My own airfield operator (the aeroclub) has a better solution: they promised the installation of a MoGas pump. Now to see it in real life
“better”?? Not what I’d want – less throughput would make price higher, and fuel longer in the tank
At Inverness, EGPE, which is owned by HIAL, (a Quango I think) we are free to bring in tins of fuel. I’ve a trolley for the 500m walk from my car parking (free to hangar residents) through Security to the hangar. Flamable Liquid Storage cabinets are provided in the hangar for the cans. Security check my Airside Badge and Conspicuity Vest, but not the fuel – that’s official policy. We’re also allowed to work on aircraft in the hangar.
PS Flybe, Easyjet, and Loganair operate B737s, Airbus, Embraers, and Saab340s from Inverness, with other occasional charter operators, and some business jets.
That logic would say that Bournemouth would also be responsible for your MOGAS bought at a different airfield that was in your tanks. It defies belief that anyone could consider that as logic.
Will they also ban working on your own aircraft?
Actually, this happened two months ago at LDZA – airport didn’t allow mechanic to uninstall non-working magnetos at GA apron – they advised relocating 
aircraft somewhere for service. After few calls they finally allowed repair but it’s funny where the things in Europe are going …
After few calls they finally allowed repair but it’s funny where the things in Europe are going …
It’s the “can you blame someone” principle. It is very much understandable. The Airport knows all too well, through experience or whatever, that IF something goes wrong, they WILL be blamed by someone because they are __responsible __for all activities at the airport. People bringing their own fuel is a nuisance, a risk not worth the potential cost and work.
I am not at all sure the airport is responsible.
What happens is that
but if you get a proper lawyer who specialises in the field, you will get advice on how to deal with it.
An insurer might not want to help because they won’t want to use their expensive lawyers, and they want to keep the options open to pay out or not when something actually happens. Same reason the UK tax authority will never give you a ruling on whether some scheme is legal.
The Airport knows all too well, through experience or whatever, that IF something goes wrong, they WILL be blamed by someone because they are __responsible __for all activities at the airport.
But what can go wrong when servicing the aircraft on apron? The worst thing that can happen is that the aircraft explodes. The same thing can happen while refueling or when starting the engine but both are allowed.
Bringing your own fuel is different stuff and I understand the concerns.
What I find strange is in the US where the actual risk of getting sued is much higher, they don’t really care. You can operate after the FBO hours without signing indemnification forms in triplicate, you don’t have to wear yellow jackets etc. But in the UK where the risk of being sued is an order of magnitude lower, the FEAR of getting sued seems an order of magnitude higher.
I think that is mostly a consequence of the “aviation personality problem” in Europe.
It attracts all kinds of weird and often narcissistic types, mostly males who never adjusted to real life, and the safety culture (which is to an extent obviously necessary in aviation) attracts a lot of people who can’t do a real job so they make what they can out of it. So all the failed ISO9000 quality managers (how you can become a failed ISO9000 quality manager is a good question, but you get my drift) pile in…
In the USA, people fly planes like they drive cars. It’s no big deal. Whereas here, as the old joke goes, if you are at a party of 100 people and one is a pilot, how do you find him? A: You don’t. He will find you!
Europe does get a high level of people who abuse the process whereby almost any insurer will give you 10k-20k to get you off their back. So the principle of the claim is never tested properly. I don’t think there is a liability for the use of own supplied fuel. How can there be? What about own supplied lubricants and service parts?
But in the UK where the risk of being sued is an order of magnitude lower, the FEAR of getting sued seems an order of magnitude higher.
Fear is not driven by risk but by what you have to loose. Running an airfield in the UK might be more difficult than in the US. The owner/operator might feel that he needs to protect that hard work even if the risks are lower.
Hey if fear was rational it would be called calculated risk.
The owner/operator might feel that he needs to protect that hard work even if the risks are lower.
Ah, the old “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it” thing :-) Making life difficult for your repeat customers probably bears a much greater risk to the airfield than letting them fuel their aircraft with the correct grade of fuel.
