Lydd Refuse to Honour Wx Diversions
Lydd Refuse to Honour Wx Diversions
Were you one of the 15 or so of us who diverted to Lydd due to the Wx at Le Touquet today (16/7) and made to pay a landing fee??
I was looking forward exercising my first waived landing fee (!) only to be told firmly that the management were still considering it and I would have to pay (even though they are on the list).
Shame on them.
Wonder what happened to the 5, I overheard at Rochester...
UV
I was looking forward exercising my first waived landing fee (!) only to be told firmly that the management were still considering it and I would have to pay (even though they are on the list).
Shame on them.
Wonder what happened to the 5, I overheard at Rochester...
UV
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully support waived landing fees for genuine weather diversions.
I'm not so sure that we have a right to expect them!
If you can't see what I'm getting at, trying looking at it from Lydd's point of view - 15 extra people, with all the extra work that entails. All glad the airfield is there...but we want it free now please!
I'm not criticising you, UV, but something about this doesn't feel quite right to me,
I'm not so sure that we have a right to expect them!
If you can't see what I'm getting at, trying looking at it from Lydd's point of view - 15 extra people, with all the extra work that entails. All glad the airfield is there...but we want it free now please!
I'm not criticising you, UV, but something about this doesn't feel quite right to me,
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea grew out of a recommendation in a CAA review of GA Accidents. The logic was that the thought of the landing fee might cause pilots to press on when they should divert.
Charles Strasser of AOPA took up the cause (you are a member aren't you?) as a result of which most airfields joined the scheme.
Personally If I had a genuine Wx diversion I would be so grateful to be safely down in one piece that I would't dream of quibbling if asked to pay.
By what you say you and others were en-route to Le Touquet and because of poor weather there diverted to Lydd.
If one's pre-flight Wx briefing indicated no cause for concern but there was a sudden and unexpected change to the weather that caused L2K to get socked in and one's return to one's departure aerodrome to become equally untenable with the result that one had no choice but to divert ot L2K it sounds like a genuine Wx diversion.
If on the other hand one decided to land at Lydd and see if the weather at L2K improved then it doesn't.
Charles Strasser of AOPA took up the cause (you are a member aren't you?) as a result of which most airfields joined the scheme.
Personally If I had a genuine Wx diversion I would be so grateful to be safely down in one piece that I would't dream of quibbling if asked to pay.
By what you say you and others were en-route to Le Touquet and because of poor weather there diverted to Lydd.
If one's pre-flight Wx briefing indicated no cause for concern but there was a sudden and unexpected change to the weather that caused L2K to get socked in and one's return to one's departure aerodrome to become equally untenable with the result that one had no choice but to divert ot L2K it sounds like a genuine Wx diversion.
If on the other hand one decided to land at Lydd and see if the weather at L2K improved then it doesn't.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The logic was that the thought of the landing fee might cause pilots to press on when they should divert.
OK, so if one were faced with paying several hundred pounds at Heathrow or Gatwick or Stansted one might appreciate a free landing in an emergency ... but Heathrow and Gatwick aren't on the list, and last time I ran into worse-than-forecast weather on the edge of Stansted's zone the nice man at Luton Radar was offering me a wide choice of nearer runways. On balance I think I'd still prefer to pay the several hundred and stay alive.
Personally If I had a genuine Wx diversion I would be so grateful to be safely down in one piece that I would't dream of quibbling if asked to pay.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting topic. It came up on a newsgroup some time ago; I don't remember where. A pilot complained that he'd gone flying on a particular day, wx diverted into some place, and was charged the standard landing fee, even after this programme was put in place. He was expecting sympathy from other posters. He got absolutely slated. Why? Because on the day he chose to fly, the weather was forecast to be non-VMC and pretty much all over the country it actually was from morning to night. He was criticised for not exercising good airmanship in choosing to fly in the murk and then expecting a freebie when he got caught out.
On the face of it, free landing fees for a wx divert sound like a good idea, but in practice I'm not sure they accomplish anything and may even encourage poor judgement. If the weather's dodgy enough that you end up having to divert, unless it's a sudden and unexpected condition, why would you choose to make the flight in the first place? If you do decide to give it a go and see how it turns out (and, in this country's weather, who amoungst us hasn't done that?), you do that with the full knowledge that you may not get where you're going and you may not be able to get back. The consequences are well known before you start out and responsibility should be accepted for them. The release of the landing fee seems to go against the basic premise in aviation that the pilot is completely in charge and expected to act like, and accept the consequences, like a professional adult.
