Lydd Refuse to Honour Wx Diversions
Lets leave it now, before I remove the thread!
The criticism of Lydd is only justified if the circumstances surrounding a diversion fall within the intent and spirit of the scheme.
What concerns me is that if Airport Operators perceive an increasing number of pilots trying to claim a 'freebie' on grounds of convenience, rather than safety, they may feel justifiably compelled to withdraw from the scheme.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dublinpilot,
To me, a "precautionary diversion landing" is something you may do if the weather at your diversion isn't good enough. That seems obvious. Your planned destination is socked in with fog or similar, perhaps. What are you going to do? You can't go there. You could return to base, but maybe the weather will improve later, maybe you don't have enough fuel, maybe you're becoming dangerously fatigued! So you divert to the nearest airfield with suitable conditions, and land, as a precaution. If that isn't a "precautionary diversion landing", I'd like to know what it is.
I'm not commenting on whether pilots do or don't abuse the scheme; it's irrelevant to the thread.
UV, my apologies for continuing this. I think you're right, but maybe there are some words and definitions here that need clarifying. If so, further disuccion might possibly be useful. But feel free to delete the thread if you want. And spekesoftly, I get the impression that UV wants to delete the thread due to the numerous digressions and misunderstandings of his/her original point, not because of differing opinions. Which seems hardly surprising to me!
To me, a "precautionary diversion landing" is something you may do if the weather at your diversion isn't good enough. That seems obvious. Your planned destination is socked in with fog or similar, perhaps. What are you going to do? You can't go there. You could return to base, but maybe the weather will improve later, maybe you don't have enough fuel, maybe you're becoming dangerously fatigued! So you divert to the nearest airfield with suitable conditions, and land, as a precaution. If that isn't a "precautionary diversion landing", I'd like to know what it is.
I'm not commenting on whether pilots do or don't abuse the scheme; it's irrelevant to the thread.
UV, my apologies for continuing this. I think you're right, but maybe there are some words and definitions here that need clarifying. If so, further disuccion might possibly be useful. But feel free to delete the thread if you want. And spekesoftly, I get the impression that UV wants to delete the thread due to the numerous digressions and misunderstandings of his/her original point, not because of differing opinions. Which seems hardly surprising to me!
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
UK TAFS & METARS are generated by the Met Offices computers down in Exeter, not by the airport making a report.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad you corrected that vinatge, I was just about to. Although I'm sure the Met office would like to do all the obs from Exeter!!
I must admit to being a little be-mused by this thread (I don't think I'm the only one)- and it is definitely running the risk of repeating the one that ran a few weeks ago.
We here are in the scheme, and have had several people benefit from it; and they were genuine wx diversions within the spirit of the AOPA scheme (as I interpret it)- aircraft that were really running out of options having been caught out and were very glad to be down.
However, if what described above happend here, I don't think I would have any sympathy for the pilots; and scheme or not it is MY OPINION that these div's were not in the "spirit" of the scheme. And if this is what the scheme is intended for then I shall certainly recommend that we as an airport withdraw from it (publically at least) and offer free landings on an ad hoc basis for "genuine" cases only. And I don't think that is what anybody really wants.
I must admit to being a little be-mused by this thread (I don't think I'm the only one)- and it is definitely running the risk of repeating the one that ran a few weeks ago.
We here are in the scheme, and have had several people benefit from it; and they were genuine wx diversions within the spirit of the AOPA scheme (as I interpret it)- aircraft that were really running out of options having been caught out and were very glad to be down.
However, if what described above happend here, I don't think I would have any sympathy for the pilots; and scheme or not it is MY OPINION that these div's were not in the "spirit" of the scheme. And if this is what the scheme is intended for then I shall certainly recommend that we as an airport withdraw from it (publically at least) and offer free landings on an ad hoc basis for "genuine" cases only. And I don't think that is what anybody really wants.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, a "precautionary diversion landing" is something you may do if the weather at your diversion isn't good enough. That seems obvious. Your planned destination is socked in with fog or similar, perhaps. What are you going to do? You can't go there.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I be Devil's advocate as well?
What if, during the planning of this trip to LFAT, someone came up with a brilliant idea that "if the weather doesn't improve we could all meet at Lydd for coffee rather than return to our separate bases - it'll be free as it's a weather diversion"
What if, during the planning of this trip to LFAT, someone came up with a brilliant idea that "if the weather doesn't improve we could all meet at Lydd for coffee rather than return to our separate bases - it'll be free as it's a weather diversion"
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that it is time that the whole scheme was revised.
