I'm afraid I'm going to add a mild note of dissent here; I'm not a RW pilot but I do trundle around in microlights a great deal, which have three things in common that are relevant here, which are:-
- Ability to land almost anywhere
- Great susceptibility to errors in wind forecast
- The rest of aviation regards us with great suspicion
The CAA will NOT prosecute or even finger poke at you for a safety diversion, if you land with a mugfull of fuel left at an aifield in a declared safety diversion instead of in a field with none. Also at the airfield there should be a fuel pump, a kettle, and people who can help you with any other problems such as an up to date met forecast.
I'm speaking from experience here; last year I diverted (in a microlight slightly slower than an R22 would be) into RAF Odiham after I realised that the headwind was somewhat more than forecast and I was likely to arrive at my planned destination with a teaspoon of fuel rather than the planned 40 minutes worth. I was being worked by Farnborough Radar, and asked them to arrange a diversion into Lasham for me - this they declined but offered me Odiham which I accepted. Odiham invited me in, waived landing fees since it was a safety diversion, tried to get me fuel - discovered that they had nothing but Avtur and even the MT pool ran entirely on diesel, and eventually a very helpful air-trafficer gave me a lift to the local garage where I bought jerry cans and fuel, which eventually got me safely home.
None of this would have happened in a field next to the M25, and there were no reprisals - not even a letter from the CAA asking what happened.
Frankly, the only criticism I'd make of the R44 pilot was that he failed to work out for himself where he could divert to, and possibly he left things a little later than he should. But at the end of the day, he asked for help when he needed it, and got an aircraft safely into an airfield who could sort his problems out. Nobody should be finger poking at somebody who did that.
G