Landing Fees in an Emergency

[Blue Albatross]

Folks,

Just wondering what is the standard practice (specifically in Netherlands, but also curious about Europe as a whole) if a pilot has declared either a PAN PAN or a MAYDAY and has to divert to an airport that is obviously not his end destination?

I happened to have to do just that yesterday and diverted to Eindhoven due to deteriorating weather. They wanted to charge me €80 for the privilege but I objected reminding them that I diverted there with a declared emergency.

They said nothing more about it and let us depart, but knowing the Schiphol Group, I would not be surprised if an invoice appears on my door mat in the near future.

So what is the standard practice (be it "gentlemens agreement" or official protocol) in NL and the EU as a whole?

[stevelup]

Most UK airports are members of the 'Strasser Scheme'

Link (http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/pdf/campaign_s.pdf)

(The list on the above link is pretty out of date)

[Katamarino]

In the UK, it is standard practice not to charge; there is something called the "Strasser Scheme" which almost all airports have signed up to which promises not to charge diverting aircraft in an emergency. I think a couple, such as London City, have opted out, but most have joined.

In Holland, I'm not sure. I have had to divert once for weather, and this was into Hilversum. They charged me the landing fee as normal, and as I had decided to stop for lunch and make the most of it, I did not argue.

However, having dealt with the miserable ****s at Eindhoven, I'd be very surprised to see any leniency. They charged me 250 Euros in total for my 2 hour visit in a C172, and told me quite frankly that they were setting their charges to try and get rid of GA. They're one of these airports that has decided they are too big and important for the smaller aircraft, simply because Ryanair have decided to exploit them, and I would love to see them fail!

[IO540]

The Strasser scheme is AIUI intended for weather diversions, but obviously would also cover a Mayday situation which is much more serious.

There have been suggestions that a proportion of pilots have been using this to avoid landing fees, which is perhaps why some airports took a long time to sign up. Big airports like London Gatwick were AFAIK not asked to participate, presumably because they would be sure to refuse (with landing+handling fees around £500).

I am not aware of any deal or agreement or official policy when it comes to a Mayday to one of these big ones, and I would expect to be charged the full whack if I landed at say Gatwick. But one might be lucky...

[Ultranomad]

In Czech Republic, the no-fee policy in emergency is part of AIP (GEN 4):

4.1.1.5 Exemptions
Flights of the following aircraft are not subject to the charges:
– aircraft returning due to weather, mechanical or radio failure to the aerodrome of departure and aircraft which have executed a forced or emergency landing.
– flights performed exclusively for the transport of Royalty, Heads of State and Government, Ministers on official missions;
– search and rescue flights authorised by a competent RCC body,
– aircraft carrying out flights of air rescue services including secondary and repatriation flights and flights directly connected with human life rescue;
– flights of the Civil Aviation Authority.

[Barnaby the Bear]

Its important to note, that just because an airfield has not subscribed to the Strasser scheme, they may have their own policy which provides a similar or equal system.
Sometimes people are too quick to 'name and shame' before fully researching the facts. :ok:
Sorry a bit of a thread drift, but I could see where it was going. I don't know EGLC or EGKK's policy.

[nouseforaname]

I had to land in Filton the other day on an emergency, got charged no landing fee but had to pay the o/night which was nearly £20!!

[Barnaby the Bear]

What's the problem with that? They waived the landing fee didnt they?
It's not Filtons fault you couldn't recover your aircraft. A £20 parking fee (not extortianate), is nothing considering the alternatives had they not been available to you. :ugh:

[Pilot DAR]

Though I have never declared an emergency or pan (probably should have a few times in hind sight), I think I'm still missing something here...

If the pilot feels him/herself in a situation such that declaring a pan or emergency is thier best action, would not the landing fee be a very minor consideration, compared to the reassurance of being safely on the ground in a very stressful situation? If you have chosen to land at an airport with more services (probably equates to landing fee amount somehow) you have probably chosen to have those services available. If fire rescue equipment is standing by for you, that's costing money, it's only fair that the user make a contribution toward that cost, in my opinion.

Many people have landed at the runway I own. None have ever been charged, nor offered to pay a landing fee - it's my home, they're welcomed (even the two who have crashed). But, on the other hand, no one has ever offered to cut the grass, blow the snow, fix the ruts they have made, or replace runway lights, when the time comes for that work and cost. (okay, the one pilot who really did crash in a bad way, did come back to help clean up the wreckage)

I won't attempt to defend what are probably rather expensive landing fees in Europe, relative to those charged in Canada, but, paying nothing for having those facilities availabe seems unfair.

