Lydd Refuse to Honour Wx Diversions
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only time an "additional fee" might arise is where you divert due weather then decide the weather has improved sufficiently so you take off again to carry on to your original destination.
Also I think it is a bit arrogant to try and categorise wether a diversion should have been made, remember something which is a minor inconvenience to an experienced IMC / IR rated pilot could be a major problem for a low houred PPL.
The whole point about 'human factors' is that it is the reaction and perception of the person involved which is important, not what everyone else thinks about it.
We used to have a rule in our scuba diving club, that anyone could call a dive at any time if they were uncomfortable with it - nobody ever second guessed or complained that that person should not have called it off.
If someone is uncomfortable with a flight then not only should they be able to divert without financial penalty, but should be able to do so without fear of criticism from others.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UV did uncover an anomoly at Lydd. Lydd should either pull out or honour the scheme. If UV claimed it was a diversion for weather purposes then the fee should have been waived.
Surely we can all agree though that the specific circumstances that UV was in were not really in the spirit of the scheme. And surely we can easily imagine that Lydd has been on the receiving end of many such claims which may well be precisely the reason they are considering their view on the scheme.
So I think Lydd should sort themselves out one way or another and well done to UV for bringing this to our attention.
However, if Lydd choose to pull out because they feel abused then UV can be equally proud to have played a part in that outcome.
Surely we can all agree though that the specific circumstances that UV was in were not really in the spirit of the scheme. And surely we can easily imagine that Lydd has been on the receiving end of many such claims which may well be precisely the reason they are considering their view on the scheme.
So I think Lydd should sort themselves out one way or another and well done to UV for bringing this to our attention.
However, if Lydd choose to pull out because they feel abused then UV can be equally proud to have played a part in that outcome.
Last edited by GRP; 24th Jul 2005 at 09:34.
In one of his later posts, UV stated that a subsequent conversation with Lydd revealed that they did not know that they were on the list. Possibly as a result of its recent change of ownership? Perhaps the present Airport Authority unwittingly 'inherited' Lydd's commitment to the scheme (made by a previous incumbent), and it only became evident when Pilots tried to claim waivers? An unsatisfactory state of affairs, agreed, but IMHO, somewhat different to a deliberate act of knowingly 'Refusing to Honour'.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that Lydd should decide whether they want to be in the scheme or not. I also agree for any scheme to operate successfully everyone must abide by the "rules" of the scheme - the whole concept is devalued if places like Shoreham and Lydd apply their own interpretation of the "rules".
One point that has not been made is that I reckon Lydd probably "suffers" far more weather diversions than any other airport. I cannot think of anywhere else that is on such a popular route with pilots likely to find the weather at L2K less than satisfactory. That is not to detract from my earlier comments, simply an observation.
Finally I do agree with the comments made by others that having received a "free landing" airports are far more likely to continue to support this excellent initiative if we try and "put something back into the pot". Buy some fuel at your diverted destination - you will need to do so anyway.
One point that has not been made is that I reckon Lydd probably "suffers" far more weather diversions than any other airport. I cannot think of anywhere else that is on such a popular route with pilots likely to find the weather at L2K less than satisfactory. That is not to detract from my earlier comments, simply an observation.
Finally I do agree with the comments made by others that having received a "free landing" airports are far more likely to continue to support this excellent initiative if we try and "put something back into the pot". Buy some fuel at your diverted destination - you will need to do so anyway.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 17 airfields listed below refused to help with the iniative:
We have been handing out free landings, parking etc etc to worthy cases long before this intiative was ever conceived. We reserve the right to make up our own mind as to who may benefit from these.
Many pilots who would not normally have met the suggested requirements of the Strasser scheme have been met with a sympathetic view by us. Even those who are just having a tough day of it, like the person who could not get his transponder to work for a flight where it was mandatory equipment despite repeated visits to the workshop and repeated take offs only to find it failed again, and again.
I do however take a dim view of anyone who stomps into my flight ops department, upsetting my staff by thinking they have some sort of automatic right to a free landing. (and believe me there are plenty of them out there)
Regards
Biggin Hill
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone is uncomfortable with a flight then not only should they be able to divert without financial penalty, but should be able to do so without fear of criticism from others.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KMS
"My view is that if you have to divert for weather, you're making the right choice not to press on and see, so a landing fee is worth every penny if it saves yours or your passengers lives."
I doubt if anyone would agree with that. However, as I understand the concession, it isn't only aimed at the glaringly obvious 'life or death' situation but also to encourage pilots to land when in borderline circumstances/conditions - before they find themselves in a potentially fatal situation.
Does your post mean you're not in favour of the landing fee waiver arrangement?
