On 18/02/2022 23:13, Recliner wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... The AF Concorde crash
>>>> wouldn't have happened with a BA Concorde, as BA had devised and fitted a
>>>> safety modification to prevent exactly that occurrence, but AF thought it
>>>> unnecessary.
>>>
>>> I hadn’t heard that before. What was the modification? There were mods to
>>> all Concordes afterwards which involved fitting extra panelling inside the
>>> fuel tanks, IIRC.
>>>
>>
>> Exploding tyres weren't unknown with Concorde (very high pressures, high
>> rotational speed), and the risk of tyre fragments hitting the wing fuel
>> tanks worried BA so much that it devised and fitted special mud guard type
>> shields to deflect tyre fragments. It duly provided the info to Airbus, who
>> offered the mod to AF, which turned it down as it thought Concorde's
>> excellent Michelin tyres needed no such protection.
>>
>>
>
> See
> <https://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/03/crash.concorde.reut/index.html>
>

IIRC the original report attributed it to debris from a previously
departing aircraft being thrown up by the wheels of the Concorde.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:30:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2022 19:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 17:37, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:45:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000
>>>>>>>> 286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .jpeg?imwidth=640>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's better if you don't pass the image size parameter to the URL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U.jpeg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or https://tiny.one/burnbabyburn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice (??) pikky!
>>>>
>>>> A couple more from the BBC (not sure if all these will work):
>>>>
>>>> <https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/2/18/ec5f1fac-0c77-48ca-a3c4-5c8c57ac45d1.jpg>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60421388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=620fcd45d774c11a4faacf24%26Roof%20blows%20onto%20rail%20line%20in%20Oxfordshire%262022-02-18T17%3A15%3A56.789Z&ns_fee=0>
>>>
>>> Some of them, unsurprisingly, had to go around.
>>>
>>> If we note that Eunice has hit most of England, and assuming that planes
>>> would have to diverge to other airports, where would they go? Would they
>>> go to CDG or AMS, for example?
>>>
>>
>> I've seen reports today of flights diverted to (IIRC) Geneva and Oslo (and
>> one had only come from Italy!!).
>>
>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>> London.
>>>
>>
>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place (even if
>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow). BICBW.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
> It depends on the airline. Some are more"humane" than others. However,
> even the most humane can find themselves in impossible situations.
> Think about all the 9/11 aircraft that ended up at Halifax when the US
> closed its' airspace. It was the response of the local populace that
> saved the day. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/66780006948163021/
>
> Then there are the occasional diversions to inhospitable airports like
> Iqualit and Churchill where a plane undergoing cold weather testing
> with a quite small crew can fill all the available rooms. The
> diversion that sticks in my mind is a BA 747 on an overnight leg from
> the far east that ended up somewhere pretty deep in Russia where they
> didn't have steps that reached the cabin (I never heard how that was
> solved). BA sent a 767 and an A320 from night stops in Eastern Europe
> within a couple of hours, there were no hotels.
>

Those are obviously very exceptional circumstances and people on the ground
can only do their best with the situation that's been put upon them.

Diverted from London to Geneva until the wind dies down is obviously a
somewhat different situation.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/02/2022 21:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: We
>>
>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>> London.
>>>
>>
>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place (even if
>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow). BICBW.
>>
>>
> Does that mean that the airline might have to stump up for a hotel,
> assuming that another flight is not available until the following day?
>

Personally that's what I'd expect in that situation, BICBW.

OTOH when an air traffic control strike got me back to Heathrow too late to
travel home, I paid for the hotel and claimed it back from travel
insurance.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>
> Here's a picture of Cardiff Queen Street railway station.
> https://cardiffjournalism.co.uk/thecardiffian/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2022/02/FL35RlPWYAAOgRx-1024x576.jpeg
>
> And Barry Island railway station:-
> blob:https://web.whatsapp.com/450aca20-9f2f-42d0-813e-134f82ea6489
>

You might need to upload that second pic somewhere and post the URL.

