Diversion charges ?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A hypothetical situation....
Joe and Fred have flown to another airfield and are now flying home. The weather, which was forecast to be good all day, is now deteriorating, with lowering cloud and showers.
Joe: It's not looking too good, is it?
Fred: No. but we should be OK. It's not far.
Joe: There are a few hills ahead, and that cloudbase is getting lower. Shall we divert into XXXX?
Fred: Those hills aren't very high. And I really need to get back. I still think we can make it.
Joe: We probably can. But we might not, if the weather gets any worse. Is it worth the risk?
Fred: It's a very slight risk. It doesn't seem to be getting any worse, and we can always turn back if we don't like it.
Joe: I suppose so. But if the cloud gets any lower it might be hard to turn back safely.
Fred: I see your point. But I'd like to get back. And XXXX's landing fee is pretty steep.
Joe: That's true. I hadn't thought of that? And I suppose it really isn't all that bad.
Fred: Shall we give it a shot then?
Joe: OK
In other words, since I need to spell out my points in words of one syllable or less, landing fees might be a factor among others when a difficult decision is being made. And they shouldn't be.
Joe and Fred have flown to another airfield and are now flying home. The weather, which was forecast to be good all day, is now deteriorating, with lowering cloud and showers.
Joe: It's not looking too good, is it?
Fred: No. but we should be OK. It's not far.
Joe: There are a few hills ahead, and that cloudbase is getting lower. Shall we divert into XXXX?
Fred: Those hills aren't very high. And I really need to get back. I still think we can make it.
Joe: We probably can. But we might not, if the weather gets any worse. Is it worth the risk?
Fred: It's a very slight risk. It doesn't seem to be getting any worse, and we can always turn back if we don't like it.
Joe: I suppose so. But if the cloud gets any lower it might be hard to turn back safely.
Fred: I see your point. But I'd like to get back. And XXXX's landing fee is pretty steep.
Joe: That's true. I hadn't thought of that? And I suppose it really isn't all that bad.
Fred: Shall we give it a shot then?
Joe: OK
In other words, since I need to spell out my points in words of one syllable or less, landing fees might be a factor among others when a difficult decision is being made. And they shouldn't be.
Suave yet Shallow
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: half way between the gutter and the stars.
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirly has spelled it out for us all. Whilst everyone in this thread is seemingly perfect and wouldn't ever get caught out with wx not as forecast. I know no one here would ever even think of money when looking at a diversion, because we're all perfect. Experience however has shown that other people do, and in a situation where there is a reasonable chance of a highworkload - removing one potential worry is a good thing.
I for one think Charles Strassor should be applauded for his efforts getting this implemented - and to be blunt am gobsmacked that anyone else can think differently.
Also, incase anyone wasn't aware, the scheme was set up to cover all genuine emergancy and precautionary diversions. Not just due to the weather.
Also agree with Genghis... buying lunch or sticking something in their charity box wouldn't do any harm.
I for one think Charles Strassor should be applauded for his efforts getting this implemented - and to be blunt am gobsmacked that anyone else can think differently.
Also, incase anyone wasn't aware, the scheme was set up to cover all genuine emergancy and precautionary diversions. Not just due to the weather.
Also agree with Genghis... buying lunch or sticking something in their charity box wouldn't do any harm.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget hypothetical scenarios; I've just remembered a real one!
A long, long time ago, when Whirly was just a young lass....
Well, OK, a few years ago, two of us set off in a C150 from Sleap, to spend a day flying round Wales. The weather forecast was fantastic, and there was hardly a cloud in the sky at Sleap. But as we approached the Welsh hills, barely ten minutes out, the cloud began to increase quite dramatically. I was P1, but we always make decisions together, as one does. And our conversation went something like this...
Whirly: I don't like the look of all this cloud.
Bloggs: Don't worry. it's OK.
Whirly: Well, maybe. But if it gets any worse it won't be.
Bloggs: It's only broken cloud; we can fly around it.
