The decision came after coastal residents east of Hobart campaigned against flight path changes in 2017, forcing Airservices back to the drawing board and resulting in the cancellation of changes for Launceston.

Documents released under Freedom of Information show departure routes would have crossed above Longford, Hadspen and St Leonards, while arrivals would have crossed Hadspen, Evandale, Lilydale and rural areas to Launceston's south east. The design could also have resulted in aircraft making multiple loops above rural localities such as Deddington.

"The analysis has found that, rural residential areas to the south east of Launceston will likely notice an increase to the number of jet overflights and an increase in the number of noise events above 70 dB," the environmental assessment reads.

"This may be most evident at night."

The changes were due to come into effect in late 2017, but an email to Airservices staff stated the plan would be "put on hold until further notice" after issues with the new Hobart flight paths showed that "improvements" were required in their processes.

Airservices also faced criticism on the Sunshine Coast and in Melbourne for flight path changes where communities felt they had not been adequately consulted.

Dunalley resident Daniel Lane, who was involved in the campaign against the Hobart changes, attended an Airservices consultation session in Launceston last week where about 40 attendees provided feedback on flight path principles to guide future changes.

He said there appeared to be a lack of attendees with technical knowledge and insight into flight path design, while others acknowledged they had been paid to attend in order to improve the cross-section for feedback.

Mr Lane said the new flight path principles would ensure a design like the scrapped 2017 Launceston flight paths would not happen again, however he was concerned about some of the language used.

"There was a lot of times where the principles included the phrases like 'where practical', so it gives them some wriggle room in the future," he said.

"It's questionable why they held this session in Launceston rather than Hobart, where people would have been able to provide better feedback.

"In Launceston, it seemed easy for them to present these new principles and for people to say, 'yes, they look good', but then it's quite easy to pull them apart when you have understanding of what they could mean in practice."

The principles included minimising the effect on the environment, concentrating noise over non-residential areas and having safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

Launceston currently has "little consistency in aircraft movements" and flight tracking is "amended tactically, depending on the traffic mix and weather conditions". Increasing air traffic has heightened these challenges.

Launceston Airport general manager Paul Hodgen said there were no proposed changes to Launceston's flight paths at this time.

He said the airport had gone through a noise assessment as part of its masterplan process, and as a result Airservices had assured the airport that no changes were expected in the short-term.

"It'd be a bit of a nonsense for us to put out a noise footprint and for them to come along and say, 'We've changed the flight paths and your noise footprint is no longer relevant'," Mr Hodgen said.

"There was a concern three or four months ago, but from what I understand, from the assurances they've given us, there's nothing that's going to be done in the short-term."

When asked if consultation was also occurring regarding flight paths changes for Launceston, Airservices Australia stated there were no plans at this time.

"Airservices has no flight path changes proposed for Launceston, and therefore is not conducting any consultation as there are no changes proposed," the statement reads.

"We are at present conducting consultation across the country on our general flight path principles - which happened in Launceston on the 30th."

Mr Lane said it was unreasonable to expect people who lived in towns far from any airport to suddenly be placed under a flight path.

"The anguish we had down here was horrific for a lot of people. If you live 40 to 50 kilometres away, it's devastating to suddenly be under a flight path," he said.