Meanwhile, at Carmarthen:
<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/stories/rail-companies-issue-do-not-travel-warning-as-storm-eunice-causes-line-closures/>
(last pic on that page)

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 19/02/2022 09:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's a picture of Cardiff Queen Street railway station.
>> https://cardiffjournalism.co.uk/thecardiffian/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2022/02/FL35RlPWYAAOgRx-1024x576.jpeg
>>
>> And Barry Island railway station:-
>> blob:https://web.whatsapp.com/450aca20-9f2f-42d0-813e-134f82ea6489
>>
>
> You might need to upload that second pic somewhere and post the URL.
Sorry. I don't own the picture so cannot do that.
>
> Meanwhile, at Carmarthen:
> <https://www.networkrail.co.uk/stories/rail-companies-issue-do-not-travel-warning-as-storm-eunice-causes-line-closures/>
> (last pic on that page)
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 19/02/2022 09:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:30:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/2022 19:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 17:37, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:45:17 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000
>>>>>>>>> 286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .jpeg?imwidth=640>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's better if you don't pass the image size parameter to the URL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U.jpeg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or https://tiny.one/burnbabyburn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice (??) pikky!
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple more from the BBC (not sure if all these will work):
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/2/18/ec5f1fac-0c77-48ca-a3c4-5c8c57ac45d1.jpg>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60421388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=620fcd45d774c11a4faacf24%26Roof%20blows%20onto%20rail%20line%20in%20Oxfordshire%262022-02-18T17%3A15%3A56.789Z&ns_fee=0>
>>>>
>>>> Some of them, unsurprisingly, had to go around.
>>>>
>>>> If we note that Eunice has hit most of England, and assuming that planes
>>>> would have to diverge to other airports, where would they go? Would they
>>>> go to CDG or AMS, for example?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've seen reports today of flights diverted to (IIRC) Geneva and Oslo (and
>>> one had only come from Italy!!).
>>>
>>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>>> London.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place (even if
>>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow). BICBW.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>> It depends on the airline. Some are more"humane" than others. However,
>> even the most humane can find themselves in impossible situations.
>> Think about all the 9/11 aircraft that ended up at Halifax when the US
>> closed its' airspace. It was the response of the local populace that
>> saved the day. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/66780006948163021/
>>
>> Then there are the occasional diversions to inhospitable airports like
>> Iqualit and Churchill where a plane undergoing cold weather testing
>> with a quite small crew can fill all the available rooms. The
>> diversion that sticks in my mind is a BA 747 on an overnight leg from
>> the far east that ended up somewhere pretty deep in Russia where they
>> didn't have steps that reached the cabin (I never heard how that was
>> solved). BA sent a 767 and an A320 from night stops in Eastern Europe
>> within a couple of hours, there were no hotels.
>>
>
> Those are obviously very exceptional circumstances and people on the ground
> can only do their best with the situation that's been put upon them.
>
> Diverted from London to Geneva until the wind dies down is obviously a
> somewhat different situation.

It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
airside at the airport.

On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 09:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:30:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 18/02/2022 19:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 17:37, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:45:17 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> .jpeg?imwidth=640>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's better if you don't pass the image size parameter to the URL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U.jpeg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or https://tiny.one/burnbabyburn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice (??) pikky!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple more from the BBC (not sure if all these will work):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/2/18/ec5f1fac-0c77-48ca-a3c4-5c8c57ac45d1.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60421388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=620fcd45d774c11a4faacf24%26Roof%20blows%20onto%20rail%20line%20in%20Oxfordshire%262022-02-18T17%3A15%3A56.789Z&ns_fee=0>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of them, unsurprisingly, had to go around.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we note that Eunice has hit most of England, and assuming that
>>>>> planes
>>>>> would have to diverge to other airports, where would they go? Would
>>>>> they
>>>>> go to CDG or AMS, for example?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've seen reports today of flights diverted to (IIRC) Geneva and
>>>> Oslo (and
>>>> one had only come from Italy!!).
>>>>
>>>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>>>> London.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>>>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place
>>>> (even if
>>>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow).
>>>> BICBW.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>
>>> It depends on the airline. Some are more"humane" than others. However,
>>> even the most humane can find themselves in impossible situations.
>>> Think about all the 9/11 aircraft that ended up at Halifax when the US
>>> closed its' airspace. It was the response of the local populace that
>>> saved the day. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/66780006948163021/
>>>
>>> Then there are the occasional diversions to inhospitable airports like
>>> Iqualit and Churchill where a plane undergoing cold weather testing
>>> with a quite small crew can fill all the available rooms. The
>>> diversion that sticks in my mind is a BA 747 on an overnight leg from
>>> the far east that ended up somewhere pretty deep in Russia where they
>>> didn't have steps that reached the cabin (I never heard how that was
>>> solved). BA sent a 767 and an A320 from night stops in Eastern Europe
>>> within a couple of hours, there were no hotels.
>>>
>>
>> Those are obviously very exceptional circumstances and people on the
>> ground
>> can only do their best with the situation that's been put upon them.
>>
>> Diverted from London to Geneva until the wind dies down is obviously a
>> somewhat different situation.
>
> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
> airside at the airport.
>

