mrcross "Rustle's narked 'cos 2.4 tonnes costs when you land it..."
This isn't about me and mine, it is about right and wrong.
It is wrong to charge someone for a precautionary landing. Period.
Personally I couldn't give a toss if it costs a tenner or a "monkey" to land because my cost of getting airborne dwarfs 99% of landing fees...
matspart3 "Maybe I'm a coward but I just can't imagine a situation where I'd put the cost of a diversion ahead of safety of me and my passengers."
Neither can I.
So that's okay then.
Because I am responsible. Because I want to investigate that "funny noise" and be sure. Because I must only be looking for a "good deal" that fully justifies charging me whatever you like plus handling, plus, plus.
The opponents to this scheme all rely on pilots being totally unprepared for flight, and being dishonest "cowboys" who want nothing more than to rip-off poor airports in the most cavalier fashion they can.
The proponents start from the premise that sometimes, no matter how vigilant your preparation, no matter how many barf-bags your passengers are carrying, sometimes sh1t happens.
Ne'er the twain shall meet.