Now, a free diversion for an unexpected technical failure, that's a different story, and I think that idea has some legs.
Just my .02 worth
Pitts2112
On the face of it, free landing fees for a wx divert sound like a good idea, but in practice I'm not sure they accomplish anything and may even encourage poor judgement. If the weather's dodgy enough that you end up having to divert, unless it's a sudden and unexpected condition, why would you choose to make the flight in the first place? If you do decide to give it a go and see how it turns out (and, in this country's weather, who amoungst us hasn't done that?), you do that with the full knowledge that you may not get where you're going and you may not be able to get back. The consequences are well known before you start out and responsibility should be accepted for them. The release of the landing fee seems to go against the basic premise in aviation that the pilot is completely in charge and expected to act like, and accept the consequences, like a professional adult.
Now, a free diversion for an unexpected technical failure, that's a different story, and I think that idea has some legs.
Just my .02 worth
Pitts2112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gertrude, what you say makes perfect sense, it's logical, and many people would say much the same. But accident history is littered with examples where pilots have done things (and often we'll never know why) that appear to defy the logic you set out.
Given that we often cannot ask why the pilots did what they did, we must try and second guess why the various decisions that led to the accident were taken. So when a group of peers, while sitting around a table with lots of time to cogitate, have to try to put themselves in the pilot's position sometimes the only explanation for some of the decisions that were taken is to avoid a landing fee or something equally minor.
If we are to make/keep aviation as safe as it can be we have to learn why accidents and incidents happen. Trying to understand why an accident has happened without the benefit of input from the pilot is not a perfect science but there is no alternative.
I'm fortunately not often involved in post-accident investigations but I believe that when the pilot is able to participate it is surprising to find that the logical decisions that are easy to make on the ground are not necessarily those that are made in the air.
I imagine it is this background that led the CAA to encourage airfields to waive landing fees for wx diversions.
Given that we often cannot ask why the pilots did what they did, we must try and second guess why the various decisions that led to the accident were taken. So when a group of peers, while sitting around a table with lots of time to cogitate, have to try to put themselves in the pilot's position sometimes the only explanation for some of the decisions that were taken is to avoid a landing fee or something equally minor.
If we are to make/keep aviation as safe as it can be we have to learn why accidents and incidents happen. Trying to understand why an accident has happened without the benefit of input from the pilot is not a perfect science but there is no alternative.
I'm fortunately not often involved in post-accident investigations but I believe that when the pilot is able to participate it is surprising to find that the logical decisions that are easy to make on the ground are not necessarily those that are made in the air.
I imagine it is this background that led the CAA to encourage airfields to waive landing fees for wx diversions.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Perhaps a good compromise would be for the airfield to waive the landing fee provided that fuel was taken.
After all, it would be diversion fuel used to get there, wouldn't it?
After all, it would be diversion fuel used to get there, wouldn't it?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I've just looked at the wording in Pooleys - second hand, I know, but let's hope they've copied this correctly from the scheme details.
"... for genuine emergency or precautionary diversion landings ..."
Well, the first is easy to spot, because the pilot will have called at least PAN, won't he, so what does "precautionary diversion landings" mean? The only other type of "precautionary landing" I've come across is the forced-landing-with-power in a field, which suggests that conditions have got to be sufficiently bad that you would have landed in a field had the runway not been there.
This does not suggest that you get a free landing because you're waiting for the weather at the destination to improve, or because, while you've got plenty of fuel to turn straight round and get home again, you've come for a day out and you're b*gg*red if you're not going to land away somewhere. Foolishly taking off with insufficient fuel to do anything except re-cross the channel and land on the first flat space you can find would end up as something qualifying for an (undeserved) free landing, it seems to me, but I can't believe that 15 people got themselves into that stiuation at the same place on the same day.
"... for genuine emergency or precautionary diversion landings ..."
Well, the first is easy to spot, because the pilot will have called at least PAN, won't he, so what does "precautionary diversion landings" mean? The only other type of "precautionary landing" I've come across is the forced-landing-with-power in a field, which suggests that conditions have got to be sufficiently bad that you would have landed in a field had the runway not been there.
