London Fire and Aftermath RIP

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Persephone kindness wrote: »

That is negligence.

That WAS negligence, a report from 2012 is not relevant.

CeilingFly

Reports say that 500-600 people live in the block. London Ambulance say that 50 have been brought to hospital.

This suggests a tragedy of immense magnitude, so maybe anyone posting should be mindful that this is an utterly dreadful tragedy and the loss of life could possibly be very high.

Lucy8080

CeilingFly wrote: »

I take it you just woke up and have yet to have morning coffee



or maybe they have changed the floor numbering system on three already existing lower floors which weren't counted as " numbered floors"., thereby making the old first floor the new 4th floor

Widdershins

Shield wrote: »

Current advice from police: put a wet rag over your face and rescue yourself. Don't wait around to be saved. Wow.

Over your face? And very big wet rag over the rest of you too, from the looks of that fire.

murpho999

CeilingFly wrote: »

Reports say that 500-600 people live in the block. London Ambulance say that 50 have been brought to hospital.

This suggests a tragedy of immense magnitude, so maybe anyone posting should be mindful that this is an utterly dreadful tragedy and the loss of life could possibly be very high.

What should posters be mindful of exactly? Expressing an opinion.

The numbers you quote also ignore the amount of people that escaped unharmed not requiring hospitalisation.

Hopefully the numbers are lower than feared.

Peregrinus

CeilingFly wrote: »

Reports say that 500-600 people live in the block. London Ambulance say that 50 have been brought to hospital.

This suggests a tragedy of immense magnitude, so maybe anyone posting should be mindful that this is an utterly dreadful tragedy and the loss of life could possibly be very high.

Not necessarily, we can still hope. Most people who escape from a burning building don't need to be brought to hospital. Reception centres have been set up in council facilities and nearby churches to receive people evacuated from the building, and we don't know how many people are in those. Plus there could be other people who have gone to the homes of family or friends.

BlinkingLights

I would suspect this may lead to major reviews of similar buildings.

It could literally be anything or a combination of factors so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet. It could be very unfair to blame recent refurbishments when it could be some old aspect of the building that caused the problem.

Man on BBC there having to be comforted by the reporter, who looks quite shook herself.

Persephone kindness

murpho999 wrote: »

What should posters be mindful of exactly? Expressing an opinion.

I think it's good to be reminded to be sensitive. Obv most people are moved by it and we prob don't need reminding ..but it's no harm.

Mr.Plough

Peregrinus wrote: »

Early reports are suggesting that the building's fire alarm system did not go off until the lower floors were well alight, or did not go off at all. Most people who reported hearing an alarm heard their own or a neighbour's smoke alarm, and thus must have been pretty close to the source of the fire. If you were fifteen floors up, by the time you became aware there was a problem the fire may have taken quite a hold below you, and escape may have been very difficult.

Fire Engineer here.

Private residential buildings almost always have a 'stay put' evacuation strategy, i.e. alarms are not interlinked. The intention of this is that you won't have to evacuate the whole building whenever someone burns toast. To compensate for this, all apartments are generally separated by walls and floors achieving 60 minutes fire resistance. So in the event of a fire, residents stay in their apartment (which is essentially a fire proof box, if built correctly), until the fire brigade arrive (6 minutes in this case). Only people in the fire affected apartment evacuate initially.

Obviously don't know enough to comment on the cause of the fire and how it spread, but my gut feeling is the combustible cladding is to blame. Apparently remedial gas works were also carried out recently.

Persephone kindness

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Fire Engineer here.

Private residential buildings almost always have a 'stay put' evacuation strategy, i.e. alarms are not interlinked. The intention of this is that you won't have to evacuate the whole building whenever someone burns toast. To compensate for this, all apartments are generally separated by walls and floors achieving 60 minutes fire resistance. So in the event of a fire, residents stay in their apartment (which is essentially a fire proof box, if built correctly), until the fire brigade arrive (6 minutes in this case).

Obviously don't know enough to comment on the cause of the fire and how it spread, but my gut feeling is the combustible cladding is to blame. Apparently remedial gas works were also carried out recently.

It was refurbished extensively in 2016...the tower is from the 1970's.

murpho999

Persephone kindness wrote: »

I think it's good to be reminded to be sensitive. Obv most people are moved by it and we prob don't need reminding ..but it's no harm.

I don't see how anybody here is being insensitive to be honest.

That's what the mods look after anyway.

I don't get why an internet discussion in another country has to be sensitive to, apart from stupid distasteful jokes.

Yourself isit

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

That post was in January 2016. There was a follow up post in November 2016 here:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/



Anybody else a little unsettled at just how.... threatening..... that language sounds?

It seems prescient not threatening. If you think the tenants set fire themselves. Good luck.

punisher5112

Anybody think it would be a good idea to have a small oxygen tank and mouth piece for the likes of these high rises? One could get 5 minutes air which would hopefully give enough to escape.

Peregrinus

punisher5112 wrote: »

Anybody think it would be a good idea to have a small oxygen tank and mouth piece for the likes of these high rises? One could get 5 minutes air which would hopefully give enough to escape.

Strikes me as not a good idea. Oxygen bottles are a major hazard in a fire.

Plus, people need to be trained in the use of breathing apparatus. It's not intuitive.

punisher5112

Peregrinus wrote: »

Strikes me as not a good idea. Oxygen bottles are a major hazard in a fire.

Plus, people need to be trained in the use of breathing apparatus. It's not intuitive.

Not for the little canisters and they will hold up in conditions of getting out. If your body will make it out so will one of those.

Peregrinus

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Fire Engineer here.

