Sounds like it’s still pending: <a href="https://www.nats.aero/statement/air-traffic-control-system-update/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nats.aero/statement/air-traffic-control-system-u...</a><p>> We have well established procedures, overseen by the CAA, to investigate incidents. We are already working closely with them to provide a preliminary report to the Secretary of State for Transport on Monday. The conclusions of this report will be made public.
"It was a dodgy flight plan" is a way to deflect, and not only that but it was "a dodgy <i>French</i> flight plan"... It's likely more accurate to say that potentially incorrect data in a flight plan triggered a dodgy response by the system.
There will probably be one in a few months. They're generally pretty thorough. Here's a previous example (pdf): <a href="https://www.caa.co.uk/media/r42hircd/nats-system-failure-12-12-14-independent-enquiry-final-report-2-0-1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.caa.co.uk/media/r42hircd/nats-system-failure-12-...</a> (93 pages)
We need to see the dodgy dossier, not the Iraq one, but the one filed by the French aircraft that supposedly bought a £multi million air traffic control system down. Je n'est ce pas?<p>I see some airports were handing out camp beds for the stranded, although it certainly wasnt any AirBnB by any means, at least it was in keeping with the spirit of the law, even if it was only a little will-o'-the-wisp from a bog.<p>Why didnt the UN declare a state of emergency because they could have set up refugee camps which appear to have better facilities, than anything the airlines or airports have laid on, or is the law really that inconsistent, it would have its own schizophrenia definition in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition aka the DSM?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camp#Facilities" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camp#Facilities</a>