"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Harry Bloomfield
scribeth thus
Jethro_uk has brought this to us :
Could they not have flown the helicopter higher, and trailed the rope to
be moved into position by people on the ground, and then the rescue
worker goes down that ?

Rescuers could not initially get to him from the ground up, because the
top section ladder was adrift from the chimney. It doesn't explain why
rescuers could not have been lowered down to the chimney top, from the
helicopter.


Well they do this sort of with broadcast aerials in remote locations inc
the UK a few years ago, but the down draft is quite a bit, been under a
helicopter around a 100 feet or so and its quite a wind. However if that
man was experienced in "aerial" rescue operations, had a safety harness
on then possible but this guy just climbed up there was mentally ill so
it would have been very risky indeed for him.

Heres a vid of what they do do with helicopters and the down draft is
there but these men are well experienced in this sort of operation but
for matey the other day different matter poor sod!..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL1AmVxYh1s

Fark. Wondered how they get it on the bolt holes,, obvious when you think of
it.

In message , at 05:31:59 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:

The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was that
they didn't change the advice to the residents when it was clear
that the fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

But it's far tome clear that they had any way of communicating that
changed
advice to those in the building once it made sense to change that.

By issuing an instruction to the 999 operators to change the script
they were reading out, would be a good start.

Not really given that by that time its unlikely
that many would still have been calling 999.

They were both repeatedly calling in, and hanging on the line.

The getting them to phone back the previous callers.

But that isnt likely to be too many of the flats.

They received hundreds of 999 calls.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:26:50 on Thu, 31 Oct
2019, Steve Walker remarked:
On 31/10/2019 08:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message l.net,
at 19:57:08 on Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Dave Liquorice
remarked:

Good that the Grenfell enquiry may lead to a change in the "in case
of
fire, stay put" advice to people in tower blocks.

For Grenfell, as designed and built, that was the correct advice.
Each flat had a 60 minute fire resistance. The orginal fire was
extinguished within the single flat well within 60 minutes.

The problem was that some **** had wrapped the building in highly
flamable plastic, aluminium and insulation that the small flat fire
ignigted.
The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was that
they didn't change the advice to the residents when it was clear that
the fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

They had no way of quickly communicating the change to residents

They were phoning 999 in droves.

and for the person in charge, it would have been a huge responsibility
anyway. It is bad enough when you stick to the rules and things go
wrong, but imagine that that person had quickly decided to reverse the
rule in place

The rule should not have been in place in the form it was, especially
after Lakanal. And training should have been given in when to start an
evacuation. That's why the LFB was criticised by the enquiry.

and even a single person died, they personally would be blamed. That
they eventually changed to evacuating people is majorly to their credit
and bravery in taking personal responsibility.

The majority of people who escaped did so quite early on (about an hour
into the fire). I was another hour and a half before the stay-put policy
was abandoned.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 06:09:52 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:
Roland Perry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

No cos the outside was alight.

Correct.

To be honest I do feel the witch hunt for the Fire service here is
a little unfair. Why?

Not a witch hunt so much as making it clear that
the policy of telling the inhabitants to stay in their
flats wasnt the correct approach once it was clear
that the whole thing was going up in flames very
spectacularly indeed.

But there is also the problem about how they are
told to evacuate once its obvious that they need to

Many of the residents in question were hanging on the phone with
? the 099 service operators trying to keep them calm (and inside).

What percentage of the residents tho ? It can't have been all that
many given that 2/3 of them did leave the building successfully.

The enquiry is about the fate of the roughly 1/4 of the residents who
*were* still inside, being told to stay put.

and how well that would have worked with just one set of stairs with
so much smoke there.

The Fire Brigade have breathing apparatus, and could, if
they had been trained to do so, set up some kind of 'human
chain' to facilitate the evacuation as much as possible.

But its far from clear how successful that would have been
given just one set of stairs and all those people and clearly
only a limited amount of that breathing apparatus.

They had 50 fire engines and 200+ firemen on site.

Well the advice to stay in your room is sound had it not been for
extensive work done on the building which compromised the sealed
unit approach. Remember no sprinklers and not many stairs, due to
the age of the building. If there had been a stampede out people
would have been trampled. I am not aware that the fire service were
aware of the dire state of the modifications to the structure. If a
criticism is needed its why the residents warnings about the
problems for some years had not been passed on to the fire service
who might have had more clout to get the issues fixed before the inevitable happened.

It is as is so often the case easy with 2020 hindsight to be
critical. Its not going to bring people back.

But it should be possible to stop it happening again.

That's what people said after the Lakanal House fire. But nothing was
apparently learned.

It has this time with that type of cladding.