The idea is sound - pilots should not feel pressurised to press on past a safe landing site.
However, as most people agree the operationof the system is open to abuse.
I believe that if the flight is in a situation that requires the scheme the be used then an incident report should be made to the CAA. Such a report would highlight many of the points made here i.e. the lack of ATS or suitable pre-flight information and then the CAA could perhaps act on such information.
Always amazed me how few pilots wanted to put their name to an incident report once the initial bluster died down!
An alternative would be for everywhere to charge a flat rate for such diversions - say £25...........less than 15 minutes flying time for many these days.
That would require everyone to have atleast £25 with them on every flight.
Some places charge less than that for a normal landng fee that is true..........but isn't the whole idea that one does not pass that big expensive airport because of the high cost involved?
Would one of the reasons why 15+ flights diverted back to the UK be that if they diverted to any French airfield they would have had to pay for the landing?
Regards,
DFC
The idea is sound - pilots should not feel pressurised to press on past a safe landing site.
However, as most people agree the operationof the system is open to abuse.
I believe that if the flight is in a situation that requires the scheme the be used then an incident report should be made to the CAA. Such a report would highlight many of the points made here i.e. the lack of ATS or suitable pre-flight information and then the CAA could perhaps act on such information.
Always amazed me how few pilots wanted to put their name to an incident report once the initial bluster died down!
An alternative would be for everywhere to charge a flat rate for such diversions - say £25...........less than 15 minutes flying time for many these days.
That would require everyone to have atleast £25 with them on every flight.
Some places charge less than that for a normal landng fee that is true..........but isn't the whole idea that one does not pass that big expensive airport because of the high cost involved?
Would one of the reasons why 15+ flights diverted back to the UK be that if they diverted to any French airfield they would have had to pay for the landing?
Regards,
DFC
I'd certainly not support that.
Like many GA pilots I set off on a long X-country prepared to be totally unsurprised by a requirement to make a weather diversion - this is Britain after all, the country with about the least predictable met on the planet. If I have diverted, always offer a landing fee, and if asked, pay it without question (that said, very rarely is it accepted).
But given I'm used to paying around £10, I'd be a bit irritated at being asked for £25.
"Well John, I would divert into ****, but they'll only charge me an excess charge, I'll push on into the murk - I'm sure we'll get there".
G
Like many GA pilots I set off on a long X-country prepared to be totally unsurprised by a requirement to make a weather diversion - this is Britain after all, the country with about the least predictable met on the planet. If I have diverted, always offer a landing fee, and if asked, pay it without question (that said, very rarely is it accepted).
But given I'm used to paying around £10, I'd be a bit irritated at being asked for £25.
"Well John, I would divert into ****, but they'll only charge me an excess charge, I'll push on into the murk - I'm sure we'll get there".
G
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, as Devils advocate ... where was the posters diversion alternate ?? And was it socked in ?? If his alternate was actually Lydd, then it was not a precautionary landing, it was Plan B all along.
So is a "precautionary diversion landing" one that was never considered? Suppose I set off from Sleap to the PFA Rally at Kemble, as I did last year, when showers are forecast. I said to myself, well, if necessary I can divert into Shobdon, or Gloucester, if the weather's worse than predicted? So does a diversion to either of those then become Plan B, not a precautionary diversion? But if I say, oh, the weather looks OK, it's only showers; and then it's worse than expected, and I think, Omigod, I don't think I can cope, I'd better divert, oh yes, there's Gloucester over there....does that then become a precautionary diversion? That makes no sense whatsoever!It's beginning to sound as though we need a some definitions here. And I'm beginning to understand, at last, why aviation generates so much paperwork.
Filed IFR to Redhill a couple of months ago, with alternates at Biggin and Southend. The weather was horrible at Redhill and Biggin and diverted onto the ILS at Southend. They did not charge the landing fee, which was handy and as far as I can see is in the spirit of the scheme. Lets face it, how often has the TAFs etc turned out totally different from what actually has happened. Over the last 6 months, it feels almost daily!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
Of course, the actual fee would have to be considered fully and perhaps there would be separate fixed fees for say microlight and permit to fly aircraft (who can't fly IFR ever or divert over large built up areas), something higher for certified singles and another for twins (who after all are generally IFR capable and get charged more normally).
The overall idea however would be that joe pilot will not press on past uvw big airfield or xyz normally expensive airfield in poor weather because no matter where they divert to the cost will be the same.
