Lydd Refuse to Honour Wx Diversions

[Danny]

[UV]

Were you one of the 15 or so of us who diverted to Lydd due to the Wx at Le Touquet today (16/7) and made to pay a landing fee??

I was looking forward exercising my first waived landing fee (!) only to be told firmly that the management were still considering it and I would have to pay (even though they are on the list).

Shame on them.

Wonder what happened to the 5, I overheard at Rochester...

UV

[Whirlybird]

I fully support waived landing fees for genuine weather diversions.

I'm not so sure that we have a right to expect them!

If you can't see what I'm getting at, trying looking at it from Lydd's point of view - 15 extra people, with all the extra work that entails. All glad the airfield is there...but we want it free now please!

I'm not criticising you, UV, but something about this doesn't feel quite right to me,

[Mike Cross]

The idea grew out of a recommendation in a CAA review of GA Accidents. The logic was that the thought of the landing fee might cause pilots to press on when they should divert.

Charles Strasser of AOPA took up the cause (you are a member aren't you?) as a result of which most airfields joined the scheme.

Personally If I had a genuine Wx diversion I would be so grateful to be safely down in one piece that I would't dream of quibbling if asked to pay.

By what you say you and others were en-route to Le Touquet and because of poor weather there diverted to Lydd.

If one's pre-flight Wx briefing indicated no cause for concern but there was a sudden and unexpected change to the weather that caused L2K to get socked in and one's return to one's departure aerodrome to become equally untenable with the result that one had no choice but to divert ot L2K it sounds like a genuine Wx diversion.

If on the other hand one decided to land at Lydd and see if the weather at L2K improved then it doesn't.

[High Wing Drifter]

I must say that I find it odd, thet anybody who can afford this hobby or commercial training would be put diverting off by even a £50 landing fee. I wonder (and I include myself as I haven't been tested yet) if anything would actually change.

[bar shaker]

UV

Can I ask what checks you made on the weather at LFAT before setting off from NW?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The logic was that the thought of the landing fee might cause pilots to press on when they should divert. I wonder what genuine work was done to prove this, or whether it was just a conjecture? Like others I find the idea of choosing to kill oneself to save a few quid, which is hardly going to make a material difference to the overall cost of the trip, utterly bizarre.

OK, so if one were faced with paying several hundred pounds at Heathrow or Gatwick or Stansted one might appreciate a free landing in an emergency ... but Heathrow and Gatwick aren't on the list, and last time I ran into worse-than-forecast weather on the edge of Stansted's zone the nice man at Luton Radar was offering me a wide choice of nearer runways. On balance I think I'd still prefer to pay the several hundred and stay alive.

Personally If I had a genuine Wx diversion I would be so grateful to be safely down in one piece that I would't dream of quibbling if asked to pay. Indeed. I think I probably wouldn't even accept the free landing if offered!

[RPMcMurphy]

You must have saved a bob or two by not having to pay Le Touq a fee.....

[Pitts2112]

This is an interesting topic. It came up on a newsgroup some time ago; I don't remember where. A pilot complained that he'd gone flying on a particular day, wx diverted into some place, and was charged the standard landing fee, even after this programme was put in place. He was expecting sympathy from other posters. He got absolutely slated. Why? Because on the day he chose to fly, the weather was forecast to be non-VMC and pretty much all over the country it actually was from morning to night. He was criticised for not exercising good airmanship in choosing to fly in the murk and then expecting a freebie when he got caught out.

On the face of it, free landing fees for a wx divert sound like a good idea, but in practice I'm not sure they accomplish anything and may even encourage poor judgement. If the weather's dodgy enough that you end up having to divert, unless it's a sudden and unexpected condition, why would you choose to make the flight in the first place? If you do decide to give it a go and see how it turns out (and, in this country's weather, who amoungst us hasn't done that?), you do that with the full knowledge that you may not get where you're going and you may not be able to get back. The consequences are well known before you start out and responsibility should be accepted for them. The release of the landing fee seems to go against the basic premise in aviation that the pilot is completely in charge and expected to act like, and accept the consequences, like a professional adult.

Now, a free diversion for an unexpected technical failure, that's a different story, and I think that idea has some legs.

Just my .02 worth

Pitts2112

[Spitoon]

Gertrude, what you say makes perfect sense, it's logical, and many people would say much the same. But accident history is littered with examples where pilots have done things (and often we'll never know why) that appear to defy the logic you set out.

Given that we often cannot ask why the pilots did what they did, we must try and second guess why the various decisions that led to the accident were taken. So when a group of peers, while sitting around a table with lots of time to cogitate, have to try to put themselves in the pilot's position sometimes the only explanation for some of the decisions that were taken is to avoid a landing fee or something equally minor.

If we are to make/keep aviation as safe as it can be we have to learn why accidents and incidents happen. Trying to understand why an accident has happened without the benefit of input from the pilot is not a perfect science but there is no alternative.

I'm fortunately not often involved in post-accident investigations but I believe that when the pilot is able to participate it is surprising to find that the logical decisions that are easy to make on the ground are not necessarily those that are made in the air.

I imagine it is this background that led the CAA to encourage airfields to waive landing fees for wx diversions.

[ShyTorque]

Perhaps a good compromise would be for the airfield to waive the landing fee provided that fuel was taken.

After all, it would be diversion fuel used to get there, wouldn't it? ;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I've just looked at the wording in Pooleys - second hand, I know, but let's hope they've copied this correctly from the scheme details.

"... for genuine emergency or precautionary diversion landings ..."

Well, the first is easy to spot, because the pilot will have called at least PAN, won't he, so what does "precautionary diversion landings" mean? The only other type of "precautionary landing" I've come across is the forced-landing-with-power in a field, which suggests that conditions have got to be sufficiently bad that you would have landed in a field had the runway not been there.

This does not suggest that you get a free landing because you're waiting for the weather at the destination to improve, or because, while you've got plenty of fuel to turn straight round and get home again, you've come for a day out and you're b*gg*red if you're not going to land away somewhere. Foolishly taking off with insufficient fuel to do anything except re-cross the channel and land on the first flat space you can find would end up as something qualifying for an (undeserved) free landing, it seems to me, but I can't believe that 15 people got themselves into that stiuation at the same place on the same day.

[TCAS FAN]

UV

Haven't yet seen an answer to "bar shaker's" question.

Did the LFAT weather deteriorate, or did you depart without an actual LFAT weather report? Hopefully you and others did check it.

If you didn't, a word of caution to you and other divertees.Tucked away in the ANO is Article 43 entitled "Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft", making self briefing a legal obligation. From personal experience hearing GA pilots requesting multiple weather reports and danger area activity status (of permanently active areas) while en-route, from often busy controllers or FISOs, it appears that "not a lot of people know that"!

[dublinpilot]

Well, I understand what people mean, when they say that every pilot should be happy to pay a landing fee, when they feel that their life is in danger, and that they must get on the ground.

But I suspect that this scheme wasn't really designed for dealing with these situations. Pilots in such circumstances don't need any encouragement to make an emergency diversion. They have all the encouragement that they need.

Danger in flying, just like danger in any other areas of our lives isn't black and white. When we are on the ground, flying is causing us no danger whatsoever. When we take off, we put our lives at some risk, but a level which we are comfortable to accept. If we find ourselves closely surrounded by extremely active CB's on all sides, then we are in mortal danger.

I suspect this scheme was designed to help give encouragement to pilots who feel that the risk has increased to an amount that they are starting to feel uncomfortable. They feel that they can ALMOST certainly make it to their destination, and then the "press on home'itts" is sets in. Conditions may deteriorate a little further and they feel that they are now just PRETTY SURE they can make it home, but not convinced, and decide to press on. This is the type of behaviour that appears regularly in accident statistics, and the type of behaviour that this scheme is trying to help address.

It's not trying to help address the "must get on the ground NOW" type of situation. So please don't knock it on the basis of "must get on the ground NOW" types of situations.

Incidentally I've only ever had to make one emergency diversion, and that was back to where I had taken off from. (Not my home field.) I was so very grateful for the service I'd received from this field, both before I'd taken off and during this flight, that I was more than happy to pay the additional landing fee.

15 People all diverting into one airfield? As someone else said, maybe it was something dodgy, and some group trying to take advantage. But maybe it was because it was a nice day, the weather and forecast looked good, and as a result a lot of people decided to visit Le Touquet. As they go closer Le Touquet got covered in unforecasted sea fog, and everyone close decided to divert to the nearest airport, and wait it out? Surely unforecast weather is a perfectly logical reason for so many people having to divert? And if you expect it may clear, and you'll be able to continue in awhile, then where better than the nearest airfield?

Either Lydd are in the scheme or they are not. If they are ideologically opposed to the scheme, then it's their prerogative to not be in it, as some airfields have chosen. But to tell people that they are in the scheme, have their name included on the list of diversion fields, to me creates a implied term in a contact, when a pilot decides to land there after a diversion. To charge a pilot the fee for a genuine diversion is just wrong in such circumstances. Either you are in the scheme or you are not. You can't have the positive PR of being in the scheme, yet refuse to recognise it.

How would you feel if Tesco advertised that if you spent more than £100 in their stores on Wednesday afternoons, you'd get 10% off. Then you went and spent £150 in their store on a Wednesday afternoon, and they refused to give you the 10% off?

dp

[UV]

TCAS FAN and others, sorry for the SHORT delay in replying.

As you are no doubt aware there is no way of getting TAFs for anywhere on the near continent other than Ostende.