This does not suggest that you get a free landing because you're waiting for the weather at the destination to improve, or because, while you've got plenty of fuel to turn straight round and get home again, you've come for a day out and you're b*gg*red if you're not going to land away somewhere. Foolishly taking off with insufficient fuel to do anything except re-cross the channel and land on the first flat space you can find would end up as something qualifying for an (undeserved) free landing, it seems to me, but I can't believe that 15 people got themselves into that stiuation at the same place on the same day.
UV
Haven't yet seen an answer to "bar shaker's" question.
Did the LFAT weather deteriorate, or did you depart without an actual LFAT weather report? Hopefully you and others did check it.
If you didn't, a word of caution to you and other divertees.Tucked away in the ANO is Article 43 entitled "Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft", making self briefing a legal obligation. From personal experience hearing GA pilots requesting multiple weather reports and danger area activity status (of permanently active areas) while en-route, from often busy controllers or FISOs, it appears that "not a lot of people know that"!
Haven't yet seen an answer to "bar shaker's" question.
Did the LFAT weather deteriorate, or did you depart without an actual LFAT weather report? Hopefully you and others did check it.
If you didn't, a word of caution to you and other divertees.Tucked away in the ANO is Article 43 entitled "Pre-flight action by commander of aircraft", making self briefing a legal obligation. From personal experience hearing GA pilots requesting multiple weather reports and danger area activity status (of permanently active areas) while en-route, from often busy controllers or FISOs, it appears that "not a lot of people know that"!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I understand what people mean, when they say that every pilot should be happy to pay a landing fee, when they feel that their life is in danger, and that they must get on the ground.
But I suspect that this scheme wasn't really designed for dealing with these situations. Pilots in such circumstances don't need any encouragement to make an emergency diversion. They have all the encouragement that they need.
Danger in flying, just like danger in any other areas of our lives isn't black and white. When we are on the ground, flying is causing us no danger whatsoever. When we take off, we put our lives at some risk, but a level which we are comfortable to accept. If we find ourselves closely surrounded by extremely active CB's on all sides, then we are in mortal danger.
I suspect this scheme was designed to help give encouragement to pilots who feel that the risk has increased to an amount that they are starting to feel uncomfortable. They feel that they can ALMOST certainly make it to their destination, and then the "press on home'itts" is sets in. Conditions may deteriorate a little further and they feel that they are now just PRETTY SURE they can make it home, but not convinced, and decide to press on. This is the type of behaviour that appears regularly in accident statistics, and the type of behaviour that this scheme is trying to help address.
It's not trying to help address the "must get on the ground NOW" type of situation. So please don't knock it on the basis of "must get on the ground NOW" types of situations.
Incidentally I've only ever had to make one emergency diversion, and that was back to where I had taken off from. (Not my home field.) I was so very grateful for the service I'd received from this field, both before I'd taken off and during this flight, that I was more than happy to pay the additional landing fee.
15 People all diverting into one airfield? As someone else said, maybe it was something dodgy, and some group trying to take advantage. But maybe it was because it was a nice day, the weather and forecast looked good, and as a result a lot of people decided to visit Le Touquet. As they go closer Le Touquet got covered in unforecasted sea fog, and everyone close decided to divert to the nearest airport, and wait it out? Surely unforecast weather is a perfectly logical reason for so many people having to divert? And if you expect it may clear, and you'll be able to continue in awhile, then where better than the nearest airfield?
Either Lydd are in the scheme or they are not. If they are ideologically opposed to the scheme, then it's their prerogative to not be in it, as some airfields have chosen. But to tell people that they are in the scheme, have their name included on the list of diversion fields, to me creates a implied term in a contact, when a pilot decides to land there after a diversion. To charge a pilot the fee for a genuine diversion is just wrong in such circumstances. Either you are in the scheme or you are not. You can't have the positive PR of being in the scheme, yet refuse to recognise it.
How would you feel if Tesco advertised that if you spent more than £100 in their stores on Wednesday afternoons, you'd get 10% off. Then you went and spent £150 in their store on a Wednesday afternoon, and they refused to give you the 10% off?
dp
But I suspect that this scheme wasn't really designed for dealing with these situations. Pilots in such circumstances don't need any encouragement to make an emergency diversion. They have all the encouragement that they need.
