Diversion charges ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversion charges ?
Yesterday, I had occasion to divert from my original planned destination, due to the cloudbase having become welded to the runway.
Diverted with no drama down the ILS into Teeside (aka Durham Valley, I think), obtained permission to leave the plane overnight, and got my self home by hire car.
Going back today to retrieve the plane : I wonder if I'll get charged for landing and parking ?
Wasn't there some scheme where they scrap charges for genuine diverts ?
FF
Diverted with no drama down the ILS into Teeside (aka Durham Valley, I think), obtained permission to leave the plane overnight, and got my self home by hire car.
Going back today to retrieve the plane : I wonder if I'll get charged for landing and parking ?
Wasn't there some scheme where they scrap charges for genuine diverts ?
FF
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to my 2004 Flight Guide, which is all I have to hand, Teeside is listed as an Alternative AD.
So I would have thought that if you'd made it clear at the time that it was a weather-dependant divert, than you shouldn't be charged for landing.
Can't comment about the parking fees though.
So I would have thought that if you'd made it clear at the time that it was a weather-dependant divert, than you shouldn't be charged for landing.
Can't comment about the parking fees though.
Having made a few diversions (mostly weather, on one occasion fuel) over the last few years - albeit not to Teeside, I've always offered to pay the landing fee, and it's never been accepted.
I believe that one or two places still charge, but very few.
G
I believe that one or two places still charge, but very few.
G
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The great free landings for emergency and weather diversions scheme.
If I were running an aerodrome I would like to know a couple of things before handing out a freebie such as:
Was your original destination the sort of place where only VFR approaches are suitable e.g. no navaids or published procedures?
Was the weather forecast to be dubious but you took the chance it would improve?
If I were running an aerodrome I would like to know a couple of things before handing out a freebie such as:
Was your original destination the sort of place where only VFR approaches are suitable e.g. no navaids or published procedures?
Was the weather forecast to be dubious but you took the chance it would improve?
And if people start asking questions like that, pilots will become more reluctant again to take timely safety diversions.
Make money out of them by selling them fuel and food- even overnight parking - but since pilots get very worked up about landing fees, not that.
Anyhow, it's rarely possible to plan any flight of much over 100 miles in the UK in the absolute certainty you won't need to divert!
G
Make money out of them by selling them fuel and food- even overnight parking - but since pilots get very worked up about landing fees, not that.
Anyhow, it's rarely possible to plan any flight of much over 100 miles in the UK in the absolute certainty you won't need to divert!
G
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there is an airport in the country that charges more for a landing fee than I value my kneck
Maybe this 'scheme' tempts people to launch in weather outside their ability safe in the knowledge it will not cost them anything to land if they become unhappy.
...and NO I am not suggesting that the originator of this thread was like that. They sound like someone fully capable of flying in inclement weather and completing and instrument approach.
Maybe this 'scheme' tempts people to launch in weather outside their ability safe in the knowledge it will not cost them anything to land if they become unhappy.
...and NO I am not suggesting that the originator of this thread was like that. They sound like someone fully capable of flying in inclement weather and completing and instrument approach.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if people start asking questions like that, pilots will become more reluctant again to take timely safety diversions.
2D
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the stated reason, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has any real basis in fact.
I wonder how many wannabe-free "weather diversions" are down to poor flight planning - or people chancing their arm aiming for a VFR-only field with marginal weather.
I'm not sure that either case should necessarily be rewarded with a free landing.
2D
I wonder how many wannabe-free "weather diversions" are down to poor flight planning - or people chancing their arm aiming for a VFR-only field with marginal weather.
I'm not sure that either case should necessarily be rewarded with a free landing.
2D
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scheme originated as a result of the CAA's Review of General Aviation Fatal Accidents 1985-94
The cause was taken up by Charles Strasser of AOPA. Details and a list of participating aerodromes can be found here.
A good example of AOPA working for the good of all pilots, whether members or not. (If the cap fits, feel guilty and join up
)
Personally I agree with 2D's point of view. If you are mad enough to let the possible costs of an unscheduled landing affect your decision then you fail to demonstrate the competence to be in command of the aircraft in the first place.
PS
On the one occaison when I have had to make an emergency diversion Compton Abbas flatly refused to accept the money I was offering.
(c) There were a number of fatal accidents where a timely diversion or
precautionary landing could have avoided the accident. In the UK (and probably elsewhere) there is a ‘culture’ of pressing on and hoping for the best rather than accepting the inconvenience and cost of a diversion. This ‘culture’ needs to be changed, firstly by educating pilots and secondly by persuading aerodrome owners that there should be no charge for emergency landings or diversions. (There are some aerodromes that do not make a harge for an emergency landing.)
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.
precautionary landing could have avoided the accident. In the UK (and probably elsewhere) there is a ‘culture’ of pressing on and hoping for the best rather than accepting the inconvenience and cost of a diversion. This ‘culture’ needs to be changed, firstly by educating pilots and secondly by persuading aerodrome owners that there should be no charge for emergency landings or diversions. (There are some aerodromes that do not make a harge for an emergency landing.)
