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 (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
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...r%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.