Luton Airport Charges £1047 for GA Emergency Landing

[fireflybob]

Anyone know the background to this one and why the bill was so expensive?

Luton Airport Charges £1047 for GA Emergency Landing (http://www.gasco.org.uk/safety-information/flight_safety_extra_april_16/luton_airport_charges.aspx)

[Wageslave]

Did they declare a mayday? If so it's disgusting and morally indefensible. If not...

Even so a grand for a landing fee, even if the emergency services were all in attendance is utterly obscene. Toilet Town International should be ashamed of its greed.

[GAAV8R]

Regardless of whether they called a mayday, "The Luton fire crew said that the undercarriage showed no obvious defects on a fly past but the Luton Controller recommended a landing to make sure. They landed, made an inspection, departed and were subsequently charged £1047-36"

If this is true, unless they were warned they were to be charged landing fees, it is still morally reprehensible. If they had enogh fuel, they could have diverted to a more suitable airfield (Oxford?)

[Fly4Business]

The Luton controller himself recommended a landing after visual checking the aircraft on fly-by, after they were diverted due to safety reasons, or did they even declare emergency, and they got charged for that landing?

If they start breaking traditional proven flight safety rules, such as "no landing fees for safety and emergency landings", flying will become dangerous.

I barely believe we have been told all of the story and I hope the management of Luton will get this straight in the media ASAP.

[A and C]

You have to remember that in both aviation & marine industry's there is a tradition of acting to prevent the loss of life, this is because in both these industries those involved know that unforeseen circumstance can happen to anyone and each time we take off or set sail even the very best prepared is putting their neck on the line.

The bean counters in society can't understand this and only see life as a set of numbers on a page.

[wsmempson]

Is this not a prime example of an instance where the 'Strasser Scheme" should apply?

[LTNman]

There is nothing in the airports tariffs and terms and conditions that offers non chargeable fees for emergencies. Also all aircraft need compulsory handling at Luton so no doubt a FBO got involved with the aircraft.

Certainly not justifying what has happened but I would suggest the instructor posts a message on the airports facebook page as that often has the desired effect to focus minds about waving the charge.

[mothminor]

We could all take the above into consideration when deciding where to fly from on our holiday or business trip.

[piperboy84]

For that kind of money I'd expect a full tank of gas and an annual thrown in.

[abgd]

Is this not a prime example of an instance where the 'Strasser Scheme" should apply?

Except that Luton isn't a member of the Strasser scheme - unlike most other airports including Plymouth.

[9 lives]

The Luton fire crew said that the undercarriage showed no obvious defects on a fly past but the Luton Controller recommended a landing to make sure.

I've occasionally wondered about the maintenance qualification of air traffic controllers to make statements about the condition of landing gear. They are certainly in a disadvantageous situation to perform a proper inspection! I would think that if a controller recommended landing and the gear collapsed thereafter, that controller would be in an awkward position.

[Fly4Business]

I've occasionally wondered about the maintenance qualification of air traffic controllers to make statements about the condition of landing gear. They are certainly in a disadvantageous situation to perform a proper inspection! I would think that if a controller recommended landing and the gear collapsed thereafter, that controller would be in an awkward position.
But as a pilot in need of assistance I have no chance to judge the qualification of the controller and if the one on the radio looks at the gear, finds nothing, but does have a bad feeling, I land - even if there was no direct maintenance inspection with a controller hanging outboards, I respect peoples guts feeling. And other way around, what if something happens fatally, after I did not follow the controllers suggestion? Hard to argue than.

I still suspect there is more behind the story. I had some safety landings, always was treated well when I explained why and never paid for a safety or emergency landing.

[9 lives]

what if something happens fatally, after I did not follow the controllers suggestion? Hard to argue than.

Very true in the case of maintaining separation from other aircraft. However, when it comes to an air traffic controller recommending that I land when the condition of my landing gear was uncertain, I would be skeptical....

A landing gear failure should not have a risk of injury to an occupant, just damage to the aircraft, if properly flown.

[fireflybob]

what if something happens fatally, after I did not follow the controllers suggestion? Hard to argue than.

I believe in UK ATCOs are supposed to use specific phraseology for this type of observation such as "landing gear appears to be...."

I suppose they could add "Terms and Conditions apply, for full details see our website".

the Luton Controller recommended a landing to make sure.

I'd be rather surprised if they made such a comment.

[HyFlyer]

I sent a communication to the Head of Luton Airport mentioned in the article....gist was....
if the article is true then Luton is off my Crimbo card and vist list for the foreseeable future. If it isn't true..just say so.

No communication has been received back.

[Steve6443]

Quote:
Is this not a prime example of an instance where the 'Strasser Scheme" should apply?
Except that Luton isn't a member of the Strasser scheme - unlike most other airports including Plymouth.

