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.
Parents
  • Not sure how roof access helps, if we cannot keep the fire from spreading between levels, it won't keep off the roof for long either.  I don't see helicopters as very practical, low visibility landing is not an exact art at the best of times, and the risk of landing on a group of people and killing a few would be a hazard in quite modest  smoke,  and add effect of unpredictable thermal currents up the side of the building and it is potentially suicidal. Being able to drop water on a target area of hundreds of square yards is done from height, not close up.


    You may do better with a few escape pods on wires over the side, but I think it is likely to suffer the lifeboat problem of needing duplication on all sides as we don't know in advance which surface will burn, with the added complication for users of not knowing who else was yet to arrive and how long to wait. There is little precedent for it, except possibly the NASA emergency egress system.


    I think a more sensible plan is to assure the occupants they are not especially safe, and therefore they should not be complacent, but instead be ready to act as soon as even the smallest fire breaks out. That may mean having some people on fire watch overnight.

Reply
  • Not sure how roof access helps, if we cannot keep the fire from spreading between levels, it won't keep off the roof for long either.  I don't see helicopters as very practical, low visibility landing is not an exact art at the best of times, and the risk of landing on a group of people and killing a few would be a hazard in quite modest  smoke,  and add effect of unpredictable thermal currents up the side of the building and it is potentially suicidal. Being able to drop water on a target area of hundreds of square yards is done from height, not close up.


    You may do better with a few escape pods on wires over the side, but I think it is likely to suffer the lifeboat problem of needing duplication on all sides as we don't know in advance which surface will burn, with the added complication for users of not knowing who else was yet to arrive and how long to wait. There is little precedent for it, except possibly the NASA emergency egress system.


    I think a more sensible plan is to assure the occupants they are not especially safe, and therefore they should not be complacent, but instead be ready to act as soon as even the smallest fire breaks out. That may mean having some people on fire watch overnight.

Children
No Data