Lydd Refuse to Honour Wx Diversions
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unable to make destination and unable to return home, both due to unexpected change in weather.
Enough said.
Nobody is disagreeing that Lydd should not have said they no longer accept emergency diversions. What they are saying is that Lydd were perfectly correct to ask for a landing fee in the situation you were in. Please accept that and don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Enough said.
Nobody is disagreeing that Lydd should not have said they no longer accept emergency diversions. What they are saying is that Lydd were perfectly correct to ask for a landing fee in the situation you were in. Please accept that and don't ruin it for the rest of us.
mrjamesgroves
Same time as you.
Cloud 69.
No, I am not trying to ruin it for everyone. Quite the reverse.
What I am trying to ensure (with difficulty) is that those who sign up for it honour the principles/rules of it (whatever they may be!) and DO NOT subsequently say that they are NOT in the scheme, thus removing ALL the safety benefits etc., for EVERYONE, at a stroke.
My circumstances (whatever they may be!) are therefore irrelevant to the arguement.
Get it?!
UV
Same time as you.
Cloud 69.
No, I am not trying to ruin it for everyone. Quite the reverse.
What I am trying to ensure (with difficulty) is that those who sign up for it honour the principles/rules of it (whatever they may be!) and DO NOT subsequently say that they are NOT in the scheme, thus removing ALL the safety benefits etc., for EVERYONE, at a stroke.
My circumstances (whatever they may be!) are therefore irrelevant to the arguement.
Get it?!
UV
Last edited by UV; 20th Jul 2005 at 00:49.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
)The point of the scheme is to help people out who have been boxed in and have no choice, but might think of money instead of safety and press on to cause themselves, or others, harm. Not to help those who have CAVOK over 99% of the airspace in which they are flying but reckon they might get a cheap day out anyway. I still await hearing where the alternates for this flight were (normally when you file a FPL there are 2) and how socked in they were. As UV states, it is not an issue of money, but one of principle. If we have a culture of pilots who don't plan properly (DO NOT assume I mean UV) and expect a free ride, then what hope is there for our industry ... yet alone how safe it will be.
As for the comment on BRL ... nope, it's not shame on him. This is a decent subject, with a decent and rational debate from both sides. The fact PPRuNe recognises it as such and won't lose it because an individual threatens to pull the plug for personal reasons reflects the fact we want to have such debates and threads ... increasing the knowledge of all who want to be professional. If that rankles with some, so be it.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UV,
IF your argument is with the airport authority 'cause their underlings have stated that they are not part of the scheme then it would be best to write to/phone them and clarify the situation.
Please do report back.
You are RIGHT that airport staff should give factual and correct information (but to err is human)
IF they still are part of the scheme, it seems that most of your peers reckon that considering the landing at Lydd on Saturday to come under the remit of the 'AOPA scheme' a bit of a liberal interpretation of the spirit of this scheme.
IF you are willing to take off on the basis that you hope that the actuals will improve without having a TAF (especially to a coastal field prone to poor vis conditions) then that is your prerogative.
With your 35+ years experience you may well have learned a lot (including that these things can get better) but you should also know that they sometimes don't.
That then requires you to change to plan B.
There was however no compulsion to launch in the absence of full information (which is non compliant with the ANO on your part - if you want to pick on peeps not sticking to the rules) so it is difficult to see how you can expect anyone to have to pick up your landingfee bill (even at participating airfields)
Yes, we do understand you are not bothered about the £8-82 and are solely concerned with the well-being of us inexperienced, in true trouble, worrying about heinous landing fees lesser aviators.
So pick up the phone, get it from the horse's mouth so that we all know whether they subscribe to the Strasser scheme and the spirit in which it was intended.
In the meantime enjoy the reality check offered by your peers on here and refrain from throwing your toys out of your pram.
It does not look good.
IF your argument is with the airport authority 'cause their underlings have stated that they are not part of the scheme then it would be best to write to/phone them and clarify the situation.