When it happened to me, diverted to Rio because a volcano had shut down
Buenos Aires, the ground staff had sorted temporary 24 hour visas for
Brazil. I think mine is still around somewhere as we were supposed to
hand them in on departure but we were just taken straight to the gate
from the hotel. There was some sort of official counting us onto the
buses when we left the hotel and that was it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <suqdo1$3uj$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:37:05 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>>> London.
>>>
>>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place (even if
>>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow). BICBW.
>>>
>> Does that mean that the airline might have to stump up for a hotel,
>> assuming that another flight is not available until the following day?
>
>Personally that's what I'd expect in that situation, BICBW.

It all depends. For example in an earlier storm East Midlands Airport
was pretty much the only one still open, and while that was where I was
flying to, numerous diverted planes were landing there too (it has
plenty of spare runway capacity) and the car park was full of coaches.
The passengers would have typically three or four hour onward journeys,
starting at 9pm.

But if diverted to somewhere the wrong side of the Channel, that's not
an option.

In the USA, my experience of such things is the airlines don't offer any
assistance at all, but expect you to make your own arrangements and
reappear the next day.

As for travel insurance, I used to have full corporate one but when a
local flight from a Greek Island to Athens, for an onward Easyjet flight
missed the connection [air traffic controller strike], there was no
assistance (as far as the airline was concerned they'd done their bit,
albeit late) and Easyjet simply charged a substantial fee to change to
the next day's flight.

The insurers wouldn't pay the airport-hotel bill either because I
apparently failed to collect some sort of ill-defined documentation from
the local airline about the cause/extent of the delay to prove the claim
was justified.

ObRail1: Expedia was earlier very confused, claiming the local flight
was with "Amtrak Rail" rather than whatever the airline
was actually called.

ObRail2: But we did get to spend most of the next day visiting the
Acropolis, which surprisingly had a short stretch of railway
track at the top. I can't find my photo, but here's someone
else's: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/andyhay/28360608514>
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/02/2022 23:13, Recliner wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ... The AF Concorde crash
>>>>> wouldn't have happened with a BA Concorde, as BA had devised and fitted a
>>>>> safety modification to prevent exactly that occurrence, but AF thought it
>>>>> unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> I hadn’t heard that before. What was the modification? There were mods to
>>>> all Concordes afterwards which involved fitting extra panelling inside the
>>>> fuel tanks, IIRC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exploding tyres weren't unknown with Concorde (very high pressures, high
>>> rotational speed), and the risk of tyre fragments hitting the wing fuel
>>> tanks worried BA so much that it devised and fitted special mud guard type
>>> shields to deflect tyre fragments. It duly provided the info to Airbus, who
>>> offered the mod to AF, which turned it down as it thought Concorde's
>>> excellent Michelin tyres needed no such protection.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> See
>> <https://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/03/crash.concorde.reut/index.html>
>>
>
> IIRC the original report attributed it to debris from a previously
> departing aircraft being thrown up by the wheels of the Concorde.
>