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.
A good example of AOPA working for the good of all pilots, whether members or not. (If the cap fits, feel guilty and join up
)Personally I agree with 2D's point of view. If you are mad enough to let the possible costs of an unscheduled landing affect your decision then you fail to demonstrate the competence to be in command of the aircraft in the first place.
PS
On the one occaison when I have had to make an emergency diversion Compton Abbas flatly refused to accept the money I was offering.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.....I'm looking at the forecast for tomorrow for Flying For Fun. It looks OK, but there's a warm front approaching from the west. At the moment it looks as though it'll only affect the west of the UK by the afternoon, but everyone knows that rate of movement of fronts is notoriously hard to predict. So, if I go, I'll be leaving Sleap early in the morning for Kemble, and hoping to return late afternoon. I'll make the decision in the morning, and make the decision for my return flight later in the day. I hope I'll get it right, but it'll be hard to be certain. But if I don't, there are plenty of diversion airfields on the way...Gloucester, Shobdon, Welshpool. If there weren't, I'd be far more concerned. I don't actually care if landing there is free or not - but I might...think about it, I suppose. But noting that there are diversion airfields is a necessary part of my flight planning, in such cases. Or so it would seem to me.
Is that poor flight planning, or chancing it in marginal weather? Or just the sort of normal decision one has to make when flying in the UK? 2Donkeys?
Is that poor flight planning, or chancing it in marginal weather? Or just the sort of normal decision one has to make when flying in the UK? 2Donkeys?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No point in commenting on tomorrow's weather. I don't want to jinx it.
I'm not entirely sure of the point that you are making WB. You are right that as a diversion for Kemble, there are plenty of good places to consider - Gloucester with its instrument approaches for example.
My point is... if by some misfortune tomorrow you take off and encounter poor weather, which forces you to exercise that pre-planned diversion, would you expect the Gloucester landing to be free? I wouldn't, and I'd like to think that the thought of a Gloucester (or wherever) landing fee wouldn't make the difference between my choice to divert, and my choice to push on. Some might disagree and try to push Gloucester for the AOPA deal. I reckon that's bad form.
In the more clear-cut case where you elect to take-off to a VFR destination that is already below VFR minima or 90% likely to go below, if you end up somewhere else on a divert, trying to get your landing fee waived is totally unjustifiable IMHO. As a mechanism it rewards poor or absent flight planning.
2D
I'm not entirely sure of the point that you are making WB. You are right that as a diversion for Kemble, there are plenty of good places to consider - Gloucester with its instrument approaches for example.
My point is... if by some misfortune tomorrow you take off and encounter poor weather, which forces you to exercise that pre-planned diversion, would you expect the Gloucester landing to be free? I wouldn't, and I'd like to think that the thought of a Gloucester (or wherever) landing fee wouldn't make the difference between my choice to divert, and my choice to push on. Some might disagree and try to push Gloucester for the AOPA deal. I reckon that's bad form.
In the more clear-cut case where you elect to take-off to a VFR destination that is already below VFR minima or 90% likely to go below, if you end up somewhere else on a divert, trying to get your landing fee waived is totally unjustifiable IMHO. As a mechanism it rewards poor or absent flight planning.
2D
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: southeast UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that poor flight planning, or chancing it in marginal weather? Or just the sort of normal decision one has to make when flying in the UK?
Which alternate would I use....the nearest one probably if there are no other factors. Don't think I would burn the extra fuel finding the one thats free.
I have nothing against the scheme and support its endeavours but its not a panacea to bad pre-flight planning and airmanship.
Anyone know if the figures for non-diverting accidents have gone down? Continued flight into poor weather still features in accidents, but thats human nature...isn't it?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,589
Received 446 Likes
on
236 Posts
Why are folk complaining and criticising? It's very seldom that something is offered for free, especially in aviation.
If an inexperienced pilot ends up safe and well at a larger airfield, rather than stuck nose first in a farmer's field, because he chose to call ATC and get help, it's no doubt a very welcome bonus for him not to be landed with large expense after he has scared himself shirtless. Negotiated for him courtesy of the CAA, no less!
If an inexperienced pilot ends up safe and well at a larger airfield, rather than stuck nose first in a farmer's field, because he chose to call ATC and get help, it's no doubt a very welcome bonus for him not to be landed with large expense after he has scared himself shirtless. Negotiated for him courtesy of the CAA, no less!
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, and I thought my point was obvious. 
The point I was making is that diversion airfields are a part of flight planning. I was objecting to what appeared to be the suggestion that having to divert from a VFR only airfield meant your flight planning was poor. My example of tomorrow's wx was to show that however careful you care, you can't be sure the wx won't be marginal, or worse, unless you never take off unless it's CAVOK and set to stay that way.
Should the landings be free? Well, I suppose I might think twice about diverting if the wx wasn't all that bad, and if I knew my diversion airfield had a £50 landing fee. I shouldn't, but it might just enter into the no/no go decision. I don't think it would, for me (before anyone flames me!) But I can see that it might for some. Things aren't always that clear-cut and obvious, are they?