Whirly: (thinks) He flies a lot in Wales; maybe he's right. And he's been flying for years and years. But he doesn't have an awful lot of hours. And I don't even know him all that well. And why, why, why is it so hard to think clearly when you're at 2000 ft and cloud dodging?
Whirly: But if it gets worse, we could get hemmed in by it.
Bloggs: Well, let's go on a bit and see, shall we. It would be a shame to turn back now.
Whirly: But Welshpool's just round the corner. Why don't we drop in there for a coffee. This stuff should clear in an hour or so. And maybe it's OK, but it's not fun!
Bloggs: Fine with me, if you want to.
Whirly: (feeling very relieved, but also mildly guilty and wondering if she's an under-confident wimp) Oh, and don't worry; I'll pay Welshpool's landing fee.
OK, so landing fees didn't really come into it there. But they could have done, very easily. We really didn't know who was right without flying out over those mountains. I might have been over-cautious. There was no way of knowing for certain, and while it wasn't life-threatening or even a crucial decision, we had to decide what to do. The landing fee could have just been what swung the decision, and we could have flown out over those hills, found we couldn't get back, and joined the AAIB statistics.
It wouldn't have been sensible to do that, but it would have been very human.
Since I know I need to spell it out for some, I posted this as what I think is a fairly typical example of the way many pilots think when flying. We're imperfect human beings, most of us. I know some people on here claim not to be, but I'm afraid I can't aspire to those heights of non-mistake-making perfection, in aviation or anywhere else, and neither can many others. Decisions have to be made while airborne, often overloaded, without any 100% definite facts. There are a lot of things to consider. So let's get one tiny unimportant one, the landing fee, out of the equation. Why not, if it might save lives?
As it happened, we landed at Welshpool, paid the landing fee, had coffee, and an hour later left in glorious sunshine for a fantastic flying day.
A long, long time ago, when Whirly was just a young lass....
Well, OK, a few years ago, two of us set off in a C150 from Sleap, to spend a day flying round Wales. The weather forecast was fantastic, and there was hardly a cloud in the sky at Sleap. But as we approached the Welsh hills, barely ten minutes out, the cloud began to increase quite dramatically. I was P1, but we always make decisions together, as one does. And our conversation went something like this...
Whirly: I don't like the look of all this cloud.
Bloggs: Don't worry. it's OK.
Whirly: Well, maybe. But if it gets any worse it won't be.
Bloggs: It's only broken cloud; we can fly around it.
Whirly: (thinks) He flies a lot in Wales; maybe he's right. And he's been flying for years and years. But he doesn't have an awful lot of hours. And I don't even know him all that well. And why, why, why is it so hard to think clearly when you're at 2000 ft and cloud dodging?
Whirly: But if it gets worse, we could get hemmed in by it.
Bloggs: Well, let's go on a bit and see, shall we. It would be a shame to turn back now.
Whirly: But Welshpool's just round the corner. Why don't we drop in there for a coffee. This stuff should clear in an hour or so. And maybe it's OK, but it's not fun!
Bloggs: Fine with me, if you want to.
Whirly: (feeling very relieved, but also mildly guilty and wondering if she's an under-confident wimp) Oh, and don't worry; I'll pay Welshpool's landing fee.
OK, so landing fees didn't really come into it there. But they could have done, very easily. We really didn't know who was right without flying out over those mountains. I might have been over-cautious. There was no way of knowing for certain, and while it wasn't life-threatening or even a crucial decision, we had to decide what to do. The landing fee could have just been what swung the decision, and we could have flown out over those hills, found we couldn't get back, and joined the AAIB statistics.
It wouldn't have been sensible to do that, but it would have been very human.Since I know I need to spell it out for some, I posted this as what I think is a fairly typical example of the way many pilots think when flying. We're imperfect human beings, most of us. I know some people on here claim not to be, but I'm afraid I can't aspire to those heights of non-mistake-making perfection, in aviation or anywhere else, and neither can many others. Decisions have to be made while airborne, often overloaded, without any 100% definite facts. There are a lot of things to consider. So let's get one tiny unimportant one, the landing fee, out of the equation. Why not, if it might save lives?