The DC10 debris damaged the tyre, which then burst, but Concorde tyres
exploded much more often than other aircraft anyway (much higher pressure,
and higher rotational speed). As such, the aircraft should have been better
prepared to handle the consequences of a burst tyre, as BA's Concordes had
been.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 09:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:30:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 19:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 17:37, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:45:17 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> .jpeg?imwidth=640>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's better if you don't pass the image size parameter to the URL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U.jpeg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or https://tiny.one/burnbabyburn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice (??) pikky!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A couple more from the BBC (not sure if all these will work):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/2/18/ec5f1fac-0c77-48ca-a3c4-5c8c57ac45d1.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60421388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=620fcd45d774c11a4faacf24%26Roof%20blows%20onto%20rail%20line%20in%20Oxfordshire%262022-02-18T17%3A15%3A56.789Z&ns_fee=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of them, unsurprisingly, had to go around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we note that Eunice has hit most of England, and assuming that
>>>>>> planes
>>>>>> would have to diverge to other airports, where would they go? Would
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> go to CDG or AMS, for example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen reports today of flights diverted to (IIRC) Geneva and
>>>>> Oslo (and
>>>>> one had only come from Italy!!).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>>>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>>>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>>>>> London.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>>>>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place
>>>>> (even if
>>>>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow).
>>>>> BICBW.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>
>>>> It depends on the airline. Some are more"humane" than others. However,
>>>> even the most humane can find themselves in impossible situations.
>>>> Think about all the 9/11 aircraft that ended up at Halifax when the US
>>>> closed its' airspace. It was the response of the local populace that
>>>> saved the day. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/66780006948163021/
>>>>
>>>> Then there are the occasional diversions to inhospitable airports like
>>>> Iqualit and Churchill where a plane undergoing cold weather testing
>>>> with a quite small crew can fill all the available rooms. The
>>>> diversion that sticks in my mind is a BA 747 on an overnight leg from
>>>> the far east that ended up somewhere pretty deep in Russia where they
>>>> didn't have steps that reached the cabin (I never heard how that was
>>>> solved). BA sent a 767 and an A320 from night stops in Eastern Europe
>>>> within a couple of hours, there were no hotels.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those are obviously very exceptional circumstances and people on the
>>> ground
>>> can only do their best with the situation that's been put upon them.
>>>
>>> Diverted from London to Geneva until the wind dies down is obviously a
>>> somewhat different situation.
>>
>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>> airside at the airport.
>>
>
> When it happened to me, diverted to Rio because a volcano had shut down
> Buenos Aires, the ground staff had sorted temporary 24 hour visas for
> Brazil. I think mine is still around somewhere as we were supposed to
> hand them in on departure but we were just taken straight to the gate
> from the hotel. There was some sort of official counting us onto the
> buses when we left the hotel and that was it.
>

But Brits don't need visas for Brazil.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ObRail2: But we did get to spend most of the next day visiting the
> Acropolis, which surprisingly had a short stretch of railway
> track at the top. I can't find my photo, but here's someone
> else's: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/andyhay/28360608514>

Here's one of mine, with the Parthenon terminus in shot:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/47641974052/in/album-72157691093123863/>

The other end, to the crane:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/47642181062/in/album-72157691093123863/lightbox/>

On 19/02/2022 08:49, Graeme Wall wrote:
> I suspect drones will probably be used for remoter stretches.

That is not much use in a storm like this week.

An autonomous vehicle on the track can detect a lot more than a drone.
There was a neat autonomous road sweeper on TV early in the week that
got me thinking.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suqdo1$3uj$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:37:05 on Sat, 19 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>>>> London.
>>>>
>>>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>>>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place (even if
>>>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow). BICBW.
>>>>
>>> Does that mean that the airline might have to stump up for a hotel,
>>> assuming that another flight is not available until the following day?
>>
>> Personally that's what I'd expect in that situation, BICBW.
>
> It all depends. For example in an earlier storm East Midlands Airport
> was pretty much the only one still open, and while that was where I was
> flying to, numerous diverted planes were landing there too (it has
> plenty of spare runway capacity) and the car park was full of coaches.
> The passengers would have typically three or four hour onward journeys,
> starting at 9pm.
>

Yes, if road transport to the original destination is feasible then that's
often the preferable answer.

> But if diverted to somewhere the wrong side of the Channel, that's not
> an option.
>

Which is where the hotel would come in.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
> airside at the airport.

How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
diverted to Canada after 9/11?

