I'm a little curious how this scheme might be abused?
I've had to divert due to weather a couple of times. On all but one occassion, I didn't uplift any fuel (I already had plenty), didn't leave the airfield, but simply took off again en-route to my planned destination once the weather lifted. There is no conceivable reason why I would have planned to do that. On the one occassion when I did not make it to my planned destination I spent the next three days on trains and on the phone, backwards and forwards, waiting until the weather lifted enough to get the aeroplane home again - again, not the actions of someone who planned to land at an airfield.
On the other hand, when I'm planning on going to an airfield, I tend to either have a cup of tea and maybe a burger and then leave, or else park the aircraft up while I head off of the airport to go about whatever business it is that I've flown into the airport for.
Surely any airfield operator can tell the difference between the two? If someone "diverts" into an airfield in marginal VFR weather and then heads off to a business meeting, only to depart IFR later that day once the meeting is finished, it's got to be pretty hard to convince the airfield operator that this is a genuine diversion?????
FFF
---------------