But at least they were allowed to promptly depart, unlike the Jodel at Plymouth.....

[ShyTorque]

Except that Luton isn't a member of the Strasser scheme - unlike most other airports including Plymouth.

I would strongly recommend that no pilot tries to land at Plymouth, emergency or otherwise! It is definitely not in the Strasser scheme.

[piperboy84]

If I've got that much of an emergency ( as I did a few weeks ago) I'm not going to be faffing around looking for an airfield (unless it's within my view and immediate vicinity) I'm going for farmer Giles's tramlines or sharing the grass with his ewes.

[300hrWannaB]

Morally reprehensible.

I've only had one divert, due to the engine cowling starting to detach on a SEP. We diverted to a very active RAF Lyneham (now no so active). Full Fire and rescue attendance. An overview by Maintenance, and running repair. Depart within the hour.
Although I didn't declare a Mayday, (from the French m'aider) they came to my aid.
No charge. Not even a request to look at my insurance papers. In fact, they gave me cans of coke and a mug of tea.

Perhaps that's what we pay taxes for?

[Local Variation]

Only slightly more expensive than Luton's car parking fees. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.

I transit through the Luton overhead fairly regularly (great ATC service btw). Perish the thought of having to land given this example.

I would ask for a breakdown of the invoice to make sure their current building site works are not included. Shocking.

[Jetblu]

Whilst i accept that Luton has decided upon themselves to be excluded from the Strasser scheme, my submission would be that they still had a 'duty of care' to provide fairness and reasonableness.

I would argue that £1047 is not fair nor reasonable after being invited to land off the back of an emergency.

[Fly4Business]

Whilst i accept that Luton has decided upon themselves to be excluded from the Strasser scheme, my submission would be that they still had a 'duty of care' to provide fairness and reasonableness.

I would argue that £1047 is not fair nor reasonable after being invited to land off the back of an emergency.
What would be the legal action to take against such outrages behavior, if they do not pull back? When I discussed this Luton case, a friend told me a story from EDFH, must have been 2013 or 2014, where they charged a couple of hundred Euros for an ordinary GA landing, the pilot took it to court against - and won easily.

[abgd]

I would strongly recommend that no pilot tries to land at Plymouth, emergency or otherwise! It is definitely not in the Strasser scheme.

I don't think anybody will be in a hurry to land there, but it is still listed on the AOPA website:
Strasser Scheme (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=157&Itemid=816)

Is there a more authoritative source regarding which airports are, or are not, members of the scheme?

[Katamarino]

When I discussed this Luton case, a friend told me a story from EDFH, must have been 2013 or 2014, where they charged a couple of hundred Euros for an ordinary GA landing, the pilot took it to court against - and won easily.

Do you have more info on this? This could have a major impact on any GA pilot trying to fly to a large range of European destinations. Even tin-pot little paces like Eindhoven want 250+ for a GA airplane to land.

[Capt Kremmen]

There is no such 'scheme' as the 'Strasser scheme or convention'. Long, long before this mistaken notion took root, there existed an unwritten acceptance that a pilot in distress, weather related or otherwise, could land without financial penalty at the nearest most convenient airfield.

Long, long ago, means fifty or more years. There is no legality or illegality, no law or by-law, it is simply a widely recognised convention or, at least should be. The problem is that with the passage of time, aviation people conversant with this convention have either passed on or drifted away and the convention seems to have been largely forgotten.

[wsmempson]

There is such a scheme as the "Strasser Scheme", and Charles Strasser received an award from the CAA in recognition of it's success.

http://egnos-portal.gsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/content/p5_14.pdf

[maliyahsdad2]

I sent a communication to the Head of Luton Airport mentioned in the article....gist was....
if the article is true then Luton is off my Crimbo card and vist list for the foreseeable future. If it isn't true..just say so.

No communication has been received back.

Did you send it to Southend? I don't know when this was supposed to have happened but he left Luton in June 2014 and became CEO of Stobart Aviation in September 2015.

[Capt Kremmen]

wsmempson

That is indeed so. The convention of which I describe, was in place for many years before Mr. Strasser's name became associated with it.

[ShyTorque]

I don't think anybody will be in a hurry to land there, but it is still listed on the AOPA website:

The AOPA site obviously needs bringing up to date. Totally misleading to indicate that a long closed airfield can accept emergency diversions.

[abgd]

Perhaps, though I believe they had to keep the runways serviceable according to their lease. But it is a concern: it's reasonable to check the NOTAMS for an alternate or two before a flight, but hardly reasonable for a pilot to check all the emergency airfields along a route. Also, how often should AOPA update its list?

[abgd]

OK... Looking at the list Filton is still listed despite clearly not being serviceable unless you're in a helicopter, in which case why would you need to divert to an airfield? They clearly do need to update their list.