The actuals from 0930 at L2K were 5000m Viz and 900 ft cloud base.This was obtained several times from the talking telephone ATIS. I expected it to improve, but in the absence of a TAF...

Presumably the other 15 aircraft and the 5 at Rochester, and some later, got the same info. As a sideline it does probably prove that there is a real lack of available weather for this busy area.

Crossing Kent and listening to L2K revealed that most aircraft were at 500 feet.

Legal, yes, but having been there hundreds of times over 35+years I was not happy to mix it with inexerienced PPLs and L2K infamous Air Traffic!

I decided to divert to Lydd and that is my decision and I stick with it.

No I am not bothered about £8.81. BUT if the system is in place(and encouraged by the CAA) why is it not be honoured when a pilot tells them that its a genuine Wx diversion?

I was not abusing it, merely making a comment.

Maybe the Airfield Operator is the one who is abusing it?!
UV

[Stampe]

We are lucky to have Lydd there at all and especially a rapidly improving airfield as it is at present.It survives by charging what I consider to be reasonable fees for the service provided in its location and with relatively low utilisation.I never let the cost of a diversion cloud my judgement if such a decision needs to be made.I guess we are all paying well over £100 per hour for our flying in one form or another,is £20 that much of an issue especially to such a worthy cause.Remember the guy who bleated about Lutons fees on diversion yet could afford to pole around in a twin,didn,t get my sympathy vote.LeTouquet is not a cheap landing if I remember rightly and Headcorn is nearly as expensive as Lydd for my aircraft (mtow669Kgs).Lets give Lydd a break and hope it survives.Maybe more of an issue in this area is the ATC unit at Manston who recently refused to accept a diversion from over the channel in very poor weather and obviously in some stress,the badly shaken pilot eventually made it into Rochester.:ok:

[welkyboy]

As far as I recollect this concession for waiver of landing fee for diversions is only valid if you subsequently continue on to your original destination. If the weather was too bad to land at LFAT you shouldn't have taken off in the first place without checking latest wx and assuming it would get better.

[WorkingHard]

May i just pick up on something asked earlier? Was Lydd listed as an altrnative on the FP? If so then no wx diversion is applicable because you have PLANNED to go there. If not why not use the alternative in the FP?
As a matter of interest, some while ago I had one very rough running engine whilst at FL55 passing overhead an RAF station. A quick brief to the contrioller and and I was cleared straight down in a spiral to land (all other traffic temporarily dispersed). Problem was solved, I departed and received a bill for landing. No problems, just pleased they were there and so obliging at a very very busy station. Pay with good grace

[bar shaker]

UV

You aren't really out of pocket. You may not have made it to France, but you would have paid slightly more to land at Le2K than you did at Lydd, so what's the difference.

I don't really regard this as a weather diversion. I flew in Kent yesterday and CAVOK could not describe it. 40 mile vis, zero cloud, VRB <10kts.

In the circumstances, you can understand why you should have to pay the same as the people that intended to fly to Lydd.

By the way, they have a good restaurant and are a short walk away from a wonderful beach, which is on "La Manche".

I have posted the terminal phone number on another forum and they will give you a TAF, of sorts, if you ring them.

Hope you still enjoyed your day.

[dublinpilot]

While I stand by my comments above, defending of the scheme, I have to say that having read UV's (and Bar Shakers) comments on the weather, I don't support UV's position at all.

To me, the purpose of the scheme is NOT to provide a free landing fee of your choice, should the weather at your destination be crap both at take off time, and arrival time, when you have lots of options, in very good weather.

You were in far from difficult circumstances, and certainly (from the info you gave us) in no need of any particular assistance. Certainly not an emergency. A diversion perhaps. But was it an "emergency or precautionary diversion"? I wouldn't call it so.

Trying to claim a free landing fee under such circumstances, will only lead to the scheme collapsing, and ruining it for those in genuine need of an emergency diversion.

dp

[Pierre Argh]

UV

Regarding your comment above about not getting European weather observations... can i suggest the following site?

http://weather.noaa.gov/

Enter the name (or Icao locator) and you'll get a TAF back lickety-split... no excuse

[tmmorris]

I have some sympathy for Lydd here, as they probably end up on the receiving end of a lot of this sort of thing because of their location. I've only done one genuine wx diversion, with an instructor, pre-PPL, when we went Welshpool - Gloucester - Welshpool and on the way back the cloudbase was lower than forecast and not far from the tops of the Welsh hills. We went into Shobdon fully expecting to pay a landing fee, and in fact they said 'Don't be silly, that was a wx diversion, it's free' so we spent the money in the cafe instead while we re-planned to go home the long way. In the end the cloudbase improved and we went on our way very happy.

But Shobdon isn't on the way to France...

Tim

[Monocock]

UV

Can I ask where your departure airfield was?

Did you really not have enough fuel to get back there?

I must say I'm thoroughly confused about this thread. If I set off for an airfield and I can't make it I return home. If I can't return home because things have gone very pear shaped behind me I will consider myself in a situation where I need to get on the ground ASAP for safety reasons.

Landing at Lydd just beacuse a cross channel trip was not possible (when the UK is widely CAVOK) is not a diversion situation. Lydd must not be hed to ransom as the "first stop" for a thrown away channel crossing.

If you set out for dinner and the road is closed you don't demand free food at the local pub when you can easily drive home and make a sandwich.

[Mike Cross]

Seems relatively simple to decide

Was your landing a matter of choice or necessity?

[FlyingForFun]

Hmm. I have to admit to having made a couple of weather diversions which, according to the general wisdom on this thread, were not "necessary" and therefore not "weather diversions".

I'm talking about the case where the weather en-route to my destination has been worse than forecast, and I haven't been able to make it there, but where I've had sufficient fuel to be able to turn back. Depending on the reason why I'm trying to get to where I'm trying to get, how much free time I've got, and whether the aircraft is due back or not, I have on a couple of occassions decided not to turn back, but instead to divert into a different en-route airfield and sit it out there until the weather has cleared. In some cases the weather cleared later in the day and I made it to my destination; in other cases it didn't, and I headed home later in the day once I didn't have enough time left to make it to my destination in time for whatever it was that I was going there for. In all cases I haven't had to pay a landing fee, and I'm grateful for that - but it seems, according to many on this thread, that the landing fee shouldn't have been waived?

Incidentally, although the option of turning back was available to me, I certainly do consider what I've just described to be a "weather diversion". I've ended up at an airfield I didn't particuarly want to be at and certainly didn't plan to be at, arrived late at where I was trying to get, and been inconvenienced by the necessity to divert - but not so inconvenienced that I would have risked my life trying to carry on.

FFF
------------

[UV]

Pierre Argh
Thank you for the link. There are no TAFS for Calais or Le Touquet there...unless you can guide me otherwise.

Mike Cross
Thank you..The scheme is presumably to assist inexperienced pilots (not me) and for them I am concerned that it is not respected.

The ultimate decison is for the pilot in command, at the time, and, if he thinks there may be a subsequent discussion/interrogation after landing, then the whole scheme will fall into disrepute.

Bar Shaker..it WAS a weather diversion, I decided to go to Lydd and that's that. The fact that it was CAVOK is why I went there!

Monocok, Sorry mate it WAS, in my opinon, a Wx diversion and again thats it! Yes we had enough fuel to go to Scotland, but thats not the point!

Remember a diversion is NOT an emergency (or to be made into one), as some would appear to think!

UV

[rodan]

The ultimate decison is for the pilot in command, at the time, and, if he thinks there may be a subsequent discussion/interrogation after landing, then the whole scheme will fall into disrepute.
By the same token, if the pilot thinks that there is going to be NO discussion after landing, then the scheme is wide open to abuse.

I have to agree with those who say the fee was justified. You took off knowing your destination wx was poor, you had enough fuel to return home when you decided not to continue, so why do Lydd owe you a free landing fee?

[UV]

rodan
Simple, I decided to divert there.
I repeat, it is not the free landing, it is the principle of the scheme.
15 diverted aeroplanes make the point..no abuse.
UV

[rodan]

Simple, I decided to divert there.
I repeat, it is not the free landing, it is the principle of the scheme.

I think the 'principle' and spirit of the scheme were upheld entirely, from what you have told us. Can I ask what factors made you decide to go to Lydd, instead of returning to North Weald? Did you refuel at Lydd?

The scheme, as I understand it, exists to dissuade pilots from pressing on when it would be unwise or perilous to do so. I just don't see where your situation fits in there.

[Engine overtemp]

Pierre Argh, entering Le Touquet into that website seems to give an actual from the 14th March 2001!

"Latest METAR Observation(s) for: LFAT
LFAT
The most recent METAR observation from LFAT in our system was generated at the source at:

2001/03/14 09:00 UTC

The observation is:

LFAT 140900Z 28009KT 9999 BKN020 09/06 Q1009 NOSIG"

[Kolibear]

Isn't it annoying that TAFS & METARs arn't available for L2K, which has to be one of the most popular foreign destinations.

UK TAFS & METARS are generated by the Met Offices computers down in Exeter, not by the airport making a report.

So if Exeter can make a report for anywhere in the UK, why can't Paris add L2K to their list of reported airfields?

[dublinpilot]

Remember a diversion is NOT an emergency (or to be made into one), as some would appear to think!


UV,

I think that sums up the point nicely.

Your situation was far from being an emergency of any type.

This scheme is of "Emergency landings & precautionary landings". Not simply for weather diversions.

Can you honestly argue that your landing was either an emergency landing or a precautionary landing? If not, then it's clearly outside the scope of this scheme.

dp

[UV]

As I started this topic may I finish it now with some clarification..!

