CAP 667 9.2(c)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 667 9.2(c)
Hi Folks,
I was just reminded about this in the recent GA magazine. In a nutshell it pertains to the recommendation by the CAA that airfields waive landing fees for diversions.
Now, I was reminded by Charles Strasser that 153 civilian airfields and 37 MOD airfields have agreed to participate. The airfield where my beloved steed is hangered is NOT one of the 153
In fact they have actively declined to join in, although they have agreed to waive charges for mechanical failure in flight.
In order to get both sides of the story, are there any airfield operator PPRuNers or indeed anyone else with experience in this area who could give supported reasons why an airfield should not participate.
Cheers
Andy
I was just reminded about this in the recent GA magazine. In a nutshell it pertains to the recommendation by the CAA that airfields waive landing fees for diversions.
Now, I was reminded by Charles Strasser that 153 civilian airfields and 37 MOD airfields have agreed to participate. The airfield where my beloved steed is hangered is NOT one of the 153
In fact they have actively declined to join in, although they have agreed to waive charges for mechanical failure in flight.In order to get both sides of the story, are there any airfield operator PPRuNers or indeed anyone else with experience in this area who could give supported reasons why an airfield should not participate.
Cheers
Andy
I don't have any first-hand knowledge, of yours or of any other airport operations. But I think there's a genuine concern over the "weather diversion" being exploited unfairly.
One of the essential parts of pre-flight planning is Plan B -- what I do when things don't work out as I expect. Weather is one of the most common spanners in the works. I should take account of the possibility of the need to invoke Plan B in the decision as to whether or not to make the flight. If Plan B includes landing at a more expensive airport, that's part of the cost of the flight.
That said, and human nature being what it is, pilots will undoubtedly let their in-flight decisions be influenced by the cost of diverting, and if the scheme helps pilots to stay alive, that's got to be good. I just wonder if this is a case of good, prudent pilots subsidizing bad, careless pilots.
One of the essential parts of pre-flight planning is Plan B -- what I do when things don't work out as I expect. Weather is one of the most common spanners in the works. I should take account of the possibility of the need to invoke Plan B in the decision as to whether or not to make the flight. If Plan B includes landing at a more expensive airport, that's part of the cost of the flight.
That said, and human nature being what it is, pilots will undoubtedly let their in-flight decisions be influenced by the cost of diverting, and if the scheme helps pilots to stay alive, that's got to be good. I just wonder if this is a case of good, prudent pilots subsidizing bad, careless pilots.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots will undoubtedly let their in-flight decisions be influenced by the cost of diverting
There are a few airfields where landing is stupidly expensive, and which aren't part of this scheme. Places like Heathrow, Gatwick etc. All of these places have radar. I have no doubt they'd let you in if it really was the only option, but I also suspect that they'd offer as much help as possible in getting you somewhere else safely if the option is available.
In fact, only a few months ago the whole of south-east England was covered in fog, except for the Heathrow area (which is a little unusual to say the least!) I was in the operations room at White Waltham when we got a phone call from London Radar to tell us they were vectoring an aircraft through their zone to us, he'd be approaching along the railway line and they'd hand him over to us with about a mile to run. Shortly after that a very relieved Cessna 172 pilot and his family landed safely, having been unable to make it into Elstree.
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should commercial airfields offer dispensation for weather diversions? If you are out for a jolly and the weather closes in, perhaps you should improve your forecasting abilities prior to taking-off.
If you are making a flight where there is a requirement to file a flight plan, you need to nominate at least one alternate. Prior to doing this, you need to consider various issues. Cost may well be one; opening hours; proximity to your intended destination; customs & immigration; if my intended destination's wx is below limits what is the forecast at the alternate and what navaids etc. might benefit me at that alternate......etc.
If you are not filing a Flt. Pl. does it exhonerate you from considering alternates
If you have a mechanical failure and need to divert, why should you be exempt from a runway charge? You were going to have to land somewhere! (Most large airfields now charge for use of their runway on Dep - not Arr.)
When discussing this issue locally, I suggested that rather than waiving the runway charge, waive the parking fees because therein lies the real problem if your aircraft goes tech. You had to land somewhere, however, the real accumulated cost may turn out to be the burden of parking away from your base airfield, subject repairs.
If you are making a flight where there is a requirement to file a flight plan, you need to nominate at least one alternate. Prior to doing this, you need to consider various issues. Cost may well be one; opening hours; proximity to your intended destination; customs & immigration; if my intended destination's wx is below limits what is the forecast at the alternate and what navaids etc. might benefit me at that alternate......etc.
