Airfields that ban some of us, plus the "no fees for safety diversions" scheme

[Genghis the Engineer]

A bit of a "name and shame" effort, and a bit of a public information thing on my part.

What precipitated this was that I was flying a flexwing microlight the other day in the midlands, when my comms system decided to go t**s-up; so deciding that being close to controlled airspace and unable to talk to my pax who was presumably wondering what the heck was going on, I should divert to the nearest GA airfield and sort it out on the ground.

So I slotted into the circuit at Tatenhill, which I did not have details for but could see on the chart nearby, and landed.

Securing the aeroplane (it was rather windy and I was NOT leaving it alone until firmly tied down) I met a duty jobsworth storming out looking somewhat red in the face who confronted me with "The BOOK says that this airfield does not accept flexwing microlights, and does not accept non-radio arrivals". Telling him that I'd had a comms failure simply precipitated demands to remove myself and my aircraft as quickly as possible, and a £12 landing fee.

So, who are the, well, less friendly, airfields we all know of? Offhand I can offer:-

Bans flexwings
Tatenhill
Turweston
Thruxton

No free emergency diversions
Tatenhill (despite AOPA claiming they do)

Bans "Group A"
London Colney

Bans powered
Lasham ("except on gliding business")

G

[Jim59]

Bans powered
Lasham ("except on gliding business")

That's true of many gliding sites. Frequently, as at my club, it is due to planning restrictions. Many PPLs will not be familiar with gliding hazards such as 'invisible' cables on the ground or in the overhead and people on the manoevring area, so where visitors are permitted they often restrict them to pilots with gliding experience who tend to be on gliding business. Many gliding sites have relatively rough or undulating surfaces that don't have marked runways so briefings are required (think Dunstable).

P.S. Lasham does take airliners though...

[ShyTorque]

And night flying Navy Wessex who were supposed to be landing at Odiham...

[piperboy84]

Do they provide a reason why microlights are discouraged/banned over other GA traffic?

Is it possible that some microlights are equipped with 2 stroke engines and I assume they may be noisier than other aircraft and may exceed noise abatement guidelines for certain fields. Not saying this is the case just asking a question

I know in some US states 2 stroke jet skis are banned on certain lakes where 4 strokes are acceptable, granted this was partly due to the increased oil a 2 stroke throws out but I believe noise was a factor also.

[Pitts2112]

You told him to stuff his fee up his tailpipe, presumably?

I had a very similar experience in 2008 in the Pitts at Henstritch. Had set off in company with a Luscomb from Popham to Compton Abbas but had to divert, so chose Henstritch. By the time we arrived there I was short on fuel and wasn't going anywhere else comfortably.

There was some mix up in word from the ground station while I was in the circuit, only to then be told just as my wheels were about to touch the ground that the radio operator wasn't sure I was allowed to land there. Well, too bad, because a) I already had and b) I wasn't going anywhere else without some petrol.

There then ensued a most inhospitable bollocking from some officious jobsworth **** who told me Pitts Specials were specifically forbidden, that I was told not to land (not true) and a whole load of other twoddle I promptly forgot. After hearing all of this, two club members seperately came up to me afterward and apologized for the cantankerous Good Humour Man and said they were glad to have me there.

I never cast my shadow over their tarmac again.

[chevvron]

piperboy84: obviously you are unaware that UK reg microlights whether 3-axis or flexwing have to have a notarised noise certificate.
Flexwings are banned at Fairoaks too, (although you're unlikely to be turned away if you declare an emergency) presumably because their low landing speed might cause problems to aircraft following them as being a FISO airfield, only one landing aircraft is allowed at a time, and the only place to vacate is the runway end taxiway.
NB: The FISO cannot prevent you landing if the runway is occupied, but the CAA require an MOR to be filed if you do!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I could understand a mandatory briefing. A two stroke ban on noise grounds perhaps makes some sense. But a whole control system? And airliners and gliders hut not light fixed wing?

G

[BEagle]

Genghis, if you are an AOPA member, perhaps you could pass on the details of your incident to the office, including Tatenhill's alleged failure to observe its obligations as a member of the Strasser Scheme.

Normally if there's any misunderstanding, a few words from AOPA to the aerodrome manager sorts things out.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by Jim59

Lasham does take airliners though...

...but not without considerable prior arrangement and instrument runway sterilisation. Airliners may not just lob in.

[Genghis the Engineer]

BEagle, not AOPA, but I have spoken to BMAA who I think are going to have some words.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

Playing devils advocate, the Strasser Scheme is for genuine emergencies, I have landed at Tatenhill following an inflight loss of oil pressure in an Rockwell 114. No oil pressure, temps going sky high, rpm / manifold pressure falling. I did not get charged any landing fee. I was 6 miles away with Tatenhill on the nose when the emergency started.

