This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

GRENFELL TOWER FIRE

The cladding was not fireproof but just fire resistant and the mistake was that the building regulations did not spot the difference quickly enough.  The survivors are looking for someone to blame but this is not appropriate as it was a mistake by the authorities not the design engineers..

BUT more importantly what do we do about the other buildings that are at risk; to avoid another disaster?

Well, the fire fighters problem was that they could not get up above the fire and douse it or rescue the residence in the upper floors.

SO priority must be to remove the cladding on the tall tower blocks first and at the same time arrange for roof access for all residents in the case of fires.  Once the roof is a secure place then crane helicopters can be used to evacuate any residents that are unable to escape downwards due to the fire. 

In my book, the loss of life at Grenfell would have been minimal if the roof had been equipped with a secure area, i.e a fireproof [asbestos cement clad] container on its roof.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    fireproof [asbestos cement clad] container on its roof.


    Without wishing to appear crass, wouldn't that amount to an oven after a time?


    Regards


    BOD
  • A safe refuge is already considered an alternative to escape routes.
  • Each flat was considered to be a safe refuge for a limited time by design.


    Don't forget the recent Barking fire in a block of flats that may have had external unsuitable combustible material used in construction.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/barking-fire-huge-blaze-breaks-out-at-block-of-flats-in-east-london-a4163006.html




    Z.

  • CliveS:

      Once the roof is a secure place then crane helicopters can be used to evacuate any residents that are unable to escape downwards due to the fire.




    The rescue even one person by this method is not a trivial task, even under reasonably ideal conditions - without the potential complications of heat, smoke, the risk on ingestion of debris into the engines, nearby obstructions and a multitude of things for the winch cable to get snagged on. The number of suitably equiped helicopters available is also very limited.

     



    In my book, the loss of life at Grenfell would have been minimal if the roof had been equipped with a secure area, i.e a fireproof [asbestos cement clad] container on its roof.



    Whilst not combustible, asbestos cement in its usual sheet form offers little fire protection as it tends to shatter rather violently when heated. Its use as a constuction material has also been banned since 1999 in the UK and in many other countries.


     

  • Well, there are plenty of choppers with fire buckets underneath that scoop up water to drop on forest fires;  so how much more important will it be to drop the water onto a flaming tower block with people inside. 

    I am thinking that the army barracks around St James park should be equipped with a chopper ready to go 24 x 7 manned presumably by the army royal engineers.

    Regarding the banning of asbestos in buildings, what a really stupid decision that was.  We didn't ban coal  or other hazardous substances.  What is required is to warn people of its presence and advise what protective gear should be worn if you are coming into contact with it.

  • CliveS:. 

    I am thinking that the army barracks around St James park should be equipped with a chopper ready to go 24 x 7 manned presumably by the army royal engineers.

    Regarding the banning of asbestos in buildings, what a really stupid decision that was.  We didn't ban coal  or other hazardous substances.  What is required is to warn people of its presence and advise what protective gear should be worn if you are coming into contact with it.    




    Army Flying Corps might be a better bet.


    Asbestos in buildings, ships or vehicles is not hazardous provided that it is in good condition. What is hazardous is applying it and removing it.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    What is also worrying, is how the fire broke outside of the flat. Either through an extract fan or the window, both of which should not have happened so soon.
  • Timber Cladding Removal Proposed.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7147539/More-30-000-live-flats-timber-cladding-removed.html


    Z.
  • In major building fires the heat and smoke are usually too intense to allow helicopters to fly over them.

  • Naj93:

    What is also worrying, is how the fire broke outside of the flat. Either through an extract fan or the window, both of which should not have happened so soon.




    I think the design theory is based on the the fire eventually breaking out of the fire compartment through external windows, but that the external spread should then be limited by a lack of combustible material - perhaps initially only involving the compartment directly above as the window of that compartment breaks due to heat and the flames enter that compartment from the outside.


    I believe that the theory is that this should give firefighters time to mount an attack on the fire in the fire compartment and also to deploy resources to deal with any potential spread to the compartment above.