wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:34:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:


Here's another spotted on Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-43601949

Ever get the feeling maintenance was a bit slack? Also I wouldn't want to be
on an aircraft with problems at that airport if their fire trucks take so
long to turn up that the bus is virtually burnt out.

Different territory (landside vs airside); different fire trucks.

Thats no excuse. Would they have been happy to watch the terminal burn down?



What are the roads like around the terminal.?
The type of Fire truck used at Stansted is 3metres wide, a typical fire
brigade one is 2.3

I doubt the roads are so narrow that the airside type could not get around
driven carefully but in the excitement of a shout it may not be the best
time to find out. And would they be legal to use on a road that while it is
probably airport property may come under the various road traffic acts
because it is accessible by the public.


GH

On 2018\04\03 12:15, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:34:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:42:10 on Tue, 3 Apr
2018, remarked:
I saw 2 of them today doing stirling service at Waddeson manor. No sign of
any fires and easy to board with a pushchair and probably 60 people all
boarded within about 20 seconds. Who would want a bus like that eh?

Here's another spotted on Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-43601949

Ever get the feeling maintenance was a bit slack? Also I wouldn't want to be
on an aircraft with problems at that airport if their fire trucks take so
long to turn up that the bus is virtually burnt out.

Different territory (landside vs airside); different fire trucks.

Thats no excuse. Would they have been happy to watch the terminal burn down?


What an exceptionally stupid and offensive comment. Their job is to
watch the landing aircraft. Why would they desert the runways every time
a cat is stuck up a tree in Bishops Stortford?

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:37:11 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\04\03 12:15, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:34:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:42:10 on Tue, 3 Apr
2018, remarked:
I saw 2 of them today doing stirling service at Waddeson manor. No sign
of
any fires and easy to board with a pushchair and probably 60 people all
boarded within about 20 seconds. Who would want a bus like that eh?

Here's another spotted on Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-43601949

Ever get the feeling maintenance was a bit slack? Also I wouldn't want to
be
on an aircraft with problems at that airport if their fire trucks take so
long to turn up that the bus is virtually burnt out.

Different territory (landside vs airside); different fire trucks.

Thats no excuse. Would they have been happy to watch the terminal burn down?


What an exceptionally stupid and offensive comment. Their job is to

Offensive to whom, you? Tough, roll your neck in and deal with it.

watch the landing aircraft. Why would they desert the runways every time
a cat is stuck up a tree in Bishops Stortford?

A huge vehicle fire right outside a terminal building with potentially
thousands of people inside is hardly the same as a cat up a tree you dribbling
window licker.

On 4 Apr 2018 18:11:47 GMT, Marland wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:34:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:


Here's another spotted on Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-43601949

Ever get the feeling maintenance was a bit slack? Also I wouldn't want to be
on an aircraft with problems at that airport if their fire trucks take so
long to turn up that the bus is virtually burnt out.

Different territory (landside vs airside); different fire trucks.

Thats no excuse. Would they have been happy to watch the terminal burn down?



What are the roads like around the terminal.?
The type of Fire truck used at Stansted is 3metres wide, a typical fire
brigade one is 2.3

I doubt the roads are so narrow that the airside type could not get around
driven carefully but in the excitement of a shout it may not be the best
time to find out. And would they be legal to use on a road that while it is
probably airport property may come under the various road traffic acts
because it is accessible by the public.

Stansted Airport Fire Service appear to have a normal fire engine as
well as a handful of much bigger airport specific vehicles. Looks tiny
next to them. All appear to have registration plates and up to date VED
so appear legal on the roads.

(I'm not saying they should respond to anything other than aircraft
fires, just that the fleet would appear to be able to from a driving
on the roads perspective. I expect there is more to fighting fires than
arriving in a big red truck and glaring at it.)

On 05/04/2018 09:58, David Walters wrote:
On 4 Apr 2018 18:11:47 GMT, Marland wrote:
snip

Stansted Airport Fire Service appear to have a normal fire engine as
well as a handful of much bigger airport specific vehicles. Looks tiny
next to them. All appear to have registration plates and up to date VED
so appear legal on the roads.


They need to be "road legal" in order to respond to incidents outside
the airport perimeter using public roads. (I'm not saying they would
always respond. There used to be different procedures for different
airports and some discretion. But it's easy to envisage the outcry if
they sat on their hands for - say - a plane down on the M11 on the basis
that "we're not taxed and insured for that".)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 2018\04\05 09:25, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:37:11 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\04\03 12:15, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:34:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:42:10 on Tue, 3 Apr
2018, remarked:
I saw 2 of them today doing stirling service at Waddeson manor. No sign
of
any fires and easy to board with a pushchair and probably 60 people all
boarded within about 20 seconds. Who would want a bus like that eh?

