top of page
  • Writer's picturePBCAI


ASA today released their report Consideration of Feedback that describes how community feedback was taken into account in developing their proposed flight paths.

The final design ignores the community feedback!!

In fact, for some residents, the final design is worse!

ASA, as expected, stuck to the flight paths that were within the 2014 EIS – despite the many flaws in the 2014-16 process and subsequent reports. See below for an extract from Flight Path Forum’s latest update with more details.

Flight Path Forum have vowed to carry on fighting - on our behalf - and need funds to do so. Please donate to

Bank A/C: Flight Path Forum Inc BSB: 064 153 Account no: 1015 1693

The Future Marcus Beach?


All ASA publications about the new runway and flight paths are available from:

Flight Path Forum’s latest update outlines some of the key issues resulting from the release of the latest ASA report (see extract below – if you are not a member yet go to their website – or email them on

Following is an extract from FPF’s latest update:


The final ASA feedback report is now available and it is no surprise to see that the final design has not been shaped by feedback submitted through the ‘consultation’ process. In fact, the final flight path over Yandina Creek, Verrierdale and Weyba Downs is now wider and therefore worse for those residents.

As mentioned previously, at the meeting with ASA and other stakeholders on Friday the 5th July, only paths that were WITHIN THE EIS CONCEPT CORRIDORS would be considered i.e. no western route.

Designing approach and departure procedures is a complex process. It takes time. ASA have been busy finalising these necessary technical procedures with no intention of incorporating feedback or listening in any genuine way to the concerns of affected communities.

‘These flight paths are a done deal’ – ASA and SCC told us that in April.

Revised routes now go directly over Teewah, Lake Weyba, Lake Cooroibah, Tinbeerwah with the most heavily impacted communities being at Yandina Creek and Verrierdale. All areas north from Yandina Creek can expect overflights of aircraft at far less than 5000ft.

ASA state their ‘findings’ were consistent with the EIS, but the EIS does not include impact assessment results for any of the myriad of environmental reserves, lakes, rivers and wetlands scattered through our coastal and hinterland areas. ‘Identification’ is not the same as ‘assessment.’

Click on the link to view the report:

‘Higher altitudes’ are mentioned a couple of times throughout the report – no details on actual altitudes. There is an interactive tool on the Airservices web portal where you can see if you are 'affected' by the flight paths. REMEMBER the flight paths shown are only 1km wide. Noise travels much further. Allow at least 3km for arrivals and 6km for departures either side of the centre line of flight paths indicated. Dispersion of noise must be taken into account to fully understand noise impacts – topography and altitude and meteorological factors will have an effect on how far sound will travel.

Aircraft will also deviate from the flight paths shown particularly on the RNAV approaches crossing the coast at Teewah and over hinterland areas.

The community consultation was flawed. It was not 6 weeks long. Would you have been aware of the information sessions if the community had not raised awareness of its own volition?

‘Targeted’ advertising in six local papers were apparently supposed to catch the eye of residents and inform them of the information sessions. Yet the distribution areas of selected newspapers such as the Caloundra Weekly and the Buderim Chronicle are 26km – to 55km away from impacted areas. Negatively impacted communities of interest who were selected by ASA for targeted consultation were:


The Future Marcus Beach?

Mountain Lake MacDonald Cooran Pinbarren Cooroibah Pomona Cooroy Ridgewood Cooroy Mountain Ringtail Creek Doonan Tewantin Tinbeerwah

There is no clarity on how ASA planned to target more remote communities such as Teewah, who now effectively have a junction of two flight paths overhead.

Coastal communities were not targeted for consultation at all, despite changes to the coastal flight paths, both to the north and south of the Noosa area.

The noise modelling is questionable and the TEIA is not a robust document in assessing impacts of noise and emissions on the community or the environment, there is no evidence of rigorous independent evaluation of this document.


CASA need to approve the proposed flight paths and until then, they remain PROPOSED. The flight paths were not 'approved' in the EIS, they were concept drawings. Nor was there targeted community consultation about proposed or concept flight paths in 2014. These flight paths are not ‘approved’ until the Office of Airspace Regulation declares them so, irrespective of the time ASA has spent developing them and trying to justify them.

Just a reminder about how to donate to Flight Path Forum

Bank A/C: Flight Path Forum Inc BSB: 064 153 Account no: 1015 1693

36 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page