The whole debate about whether the fee was justified is meaningless. As I said earlier I did not object to paying the £8.81.

What I DO object to is an Airfield signing up to the scheme, going on the list, and then informing people who land there that the management do NOT allow it. THATS MY POINT.

As a secondary topic there are NO TAFS for ANY near continental Airfields whatsoever, except Ostende. Thats probably why there were so many diversions that day. Clearly the situation does nothing for Flight Safety in an extremely busy area, of known variable weather, with many inexperienced pilots.

It doesnt help at all with L2K having no phone ATIS, TAF or ATC on their busiest day (Sundays). Clearly a hazard.

Disregard the recommendation to visit the NOAA site too....they have nothing for the area either!

Can we leave it now?!

UV

[HappyTrails]

The following site provides METAR/TAF reports for Lille and Ostend, its obviously in French but very easy to navigate.

On the menu choose METEO then METAR/TAF and then wait for the map to appear or choose the location from the picklist.

It is also a rich source of other info including Notams, Fuel Price,
Photo of the airfeild etc..


http://www.nav2000.com/pf/select_metar.asp?

[2Donkeys]

The Le Touquet ATIS is available by dialing the number published in the French AIP (available free online - no registration is required). The Lille METAR and TAF is not a bad proxy - leaving aside coastal fog.

There isn't really much of an excuse for claiming that near Continental weather is unavailable.

2D

[Whirlybird]

Although I said earlier that I had some sympathy for Lydd - and because of their position, I do - actually UV is right.

As I understand it, the free landing scheme is for weather diversions. Not emergencies, not precautionary landings, but weather diversions. I can't quote chapter and verse, but this is how it's generally understood, and if that's not what it means, then some general clarification to pilots is badly needed.

Now, what is a weather diversion? It's generally understood to be a landing at an airfield other than that originally planned, due to poor weather at your original destination, or en route to it. Are people seriously suggesting that everyone who sets off for France should have enough fuel to return to their home base? Or that even if they do, they ought to return there? Why? When I did my PPL, I learned how to plan a diversion to another airfield, not just how to do a 180 and turn back. And in the case of a cross channel flight, most people put Lydd or Manston as an alternate, and they mean an alternate in case of a weather change, among other things. Rochester even suggested this to me recently, when helping me fill in my flight plan form.

Now, as UV states, the discussion here is not whether free weather diversions are justified. We had a thread on that recently. The point is that since the scheme exists, and Lydd signed up to it, they should honour it. Perhaps, owing to their position, they should not have signed up to it. But they did. And therefore they're breaking their agreement, whether it was one aircraft or 15 or 15,000 which diverted there due to bad weather in France. And that is the case whether those aircraft originally came from North Weald or Inverness, and whether the pilots could or should have got Le Touquet weather in advance.

The point is very simple actually. When a person or an airfield makes an agreement, they should stick to it. Otherwise the agreement is meaningless. Everything else is irrelevant to UV's original point.

[Monocock]

Oh come on everyone.

The fact is that this thread should just disappear before too many people start trying to convince others that black is white.

Let's face it, there isn't a lot of hope for the GA industry if every pilot who lands exclaims that they weren't happy with their destination weather and therefore thinks there should be no charge!!:hmm:

I think that this has got really silly now and will be the first to suggest that it ends before we all start convincing each other that we are actually all asleep and that we''ll wake up and it will be 1933.

[FlyingForFun]

Monocock,

As I said on the earlier thread, the system is not open to the kind of abuse you are suggesting, because people who have made a genuine weather diversion generally tend to act very differently to people who have landed at the airport they intended landing at (whether they claim it is a weather divert or not). They tend to sit around looking grumpy, continuously staring at weather information which isn't actually changing, not wander off the airfield (unless it becomes apparent that they won't be able to leave by air that night and they have to make alternative arrangements), etc, etc, etc. These are not the same actions as you would make if you were trying to abuse the system, and I'm sure any airfield operator can tell the difference.

FFF
-------------

[dublinpilot]

As I understand it, the free landing scheme is for weather diversions. Not emergencies, not precautionary landings, but weather diversions.

Whirly,

I think your understanding of the scheme is actually incorrect, and so is UV's. Otherwise I doubt he would ever have started this thread.

When I used the words "Emergency or precautionary landings" in my posting above, I chose my words carefully.

Have a look at AOPA's document here. (http://www.aopa.co.uk/newsfromaopa/aopa189.pdf)

To quote from the document "[...] the 190 airports who have agreed, to waive charges for emergency and precautionary diversion landings [...]" make it very clear that this scheme is for emergency & precautionary diversion landings. Not simply a diversion because you the weather at your destination isn't good enough.

This is a very good scheme. Lets not abuse it.

dp

[UV]

Gents

Whirlybord has it 100 per cent right about my original post, just look at the title of this thread.

Any commitment to the scheme should be honoured.

Lets leave it now, before I remove the thread!
UV

[spekesoftly]

Lets leave it now, before I remove the thread!

An interesting stance. The author now threatens to delete the entire thread if anyone expresses an opinion contrary to their own! :hmm:


The criticism of Lydd is only justified if the circumstances surrounding a diversion fall within the intent and spirit of the scheme.

What concerns me is that if Airport Operators perceive an increasing number of pilots trying to claim a 'freebie' on grounds of convenience, rather than safety, they may feel justifiably compelled to withdraw from the scheme.

[Whirlybird]

dublinpilot,

To me, a "precautionary diversion landing" is something you may do if the weather at your diversion isn't good enough. That seems obvious. Your planned destination is socked in with fog or similar, perhaps. What are you going to do? You can't go there. You could return to base, but maybe the weather will improve later, maybe you don't have enough fuel, maybe you're becoming dangerously fatigued! So you divert to the nearest airfield with suitable conditions, and land, as a precaution. If that isn't a "precautionary diversion landing", I'd like to know what it is.

I'm not commenting on whether pilots do or don't abuse the scheme; it's irrelevant to the thread.

UV, my apologies for continuing this. I think you're right, but maybe there are some words and definitions here that need clarifying. If so, further disuccion might possibly be useful. But feel free to delete the thread if you want. And spekesoftly, I get the impression that UV wants to delete the thread due to the numerous digressions and misunderstandings of his/her original point, not because of differing opinions. Which seems hardly surprising to me!

[BRL]

Lets leave it now, before I remove the thread! Ok, how would you go about that then......? ;)

[vintage ATCO]

UK TAFS & METARS are generated by the Met Offices computers down in Exeter, not by the airport making a report.

TAFs for most UK airfields may be done from Exeter but METARs are still done from the airfields, either by human observation or semi-automatically (but still requires a human check and button push.) ;)

[Evil J]

I'm glad you corrected that vinatge, I was just about to. Although I'm sure the Met office would like to do all the obs from Exeter!!

I must admit to being a little be-mused by this thread (I don't think I'm the only one)- and it is definitely running the risk of repeating the one that ran a few weeks ago.

We here are in the scheme, and have had several people benefit from it; and they were genuine wx diversions within the spirit of the AOPA scheme (as I interpret it)- aircraft that were really running out of options having been caught out and were very glad to be down.

However, if what described above happend here, I don't think I would have any sympathy for the pilots; and scheme or not it is MY OPINION that these div's were not in the "spirit" of the scheme. And if this is what the scheme is intended for then I shall certainly recommend that we as an airport withdraw from it (publically at least) and offer free landings on an ad hoc basis for "genuine" cases only. And I don't think that is what anybody really wants.

[PPRuNe Radar]

To me, a "precautionary diversion landing" is something you may do if the weather at your diversion isn't good enough. That seems obvious. Your planned destination is socked in with fog or similar, perhaps. What are you going to do? You can't go there.

OK, as Devils advocate ... where was the posters diversion alternate ?? And was it socked in ?? If his alternate was actually Lydd, then it was not a precautionary landing, it was Plan B all along.

[rustle]

Can I be Devil's advocate as well?

What if, during the planning of this trip to LFAT, someone came up with a brilliant idea that "if the weather doesn't improve we could all meet at Lydd for coffee rather than return to our separate bases - it'll be free as it's a weather diversion" ;)

[DFC]

I think that it is time that the whole scheme was revised.

The idea is sound - pilots should not feel pressurised to press on past a safe landing site.

However, as most people agree the operationof the system is open to abuse.

I believe that if the flight is in a situation that requires the scheme the be used then an incident report should be made to the CAA. Such a report would highlight many of the points made here i.e. the lack of ATS or suitable pre-flight information and then the CAA could perhaps act on such information.

Always amazed me how few pilots wanted to put their name to an incident report once the initial bluster died down!

An alternative would be for everywhere to charge a flat rate for such diversions - say £25...........less than 15 minutes flying time for many these days.

That would require everyone to have atleast £25 with them on every flight.

Some places charge less than that for a normal landng fee that is true..........but isn't the whole idea that one does not pass that big expensive airport because of the high cost involved?

Would one of the reasons why 15+ flights diverted back to the UK be that if they diverted to any French airfield they would have had to pay for the landing?

Regards,

DFC

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd certainly not support that.

Like many GA pilots I set off on a long X-country prepared to be totally unsurprised by a requirement to make a weather diversion - this is Britain after all, the country with about the least predictable met on the planet. If I have diverted, always offer a landing fee, and if asked, pay it without question (that said, very rarely is it accepted).

But given I'm used to paying around £10, I'd be a bit irritated at being asked for £25.

"Well John, I would divert into ****, but they'll only charge me an excess charge, I'll push on into the murk - I'm sure we'll get there".