If you are not filing a Flt. Pl. does it exhonerate you from considering alternates
If you have a mechanical failure and need to divert, why should you be exempt from a runway charge? You were going to have to land somewhere! (Most large airfields now charge for use of their runway on Dep - not Arr.)
When discussing this issue locally, I suggested that rather than waiving the runway charge, waive the parking fees because therein lies the real problem if your aircraft goes tech. You had to land somewhere, however, the real accumulated cost may turn out to be the burden of parking away from your base airfield, subject repairs.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should commercial airfields offer dispensation for weather diversions?
Because they can.
Here's an example of a well planned, including alternates, flight with a sudden problem:
Weekend
I'm flying IFR (in IMC) to, say, Coventry from Blackbushe.
North of WCO my anti-ice/de-ice goes wrong and I'm in cloud above freezing level - gotta get down. Now.
Cranfield, my alternate, the ILS has just gone inop or they have another emergency - rwy blocked.
Benson is closed.
Nearest divert is Luton - not put as an alternate because the landing fees at Coventry, Cranfield, Farnborough are all double digits not triple digits.
Should Luton accept me?
Should I have to pay > £200 for the diversion?
Because they can.
Here's an example of a well planned, including alternates, flight with a sudden problem:
Weekend
I'm flying IFR (in IMC) to, say, Coventry from Blackbushe.
North of WCO my anti-ice/de-ice goes wrong and I'm in cloud above freezing level - gotta get down. Now.
Cranfield, my alternate, the ILS has just gone inop or they have another emergency - rwy blocked.
Benson is closed.
Nearest divert is Luton - not put as an alternate because the landing fees at Coventry, Cranfield, Farnborough are all double digits not triple digits.
Should Luton accept me?
Should I have to pay > £200 for the diversion?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North of WCO my anti-ice/de-ice goes wrong and I'm in cloud above freezing level - gotta get down. Now.
...
Should Luton accept me?
Should I have to pay > £200 for the diversion?
...
Should Luton accept me?
Should I have to pay > £200 for the diversion?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have made two weather diversions. Both planned flights were into Bourn.
The first was a diversion into Cambridge due to low cloud. I was not charged for the landing, the ILS approach or one night's parking. Excellent!!
The second was into Cranfield. I was picking up ice in a non-deiced aircraft and could not get below the freezing level or out of cloud above the MSA. There was no charge for landing or parking.
In both cases I would have happily paid. My decision to fly in both cases included the consideration that Cambridge/Cranfield were available to me for diversion if conditions were worse than I expected and were part of the 'safe-flight' review prior to departure.
Nevertheless, I support the concept that cost considerations should not become part of the decision process, which could lead to a pilot pressing on in bad circumstances. In both of the above cases it would have been bad news to continue the flight to Bourn.
I am giving a reason why an airfield's participation in the 'no fee for weather diversion' scheme would have made no difference to me, but I'm not naive enough to believe that everybody would share my view.
AA.
The first was a diversion into Cambridge due to low cloud. I was not charged for the landing, the ILS approach or one night's parking. Excellent!!
The second was into Cranfield. I was picking up ice in a non-deiced aircraft and could not get below the freezing level or out of cloud above the MSA. There was no charge for landing or parking.
In both cases I would have happily paid. My decision to fly in both cases included the consideration that Cambridge/Cranfield were available to me for diversion if conditions were worse than I expected and were part of the 'safe-flight' review prior to departure.
Nevertheless, I support the concept that cost considerations should not become part of the decision process, which could lead to a pilot pressing on in bad circumstances. In both of the above cases it would have been bad news to continue the flight to Bourn.
I am giving a reason why an airfield's participation in the 'no fee for weather diversion' scheme would have made no difference to me, but I'm not naive enough to believe that everybody would share my view.
AA.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
You are hypothesisng over a Tech problem - see my post again.
If you had just got airborne and had one engine fail, would you expect your base airfield to waive charges? Why should they!
You are hypothesisng over a Tech problem - see my post again.
If you had just got airborne and had one engine fail, would you expect your base airfield to waive charges? Why should they!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were forced to land somewhere really expensive and it costs say 300 quid, so what? You've spent some thousands learning to fly and the flight you were on right then is likely costing you more than a hundred, so you can probably afford it. This isn't happening every week, maybe once every 100 hours say and even if you only paid 50 quid an hour for your flying 300 is only 6%. I realise this is a generalisation but surely it is generally reasonable?