Danger in flying, just like danger in any other areas of our lives isn't black and white. When we are on the ground, flying is causing us no danger whatsoever. When we take off, we put our lives at some risk, but a level which we are comfortable to accept. If we find ourselves closely surrounded by extremely active CB's on all sides, then we are in mortal danger.
I suspect this scheme was designed to help give encouragement to pilots who feel that the risk has increased to an amount that they are starting to feel uncomfortable. They feel that they can ALMOST certainly make it to their destination, and then the "press on home'itts" is sets in. Conditions may deteriorate a little further and they feel that they are now just PRETTY SURE they can make it home, but not convinced, and decide to press on. This is the type of behaviour that appears regularly in accident statistics, and the type of behaviour that this scheme is trying to help address.
It's not trying to help address the "must get on the ground NOW" type of situation. So please don't knock it on the basis of "must get on the ground NOW" types of situations.
Incidentally I've only ever had to make one emergency diversion, and that was back to where I had taken off from. (Not my home field.) I was so very grateful for the service I'd received from this field, both before I'd taken off and during this flight, that I was more than happy to pay the additional landing fee.
15 People all diverting into one airfield? As someone else said, maybe it was something dodgy, and some group trying to take advantage. But maybe it was because it was a nice day, the weather and forecast looked good, and as a result a lot of people decided to visit Le Touquet. As they go closer Le Touquet got covered in unforecasted sea fog, and everyone close decided to divert to the nearest airport, and wait it out? Surely unforecast weather is a perfectly logical reason for so many people having to divert? And if you expect it may clear, and you'll be able to continue in awhile, then where better than the nearest airfield?
Either Lydd are in the scheme or they are not. If they are ideologically opposed to the scheme, then it's their prerogative to not be in it, as some airfields have chosen. But to tell people that they are in the scheme, have their name included on the list of diversion fields, to me creates a implied term in a contact, when a pilot decides to land there after a diversion. To charge a pilot the fee for a genuine diversion is just wrong in such circumstances. Either you are in the scheme or you are not. You can't have the positive PR of being in the scheme, yet refuse to recognise it.
How would you feel if Tesco advertised that if you spent more than £100 in their stores on Wednesday afternoons, you'd get 10% off. Then you went and spent £150 in their store on a Wednesday afternoon, and they refused to give you the 10% off?
dp
TCAS FAN and others, sorry for the SHORT delay in replying.
As you are no doubt aware there is no way of getting TAFs for anywhere on the near continent other than Ostende.
The actuals from 0930 at L2K were 5000m Viz and 900 ft cloud base.This was obtained several times from the talking telephone ATIS. I expected it to improve, but in the absence of a TAF...
Presumably the other 15 aircraft and the 5 at Rochester, and some later, got the same info. As a sideline it does probably prove that there is a real lack of available weather for this busy area.
Crossing Kent and listening to L2K revealed that most aircraft were at 500 feet.
Legal, yes, but having been there hundreds of times over 35+years I was not happy to mix it with inexerienced PPLs and L2K infamous Air Traffic!
I decided to divert to Lydd and that is my decision and I stick with it.
No I am not bothered about £8.81. BUT if the system is in place(and encouraged by the CAA) why is it not be honoured when a pilot tells them that its a genuine Wx diversion?
I was not abusing it, merely making a comment.
Maybe the Airfield Operator is the one who is abusing it?!
UV
As you are no doubt aware there is no way of getting TAFs for anywhere on the near continent other than Ostende.
The actuals from 0930 at L2K were 5000m Viz and 900 ft cloud base.This was obtained several times from the talking telephone ATIS. I expected it to improve, but in the absence of a TAF...
Presumably the other 15 aircraft and the 5 at Rochester, and some later, got the same info. As a sideline it does probably prove that there is a real lack of available weather for this busy area.
Crossing Kent and listening to L2K revealed that most aircraft were at 500 feet.
Legal, yes, but having been there hundreds of times over 35+years I was not happy to mix it with inexerienced PPLs and L2K infamous Air Traffic!
I decided to divert to Lydd and that is my decision and I stick with it.
No I am not bothered about £8.81. BUT if the system is in place(and encouraged by the CAA) why is it not be honoured when a pilot tells them that its a genuine Wx diversion?
I was not abusing it, merely making a comment.
Maybe the Airfield Operator is the one who is abusing it?!
