Heathrow shut

ChicagoBlue said:
If that doesn’t sum up “What the actual fuck?!” I don’t know what does!

The back up system operated as expected, so we had to shutdown one of the worlds busiest airports and cost the economy billions!

Which dickhead builds an essential systems back up that, when it works AS EXPECTED, causes a complete shutdown of the system (the operation of the airport) it is designed to protect?

Was it designed by Lucas?
Click to expand...
Yesterday a Heathrow spokesman said the back-up systems operated as intended for all safety critical systems at the airport. Aviation and building specialists have said Heathrow uses the same amount of power as a small city and Heathrow had nowhere near enough power to maintain operations.
One London-based building inspector claimed Heathrow was exempt from standard UK building regulations and had it's own in-house rules which would also cover energy supply.
 
East Level 2 said:
Yesterday a Heathrow spokesman said the back-up systems operated as intended for all safety critical systems at the airport. Aviation and building specialists have said Heathrow uses the same amount of power as a small city and Heathrow had nowhere near enough power to maintain operations.
One London-based building inspector claimed Heathrow was exempt from standard UK building regulations and had it's own in-house rules which would also cover energy supply.
Click to expand...
Begs belief. As crucial as Heathrow is, it seems rather susceptible to both accidents and sabotage.
 
As annoying as disrupted travel plans can be, it’s laughable watching Sky News interview passengers with tales so sad you would be forgiven they had been through a natural disaster rather than stuck with no flight for several fucking hours!
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Begs belief. As crucial as Heathrow is, it seems rather susceptible to both accidents and sabotage.
Click to expand...

The substation will be owned by National Grid - run for shareholder profit so as we have seen repeatedly ( think water suppliers ) that means the bare minimum spend for the maximum profit and so backup and contingency spend would be weighed up against costs. Of course under 14 years of Tories blind eyes were turned - I heard a former national security chief interviewed yesterday who was asking the same question and was also asking why did Ofgen not do anything - I spat my tea out at that point
 
bluethrunthru said:
The substation will be owned by National Grid - run for shareholder profit so as we have seen repeatedly ( think water suppliers ) that means the bare minimum spend for the maximum profit and so backup and contingency spend would be weighed up against costs. Of course under 14 years of Tories blind eyes were turned - I heard a former national security chief interviewed yesterday who was asking the same question and was also asking why did Ofgen not do anything - I spat my tea out at that point
Click to expand...

Just wait til we have this nuclear power managed the same way.
 
This has dropped down the board once it turned it to be a good old British balls up as a result of bollocks old infrastructure, and not a high end top secret terrorist attack then?
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
This has dropped down the board once it turned it to be a good old British balls up as a result of bollocks old infrastructure, and not a high end top secret terrorist attack then?
Click to expand...

I don’t think it was just a balls up otherwise the media would be going in hard. You don’t have to be a tin foil waving lunatic to believe in espionage.

Train drivers go on strike & it’s all over the news…. 1300 flights cancelled at a cost of 10s of millions & thousands without power & very little said.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Begs belief. As crucial as Heathrow is, it seems rather susceptible to both accidents and sabotage.
Click to expand...
The problem is trying to run without any remaining redundancy. The repercussions of continuing to operate as normal, operators carrying normal fuel reserves and then having a failure of say, runway lights and multiple fuel diversions would have also been headline news, but this time for safety purposes. AS it was, the decision to close for a specified time was probably the safest thing to do for all as well as allowing passengers, especially those outbound, to know they weren't going anywhere and not too even go to the airport. Hugely frustrating for everyone but probably the right call.
 
cheekybids said:
I don’t think it was just a balls up otherwise the media would be going in hard. You don’t have to be a tin foil waving lunatic to believe in espionage.

Train drivers go on strike & it’s all over the news…. 1300 flights cancelled at a cost of 10s of millions & thousands without power & very little said.
Click to expand...
It was all over the likes of LBC and still is to a degree.
 
hampshireblue said:
The problem is trying to run without any remaining redundancy. The repercussions of continuing to operate as normal, operators carrying normal fuel reserves and then having a failure of say, runway lights and multiple fuel diversions would have also been headline news, but this time for safety purposes. AS it was, the decision to close for a specified time was probably the safest thing to do for all as well as allowing passengers, especially those outbound, to know they weren't going anywhere and not too even go to the airport. Hugely frustrating for everyone but probably the right call.
Click to expand...
It just seems a little “small time” for one of the most important airports in the world.

I remember a teeny weeny snow event years ago and I had to fly a “rescue mission” in the 747 to pick up people and their bags because everything was grounded…for days. There was about 2-3 inches of snow max…or what we call “a Tuesday in winter” out here.

No-one seems too put out over there, so I guess it’s no big deal to others, but it is all just a bit weird to me.
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
This has dropped down the board once it turned it to be a good old British balls up as a result of bollocks old infrastructure, and not a high end top secret terrorist attack then?
Click to expand...
When the UK Terrorist Threat Level is in the ‘Substantial’ category, which means a terrorist attack is likely, and has been at either ‘Substatial’ or ‘Severe’ since July 2019, it’s not unusual for people to presume that something like this is terror or espionage related.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top