Lydd Refuse to Honour Wx Diversions

[Pierre Argh]

UV

Regarding your comment above about not getting European weather observations... can i suggest the following site?

http://weather.noaa.gov/

Enter the name (or Icao locator) and you'll get a TAF back lickety-split... no excuse

[tmmorris]

I have some sympathy for Lydd here, as they probably end up on the receiving end of a lot of this sort of thing because of their location. I've only done one genuine wx diversion, with an instructor, pre-PPL, when we went Welshpool - Gloucester - Welshpool and on the way back the cloudbase was lower than forecast and not far from the tops of the Welsh hills. We went into Shobdon fully expecting to pay a landing fee, and in fact they said 'Don't be silly, that was a wx diversion, it's free' so we spent the money in the cafe instead while we re-planned to go home the long way. In the end the cloudbase improved and we went on our way very happy.

But Shobdon isn't on the way to France...

Tim

[Monocock]

UV

Can I ask where your departure airfield was?

Did you really not have enough fuel to get back there?

I must say I'm thoroughly confused about this thread. If I set off for an airfield and I can't make it I return home. If I can't return home because things have gone very pear shaped behind me I will consider myself in a situation where I need to get on the ground ASAP for safety reasons.

Landing at Lydd just beacuse a cross channel trip was not possible (when the UK is widely CAVOK) is not a diversion situation. Lydd must not be hed to ransom as the "first stop" for a thrown away channel crossing.

If you set out for dinner and the road is closed you don't demand free food at the local pub when you can easily drive home and make a sandwich.

[Mike Cross]

Seems relatively simple to decide

Was your landing a matter of choice or necessity?

[FlyingForFun]

Hmm. I have to admit to having made a couple of weather diversions which, according to the general wisdom on this thread, were not "necessary" and therefore not "weather diversions".

I'm talking about the case where the weather en-route to my destination has been worse than forecast, and I haven't been able to make it there, but where I've had sufficient fuel to be able to turn back. Depending on the reason why I'm trying to get to where I'm trying to get, how much free time I've got, and whether the aircraft is due back or not, I have on a couple of occassions decided not to turn back, but instead to divert into a different en-route airfield and sit it out there until the weather has cleared. In some cases the weather cleared later in the day and I made it to my destination; in other cases it didn't, and I headed home later in the day once I didn't have enough time left to make it to my destination in time for whatever it was that I was going there for. In all cases I haven't had to pay a landing fee, and I'm grateful for that - but it seems, according to many on this thread, that the landing fee shouldn't have been waived?

Incidentally, although the option of turning back was available to me, I certainly do consider what I've just described to be a "weather diversion". I've ended up at an airfield I didn't particuarly want to be at and certainly didn't plan to be at, arrived late at where I was trying to get, and been inconvenienced by the necessity to divert - but not so inconvenienced that I would have risked my life trying to carry on.

FFF
------------

[UV]

Pierre Argh
Thank you for the link. There are no TAFS for Calais or Le Touquet there...unless you can guide me otherwise.

Mike Cross
Thank you..The scheme is presumably to assist inexperienced pilots (not me) and for them I am concerned that it is not respected.

The ultimate decison is for the pilot in command, at the time, and, if he thinks there may be a subsequent discussion/interrogation after landing, then the whole scheme will fall into disrepute.

Bar Shaker..it WAS a weather diversion, I decided to go to Lydd and that's that. The fact that it was CAVOK is why I went there!

Monocok, Sorry mate it WAS, in my opinon, a Wx diversion and again thats it! Yes we had enough fuel to go to Scotland, but thats not the point!

Remember a diversion is NOT an emergency (or to be made into one), as some would appear to think!

UV

[rodan]

The ultimate decison is for the pilot in command, at the time, and, if he thinks there may be a subsequent discussion/interrogation after landing, then the whole scheme will fall into disrepute.

By the same token, if the pilot thinks that there is going to be NO discussion after landing, then the scheme is wide open to abuse.

I have to agree with those who say the fee was justified. You took off knowing your destination wx was poor, you had enough fuel to return home when you decided not to continue, so why do Lydd owe you a free landing fee?

[UV]

rodan
Simple, I decided to divert there.
I repeat, it is not the free landing, it is the principle of the scheme.
15 diverted aeroplanes make the point..no abuse.
UV

[rodan]

Simple, I decided to divert there.
I repeat, it is not the free landing, it is the principle of the scheme.

I think the 'principle' and spirit of the scheme were upheld entirely, from what you have told us. Can I ask what factors made you decide to go to Lydd, instead of returning to North Weald? Did you refuel at Lydd?

The scheme, as I understand it, exists to dissuade pilots from pressing on when it would be unwise or perilous to do so. I just don't see where your situation fits in there.

[Engine overtemp]

Pierre Argh, entering Le Touquet into that website seems to give an actual from the 14th March 2001!

"Latest METAR Observation(s) for: LFAT
LFAT
The most recent METAR observation from LFAT in our system was generated at the source at:

2001/03/14 09:00 UTC

The observation is:

LFAT 140900Z 28009KT 9999 BKN020 09/06 Q1009 NOSIG"

[Kolibear]

Isn't it annoying that TAFS & METARs arn't available for L2K, which has to be one of the most popular foreign destinations.

UK TAFS & METARS are generated by the Met Offices computers down in Exeter, not by the airport making a report.