G

[Whirlybird]

OK, as Devils advocate ... where was the posters diversion alternate ?? And was it socked in ?? If his alternate was actually Lydd, then it was not a precautionary landing, it was Plan B all along.

I am now becoming really, really confused. :confused: So is a "precautionary diversion landing" one that was never considered? Suppose I set off from Sleap to the PFA Rally at Kemble, as I did last year, when showers are forecast. I said to myself, well, if necessary I can divert into Shobdon, or Gloucester, if the weather's worse than predicted? So does a diversion to either of those then become Plan B, not a precautionary diversion? But if I say, oh, the weather looks OK, it's only showers; and then it's worse than expected, and I think, Omigod, I don't think I can cope, I'd better divert, oh yes, there's Gloucester over there....does that then become a precautionary diversion? That makes no sense whatsoever!

It's beginning to sound as though we need a some definitions here. And I'm beginning to understand, at last, why aviation generates so much paperwork. :(

[scubawasp]

Filed IFR to Redhill a couple of months ago, with alternates at Biggin and Southend. The weather was horrible at Redhill and Biggin and diverted onto the ILS at Southend. They did not charge the landing fee, which was handy and as far as I can see is in the spirit of the scheme. Lets face it, how often has the TAFs etc turned out totally different from what actually has happened. Over the last 6 months, it feels almost daily!

[DFC]

Genghis,

Of course, the actual fee would have to be considered fully and perhaps there would be separate fixed fees for say microlight and permit to fly aircraft (who can't fly IFR ever or divert over large built up areas), something higher for certified singles and another for twins (who after all are generally IFR capable and get charged more normally).

The overall idea however would be that joe pilot will not press on past uvw big airfield or xyz normally expensive airfield in poor weather because no matter where they divert to the cost will be the same.

Another alternative would be for AOPA/ BMAA/ PFA/ BGA to record the total number of "weather diversions" for a year and then when an overall cost was available change the scheme to the fact that AOPA members who pay say £15 "diversion insurance" per year could claim back such landing fees from AOPA.

How many glider pilots who unexpectidely run out of lift away from home and land at another airfield ask for a free landing fee?

Regards,

DFC

[Genghis the Engineer]

How many glider pilots who unexpectidely run out of lift away from home and land at another airfield ask for a free landing fee?

Well at my place, we invariably have to remind the blighters, and I don't think that we've yet seen a landing fee for the Lasham retrieval tug's fortnightly visit.

G

[Gertrude the Wombat]

and I don't think that we've yet seen a landing fee for the Lasham retrieval tug's fortnightly visit One airfield I know has (or at least had, this was years ago) a deal with the next-door gliding tug - he paid a fixed monthly fee and could land as often as he liked. In your case you'd maybe want to fix the monthly fee at about one landing charge, that way he'd pay half what he should, but at least you'd get something!

[bar shaker]

Scubawasp

You have, I think, hit the nail on the head. When the TAF proves totally wrong and a diversion is needed, then most airfields are glad to have you safely on the ground.

When you didn't get a TAF or the weather did not improve as hoped for then its only right to pay the landing fee and accept the hospitality as though you had intended to be there, just like those standing around you.

Definition of a weather diversion (IMHO):

Unable to make destination and unable to return home, both due to unexpected change in weather.

Lack of hoped for change in weather should not count. Or should be a fine of double the landing fee for being too optimistic ;)

[UV]

BRL
Shame on you! I thought I started this..!How and why has Danny appeared at the top? ..mmm?

I say again, my argument is with an Airport Authority who informed me that they do not partake in the scheme, when they have clearly signed up for it.

Whilybird is right, lets stick to the point, not hypothetical or irrelevant scenarios.

I AM NOT LOOKING FOR FREEBIES, ABUSE OF THE SCHEME, OR ANYTHING ELSE, AS I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES.

UV

[ShyTorque]

Oh Dear! I can forsee far fewer weather diversions after this.

But quite possibly a few more "rough running engines".

:E

[Gertrude the Wombat]

quite possibly a few more "rough running engines"

I thought every pilot starting worrying that his engine was running rough as soon as he got over water ...

... unless, of course, he was wearing the right landing gear :)

[mrjamesgroves]

UV, what time were you flying to L2k on Saturday? The reason that I ask is that I flew there from Biggin. Passed over Lydd at midday and landed LFAT at 12.35 BST. I was at 3500 over Lydd and could have climbed over the sea. Once over the french coast, it couldn't have been more different! I was down to 1000 in hazy conditions with pretty thick cloudbase ontop, viz was probably 5km. Arrived to find 3 on downwind, ended up flying away from the airfield and orbitting for a while. Things got pretty interesting with the weather and traffic and I was certainly making plenty of decisions. Had I heard of the 15 aircraft diverting to Lydd, as a fairly fair-weather VFR pilot, I wonder if my decision making would have turned out differently....

[Whirlybird]

Whirlybird is right, lets stick to the point, not hypothetical or irrelevant scenarios.

Ah, UV, but that's too simple for everyone, isn't it. Increase of landing fees for daring to divert due to weather, redefining weather diversions, getting paranoid in case 15 pilots conceive of a cunning plot to meet at Lydd and save a few quid. It's amazing what people can come up with, isn't it? A really good idea, thought of by a bunch of well-meaning people trying to reduce the accident record falls foul of...PPRuNers!!! And now UV isn't even allowed to delete his own thread. I think I'm losing the will to live. :(

[Andy_R]

Unable to make destination and unable to return home, both due to unexpected change in weather.

Enough said.





Nobody is disagreeing that Lydd should not have said they no longer accept emergency diversions. What they are saying is that Lydd were perfectly correct to ask for a landing fee in the situation you were in. Please accept that and don't ruin it for the rest of us.

[UV]

mrjamesgroves
Same time as you.

Cloud 69.
No, I am not trying to ruin it for everyone. Quite the reverse.

What I am trying to ensure (with difficulty) is that those who sign up for it honour the principles/rules of it (whatever they may be!) and DO NOT subsequently say that they are NOT in the scheme, thus removing ALL the safety benefits etc., for EVERYONE, at a stroke.

My circumstances (whatever they may be!) are therefore irrelevant to the arguement.

Get it?!

UV

[PPRuNe Radar]

So is a "precautionary diversion landing" one that was never considered? Suppose I set off from Sleap to the PFA Rally at Kemble, as I did last year, when showers are forecast. I said to myself, well, if necessary I can divert into Shobdon, or Gloucester, if the weather's worse than predicted? So does a diversion to either of those then become Plan B, not a precautionary diversion? But if I say, oh, the weather looks OK, it's only showers; and then it's worse than expected, and I think, Omigod, I don't think I can cope, I'd better divert, oh yes, there's Gloucester over there....does that then become a precautionary diversion? That makes no sense whatsoever!

And like UV you'd be looking for a free landing fee .. instead of saying, this looks crap, lets go back home, or go somewhere else. ???? I'll be blunt. That's free loading. I suspect I am not alone in going somewhere else when I get airborne because the weather is not quite what I was told it would be. Hell, sometimes I even go back to where I started (I wouldn't be so stupid to ask for a rebate because I had 'diverted' though :( )

The point of the scheme is to help people out who have been boxed in and have no choice, but might think of money instead of safety and press on to cause themselves, or others, harm. Not to help those who have CAVOK over 99% of the airspace in which they are flying but reckon they might get a cheap day out anyway. I still await hearing where the alternates for this flight were (normally when you file a FPL there are 2) and how socked in they were. As UV states, it is not an issue of money, but one of principle. If we have a culture of pilots who don't plan properly (DO NOT assume I mean UV) and expect a free ride, then what hope is there for our industry ... yet alone how safe it will be.

As for the comment on BRL ... nope, it's not shame on him. This is a decent subject, with a decent and rational debate from both sides. The fact PPRuNe recognises it as such and won't lose it because an individual threatens to pull the plug for personal reasons reflects the fact we want to have such debates and threads ... increasing the knowledge of all who want to be professional. If that rankles with some, so be it.

[Flyin'Dutch']

UV,

IF your argument is with the airport authority 'cause their underlings have stated that they are not part of the scheme then it would be best to write to/phone them and clarify the situation.

Please do report back.

You are RIGHT that airport staff should give factual and correct information (but to err is human)

IF they still are part of the scheme, it seems that most of your peers reckon that considering the landing at Lydd on Saturday to come under the remit of the 'AOPA scheme' a bit of a liberal interpretation of the spirit of this scheme.

IF you are willing to take off on the basis that you hope that the actuals will improve without having a TAF (especially to a coastal field prone to poor vis conditions) then that is your prerogative.

With your 35+ years experience you may well have learned a lot (including that these things can get better) but you should also know that they sometimes don't.

That then requires you to change to plan B.

There was however no compulsion to launch in the absence of full information (which is non compliant with the ANO on your part - if you want to pick on peeps not sticking to the rules) so it is difficult to see how you can expect anyone to have to pick up your landingfee bill (even at participating airfields)

Yes, we do understand you are not bothered about the £8-82 and are solely concerned with the well-being of us inexperienced, in true trouble, worrying about heinous landing fees lesser aviators.

So pick up the phone, get it from the horse's mouth so that we all know whether they subscribe to the Strasser scheme and the spirit in which it was intended.

In the meantime enjoy the reality check offered by your peers on here and refrain from throwing your toys out of your pram.

It does not look good.

[UV]

PPRune Radar

In answer to your questions/statements. Firstly, I am not looking for a free landing. Lets get that quite clear.

