View Full Version : Channel Islands PPR
Apologies if I have missed it, but I haven't seen a thread on this topic and thought it should have one.
The background is that Jersey Air Traffic Services (who manage the Channel Islands Zone) launched a new computer system for ATC a few years ago. NATS were the contractor, and a NATS person was appointed Ops Director of Jersey Airport. The system went live late last year. Jersey have now introduced a 7day/week mandatory PPR for any inbound VFR flight to the CI.
The CI managed for years to be incredibly friendly and accessible for VFR GA, despite the Class A, FPL and GAR requirements. Jersey Airport saw a great opportunity to be more welcoming for GA in the early 2000s when it reduced landing fees and moved light GA to the excellent aeroclub. Unfortunately, this trend has been reversed in the last couple of years. Insistance on lead times for FPL filing. Endless NOTAMs about parking restrictions and PPR. Convoluted VFR routes, funnelling VFR traffic over the Cherbourg peninsula rather than through the open water of Jersey Zone. It goes on.
Jersey ATS (who manage the CI Zone) ignored recent feedback from AOPA CI and went ahead with the PPR, publishing a weasly-worded statement justifying themselves last week, here: http://www.jerseyairport.com/index.asp?NavID=84 (http://www.jerseyairport.com/index.asp?NavID=84) (scroll down to "Temporary Air Traffic Flow Introduced" 23 June 11). Charles Strasser, Chair of AOPA CI, replied with a press release here: http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option= ... Itemid=247 (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=487&catid=1&Itemid=247)
Last week Charles and the AOPA CI Board sent a rebuttal paper out to the press and stakeholders across the CI here: http://www.aopa.co.uk/images/stories/Documents/ChannelIsles/aopa%20ci%20ppr%20v1.322.pdf
I think it is an important issue for all GA, because the Jersey ATS proposal and "justification" represents a new low point: the attempt to normalise PPR as a tool for ATC, and to normalise expectations for the service VFR traffic gets down to this dismal level of mis-treatment.
soaringhigh650
5th Jul 2011, 13:53
Class A and FPL and GAR and PPR and landing fees for a small airport group of 130,000 annual movements combined?
Oh my gosh! How do you guys live like that?
proudprivate
5th Jul 2011, 14:00
Jersey have now introduced a 7day/week mandatory PPR for any inbound VFR flight to the CI.
That's amazing.
"The temporary PPR process is a relatively normal course of action to take when dealing with a major change in air traffic operations, as is the case with the new air traffic control centre at Jersey Airport."
I was about to make a comment about O'Hare and about the overall abuse of class A airspace (in the UK, France and Italy for example) and the fact that a flight plan should give them adequate informaton, but I see the rebuttal paper deals with it already. It is clearly a "GO AWAY" message for GA.
Does anybody know why the US is so much better at air traffic control than Europe ? For instance, Lille Approach panicking when they have more than 5 aircraft inbound to land at any given time whilst Urbana Champaign doing this effortlessly ? [No intention to be polemic here, or to wallow in stars or stripes - just want to understand]
Is it staff numbers and staff costs ? Systems at regional airports (the major airports have top notch stuff. The FAA have people over admiring EBBR TWR as something they have never seen before) ? Inefficient regulatory procedures ?
Even with Class A, FPLs and GARs, Jersey used to be a good airport by UK standards.
Try Avgas a $15/US gallon and mandatory handling and landing fees that add up to >$200 for a light aircraft - not uncommon at UK regional airports.......
soaringhigh650
5th Jul 2011, 14:06
Try Avgas a $15/US gallon and mandatory handling and landing fees that add up to >$200 for a light aircraft - not uncommon at UK regional airports.......
That's crazy. You guys must all be pretty rich, or you're happy to let them take away your €€€'s bigtime.
We all trade down in terms of what we fly and how often and to what destinations, relative to what we'd do living in the USA.....
