Consideration of people who live directly under the Runway 30 RNP-AR flight path
Dear Airservices Australia,
I'm reaching out regarding the community feedback that you sought between November and December 2022 concerning the trial options, which also included the choice of taking no action. The results of this feedback were made available on 03 April 2023, indicating that 47% of respondents preferred no change.
I'm interested in understanding the methodology behind these results. Specifically:
Were the feedbacks from individuals living directly under the current Runway 30 RNP-AR flight path given the same weight as feedback from those who do not reside in the impacted area?
If so, could you explain the rationale behind giving equal weight to the opinions of those who might not experience the direct implications of aircraft noise as opposed to those living directly under the current Runway 30 RNP-AR flight path?
I believe that gaining clarity on these questions will help in understanding the context and the considerations behind the feedback assessment.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Good morning Andrew
As your email does not seek access to specific documents but rather responses to your enquiries it does not amount to a valid request under the FOI Act.
We recommend emailing your enquiries to the Community Engagement team at [email address] or the Noise Complaints team at https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/com....
These teams are in a position to discuss your enquiries with you.
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
I asked for a detailed methodology, including assumptions, hypotheses and analytical procedures. Some of this information is contained in the decision to cancel the NAP trial.
However, given the contestable nature of the decision, the ANO stepping in and changing the survey after it had gone live, I need to understand the statistical methods and multi-criteria decision framework used by Airservices Australia. This should be documented.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
Dear MBX FOI,
I refer to correspondence between Airservices Australia and a fellow resident:
"OFFICIAL
Dear Darren
We received a range of responses from the Primrose Sands and Carlton/Carlton River areas, both in support of the NAP trial and conversely those seeking no change to current aircraft operations.
Specific personal details relating to the responses are protected by privacy legislation and we do not release personal information to the wider public. However we have mapped the responses of each township which is included in the Assessment document here: https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/....
Work on package 2 recommendations (Hobart Community and Industry Suggested Alternatives) which includes a community suggested alternative to move the RNP-AR approach to Runway 30 2-3 km to the east is underway and consultation will commence in the coming months. Any proposed change to flight paths is subject to extensive consultation with all stakeholders prior to a decision being taken to implement.
Kind regards,
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT"
You refused my request on the grounds the information did not exist yet here Airservices Australia freely admits it does exist. Please provide internal correspondence showing the advice given to the FOI Officer that led them to refuse my request on false grounds.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Good morning Mr Terhost
In the below email you refer to a request that we refused on the grounds the information sought did not exist.
Could you please advise which request this was, including when it was made, and what the scope of the request was.
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
I apologise. I was referring to this FOI request: Runway 30 Noise Abatement Trial - Number of Survey Respondents Living Directly Under the Current Flight Path made on 15 July 2023 and FOI 23 19 Decision on access.pdf
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Good morning Mr Terhost
I assume you are referring to the attached decision which provides on page 1:
"As part of conducting the survey we collected information on the suburbs and wider areas that the respondents lived in, but not whether they lived directly under the flight paths.
Given that suburbs can vary in size along with respondents locations within those suburbs we cannot say that the location data held by Airservices is not definitive proof as to whether those respondents live directly under a flight path or simply close to one."
This is consistent with the response provided by you in this request, which referred you to a map indicating the breakdown of responses per suburb/areas, but not necessarily if the respondent lived "directly" under the flight path.
Did you want to continue with this request?
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
I am keen to obtain the specific methodology and algorithms utilised in your statistical analysis of the proposed Runway 30 RNP-AR NAP trial community survey, particularly the statistical weightings in the multi-criteria decision analysis. Donna Marshall, Head of Community Engagement at Airservices Australia, confirmed Airservices Australia uses these techniques.
My primary concern is understanding the reasoning behind giving equal weight to individuals living farther from the flight path than those directly beneath it. The decision on the NAP showcased a map detailing survey respondents' locations. Insight into the formal methodology and algorithms will provide clarity on this matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Good morning Mr Terhost
Could I please confirm whether you wish to continue with your request seeking the "internal correspondence showing the advice given to the FOI Officer that led them to refuse [your] request on false grounds"?
If you are instead seeking alternate information you will need to make a new FOI request to that effect.
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
Dear MBX FOI,
Yes, I am interested to see the "internal correspondence showing the advice given to the FOI Officer that led them to refuse [your/my] request".
I am perplexed why the FOI officer refused my request stating the information I sought did not exist when a week later Airservices Australia published the NAP decision with exactly the information I was after.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Terhorst
OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Terhost
Please find attached the decision on the request FOI 23-33.
Regards
FOI and Privacy Officer
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. Any advice or information contained in this email (including any attachments) is provided only for the use of Airservices Australia or the intended recipient. You must not retransmit or distribute this email or any attachments unless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, immediately delete this email from your mailbox and destroy any hard copies.
IMPORTANT: This email and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, copy, disseminate, disclose to others or take action in reliance on, any material contained within this email. If you have received this email in error, please let Airservices Australia know by reply email to the sender informing them of the mistake and delete all copies of this email and any attachments.
OFFICIAL