The TPU UK Clubhouse

[lexluthermiester]

Happy birthday to me

Happy Birthday good fellow!

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Happy birthday to me

 

[lexluthermiester]

View attachment 390108

It's your birthday everyday!

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Yep, enjoy!

Any nice presents?

Too old for that, partner paid a month on my bike insurance for me.

 

[AusWolf]

Too old for that, partner paid a month on my bike insurance for me.

Never say "too old". My partner and I always surprise each other with something small.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Never say "too old". My partner and I always surprise each other with something small.

Agreed, my wife will be 65 in a few weeks and I have booked a long weekend in Malta (Valletta) for her/us as a surprise, we fly over the day before her birthday.

 

[mechtech]

Any news on that transformer fire? Just curious - so find these root cause interesting. They seem simple, but actually some complex things going on, especially with oil, off-gasing, etc.

 

[kurosagi01]

Any news on that transformer fire? Just curious - so find these root cause interesting. They seem simple, but actually some complex things going on, especially with oil, off-gasing, etc.

Wouldn't surprise me if it's lack of maintenance.

 

[mechtech]

Wouldn't surprise me if it's lack of maintenance.

Maybe they are kind of out of mind once installed and don't really need regular maintenance, but regular inspections are good. Older ones usually no instrumentation and typically replace with they die. Fire that could be many things, loose internal ground (earth) causing arcing, insulation inside winding, overloading, etc.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Any news on that transformer fire? Just curious - so find these root cause interesting. They seem simple, but actually some complex things going on, especially with oil, off-gasing, etc.

I can tell you it wasnt me. Im trying to get back into the country.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Wouldn't surprise me if it's lack of maintenance.

That's what it seems like. When properly maintained, that equipment should remain very safe and reliable. So either there was sabotage or someone wasn't performing proper maintenance.

 

[mechtech]

That what it seems like. When properly maintained, that equipment should remain very safe and reliable. So either there was sabotage or someone wasn't performing proper maintenance.

Hopefully there is a spare laying around somewhere, last power transformer we had made took almost a year!!

 

[FreedomEclipse]

UK Being UK. It would surprise me if it was the lack of maintenance due to corner cutting

How ever they should have considered their own private transformer onsite managed by the grid directly. If not a primary one then at least a backup so if the grid does go down. They can flip the switch and continue to draw power from elsewhere.

Im not sure if they are trying to downplay what happened to make them look not as bad. But apparently they did have backup power and while that did kick in. It wasnt up to the task of powering all the terminals that were directly affected by the substation catching fire.


For something so important. you'd expect double or triple redundancy in case things go wrong.


My flight is on Tuesday. 14.5-15hr flight time.

::EDIT::

In otherwords.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Takes time to switch to them........Click, click, done. Yeah right. I was keeping an eye on this, and can't believe the worlds 5th largest airport had no proper backup and had to close, Typical British bullsquat. An airport as big and as important as Heathrow, should have less than 30 mins downtime, imo for a loss of power.

 

[the54thvoid]

Takes time to switch to them........Click, click, done. Yeah right. I was keeping an eye on this, and can't believe the worlds 5th largest airport had no proper backup and had to close, Typical British corporate bullsquat. An airport as big and as important as Heathrow, should have less than 30 mins downtime, imo for a loss of power.

FTFY.

Heathrow was privatised in 1987. At that point it became a for-profit, cost averse entity. Back-ups and risk redundancies cost money.

 

[AusWolf]

FTFY.

Heathrow was privatised in 1987. At that point it became a for-profit, cost averse entity. Back-ups and risk redundancies cost money.

Which costs more money? Planning for risks and redundancies, or a massive outage? I know the proper British corporate answer is "nah, it'll be fine" to every problem, but sometimes, maybe just sometimes, things aren't fine?

Our modern economy isn't fit to deal with our modern economy, I guess.

 

[the54thvoid]

Which costs more money? Planning for risks and redundancies, or a massive outage? I know the proper British corporate answer is "nah, it'll be fine" to every problem, but sometimes, maybe just sometimes, things aren't fine?

Our modern economy isn't fit to deal with our modern economy, I guess.

I used to work with Risk Assessments as part of my job. The biggest difference between private and public ownership is the part of the assessment which comes down to: is the risk mitigation worth the cost? In other words, what's reasonably practicable? If you work in the public sector, where there is a huge pressure to reduce harm (for legal, moral, and political reasons), you'll see more stringent risk reduction measures. Sometimes they seem batshit crazy - but when you realise a fatality can result in the HSE fining you a million pounds, it makes it more prudent to pay for the risk reduction.