Please do report back.
You are RIGHT that airport staff should give factual and correct information (but to err is human)
IF they still are part of the scheme, it seems that most of your peers reckon that considering the landing at Lydd on Saturday to come under the remit of the 'AOPA scheme' a bit of a liberal interpretation of the spirit of this scheme.
IF you are willing to take off on the basis that you hope that the actuals will improve without having a TAF (especially to a coastal field prone to poor vis conditions) then that is your prerogative.
With your 35+ years experience you may well have learned a lot (including that these things can get better) but you should also know that they sometimes don't.
That then requires you to change to plan B.
There was however no compulsion to launch in the absence of full information (which is non compliant with the ANO on your part - if you want to pick on peeps not sticking to the rules) so it is difficult to see how you can expect anyone to have to pick up your landingfee bill (even at participating airfields)
Yes, we do understand you are not bothered about the £8-82 and are solely concerned with the well-being of us inexperienced, in true trouble, worrying about heinous landing fees lesser aviators.
So pick up the phone, get it from the horse's mouth so that we all know whether they subscribe to the Strasser scheme and the spirit in which it was intended.
In the meantime enjoy the reality check offered by your peers on here and refrain from throwing your toys out of your pram.
It does not look good.
PPRune Radar
In answer to your questions/statements. Firstly, I am not looking for a free landing. Lets get that quite clear.
What I am trying to ensure (with difficulty) is that those who sign up for the scheme honour the principles/rules of it (whatever they may be!) and DO NOT subsequently say that they are NOT in the scheme, thus removing ALL the safety benefits etc., for EVERYONE, at a stroke.
My circumstances (whatever they may be!) are, therefore, irrelevant to the arguement.
The alternate (only one is required to be specified on the flight plan) was Calais. The Wx there, and at Ostende, were the same as L2K. Workable, not but good. Hence Lydd. My choice.
Yes I was about to pull the thread, in view of the number of hypothetical, off track and questionable statements being made.. (my right?)!
Not for personal reasons, as you say.
UV
In answer to your questions/statements. Firstly, I am not looking for a free landing. Lets get that quite clear.
What I am trying to ensure (with difficulty) is that those who sign up for the scheme honour the principles/rules of it (whatever they may be!) and DO NOT subsequently say that they are NOT in the scheme, thus removing ALL the safety benefits etc., for EVERYONE, at a stroke.
My circumstances (whatever they may be!) are, therefore, irrelevant to the arguement.
The alternate (only one is required to be specified on the flight plan) was Calais. The Wx there, and at Ostende, were the same as L2K. Workable, not but good. Hence Lydd. My choice.
Yes I was about to pull the thread, in view of the number of hypothetical, off track and questionable statements being made.. (my right?)!
Not for personal reasons, as you say.
UV
Just in passing, reasons one might quite legitimately divert, other than weather:-
- Higher than expected fuel burn, won't make your destination with sensible reserves, elect to land earlier for fuel.
- Radio failure, destination doesn't take non-radio traffic.
- Passenger badly airsick and on the verge of redecorating the cockpit without permission.
- Suspected engine problem (high CHT, low fuel pressure, etc.) and you'd rather be on the ground thinking about it.
- Flaps are stuck, planned destination is too short to land without flaps.
- Wind has changed, making the planned destination runway too short (for example by switching from a 900m runway to a 400m runway).
- Accident at the destination, blocking the runway.
All of these have, with slight variations, happened - none strictly weather related, all legitimate reasons to make a safety diversion.
G
- Higher than expected fuel burn, won't make your destination with sensible reserves, elect to land earlier for fuel.
- Radio failure, destination doesn't take non-radio traffic.
- Passenger badly airsick and on the verge of redecorating the cockpit without permission.
- Suspected engine problem (high CHT, low fuel pressure, etc.) and you'd rather be on the ground thinking about it.
- Flaps are stuck, planned destination is too short to land without flaps.
