Schiphol disruption Nov 21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schiphol disruption Nov 21.
ATC at Schiphol was severely disrupted for a few hours due to system malfunctions on Nov 21. I'm not sure how many flights were cancelled and what the reason was precisely. It would suggest that not all back up systems can back up immediately: that would require an almost total // system, and not likely.
I'm not sure how many flights would have been cancelled or diverted, but no doubt several, as the event lasted a few hours.
Any news?
From an EU261 point of view this is outside the airlines control and they are innocent parties and will incur costs themselves with a/c & crew being out of position. However, in the volcanic ash fiasco some years ago, closed airports caused pax disruption and airlines had to pick up some of the tab for hotel expenses etc. That too was an event totally outside the control or fault of the carriers. In this Schiphzl scenario was has been the obligations of airlines?
One always hear about the disruption caused and costs incurred to pax 'stranded abroad'. Airlines had to cover some of them. There are pax at both ends, some of whom will not be residents in the country where the disruption occurs. Surely pax at both ends need taking care of, if appropriate, but our newspapers only report about those pax abroad.
What was the case of the problem at AMS, and what is the EU216 application in this case, and for pax at both ends, generally?
I'm not sure how many flights would have been cancelled or diverted, but no doubt several, as the event lasted a few hours.
Any news?
From an EU261 point of view this is outside the airlines control and they are innocent parties and will incur costs themselves with a/c & crew being out of position. However, in the volcanic ash fiasco some years ago, closed airports caused pax disruption and airlines had to pick up some of the tab for hotel expenses etc. That too was an event totally outside the control or fault of the carriers. In this Schiphzl scenario was has been the obligations of airlines?
One always hear about the disruption caused and costs incurred to pax 'stranded abroad'. Airlines had to cover some of them. There are pax at both ends, some of whom will not be residents in the country where the disruption occurs. Surely pax at both ends need taking care of, if appropriate, but our newspapers only report about those pax abroad.
What was the case of the problem at AMS, and what is the EU216 application in this case, and for pax at both ends, generally?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: A little South of North
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5, generally speaking back up systems will kick in almost immediately. However, such systems tend to be of a more basic type and this will result in an initial zero rate for traffic not yet airborne whilst the already active traffic is dealt with. Eventually rates will increase although remaining restricted. Even with a full (and extortionately expensive) duplicate of the primary system a corrupt data feed problem would crash the back up too. The majority of ATC system failures are due to corrupted data rather than hardware failures.