Here's another spotted on Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-43601949

Ever get the feeling maintenance was a bit slack? Also I wouldn't want to
be
on an aircraft with problems at that airport if their fire trucks take so
long to turn up that the bus is virtually burnt out.

Different territory (landside vs airside); different fire trucks.

Thats no excuse. Would they have been happy to watch the terminal burn down?


What an exceptionally stupid and offensive comment. Their job is to

Offensive to whom, you? Tough, roll your neck in and deal with it.

No, thicky, offensive to the firemen. They became firemen because they
like putting fires out. They are stationed on the runway. They see a
fire on the other side of the building, but they have to sit tight and
ignore it because, as you have been told countless times, safety
critical jobs have rules that you get fired for breaking. So they will
have been anything but happy at the time, but they have to obey the
rules which are there for the bigger picture, and then you come along
and say they are happy to ignore a fire on the other side of the
terminal. I have no privileged info here but all of this is obvious to
an eight year old, obvious to everyone except you. Actually, it's so
obvious I'm not sure why I bothered explaining it.

I also suspect airport terminals are not very flammable on the outside,
since aeroplanes are basically massive Molotov cocktails being flung
around very carefully.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\04\05 09:25, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:37:11 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\04\03 12:15, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:34:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:42:10 on Tue, 3 Apr
2018, remarked:
I saw 2 of them today doing stirling service at Waddeson manor. No sign
of
any fires and easy to board with a pushchair and probably 60 people all
boarded within about 20 seconds. Who would want a bus like that eh?

Here's another spotted on Friday:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-43601949

Ever get the feeling maintenance was a bit slack? Also I wouldn't want to
be
on an aircraft with problems at that airport if their fire trucks take so
long to turn up that the bus is virtually burnt out.

Different territory (landside vs airside); different fire trucks.

Thats no excuse. Would they have been happy to watch the terminal burn down?


What an exceptionally stupid and offensive comment. Their job is to

Offensive to whom, you? Tough, roll your neck in and deal with it.

No, thicky, offensive to the firemen. They became firemen because they
like putting fires out. They are stationed on the runway. They see a
fire on the other side of the building, but they have to sit tight and
ignore it because, as you have been told countless times, safety
critical jobs have rules that you get fired for breaking. So they will
have been anything but happy at the time, but they have to obey the
rules which are there for the bigger picture, and then you come along
and say they are happy to ignore a fire on the other side of the
terminal. I have no privileged info here but all of this is obvious to
an eight year old, obvious to everyone except you. Actually, it's so
obvious I'm not sure why I bothered explaining it.

I also suspect airport terminals are not very flammable on the outside,
since aeroplanes are basically massive Molotov cocktails being flung
around very carefully.


Yes, the Stansted terminal is a typical Norman Foster glass and steel
building.

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:37:18 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\04\05 09:25, wrote:
Offensive to whom, you? Tough, roll your neck in and deal with it.

No, thicky, offensive to the firemen. They became firemen because they

Is it? Been to ask them have you or are you just another knob getting
offended on behalf of someone else in order to create a non-argument?

like putting fires out. They are stationed on the runway. They see a
fire on the other side of the building, but they have to sit tight and
ignore it because, as you have been told countless times, safety
critical jobs have rules that you get fired for breaking. So they will

Thats why they have bosses that can override said rules if appropriate.

terminal. I have no privileged info here

No ****.

an eight year old, obvious to everyone except you. Actually, it's so
obvious I'm not sure why I bothered explaining it.

You didn't explain anything, you're just another muppet with a Can't Do
approach to life. Did you ever work in the railways by any chance?

I also suspect airport terminals are not very flammable on the outside,
since aeroplanes are basically massive Molotov cocktails being flung
around very carefully.

No, but I suspect a lot of in the interior furnishings are and smoke doesn't
care either way, it'll still poison and suffocate people.

Christ you really are a full paid up grade A gold plated pillock.

wrote in message news
I saw 2 of them today doing stirling service at Waddeson manor. No sign of
any fires and easy to board with a pushchair and probably 60 people all
boarded within about 20 seconds. Who would want a bus like that eh?


Brighton and Hove have 20+ ex-London articulated buses. They're used on a
couple of routes between Portslade/Hove and the universities.

--
DAS

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 11:21:17 +0100
"D A Stocks" wrote:
wrote in message news
I saw 2 of them today doing stirling service at Waddeson manor. No sign of
any fires and easy to board with a pushchair and probably 60 people all
boarded within about 20 seconds. Who would want a bus like that eh?


Brighton and Hove have 20+ ex-London articulated buses. They're used on a
couple of routes between Portslade/Hove and the universities.

Good to know. Downside is these buses are almost 15 years old and probably
won't last much longer which is a shame as its probably easier and cheaper
to inflict double deckers on the public when replacements are required rather
than buying something suitable instead.