For the times in my flying career during which I have been scared stiff, I would have paid a lot to have a runway right there, right then. Generally, there was not one there. Though ultimately it did not cost money to land, I certainly spent a lot longer in peril, and a lot longer worrying about it!

To me, it has similarities to overflying a perfectly suitable fuel stop to save time and landing fees, then worrying the last half hour about your fuel quantity. Pilots, we have enough to worry about already, pay the cost willingly, and land safely!

[Fuji Abound]

If the pilot feels him/herself in a situation such that declaring a pan or emergency is thier best action, would not the landing fee be a very minor consideration,


Yes, I would also have thought so, although the "majors" may well make some think twice (Gatwick could end up costing well over £700 for a short stay). ALbeit I dont think Gatwick actually are members of the scheme but they do waive the fees in cases of a genuine emergency all credit to them.

I think it is "still" a nice touch however; maybe a little like a resteraunt being a little slow and offering not to charge for a bottle of wine, we could afford the wine, and might well not be too bothered about the speed of the meal, but the gesture is never the less appreciated.

[gasax]

Whilst I think the Stasser scheme is a good idea I'm with Pilot DAR on it being something of a distraction.

Years ago I nursed a 3 cylinder Gipsy to land at Lossiemouth. By the time I got it repaired and flew out I had accumulated about a £500 bill! I had the choice of landing at a strip very close by - but it gave me no margin - so I simply took the very big piece of tarmac and accepted it might hurt finincially.

Last week I ran into some nasty weather coming home and after trying a few options (including one near 180 degree turn) simply decided this was not getting a) any better, b) might get worst, c) was no fun. So a short diversion and overnight stay was in order.

The old adage of being on the ground wishing you were flying being 100 times better than flying and wishing you were not, still holds true!!

[dublinpilot]

I had to land in Filton the other day on an emergency, got charged no landing fee but had to pay the o/night which was nearly £20!!

But surely that is the whole point of it?

Because of the free landing fee, you got yourself on the ground. You now had more time to think about things, and what your options were.

If you now decided that, having had a chance to check the weather around, and the forecast and think about your options without having to fly the aeroplane at the same time, that it was in fact safe to continue then you could have without any cost to you.

If you concluded that it was unsafe to continue, then the free landing fee had done its job in helping to give you the opportunity to realise that it was unsafe to continue. Why should it also give you free overnight parking when it has already done its job?

I've only had to divert because of weather twice. Both airports were part of the scheme, but didn't offer to waive landing fees, nor did I ask for them to be waived. I was damn glad to have somewhere safe to land :}

dp

[nouseforaname]

i have no problem with paying fee's for landing or parking in any airport, but in an emergency I really think that there should be no fee's of any sort, especially when the fee's are very high anyway for a light single.

Seem's like a bit of the old saying to me; never hit a man when he's down....its easier to kick him.

[Barnaby the Bear]

nouseforaname, Thats like saying why should I pay to have my car towed of the motorway after a breakdown. It's just kicking someone when they are down isn't it? Why should the privately owned Airport which has considerably higher running costs to worry about that your £20, bare the brunt of your mis fortune. They have given you a free landing fee (which they don't have to), and £20 is not expensive, I have pay £5 to park my car near my favourite football club for a couple of hours, but it's my choice.
I bet before you got on the ground you would have paid 100 times that to be safe. :ok:

Just be thankful they were available and you got down in one piece. £20 is a small price to pay. :}

[Legalapproach]

A few years ago I had recourse to divert to Rotterdam with only 5 out of six cylinders remaining, no oil and lots of smoke. Was very happy to be on the ground and to have the assistance of several fire engines. I can't recall if they charged a landing fee but to be honest as the alternative would have been over the North Sea in January with no engine anything would have been worth it.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n1/snout_2006/rotterdam.jpg

[nouseforaname]

more i think about it yes i would have paid more than £20 to get on the ground that day so i stand corrected. :O

[Neptunus Rex]

Some years ago I was instructing at a flying club overseas, where the only available diversion was a major international airport. The landing fees there were quite steep and I was not happy with the thought of a low time PPL worrying about the cost instead of applying good airmanship. I suggested to the committee that in these rare events the club should pay for the diversion. The committee agreed and everybody was happy.

[A and C]

A guy I know had to divert to a large airport near London late one night with a gear problem, he was happy with the £300+ landing fee for the large bit if tarmac and the fire services that were on hand had things gone wrong.

What he did remark apon was the totaly disproprtionate responce from the "non emergency" agencys on the airport who treated a SEP with a landing gear problem as if it was a 767 about to crash!........................ I guess it is just the elf & safety who seem over react as usual.