Are you sure? Has the LFB now trained its personnel in dealing with such
fires, and changed the "stay put" policy?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control)
was that they didn't change the advice to the residents when
it was clear that the fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

But it's far tome clear that they had any way of
communicating that changed advice to those
in building once it made sense to change that.

By issuing an instruction to the 999 operators to change
the script they were reading out, would be a good start.

Not really given that by that time its unlikely
that many would still have been calling 999.

They were both repeatedly calling in, and hanging on the line.

They cant be doing both and clearly given that 2/3 chose
to leave the building, it can't have been very many of them.

The getting them to phone back the previous callers.

But that isnt likely to be too many of the flats.

They received hundreds of 999 calls.

Sure, but clearly most of those didn't take the advice they
were given to remain in the building given that 72 died.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 06:09:52 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:
Roland Perry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

No cos the outside was alight.

Correct.

To be honest I do feel the witch hunt for the Fire service here is a
little unfair. Why?

Not a witch hunt so much as making it clear that
the policy of telling the inhabitants to stay in their
flats wasnt the correct approach once it was clear
that the whole thing was going up in flames very
spectacularly indeed.

But there is also the problem about how they are
told to evacuate once its obvious that they need to

Many of the residents in question were hanging on the phone with
? the 099 service operators trying to keep them calm (and inside).

What percentage of the residents tho ? It can't have been all that
many given that 2/3 of them did leave the building successfully.

The enquiry is about the fate of the roughly 1/4 of the residents who
*were* still inside, being told to stay put.

and how well that would have worked with just one set of stairs with so
much smoke there.

The Fire Brigade have breathing apparatus, and could, if
they had been trained to do so, set up some kind of 'human
chain' to facilitate the evacuation as much as possible.

But its far from clear how successful that would have been
given just one set of stairs and all those people and clearly
only a limited amount of that breathing apparatus.

They had 50 fire engines and 200+ firemen on site.

But its far from clear how successful that would have been
given just one set of stairs and all those people and clearly
only a limited amount of that breathing apparatus.

Well the advice to stay in your room is sound had it not been for
extensive work done on the building which compromised the sealed unit
approach. Remember no sprinklers and not many stairs, due to the age
of the building. If there had been a stampede out people would have
been trampled. I am not aware that the fire service were aware of the
dire state of the modifications to the structure. If a criticism is
needed its why the residents warnings about the problems for some
years had not been passed on to the fire service who might have had
more clout to get the issues fixed before the inevitable happened.

It is as is so often the case easy with 2020 hindsight to be critical.
Its not going to bring people back.

But it should be possible to stop it happening again.

That's what people said after the Lakanal House fire. But nothing was
apparently learned.

It has this time with that type of cladding.

Are you sure?

Yep, plenty of buildings have been identified
with equally unsuitable cladding, world wide.

Has the LFB now trained its personnel in dealing with such fires, and
changed the "stay put" policy?

Better to replace that very dangerous cladding.

Thats obviously going to take some time
but clearly that sort of fire is very uncommon.

In message , at 19:29:17 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:
Roland Perry wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was
that they didn't change the advice to the residents when it was
clear that the fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

But it's far tome clear that they had any way of communicating
that changed advice to those in building once it made sense to
change that.

By issuing an instruction to the 999 operators to change the
script they were reading out, would be a good start.

Not really given that by that time its unlikely
that many would still have been calling 999.

They were both repeatedly calling in, and hanging on the line.

They cant be doing both

The 999 centre can be dealing with both.

and clearly given that 2/3 chose to leave the building, it can't have
been very many of them.

72 died.

The getting them to phone back the previous callers.

But that isnt likely to be too many of the flats.

They received hundreds of 999 calls.

Sure, but clearly most of those didn't take the advice they
were given to remain in the building given that 72 died.

72 is enough to be worth saving, don't you think?
--
Roland Perry

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
idual.net:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:56:51 -0000, Jim White wrote:

Which is why London Freemasons are raising 2.5 million pounds for two

extended height aerial vehicles. Currently being built in Germany.
https://www.everydayhero.co.uk/event/E2058F

I'll leave the ethics of relying on charity to fund essential equipmen
t
for someone else to comment on.

Personally I'd not be happy for Cumbria Fire & Rescue spending that
sort of money on an aerial platform that would essentially gather
dust in a garage. Spending a tiny fraction of it finding out who has
what "useful bits of kit" and maintaining a database of that
information would be a far better value.

All the Air Ambulance services are charities and don't receive any on
going government funding. 9 of the 18 have recently got a share of
£10m one off funding for new and improved facilties.

--
Cheers
Dave.





I agree - make an agreement with such plant operators to have it "on call".
Maintain a list.

In message , at 19:35:33 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Chang remarked:

No cos the outside was alight.

Correct.

