Flight path changes remain unexplained

Airport authorities have been unable to provide affected residents with a logical reason for this change, despite what was described as an 'independent' review by the director of civil aviation. A subsequent public consultation (due to end in early May) makes recommendations which totally fail to address the problems these residents have been forced to live with since August 2013 and if implemented, some aspects of the suggested changes may actually make things even worse.

Key and vital questions posed to PSD by residents in the build up to the consultation remain unanswered and through utter frustration, I have written this letter in the hope that this will prompt a public and truthful response from the PSD minister, who has been sent a copy and asked to respond.

South-bound aircraft

Aircraft were permitted to make early turns south at 850 feet above sea level following a dispensation granted in 2008. The PSD minister, in his answer to the rule-five questions asked by Deputy Inglis on this issue in the States on Tuesday 29 October 2013, said that just two complaints were received from the residents living in the affected areas at the west end of the runway by this decision over a five-year period. He also said that 'noise monitoring at specific key locations was carried out before and after the trial.' This clearly indicated the department's awareness of the aircraft flight path to the south pre and post the change.

However, on 25 August 2013, with the same 850ft dispensation (by this time included in the official noise-abatement procedures), these aircraft began turning consistently over one of the most densely populated areas of Torteval and an area not previously affected by airport operations.

As a result of this change, the airport authorities and PSD received more than 60 complaints over a six-month period from people living in this area of Guernsey, yet claim that despite access to expensive radar equipment and having carried out noise-monitoring exercises along previously affected areas, they do not have the answer to why this is happening. Now, some eight months after observations were first reported, they have still not even acknowledged that the change has occurred, let alone attempted to justify it. I would ask that the PSD minister explains why his department have not acknowledged to residents affected that south-bound turns are affecting a different area of Torteval since August 2013. If they truly monitored the affected areas in 2008, then they know there has been a change.

Worryingly, the Public Services Department makes absolutely no attempt to address these issues within its public consultation document, instead making the recommendation that the turning point south remains the same for all but the larger aircraft. Larger aircraft, due to their size and manoeuvrability (Blue Islands' ATR to Jersey apart) are already unable to turn south directly over the complainants' properties, therefore the vast majority of aircraft currently heading south over the complainants' properties will continue to do so.

There is no doubt that, despite the fact that aircraft are permitted under the revised NAP to make early turns at 850ft when taking off from both the east and west end of the runway, they achieve these turns much later when taking off from the east end – why? The disparity, if realigned, would almost certainly return aircraft to the turning position they achieved prior to the August 2013 change. Why would PSD not recommend reinstating this turning point when only two complaints between 2008 and late July 2013 had been received? Many fewer homes were affected during this period and the residents of these homes (according to the Minister of PSD) were happy with the situation – why would the consultation document not include this fact or make recommendations relevant to it?

Puzzlingly, we have been assured that the vast majority of these aircraft commence their take-off procedures in exactly the same place as they did prior to August 2013, which means that nothing should have changed. The DCA, in his review, commented that some pilots are now tempted, due to the additional tarmac available at the west end, to delay their take-off until further down the runway. Furthermore, it must be noted that the Bravo taxiway used by some of the smaller aircraft taking off to the west was moved 90 metres further west during the Lagan pavements project, yet all of these aircraft, including the giant Blue Islands' ATR, miraculously hit a frighteningly consistent turning point in or around the area in which the complainants live – why is this happening?

North bound aircraft

Complainants have been assured categorically that the runway alignment has not changed since August 2013. We have also been assured that aircraft are commencing their run-up for take-off in exactly the same position as they did prior to August 2013, yet the angle at which all north bound aircraft pass the complainants' properties has most definitely changed and follows a much more southerly bearing – why?

We strongly believe that if this could be explained and resolved, the south-turn issue (which may well be a by-product of the current take-off angle change) would also be resolved.

The dramatic change became apparent on one very specific day on 25 August 2013. We have subsequently been told by the airport authorities that on this day, the new stretch of runway was formally opened. We also know that the airport's instrument landing system was recalibrated at that very same time. However, we are told that neither of these events could have caused such an impact.