As it happened, we landed at Welshpool, paid the landing fee, had coffee, and an hour later left in glorious sunshine for a fantastic flying day.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the best laid plans can go to pot due to circumstances unforeseen.
At our end of the aviation spectrum the reality is that such is not an uncommon occurence, due to our limited all-weather capabilities and the material we operate with.
That begs the question who should pick up the tab when things don't go to plan.
I personally think, since any take-off is non mandatory for flying, that this is my responsibility. Contingency plans therefore consist of taking enough funds for the unexpected rather than relying on freebies.
Strasser's scheme is of course a good one. And if taking the worry about earthly, monetary matters stops ploughing anyone into a mountain and end up taking off for their last flight, then that has to be a good thing.
There will always be people trying to pull a fast one, that is not the reserve of this particular scheme, but those abusers should not be the cause of it to be withdrawn.
Those that abuse it should be told: 'On yer bike!'
It would be good to understand that the waiving of a landing fee is something that can be granted by the airport not taken/demanded by the flyer.
It is my personal view that anyone who would not land at any airport for fear of their charges does not value their life very much. After all there is no airport on these shores that charges more than a few hours worth of flying..........................
It is good practice to consider eventualities that can occur when taking to the skies. To do so makes one prepared and less likely to have to take decisions on the hoof.
Things that would be good to have worked out plans for, before committing to flight are:
What do I when:
1. I have an engine failure in the various stages of the flight.
2. My passengers needs a pee/chuck up/have had enough
3. My pilot mate wants to carry on when I would not have had I flown alone
4. We get stuck away from home
etc.
At our end of the aviation spectrum the reality is that such is not an uncommon occurence, due to our limited all-weather capabilities and the material we operate with.
That begs the question who should pick up the tab when things don't go to plan.
I personally think, since any take-off is non mandatory for flying, that this is my responsibility. Contingency plans therefore consist of taking enough funds for the unexpected rather than relying on freebies.
Strasser's scheme is of course a good one. And if taking the worry about earthly, monetary matters stops ploughing anyone into a mountain and end up taking off for their last flight, then that has to be a good thing.
There will always be people trying to pull a fast one, that is not the reserve of this particular scheme, but those abusers should not be the cause of it to be withdrawn.
Those that abuse it should be told: 'On yer bike!'
It would be good to understand that the waiving of a landing fee is something that can be granted by the airport not taken/demanded by the flyer.
It is my personal view that anyone who would not land at any airport for fear of their charges does not value their life very much. After all there is no airport on these shores that charges more than a few hours worth of flying..........................
It is good practice to consider eventualities that can occur when taking to the skies. To do so makes one prepared and less likely to have to take decisions on the hoof.
Things that would be good to have worked out plans for, before committing to flight are:
What do I when:
1. I have an engine failure in the various stages of the flight.
2. My passengers needs a pee/chuck up/have had enough
3. My pilot mate wants to carry on when I would not have had I flown alone
4. We get stuck away from home
etc.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sussex
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the scheme saves a single life then it's all good IMHO. Out of interest does anyone have any evidence.. firm or anecdotal of people taking the p1ss and claiming free landings?
I've taken advantage of the free diversion once flying from Bbushe to Shoreham we came accross a layer of thick and low cloud so we returned to Blackbushe and got the 2nd once free. It's a system I won't abuse, and this is from a commuter who hasn't bought a train ticket for five years
I've taken advantage of the free diversion once flying from Bbushe to Shoreham we came accross a layer of thick and low cloud so we returned to Blackbushe and got the 2nd once free. It's a system I won't abuse, and this is from a commuter who hasn't bought a train ticket for five years
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
firm or anecdotal of people taking the p1ss and claiming free landings?
I've certainly arrived at airports and stood behind irate pilots demanding a free landing fee on the basis of a divert.
Cranfield are party to the scheme but have tended to be understandably unsympathetic when somebody arrives down the ILS having ostensibly been flying to one of the local VFR-only fields.
