London Fire and Aftermath RIP

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

punisher5112 wrote: »

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.

Your problem is not the canister; it's the oxygen, which is highly flammable.

Breathing apparatus normally works on compressed air, not oxygen, which removes the risk of explosion. But the problem in a fire is not so much lack of air as presence of fumes which will overcome you. So what breathing apparatus requires is not only a supply of compressed air but a hood or other delivery system which is airtight, elminates contaminated air from the immediate environment, but does not impede visibility. And, as I say, even if this is available, you need training in how to deploy and use it.

punisher5112 wrote: »

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

Evacuation by helicopter is not really feasible until the fire has burned down. The building is like a giant candle, with a rising column of hot turbulent toxic gases and dense smoke above it. This is not a safe environment for helicopters to operate in - or, indeed, for people to wait for rescue in.

Plus, a building with 120 flats might have four or five hundred people in it. A helicopter can take three, possibly four. It would take a fleet of many helicopters many hours to complete an airlift of that many people, even if it were safe to attempt one.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Evacuation by helicopter is not really feasible until the fire has burned down. The building is like a giant candle, with a rising column of hot turbulent toxic gases and dense smoke above it. This is not a safe environment for helicopters to operate in - or, indeed, for people to wait for rescue in.

Plus, a building with 120 flats might have four or five hundred people in it. A helicopter can take three, possibly four. It would take a fleet of many helicopters many hours to complete an airlift of that many people, even if it were safe to attempt one.

Air sea rescue can take plenty more and can use a winch I wouldn't have meant landing as that would be no go.

Certain conditions could work and also smoke vents like in tunnels to carry away the smoke.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Of course it will because one wouldn't be breathing in the toxins or carbon monoxide.

One would, unless there's more than a simple mouthpiece.

The minimium that's needed is something that covers both the mouth and nose, provides an airtight seal around them, and is securely strapped on the head so that maintaining the seal doesn't depend on the user holding or manipulating the apparatus properly. The compressed air container has to be strapped on as well; otherwise the weight of it will pull the mask away from your face if you drop it.

Think of the kind of breathing apparatus you think of as being issued to soldiers at risk of gas attack. Something that looks like this. Anything less than that is of minimal value, and will only give people a false impression of safety that isn't really provided. Provide those hand-held canisters designed as a backup for scuba divers, and you'll just end up being sued or prosecuted for providing sub-standard equipment.

It's not essential that the apparatus should also protect the eyes, but they nearly always do, because once you get to that point extending the mask to cover the eyes also doesn't greatly add to the expense or difficulty of use, and fire fumes irritate the eyes as well as the respiratory tract, so limiting vision.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Air sea rescue can take plenty more and can use a winch I wouldn't have meant landing as that would be no go.

Certain conditions could work and also smoke vents like in tunnels to carry away the smoke.

The problem is that the helicopters can't land; its that they can't (safely) fly above the building, and they certainly can't hover to use a winch. The column of smoke and rising hot gases extends for at least the height of the building again.

Smoke vents can only carry smoke and gases to the side of the building, but after that they just travel upwards (because they're hot air, basically).

When the World Trade Centre was struck, hundreds of people went to the decks on the top of the buildings, hoping for helicopter rescue. It never came, because helicopter rescue from above a burning building is impossible. Those who hadn't already succumbed to fumes and smoke or jumped to escape them died when the buildings collapsed.

There is a technique for horizontal rescue by helicopter which involves the helicopter hovering beside, rather than above, the stricken building/vessel. It requires specially equipped helicopters and it's extremely difficult. It's not a realistic option for rescuing people from a burning building in an urban environment.

10 million refurbishment to make the building look prettier but they never replaced the elevators which would cost 60K. They were constantly breaking down according to residents.