To be honest I do feel the witch hunt for the Fire service here
is a little unfair. Why?

Not a witch hunt so much as making it clear that
the policy of telling the inhabitants to stay in their
flats wasnt the correct approach once it was clear
that the whole thing was going up in flames very
spectacularly indeed.

But there is also the problem about how they are
told to evacuate once its obvious that they need to

Many of the residents in question were hanging on the phone with
? the 099 service operators trying to keep them calm (and inside).

What percentage of the residents tho ? It can't have been all that
many given that 2/3 of them did leave the building successfully.

The enquiry is about the fate of the roughly 1/4 of the residents who
*were* still inside, being told to stay put.

and how well that would have worked with just one set of stairs
with so much smoke there.

The Fire Brigade have breathing apparatus, and could, if
they had been trained to do so, set up some kind of 'human
chain' to facilitate the evacuation as much as possible.

But its far from clear how successful that would have been
given just one set of stairs and all those people and clearly
only a limited amount of that breathing apparatus.

They had 50 fire engines and 200+ firemen on site.

But its far from clear how successful that would have been
given just one set of stairs and all those people and clearly
only a limited amount of that breathing apparatus.

How many of the 72 do you think might have been saved if the "stay put"
policy had been cancelled let's say an hour earlier?

Well the advice to stay in your room is sound had it not been
for extensive work done on the building which compromised the
sealed unit approach. Remember no sprinklers and not many stairs,
due to the age of the building. If there had been a stampede out
people would have been trampled. I am not aware that the fire
service were aware of the dire state of the modifications to the
structure. If a criticism is needed its why the residents
warnings about the problems for some years had not been passed
on to the fire service who might have had more clout to get the issues fixed before the inevitable happened.

It is as is so often the case easy with 2020 hindsight to be
critical. Its not going to bring people back.

But it should be possible to stop it happening again.

That's what people said after the Lakanal House fire. But nothing
was apparently learned.

It has this time with that type of cladding.

Are you sure?

Yep, plenty of buildings have been identified
with equally unsuitable cladding, world wide.

Not by the LFB. The question was: "What did LFB learn from Lakanal".

Has the LFB now trained its personnel in dealing with such fires,
and changed the "stay put" policy?

Better to replace that very dangerous cladding.

Thats obviously going to take some time
but clearly that sort of fire is very uncommon.

Most major disasters are "quite uncommon". But lessons get learnt.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:29:17 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:
Roland Perry wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was that
they didn't change the advice to the residents when it was clear
that the fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

But it's far tome clear that they had any way of communicating that
changed advice to those in building once it made sense to change
that.

By issuing an instruction to the 999 operators to change the script
they were reading out, would be a good start.

Not really given that by that time its unlikely
that many would still have been calling 999.

They were both repeatedly calling in, and hanging on the line.

They cant be doing both

The 999 centre can be dealing with both.

But the callers cant be doing both.

and clearly given that 2/3 chose to leave the building, it can't have been
very many of them.

72 died.

But it is far from clear how many remained in
the building because 999 told them to do that.

The getting them to phone back the previous callers.

But that isnt likely to be too many of the flats.

They received hundreds of 999 calls.

Sure, but clearly most of those didn't take the advice they
were given to remain in the building given that 72 died.

72 is enough to be worth saving, don't you think?

Of course, but its less clear how many of those would have
been saved if 999 had told them to leave right from the start.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:35:33 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Chang remarked:

No cos the outside was alight.

Correct.

To be honest I do feel the witch hunt for the Fire service here is a
little unfair. Why?

Not a witch hunt so much as making it clear that
the policy of telling the inhabitants to stay in their
flats wasnt the correct approach once it was clear
that the whole thing was going up in flames very
spectacularly indeed.

But there is also the problem about how they are
told to evacuate once its obvious that they need to

Many of the residents in question were hanging on the phone with
? the 099 service operators trying to keep them calm (and inside).

What percentage of the residents tho ? It can't have been all that
many given that 2/3 of them did leave the building successfully.

The enquiry is about the fate of the roughly 1/4 of the residents who
*were* still inside, being told to stay put.

and how well that would have worked with just one set of stairs with
so much smoke there.

The Fire Brigade have breathing apparatus, and could, if
they had been trained to do so, set up some kind of 'human
chain' to facilitate the evacuation as much as possible.

But its far from clear how successful that would have been
given just one set of stairs and all those people and clearly
only a limited amount of that breathing apparatus.

They had 50 fire engines and 200+ firemen on site.

But its far from clear how successful that would have been
given just one set of stairs and all those people and clearly
only a limited amount of that breathing apparatus.

How many of the 72 do you think might have been saved if the "stay put"
policy had been cancelled let's say an hour earlier?

