Channel Islands PPR
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Deep South
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPR
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.
"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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest news is that questions were asked at the Jersey parliament yesterday: see Control tower ‘is safe’ » News » This Is Jersey
It's a shame the reply from the Economics Minister:
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:
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......
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.
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.
• 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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
(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
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
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Deep South
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Deep South
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C
Matters have moved on..... see link below
Early exit from post for Airport executive « This Is Jersey
Early exit from post for Airport executive « This Is Jersey
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Temporary PPR Measures to be Removed" from Jersey Airport.
Am I correct in thinking PPR is no longer required? Or is it not as straightforward as it sounds?
Am I correct in thinking PPR is no longer required? Or is it not as straightforward as it sounds?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Delfgauw, NL
Age: 53
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the end of September, 2011 onwards, the PPR has been redrawn.
"
See the website: Channel Island Control Zone - SVFR Flight Planning Guide
Life has become a bit easier again.....
"
- With immediate effect PPR for the Channel Island Control Zone has been withdrawn.
See the website: Channel Island Control Zone - SVFR Flight Planning Guide
Life has become a bit easier again.....
