternative paths.

The company has now revealed four possible flight path options:

1 CONTINUE with the same path over the Forestier Peninsula;

2 ESTABLISH a path over Connellys Marsh;

3 DIRECT path from east of Maria Island and between Dunalley and Murdunna as an eastern approach;

4 OVER North Bruny Island as a western approach.

Airservices Australia will announce its decision at a meeting at Hobart Airport on Wednesday at 10am.