Does anybody know why the US is so much better at air traffic control than Europe ? For instance, Lille Approach panicking when they have more than 5 aircraft inbound to land at any given time whilst Urbana Champaign doing this effortlessly ? [No intention to be polemic here, or to wallow in stars or stripes - just want to understand]
Proudprivate,
I've flown a fair bit in the USA and a lot around Europe (including flying a piston twin into some of the busiest airports). I'd say that, barring the odd anomaly, ATC in Europe is very good - once you are actually airborne. The problems in Europe are pre-flight ones, relating to ATC management and, most often, Airport management.
The basic premise that airports are part of the public transport infrastructure and that GA is a mainstream user of airports and airspace, deserving full access with minimum inconvenience and cost is simply absent in the psyche of how aviation is managed in most of Europe.
The other thing no-one can explain to me is why Avgas in the US costs about the same as Jet A1, whilst in Europe, Avgas PRETAX is twice as expensive as Jet A1 PRETAX. The pretax delta between avgas and avtur is now greater than what avgas used to cost a few years ago.
That's crazy. You guys must all be pretty rich
I forgot to add we increasingly feel lucky if we can pay $15/usg for avags, it has been discontinued at many larger airports.
soaringhigh650
5th Jul 2011, 14:23
The basic premise that airports are part of the public transport infrastructure and that GA is a mainstream user of airports and airspace, deserving full access with minimum inconvenience and cost is simply absent in the psyche of how aviation is managed in most of Europe.
So how did you get to where you are and what's the plan going forward?
proudprivate
6th Jul 2011, 08:19
The other thing no-one can explain to me is why Avgas in the US costs about the same as Jet A1, whilst in Europe, Avgas PRETAX is twice as expensive as Jet A1 PRETAX. The pretax delta between avgas and avtur is now greater than what avgas used to cost a few years ago.
I'll try an explanation that partially explains it, but it certainly warrants further investigation.
JET A1 is likely to be cheaper, because the production, refining and transportation costs are almost equal to Avgas. However, the JET A1 total production volume is much higher, so you get economies of scale. In addition, JET A1 is more actively traded in the commodity markets, which avoids large surplus margins.
This explains the US situation of a JET A1 - spread of about $0.50 to Avgas. Now total Avgas use in the US is a lot higher than in Europe (Our regulatory environment plus taxation plays a role there - "We all trade down in terms of what we fly and how often and to what destinations, relative to what we'd do living in the USA"), so again an economy of scale might play.
I estimate that could amount to a spread of $0.75 as opposed to $0.50, but not much more (per gallon). Otherwise you could just start a company delivering avgas to a few selected regional airports with long term contracts and make an absolute killing.
Unless, of course, the main oil companies in Europe form a secret and illegal cartel. I understand there are only 3 major production facilities left in Europe : Hjelmco in Sweden, Shell-BP in the Netherlands and Total in France, which economists would call "a high market concentration".
So, 421C, I think you should do two things :
1) Have a look into a business plan to see whether you could deliver cheap avgas by sourcing it directly from the major production facilities.
2) If the price at source turns out to be too high to win, and
if you have concrete historical data to back up your claim, I think we should write to the European Commission and launch a formal complaint.
If (1) turns out to work, I would appreciate an invitation to your yacht in Cannes for canapés and champaign :p
As many clubs do in the more southern parts of Europe, one could prob90 get cheaper avgas by importing it in 200 litre drums.
Of course this causes the airfield-based avgas facility to close, but that is OK for the "I am allright Jack" subsection of the GA "community" ;)
Re Jersey, I am sorry to say this but frankly I hardly care. I've been there a number of times. The place has some pretty and memorable walks, especially the one round the lighthouse, but the rest of Jersey is a massive and pretty deprived council estate, with the rest of the population living in big houses tucked away, and smaller houses whose curtains are twitching H24. The genetic diversity and resulting culture is about 1% and you may as well visit the IOW or, if you find the IOW culture a bit overwhelming, the IOM :)
If Jersey ATC want to screw up the place, they are welcome to it.
proudprivate
6th Jul 2011, 13:03
As many clubs do in the more southern parts of Europe, one could prob90 get cheaper avgas by importing it in 200 litre drums.
