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