Then there is the problem that the cost of the landing fee would have an effect upon the decision making process of the emergency landing. Well if that is the only reason to make emergency landings free then I think it is a nonsense - people should learn to make sensible decisions and be responsible for their actions rather than just taking away this factor.
Some are free, they provide a great service and that's great, good for them. Perhaps it helps build their business because they get a good reputation and people are more inclined to patronise them. But I don't see why those that choose to charge should be made to change their policy. Like I said (somewhat unpopularly) in another thread, if you don't like their policy don't go there. Oh, you've got an engine failure in their overhead and you can't make it anywhere else? Pay the money and be happy someone chose to run an airfield right where you needed it most!
Then there is the problem that the cost of the landing fee would have an effect upon the decision making process of the emergency landing. Well if that is the only reason to make emergency landings free then I think it is a nonsense - people should learn to make sensible decisions and be responsible for their actions rather than just taking away this factor.
Some are free, they provide a great service and that's great, good for them. Perhaps it helps build their business because they get a good reputation and people are more inclined to patronise them. But I don't see why those that choose to charge should be made to change their policy. Like I said (somewhat unpopularly) in another thread, if you don't like their policy don't go there. Oh, you've got an engine failure in their overhead and you can't make it anywhere else? Pay the money and be happy someone chose to run an airfield right where you needed it most!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK430, I disagree that my example was a tech. problem per se. Aircraft still flyable, I just want down out of the visible moisture (and freezing levels) on an instrument approach ASAP.
My carefully selected alternate, Cranfield, is unavailable and Farnborough or Coventry are some distance further than Luton...
Should I be stuck with a > £200 bill for being cautious?!
Had I just got airborne and had an engine fail - if the weather was okay I'd circuit to land at Blackbushe and pay the £5.00.
If the weather was below VMC minima, I'd call Farnborough and divert there (my departure alternate) for free.
Bizarre question.
Evo "If your problem is not serious enough to decare a state of urgency then it's less obvious. Ideally yes and no again, but if they're busy, your problem isn't that bad and you're going to cause disruption then it isn't so unreasonable to pay for it."
Sums it up nicely - do you want to think about all that lot when you have a problem? The whole rationale behind Strasser's campaign was to remove one element of the decision - diversions should be a no-brainer. People have been known to try and get to places when they should have 180'd, diverted, whatever.
bookworm "But I think there's a genuine concern over the 'weather diversion' being exploited unfairly."
All military airfields now accept wx diversions - they extended the trial of this because they experienced zero exploitation. (I read that somewhere...
)
My carefully selected alternate, Cranfield, is unavailable and Farnborough or Coventry are some distance further than Luton...
Should I be stuck with a > £200 bill for being cautious?!
Had I just got airborne and had an engine fail - if the weather was okay I'd circuit to land at Blackbushe and pay the £5.00.
If the weather was below VMC minima, I'd call Farnborough and divert there (my departure alternate) for free.
Bizarre question.
Evo "If your problem is not serious enough to decare a state of urgency then it's less obvious. Ideally yes and no again, but if they're busy, your problem isn't that bad and you're going to cause disruption then it isn't so unreasonable to pay for it."
Sums it up nicely - do you want to think about all that lot when you have a problem? The whole rationale behind Strasser's campaign was to remove one element of the decision - diversions should be a no-brainer. People have been known to try and get to places when they should have 180'd, diverted, whatever.
bookworm "But I think there's a genuine concern over the 'weather diversion' being exploited unfairly."
All military airfields now accept wx diversions - they extended the trial of this because they experienced zero exploitation. (I read that somewhere...
)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denham
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks,
Just MHO...
Making a diversion landing in a smal airfield chanrging £10~20 is no big deal and it won't break anybody's savings. Except for the good-will factor that was mentioned before, I see no other reason why such an airfield should give people a discount since it's most likelly no more expensive that the original destination anyway.
But occasionally a large airport may be the best diversion option. Human nature being what it is I'd prefer not to worry about the impending 3 figure bill on top of everything else that has already gone wrong or that is likelly to go wrong in the near future.
On the basis of that I do think there is a very good reason why expensive airports should accept GA diversions at no cost.
Mak
Just MHO...
Making a diversion landing in a smal airfield chanrging £10~20 is no big deal and it won't break anybody's savings. Except for the good-will factor that was mentioned before, I see no other reason why such an airfield should give people a discount since it's most likelly no more expensive that the original destination anyway.