Private residential buildings almost always have a 'stay put' evacuation strategy, i.e. alarms are not interlinked. The intention of this is that you won't have to evacuate the whole building whenever someone burns toast. To compensate for this, all apartments are generally separated by walls and floors achieving 60 minutes fire resistance. So in the event of a fire, residents stay in their apartment (which is essentially a fire proof box, if built correctly), until the fire brigade arrive (6 minutes in this case). Only people in the fire affected apartment evacuate initially.

In a high-rise building like this, though, the arrival of the fire brigade does nothing to enable people on the upper floors to escape, and if the fire is high enough the fire brigade can't do much to put it out. Is the idea that the fire will burn itself out to a point where escape becomes possible?

josip

Hopefully the building doesn't collapse and a detailed investigation can be done into the cause.
If the building collapses, then I suppose it will be harder to establish with certainty the cause?

Persephone kindness

A high rise council block of flats is always going to be a lower standard of safety and general living than that of a house.

ohnonotgmail

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Fire Engineer here.

Private residential buildings almost always have a 'stay put' evacuation strategy, i.e. alarms are not interlinked. The intention of this is that you won't have to evacuate the whole building whenever someone burns toast. To compensate for this, all apartments are generally separated by walls and floors achieving 60 minutes fire resistance. So in the event of a fire, residents stay in their apartment (which is essentially a fire proof box, if built correctly), until the fire brigade arrive (6 minutes in this case). Only people in the fire affected apartment evacuate initially.

Obviously don't know enough to comment on the cause of the fire and how it spread, but my gut feeling is the combustible cladding is to blame. Apparently remedial gas works were also carried out recently.

they interviewed one of the residents who got out with his family and he mentioned the advice to say put. he said if he had followed it he would be dead.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

Oh absolutely, when they analyse this I am positive it will turn out there were a catalogue of mistakes. Very serious questions about the what type of fire retardant rating that cladding had, as you say from the pictures it appears it helped the fire spread.

Yeah it's just uneducated guessing but that's what it looks like to my eye, started on one side and burned more or less around while going up. I suppose with any big tragedy or event like this it's always a catalogue of mistakes, most of which on their own or combined won't do anything until they all line up. Horrible stuff.

Mr.Plough

Peregrinus wrote: »

In a high-rise building like this, though, the arrival of the fire brigade does nothing to enable people on the upper floors to escape, and if the fire is high enough the fire brigade can't do much to put it out. Is the idea that the fire will burn itself out to a point where escape becomes possible?

The fire brigade arrive and put out the fire (the fire isn't expected to have spread like it has in this case though). New builds this high would be provided with specialist equipment to assist with this, i.e. firefighting lifts, smoke vented firefighting lobbies, dry/wet risers etc. Sprinklers would also be provided throughout.

Old buildings built pre Building Regulations wouldn't have many of these measures, but at the very least fire spread from floor to floor shouldn't occur.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they interviewed one of the residents who got out with his family and he mentioned the advice to say put. he said if he had followed it he would be dead.

Reports are now coming through of people on the upper floors who followed the "stay put" advice (they had no choice, really), sealed door cracks as best they could with with wet towels and the like, and survived.

Tabnabs

punisher5112 wrote: »

Anybody think it would be a good idea to have a small oxygen tank and mouth piece for the likes of these high rises? One could get 5 minutes air which would hopefully give enough to escape.

Known as an ELSA set (Emergency Life Support Apparatus), designed for just such emergencies in industrial and maritime situations. Expensive to buy and needs maintaining, so not something that would normally be found in a tower block.

https://www.scottsafety.com/en/anz/pages/ProductDetail.aspx?productdetail=Scott+Safety+ELSA+Constant+Flow+Escape+Breathing+Apparatus

mikeybrennan

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Fire Engineer here.

Private residential buildings almost always have a 'stay put' evacuation strategy, i.e. alarms are not interlinked. The intention of this is that you won't have to evacuate the whole building whenever someone burns toast. To compensate for this, all apartments are generally separated by walls and floors achieving 60 minutes fire resistance. So in the event of a fire, residents stay in their apartment (which is essentially a fire proof box, if built correctly), until the fire brigade arrive (6 minutes in this case). Only people in the fire affected apartment evacuate initially.

Obviously don't know enough to comment on the cause of the fire and how it spread, but my gut feeling is the combustible cladding is to blame. Apparently remedial gas works were also carried out recently.

Newer systems are interlinked throughout

There is a delay before the main sounders are activated to allow for nuisance alarms

Mr.Plough

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they interviewed one of the residents who got out with his family and he mentioned the advice to say put. he said if he had followed it he would be dead.

The stay put strategy works when the fire doesn't spread from floor to floor, which should have been the case but obviously wasn't. Why it spread from floor to floor is the question.

Yourself isit

Peregrinus wrote: »

Reports are now coming through of people on the upper floors who followed the "stay put" advice (they had no choice, really), sealed door cracks as best they could with with wet towels and the like, and survived.

It's possible this fire looks worse than it is. It may be the outer cladding with some internal areas ok.

punisher5112

Another option is there should be escape route to the roof for evacuation by helicopters.

I would agree high rises can to a degree be more dangerous then a house but many many people die in house fires.

If one doesn't have adequate smoke detection then that's a serious issue also just as important is to have a carbon monoxide detector.

All apartments or lobbies at least should be fitted with fire extinguishers and all lobbies and stairs fitted with fire depression systems.

Lighting in the floor to aid in getting out under heavy smoke conditions.

Hopeful not many died sad to hear.

super_furry

Macie Few Skunk wrote: »

Link?

Misread it so deleted it.

Mr.Plough

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Newer systems are interlinked throughout

There is a delay before the main sounders are activated to allow for nuisance alarms

Is this a requirement?