Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association REGION

The General Aviation response to the Airport announcement requiring Prior Permission to fly to the Channel Islands

Media briefing and analysis of Jersey Airport’ s PR statement dated 23 June 11

1 Introduction CI Region

• Jersey Air Traffic Services (ATS) have recently introduced a “Prior Permission” requirement for all light aircraft oppgerating in and out of the zone under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) • This is an extraordinary encumbrance relative to our modest traffic volumes and the existing requirement for all aircraft to file a detailed Flight Plan • It is claimed this is necessary because of the new computer system itintro duce d in 2010. Jersey ATS have ffildailed to consult the GlGeneral AAitiviation community properly at any point in this process, and AOPA CI’s recent feedback in private has been ignored. Instead, Jersey ATS published a statement on 23 June that we consider to be unacceptable spin‐doctoring of the facts and circumstances • This paper is our initial*analysis of the Jersey ATS statement. Not only do we believe that the Prior Permission requirement is unnecessary, we think it is wrong that an organisation entrusted with a duty of care for aviation safety should use these principles to cover‐up its mismanagement and apparent inability to properly serve the Channel Islands’ air traffic

* there are other significant items in the Jersey ATS statement we object to, and we will respond in due course 2 Jersey Airport PR statement 23 June 11: extract CI Region “Having overall responsibility for Channel Islands airspace...the facility based at Jersey Airport can handle up to 700 aircraft movements daily during the busy summer months....therefore, ATS in Jersey must ensure it has sufficient resources and reliable systems in place to effectively handle this increased number of movements in a safe manner”

What might a reasonable person infer from this sensible sounding statement about an “increased number of movements” and “busy summer months”?

Source of extract: http://www.jersey‐airport.com/index.asp?NavID=84 3 Channel Islands air traffic: the FACTS CI Region Spot the trend...

Jersey and CI air traffi c movements, 2008‐2010 Source: UK CAA statistics

Jersey CI total 160000 80000

150000 75000 12% decline since 2008 140000 70000 18% decline since 2008 65000 130000

60000 120000

55000 110000

50000 100000 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010

4 Channel Islands air traffic: the FACTS CI Region Jersey ATS subcontractor Jersey ATS subcontractor press release March 09 press release June 11 Source: Northrop Grumman Corporation Source: Copperchase press release “LONDON –March 12, 2009 –Northrop Grumman “Copperchase, one of the UK’s leading suppliers to the Air Corporation (NYSE: NOC) announced its Europe‐based air Traffic Control industry was recently involved in the supply traffic management system subsidiary, Northrop of the new ATC Data System to Jersey Airport during a Grumman Park Air Systems, has been awarded a contract recent £6m rebuilding project managed by NATS. The new by NATS Services Ltd. to supply, deliver and install its air traffic control building and tower help meet the NOVA 9000 Radar Processing and Flight Planning System, demands for increased capacity at Jersey Airport and with fully integrated electronic flight strips, to the new air control the Channel Islands airspace.” traffic control (ATC) tower at Jersey .”

If the system is meant to Given the contract was CI total “hel p meet the dddemands for awarded in early March 160000 increased capacity”, how is it that it can not properly meet 2009, we can reasonably 150000 assume the new ATC system the present reduced 140000 was specified in 2008, since demands? when there has been a 130000 major decline in air traffic 120000 110000

100000 2008 2009 2010 5 Jersey Airport PR statement 23 June 11: extract 2 CI Region

“ATS Jersey has introduced a temporary ‘Prior Permission Required’ (PPR) system for private aircraft flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) .....this system is often adopted by airports to control air traffic flow at peak times”

What might a reasonable person infer from this sensible sounding statement about a system “often adopted by airports to control air traffic flow at peak times”?

Source of extract: http://www.jersey‐airport.com/index.asp?NavID=84 6 Channel Islands air traffic: the FACTS CI Region Let’s compare the Channel Islands Zone with that of the world’s busiest airport:

Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta Jersey Airport and Zone International Airport, USA

DeKalb Peachtree, the secondary airport has ~200,000 movements per year

Atlanta airport movements: Jersey airport movements: ~ 1 million per year ~ 60,000 per year Othe r aapotsirports in ttehe Zooene: 13 Othe r aapotsirports in ttehe Zooene: 2

7 Channel Islands air traffic: the FACTS CI Region How restrictive are the EXISTING requirements for the Channel Islands airspace?