So if Exeter can make a report for anywhere in the UK, why can't Paris add L2K to their list of reported airfields?

[dublinpilot]

Remember a diversion is NOT an emergency (or to be made into one), as some would appear to think!

UV,

I think that sums up the point nicely.

Your situation was far from being an emergency of any type.

This scheme is of "Emergency landings & precautionary landings". Not simply for weather diversions.

Can you honestly argue that your landing was either an emergency landing or a precautionary landing? If not, then it's clearly outside the scope of this scheme.

dp

[UV]

As I started this topic may I finish it now with some clarification..!

The whole debate about whether the fee was justified is meaningless. As I said earlier I did not object to paying the £8.81.

What I DO object to is an Airfield signing up to the scheme, going on the list, and then informing people who land there that the management do NOT allow it. THATS MY POINT.

As a secondary topic there are NO TAFS for ANY near continental Airfields whatsoever, except Ostende. Thats probably why there were so many diversions that day. Clearly the situation does nothing for Flight Safety in an extremely busy area, of known variable weather, with many inexperienced pilots.

It doesnt help at all with L2K having no phone ATIS, TAF or ATC on their busiest day (Sundays). Clearly a hazard.

Disregard the recommendation to visit the NOAA site too....they have nothing for the area either!

Can we leave it now?!

UV

[HappyTrails]

L2K Weather + Other European Destinations

The following site provides METAR/TAF reports for Lille and Ostend, its obviously in French but very easy to navigate.

On the menu choose METEO then METAR/TAF and then wait for the map to appear or choose the location from the picklist.

It is also a rich source of other info including Notams, Fuel Price,
Photo of the airfeild etc..


http://www.nav2000.com/pf/select_metar.asp?

[2Donkeys]

The Le Touquet ATIS is available by dialing the number published in the French AIP (available free online - no registration is required). The Lille METAR and TAF is not a bad proxy - leaving aside coastal fog.

There isn't really much of an excuse for claiming that near Continental weather is unavailable.

2D

[Whirlybird]

Although I said earlier that I had some sympathy for Lydd - and because of their position, I do - actually UV is right.

As I understand it, the free landing scheme is for weather diversions. Not emergencies, not precautionary landings, but weather diversions. I can't quote chapter and verse, but this is how it's generally understood, and if that's not what it means, then some general clarification to pilots is badly needed.

Now, what is a weather diversion? It's generally understood to be a landing at an airfield other than that originally planned, due to poor weather at your original destination, or en route to it. Are people seriously suggesting that everyone who sets off for France should have enough fuel to return to their home base? Or that even if they do, they ought to return there? Why? When I did my PPL, I learned how to plan a diversion to another airfield, not just how to do a 180 and turn back. And in the case of a cross channel flight, most people put Lydd or Manston as an alternate, and they mean an alternate in case of a weather change, among other things. Rochester even suggested this to me recently, when helping me fill in my flight plan form.

Now, as UV states, the discussion here is not whether free weather diversions are justified. We had a thread on that recently. The point is that since the scheme exists, and Lydd signed up to it, they should honour it. Perhaps, owing to their position, they should not have signed up to it. But they did. And therefore they're breaking their agreement, whether it was one aircraft or 15 or 15,000 which diverted there due to bad weather in France. And that is the case whether those aircraft originally came from North Weald or Inverness, and whether the pilots could or should have got Le Touquet weather in advance.

The point is very simple actually. When a person or an airfield makes an agreement, they should stick to it. Otherwise the agreement is meaningless. Everything else is irrelevant to UV's original point.

[Monocock]

Oh come on everyone.

The fact is that this thread should just disappear before too many people start trying to convince others that black is white.

Let's face it, there isn't a lot of hope for the GA industry if every pilot who lands exclaims that they weren't happy with their destination weather and therefore thinks there should be no charge!!

I think that this has got really silly now and will be the first to suggest that it ends before we all start convincing each other that we are actually all asleep and that we''ll wake up and it will be 1933.

[FlyingForFun]

Monocock,

As I said on the earlier thread, the system is not open to the kind of abuse you are suggesting, because people who have made a genuine weather diversion generally tend to act very differently to people who have landed at the airport they intended landing at (whether they claim it is a weather divert or not). They tend to sit around looking grumpy, continuously staring at weather information which isn't actually changing, not wander off the airfield (unless it becomes apparent that they won't be able to leave by air that night and they have to make alternative arrangements), etc, etc, etc. These are not the same actions as you would make if you were trying to abuse the system, and I'm sure any airfield operator can tell the difference.

FFF
-------------

[dublinpilot]

As I understand it, the free landing scheme is for weather diversions. Not emergencies, not precautionary landings, but weather diversions.

Whirly,

I think your understanding of the scheme is actually incorrect, and so is UV's. Otherwise I doubt he would ever have started this thread.

When I used the words "Emergency or precautionary landings" in my posting above, I chose my words carefully.

Have a look at AOPA's document here.

To quote from the document "[...] the 190 airports who have agreed, to waive charges for emergency and precautionary diversion landings [...]" make it very clear that this scheme is for emergency & precautionary diversion landings. Not simply a diversion because you the weather at your destination isn't good enough.

This is a very good scheme. Lets not abuse it.

dp

[UV]

Gents

Whirlybord has it 100 per cent right about my original post, just look at the title of this thread.

Any commitment to the scheme should be honoured.

Lets leave it now, before I remove the thread!
UV