Edinburgh consultation on flight paths turns into omni-shambles as airport loses vital consultation data

Edinburgh Airport Watch, and many others, were shocked to learn that the integrity and accuracy of the airport’s consultation process has been jeopardised by a computer upgrade. The airport has admitted that they lost 199 responses made over the last week. The data submitted between 10.31am on Monday, 29 August and 12.05pm on Friday, 2 September was accidentally not saved between these dates and times during a planned upgrade of the site. The airport has apologised for the inconvenience to those who now have to re-submit their response, and the consultation has been extended by a week (from the earlier end date of 12th September to 19th September) to give people the chance to submit again. The airport has 21 of the email addresses (out of the 199) lost submissions, so can inform those people. Local group, Edinburgh Airport Watch commented that trust in the airport had already hit rock bottom, and this latest blunder (even if not directly the airport’s fault) only serves to further damage Edinburgh Airport’s seriously tattered reputation among communities, especially in its consultation process. The group also have concerns about the area being consulted, with a huge number of people not being affected by the airport’s flight paths.  A large public meeting was held on 6th September.
.

 

 

It does raise the question of whether other consultation responses are ever lost, and whether the public is ever informed ….

Edinburgh Airport Consultation on Flight Paths turns into Omni-shambles as airport loses vital consultation data

6.9.2016 (Edinburgh Airport Watch press release)

Edinburgh Airport Watch is shocked to learn that the integrity and accuracy of the airport’s consultation process has been jeopardised by a computer upgrade. The airport has just admitted that they lost 199 responses made over the last week.

4000 responses from 640000 households with 200 lost responses is clearly not representative and is also downright incompetent.

Trust in the airport had already hit rock bottom, this latest blunder is a fatal blow to their already flawed Consultation process and only serves to further damage Edinburgh Airport’s seriously tattered reputation among Communities.

We have serious concerns that this consultation is unrepresentative and the results cannot have any validity.  How many more responses might they have “lost” since the consultation began?

A spokesman for Edinburgh Airport Watch said

“This is simply shocking incompetence, even for Edinburgh Airport. Their consultation is fatally flawed, and for the sake of their reputation they must scrap this unnecessary and bungled ACP process now.

We further call on the airport to reverse the changes they have already made to airspace without any consultation that are already causing misery to thousands across West Lothian, Falkirk and Fife, and to seriously rethink their deplorable approach to Community Engagement. We will be putting this to the airport CEO Gordon Dewar who will be attending our Public Meeting in Linlithgow this evening in the Burgh Halls at 7pm.”

 

Our website: edinburghairportwatch.com

Facebook at Edinburgh Airport Watch

and on twitter @EAW_group

.


Edinburgh flight path consultation extended after online data is lost

By Hannah Hamilton

September 6, 2016

 

Data glitch means extra time to have your say on the impact of altering flight paths above Edinburgh

East coast residents have a further week to have their say on Edinburgh Airport’s flight path consultation now that the deadline has been extended to Monday, 19 September.

Some of those who have already given their input are also being urged by the airport to do so again after revealing that some of the data submitted online wasn’t saved.

The airport, which today (Tuesday, 6 September) announced a seven-day extension to the Airspace Change Programme public consultation, is making a public plea to people who submitted online input via the website between 10.31am on Monday, 29 August and 12.05pm on Friday, 2 September, to resubmit their entries after 199 pieces of data were lost.

It says the data submitted between these dates and times weren’t saved during a planned upgrade of the site.

It also says there have been thousands of responses so far and that while the number not saved is small in comparison, it’s committed to making sure everyone is given the opportunity to have their say.

Of the 199 lost submissions, 21 email addresses were captured and the airport has vowed to contact those individuals directly to explain the situation and request that they resubmit.

Gordon Robertson, Edinburgh Airport’s director of communications, said: “Edinburgh Airport has been conducting its Lets Go Further ACP consultation since June this year and has already had an excellent response with thousands of submissions.

“We have identified that responses submitted via the consultation website between 10:31amon Monday 29 August and 12:05 pm Friday 2 September did not save during a planned upgrade of the site.

“Although this is a relatively small number of responses in the context of the overall number of submissions, we are committed to ensuring that all who want to comment on our plans can.

“Despite this 21 email addresses were captured and the airport has this morning responded to them directly to explain the situation and request they resubmit.

“To that end we are asking anyone whose response may therefore not be visible to us to resubmit their views via the website.

“We will extend the consultation by one week with the finish date now being Monday 19th September and we will be contacting all stakeholders to inform them of this extension.

“We apologise wholeheartedly for this and believe that this extension offers sufficient time for people to resubmit their input.”

To have your say or resubmit, go to #letsgofurther

The closing date for submissions is now 23.59 on Monday, 19 September 2016.

http://scotlandb2b.co.uk/2016/09/06/edinburgh-flight-path-consultation-extended-after-online-data-is-lost/

.

.

.

.

.