Weather reports are not often wrong by a mile. If you take off aiming for a VFR-only destination, you'll normally be aware before departure of the risk of being forced to divert - and yet you willingly depart. It seems to me that you pay under those circumstances.
On the other hand, you depart under CAVOK skies with CAVOK forecast everywhere, and suddenly find yourself in thick cloud down to 600 feet, perhaps there is some justification. I reckon that really happens once in a blue moon.
Ultimately, this scheme is great news, something for nothing in Aviation doesn't come about very often. Once you think beyond that though, how often *should* it really be necessary for an airport to foot the bill?
2D
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest does anyone have any evidence.. firm or anecdotal of people taking the p1ss and claiming free landings?
If you read the AOPA magazine you can conclude for yourself that the answer has to be yes.
But that should not detract from the basics of the scheme, which are good.
a commuter who hasn't bought a train ticket for five years
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sussex
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proud?
In terms of the issue of free landings.. it has to be taken in spirit. My forecast from Blackbushe to Shoreham indicated that cloud along the route was and would get no worse than BKN018 at Farnborough, Gatwick or Shoreham. In effect the cloud was down to about 600ft ahead of us although it was clear at LGW, a return to blackbushe seemed more prudent than trying to negotiate a transit that would pretty much take me down the 08r extended centreline, into the overhead and then a turn south. I had the fuel to do that, I suspect the Gatwick Director would have kittens at such a request! I knew Blackbushe participated in free landings for diversions I wasn't sure whether Farnborough did or not so I went to the Bushe. Am I a bad man!? lol
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli Monster, why do you think an IFR pilot needs to stay current while (apparently) a VFR pilot doesn't need to?
A VFR pilot has far fewer options than an IFR-capable pilot, and may have to resort to really daft and dangerous things (like scud running) to stay legal.
The cost of landing fees (except at places like Luton) is insignificant compared to the cost of flying with ANY meaningful currency. And one is likely to spend several times the (forgiven) landing fee on the taxi ride to, and the cost of, somewhere to stay overnight. Years ago, when I had to be VFR, I did divert to some place and must have spent £150 messing about on the ground, with taxis, B&B, more taxis.
The Strasser scheme is a good idea but the real problem is that so many PPLs are trying to hang in the sky on minimal expenditure. Otherwise, why would a £10-£20 landing fee feature in cockpit decision making?
A VFR pilot has far fewer options than an IFR-capable pilot, and may have to resort to really daft and dangerous things (like scud running) to stay legal.
The cost of landing fees (except at places like Luton) is insignificant compared to the cost of flying with ANY meaningful currency. And one is likely to spend several times the (forgiven) landing fee on the taxi ride to, and the cost of, somewhere to stay overnight. Years ago, when I had to be VFR, I did divert to some place and must have spent £150 messing about on the ground, with taxis, B&B, more taxis.
The Strasser scheme is a good idea but the real problem is that so many PPLs are trying to hang in the sky on minimal expenditure. Otherwise, why would a £10-£20 landing fee feature in cockpit decision making?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I should clarify ...
When planning the trip in question, I knew that the weather at my intended destination was forecast to almost certainly require an instrument approach, but was looking as though it would be OK in terms of my minima and capabilities. Therefore, I was quite happy to go for it as a primary.
Looking at the forecast, it was obvious that the weather would increasingly improve if you tracked north and west of my primary. There are several airports with IFR facilities within an hour's flying of my primary, with the weather even looked good enough for VFR at the outer range of the hour's flying. Since I would have about 2.5 hours reserve on reaching the primary, I was completely confident that I could achieve either an instrument approach or a visual one at an alternate should I need to.
As it happened the actual at my destination was much worse than forecast, and it clamped in very quickly during my flight. Diversion activated, safely down, no problem.
Now, lest there be accusations of my looking for an unwarranted freebie, let me be clear. If you're the type of person who would choose not to divert when advisable because it might cost you a few quid, I reckon that makes you (a) human, but (b) daft. I chose to fly with a divert as a real possibility : therefore I chose to accept the probability of picking up some charges. Tough, but that's life. In the end, I paid landing fees, bought fuel there, ate in the cafe, hired a car etc. I don't have a problem with any of that.