Of course this causes the airfield-based avgas facility to close, but that is OK for the "I am allright Jack" subsection of the GA "community" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
I don't think 421C was referring to the normal margins that Filling Stations at regional airports are making. The airport operator can obviously use the filling facility as a source of extra income : that is what many "Syndicats d'Initiative - Bureaux de Tourisme" in France do, as a contribution to facility maintenance. And, because they are the only operator at the airport, they can get away with an extra 10-20 cents per litre (or about $1 / gallon).
However, you could then buy yourself an airstrip or get fuel concessions at a larger regional airport (e.g. through an FBO delivering avgas in competing with the existing fuel station). IF there is a price gap, it would lead to prices going down or your FBO turning a lot more volume. We are not talking about 200 liter drum & hand pump operations like in central Brazil or something; Rather, you would source 5000-20000 litres avgas at a time and market your airfield as a refuelling hub*. There is absolutely no incentive to restrict deliveries to local based aircraft. Quite the contrary.
I'm thinking typical transit airfields like Haverfordwest, Southend, Merville, Limoges, Augsburg, Kiel, Trier etc... for such an operation, so that the landing fee would be competitive and earned back by discounting say €0.30 / £0.25 per litre. One could also supply individual flying clubs and FBO's, acting as a wholesaler / reseller.
Of course all this DOESN'T work if EVERY industry supplier charges the same large Avgas / Jet-A1 spread.
*If anyone starts moaning about planning commissions in the UK and the impossibility to get a fuel station implanted, I will call them names. :)
There is absolutely no incentive to restrict deliveries to local based aircraft. Quite the contrary.
That's very true. It just happened that way in Greece and I suspect Italy too. The clubs who buy drums are unwilling or unable to sell it to visitors.
In the UK you would absolutely sell it to anybody who wants some.
Electric pumps are pretty quick, but the refilling is inevitably slower when a new drum has to be opened.
proudprivate
6th Jul 2011, 13:37
It just happened that way in Greece and I suspect Italy too.
I thought there was a tax reason for this, i.e. Italian flying clubs not having to pay excise or other taxes in exchange for only supplying local aircraft. Maybe Africanpilot could comment ?
This is what I found on "women in aviation" from 5 years ago
The board of directors of the Italian Civil Aviation Authority has decided that any company applying for a mandate to manage an airport in Italy will be compelled to guarantee the availability of all fuels required by aviators, and not only JET A1.
The move has been roundly welcomed by AOPA-Italy president Massimo Levi, who has long sought such a requirement. Availability of avgas has been an even bigger problem in Italy than most other European countries and is one of the major concerns for GA pilots in Italy.
Massimo says: “This decision is very important for us. It does not mean that all major airports will make avgas available overnight, but it is likely that for the next summer season the problem will be resolved at many large airports.”
Avgas will remain a problem on small airfields managed by flying clubs as the fiscal regulations in Italy are so complex that many clubs do not have the means to provide the service. AOPA is working with the Italian tax office to try to simplify the regulations.
If by contrast, the reasons are not fiscal, but the industrial suppliers provide cheap gas in exchange for not selling to visitors, then it becomes a more problematic issue. But there's nothing to suggest this. Just bonkers Italian (and Greek) taxes - now there's a surprise.