Impossible to know even if the 999 call records
were analysed to see if that caller did survive.

Well the advice to stay in your room is sound had it not been for
extensive work done on the building which compromised the sealed
unit approach. Remember no sprinklers and not many stairs, due to
the age of the building. If there had been a stampede out people
would have been trampled. I am not aware that the fire service
were aware of the dire state of the modifications to the
structure. If a criticism is needed its why the residents
warnings about the problems for some years had not been passed on
to the fire service who might have had more clout to get the
issues fixed before the inevitable happened.

It is as is so often the case easy with 2020 hindsight to be
critical. Its not going to bring people back.

But it should be possible to stop it happening again.

That's what people said after the Lakanal House fire. But nothing was
apparently learned.

It has this time with that type of cladding.

Are you sure?

Yep, plenty of buildings have been identified
with equally unsuitable cladding, world wide.

Not by the LFB. The question was: "What did LFB learn from Lakanal".

That wasnt a problem with the cladding.

Has the LFB now trained its personnel in dealing with such fires, and
changed the "stay put" policy?

Better to replace that very dangerous cladding.

Thats obviously going to take some time
but clearly that sort of fire is very uncommon.

Most major disasters are "quite uncommon". But lessons get learnt.

And they will be with Grenfell too if only about the cladding.

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:29:17 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Sure, but clearly most of those didn't take the advice they
were given to remain in the building given that 72 died.

It's ALL none of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 20:05:53 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the lonely trolling senile asshole's troll****

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:35:33 +1100, Chang, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

But its far from clear

What is very clear is that you are a nym-shifting trolling piece of ****
that keeps ranting about things that are absolutely NONE of yours, senile
Ozzie pest!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 20:12:06 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the auto-contradicting senile cretin's latest troll****

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:47:43 +0000, michael adams wrote:

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...

Unless (as I mentioned upthread) you secure the bottom end of the line
somewhere near the base of the chimney, lift the helicopter and slowly
move so that the line comes close to the person in distress, and then
send someone down to rescue them ? Negating the pendulum effect ?

"The line comes close to the person in distress".

I somehow suspect that while rescuing the chap was the first priority,
a second proiority which ran it pretty close was not to attempt anything
if there was the slightest chance it was seen to knock him off the
chimney.

Well I was typing in a nice comfy chair ...

If this was at the height of the Blitz nobody would bat an eyelid. But
nowadays with "loved ones"demanding resignations, tabloid monstering,
and compo chasing lawyers nobody would want to take the risk.

I think that's a tad unfair. But ultimately if there are no guidelines to
adhere to, it follows that anything attempted could be characterised as
risky in hindsight. Arguably that is one purpose of guidelines ...

I pick up the occasional free newspaper when travelling on the tube.Not necessarily
for reading but to line plastic bags to be put in the wheelie bin.

We believe you, truly really we do.

I always read a book on the train, I got through "Danubia" in
around 2 months, a title that definitely deserved better treatment
than it got from the publisher by way of colour illustrations,
maps, lists etc. Free newspapers really are the last resort of
the terminally bored. Most people are using their phones or laptops
in any case.


The front page of Tuesday's "Evening Standard"
featured a large picture of Fire Brigade Commissioners Dany
Cotton, all in the public interest naturally so she could be identified
in the street, who was condemned for showing "remarkable insensitivity"
for merely pointing out that the FB were simply following established
procedures at the time.

Cotton also told the enquiry that nothing different would be done in hindsight.

Given all the questions that remain to be answered, if they ever will
there's no reason to claim that anything should necessarily have been
done any differently. Might there have been a stampede with people
crushed etc etc ? Anyone whose working life can involve making life
and death decisions needs to adopt a stone cold attitude to all such
decisions otherwise they'd soon mess up, and get eaten up in the
process.
The same goes for the medical profession - as soon as a surgeon stops
regarding operations as technical challenges involving pieces of meat
and patients as ongoing experiments they're in trouble.
The fact that Joe Public so easily mistakes this for
callous indifference is merely a symptom of the media
propagating an atmosphere of overweening sentimentality
in pursuit of inclusive "human interest" stories with
which everyone, most especially those at the back of the class
can readily identify.


Conversely, the chimney guy was characterised as possibly having mental problems

In fact he certainly had done previously.

and possibly being drunk at the time - so that's all right then..

It would explain how he ended up like that.

He simply slipped backwards possibly as the ladder became
detached

Although I'm pretty sure I saw one reference to his being
drunk I very much doubt he could have successfully scaled
the chimney in that condition unless it was very slow acting
alcohol
The point I'm making is that such "facts" are irrelevant to the
actual problem of rescuing him from the chimney. Whereas
in mentioning them at all there may be a suggestion that
a) it was all his own fault anyway, and b) being mentally
unstable and possibly drunk he presented extra danger to
the rescuers. Both of which considerations are as I say
totally irrelevant.


michael adams

.....