But occasionally a large airport may be the best diversion option. Human nature being what it is I'd prefer not to worry about the impending 3 figure bill on top of everything else that has already gone wrong or that is likelly to go wrong in the near future.
On the basis of that I do think there is a very good reason why expensive airports should accept GA diversions at no cost.
Mak
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was driving along the motorway yesterday in a £50,000 sports car. The sky was looking a bit grey, it was very cold and I started to worry it might snow. I was really hungry, so much that my stomach was aching. I was in a bit of a hurry because I was going to miss my favourite TV programme. To top it all I was bursting for the toilet. Imagine my horror when the car spluttered as it ran out of fuel (the other day the same thing happened at the engine just stopped for no reason and time before that a wheel fell off). I managed to get up a very fortunately placed slip road so I wasn't in anyone's way and I felt relieved to be safe. I called the AA and asked them to come and fetch me. They said it would cost 200 pounds because I wasn't a member. I said I couldn't afford 200 pounds, they said something about owning an expensive sports car and that perhaps I should have been more careful about my fuel. I told them I had lots of things on my mind and the last thing I wanted to worry about was whether they would charge me to tow me to a garage.
I know the analogy doesn't hold up to too much scrutiny, but I still don't get why airfields should waive landing fees.
I tell you what, if you're flying past Luton, your engine cuts, you're in a genuine life or death situation, and you don't feel inclined to land there because of the landing fee, go ahead and land, send me a PM and I'll come up to Luton and pay the landing fee for you - £200 is a small price to save a life or four. Honestly I will.
I know the analogy doesn't hold up to too much scrutiny, but I still don't get why airfields should waive landing fees.
I tell you what, if you're flying past Luton, your engine cuts, you're in a genuine life or death situation, and you don't feel inclined to land there because of the landing fee, go ahead and land, send me a PM and I'll come up to Luton and pay the landing fee for you - £200 is a small price to save a life or four. Honestly I will.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 667 was a review of fatal accidents 1985-94
on this subject it said
Charles Strasser and the participating airfields are to be commended but aren't we all missing the point?
A pilot who fails to make a sensible diversion or precautionary landing and so endangers the life of himself, his passengers, and people on the ground in order to save money, be it £20, £200 or £2000 is being criminally negligent.
We need to educate ourselves to recognise an emergency when there is one, not to try and press on. The question of whether or not we will be charged should not even enter into the equation.
Mike
on this subject it said
"(c) There were a number of fatal accidents where a timely diversion or precautionary landing could have avoided the accident. In the UK (and probably elsewhere) there is a ‘culture’ of pressing on and hoping for the best rather than accepting the inconvenience and cost of a diversion. This ‘culture’ needs to be changed, firstly by educating pilots and secondly by persuading aerodrome owners that there should be no charge for emergency landings or diversions. (There are some aerodromes that do not make a charge for an emergency landing.)
It is recommended that all aerodrome owners be persuaded to adopt a policy that there should be no charges for emergency landings or diversions by General Aviation aircraft."
It is recommended that all aerodrome owners be persuaded to adopt a policy that there should be no charges for emergency landings or diversions by General Aviation aircraft."
A pilot who fails to make a sensible diversion or precautionary landing and so endangers the life of himself, his passengers, and people on the ground in order to save money, be it £20, £200 or £2000 is being criminally negligent.
We need to educate ourselves to recognise an emergency when there is one, not to try and press on. The question of whether or not we will be charged should not even enter into the equation.
Mike
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drauk
I know the analogy doesn't hold up to too much scrutiny
No kidding! 
Here's a thought.
Stop thinking about yourself and your £50K sports car or £400K de-iced pressurized multi, and think about the pilot who flies, say, 20 hours a year (because it's all he can afford) who has this diversion problem.
Same answer?
I don't think anyone is saying (not me for sure) they wouldn't pay £200 to land and be/feel safe.
What people are saying is that they shouldn't have to.
Big difference.
The refusal to participate by Belfast-Intl., Biggin-Hill, Birmingham, Blackpool, Cardiff, Carlisle, Dundee, Exeter, Filton, Gloucestershire, Halfpenny-Green, Humberside, Isle-of-Man, Leeds/Bradford, London-Luton, Manchester, Norwich, Teesside. is just bloody-mindedness.
They must be so busy/important/(insert suitable adjective here)
Nothing to do with economics.
mrcross
"...but aren't we all missing the point?" "We need to educate ourselves to recognise an emergency ..."
189 airfields don't agree with you, neither do the CAA or AOPA-UK.