- Wind has changed, making the planned destination runway too short (for example by switching from a 900m runway to a 400m runway).
- Accident at the destination, blocking the runway.
All of these have, with slight variations, happened - none strictly weather related, all legitimate reasons to make a safety diversion.
G
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No TAFs, but has everyone forgotten about 215s and 415s? What about surface synoptic charts and general aviation met theory?
IMHO if you have to make a weather diversion, then you should be filing an MOR against an unforecast change in the weather. It happens in the North Sea from time to time.
It is plain to me at least that it doesn't matter whether Lydd has signed up to the scheme, my perception of the scenario here is that this was not a weather diversion and therefore the scheme was not applicable.
UV,
You have admitted that the weather at both your destination and your nominated diversion was "workable". I would see to that gunshot wound to your foot.
IMHO if you have to make a weather diversion, then you should be filing an MOR against an unforecast change in the weather. It happens in the North Sea from time to time.
It is plain to me at least that it doesn't matter whether Lydd has signed up to the scheme, my perception of the scenario here is that this was not a weather diversion and therefore the scheme was not applicable.
UV,
You have admitted that the weather at both your destination and your nominated diversion was "workable". I would see to that gunshot wound to your foot.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what UV wants, basically, is any airport that wouldnt give a free landing fee in the situation described, to withdraw from the scheme-that is very easily done; and is basically the end of the scheme. All on a point of principle...very good.
RIP British GA
RIP British GA
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Burgess Hill, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the meaning of a weather diversion in this context, is that the weather is too bad to continue, thus you needed to land at the nearest airfield rather than press on. Then you might expect them to honour the free landing..
This does not seem to be the case here, where there were many airfields that could have been landed at, it was just that UV and others chose to land at Lydd.
I wouldnt even have asked! Certainly abusing the scheme.
I had a good experience of this scheme last month, landing at Turweston when the weather deteriorated on route to Sandown- forcast to be bkn 2500 turnout out to be poor viz and down to 6-700ft. I divereted in and so had several microlights. None of us was charged a landing fee. Some made it on to Sandown, we tried two hours later again with a reasonable forecast, but again turned back 10 miles further south and returned to leicester
This does not seem to be the case here, where there were many airfields that could have been landed at, it was just that UV and others chose to land at Lydd.
I wouldnt even have asked! Certainly abusing the scheme.
I had a good experience of this scheme last month, landing at Turweston when the weather deteriorated on route to Sandown- forcast to be bkn 2500 turnout out to be poor viz and down to 6-700ft. I divereted in and so had several microlights. None of us was charged a landing fee. Some made it on to Sandown, we tried two hours later again with a reasonable forecast, but again turned back 10 miles further south and returned to leicester
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be bad news if the Strasser scheme was withdrawn or curtailed due to misuse. This thread proves that there is potential for misuse.
I like Shoreham's approach, as reported above, of requiring a written justification from the pilot as to why he claims a free landing due weather diversion. The landing airfield can then exercise sensible discretion.
As others have said, demanding a free landing 'as a right' in questionable circumstances is a quick way to kill off the scheme.
Personally, I have had two free landings due weather diversion. One was at Cambridge when weather prevented a safe arrival at Bourn. I was happy to, and offered to pay the landing and approach fees, but they were waved away with smiles. Left a very good impression with me.
The second was at Cranfield, when I diverted due to carrying ice and becoming below MSA. Bad airmanship on my part and I was relieved to be on the ground. I was happy to pay, but it was refused, again leaving a pleasant taste in my mouth.
Reading the thread, I am unsure whether Lydd were really saying that they do not participate in the scheme any longer (as reported by UV), or whether they felt that the circumstances UV's landing were not relevant to the scheme. Would UV confirm, please?
AA.
I like Shoreham's approach, as reported above, of requiring a written justification from the pilot as to why he claims a free landing due weather diversion. The landing airfield can then exercise sensible discretion.
As others have said, demanding a free landing 'as a right' in questionable circumstances is a quick way to kill off the scheme.