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
They put a Sea King down into the primary school playing field with
not much more than 10' from rotor tips to trees.

The skill of air-sea rescue and air-ambulance pilots, and the risks that
they are prepared to take, is astounding. I've read reports of helicopters
hovering with a few inches between the blade tips and a cliff face - in
gusty weather when the slightest gust towards the cliff, if not immediately
corrected by the pilot, would spell disaster. Likewise for landing on a
road, avoiding trees, telegraph pole and lamp poles.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
A building with only one staircase seems like a disaster waiting to
happen. Even our 10-storey office block had two - one at each end of the
building.

Yeah, ours was the same, one at each end.

Getting people back inside the building after a fire drill was a lengthy
process. Gravity is on their side when they are leaving, but coming back in,
they've all got to climb back up - worst for those on the 10th floor. OK,
there were six lifts (3 at each end of the building) but they couldn't cope
with a sudden influx of several hundred people.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Given all the questions that remain to be answered, if they ever will
there's no reason to claim that anything should necessarily have been
done any differently. Might there have been a stampede with people
crushed etc etc?

Bethnal Green tube station in 1943 showed that happens when someone trips
during a panic evacuation down a staircase. I imagine that is at the back of
the mind of everyone involved in any similar evacuation down a staircase.

One thing that the fire brigade *might* have done differently is using
firemen on each floor as "marshals" to regulate the flow of people down the
staircase to lessen the chance of stampede. If they did do that, I've not
heard it mentioned anywhere.

The point I'm making is that such "facts" are irrelevant to the
actual problem of rescuing him from the chimney. Whereas
in mentioning them at all there may be a suggestion that
a) it was all his own fault anyway, and b) being mentally
unstable and possibly drunk he presented extra danger to
the rescuers. Both of which considerations are as I say
totally irrelevant.

I agree that the reason why he climbed the ladders was irrelevant to the
rescue, but the possibility that his mental / drunk state may present
additional risks both to him and his rescuers was very relevant to the
rescue plan, the same way that the fact he was upside-down (presumably with
a leg hooked around a rung) was a material fact that made his rescue (and
his chance of survival) more of a problem.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


Heres a vid of what they do do with helicopters and the down draft is
there but these men are well experienced in this sort of operation but
for matey the other day different matter poor sod!..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL1AmVxYh1s

Fark. Wondered how they get it on the bolt holes,, obvious when you think
of it.

Anyone who does that sort of job, working at height, deserves every bit of
danger money that they get. Made me suffer from vertigo just looking at it!

Interesting to see that he tightened the bolts only by turning the bolt
head, and not also by turning the nut. I presume they hold the nut very
firmly, because the last thing they want to do is to drop it... I wonder if
the rod that he was using to grab the mast was fastened to him, to prevent
him dropping it - but fastened in such a way that a really hefty tug (if the
wind catches the aerial or the helicopter drifts sideways) will not pull him
off the mast: better that the rod falls than that the man does...

I was surprised at how easily they got the aerial located over the bolt
holes, even using the steel cable to pull it roughly in line. Maybe the
holes in the mast are a lot bigger than the diameter of the bolts, so they
can tolerate not being perfectly lined up until the bolt is through and
holds the aerial from moving sideways.

I presume we didn't see the bit where the bolts are tightened (with a
well-held spanner) more than just finger tight.

In message , at 09:21:19 on Fri, 1 Nov 2019,
Jethro_uk remarked:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2019 08:57:32 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

Most major disasters are "quite uncommon". But lessons get learnt.

The danger is the lesson is that the public should ignore the advice/
orders from the emergency services in the belief it would increase their
chances of survival.

It's very unlikely the LFB would learn such a lesson after Lakanal.
Their lessons would be much more to do with their strategy for such
buildings.

However, it's probably true that the *public* has learned a lesson from
Grenfell to be more suspicious of authority.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Rod Speed
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Harry Bloomfield
scribeth thus
Jethro_uk has brought this to us :
Could they not have flown the helicopter higher, and trailed the rope to
be moved into position by people on the ground, and then the rescue
worker goes down that ?

Rescuers could not initially get to him from the ground up, because the
top section ladder was adrift from the chimney. It doesn't explain why
rescuers could not have been lowered down to the chimney top, from the
helicopter.


Well they do this sort of with broadcast aerials in remote locations inc
the UK a few years ago, but the down draft is quite a bit, been under a
helicopter around a 100 feet or so and its quite a wind. However if that
man was experienced in "aerial" rescue operations, had a safety harness
on then possible but this guy just climbed up there was mentally ill so
it would have been very risky indeed for him.