You're a commercial pilot. Many (the majority?) GA pilots are PPLs who aren't trained to as high a level as you and don't fly as often.
Do you think it has no value - even for PPLs?
rustle
That may have been a reference to the inquisition of UV over why he found himself in a position of having to divert, and suggestions that airfields should be entitled to refuse the concession if (in someone else's opinion) the pilot's flight-planning was inadequate or (in their opinion) he shouldn't have attempted the flight on their reading of the met etc. That involves criticism of the pilot even though not for his decision to divert.
"My view is that if you have to divert for weather, you're making the right choice not to press on and see, so a landing fee is worth every penny if it saves yours or your passengers lives."
I doubt if anyone would agree with that. However, as I understand the concession, it isn't only aimed at the glaringly obvious 'life or death' situation but also to encourage pilots to land when in borderline circumstances/conditions - before they find themselves in a potentially fatal situation.
Does your post mean you're not in favour of the landing fee waiver arrangement?
You're a commercial pilot. Many (the majority?) GA pilots are PPLs who aren't trained to as high a level as you and don't fly as often.
Do you think it has no value - even for PPLs?
rustle
That may have been a reference to the inquisition of UV over why he found himself in a position of having to divert, and suggestions that airfields should be entitled to refuse the concession if (in someone else's opinion) the pilot's flight-planning was inadequate or (in their opinion) he shouldn't have attempted the flight on their reading of the met etc. That involves criticism of the pilot even though not for his decision to divert.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may have been a reference to the inquisition of UV over why he found himself in a position of having to divert...
I read a couple of posts asking where the planned diversion airfields were, and a couple of comments about the whole of the UK being CAVOK.
I don't recall it reading like an inquisition though.
(I know: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... )
Guest
Posts: n/a
I still don't really understand how the scheme hopes to achieve its aims. There are a list of aerodromes that will waive the fee and there is a small list that doesn't. Will this make any difference to my planned route? Nope. Will this make me triple check my synopsis? Nah. When in the air, would I have the capacity to think "I'm near one of them there free places and the weather looks ****e. I know, I'll land"? I very much doubt it.
Personally and being brutally honest, if I have to be somewhere I'd probably delay a decision to divert for longer than if I'm hamburger hunting (then again, maybe, now that I've expressed this I wouldn't). I mentioned above, in such a situation, unless I marked the freebies on the chart (which I wouldn't) I really don't think I would have the mental capacity pick and choose.
If however, the scheme has no practical application other than to make pilots think twice, then maybe it is a success.
Personally and being brutally honest, if I have to be somewhere I'd probably delay a decision to divert for longer than if I'm hamburger hunting (then again, maybe, now that I've expressed this I wouldn't). I mentioned above, in such a situation, unless I marked the freebies on the chart (which I wouldn't) I really don't think I would have the mental capacity pick and choose.
If however, the scheme has no practical application other than to make pilots think twice, then maybe it is a success.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I think I've said before, when the weather is really bad the situation is clear-cut; you land ASAP wherever you can!
It's the marginal situations that are more difficult....
Is that 1000 ft cloudbase withing your personal limitations? Will it get lower? Will the weather close in behind you if you carry on? Perhaps it's already closed in, and your destination is only half an hour away, and you do know that low level route to avoid the hills...don't you?
Or, the vis is getting worse, but you can still see, it's still within legal limits, you have the GPS...should you carry on or not?
Or, that rain is only showers, isn't it. But they're getting heavier, and joining up with each other. Things haven't got nasty yet, but they could.
In all these situations, commonsense maybe says it's not worth the risk. But weighed against that is the fact you really need to get where you're going (or home), you can't afford the flight in the first place, never mind more time and more expense, and you really think it's OK....er...maybe...so long as it doesn't get a fraction worse anyway.
You're orbiting or cloud/shower dodging, trying to make a decision. You do have time, and spare capacity; you just don't really know what to do.
And at that point, maybe the free landing would decide it, if not for you, at least for some pilots.
Another point, which I only just thought of. I suspect that some low hours pilots feel a bit...wimpish, maybe, at diverting in conditions when half the world seems to be flying and having fun. Maybe the fact that most airfields have signed up to this scheme will make them realise that diverting if not sure you can cope is a good thing to do. It's acceptable to the aviation world in general. Just a thought.
It's the marginal situations that are more difficult....
Is that 1000 ft cloudbase withing your personal limitations? Will it get lower? Will the weather close in behind you if you carry on? Perhaps it's already closed in, and your destination is only half an hour away, and you do know that low level route to avoid the hills...don't you?
Or, the vis is getting worse, but you can still see, it's still within legal limits, you have the GPS...should you carry on or not?
Or, that rain is only showers, isn't it. But they're getting heavier, and joining up with each other. Things haven't got nasty yet, but they could.