On 19/02/2022 11:21, Ken wrote:
> Gander was the better-known example. I watched 'Come From Away'
> recently, a film of a stage show about the incident.

I mentioned that just now, medical emergencies are another reason for
aircraft full of passengers having to divert to unplanned destinations.

On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>> airside at the airport.
>
> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>
The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
UK citizens vastly increased since then.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>> airside at the airport.
>
> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>
>

Most people (including Brits) don't need visas to visit Canada.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>> airside at the airport.
>>
>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>
> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
> UK citizens vastly increased since then.
>

I don't think we need visas for anywhere now that we didn't three years
ago.

On 19/02/2022 11:21, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 09:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:30:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 19:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 17:37, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:45:17 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> .jpeg?imwidth=640>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's better if you don't pass the image size parameter to the URL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U.jpeg
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or https://tiny.one/burnbabyburn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nice (??) pikky!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A couple more from the BBC (not sure if all these will work):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/2/18/ec5f1fac-0c77-48ca-a3c4-5c8c57ac45d1.jpg>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60421388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=620fcd45d774c11a4faacf24%26Roof%20blows%20onto%20rail%20line%20in%20Oxfordshire%262022-02-18T17%3A15%3A56.789Z&ns_fee=0>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of them, unsurprisingly, had to go around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we note that Eunice has hit most of England, and assuming that
>>>>>>> planes
>>>>>>> would have to diverge to other airports, where would they go? Would
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> go to CDG or AMS, for example?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen reports today of flights diverted to (IIRC) Geneva and
>>>>>> Oslo (and
>>>>>> one had only come from Italy!!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>>>>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>>>>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>>>>>> London.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>>>>>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place
>>>>>> (even if
>>>>>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow).
>>>>>> BICBW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on the airline. Some are more"humane" than others. However,
>>>>> even the most humane can find themselves in impossible situations.
>>>>> Think about all the 9/11 aircraft that ended up at Halifax when the US
>>>>> closed its' airspace. It was the response of the local populace that
>>>>> saved the day. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/66780006948163021/
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there are the occasional diversions to inhospitable airports like
>>>>> Iqualit and Churchill where a plane undergoing cold weather testing
>>>>> with a quite small crew can fill all the available rooms. The
>>>>> diversion that sticks in my mind is a BA 747 on an overnight leg from
>>>>> the far east that ended up somewhere pretty deep in Russia where they
>>>>> didn't have steps that reached the cabin (I never heard how that was
>>>>> solved). BA sent a 767 and an A320 from night stops in Eastern Europe
>>>>> within a couple of hours, there were no hotels.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those are obviously very exceptional circumstances and people on the
>>>> ground
>>>> can only do their best with the situation that's been put upon them.
>>>>
>>>> Diverted from London to Geneva until the wind dies down is obviously a
>>>> somewhat different situation.
>>>
>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>> airside at the airport.
>>>
>>
>> When it happened to me, diverted to Rio because a volcano had shut down
>> Buenos Aires, the ground staff had sorted temporary 24 hour visas for
>> Brazil. I think mine is still around somewhere as we were supposed to
>> hand them in on departure but we were just taken straight to the gate
>> from the hotel. There was some sort of official counting us onto the
>> buses when we left the hotel and that was it.
>>
>
> But Brits don't need visas for Brazil.
>

Firstly not all the passengers on the flight were Brits. Secondly this
was a few years back.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 11:23, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> ObRail2: But we did get to spend most of the next day visiting the
>> Acropolis, which surprisingly had a short stretch of railway
>> track at the top. I can't find my photo, but here's someone
>> else's: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/andyhay/28360608514>
>
> Here's one of mine, with the Parthenon terminus in shot:
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/47641974052/in/album-72157691093123863/>
>
> The other end, to the crane:
> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/47642181062/in/album-72157691093123863/lightbox/>
>

So that's how the ancient Greeks got the stones up there.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 11:44, MB wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 08:49, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> I suspect drones will probably be used for remoter stretches.
>
> That is not much use in a storm like this week.

No point in checking for damage during the storm!
>
> An autonomous vehicle on the track can detect a lot more than a drone.
> There was a neat autonomous road sweeper on TV early in the week that
> got me thinking.
>

Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 11:53, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>> airside at the airport.
>>
>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>
> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
> UK citizens vastly increased since then.