Heres a vid of what they do do with helicopters and the down draft is
there but these men are well experienced in this sort of operation but
for matey the other day different matter poor sod!..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL1AmVxYh1s

Fark. Wondered how they get it on the bolt holes,, obvious when you think of
it.


That will have been pre-assembled on the ground before they find that
the holes don't line up at a 1000 feet!.


That stick the blokes waving around also discharges the static charge
that builds up on the chopper on hot dry days!


--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

"NY" wrote in message ...

I agree that the reason why he climbed the ladders was irrelevant to the rescue, but
the possibility that his mental / drunk state may present additional risks

But were they aware of any of this at the time ?

Had they even identified him, yet alone accessed his medical
history ? While the undoubted fact that he was able to climb
the chimney in the first place strongly mitigates against
any possibility of his being drunk, I would have thought.

That was my point. All this came out *afterwards* which is
why it was irrelevant at the time and why it is still
irrelevant. Except that people are being led to believe
that it was known at the time, when it wasn't.

In fact it would be interesting to know how any evidence of his
being drunk first arose. As he had a history of mental problems
possibly his "loved ones" were of no great help in the matter,
and possibly wouldn't have objected had the suggestion been
put to them by any of the reptiles.


michael adams

....

NY wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Heres a vid of what they do do with helicopters and the down draft is
there but these men are well experienced in this sort of operation but
for matey the other day different matter poor sod!..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL1AmVxYh1s

Fark. Wondered how they get it on the bolt holes,, obvious when you think
of it.

Anyone who does that sort of job, working at height, deserves every bit of
danger money that they get. Made me suffer from vertigo just looking at
it!

Yeah, I had the same reaction. Wouldn’t do it myself, but I did
think afterwards that its purely a mental problem. I'd have no
problem doing that job at ground level so it really doesn’t
make any sense for it to be any different at that immense
height. And you don’t see too many coming off the tower etc.

Presumably the worst part is the physical effort of
climbing up that high, that must take a lot of effort.

Interesting to see that he tightened the bolts only by turning the bolt
head, and not also by turning the nut. I presume they hold the nut very
firmly, because the last thing they want to do is to drop it...

Presumably they do have spares and no one standing around below.

I wonder if the rod that he was using to grab the mast was fastened to
him, to prevent him dropping it - but fastened in such a way that a really
hefty tug (if the wind catches the aerial or the helicopter drifts
sideways) will not pull him off the mast: better that the rod falls than
that the man does...

Yeah, I did have a vision of him hanging onto it and the
chopper going up higher and lifting him right off the
tower initially. Presumably the constraint that stops
him falling off the tower would stop that happening.

I was surprised at how easily they got the aerial located over the bolt
holes, even using the steel cable to pull it roughly in line.

Yeah, that’s what I meant by my original comment. Wonder how
often it isnt as easy as that. The chopper did bugger around a bit
right at the start, not clear why, whether the pilot wasn’t being
told very well what he needed to do or whether he was just having
a bit of a problem with the wind etc, tho it didn’t look like it.

Maybe the holes in the mast are a lot bigger than the diameter of the
bolts, so they can tolerate not being perfectly lined up until the bolt is
through and holds the aerial from moving sideways.

Didn’t look like that when the nuts were being added to the bolts.

I presume we didn't see the bit where the bolts are tightened (with a
well-held spanner) more than just finger tight.

Yeah, I wanted a few more minutes for that. No lock washer either.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Rod Speed
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Harry Bloomfield
scribeth thus
Jethro_uk has brought this to us :
Could they not have flown the helicopter higher, and trailed the rope
to
be moved into position by people on the ground, and then the rescue
worker goes down that ?

Rescuers could not initially get to him from the ground up, because the
top section ladder was adrift from the chimney. It doesn't explain why
rescuers could not have been lowered down to the chimney top, from the
helicopter.


Well they do this sort of with broadcast aerials in remote locations inc
the UK a few years ago, but the down draft is quite a bit, been under a
helicopter around a 100 feet or so and its quite a wind. However if that
man was experienced in "aerial" rescue operations, had a safety harness
on then possible but this guy just climbed up there was mentally ill so
it would have been very risky indeed for him.

Heres a vid of what they do do with helicopters and the down draft is
there but these men are well experienced in this sort of operation but
for matey the other day different matter poor sod!..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL1AmVxYh1s

Fark. Wondered how they get it on the bolt holes,, obvious when you think
of
it.


That will have been pre-assembled on the ground before they find that
the holes don't line up at a 1000 feet!.

Sure, I didn’t mean that, I meant getting the aerial onto
the thing at the top of the tower rotated at the right
angle so the holes line up. Not trivial to do that with
a 1 ton aerial on the end of that long line to the chopper.