The Channel Islands Zone is Class A airspace, the very highest clifitilassification in the glbllobal ICAO system

The airspace around Atlanta airport is Class B. In fact, the airspace around every major airport in the USA is Class B: New York, Los Angg,eles, Chicag,go, Miami etc

The same is true in Germany, including airports as busy as Frankfurt, Berlin, Cologne and Munich. Elsewhere in Europe, Class A is used only around a handful of very congested zones such as London, Paris, Madrid and Palma. 8 Channel Islands air traffic: the FACTS CI Region How is VFR traffic around the world’s busiest airport managed, compared to Jersey?

• Air Traffic Control in Atlanta’s zone, the world’s busiest airport, manages well over 1 million movements per year and requires Visual (VFR) aircraft to simply make a radio call requesting entry into the airspace, wihith zero prior notificat ion. • The same is true in every zone in the USA, and in Germany

• In CI airspace every flig ht in and out of the zone has to complete and submit a Flight Plan form in advance, detailing the aircraft, its route, altitude, fuel endurance, safety equipment etc.

9 Channel Islands air traffic: the FACTS CI Region What tools does Jersey ATS already have to manage traffic?

• Let’ s restate the situation:

• The Channel Islands Zone is unique, nowhere in the free world does a zone with so little traffic impose the requirements that every VFR flight in or out of the zone must file a Flight Plan

• Thus, Jersey ATC already has a vast amount of information and prior notification of VFR traffic, compared to ATC in any major Airport in the USA or Germany.

Flight Plan form required for every aircraft entering or leaving the Channel Islands Zone 10 Channel Islands air traffic: the FACTS CI Region What are Jersey ATS proposing?

In addition to the existing Flight Planning requirements, Jersey ATS are now ppproposing an additional process ...... which, on their own web site, takes 17 steps to explain......

11 Jersey Airport PR statement 23 June 11: extract 3 CI Region What are Jersey ATS claiming?

Mrs Sawyer “Ultimately, all airports have a duty of care for its passengers.....to ensure we operate a safe skies policy while at the same time demonstrating to the Channel Islands Director of Civil Aviation that the most efficient and reliable technology systems are in place in air traffic control and trained resources available to help us effectively manage air traffic movements.

•Mrs Sawyer acknowledges that all airports have the same Duty of Care

•It is a fact that Jersey and the Channel Islands Zone already have Flight Plan notification requirements. It is also a fact that airports and airspace vastly more busy than the CI’s are able to exercise the same DtDuty of Care using only silimple radio communication methods without any prior notification

•Is it credible, or even conceivable, that the air traffic environment in the Channel Islands, if well‐managed, could require the additional encumbrance of the proposed 17‐step Prior Permission system?

Source of extract: http://www.jersey‐airport.com/index.asp?NavID=84 12 AOPA Summary CI Region

• The Channel Islands already have the most restrictive airspace possible under the ICAO system (Class A) and require detailed Flight Plans to be submitted for all VFR aircraft operating in and out of the zone • This is extraordinary relative to our modest traffic volumes. Not one of the busiest airport zones in the USA or Germany require Fllhight Plans for VFR traffic. Not one of, for example, New York or Los Angeles or Frankfurt or Berlin. • Thus, whilst Jersey ATS have the same duty of care and safety responsibilities as other ATS units around the world, they already have considerably more tools in place to manage VFR traffic ¾ ATS in New York, Los Angeles, Frankfurt and Berlin (for example) manage 10 or more times our volume of traffic using only simple radio communication methods, without any kind of flight plan or notification from VFR aircraft • It is astonishing, therefore, that Jersey ATS should attempt to present their overlay of additional Prior Permission requirements, as a “a relatively normal course of action” (...one might also chose a more pejorative word than ‘t‘astoni ihi’)shing’)

13 AOPA Position CI Region • 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. • It is a matter of record that the new system, planned and specified in 2008, now has significantly less traffic to cope with in CI airspace. There is no conceivable reason for ATS to need restrictions that could not have been foreseen years ago. • Therefore, AOPA CI does not accept the proposals or explanations of Jersey Airport and ATS managg,ement, nor do we believe our communities should accept their negative economic and reputational consequences 14