We're talking about "precautionary landings", not 7700/emergencies...
What if it isn't "an emergency", what if it is just a "funny noise", an "ooh, can I smell fuel... Naaah", or a "buggar, that burger I had is really making me feel nauseous - I don't feel so good - it'll pass"
None of those are emergencies.
How clever of 189 airfields to let me land FOC and make sure everything's hunky-dory, A-OK. No risk or expense to them.
PS, don't you represent AOPA?
I know the analogy doesn't hold up to too much scrutiny
No kidding! Here's a thought.
Stop thinking about yourself and your £50K sports car or £400K de-iced pressurized multi, and think about the pilot who flies, say, 20 hours a year (because it's all he can afford) who has this diversion problem.
Same answer?
I don't think anyone is saying (not me for sure) they wouldn't pay £200 to land and be/feel safe.
What people are saying is that they shouldn't have to.
Big difference.
The refusal to participate by Belfast-Intl., Biggin-Hill, Birmingham, Blackpool, Cardiff, Carlisle, Dundee, Exeter, Filton, Gloucestershire, Halfpenny-Green, Humberside, Isle-of-Man, Leeds/Bradford, London-Luton, Manchester, Norwich, Teesside. is just bloody-mindedness.
They must be so busy/important/(insert suitable adjective here)
Nothing to do with economics.
mrcross
"...but aren't we all missing the point?" "We need to educate ourselves to recognise an emergency ..."
189 airfields don't agree with you, neither do the CAA or AOPA-UK.
We're talking about "precautionary landings", not 7700/emergencies...
What if it isn't "an emergency", what if it is just a "funny noise", an "ooh, can I smell fuel... Naaah", or a "buggar, that burger I had is really making me feel nauseous - I don't feel so good - it'll pass"
None of those are emergencies.
How clever of 189 airfields to let me land FOC and make sure everything's hunky-dory, A-OK. No risk or expense to them.
PS, don't you represent AOPA?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting debate, not least, because there isn't a wrong and a right answer, just opinions
For my opinion, I approach this from a different angle; What is the problem that Strasser was attempting to solve?
Was it that case that there were significant numbers of deaths caused by people failing to divert into the most appropriate airports when the weather turned? The accident statistics don't seem to bear that out.
An unscientific look at the CAA's Published GA accident stats suggest that most weather related deaths in the UK relate to pilots pressing on into inappropriate weather with no obvious intention of diverting. I have not (yet) found a case of somebody crashing having attempted to divert to an inappropriate airport - and having also rejected a more expensive better alternative.
So the amendment seems public-spirited but is perhaps solving a non-existent problem. Pilots in deep doo doo seem to do the right thing and divert, regardless of cost. So why go the extra mile and deprive airfields of their landing fee.
The argument against Strasser's fine initiative seems to be that making diversions free, discourages pilots from engaging in proper flight planning. That is surely an argument that you can have some sympathy with. I am still not sure that Strasser has solved a real problem...
For my opinion, I approach this from a different angle; What is the problem that Strasser was attempting to solve?
Was it that case that there were significant numbers of deaths caused by people failing to divert into the most appropriate airports when the weather turned? The accident statistics don't seem to bear that out.
An unscientific look at the CAA's Published GA accident stats suggest that most weather related deaths in the UK relate to pilots pressing on into inappropriate weather with no obvious intention of diverting. I have not (yet) found a case of somebody crashing having attempted to divert to an inappropriate airport - and having also rejected a more expensive better alternative.
So the amendment seems public-spirited but is perhaps solving a non-existent problem. Pilots in deep doo doo seem to do the right thing and divert, regardless of cost. So why go the extra mile and deprive airfields of their landing fee.
The argument against Strasser's fine initiative seems to be that making diversions free, discourages pilots from engaging in proper flight planning. That is surely an argument that you can have some sympathy with. I am still not sure that Strasser has solved a real problem...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need to move away from the "weather diversion" distraction and look at what the recommendation actually said.
Precautionary landings should be free of charge.
Why?
Because it might just save a life or several.
We can argue about whether the cost should come into it, or whether the pilot should have thought more carefully about the weather, or maybe should have selected seven alternates instead of two - but at the end of the day human nature being what it is, waiving a landing fee to "tempt" a troubled pilot down seems a very small price to pay in the name of enhanced safety and I am amazed people try to justify the 18 airfields not doing this.
Precautionary landings should be free of charge.
Why?
Because it might just save a life or several.