Wonder how often it works as easily as that one did.

That stick the blokes waving around also discharges the
static charge that builds up on the chopper on hot dry days!

Sure,

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 05:28:32 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the pathological senile trolling asshole's latest troll**** unread

05:28 in Australia??? LOL Did you "sleep in" today, senile Rodent? Are you
sick, or what? LMAO

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 04:49:40 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

04:49 in Australia??? So, for how long have you been up and trolling this
night yet again, you abnormal 85-year-old trolling senile pest?

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 04:59:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Sure, I didn¢t mean that, I meant

No intelligent person gives a **** what you meant or didn't mean, senile
cretin!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:47:43 +0000, michael adams wrote:

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...

Unless (as I mentioned upthread) you secure the bottom end of the
line
somewhere near the base of the chimney, lift the helicopter and
slowly
move so that the line comes close to the person in distress, and then
send someone down to rescue them ? Negating the pendulum effect ?

"The line comes close to the person in distress".

I somehow suspect that while rescuing the chap was the first priority,
a second proiority which ran it pretty close was not to attempt
anything
if there was the slightest chance it was seen to knock him off the
chimney.

Well I was typing in a nice comfy chair ...

If this was at the height of the Blitz nobody would bat an eyelid. But
nowadays with "loved ones"demanding resignations, tabloid monstering,
and compo chasing lawyers nobody would want to take the risk.

I think that's a tad unfair. But ultimately if there are no guidelines
to
adhere to, it follows that anything attempted could be characterised as
risky in hindsight. Arguably that is one purpose of guidelines ...

I pick up the occasional free newspaper when travelling on the tube.Not
necessarily
for reading but to line plastic bags to be put in the wheelie bin.

We believe you, truly really we do.

I always read a book on the train,

I read ebooks on my phone. Initially I didn’t think that
would be viable, but its surprisingly readable with the
kindle app and very convenient paging wise too.

I got through "Danubia" in around 2 months, a title that definitely
deserved better treatment than it got from the publisher by way of colour
illustrations, maps, lists etc.

I've been reading the memoirs of a sergeant in Napoleon's
Grande Arme in the utter fiasco of the retreat back from
Moscow in 1812 and after that the utter fiasco of the attempt
to stamp out the 'terrorists' in Rhodesia before independence.
Not on public transport tho, I very rarely travel that way.

Free newspapers really are the last resort of the terminally bored. Most
people are using their phones or laptops in any case.

We know you are an avid reader of those.

The front page of Tuesday's "Evening Standard"
featured a large picture of Fire Brigade Commissioners Dany
Cotton, all in the public interest naturally so she could be identified
in the street, who was condemned for showing "remarkable insensitivity"
for merely pointing out that the FB were simply following established
procedures at the time.

Cotton also told the enquiry that nothing different would be done in
hindsight.

Given all the questions that remain to be answered, if they ever will
there's no reason to claim that anything should necessarily have been done
any differently.

It is clear that once it was obvious that the fire had
escaped from the original flat, if the building had
been evacuated then in an orderly manner, no one
except maybe a very disabled person who chose to
stay in their flat and ignored the fireys pounding on
their door would have survived fine.

Might there have been a stampede with people crushed etc etc ?

Not very likely with the fireys there at the time
and an evacuation started as soon as it was
obvious that the fire had escaped from the flat.

Anyone whose working life can involve making life
and death decisions needs to adopt a stone cold attitude to all such
decisions otherwise they'd soon mess up, and get eaten up in the process.

Yeah, but Cotton particularly appears to be too stupid
to realise that sometimes its better to flout the rules
when the circumstances makes doing that useful.

The same goes for the medical profession - as soon as a surgeon stops
regarding operations as technical challenges involving pieces of meat and
patients as ongoing experiments they're in trouble.

Sure, but that’s different to brigade policy and big buildings.

Going to be interesting to see what they do the next time
there is a fire in one of those buildings with the same type
of cladding with the fire escaping the flat. Unlikely to
happen tho, very rare to see the fire from an appliance
escape a flat designed to be 60? mins fire rated.

The fact that Joe Public so easily mistakes this for callous indifference
is merely a symptom of the media
propagating an atmosphere of overweening sentimentality
in pursuit of inclusive "human interest" stories with
which everyone, most especially those at the back of the class can readily
identify.

And with other fiascos like Hillsborough.
Glad its not me running those events.

Conversely, the chimney guy was characterised as possibly having mental
problems

In fact he certainly had done previously.

and possibly being drunk at the time - so that's all right then..

It would explain how he ended up like that.

He simply slipped backwards possibly as the ladder became detached

We'll see if the inquest agrees.