However, if I'd been told on arrival that there was no need to pay because of some scheme, would I have accepted the generous offer ? Of course I would, and I'd have been grateful, still bought fuel, eaten etc etc, and regarded this as one of those rare occasions in my brief flying career when something good has turned up FOC!
So, in my case I wasn't there because of bad planning, bad luck or bad anything, and I guess I didn't deserve any waiver of fees. BUT : if there is a scheme, and it does encourage people not to take unplanned risks, or offers help to those who get genuinely caught out, then surely this must be a good thing ?
FF
When planning the trip in question, I knew that the weather at my intended destination was forecast to almost certainly require an instrument approach, but was looking as though it would be OK in terms of my minima and capabilities. Therefore, I was quite happy to go for it as a primary.
Looking at the forecast, it was obvious that the weather would increasingly improve if you tracked north and west of my primary. There are several airports with IFR facilities within an hour's flying of my primary, with the weather even looked good enough for VFR at the outer range of the hour's flying. Since I would have about 2.5 hours reserve on reaching the primary, I was completely confident that I could achieve either an instrument approach or a visual one at an alternate should I need to.
As it happened the actual at my destination was much worse than forecast, and it clamped in very quickly during my flight. Diversion activated, safely down, no problem.
Now, lest there be accusations of my looking for an unwarranted freebie, let me be clear. If you're the type of person who would choose not to divert when advisable because it might cost you a few quid, I reckon that makes you (a) human, but (b) daft. I chose to fly with a divert as a real possibility : therefore I chose to accept the probability of picking up some charges. Tough, but that's life. In the end, I paid landing fees, bought fuel there, ate in the cafe, hired a car etc. I don't have a problem with any of that.
However, if I'd been told on arrival that there was no need to pay because of some scheme, would I have accepted the generous offer ? Of course I would, and I'd have been grateful, still bought fuel, eaten etc etc, and regarded this as one of those rare occasions in my brief flying career when something good has turned up FOC!
So, in my case I wasn't there because of bad planning, bad luck or bad anything, and I guess I didn't deserve any waiver of fees. BUT : if there is a scheme, and it does encourage people not to take unplanned risks, or offers help to those who get genuinely caught out, then surely this must be a good thing ?
FF
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shirley, everyone who flies in the expectation that they have to do an IAP at the destination end would expect to have a landing fee if they had to divert.
MikeJeff, travelling by not paying out yourself but being subsidised by your fellow, paying, commuters and the treasury is just dishonest, and in essence no different to nicking old ladiez's handbags.
MikeJeff, travelling by not paying out yourself but being subsidised by your fellow, paying, commuters and the treasury is just dishonest, and in essence no different to nicking old ladiez's handbags.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
topcat450 states:
Very presumptuous of you; and I disagree 
You may need things spelling-out for you in Whirly-speak, but many others here are capable of reading threads and reaching our own conclusions.
Whirly has spelled it out for us all.
You may need things spelling-out for you in Whirly-speak, but many others here are capable of reading threads and reaching our own conclusions.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sussex
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeJeff, travelling by not paying out yourself but being subsidised by your fellow, paying, commuters and the treasury is just dishonest, and in essence no different to nicking old ladiez's handbags.
I'm not trying to justify myself, I'm not saying it's right, but I'm comfortable doing it, I even got a date with a ticket inspector out of it!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If people didn't wag the fare, do you think the rest of you would benefit from a reduction in fares?
The biggest problem I have with people that do dishonest things is that they are, humm how do I put this carefully, dishonest.
But no doubt you will now assure me that you would not display this trait when it comes to pushing the envelope in flying. So that I can safely fly the aeroplane after you have just nibbled the G limits or landed that bit harder.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sussex
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest FD.. I've never completed a landing good enough to allow the aircraft to be reused anyway!!
And all men are honest.. come on who has said "but I really DO love you" as he undoes his belt!