We can argue about whether the cost should come into it, or whether the pilot should have thought more carefully about the weather, or maybe should have selected seven alternates instead of two - but at the end of the day human nature being what it is, waiving a landing fee to "tempt" a troubled pilot down seems a very small price to pay in the name of enhanced safety and I am amazed people try to justify the 18 airfields not doing this.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precautionary landings should be free of charge.
Why?
Because it might just save a life or several
Why?
Because it might just save a life or several
I have to say that I didn't realise the landing fees would be zero for a landing on the basis of a stomach ache or a funny noise from the engine. That's interesting and I'm amazed this system is not abused.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...example, why don't KwikFit waive the costs of fixing poor brakes on cars?"
Erm, same reason Avgas costs. And aircraft engineers.
But how much do KwikFit et al charge you to park on their driveway for 10 minutes?
Oh that's right, nothing
And motorway services?
If I stop for fuel I pay, what , 80p/litre?
If I stop to stretch my legs, or use the bog: nothing.
No discretion, just zero cost.
And apparently I'm a safer motorist for doing so -- according to all the signs I see about "Tiredness Kills".
-----------
That's interesting and I'm amazed this system is not abused.
Do you abuse the NHS by going to the doctor with a rumbling stomach? No. Too inconvenient. Only use them when you absolutely have to.
By way of comparison, the military trialled the FOC precautionary landing scheme.
Now they have extended the trial because they did not experience abuse of the free landing on diversion scheme
Says a lot about the "abuse" theory
I'm not talking about free fuel, food, engineering or even water.
I'm talking about using an existing runway, with existing ATC/FIS, who will already be there whether I need them or not - where's the cost to them?
Will my precautionary landing wear-out the runway or the microphone button?
Erm, same reason Avgas costs. And aircraft engineers.
But how much do KwikFit et al charge you to park on their driveway for 10 minutes?
Oh that's right, nothing
And motorway services?
If I stop for fuel I pay, what , 80p/litre?
If I stop to stretch my legs, or use the bog: nothing.
No discretion, just zero cost.
And apparently I'm a safer motorist for doing so -- according to all the signs I see about "Tiredness Kills".
-----------
That's interesting and I'm amazed this system is not abused.
Do you abuse the NHS by going to the doctor with a rumbling stomach? No. Too inconvenient. Only use them when you absolutely have to.
By way of comparison, the military trialled the FOC precautionary landing scheme.
Now they have extended the trial because they did not experience abuse of the free landing on diversion scheme
Says a lot about the "abuse" theory
I'm not talking about free fuel, food, engineering or even water.
I'm talking about using an existing runway, with existing ATC/FIS, who will already be there whether I need them or not - where's the cost to them?
Will my precautionary landing wear-out the runway or the microphone button?
Last edited by rustle; 12th Apr 2003 at 05:44.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle, you make an interesting point about motorway service stations. Your analogy isn't perfect (either) because you're talking about something you never pay for (pulling up to use the toilet at the service station), whereas a precautionary landing is a version of something you do normally pay for.
No, of course I don't go to the GP with a rumbling stomach even if it's free, but if the GP happened to be in Edinburgh when the festival is on and they provided free transportation from my home in London perhaps I'd be more likely to find myself with a stomach ache each September. So free landings for true emergencies might not be misused, but if your "heard a funny noise" arrangement allowed one to avoid landing fees at what may well have been your intended destination (who is to know?) then I'd be surprised if it wasn't abused. I wonder how "soft" the reason for a precautionary landing could be at one of the many fields which have signed up? "Southend Approach, G-ABCD inbound, but only to use your loo"???!
And as for utilising a service that is sitting there idle anyway I can't agree. Do British Rail (or whoever owns the trains these days) give away free seats on their trains, just because the incremental cost of accomodating you is zero?
No, of course I don't go to the GP with a rumbling stomach even if it's free, but if the GP happened to be in Edinburgh when the festival is on and they provided free transportation from my home in London perhaps I'd be more likely to find myself with a stomach ache each September. So free landings for true emergencies might not be misused, but if your "heard a funny noise" arrangement allowed one to avoid landing fees at what may well have been your intended destination (who is to know?) then I'd be surprised if it wasn't abused. I wonder how "soft" the reason for a precautionary landing could be at one of the many fields which have signed up? "Southend Approach, G-ABCD inbound, but only to use your loo"???!
And as for utilising a service that is sitting there idle anyway I can't agree. Do British Rail (or whoever owns the trains these days) give away free seats on their trains, just because the incremental cost of accomodating you is zero?