“Primarily dismissed as it was outside of the EIS noise swathes and they also cited safety but didn’t detail what the safety was. Since that time, at a further meeting with ASA staff they mentioned conflict with Brisbane air routes, encroaching on Amberley military airspace, and hang gliders who use the western area.”

A comment online from a resident indicates they could use those Western routes with some rearranging….if they can, why aren’t they…”

On Tuesday the 9th of July members of FPF, a current commercial pilot, and Airservices technical and community consultation teams, met to discuss technical flight path considerations and issues faced by local communities with the proposed flight paths as currently presented by ASA at Air Traffic Control in Brisbane.

During the three and a half hour meeting we had a useful discussion whereby all parties could ask questions and better understand the needs of the community, environmental issues and airspace users.


Much of the discussion was technical and included approach and departure procedure design considerations, the technical capability of aircraft, Required Navigation Performance (RNP) routes and Area Navigation (RNAV) routes including design criteria, current South East Queensland airspace design factors, including existing way points, interaction between Brisbane airspace and the requirements of military aircraft accessing Amberley Airbase, noise impacts, environmental impacts and topographical considerations.


It is unclear how much of the information discussed at this meeting will be taken into consideration with ASA’s final design, due to their earlier position of only assessing submissions lodged during the dates of the consultation period.




We have been advised that issues raised at that meeting and through post-feedback submissions from residents will be addressed to some degree in the Consideration of Feedback Report.


This report is now a week overdue however we have been advised that it will be released next week at some point.


As far as we are aware, ASA are still intending to lodge the Airspace Change Proposal with CASA on 29 July, which leaves only a matter of days for the public to consider the feedback report and make additional submissions, and obtain responses to questions and queries. Please continue to keep the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman up to date with any correspondence you send to ASA, Cc .




Airservices has now released two presentations which were delivered on 5 July at the roundtable meeting.


Please follow the links below to view the presentations made by Sunshine Coast Council and Airservices at that meeting.


The Airservices presentation includes several flight path design alternatives which were submitted during the feedback period and thus addressed in the presentation.





FPF’s respectful and informative meeting on 9 July was a good example of how a stakeholder engagement panel, as outlined in FPF’s Statement of Intent, could achieve the common goal of providing safe design for airspace users, while simultaneously taking into account community and environmental considerations.

FPF continues to advocate for a Stakeholder Engagement Panel for the Sunshine Coast be implemented prior to the lodgement of the Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) with CASA. This industry standard panel would include representatives from the following organisations, community groups and residents’ associations, and businesses accessing existing facilities who will be affected by flight path proposals, airspace design and operation of the new runway. An independent chairperson would be called to oversee proceedings.


  • Airservices Australia
  • Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
  • Sunshine Coast Council
  • Sunshine Coast Airport Management
  • Sunshine Coast Airport Expansion Project Management
  • Noosa Council
  • Relevant Parliamentarians
  • SCA Aviation operators
  • Flight Path Forum members and community associations
  • An agreed independent chairperson to be determined by all stakeholders


The objectives of the new Stakeholder Engagement Panel would include, but not be limited to:


  1. Establishing alternative agreed flight paths


  1. Utilising an independent chairperson to ensure community consultation is based on transparency and full disclosure, is effective, relevant and representative of stakeholder’s values and concerns.


  1. Ensuring environmental, social and noise impact studies are undertaken on areas that will be affected by agreed flight paths.

The benefits of forming a Stakeholder Engagement Panel include mitigating conflict, reducing regulatory time frames, display a positive public image, improve community relations, establish credibility and improve public reputations.


Noosa Council has tabled its support of a Stakeholder Engagement Panel.




FPF has written confirmation from the following associations who are aligned with FPF’s objectives and Statement of Intent.

  1. Friends of Lake Weyba
  2. Peregian Family and Friends
  3. Peregian Beach Community Association
  4. Castaways Beach Residents Association
  5. Noosa Hinterland Residents Association
  6. Friends Marcus Beach Association
  7. Yandina Creek Progress Association
  8. Mudjimba Residents Association
  9. Coolum Residents Association
  10. Peregian Beach West Association
  11. Verrierdale Residents Group

FPF has also had contact with the residents of Teewah township, on the Noosa Northshore, who have asked us to keep them updated.


FPF has concerns about the recently released draft Master Plan for the airport. A review of the proposal and recent discussions with Sunshine Coast Airport have indicated a planned closure of the existing 18/36 runway. FPF has had verbal confirmation from Sunshine Coast Council that no decision has yet been made to close the existing runway and that any decision to do so will be made when a development application is lodged by Sunshine Coast Airport Pty, after community consultation closes on the draft Master Plan.

The closure of the existing runway would eliminate any capacity for noise sharing through the balanced use of existing air traffic routes in combination with new routes for 13/31.

FPF advocates strongly that 18/38 runway be retained for future use, in particular for General Aviation operators, who, without runway 18/36, will have to use runway 13/31, thus increasing air traffic along sections of the proposed flight path routes.

” src=”cid:image006.png@01D539F7.3C31F530″ alt=”image006.png” border=”0″ class=”Apple-web-attachment Singleton” style=”width: 3.6666in; height: 3.802in; opacity: 1;”>

The closure of runway 18/36 would place an unnecessary and additional burden on communities under proposed new flight paths by concentrating all air traffic movements along new approach and departure routes for runway 13/31. FPF believes it is essential that runway 18/36 be retained for concurrent use with runway 13/31 to enable noise mitigation and noise sharing for communities impacted by flight paths. The above figures are from the 2014 EIS Summary of Major Findings (page 37).

Please follow this link to view the draft Master Plan and make your submission through the online feedback form:


Contact Sunshine Coast Council and Sunshine Coast Airport direct for more information.


It is unfortunate that on Thursday afternoon, Airservices elected to cancel a scheduled meeting with FPF on Friday 12 July, citing a lack of resources and other commitments, despite the meeting being agreed, (with the actual day to be confirmed) on 5 July. The community engagement advisor with whom we have been corresponding will be on leave next week and we have been told that we will have to make contact through the community engagement generic email address should we wish to reinstate that meeting.  FPF will pursue a meeting date for next week.