I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never knew
where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the other coded
PA messages on stations, ships and planes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...now-about.html

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:33 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never knew
where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the other coded

I always assumed it was because in times past they'd chuck the sand bucket on
a fire. I'm fairly sure I remember one being in a lot of stations when I was
a kid.

--
Spud

On 15/01/16 09:30, d wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:33 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never knew
where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the other coded

I always assumed it was because in times past they'd chuck the sand bucket on
a fire. I'm fairly sure I remember one being in a lot of stations when I was
a kid.

I assume they chucked the contents and not the bucket on the fire?

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:33 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never
knew where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the
other coded

I always assumed it was because in times past they'd chuck the sand
bucket on a fire. I'm fairly sure I remember one being in a lot of
stations when I was
a kid.

I remember sand buckets on the tube. They looked pretty ancient.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:25:13 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:33 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never
knew where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the
other coded

I always assumed it was because in times past they'd chuck the sand
bucket on a fire. I'm fairly sure I remember one being in a lot of
stations when I was
a kid.

I remember sand buckets on the tube. They looked pretty ancient.

IIRC they seemed to have been mostly used as a convenient place to stub out
cigarettes.

Presumably they now have a better way of putting out fires though one doesn't
see too many CO2 extinguishers around so not sure what it might be.

--
Spud

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:25:13 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:33 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never
knew where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the
other coded

I always assumed it was because in times past they'd chuck the sand
bucket on a fire. I'm fairly sure I remember one being in a lot of
stations when I was a kid.

I remember sand buckets on the tube. They looked pretty ancient.

IIRC they seemed to have been mostly used as a convenient place to stub
out cigarettes.

Presumably they now have a better way of putting out fires though one
doesn't see too many CO2 extinguishers around so not sure what it might
be.

I fear they have to be locked away these days.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 06:46:14 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:25:13 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:05:33 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never
knew where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the
other coded

I always assumed it was because in times past they'd chuck the sand
bucket on a fire. I'm fairly sure I remember one being in a lot of
stations when I was a kid.

I remember sand buckets on the tube. They looked pretty ancient.

IIRC they seemed to have been mostly used as a convenient place to stub
out cigarettes.

Presumably they now have a better way of putting out fires though one
doesn't see too many CO2 extinguishers around so not sure what it might
be.

I fear they have to be locked away these days.

Yes, they were removed from the passenger saloons of underground
trains some years ago (as they were being used as weapons), but I
gather they're still carried in the cabs.

On 15/01/16 09:05, Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never knew
where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the other coded
PA messages on stations, ships and planes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...now-about.html

In true Telegraph style, some of that is trivial:

"Hot bit - The heated part of an in-flight meal."

and some is just plain wrong:

"Flight level - "A fancy way of telling you how many thousands of feet
you are above sea level. Just add a couple of zeroes. Flight level
three-three zero is 33,000 feet.""

Why should any of the rest of it be trustworthy?

Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15/01/16 09:05, Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never knew
where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the other coded
PA messages on stations, ships and planes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...now-about.html

In true Telegraph style, some of that is trivial:

"Hot bit - The heated part of an in-flight meal."

and some is just plain wrong:

"Flight level - "A fancy way of telling you how many thousands of feet
you are above sea level. Just add a couple of zeroes. Flight level
three-three zero is 33,000 feet.""

Is that wrong? [Yes, I know it's the barometric altitude, but that's not
something that's normally mentioned.]

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 15/01/16 09:05, Recliner wrote:
I think we all know what an Inspector Sands call means, though I never
knew
where his name came from. This article told me, and some of the other
coded
PA messages on stations, ships and planes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...now-about.html

In true Telegraph style, some of that is trivial:

"Hot bit - The heated part of an in-flight meal."

and some is just plain wrong:

"Flight level - "A fancy way of telling you how many thousands of feet
you are above sea level. Just add a couple of zeroes. Flight level
three-three zero is 33,000 feet.""

Is that wrong? [Yes, I know it's the barometric altitude, but that's not
something that's normally mentioned.]

It's inconsistent between the general statement (which refers to thousands
of feet) and the specific example (which implies hundreds of feet). The
latter is correct: you multiply a flight level by one *hundred* to give the
height in feet.