What I am trying to ensure (with difficulty) is that those who sign up for the scheme honour the principles/rules of it (whatever they may be!) and DO NOT subsequently say that they are NOT in the scheme, thus removing ALL the safety benefits etc., for EVERYONE, at a stroke.

My circumstances (whatever they may be!) are, therefore, irrelevant to the arguement.

The alternate (only one is required to be specified on the flight plan) was Calais. The Wx there, and at Ostende, were the same as L2K. Workable, not but good. Hence Lydd. My choice.

Yes I was about to pull the thread, in view of the number of hypothetical, off track and questionable statements being made.. (my right?)!
Not for personal reasons, as you say.

UV

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just in passing, reasons one might quite legitimately divert, other than weather:-

- Higher than expected fuel burn, won't make your destination with sensible reserves, elect to land earlier for fuel.

- Radio failure, destination doesn't take non-radio traffic.

- Passenger badly airsick and on the verge of redecorating the cockpit without permission.

- Suspected engine problem (high CHT, low fuel pressure, etc.) and you'd rather be on the ground thinking about it.

- Flaps are stuck, planned destination is too short to land without flaps.

- Wind has changed, making the planned destination runway too short (for example by switching from a 900m runway to a 400m runway).

- Accident at the destination, blocking the runway.

All of these have, with slight variations, happened - none strictly weather related, all legitimate reasons to make a safety diversion.

G

[Monocock]

Towers/BRL

Is it possible for a Poll to be added once a thread is running? At least we could quantify what's going on here.

[boomerangben]

No TAFs, but has everyone forgotten about 215s and 415s? What about surface synoptic charts and general aviation met theory?

IMHO if you have to make a weather diversion, then you should be filing an MOR against an unforecast change in the weather. It happens in the North Sea from time to time.

It is plain to me at least that it doesn't matter whether Lydd has signed up to the scheme, my perception of the scenario here is that this was not a weather diversion and therefore the scheme was not applicable.

UV,

You have admitted that the weather at both your destination and your nominated diversion was "workable". I would see to that gunshot wound to your foot.

[Evil J]

So what UV wants, basically, is any airport that wouldnt give a free landing fee in the situation described, to withdraw from the scheme-that is very easily done; and is basically the end of the scheme. All on a point of principle...very good.

RIP British GA

[cubflyer]

Surely the meaning of a weather diversion in this context, is that the weather is too bad to continue, thus you needed to land at the nearest airfield rather than press on. Then you might expect them to honour the free landing..

This does not seem to be the case here, where there were many airfields that could have been landed at, it was just that UV and others chose to land at Lydd.

I wouldnt even have asked! Certainly abusing the scheme.

I had a good experience of this scheme last month, landing at Turweston when the weather deteriorated on route to Sandown- forcast to be bkn 2500 turnout out to be poor viz and down to 6-700ft. I divereted in and so had several microlights. None of us was charged a landing fee. Some made it on to Sandown, we tried two hours later again with a reasonable forecast, but again turned back 10 miles further south and returned to leicester

[alphaalpha]

It would be bad news if the Strasser scheme was withdrawn or curtailed due to misuse. This thread proves that there is potential for misuse.

I like Shoreham's approach, as reported above, of requiring a written justification from the pilot as to why he claims a free landing due weather diversion. The landing airfield can then exercise sensible discretion.

As others have said, demanding a free landing 'as a right' in questionable circumstances is a quick way to kill off the scheme.

Personally, I have had two free landings due weather diversion. One was at Cambridge when weather prevented a safe arrival at Bourn. I was happy to, and offered to pay the landing and approach fees, but they were waved away with smiles. Left a very good impression with me.

The second was at Cranfield, when I diverted due to carrying ice and becoming below MSA. Bad airmanship on my part and I was relieved to be on the ground. I was happy to pay, but it was refused, again leaving a pleasant taste in my mouth.

Reading the thread, I am unsure whether Lydd were really saying that they do not participate in the scheme any longer (as reported by UV), or whether they felt that the circumstances UV's landing were not relevant to the scheme. Would UV confirm, please?

AA.

[UV]

Flying Dutch
As you are no doubt aware there are no TAFs for any of the Airfields in question..Lydd, Le Touquet or Calais etc., etc..

I have,of course, been speaking to Lydd about their position and the answer is that they are still considering the matter at management level but at present are not taking part.

The very helpfull contact (and probably his managers) did not know that they were on the list and will regularise this anomoly one way or the other.

The good news is that within a few weeks they will be promulgating TAFs and METARs and, therefore, able to make a more balanced decison as to whether, in future, a diversion falls into the "scheme". (IF they adopt it).

I hope that this thread will help them to make the right decisions.

UV

[boomerangben]

Why the fascination with TAFs? They are too localised for coastal flying at this time of the year. Most GA manages to fly to aerodromes where TAFs and METARs are non existant. And why would having a TAF at Lydd affect their decision on charging you a landing fee? Surely it would be the weather everywhere else that means the fees would be waived at Lydd?

The way I interpret the scheme is that your landing fees would be waived if you had NO OTHER OPTION but to land at that airfield and to stay airbourne would be unsafe. This happens in two instances: a) the forecast is wrong (and would therefore justify a MOR) or b) inadequate planning for the route flown.

[mrjamesgroves]

UV, what frequency is everyone tuned into to get all this weather info? Or did everyone fly to LFAT and return? I was with London Info, and as I mentioned, had I known that the sky was swarming with diversionees, it may have influenced my decision making process....

[Flying Lawyer]

UV

Your thread went off at a tangent almost immediately and IMHO you're wasting your time trying to get it back. It's gone too far off the topic you posted.
_____________________________________


I've always been undecided whether the scheme will actually help to improve flight safety but, whatever the theory, if claims for a waiver were to be critically scrutinised against some of the criteria suggested in this thread, I don't see it having any real value in practice even though the idea is a good one.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I've always been undecided whether the scheme will actually help to improve flight safety Well, it's been running for a while now. Has anyone done any research to work out what the effects of the scheme on flight safety are? If not, is a review planned?

(As a district councillor I know that public authorities are always getting involved in projects where a change is made to a system in the hope of altering people's behaviour in a certain direction. This is clearly such a scheme. It is normal in the local authority business to commission research or review a while downstream, maybe eighteen months or so, to see whether people's behaviour has been altered in the desired direction or not. OK, so doing the research properly is expensive, so normally one ends up with data that professional statisticians would laugh at, but IMO as a politician who carries the can for this sort of thing it's probably still better than not making any attempt at all to find out whether your scheme is actually working.)

[Heliport]

alphaalpha Reading the thread, I am unsure whether Lydd were really saying that they do not participate in the scheme any longer (as reported by UV), or whether they felt that the circumstances UV's landing were not relevant to the scheme. Reading the thread, I became confused too. I thought I might have misunderstood UV's point. Then I went back to his post which originated the thread and saw I hadn't. UV explained the specific ground of his complaint clearly and unambiguously.

In his subsequent posts, he emphasised the specific ground of his complaint. For some reason beyond me, his efforts didn't have much success.

If his final post (in which he relates the result of his subsequent enquiries with Lydd) doesn't clear up any remaining confusion then I doubt if anything will: The answer is that they are still considering the matter at management level but at present are not taking part.
The very helpfull contact (and probably his managers) did not know that they were on the list and will regularise this anomoly one way or the other.

[IO540]

I hate to drop a spanner in the works here, but what is the big deal with paying a landing fee?

Most landing fees are about a tenner. I haven't been to Lydd for a while but it's about that. That is about 6 minutes' worth of self fly hire of a fairly typical piece of junk. And probably about the time it takes the pilot to decide the weather isn't good enough to continue.

As for Shoreham asking for a letter, who is going to write a letter just to get a ~ £12 landing fee refunded. Life has got to be too short for that.

With Luton (£149 inc. mandatory handling) or say Gatwick (£300?) one could understand a desire to not want to pay. But a tenner???

The real hassle with weather diversions isn't the landing fee. It is the pilot's implicit obligation to put up all passengers into a hotel (£80 a person) and, if this happens abroad, after a few days buying them all tickets on some airline so they can get back to work. I got pretty close once or twice to doing that, a few years ago.

The Strasser scheme is a great idea but IMHO its very existence is a rather sad confirmation of how decrepit the GA scene in the UK has become.

[Heliport]

IO540

Nobody's suggested there's "a big deal with paying a landing fee".
That wasn't the point of UV's post, as he's made clear several times now.

Heliport

[2Donkeys]

The alternate (only one is required to be specified on the flight plan) was Calais. The Wx there, and at Ostende, were the same as L2K. Workable, not but good. Hence Lydd. My choice.

Another purely practical observation. Chosing one coastal airport as your planned diversion for another coastal airport isn't the brainiest move. Common sense, along with the French AIP and most flight guides advocate planning an inland diversion. Lille is a great diversion for LFAT or LFAC (it even has customs) and it is a very pleasant destination. It also offers a TAF and Actual which absent coastal conditions (such as fog) is a good proxy for the places like Le Touquet.

On a similar practical note, the Le Touquet ATIS is detectable at VFR levels from across the channel if you are well enough briefed and can be bothered to pick it up.

Lots of comments on this thread give the general impression (not just in UV's case) of a lack of basic knowledge/planning when heading over the channel...

Perhaps more thinking and reading ahead of departure would avoid the need for anal discussions about Mr Strasser's scheme?

2D

[boomerangben]

Heliport,

I was looking forward exercising my first waived landing fee (!)....

I understand the point UV has been trying to get across, but it is not surprising ppruners are miss interpreting his/her intention with a comment like that.