Aircraft leaving the west end of the runway, then heading on a south-westerly bearing when their ultimate destination is north makes absolutely no sense, either logically or commercially, yet there is absolutely no doubt that this change was introduced in August 2013 – why?

Many of the complainants have carried out exhaustive visual observations of aircraft taking off from and landing at the west end of the runway. These observations have taken place at a number of strategic positions along what PSD describes as the extended centreline and we have concluded that a large proportion of aircraft are following a track significantly south of this designated flight path.

The airport director has admitted to some breaches, yet has consistently deflected other incredibly obvious transgressions of the NAP by saying that they are compliant when quite patently they haven't been. Why?

The airport director has confirmed in emails to at least one complainant that aircraft both pre- and post-August 2013 take off at a 270 degree angle or bearing from runway 27 at the west end. The corresponding angle or bearing on take-off at the east end at runway 09 at 90 degrees, however it is this angle of take-off that we believe has changed and this must be clarified.

I have asked for clarification of the current angle of take-off now adopted by aircraft taking off at the west end of the airfield and whether this has changed since August 2013 – no reply has been received. I have also asked, following an extreme violation of the NAP by a large commercial aircraft during the recent strong winds, for confirmation that the same compensating bearing instructions are given by air traffic control when strong winds are experienced from the north-west when compared to the prevailing south westerlies – no reply has been received.

We have asked the PSD minister to sanction an independent visual, ground based assessment of this problem because it is fundamental to resolving this issue. To continue wasting public money in moving forward with a public consultation which is flawed at the core cannot be justifiable. No fair conclusion to this review is achievable while these questions remain unanswered.

It is important to the group of residents who have been desperately attempting to reach a fair resolution to this matter over eight frustrating months that the public realise that we want nothing more than a return to the quality of life we had prior to August 2013 or justification as to why these incredibly significant changes to our lives were imposed upon us without warning or consultation that day in August 2013. To continue to leave us in this situation is cruel and utterly unjustifiable.

I would encourage anyone reading this letter who has similar concerns or who can shed any light on any of the issues, whether you live at the west or east end of the airport runway, to make representations to PSD via the consultation process.

Deputy David Inglis has done an excellent job in supporting residents and in a recent Parish Matters Press article has also invited comments from those affected or concerned. Please write to him at dai@cwgsy.net.

Name and address withheld.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Paul Luxon, minister, Public Services Department, responds: 'The letter highlights concerns that some islanders have raised in recent months. What is perhaps less obvious is the efforts that have been made, both by the political board of Public Services and the management of Guernsey Airport, to try and resolve these. We have met with residents, and genuinely listened to their concerns. Numerous enquiries have also been responded to, with a view to understanding and addressing their issues. And although complaints have come from a relatively small number of islanders, airport management has committed an enormous amount of time and resources investigating these, and acting upon them where necessary. We have never been in any way dismissive, nor simply left enquiries unanswered.

I do acknowledge, however, that we have been unable to provide a response that has satisfied your correspondent, or others with similar concerns. Despite all efforts, we have simply not identified any explanation to account for their complaints. The designated flight path has not changed, and we have found no evidence of an increase in aircraft deviating from this. As your correspondent points out, what they report is happening "makes absolutely no sense, either logically or commercially.'"

The department even sought the views of an expert third party. Last autumn, we asked the Director of Civil Aviation (DCA) to review all complaints and provide an independent perspective. In January, we sent copies of his report, which is included in our consultation paper, to all islanders who had raised concerns.

Suffice to say, having considered all the evidence, the DCA was similarly no closer to identifying a logical explanation for their complaints. However, he proposed we review the long-established rules that set out the route pilots are allowed to follow on take-off or landing, with a view to improving their situation by other means.

That is the basis of the current consultation. It is not intended to explain the experience that your correspondent has detailed. We have tried to do that, and despite great efforts have not come up with an explanation to satisfy them. Nor has an independent, third party. So we are investigating another solution that could go some way to addressing their complaints.

So I would concur with one of your correspondent's closing paragraphs, and encourage everyone to take this opportunity to let us have their views through this consultation. Public Services will then consider these in assessing whether changes should be made.

Full details of the consultation are available at www.gov.gg/nap-review, or by calling 234684.

The closing date for responses is Friday 2 May.'