That Italian press release is basically bogus, as was another one about avgas in Sardinia:
June 2009: Great news from AOPA-Italy’s Massimo Levy – the special tax on general aviation landing in Sardinia has been cancelled! The new Governor of the region, elected in February with a huge majority, has maintained his promise and cancelled the so called ‘luxury tax’ on boats and private airplanes reaching the island. After the tax was introduced AOPA-Italy requested that GA avoid Sardinia, and many aviators and yachtsmen did so, costing the island dear. Massimo says: “We cannot say that this is a victory for AOPA, but certainly our campaign against the tax has helped to obtain this result.” Sardinia has four airports, Olbia, Cagliari, Alghero and Oristano All are open to GA, and all of them – exceptional for Italy – have avgas. Its beaches are among the prettiest of the Mediterranean and now, general aviation is again welcome. Massimo says that in particular, Olbia has one of the best organisations for GA traffic.
englishal
6th Jul 2011, 16:59
If people club together and buy 10,000 litres of avgas, the price drops by about 35p per litre over what you will pay at the pump.
at 40 lph this equates to £14 per hour,or around £1400 for a annual total of 100 hours. Almost pays the insurance!
soaringhigh650
6th Jul 2011, 17:44
Where are you gonna store it? In your backyard?
proudprivate
6th Jul 2011, 20:46
Where are you gonna store it? In your backyard?
The idea is not to re-invent the concept of a gas station. Obviously you need an underground 10000 litre double wall gas tank and a pump, and the incorporated version of the flying club basically becomes an avgas provider at the airport.
The £0.35 discount or £ 3500 / fill would be higher than most low volume margins though, which would mean it wouldn't take too long to recoup the investment. You would need some margin, though, because you're not making any additional sales through lubricants, maps, drinks, snacks etc... like you would with a normal roadside gas station.
My question would be : what is the normal margin / discount that an FBO in the US would get on an order of say, 2-3000 gallons of avgas (which it sells on to the customers for $5.80) and how does that compare to the discounts that englishal is referring to in the UK ? As I said, I believe the £0.35 to be on the high side, but not exorbitant.
If its comparable, then we're back at the question of why pre-tax high volume delivery prices are relatively higher in Europe. If its not, then it makes sense to apply for an airport avgas concession with your flying club.
FWIW, I believe typical UK GA airfield avgas markup is about 25p per litre.
englishal
7th Jul 2011, 11:15
25p - 35p per litre sounds about right as a mark-up. Mind you, we paid over £2 per litre recently at Swansea, and I am pretty sure the mark-up is more at some places.
You don't need underground storage, a mobile bowser will do the trick, but that is an investment. Actually some fuel companies provide the bowser if you buy enough fuel from them, and the more you purchase, the bigger the discount (as normally a delivery charge is charged which will be the same for 5000 litres or 10,000 litres).
Charlie Fox
7th Jul 2011, 11:33
Can the thread get back to the point. CI Zone PPR!!
macuser
7th Jul 2011, 11:53
Jersey Evening Post - August 2009:-
"ELEVEN jobs are to be axed at air traffic control at Jersey Airport over the next two years.
Six posts will disappear ahead of a more automated system being introduced next year when the new control tower is operational, with a further five to follow in 2011.
The new system will make the role of air traffic control assistant redundant. Currently, 11 people hold that position and their jobs will be scrapped over the next two years.
Some of the staff will be redeployed elsewhere within the Airport or in other States posts. The staff members were formally told on Monday following consultation with unions.
Both voluntary redundancy and retirement packages will be offered with an assurance given that compulsory redundancy will be a last resort.
Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/08/04/11-air-traffic-control-jobs-to-go/#ixzz1RQ44SmJB"
This may well account for the new limitations although why it is not limited to just the busy Saturdays, I fail to understand.
The latest news is that questions were asked at the Jersey parliament yesterday: see Control tower ‘is safe’ » News » This Is Jersey (http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/07/06/p3/)
It's a shame the reply from the Economics Minister:
The temporary measures have been introduced as a safety requirement, following consultation with all relevant parties’ Senator Maclean said.
exhibits the same Zombie Mind Control flavour as the Airport's PR.
As I understand it, no-one is disputing air safety in the Channel Islands, the AOPA CI point, from their paper, is:
• AOPA does not dispute Jersey ATS’s responsibilities for air safety and duty of care. These are self‐evident in an aviation environment.