In subsequent posts it has become clear that the diversion was through choice not through necessity, making (in my opinion at least) the scheme unapplicable.

I hope to goodness that Lydd and other airfields see sense and continue running/signing up to the scheme and in that sense this thread and UV's efforts are admirable. But it also clear that there others here who think the waiving of landing fees is at the descretion of the aerodrome and that expecting automatic freebees will not do the cause any good.

[Whirlybird]

I see no signs that anyone expects automatic freebies. I see no indications that anyone really gives a damn about an £8 or £10 landing fee. What UV and others would like is a definite list of which airfields are in the scheme, and a clear and unambiguous definition of the situations in which a landing fee will be waived. We don't have that now. If we did, we wouldn't have a six page thread discussing it. Why is this point so difficult to understand?

[2Donkeys]

Why is this point so difficult to understand?

That point isn't difficult to understand, but the thread has covered rather more turf than that.

Questions like -

Is it acceptable airmanship to depart an airfield without having a reasonable view of the weather at your intended destination?

Do people have an appreciation of the resources that are available to help them to understand the weather on the NE French coast, despite that absence of TAFs and METARs at LFAT and LFAC?


If we didn't have wide ranging discussions like this, Pprune would be come stale and boring, don't you think?

;)

2D

[Heliport]

2Donkeys

I agree the thread has generated a useful and interesting discussion, but it's a pity the originating post was misinterpreted at such an early stage and an even greater pity some people have been so critical of UV who IMHO made a valid point and provided useful information about how the scheme is working (or, more accurately, is not working) at one airfield on the list.

Heliport

[UV]

2 Donkeys

You said:

"On a similar practical note, the Le Touquet ATIS is detectable at VFR levels from across the channel if you are well enough briefed and can be bothered to pick it up."

To be polite, I resent that...and other comments you make.

We did not only do that, we also listened into L2K frequency as well, and heard all the low level joins.

That is precisely why we diverted into Lydd, without even crossing the channel.

Cannot anyone listen to the moderators and Flying Lawyer and stick to the point??

UV

My last posting on this topic!

[Andy_R]

That is precisely why we diverted into Lydd, without even crossing the channel.

But the question that we all want answered (and yes I do understand the point you are tyring to make) is why did you expect a free diversion landing fee? You did not divert into Lydd as an emergency or through being in any sort of difficulty. You must have asked for a freebie to have had the reason to ask your question initially.

I DO agree that Lydd should be clear on whether they are in the scheme or not, but with 15 pilots looking for a free lunch maybe they saw a denial of that scheme as the easy way out.

[Heliport]

cloud69

"the question that we all want answered"?
The question some want answered.


"maybe they saw a denial of that scheme as the easy way out."

So "maybe" (with or without Lydd management approval) -
the person on duty on the day lied
and
the person on duty when UV contacted Lydd subsequently to clarify the airport's position regarding the waiver scheme also lied.

[DFC]

Trying to stick to the point.

If this thred had started with words like;

Shouldn't AOPA be more careful about their listing of airfields participating in the free diversion langing fee scheme? After all I was down at Lydd recently and discovered that despite AOPA's claim that they were in the scheme it turns out that they are not!!!!!

then I think the whole topic would have taken a different turn.

Regards,

DFC

-----

New idea;

Everyone skip 50 hour checks and press on to the 100 or 150 hour check.........well loose a few airframes but the CAA will recomend that engineers give 50 hour checks for free if it prevents you pressing on to the 100 hour check!!!! :D :D

[Heliport]

DFC

Wouldn't that have been unfair on AOPA?
Is there any reason to believe AOPA wrongly listed an airfield which hadn't agreed to the join the scheme?
When UV spoke to Lydd subsequently to find out the position, it wasn't suggested AOPA had made a mistake.

[Gerhardt]

To be successful it should be a "no questions asked" policy. Would it be abused? Absolutely, but not substantially in the greater scheme of things. And if even one life is saved because someone opted to not press on...

[Flying Lawyer]

I agree.

If questions are to be asked then, as Whirlybird says, there would have to be a clear and unambiguous definition of the situations in which a landing fee will be waived.
However, if an 'official' definition was to be as strict as some on this thread have suggested, the scheme would be unworkable, at best very few waivers would be granted and it would be of little value.

[Whirlybird]

Gerhardt,

I too entirely agree. :ok:

And although I can't be sure, I suspect that was what was in the minds of the originators of the scheme, and maybe the airfields agreeing to take part too.

I honestly don't believe that there is likely to be widespread abuse. The scheme is designed to prevent a situation I wrote about as a hypothetical conversation in a previous thread - inexperienced pilot (or maybe two), who perhaps can't really afford to fly anyway, who needs to get home, in marginal conditions, who wants to give it a shot as he thinks it's OK...maybe. Waiting an hour to see if the weather will improve might be a good idea, but with the go/no go scales in balance, the landing fee just tips them...and he flies off into the AAIB statistics. :( Not sensible, but making sensible decisions at low level, avoiding cloud, when fatigued, isn't easy. If this scheme can save his life, it should stay. :ok: And he wouldn't have the spare capacity to think about whether he fitted all the requirements of a definition that could be as long as...Rule 5, perhaps. :eek:

UV, sorry to go off-topic; I did try to stick to it for a while, as you know. But I think your original point is now irretrievably lost beneath a wealth of opinions...but what it's turned into is really quite useful, don't you think?

[bar shaker]

Flying Lawyer

How would you word the definition?

[2Donkeys]

However, if the 'official' definition was to be as strict as some on this thread have suggested, very few waivers would be granted and the scheme would be of little value IMHO.

I suspect that this is probably true.

Sadly, this thread appears to be hostile to those seeking to query the underlying value of the scheme.

The original CAA document behind Strasser's scheme, CAP667 was simply an analysis of aircraft accidents, and offered nothing to substantiate its suggestion that the waiving of landing fees for "diversion" would reduce the number of weather-related fatalities. The recommendation was, in my view, one of a number of rather lazy statements attempting to explain the rather more complex phenomenon often described as "press-on-itis". The FAA links such a syndrome to rather more established psychological behaviours in pilots which we routinely see demonstrated around Pprune... Macho, Invulnerability and (less frequently around here) Resignation.

Behind the CAA's rather weaker thinking is the simple presumption that the fact that a landing fee will need to be paid will in some substantive way, influence a pilot's decision making for the worse - despite the fact that the fee concerned will often amount to a fraction of an hour's flying and that such a fee would ordinarily have been payable at the intended destination in any case.

I would dispute that there is any meaningful evidence to support the CAA's view. On that basis, I think that Strasser's scheme is a well-intentioned distraction from the real reasons that pilots press on into poor weather.

2D

[atb1943]

This has been an excellent thread, it is the essence of what Pprune is all about, even when the discussion moves off at a tangent to the original opener. And I have just had the pleasure of reading every post from the beginning, all in one go.

As somewhat of a layman, and not having read earlier threads on the subject, I was wondering why it causes such heated debate, especially among readers who might possibly gain from it (at the most, stay alive thanks to it!).

I am curious as to what onus the scheme puts on participating airfields? What was the process of getting them to sign up, did they really realise what they might be letting themselves in for? Were they perhaps afraid of NOT being on the list, rather than wanting to be a source of aid for the clients they are in business to serve? And then, are they legally bound in any way?

This thread goes to prove that the scheme is wide open to misinterpretation. 2Donkeys' last post buttons it up very aptly.

I have to ask if the CAA's underwriting the scheme makes it 'official'? Is the list of participants published by them and kept up to date somewhere (I assume there has been or could be some fluctuation in the number of participants and therefore a need to keep the list current). What onus is put on the publishers of airfield guides, who include the list, to stay up to date? They would also need to indemnify themselves against possible litigation (perish the thought that it could get that far)....?

The word 'crusade' crosses my mind, but perhaps the thought is too unkind. Maybe I am simply failing to grasp the real advantage.

I recall back in the seventies having to divert to Elstree on a flight from Cranners to Blackbushe due to a grey curtain coming in from the west. My pilot, Biggin-based, was kind enough to offer to get me close to home. Thanks Ron...for ever....and for not hesitating or being silly...a true Airman.

...or a diversion 15 years earlier to Southend on a flight from Rotterdam to White Waltham in a Proctor, and that was REALLY hairy, and on the dot of closing, (5 in a Proctor??) and the fact that Gatwick was clagged in. WW would have long been closed. I imagine Simon would have liked the scheme.

Anyway, I guess I just wanted to apologise yet again to Charles for saying 'no' at the time. I won't enlarge, and please don't ask - that's my own little crusade! Don't mean to dramatize.

Happy Landings, wherever.

atb

[bar shaker]

atb said:

As somewhat of a layman, and not having read earlier threads on the subject, I was wondering why it causes such heated debate, especially among readers who might possibly gain from it

That is exactly why this thread "kicked off". The scheme is a good idea, but its life will be measured in nano seconds if its abused.

Many, myself included, felt that landing at Lydd with the South East of England CAVOK and 30+ mile viz, then claiming a weather diversion, was taking the piss.

[Flying Lawyer]

atb1943
“Not having read earlier threads on the subject, I was wondering why it causes such heated debate, especially among readers who might possibly gain from it (at the most, stay alive thanks to it!).”

You might be no less puzzled if you had. I have, and it remains a mystery to me. Here’s the previous thread: Diversion Charges (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180481) There was a similar discussion on another PPL forum and the discussion became so heated the site-owner intervened and closed the thread – understandably IMHO.