The Flexwing flight - a VFR flight in an aircraft with relatively slow ground speed, no legal mandatory requirement to have radio and during the flight you lost Com's. To me that's not a real emergency, a little uncomfortable maybe, a quick landing somewhere to sort it out if it bothered you.

The comments about controlled airspace, you knew it was there and could avoid it, so no great issue there. I can understand the view that it was a precautionary landing rather than a real emergency under the terms of the Strasser agreement.

With regards restrictions at certain airfields, the airfield owner writes the rules, he decides who can and can't come to play. This may be influenced by local factors which we may be unaware of. Ultimately its his right to decide who can visit and in what. A little like a homeowner deciding who they want to let into their house.

I am a little puzzled as to what the real problem is?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The problem for me, personally was that I was being bluntly lectured for having broken rules without any inquiry about why I was there or whether I had a problem. I offered to pay a landing fee to calm the man down, but having explained the precautionary landing, did not expect the offer to be accepted: that it was is rude, but a lot less rude than the rest of it.

There's also absolutely no way you can look up Pooleys in a flexwing in flight also, and I was not going to do another hour with my pax not knowing my ongoing intentions.

My call to take a precautionary diversion, which I still think was the right one.

G

[peterh337]

Aviation is a funny business. Arthur Scragill should have been in aviation, not coal. Every time Maggie tried to whack him with her handbag (unlikely in the first place in aviation) he could have just held up a banner with the magic "S" word and everybody would have backed off.

The "S" concept has enabled aviation to engage in a lot of empire building because most of those bankrolling the businesses haven't got a clue about it.

The problem with this business culture is that attracts (via job applications) and breeds anally retentive types, who think that not wearing a yellow jacket is the end of the world and is going to kill everybody within 10nm. God knows what these character types do when they get home. Perhaps becoming an ISO9000 quality manager, or maybe even a chief REACH compliance officer, is the holy grail?

[goldeneaglepilot]

I can understand your feelings that the guy did not perhaps handle the matter in a friendly way. Equally there may be other factors (planning, noise for example) that influence the way he reacted.

[Pace]

Strasser Scheme

Here are the details and principals of the Strasser scheme

[Genghis the Engineer]

As I said, the landing fee issue for me was pretty trivial. The implication that as I was in the wrong sort of aeroplane, I shouldn't have diverted *there* was not.

G

[mad_jock]

G to be honest these people are pretty much standard now across the UK working at airports..

It doesn't matter what the airmanship reason is why your are doing something if it doesn't fit in with what there interpretation of the rule book is it is there right to throw a fit. And I think that pilot being in the main alpha males (including the burds) don't instantly recognise the percieved status of ground ops director little piddlington intergalatic space port.

The fact that later in the main they find out the are largely impotent in the grand scale of things annoys them even more, and the next breach of their labour of love rule book incures an increased rath.

You won't change anything by complaining. But at least posting on here and making it public will annoy the pillock even more.

There are a few goodun's out there though. It does seem related though to how much of an aviation god the SATCO is and how much control they have over the ground ops.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

My call to take a precautionary diversion, which I still think was the right one.

IMO that's beyond doubt. The fact that you, as PIC, felt a precautionary landing was justified is reason enough.

Any inflight failure should prompt the question "where would this leave me if something else were to happen". If, let us say, you were unfortunate enough to lose the engine later in the flight, the loss of comms with both ground & your passenger could have made a catastrophic difference to the outcome.

The whole point of the Strasser scheme is to remove any cost/permission issues which might influence a GA pilot's decision to make a precautionary landing. Unless someone is obviously taking the p**s, subsequently questioning that decision undermines the principle of the agreement and IMO this kind of behaviour by Tatenhill harms us all.

[cumulusrider]

Any inflight failure should prompt the question "where would this leave me if something else were to happen". If, let us say, you were unfortunate enough to lose the engine later in the flight, the loss of comms with both ground & your passenger could have made a catastrophic difference to the outcome.

You lose the engine and thus the noise of it so you can speak to your passenger. The thing dosnt just fall out of the sky without an engine you can glide to a safe field landing even without the glide angle of a glider. Hundred of people fly cross country without radio or engine each year.
Aviate, Navigate , Comminicate.
I dont agree with Ghengis reason for the divert but I totaly agree with him about his reception. GA is only a small group of people in this country. Why cant we all get on : be it group A, microlight, Balloons, gliders etc.

['India-Mike]

Code:

G to be honest these people are pretty much standard now across the UK working at airports..

Last year, preflighting Chipmunk (well that's my excuse for the green growbag). Ops man charges half-way across aerodrome to castigate me for not wearing yellow jacket. Conversation something like this...

Me - 'I'm not wearing one 'cos I'm about to go flying'
Him - 'Well take it off in the aeroplane'
Me - 'Wait a minute...I'm wearing camouflage and you still spotted me from way over there. Aren't I conspicuous enough then?'

Serious sense of humour failure then followed

Suppose the guy was just doing his job.