UV
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are lucky to have Lydd there at all and especially a rapidly improving airfield as it is at present.It survives by charging what I consider to be reasonable fees for the service provided in its location and with relatively low utilisation.I never let the cost of a diversion cloud my judgement if such a decision needs to be made.I guess we are all paying well over £100 per hour for our flying in one form or another,is £20 that much of an issue especially to such a worthy cause.Remember the guy who bleated about Lutons fees on diversion yet could afford to pole around in a twin,didn,t get my sympathy vote.LeTouquet is not a cheap landing if I remember rightly and Headcorn is nearly as expensive as Lydd for my aircraft (mtow669Kgs).Lets give Lydd a break and hope it survives.Maybe more of an issue in this area is the ATC unit at Manston who recently refused to accept a diversion from over the channel in very poor weather and obviously in some stress,the badly shaken pilot eventually made it into Rochester.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: EGJJ
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I recollect this concession for waiver of landing fee for diversions is only valid if you subsequently continue on to your original destination. If the weather was too bad to land at LFAT you shouldn't have taken off in the first place without checking latest wx and assuming it would get better.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May i just pick up on something asked earlier? Was Lydd listed as an altrnative on the FP? If so then no wx diversion is applicable because you have PLANNED to go there. If not why not use the alternative in the FP?
As a matter of interest, some while ago I had one very rough running engine whilst at FL55 passing overhead an RAF station. A quick brief to the contrioller and and I was cleared straight down in a spiral to land (all other traffic temporarily dispersed). Problem was solved, I departed and received a bill for landing. No problems, just pleased they were there and so obliging at a very very busy station. Pay with good grace
As a matter of interest, some while ago I had one very rough running engine whilst at FL55 passing overhead an RAF station. A quick brief to the contrioller and and I was cleared straight down in a spiral to land (all other traffic temporarily dispersed). Problem was solved, I departed and received a bill for landing. No problems, just pleased they were there and so obliging at a very very busy station. Pay with good grace
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UV
You aren't really out of pocket. You may not have made it to France, but you would have paid slightly more to land at Le2K than you did at Lydd, so what's the difference.
I don't really regard this as a weather diversion. I flew in Kent yesterday and CAVOK could not describe it. 40 mile vis, zero cloud, VRB <10kts.
In the circumstances, you can understand why you should have to pay the same as the people that intended to fly to Lydd.
By the way, they have a good restaurant and are a short walk away from a wonderful beach, which is on "La Manche".
I have posted the terminal phone number on another forum and they will give you a TAF, of sorts, if you ring them.
Hope you still enjoyed your day.
You aren't really out of pocket. You may not have made it to France, but you would have paid slightly more to land at Le2K than you did at Lydd, so what's the difference.
I don't really regard this as a weather diversion. I flew in Kent yesterday and CAVOK could not describe it. 40 mile vis, zero cloud, VRB <10kts.
In the circumstances, you can understand why you should have to pay the same as the people that intended to fly to Lydd.
By the way, they have a good restaurant and are a short walk away from a wonderful beach, which is on "La Manche".
I have posted the terminal phone number on another forum and they will give you a TAF, of sorts, if you ring them.
Hope you still enjoyed your day.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I stand by my comments above, defending of the scheme, I have to say that having read UV's (and Bar Shakers) comments on the weather, I don't support UV's position at all.
To me, the purpose of the scheme is NOT to provide a free landing fee of your choice, should the weather at your destination be crap both at take off time, and arrival time, when you have lots of options, in very good weather.
You were in far from difficult circumstances, and certainly (from the info you gave us) in no need of any particular assistance. Certainly not an emergency. A diversion perhaps. But was it an "emergency or precautionary diversion"? I wouldn't call it so.
Trying to claim a free landing fee under such circumstances, will only lead to the scheme collapsing, and ruining it for those in genuine need of an emergency diversion.
dp
To me, the purpose of the scheme is NOT to provide a free landing fee of your choice, should the weather at your destination be crap both at take off time, and arrival time, when you have lots of options, in very good weather.
You were in far from difficult circumstances, and certainly (from the info you gave us) in no need of any particular assistance. Certainly not an emergency. A diversion perhaps. But was it an "emergency or precautionary diversion"? I wouldn't call it so.
Trying to claim a free landing fee under such circumstances, will only lead to the scheme collapsing, and ruining it for those in genuine need of an emergency diversion.
dp