Chris J Dixon Wrote in message:
John wrote:

One hell of a cherry picker used in that chimney rescue attempts in
Cumbria.

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

It would have had the capacity.

Interesting to hear a view from the access industry:

https://vertikal.net/en/news/story/34049/15-hour-chimney-rescue

"If only the emergency services had contacted either a crane or
aerial lift rental company as soon as they were notified of the
incident and the height, there is a good chance that this man
would be recovering this evening rather than lying in a mortuary.

This is yet another example of some fire and rescue services that
have not kept in touch with the technology and developments made
in the crane and truck mounted aerial lift markets, the
alternatives and who operates the equipment. Shortly after the
Grenfell Tower tragedy in London the head of the fire service
claimed that larger truck mounted lifts that could travel within
city limits had not been available in the past.

Then in the incident today they appear to have waited for several
hours before looking for an aerial work platform or crane, and
then tried to find one by making a public appeal over the radio.

Why is that in many other countries, such as Germany, the fire
service not only operates its own cranes, but also has a call on
truck mounted lifts up to a 103 metres or more? There was a time
when every fire department in the UK subscribed to a copy of
Cranes & Access magazine in order to keep abreast of developments
and in touch with rental companies offering this type of
equipment which is required for incidents such as this and for
road accident recoveries involving heavy trucks. "

Chris

Money...
--
Jimk


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/