Private companies are willing to take more risk. They can absorb the cost*. Usually.

* Unless you're this guy.

 

[AusWolf]

I used to work with Risk Assessments as part of my job. The biggest difference between private and public ownership is the part of the assessment which comes down to: is the risk mitigation worth the cost? In other words, what's reasonably practicable? If you work in the public sector, where there is a huge pressure to reduce harm (for legal, moral, and political reasons), you'll see more stringent risk reduction measures. Sometimes they seem batshit crazy - but when you realise a fatality can result in the HSE fining you a million pounds, it makes it more prudent to pay for the risk reduction.

Private companies are willing to take more risk. They can absorb the cost*. Usually.

* Unless you're this guy.

View attachment 391216

I work with risk assessments myself, so I know what you're talking about. Although, I'm usually on the "nope, that won't do" side of it.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

* Unless you're this guy.

Costs were absorbed... Just by the local sea life at 12000ft.

Jokes aside. You can live life by the book but there is always that one thing beyond your control that messes everything up.

 

[the54thvoid]

Costs were absorbed... Just by the local sea life at 12000ft.

Jokes aside. You can live life by the book but there is always that one thing beyond your control that messes everything up.

Yeah, true - the point of risk assessment is to minimise foreseeable risk within reasonable cost. What is reasonable is based on the reputation/wealth of the company.

Was a substation failure foreseeable? No idea, but you'd have to think there's some guy at Heathrow holding a clipboard with lots of notes saying: I bloody told you so.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Was a substation failure foreseeable? No idea, but you'd have to think there's some guy at Heathrow holding a clipboard with lots of notes saying: I bloody told you so.

Of course.

Instead of constantly campaigning for an extra runway. Maybe they should use the space and budget intended for it to build two sub stations. pulling from different parts of the grid.

But of course that doesnt actually make them any money and I dare say they've probably lost a fair chunk of money due to this mishap. Although im sure that some costs will probably be covered by insurance (which probably is what they are betting on)

 

[Tatty_Two]

On the news this morning it said that Heathrow could have stayed open, they had enough backup for all critical systems to continue operating, whether fully or with limited flights was not mentioned, however they made the call to shutdown ops for safety reasons, no mention though if that decision was made independantly of in consultation ...... seems a bit odd to me.

 

[AusWolf]

On the news this morning it said that Heathrow could have stayed open, they had enough backup for all critical systems to continue operating, whether fully or with limited flights was not mentioned, however they made the call to shutdown ops for safety reasons, no mention though if that decision was made independantly of in consultation ...... seems a bit odd to me.

Could be misinformation to deter people from thinking how ill-equipped Heathrow is/was.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

On the news this morning it said that Heathrow could have stayed open, they had enough backup for all critical systems to continue operating, whether fully or with limited flights was not mentioned, however they made the call to shutdown ops for safety reasons, no mention though if that decision was made independantly of in consultation ...... seems a bit odd to me.

Oh gosh. Do you smell that?? What could it be??

::Edit::

Apparently it was the National Grid boss John Pettigrew that said Heathrow could have remained open.

Hes running cover for Thomas Woldbye.

Im expecting Pettigrew to come out and say it was all their fault. I'll give them about 3-4 days before its published in all the tabloids. Whether or not its Pettigrew or some random engineer. Somebody will be used as a scapegoat and throw under the buss.

They'll probably dig up some old boy whose about to retire and pay him a few grand to say he didnt give it the 100% care and detail he should have done when working on them and will resign/ be let go. Meanwhile he'll still be picking up his pension bonus.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Oh gosh. Do you smell that?? What could it be??

::Edit::

Apparently it was the National Grid boss John Pettigrew that said Heathrow could have remained open.

Hes running cover for Thomas Woldbye.

Im expecting Pettigrew to come out and say it was all their fault. I'll give them about 3-4 days before its published in all the tabloids. Whether or not its Pettigrew or some random engineer. Somebody will be used as a scapegoat and throw under the buss.

They'll probably dig up some old boy whose about to retire and pay him a few grand to say he didnt give it the 100% care and detail he should have done when working on them and will resign/ be let go. Meanwhile he'll still be picking up his pension bonus.

I'm not sure someone from the national grid could be in a position to say that there was sufficient power for critical operational systems to run whilst at the same time say that the power available in backup systems was reduced in comparison to that sub stations provision, like the grid guy would know in detail every system that was deemed operationally critical for a huge airport to run commercial aviation safely .......... so I am expecting Woldbye to bite back, it will be interesting to see for sure. If he don't bite it will be him gone rather than a Grid guy is my guess.