Unfortunately as was discovered by airlines during the Icelandic ash event a few years ago, one cannot sue the UK CAA to recover losses incurred by their actions. They're basically untouchable and unaccountable. And this is a perfect example of what that enables; they can throw around some vague statements about safety concerns, send a small airline home, cause a travel provider to run up huge expenses and go bust and then... do nothing. They'll let it all drop, quietly. Job done for the Campaign Against Aviation.
El Bunto,
Play tell, what are the crosswind limitations for a L410 on a damp or wet runway and what are the maximum wind speeds before it is recommended that the aircraft type be tied down?
Because at the time they made their approach(es) in to BHD Storm Doris was blowing directly across (90 degrees off) the runway at speeds of circa 23-40kts, the world's favourite airline diverted to BFS, your favourite airline attempted to kill their passengers by attempting at least one approach during which they bounced off the BHD runway.
Then, rather than divert to an alternate within limits they elected to return to IOM where Storm Doris was blowing 40 degrees of the damp or wet runway at speeds of 42-56kts.
So please kindly explain how Van Air, upon behalf of Citywing, were operating legally and why the CAA were wrong to pull their ticket?
Or did I miss something?
And as a PS, I have little or no time for the CAA, during my airline career I accommodated them as a must, but on this occasion I tip my cap to them, they got something right.