Community News - providing readers with the very latest in local news, sport, entertainment and more.
Camera IconCommunity News - providing readers with the very latest in local news, sport, entertainment and more. Credit: Community News

End the Farcical Aircraft Trial over Canning Vale

Janice TeoCanning Gazette

AIRSERVICES Australia plans to re-route night air traffic over the Canning Vale corridor during two periods from February 15 to April 10.

It is doing this despite an Environmental Impact Statement that mandated its previous decision to abandon these so-called trials.

I assume the announcement was timed to ensure the trial was underway well before the issue could be raised in the Canning Times.

PerthNow Digital Edition.
Your local paper, whenever you want it.

Get in front of tomorrow's news for FREE

Journalism for the curious Australian across politics, business, culture and opinion.

READ NOW

Airservices proposes to hold an expo format between 6.30-8.30pm on March 3 in Armadale (note the date in relation to that of commencement of the alteration to flights), a format and timing as inconvenient as possible for any affected residents who might wish to attend or make comments.

That is in marked contrast to its treatment of Swan River corridor residents who had two full consultation meetings in Shelley.

It is obvious Airservices is determined to move air traffic south to an area it assumes is a soft target as it includes a substantial population of elderly residents, plus substantial and growing numbers of migrants, many of whom will not be able to understand, let alone stand up for, their rights.

These areas are already burdened by the general aviation traffic from Jandakot, the heavy freight rail line and have always had their fair share of commercial jet traffic, recently increased thanks to Airservices, by the reduction of heights and increased volume.

There is no valid reason why any noise readings needed cannot be taken under the present flight paths.

Airservices would then not need to take samples over two periods of about three weeks each, nor would it need to consult anyone since that seems to be anathema to its sensibilities and ethos.

There is arbitrary disregard of the normal consultative processes of Government and of the findings of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, who was previously very critical of the lack of any meaningful consultation by Airservices.

I hope the Ombudsman will be livid about a complete lack of consultation on the latest attempt to undermine the decision of the umpire, i.e. the Environmental Impact Statement.

This farcical trial must be called off now.

ALEC BLUNDEN, Canning Vale.