Not hatred, we volunteered for it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 11:44, MB wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 08:49, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> I suspect drones will probably be used for remoter stretches.
>
> That is not much use in a storm like this week.
>
> An autonomous vehicle on the track can detect a lot more than a drone.
> There was a neat autonomous road sweeper on TV early in the week that
> got me thinking.
>

Yep, but if the track is found to be clear the autonomous vehicle has to
be got out of the way (into a siding or lifted off the track), a drone
just has to move itself out of the way to allow trains to run.

--
Colin

On 19/02/2022 11:57, Recliner wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>>> airside at the airport.
>>>
>>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>>
>> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
>> UK citizens vastly increased since then.
>>
>
> I don't think we need visas for anywhere now that we didn't three years
> ago.
>
We'll need visas for the EU soon so diversions to the EU will become a
problem.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 11:21, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 09:37, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> Graham Harrison <edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:30:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 19:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 17:37, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2022 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:45:17 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .jpeg?imwidth=640>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's better if you don't pass the image size parameter to the URL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2022/02/18/TELEMMGLPICT000286533265_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqcpoWzwBIzlnewd68KzIvqMSLB5l84RipgJaV97BHC8U.jpeg
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or https://tiny.one/burnbabyburn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nice (??) pikky!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A couple more from the BBC (not sure if all these will work):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/2/18/ec5f1fac-0c77-48ca-a3c4-5c8c57ac45d1.jpg>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60421388?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=620fcd45d774c11a4faacf24%26Roof%20blows%20onto%20rail%20line%20in%20Oxfordshire%262022-02-18T17%3A15%3A56.789Z&ns_fee=0>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some of them, unsurprisingly, had to go around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we note that Eunice has hit most of England, and assuming that
>>>>>>>> planes
>>>>>>>> would have to diverge to other airports, where would they go? Would
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> go to CDG or AMS, for example?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen reports today of flights diverted to (IIRC) Geneva and
>>>>>>> Oslo (and
>>>>>>> one had only come from Italy!!).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would carriers also be able to call force majeure, thus relieving them
>>>>>>>> of their obligations to get passengers to their original destinations?
>>>>>>>> Passengers in that case would be responsible for getting themselves to
>>>>>>>> London.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
>>>>>>> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place
>>>>>>> (even if
>>>>>>> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow).
>>>>>>> BICBW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on the airline. Some are more"humane" than others. However,
>>>>>> even the most humane can find themselves in impossible situations.
>>>>>> Think about all the 9/11 aircraft that ended up at Halifax when the US
>>>>>> closed its' airspace. It was the response of the local populace that
>>>>>> saved the day. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/66780006948163021/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then there are the occasional diversions to inhospitable airports like
>>>>>> Iqualit and Churchill where a plane undergoing cold weather testing
>>>>>> with a quite small crew can fill all the available rooms. The
>>>>>> diversion that sticks in my mind is a BA 747 on an overnight leg from
>>>>>> the far east that ended up somewhere pretty deep in Russia where they
>>>>>> didn't have steps that reached the cabin (I never heard how that was
>>>>>> solved). BA sent a 767 and an A320 from night stops in Eastern Europe
>>>>>> within a couple of hours, there were no hotels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are obviously very exceptional circumstances and people on the
>>>>> ground
>>>>> can only do their best with the situation that's been put upon them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Diverted from London to Geneva until the wind dies down is obviously a
>>>>> somewhat different situation.
>>>>
>>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>>> airside at the airport.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When it happened to me, diverted to Rio because a volcano had shut down
>>> Buenos Aires, the ground staff had sorted temporary 24 hour visas for
>>> Brazil. I think mine is still around somewhere as we were supposed to
>>> hand them in on departure but we were just taken straight to the gate
>>> from the hotel. There was some sort of official counting us onto the
>>> buses when we left the hotel and that was it.
>>>
>>
>> But Brits don't need visas for Brazil.
>>
>
> Firstly not all the passengers on the flight were Brits. Secondly this
> was a few years back.
>

My first visit to Brazil was in 1989, and I didn't need a visa.