Another alternative would be for AOPA/ BMAA/ PFA/ BGA to record the total number of "weather diversions" for a year and then when an overall cost was available change the scheme to the fact that AOPA members who pay say £15 "diversion insurance" per year could claim back such landing fees from AOPA.
How many glider pilots who unexpectidely run out of lift away from home and land at another airfield ask for a free landing fee?
Regards,
DFC
Of course, the actual fee would have to be considered fully and perhaps there would be separate fixed fees for say microlight and permit to fly aircraft (who can't fly IFR ever or divert over large built up areas), something higher for certified singles and another for twins (who after all are generally IFR capable and get charged more normally).
The overall idea however would be that joe pilot will not press on past uvw big airfield or xyz normally expensive airfield in poor weather because no matter where they divert to the cost will be the same.
Another alternative would be for AOPA/ BMAA/ PFA/ BGA to record the total number of "weather diversions" for a year and then when an overall cost was available change the scheme to the fact that AOPA members who pay say £15 "diversion insurance" per year could claim back such landing fees from AOPA.
How many glider pilots who unexpectidely run out of lift away from home and land at another airfield ask for a free landing fee?
Regards,
DFC
How many glider pilots who unexpectidely run out of lift away from home and land at another airfield ask for a free landing fee?
G
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
and I don't think that we've yet seen a landing fee for the Lasham retrieval tug's fortnightly visit
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scubawasp
You have, I think, hit the nail on the head. When the TAF proves totally wrong and a diversion is needed, then most airfields are glad to have you safely on the ground.
When you didn't get a TAF or the weather did not improve as hoped for then its only right to pay the landing fee and accept the hospitality as though you had intended to be there, just like those standing around you.
Definition of a weather diversion (IMHO):
Unable to make destination and unable to return home, both due to unexpected change in weather.
Lack of hoped for change in weather should not count. Or should be a fine of double the landing fee for being too optimistic
You have, I think, hit the nail on the head. When the TAF proves totally wrong and a diversion is needed, then most airfields are glad to have you safely on the ground.
When you didn't get a TAF or the weather did not improve as hoped for then its only right to pay the landing fee and accept the hospitality as though you had intended to be there, just like those standing around you.
Definition of a weather diversion (IMHO):
Unable to make destination and unable to return home, both due to unexpected change in weather.
Lack of hoped for change in weather should not count. Or should be a fine of double the landing fee for being too optimistic
BRL
Shame on you! I thought I started this..!How and why has Danny appeared at the top? ..mmm?
I say again, my argument is with an Airport Authority who informed me that they do not partake in the scheme, when they have clearly signed up for it.
Whilybird is right, lets stick to the point, not hypothetical or irrelevant scenarios.
I AM NOT LOOKING FOR FREEBIES, ABUSE OF THE SCHEME, OR ANYTHING ELSE, AS I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES.
UV
Shame on you! I thought I started this..!How and why has Danny appeared at the top? ..mmm?
I say again, my argument is with an Airport Authority who informed me that they do not partake in the scheme, when they have clearly signed up for it.
Whilybird is right, lets stick to the point, not hypothetical or irrelevant scenarios.
I AM NOT LOOKING FOR FREEBIES, ABUSE OF THE SCHEME, OR ANYTHING ELSE, AS I HAVE SAID NUMEROUS TIMES.
UV
Last edited by UV; 20th Jul 2005 at 00:05.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 427 Likes
on
226 Posts
Oh Dear! I can forsee far fewer weather diversions after this.
But quite possibly a few more "rough running engines".
But quite possibly a few more "rough running engines".
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
quite possibly a few more "rough running engines"
I thought every pilot starting worrying that his engine was running rough as soon as he got over water ...
... unless, of course, he was wearing the right landing gear
I thought every pilot starting worrying that his engine was running rough as soon as he got over water ...
... unless, of course, he was wearing the right landing gear
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UV, what time were you flying to L2k on Saturday? The reason that I ask is that I flew there from Biggin. Passed over Lydd at midday and landed LFAT at 12.35 BST. I was at 3500 over Lydd and could have climbed over the sea. Once over the french coast, it couldn't have been more different! I was down to 1000 in hazy conditions with pretty thick cloudbase ontop, viz was probably 5km. Arrived to find 3 on downwind, ended up flying away from the airfield and orbitting for a while. Things got pretty interesting with the weather and traffic and I was certainly making plenty of decisions. Had I heard of the 15 aircraft diverting to Lydd, as a fairly fair-weather VFR pilot, I wonder if my decision making would have turned out differently....
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlybird is right, lets stick to the point, not hypothetical or irrelevant scenarios.