As at 1st Jan 2005, 190 airfields had signed up. List of participating airfields: Click here (http://www.aopa.co.uk/newsfromaopa/aopa189.pdf) (It’s a pdf file so you’ll need Adobe Reader installed – widely available FOC on the net.)

The 17 airfields listed below refused to help with the initiative:
Belfast Intl
Biggin Hill
Birmingham
Blackpool
Cardiff
Carlisle
Dundee
Exeter
Filton
Gloucester
Humberside
Isle of Man
Leeds/Bradford
Luton
Manchester
Norwich
Teesside.
Publishers - Aerad, AFE and Pooleys agreed to include the information in order to help GA pilots. Jeppesen/Bottlang hadn’t replied. May have refused since? ;)

It’s a voluntary scheme encouraged by the CAA, but it’s not “official” in the sense that there’s no legal obligation upon airfield owners who signed up to honour their commitment. (See UV’s post re Lydd.)

I don't understand why you think 'crusade' would be unkind. Crusade? Campaign? I don’t think it matters what term is used to describe an initiative intended to reduce the number of lives lost every year through 'pressing on'.

I agree this thread suggests the scheme might be wide open to misinterpretation, but misinterpretation in which direction? It seems quite straight-forward to me but, if airfields were to interpret the scheme as some here suggest it should be, the only thing which would prevent me from saying it might as well be abandoned is the thought that if it saves even one life then the scheme is still worth having.

2donkeys
Interesting you see the thread as hostile to those seeking to query the underlying value of the scheme. I got the impression it was rather hostile to anyone who had used it, tried to use it or even said they might do so – unless they could prove their flight planning was impeccable, that there was nothing in the met forecasts to even suggest the weather might deteriorate such that the planned flight could not be completed, and they had not at any stage exercised poor or arguably poor judgment.
Of course none of us should ever make a mistake or bad judgment, but the fact is that we (the aviation community) do. If we didn’t, there would fewer accidents - weather related in particuar.
Frankly, I don’t think avoiding paying an additional landing fee is the reason pilots press on in doubtful weather. But nor do I think pilots would embark on a flight in doubtful weather if they don’t have to pay a diversion landing fee when, but for the scheme, they’d stay on the ground. However, I do think the problem of loss of life through 'pressing on' is sufficiently serious that anything which draws more attention to the number of people who lose their lives by doing so when they should have landed, is worth trying.
Good initiative by the CAA and AOPA in my view.


bar shaker
” Flying Lawyer - How would you word the definition?”

I think the current wording is adequate provided unnecessary complications such as have been suggested in this and the previous thread aren't introduced.
CAP 667 ‘Review of General Aviation Fatal Accidents 1985-1994’ states (at 667 9.2(c) ):
“There were a number of fatal accidents where a timely diversion or precautionary landing could have avoided the accident. In the UK (and probably elsewhere) there is a ‘culture’ of pressing on and hoping for the best rather than accepting the inconvenience and cost of a diversion. This ‘culture’ needs to be changed, firstly by educating pilots and secondly by persuading aerodrome owners that there should be no charge for emergency landings or diversions. (There are some aerodromes that do not make a charge for an emergency landing.)
It is recommended that all aerodrome owners be persuaded to adopt a policy that there should be no charges for emergency landings or diversions by General Aviation aircraft.”
That seems clear enough to me.

AOPA then took up the CAA recommendation and promoted a scheme whereby airfields would not charge for “emergency and precautionary diversion” landings.
Given the context and objective of the scheme, the addition of 'precautionary' seems sensible. It avoids arguments about whether the diversion was (with hindsight) actually necessary for flight safety reasons, and excludes diversions for other than flight safety reasons.

I don't think 'emergency', 'precautionary' and 'diversion' need to be defined. We're all familiar with the terms as used in aviation. Nitpicking over whether the pilot flight-planned adequately, should have foreseen the problem, could safely fly to another airfield, could safely return to his departure airfield etc is likely to defeat the objective.
Who's going to determine whether the pilot's decision to divert rather than continue was justified, unreasonably cautious or unnecessary?
Who's going to determine whether the pilot was wrong to embark on the flight given the met forecast? It's not always clear cut in UK weather.
Will it be the person who collects the landing fees and may well not be a pilot?
I suppose there is scope for abuse but I believe abuse (if any) will be insignificant in the overall scheme.

I have seen no documentation which suggests the concession was intended to be dependent upon satisfying further criteria.
In particular, the idea that only pilots who can demonstrate they have flight-planned thoroughly and competently, and have not at any stage during planning or flight made a mistake or exercised poor judgment, should be eligible seems to me to be completely contrary to the spirit/context of the scheme and unlikely to achieve its commendable objective.

[Gerhardt]

Bravo, Mr. Barrister, Bravo!

[rustle]

Frankly, I don’t think avoiding paying an additional landing fee is the reason pilots press on in doubtful weather. But nor do I think pilots would embark on a flight in doubtful weather if they don’t have to pay a diversion landing fee when, but for the scheme, they’d stay on the ground. However, I do think the problem of loss of life through 'pressing on' is sufficiently serious that anything which draws more attention to the number of people who lose their lives by doing so when they should have landed, is worth trying.

Even without the scheme there wouldn't be an additional landing fee though -- the whole point is that you divert instead of going where you were going and unless that happened to be a free airfield or farm strip there would probably have been a landing fee due at destination.

In this case (this thread) that fee would have been higher, and would have been at LFAT.

The only time an "additional fee" might arise is where you divert due weather then decide the weather has improved sufficiently so you take off again to carry on to your original destination.

Again, specifically in relation to this thread, that wasn't the case.

[Whirlybird]

The only time an "additional fee" might arise is where you divert due weather then decide the weather has improved sufficiently so you take off again to carry on to your original destination.
Again, specifically in relation to this thread, that wasn't the case.

Unless UV and others intended to wait out the bad weather and then continue over to France if they could. I haven't looked back to make sure, but I don't believe he said either way.

Flying Lawyer,
Brilliant post! :ok: I agree with every word. I wish I'd put it that well in mine.

[AlexL]

The only time an "additional fee" might arise is where you divert due weather then decide the weather has improved sufficiently so you take off again to carry on to your original destination.

I don't agree - generally that is. (obviously this was the case in the origonal post). If one finds oneself in trouble in the evening with most airfields closed, and needs to ge radar vectors into a larger field - bristol intnl, leeds/ bradford etc, one is going to be faced with a substantial landing fee, a handling fee and potentially 'parking' aswell. All of which could add up to hundreds of pounds. For many people this sort of fee could cause second thoughts about diverting. remember not everyone has the sort of money that many on this forum have and for pilots who can barely scrape enough money together to fly a few times a year, this sort of fee would be a major consideration.
Also I think it is a bit arrogant to try and categorise wether a diversion should have been made, remember something which is a minor inconvenience to an experienced IMC / IR rated pilot could be a major problem for a low houred PPL.
The whole point about 'human factors' is that it is the reaction and perception of the person involved which is important, not what everyone else thinks about it.
We used to have a rule in our scuba diving club, that anyone could call a dive at any time if they were uncomfortable with it - nobody ever second guessed or complained that that person should not have called it off.
If someone is uncomfortable with a flight then not only should they be able to divert without financial penalty, but should be able to do so without fear of criticism from others.

[GRP]

UV did uncover an anomoly at Lydd. Lydd should either pull out or honour the scheme. If UV claimed it was a diversion for weather purposes then the fee should have been waived.
Surely we can all agree though that the specific circumstances that UV was in were not really in the spirit of the scheme. And surely we can easily imagine that Lydd has been on the receiving end of many such claims which may well be precisely the reason they are considering their view on the scheme.

So I think Lydd should sort themselves out one way or another and well done to UV for bringing this to our attention.

However, if Lydd choose to pull out because they feel abused then UV can be equally proud to have played a part in that outcome.

[spekesoftly]

In one of his later posts, UV stated that a subsequent conversation with Lydd revealed that they did not know that they were on the list. Possibly as a result of its recent change of ownership? Perhaps the present Airport Authority unwittingly 'inherited' Lydd's commitment to the scheme (made by a previous incumbent), and it only became evident when Pilots tried to claim waivers? An unsatisfactory state of affairs, agreed, but IMHO, somewhat different to a deliberate act of knowingly 'Refusing to Honour'.

[Fuji Abound]

I agree that Lydd should decide whether they want to be in the scheme or not. I also agree for any scheme to operate successfully everyone must abide by the "rules" of the scheme - the whole concept is devalued if places like Shoreham and Lydd apply their own interpretation of the "rules".

One point that has not been made is that I reckon Lydd probably "suffers" far more weather diversions than any other airport. I cannot think of anywhere else that is on such a popular route with pilots likely to find the weather at L2K less than satisfactory. That is not to detract from my earlier comments, simply an observation.

Finally I do agree with the comments made by others that having received a "free landing" airports are far more likely to continue to support this excellent initiative if we try and "put something back into the pot". Buy some fuel at your diverted destination - you will need to do so anyway.

[SATCO Biggin]

The 17 airfields listed below refused to help with the iniative:

I see our name mentioned in this list, and correctly so. Although perhaps 'refused to help' is a bit out of place.

We have been handing out free landings, parking etc etc to worthy cases long before this intiative was ever conceived. We reserve the right to make up our own mind as to who may benefit from these.

Many pilots who would not normally have met the suggested requirements of the Strasser scheme have been met with a sympathetic view by us. Even those who are just having a tough day of it, like the person who could not get his transponder to work for a flight where it was mandatory equipment despite repeated visits to the workshop and repeated take offs only to find it failed again, and again.