In all these situations, commonsense maybe says it's not worth the risk. But weighed against that is the fact you really need to get where you're going (or home), you can't afford the flight in the first place, never mind more time and more expense, and you really think it's OK....er...maybe...so long as it doesn't get a fraction worse anyway.
You're orbiting or cloud/shower dodging, trying to make a decision. You do have time, and spare capacity; you just don't really know what to do.And at that point, maybe the free landing would decide it, if not for you, at least for some pilots.
Another point, which I only just thought of. I suspect that some low hours pilots feel a bit...wimpish, maybe, at diverting in conditions when half the world seems to be flying and having fun. Maybe the fact that most airfields have signed up to this scheme will make them realise that diverting if not sure you can cope is a good thing to do. It's acceptable to the aviation world in general. Just a thought.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May as well have my sixpen'th... I understood the original concept of waiving the fees was to discourage pilots in emergency pressing on past a perfectly usable airfield for fear of having to pay landing fees (?). I would suggest, that a diversion due to inclement weather is, in most cases, a precautionary measure. Therefore if an airfield choses to waive the fee on landing in such circumstances... you have just received a bonus! They don't deserve to be "black-balled".
The situation from the outset was always going to be controversial... it's difficult to see it in black & white? In the same way as some airfields may charge you for a precuationary landing, I am sure there are pilots out there who might declare a spurious, minor emergency in the hope of getting the fees waived and depart after having hit said faulty component with the proverbial big hammer.
If you have an emergency, of whatever sort... I hope get the aircraft on the ground first, and worry about paying the fee or not, when ou're in the Clubhouse/Ops... that's surely the spirit of the scheme?
The situation from the outset was always going to be controversial... it's difficult to see it in black & white? In the same way as some airfields may charge you for a precuationary landing, I am sure there are pilots out there who might declare a spurious, minor emergency in the hope of getting the fees waived and depart after having hit said faulty component with the proverbial big hammer.
If you have an emergency, of whatever sort... I hope get the aircraft on the ground first, and worry about paying the fee or not, when ou're in the Clubhouse/Ops... that's surely the spirit of the scheme?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pierre Argh
The background to the scheme, and the scheme itself, are fully explained earlier in this thread.
"I would suggest, that a diversion due to inclement weather is, in most cases, a precautionary measure."
Yes, just the sort of precautionary measure the AOPA scheme is trying to encourage pilots to take at an early stage, rather than pressing on and risking it becoming an emergency - with possibly fatal consequences.
"Therefore if an airfield choses to waive the fee on landing in such circumstances... you have just received a bonus!"
If they haven't made a commitment to the scheme then, yes, you are getting a "bonus".
If they have, then you're getting what they have very generously agreed to give GA.
Whether or not airfields which refuse to commit to the scheme shoud be 'black-balled' is obviously a matter of opinion. Black-balling may arguably be too extreme, but isn't there a reasonable argument that in non-emergency/precautionary circumstances, ie when pilots have a choice where to spend their money, they might wish to spend it at airfields in the scheme?
Those airfields have committed to giving something to GA - not just 'Maybe we'll waive, it depends if we think it's justified on the day.' Isn't it fair that the GA community should support them in return, when they have a choice?
It's all very well for people to say the important thing is to get down, what ever the landing fee. Of course that's true, but it's also true that many GA pilots press on when it would be wiser and safer to take the precaution of diverting, and too many lives are lost every year as a result. The idea of the scheme is to try to reduce those numbers.
Are you in favour of the scheme?
The background to the scheme, and the scheme itself, are fully explained earlier in this thread.
"I would suggest, that a diversion due to inclement weather is, in most cases, a precautionary measure."
Yes, just the sort of precautionary measure the AOPA scheme is trying to encourage pilots to take at an early stage, rather than pressing on and risking it becoming an emergency - with possibly fatal consequences.
"Therefore if an airfield choses to waive the fee on landing in such circumstances... you have just received a bonus!"
If they haven't made a commitment to the scheme then, yes, you are getting a "bonus".
If they have, then you're getting what they have very generously agreed to give GA.
Whether or not airfields which refuse to commit to the scheme shoud be 'black-balled' is obviously a matter of opinion. Black-balling may arguably be too extreme, but isn't there a reasonable argument that in non-emergency/precautionary circumstances, ie when pilots have a choice where to spend their money, they might wish to spend it at airfields in the scheme?
Those airfields have committed to giving something to GA - not just 'Maybe we'll waive, it depends if we think it's justified on the day.' Isn't it fair that the GA community should support them in return, when they have a choice?
It's all very well for people to say the important thing is to get down, what ever the landing fee. Of course that's true, but it's also true that many GA pilots press on when it would be wiser and safer to take the precaution of diverting, and too many lives are lost every year as a result. The idea of the scheme is to try to reduce those numbers.