• We would like to understand why Jersey ATS appears to be incapable of executing those responsibilities without an extraordinary overlay of restrictions that are not needed by any other ATS unit in the western world managing similar traffic volumes?
• Jersey ATS points to its new computer system. Obviously, every ATS unit in the world at some point changes its computers. We are not aware of any occasion that incredibly busy zones like those in the USA or Germany have needed the restrictions that already exist in the CI Zone, let alone additional “Prior Permission” restrictions.
In a small self-governing community like Jersey, one would hope someone in authority is actually accountable for answering plain questions like these. Someone not subject to the Zombie Mind Control......
According to this (http://www.dorolerium.com/?p=807), it is possible that Zombies all have the same DNA.
Here is a letter that was sent to the Jersey Airport Ops Director recently, cc'd to various stakeholders. It covers the topics very well IMHO.
(reproduced with the sender's permission)
I was away all last week when the requirement for PPR in the Jersey CTZ was announced, and luckily, upon realizing that its introduction would affect my return, I was able to obtain a PPR number through a telephone call to your ATC facility. I am afraid that I cannot accept this new requirement in any form at all, and find its introduction to be a needless imposition on relatively small part of the aviation community.
I have been flying now for fifty two years and professionally flying for fifty of those, and have been fortunate to have enjoyed both a military and commercial flying career. I have also been able to fly professionally in every continent except South America, and nowhere in all that time, have I met such petty-fogging bureaucracy such as you have managed to introduce into the Jersey CTZ. Last year, having brought the new ATC Tower to fruition together with a new Ops Block, you attempted and finally achieved your desire to do away with your ATC Assistants, but I am delighted to hear that they are now to be reinstated for a further three year term, in order to get you out of this self created mess. You may remember that I attended some meetings last year in connection with your intent to end Faxed Flight Plans, which you maintained would save £247,000 per annum by ridding us of ATC Assistants. However, I understand that the new ATC Tower and Ops Block has cost in the region of £22million, and still does not work. Your attempt to foist the NATS provided AVPEx computerised flight plan filing system on us was going to cost the GA community £57,000 per annum until it was thrown out, and your current new idea of PPR during the so-called 'busy' months is costing the GA community money by insisting on all northerly and easterly arrivals to appear in the CTZ via Carteret. Have you no idea of the cost of aviation, and its value to Jersey and our community? It now takes approximately one hour of planning to enable one to fly the short 15 minute to Dinard and return, because apart from the task of actually planning it, one has to file the flight plan, and prior to that, enter your PPR computer site, to try and make that work to spit out an alpha-numeric six figured code that one has to put in Item 18 of one's AVPEx flight plan. This brings me around to the nub of this exercise. We file a computerised flight plan through your NATS AVPEx system, which is itself a notification of flight intent. It has an ETD notated on it, so why does any aircraft now have to enter another computer system to beg for entry permission? The answer lies in the fact that the computerised ATC equipment that your masters, NATS suggested to you, their servant here in Jersey, is not fit for purpose. Its 'cousins' manufactured in Canada do apparently work, but your Norwegian manufactured version is deficient, and to deflect this glaring anomaly, you are moving the public's attention away from the obvious and demeaning the very public sector that you are here to serve. This is our home base, and we should not have to 'beg permission' to return to it every time that we go flying.
As I said in my previous paragraph, I have flown widely all my life, and nowhere have I encountered PPR except at busy events such as public air shows. It was a joy to fly north at 3,000', and south at 4,000' over the top of Los Angeles International, and not even have to talk to them. The system works and the US FAA acknowledges it. All their hugely busy airports welcome GA, and accept the varying speeds and altitudes flown as a challenge to be catered for. I have flown small light aircraft in South East Asia, Japan, the USA, Canada, Europe, and Africa, and nowhere have I met such an onerous set of rules that you have introduced. You have also done this at a time when air traffic is falling, and GA is facing even more difficulties. Every private aircraft that arrives in the Channel Isles CTZ brings revenue to the islands, yet your new PPR system is going to drive them away. Our own local GA fleet is affected worst of all, and yet this new system does not facilitate an even flow at all, it just annoys people. This system must be withdrawn at once, and the Channel Isles CTZ returned to what it once was, an efficient, safe, happy and vibrant little corner of the aviation world.