Personally, I have had two free landings due weather diversion. One was at Cambridge when weather prevented a safe arrival at Bourn. I was happy to, and offered to pay the landing and approach fees, but they were waved away with smiles. Left a very good impression with me.
The second was at Cranfield, when I diverted due to carrying ice and becoming below MSA. Bad airmanship on my part and I was relieved to be on the ground. I was happy to pay, but it was refused, again leaving a pleasant taste in my mouth.
Reading the thread, I am unsure whether Lydd were really saying that they do not participate in the scheme any longer (as reported by UV), or whether they felt that the circumstances UV's landing were not relevant to the scheme. Would UV confirm, please?
AA.
Flying Dutch
As you are no doubt aware there are no TAFs for any of the Airfields in question..Lydd, Le Touquet or Calais etc., etc..
I have,of course, been speaking to Lydd about their position and the answer is that they are still considering the matter at management level but at present are not taking part.
The very helpfull contact (and probably his managers) did not know that they were on the list and will regularise this anomoly one way or the other.
The good news is that within a few weeks they will be promulgating TAFs and METARs and, therefore, able to make a more balanced decison as to whether, in future, a diversion falls into the "scheme". (IF they adopt it).
I hope that this thread will help them to make the right decisions.
UV
As you are no doubt aware there are no TAFs for any of the Airfields in question..Lydd, Le Touquet or Calais etc., etc..
I have,of course, been speaking to Lydd about their position and the answer is that they are still considering the matter at management level but at present are not taking part.
The very helpfull contact (and probably his managers) did not know that they were on the list and will regularise this anomoly one way or the other.
The good news is that within a few weeks they will be promulgating TAFs and METARs and, therefore, able to make a more balanced decison as to whether, in future, a diversion falls into the "scheme". (IF they adopt it).
I hope that this thread will help them to make the right decisions.
UV
Last edited by UV; 20th Jul 2005 at 14:26.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the fascination with TAFs? They are too localised for coastal flying at this time of the year. Most GA manages to fly to aerodromes where TAFs and METARs are non existant. And why would having a TAF at Lydd affect their decision on charging you a landing fee? Surely it would be the weather everywhere else that means the fees would be waived at Lydd?
The way I interpret the scheme is that your landing fees would be waived if you had NO OTHER OPTION but to land at that airfield and to stay airbourne would be unsafe. This happens in two instances: a) the forecast is wrong (and would therefore justify a MOR) or b) inadequate planning for the route flown.
The way I interpret the scheme is that your landing fees would be waived if you had NO OTHER OPTION but to land at that airfield and to stay airbourne would be unsafe. This happens in two instances: a) the forecast is wrong (and would therefore justify a MOR) or b) inadequate planning for the route flown.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UV, what frequency is everyone tuned into to get all this weather info? Or did everyone fly to LFAT and return? I was with London Info, and as I mentioned, had I known that the sky was swarming with diversionees, it may have influenced my decision making process....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UV
Your thread went off at a tangent almost immediately and IMHO you're wasting your time trying to get it back. It's gone too far off the topic you posted.
_____________________________________
I've always been undecided whether the scheme will actually help to improve flight safety but, whatever the theory, if claims for a waiver were to be critically scrutinised against some of the criteria suggested in this thread, I don't see it having any real value in practice even though the idea is a good one.
Your thread went off at a tangent almost immediately and IMHO you're wasting your time trying to get it back. It's gone too far off the topic you posted.