So for the sake of those few people who might be swayed by it, why not have free weather diversions? If it saves a life, even that of a poor decision-maker with Scrooge-like tendencies, it sounds OK to me.
The point I was making is that diversion airfields are a part of flight planning. I was objecting to what appeared to be the suggestion that having to divert from a VFR only airfield meant your flight planning was poor. My example of tomorrow's wx was to show that however careful you care, you can't be sure the wx won't be marginal, or worse, unless you never take off unless it's CAVOK and set to stay that way.
Should the landings be free? Well, I suppose I might think twice about diverting if the wx wasn't all that bad, and if I knew my diversion airfield had a £50 landing fee. I shouldn't, but it might just enter into the no/no go decision. I don't think it would, for me (before anyone flames me!) But I can see that it might for some. Things aren't always that clear-cut and obvious, are they?
So for the sake of those few people who might be swayed by it, why not have free weather diversions? If it saves a life, even that of a poor decision-maker with Scrooge-like tendencies, it sounds OK to me.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know better than to contradict you. If I do, poor old bpilatus will be forced to start abusing me in fantasy-Greek again. 
I love the idea that people will give me something for free when I go flying. The flipside is that such a scheme is open to deliberate abuse by some, and to inadvertant abuse by those who simply don't bother doing any pre-flight planning.
Nobody is arguing about the idea of an alternate. Why diverting to your planned alternate should be something that you need to be incentivised to do, is less clear. If your (one's) decision making is sufficiently bad that it needs that prompt, perhaps flying is not for you?
2D
I love the idea that people will give me something for free when I go flying. The flipside is that such a scheme is open to deliberate abuse by some, and to inadvertant abuse by those who simply don't bother doing any pre-flight planning.
Nobody is arguing about the idea of an alternate. Why diverting to your planned alternate should be something that you need to be incentivised to do, is less clear. If your (one's) decision making is sufficiently bad that it needs that prompt, perhaps flying is not for you?
2D
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
I can't for the life of me see why people are objecting to the scheme. Sure it's open to abuse but so are many things. Generally, most people as far as I can tell use it in the spirit it was intended. If airfields were being inundated with dubious diversions then I'm sure they'd be making it know to the powers that be.
The decision to divert will take into account many issues, by offering free landing fees for diversions it will hopefully remove one financial consideration.
We can all bleat on about how 'we' would always divert rather than risk skud running home in marginal conditions, however there are people out there who will press on if they think it'll save them a £30 or £X landing fee. If it helps them make the sensible choice and prevents an accident then I would hope I'm not alone in wishing the scheme continues for many years to come.
The decision to divert will take into account many issues, by offering free landing fees for diversions it will hopefully remove one financial consideration.
We can all bleat on about how 'we' would always divert rather than risk skud running home in marginal conditions, however there are people out there who will press on if they think it'll save them a £30 or £X landing fee. If it helps them make the sensible choice and prevents an accident then I would hope I'm not alone in wishing the scheme continues for many years to come.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always tried to understand the thinking behind removing landing fees for weather diversions. In all honesty I think it was a solution to a problem that was deeper rooted.
If you're a VFR flyer you fly in VMC. You plan to stay in VMC, you plan options in case it looks marginal but legal. If you doubt you can finish the flight in VMC, or, if your planning (excuse the use of what is a swear word to some please) suggests you won't be able to achieve it, then you don't go. It's a simple decision - you're not doing it for anything other than pleasure (supposedly) after all.
If you're an IFR/IMC flier then you should, by definition, be staying current. If you can afford to stay current you can afford to divert. If your consideration to divert is based on financial concerns then quit flying and take up bridge or something else similar.
Learn to plan properly or bite the bullet - why should you be entitled to a freebie if you've screwed up.
If you're a VFR flyer you fly in VMC. You plan to stay in VMC, you plan options in case it looks marginal but legal. If you doubt you can finish the flight in VMC, or, if your planning (excuse the use of what is a swear word to some please) suggests you won't be able to achieve it, then you don't go. It's a simple decision - you're not doing it for anything other than pleasure (supposedly) after all.
If you're an IFR/IMC flier then you should, by definition, be staying current. If you can afford to stay current you can afford to divert. If your consideration to divert is based on financial concerns then quit flying and take up bridge or something else similar.
Learn to plan properly or bite the bullet - why should you be entitled to a freebie if you've screwed up.
Surely a simple solution is:-
(1) Airfields should (as largely at present) waive landing fees for genuine safety diversion.
(2) Pilots should (out of courtesy) always offer to pay a landing fee anyhow.
(3) Pilots should politely accept the decision of the airfield, and if (as I'm sure will usually happen) they don't want a landing fee, buy themselves some fuel or lunch.
Everybody's happy !
G
(1) Airfields should (as largely at present) waive landing fees for genuine safety diversion.
(2) Pilots should (out of courtesy) always offer to pay a landing fee anyhow.
(3) Pilots should politely accept the decision of the airfield, and if (as I'm sure will usually happen) they don't want a landing fee, buy themselves some fuel or lunch.
Everybody's happy !
G