I do however take a dim view of anyone who stomps into my flight ops department, upsetting my staff by thinking they have some sort of automatic right to a free landing. (and believe me there are plenty of them out there)

Regards

Biggin Hill

[rustle]

If someone is uncomfortable with a flight then not only should they be able to divert without financial penalty, but should be able to do so without fear of criticism from others.
Paying a landing fee for landing is hardly a "financial penalty", but more importantly: NO-ONE (in this thread) has criticised anyone for diverting, and I don't recall reading a thread on here where anyone was criticised for diverting. Ever.

[Heliport]

KMS

"My view is that if you have to divert for weather, you're making the right choice not to press on and see, so a landing fee is worth every penny if it saves yours or your passengers lives."
I doubt if anyone would agree with that. However, as I understand the concession, it isn't only aimed at the glaringly obvious 'life or death' situation but also to encourage pilots to land when in borderline circumstances/conditions - before they find themselves in a potentially fatal situation.

Does your post mean you're not in favour of the landing fee waiver arrangement?
You're a commercial pilot. Many (the majority?) GA pilots are PPLs who aren't trained to as high a level as you and don't fly as often.
Do you think it has no value - even for PPLs?


rustle
That may have been a reference to the inquisition of UV over why he found himself in a position of having to divert, and suggestions that airfields should be entitled to refuse the concession if (in someone else's opinion) the pilot's flight-planning was inadequate or (in their opinion) he shouldn't have attempted the flight on their reading of the met etc. That involves criticism of the pilot even though not for his decision to divert.

[rustle]

That may have been a reference to the inquisition of UV over why he found himself in a position of having to divert...
Inquisition!

I read a couple of posts asking where the planned diversion airfields were, and a couple of comments about the whole of the UK being CAVOK.

I don't recall it reading like an inquisition though. :hmm:

(I know: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... )

[Fuji Abound]

KMS

I had the same thought as you.

Having read the post several times I think the intention was to say I doubt anyone would DISagree, but maybe I shall be proved wrong.

[Heliport]

Finger trouble!!!
It was meant to be "I doubt if anyone would disagree".
See, people in aviation do make mistakes! ;)
Sorry.

BTW, are you two in favour of the scheme or not?

[High Wing Drifter]

I still don't really understand how the scheme hopes to achieve its aims. There are a list of aerodromes that will waive the fee and there is a small list that doesn't. Will this make any difference to my planned route? Nope. Will this make me triple check my synopsis? Nah. When in the air, would I have the capacity to think "I'm near one of them there free places and the weather looks ****e. I know, I'll land"? I very much doubt it.

Personally and being brutally honest, if I have to be somewhere I'd probably delay a decision to divert for longer than if I'm hamburger hunting (then again, maybe, now that I've expressed this I wouldn't). I mentioned above, in such a situation, unless I marked the freebies on the chart (which I wouldn't) I really don't think I would have the mental capacity pick and choose.

If however, the scheme has no practical application other than to make pilots think twice, then maybe it is a success.

[Whirlybird]

As I think I've said before, when the weather is really bad the situation is clear-cut; you land ASAP wherever you can!

It's the marginal situations that are more difficult....

Is that 1000 ft cloudbase withing your personal limitations? Will it get lower? Will the weather close in behind you if you carry on? Perhaps it's already closed in, and your destination is only half an hour away, and you do know that low level route to avoid the hills...don't you?

Or, the vis is getting worse, but you can still see, it's still within legal limits, you have the GPS...should you carry on or not?

Or, that rain is only showers, isn't it. But they're getting heavier, and joining up with each other. Things haven't got nasty yet, but they could.

In all these situations, commonsense maybe says it's not worth the risk. But weighed against that is the fact you really need to get where you're going (or home), you can't afford the flight in the first place, never mind more time and more expense, and you really think it's OK....er...maybe...so long as it doesn't get a fraction worse anyway. :( You're orbiting or cloud/shower dodging, trying to make a decision. You do have time, and spare capacity; you just don't really know what to do.

And at that point, maybe the free landing would decide it, if not for you, at least for some pilots.

Another point, which I only just thought of. I suspect that some low hours pilots feel a bit...wimpish, maybe, at diverting in conditions when half the world seems to be flying and having fun. Maybe the fact that most airfields have signed up to this scheme will make them realise that diverting if not sure you can cope is a good thing to do. It's acceptable to the aviation world in general. Just a thought.

[Pierre Argh]

May as well have my sixpen'th... I understood the original concept of waiving the fees was to discourage pilots in emergency pressing on past a perfectly usable airfield for fear of having to pay landing fees (?). I would suggest, that a diversion due to inclement weather is, in most cases, a precautionary measure. Therefore if an airfield choses to waive the fee on landing in such circumstances... you have just received a bonus! They don't deserve to be "black-balled".

The situation from the outset was always going to be controversial... it's difficult to see it in black & white? In the same way as some airfields may charge you for a precuationary landing, I am sure there are pilots out there who might declare a spurious, minor emergency in the hope of getting the fees waived and depart after having hit said faulty component with the proverbial big hammer.

If you have an emergency, of whatever sort... I hope get the aircraft on the ground first, and worry about paying the fee or not, when ou're in the Clubhouse/Ops... that's surely the spirit of the scheme?

[Heliport]

Pierre Argh

The background to the scheme, and the scheme itself, are fully explained earlier in this thread.

"I would suggest, that a diversion due to inclement weather is, in most cases, a precautionary measure."
Yes, just the sort of precautionary measure the AOPA scheme is trying to encourage pilots to take at an early stage, rather than pressing on and risking it becoming an emergency - with possibly fatal consequences.

"Therefore if an airfield choses to waive the fee on landing in such circumstances... you have just received a bonus!"
If they haven't made a commitment to the scheme then, yes, you are getting a "bonus".
If they have, then you're getting what they have very generously agreed to give GA.

Whether or not airfields which refuse to commit to the scheme shoud be 'black-balled' is obviously a matter of opinion. Black-balling may arguably be too extreme, but isn't there a reasonable argument that in non-emergency/precautionary circumstances, ie when pilots have a choice where to spend their money, they might wish to spend it at airfields in the scheme?
Those airfields have committed to giving something to GA - not just 'Maybe we'll waive, it depends if we think it's justified on the day.' Isn't it fair that the GA community should support them in return, when they have a choice?

It's all very well for people to say the important thing is to get down, what ever the landing fee. Of course that's true, but it's also true that many GA pilots press on when it would be wiser and safer to take the precaution of diverting, and too many lives are lost every year as a result. The idea of the scheme is to try to reduce those numbers.

Are you in favour of the scheme?

[High Wing Drifter]

Whirly,

All sensible stuff. But I still don't get it. Within this context, how does this scheme change your perception of what is flyable and what isn't. My argument is that it won't make any difference at all. Will anybody really divert earlier because it is cheaper than diverting later? Pilots will press on for a whole host unrelated reasons.

IMHO, this scheme promotes either discussion, confusion or both.

[dublinpilot]

Pilots will press on for a whole host unrelated reasons

I don't think the scheme is intended to be a total solution to the press on syndrome. It's simply trying to remove one of those reasons for pressing on.

I suspect where the airport close at hand is a small field, it makes no difference what so ever. But where the field is a regional, knowing that you aren't going to get stung with a massive bill, might just be enough to swing the decision away from the "continue a bit further" mode.

dp

[High Wing Drifter]

Dublin,
But where the field is a regional, knowing that you aren't going to get stung with a massive bill, might just be enough to swing the decision away from the "continue a bit further" mode.
IMHO unlikely but possible...if you know that the big fat airport 5nm East is free. Is determining the freebies and costalotas another step that you include in your planning?

[dublinpilot]

No, certainly not in the planning.

Imagine you're in one of the situations that Whirly describes above. Torn between putting down, and continuing on. So you start to consider your current diversion options. The most obvious airport to divert to at this point in the flight, is a bloody big regional. You've no idea how much it's going to cost, and suspect it will be expensive, but it may be horrendously expensive.

This scheme, to my mind, is trying to remove that consideration from the thought process.

[down&out]

I've been reading this with interest as I had to divert recently due to bad Wx in Northern France (To protect the innocent, lets call it Destination "A").

However as I knew the weather was bad at my destination before I set off and the forecast was for it to improve, but not quite soon enough I made sure I had enough fuel to divert to somewhere I wanted to be as a second choice (Destination "B") if the Wx did not improve as soon as I wanted it to.

Sure enough Wx did not improve, so I turned round over channel and set off to “B” - but on getting there actually found the wind had picked up and was too strong across the runway so carried on and diverted again to (unplanned) Destination "C" - and we had a nice day out there!

However, in my case it never crossed my mind to ask for a free landing, even though I had diverted twice as I considered diverting when I set off, knew the forecast for S.England was OK and had plenty of fuel so could take a number of options including RTB.

Having read Flying Lawers post I really like the use of the word "precautionary" over "diversion". Had the Wx turned in around me (which it was not forecast to do) I would have welcomed not worring about costs to do a precautionary landing at the nearest bolt hole (and I did fly past some expensive ones en-route to "B" & “C”). But raising a request for freebie in a case like mine would be taking the p**s.

[atb1943]

Flying Lawyer

Publishers - Aerad, AFE and Pooleys agreed to include the information in order to help GA pilots. Jeppesen/Bottlang hadn’t replied. May have refused since? ;)

The wink at the end of your sentence did not go unnoticed Sir!

The relatively new (British) sales manager will be canvassed - definitely has an open ear for such things (ve haff vayz....:O )

vbrgds

atb