_____________________________________
I've always been undecided whether the scheme will actually help to improve flight safety but, whatever the theory, if claims for a waiver were to be critically scrutinised against some of the criteria suggested in this thread, I don't see it having any real value in practice even though the idea is a good one.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I've always been undecided whether the scheme will actually help to improve flight safety
(As a district councillor I know that public authorities are always getting involved in projects where a change is made to a system in the hope of altering people's behaviour in a certain direction. This is clearly such a scheme. It is normal in the local authority business to commission research or review a while downstream, maybe eighteen months or so, to see whether people's behaviour has been altered in the desired direction or not. OK, so doing the research properly is expensive, so normally one ends up with data that professional statisticians would laugh at, but IMO as a politician who carries the can for this sort of thing it's probably still better than not making any attempt at all to find out whether your scheme is actually working.)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alphaalpha
Reading the thread, I became confused too. I thought I might have misunderstood UV's point. Then I went back to his post which originated the thread and saw I hadn't. UV explained the specific ground of his complaint clearly and unambiguously.
In his subsequent posts, he emphasised the specific ground of his complaint. For some reason beyond me, his efforts didn't have much success.
If his final post (in which he relates the result of his subsequent enquiries with Lydd) doesn't clear up any remaining confusion then I doubt if anything will:
Reading the thread, I am unsure whether Lydd were really saying that they do not participate in the scheme any longer (as reported by UV), or whether they felt that the circumstances UV's landing were not relevant to the scheme.
In his subsequent posts, he emphasised the specific ground of his complaint. For some reason beyond me, his efforts didn't have much success.
If his final post (in which he relates the result of his subsequent enquiries with Lydd) doesn't clear up any remaining confusion then I doubt if anything will:
The answer is that they are still considering the matter at management level but at present are not taking part.
The very helpfull contact (and probably his managers) did not know that they were on the list and will regularise this anomoly one way or the other.
The very helpfull contact (and probably his managers) did not know that they were on the list and will regularise this anomoly one way or the other.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to drop a spanner in the works here, but what is the big deal with paying a landing fee?
Most landing fees are about a tenner. I haven't been to Lydd for a while but it's about that. That is about 6 minutes' worth of self fly hire of a fairly typical piece of junk. And probably about the time it takes the pilot to decide the weather isn't good enough to continue.
As for Shoreham asking for a letter, who is going to write a letter just to get a ~ £12 landing fee refunded. Life has got to be too short for that.
With Luton (£149 inc. mandatory handling) or say Gatwick (£300?) one could understand a desire to not want to pay. But a tenner???
The real hassle with weather diversions isn't the landing fee. It is the pilot's implicit obligation to put up all passengers into a hotel (£80 a person) and, if this happens abroad, after a few days buying them all tickets on some airline so they can get back to work. I got pretty close once or twice to doing that, a few years ago.
The Strasser scheme is a great idea but IMHO its very existence is a rather sad confirmation of how decrepit the GA scene in the UK has become.
Most landing fees are about a tenner. I haven't been to Lydd for a while but it's about that. That is about 6 minutes' worth of self fly hire of a fairly typical piece of junk. And probably about the time it takes the pilot to decide the weather isn't good enough to continue.
As for Shoreham asking for a letter, who is going to write a letter just to get a ~ £12 landing fee refunded. Life has got to be too short for that.
With Luton (£149 inc. mandatory handling) or say Gatwick (£300?) one could understand a desire to not want to pay. But a tenner???
The real hassle with weather diversions isn't the landing fee. It is the pilot's implicit obligation to put up all passengers into a hotel (£80 a person) and, if this happens abroad, after a few days buying them all tickets on some airline so they can get back to work. I got pretty close once or twice to doing that, a few years ago.
The Strasser scheme is a great idea but IMHO its very existence is a rather sad confirmation of how decrepit the GA scene in the UK has become.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The alternate (only one is required to be specified on the flight plan) was Calais. The Wx there, and at Ostende, were the same as L2K. Workable, not but good. Hence Lydd. My choice.
On a similar practical note, the Le Touquet ATIS is detectable at VFR levels from across the channel if you are well enough briefed and can be bothered to pick it up.
Lots of comments on this thread give the general impression (not just in UV's case) of a lack of basic knowledge/planning when heading over the channel...
Perhaps more thinking and reading ahead of departure would avoid the need for anal discussions about Mr Strasser's scheme?
2D