And all men are honest.. come on who has said "but I really DO love you" as he undoes his belt!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest does anyone have any evidence.. firm or anecdotal of people taking the p1ss and claiming free landings?
How about "I was intending to fly to x (some distance away). The further I got toward my destination the lower the cloud became so I went above it." (he has an IMC)
"I eventually decided I wouldn't be able to break cloud at my destination, did a 180 and flew back past the cloud front into clear VMC. Half an hour later I landed back at base and asked for a free landing because it was a weather diversion."
Funnily enough he didn't get it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli Monster, why do you think an IFR pilot needs to stay current while (apparently) a VFR pilot doesn't need to?
A VFR pilot has far fewer options than an IFR-capable pilot, and may have to resort to really daft and dangerous things (like scud running) to stay legal.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you file a flight plan, you are required to nominate a diversion airfield on that flight plan.
If you dont file a flight plan, but decide to fly to airfield A, good airmanship and common sense says that if you cant land there for any reason other than a "real" emergency, then you'll plan to divert to airfield B.
Any thought of landing fees should be the last thing on your mind, whatever the circumstances.
If you dont file a flight plan, but decide to fly to airfield A, good airmanship and common sense says that if you cant land there for any reason other than a "real" emergency, then you'll plan to divert to airfield B.
Any thought of landing fees should be the last thing on your mind, whatever the circumstances.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little curious how this scheme might be abused?
I've had to divert due to weather a couple of times. On all but one occassion, I didn't uplift any fuel (I already had plenty), didn't leave the airfield, but simply took off again en-route to my planned destination once the weather lifted. There is no conceivable reason why I would have planned to do that. On the one occassion when I did not make it to my planned destination I spent the next three days on trains and on the phone, backwards and forwards, waiting until the weather lifted enough to get the aeroplane home again - again, not the actions of someone who planned to land at an airfield.
On the other hand, when I'm planning on going to an airfield, I tend to either have a cup of tea and maybe a burger and then leave, or else park the aircraft up while I head off of the airport to go about whatever business it is that I've flown into the airport for.
Surely any airfield operator can tell the difference between the two? If someone "diverts" into an airfield in marginal VFR weather and then heads off to a business meeting, only to depart IFR later that day once the meeting is finished, it's got to be pretty hard to convince the airfield operator that this is a genuine diversion?????
FFF
---------------
I've had to divert due to weather a couple of times. On all but one occassion, I didn't uplift any fuel (I already had plenty), didn't leave the airfield, but simply took off again en-route to my planned destination once the weather lifted. There is no conceivable reason why I would have planned to do that. On the one occassion when I did not make it to my planned destination I spent the next three days on trains and on the phone, backwards and forwards, waiting until the weather lifted enough to get the aeroplane home again - again, not the actions of someone who planned to land at an airfield.
On the other hand, when I'm planning on going to an airfield, I tend to either have a cup of tea and maybe a burger and then leave, or else park the aircraft up while I head off of the airport to go about whatever business it is that I've flown into the airport for.
Surely any airfield operator can tell the difference between the two? If someone "diverts" into an airfield in marginal VFR weather and then heads off to a business meeting, only to depart IFR later that day once the meeting is finished, it's got to be pretty hard to convince the airfield operator that this is a genuine diversion?????
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA recomendation quoted above says;
It is recommended that all aerodrome owners be persuaded to adopt a policy that there should be no charges for emergency landings or diversions by General Aviation aircraft
Does one read that as;
emergency landings (one item) or diversions (second item) i.e. the first one is an emergency the second is not; or
emergency landings or diversions i.e. landings or diversions which are emergencies?
Do airfields require a report from the pilot when providing free use of their facilities?
Regards,
DFC
It is recommended that all aerodrome owners be persuaded to adopt a policy that there should be no charges for emergency landings or diversions by General Aviation aircraft
Does one read that as;
emergency landings (one item) or diversions (second item) i.e. the first one is an emergency the second is not; or
emergency landings or diversions i.e. landings or diversions which are emergencies?
Do airfields require a report from the pilot when providing free use of their facilities?
Regards,
DFC