Are the high level of Battersea fees a public health hazard?
 

Are the landing and parking fees at Battersea at such a very high level, far above the industry norm, to be a deterrent for a pilot to make a precautionary landing, lets say to check a chip light, slight vibration or dodgy instrument?
The type of issue where it is left to the pilots discretion to land.

Could the CAA dictate, as a requirement to hold a liscence, that particular aerodromes and heliports waive or discount landing fees for such precautionary landings?

Perhaps it would help prevent the (yet to happen?) one in twenty year accident where an aircraft should have landed immediately but didn't.

With the background of the upcoming general inquiry into the safety of helicopters over London would such a saftey initiative be supported by the Mayor or the public?


Mickjoebill

Not a helicopter pilot, but I would have thought that anyone flying any type of helicopter inside the London CTR/on heli routes is by definition well able to pay whatever Battersea might want to charge in the event that they have a problem that they consider requires a precautionary landing. Given the other options (ditch in Thames/none) surely the pilot would already have thought through whether they could afford to have any kind of problem en route, and decided not to go if they weren't prepared to pay the Battersea fees?
NS

Firstly there is an agreement amongst MOST airports that a genuine safety landing is free .
Second point .....no not all pilots are rich !! In an emergency you can land wherever you like so it would not have to be Battersea .

North South

By your logic all aviators should be rich enough to afford massive charges from any airfield. After all, air travel of any kind is so much more expensive than walking.

I have never been in to Battersea - too expensive. I do use the helicopter routes to cross London. The question is, when a pilot has a slight niggling doubt and might land to check, is there a risk that high fees might dissuade him from doing that, and pressing on for the 15 minutes needed to clear the zone to an airfield with more sensible pricing?

NorthSouth, have you actually looked up the charges for the heliport?

In an EC120 or Jetranger, for example, a 24 hour unscheduled park after a landing could cost as much as £7250, Although I'm sure you could get a discount.

However, don't forget the additional £350 overnight security charge for those who really need to empty their bank balance.

Ouch - and people complain about the congestion charge in London!

Yes, this is the scenario that is relevant to the thread... a niggle or suspicion rather than something obvious.

Having said that, I've been in the back seat filming and experienced 3 tail rotor chip lights one main gearbox chip light, an unidentified strange "bang" and cause to idle one engine in a twin over a capital city.

In only one of these instances (in a UK police AS355) did we land immediately (off field at night!) the other cases we flew back to base despite other options being closer.

I do understand that there are playing fields and parks to land in if a minor problem turns into a large one on the way home from London, which some pilots regard as an appropriate strategy.

But if you were over London and Battersea was available for no charge....?


Mickjoebill

I suppose it would be naive of me to think you could call Battersea, explain the situation and see if they agree it would qualify as a free safety landing prior to landing?

Yes, because if the ATCO (a contractor) had to get management permission for a one-off case, you might run out of fuel first.

Better to contact them and ask in advance, in case you ever need to divert there.

I'm sure a lot of this is tongue in cheek ..?. Personally I don't give rats arse about the rules re landing in London in emergency ... I am picking the first spot I think I can get it down safe and argue the toss later ..... You can't die from a CAA bollicking .

Perhaps not from a Bollicking....but maybe from old age while you wait for them to process some paperwork!

Not tongue in cheek, but cheeky:p
Yes for an obvious emergency no one is doubting appropriate action will be taken! But for an odd or unusual symptom that leaves you with a niggling doubt it would be prudent to land asap if such an opportunity were available.

What is the estimate of the number of precautionary landings at Battersea if the scheme went ahead? Several per year?

There have been few full emergency landings made within London in the last 20 years. I recall the Jet Ranger in 2011 and the Police helicopter in 2009 that declared emergencies and landed at London City and something that landed on the bank of the Thames in 2006. Any others? Probably a few at Battersea that didn't make the news?

In light of the future enquiry, such an initiative would be easily understood by the Media and the general public and seen to be generous, proactive and civil minded.
It involves no capital expense to impliment nor any changes in regulations if Battersea heliport take the initiative:ok:


Mickjoebill

And wouldn't it be great if your girlfriend just happened to be passing as you make your diversion in to Battersea ....and then you can go and have a spot of lunch and take care of any business and get back to the pulled circuit breaker in a couple of hours :ok: I think maybe a few a year .....!!,

Surely you could keep a tally of the pilots names who keep dropping in with "suspicions".

I would have thought it would be in the heliports own interest to forego any helicopter incidents over London...

But where would that leave them with their movement quota?

This where you could use a barge which comes along the heliport onto which you can then push the stricken helicopter therefore not blocking the moneymaking spots....

Are the fees charged by the hotels at motorway services a threat to safety? If i'm driving and i feel tired, should i be able to drop in at one of them and stay free of charge on the grounds of safety?

Battersea has - in my experience - a very good record of being reasonable in such cases but at the same time, it's a business!

If you're going to go flying then you need to take responsibility - if you need to land then you land and worry about the money and the paperwork later.

There is already an agreement in place whereby airfields waive charges for genuine diversions - i don't know if Battersea is a participator in the scheme - i'm sure someone will tell us.

OH

As for the fees being "well above the industry norm"

Please define the "norm" here - Are you comparing it with the other licensed heliports in London? Oh wait - there aren't any.

If you want a heliport with ATC / RFFS / VIP lounge / Fuel / handling etc based on a very expensive piece of real-estate then you have to expect to pay for it.

If it does not make money then someone will bulldoze it and build apartments.

OH

A rotorhead with a girlfriend? No, I think this is a pretty low risk :p

Like the CAA too!

Heliport.

Yes - they've got a Monopoly which allows them to charge the very high fees that they do. What do you think would happen if another heliport opened that forced the prices down?

What i think would happen is that someone would look at the reduced level of return, send for the bulldozers and build flats!

OH

The point of mentioning that they were above the norm was to highlight that even for executive air travel it is a lot of money. Im not saying that they are overcharging.
Now take a weekend flyer in a R44 who experiences a strange sound or vibration, the cost of a "look see" landing may be a disincentive that forces a poor decision.

Unlike a city heliport, a five star hotel isn't going to suffer if a passing customer has a crash down the road whilst trying to drive to more affordable digs.
Based on reactions here so far, if Battersea do have such a policy it isn't well understood.


Mickjoebill