Are you in favour of the scheme?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whirly,
All sensible stuff. But I still don't get it. Within this context, how does this scheme change your perception of what is flyable and what isn't. My argument is that it won't make any difference at all. Will anybody really divert earlier because it is cheaper than diverting later? Pilots will press on for a whole host unrelated reasons.
IMHO, this scheme promotes either discussion, confusion or both.
All sensible stuff. But I still don't get it. Within this context, how does this scheme change your perception of what is flyable and what isn't. My argument is that it won't make any difference at all. Will anybody really divert earlier because it is cheaper than diverting later? Pilots will press on for a whole host unrelated reasons.
IMHO, this scheme promotes either discussion, confusion or both.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots will press on for a whole host unrelated reasons
I suspect where the airport close at hand is a small field, it makes no difference what so ever. But where the field is a regional, knowing that you aren't going to get stung with a massive bill, might just be enough to swing the decision away from the "continue a bit further" mode.
dp
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dublin,
IMHO unlikely but possible...if you know that the big fat airport 5nm East is free. Is determining the freebies and costalotas another step that you include in your planning?
But where the field is a regional, knowing that you aren't going to get stung with a massive bill, might just be enough to swing the decision away from the "continue a bit further" mode.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, certainly not in the planning.
Imagine you're in one of the situations that Whirly describes above. Torn between putting down, and continuing on. So you start to consider your current diversion options. The most obvious airport to divert to at this point in the flight, is a bloody big regional. You've no idea how much it's going to cost, and suspect it will be expensive, but it may be horrendously expensive.
This scheme, to my mind, is trying to remove that consideration from the thought process.
Imagine you're in one of the situations that Whirly describes above. Torn between putting down, and continuing on. So you start to consider your current diversion options. The most obvious airport to divert to at this point in the flight, is a bloody big regional. You've no idea how much it's going to cost, and suspect it will be expensive, but it may be horrendously expensive.
This scheme, to my mind, is trying to remove that consideration from the thought process.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading this with interest as I had to divert recently due to bad Wx in Northern France (To protect the innocent, lets call it Destination "A").
However as I knew the weather was bad at my destination before I set off and the forecast was for it to improve, but not quite soon enough I made sure I had enough fuel to divert to somewhere I wanted to be as a second choice (Destination "B") if the Wx did not improve as soon as I wanted it to.
Sure enough Wx did not improve, so I turned round over channel and set off to “B” - but on getting there actually found the wind had picked up and was too strong across the runway so carried on and diverted again to (unplanned) Destination "C" - and we had a nice day out there!
However, in my case it never crossed my mind to ask for a free landing, even though I had diverted twice as I considered diverting when I set off, knew the forecast for S.England was OK and had plenty of fuel so could take a number of options including RTB.
Having read Flying Lawers post I really like the use of the word "precautionary" over "diversion". Had the Wx turned in around me (which it was not forecast to do) I would have welcomed not worring about costs to do a precautionary landing at the nearest bolt hole (and I did fly past some expensive ones en-route to "B" & “C”). But raising a request for freebie in a case like mine would be taking the p**s.
However as I knew the weather was bad at my destination before I set off and the forecast was for it to improve, but not quite soon enough I made sure I had enough fuel to divert to somewhere I wanted to be as a second choice (Destination "B") if the Wx did not improve as soon as I wanted it to.
Sure enough Wx did not improve, so I turned round over channel and set off to “B” - but on getting there actually found the wind had picked up and was too strong across the runway so carried on and diverted again to (unplanned) Destination "C" - and we had a nice day out there!
However, in my case it never crossed my mind to ask for a free landing, even though I had diverted twice as I considered diverting when I set off, knew the forecast for S.England was OK and had plenty of fuel so could take a number of options including RTB.
Having read Flying Lawers post I really like the use of the word "precautionary" over "diversion". Had the Wx turned in around me (which it was not forecast to do) I would have welcomed not worring about costs to do a precautionary landing at the nearest bolt hole (and I did fly past some expensive ones en-route to "B" & “C”). But raising a request for freebie in a case like mine would be taking the p**s.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Age: 81
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
The wink at the end of your sentence did not go unnoticed Sir!
The relatively new (British) sales manager will be canvassed - definitely has an open ear for such things (ve haff vayz....
)
vbrgds
atb
Publishers - Aerad, AFE and Pooleys agreed to include the information in order to help GA pilots. Jeppesen/Bottlang hadn’t replied. May have refused since? 
The relatively new (British) sales manager will be canvassed - definitely has an open ear for such things (ve haff vayz....
)vbrgds
atb