I would now like to discuss further costs that you have incurred for us here in Jersey. The new ATC facility was built under your remit, and has cost a fortune. The Tower is actually built in the wrong place because its position now restricts access to the Freight and Executive Jet area via the Juliet taxiway to aircraft no bigger than a B737-200. Is there not a master development plan for the airport, because there should be, rather than piecemeal development. The new ATC facility is not a world leader, for there are at least four units within the British Isles that use this new system of electronics strips for aircraft information. The only difference is that their systems work, and ours doesn't. I understand that you have decided to re-write all the ATC procedures here in the CTZ, a job like this would normally be done 'in house' by ATC Officers with the knowledge, but I hear that a group of consultants have been employed at a cost of £800,000 to do it for you. This is the thin end of the wedge, because once they have completed their task, all existing Channel Isles aeronautical charts will have to be re-printed, published and then bought by the local flying community, an additional cost to our pockets in this time of financial crisis. Your planned VFR routes inbound and outbound from the three airfields will add many track miles to GA's flying task here in the islands, making our flying even more expensive than it already is. Sandy, do you know that a Litre of Avgas costs approximately £1.40 now, and that your average light aircraft burns around 50 - 65 Litres per hour?
I could go on, but I will not. However, if you wish to meet me to discuss any of the items within this message then please contact me - you have my number. It is time to admit the errors and get your local flying community back onside.
Yours in anticipation
S-Works
7th Jul 2011, 19:42
I am curious Peter, is there anyone apart from your PHd Model Girlfriend and rocket scientist son that you are not utterly obnoxious towards?
Is there any justification for your slurs and insults towards the Channel Islanders?
Personally I have always found the Islanders to be welcoming, helpful and from a very diverse gene pool embracing many cultures.
I often wonder if you are actually capable of introspection rather than just self agrandisement?
Fuji Abound
7th Jul 2011, 22:32
421c thank you for reproducing that letter; it is indeed very well written and sums up the majority of our views i think.
macuser
8th Jul 2011, 13:38
421C - Do you know whether the Jersey Airport Ops Director has responded to that letter and, if so, in what terms?
Seems to me the Ops Drector's responses, generally, are a bit of a smokescreen. I was told also that she has rubbished some claims from a recently retired Jersey SATCO.
I'm not based in the CI and have only been copied in on some correspondance by some of the guys I know there, and, of course, could only refer to private emails in a public forum where I had the sender's explicit permission.
I have a feeling that many letters have been sent recently and don't know what replies, if any, have been received as yet. The only stuff I am aware of in the public domain is the Airport's PR statement, and the press quotes in the last week or two.
macuser
6th Oct 2011, 20:11
Matters have moved on..... see link below
Early exit from post for Airport executive « This Is Jersey (http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2011/10/06/early-exit-from-post-for-airport-executive/)
wsmempson
6th Oct 2011, 20:14
What a very unpleasant looking unit.
macuser
6th Oct 2011, 20:26
It's a fine control tower!
fattony
7th Oct 2011, 09:46
"Temporary PPR Measures to be Removed" from Jersey Airport (http://www.jerseyairport.com/index.asp?NavID=84).
Am I correct in thinking PPR is no longer required? Or is it not as straightforward as it sounds?
Privatecaptain
7th Oct 2011, 14:12
From the end of September, 2011 onwards, the PPR has been redrawn.
"
With immediate effect PPR for the Channel Island Control Zone has been withdrawn.
"
See the website: Channel Island Control Zone - SVFR Flight Planning Guide (http://www.cicz.co.uk/)
Life has become a bit easier again.....