Although I'm pretty sure I saw one reference to his being drunk I very
much doubt he could have successfully scaled the chimney in that condition
unless it was very slow acting alcohol

It can be surprising what some manage when drunk. And
it will be trivial to see what his blood alcohol level was.

The point I'm making is that such "facts" are irrelevant to the actual
problem of rescuing him from the chimney.

Not necessarily if he is too far out of
his tree to follow instructions etc.

Whereas in mentioning them at all there may be a suggestion that
a) it was all his own fault anyway,

Corse it was.

and b) being mentally unstable and possibly drunk he presented extra
danger to the rescuers. Both of which considerations are as I say totally
irrelevant.

But choosing to not do what he was told isnt.

In message , at 20:05:53 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:29:17 on Fri, 1
Nov 2019, Rod Speed remarked:
Roland Perry wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was
that they didn't change the advice to the residents when it
was clear that the fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

But it's far tome clear that they had any way of communicating
that changed advice to those in building once it made sense to


By issuing an instruction to the 999 operators to change the
script they were reading out, would be a good start.

Not really given that by that time its unlikely
that many would still have been calling 999.

They were both repeatedly calling in, and hanging on the line.

They cant be doing both

The 999 centre can be dealing with both.

But the callers cant be doing both.

Time to stop feeding the troll.

--
Roland Perry

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

But choosing to not do what he was told isnt.

When you're hanging upside down on a ladder at the
top of a chimney with your lower leg trapped behind
a rung of the ladder possiblty pressing against the
back of your knee and cutting off the ciculation and
thus quite possibly in considerable pain there's very
little choice involved.
Had he spent day ten minutes each day doing trunk curls
then maybe he would have had sufficient strength to
right himself despite the pain.
But he obviously hadn't and so he didn't.
Seeing as his photo featured in lots of places clearly
the tabloids were quick off the mark chasing down his
relatives and they may have been the only source as to
his background, supposed mental issues etc.


michael adams

....

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

I've been reading the memoirs of a sergeant in Napoleon's
Grande Arme in the utter fiasco of the retreat back from
Moscow in 1812

Andrew Roberts wrote a very readable biography of
Napoleon which is lightened by his very dry sense
of humour. (On the basis of new letters being made
available) Napoleon is something of a hero for Roberts
who he somewhat physically resembles and so he does
spend a lot of time defending him against mostly baseless
charges which have laid against him by his detractors
down the years. Which is maybe not surprising given
the hundreds of books that have been written about him.
From the book Napoleon happily mixed with his troops
and would take naps by the fire almost anywhere.
He put in lot of work drawing up new enlightened
constitutions for each new country he conquered only
for them to be largely abandoned after his fall.
The big mistake was in burning Moscow in a scorched
earth move when he could have used its resources
himself.
He wasn't only a brilliant general who commanded unrivalled
loyalty from his troops but an enlightened statesman who
simply ran out of luck.i.e if the Prussians hadn't shown
up, who knows ?

michael adams

....

On 01/11/2019 06:37, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:26:50 on Thu, 31 Oct
2019, Steve Walker remarked:
On 31/10/2019 08:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message l.net,
atÂ* 19:57:08 on Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Dave Liquorice
remarked:

Good that the Grenfell enquiry may lead to a change in the "in case of
fire, stay put" advice to people in tower blocks.

For Grenfell, as designed and built, that was the correct advice.
Each flat had a 60 minute fire resistance. The orginal fire was
extinguished within the single flat well within 60 minutes.

The problem was that some **** had wrapped the building in highly
flamable plastic, aluminium and insulation that the small flat fire
ignigted.
Â*The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was that
theyÂ* didn't change the advice to the residents when it was clear
that theÂ* fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

They had no way of quickly communicating the change to residents

They were phoning 999 in droves.

and for the person in charge, it would have been a huge responsibility
anyway. It is bad enough when you stick to the rules and things go
wrong, but imagine that that person had quickly decided to reverse the
rule in place

The rule should not have been in place in the form it was, especially
after Lakanal. And training should have been given in when to start an
evacuation. That's why the LFB was criticised by the enquiry.

But the rule *was* still in place and the person in charge had to work
to those rules or decide to break them and take the personal risk of
doing so.

SteveW

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:05:53 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:29:17 on Fri, 1 Nov
2019, Rod Speed remarked:
Roland Perry wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was
that they didn't change the advice to the residents when it was
clear that the fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

But it's far tome clear that they had any way of communicating
that changed advice to those in building once it made sense to

By issuing an instruction to the 999 operators to change the script
they were reading out, would be a good start.

Not really given that by that time its unlikely
that many would still have been calling 999.

They were both repeatedly calling in, and hanging on the line.

They cant be doing both

The 999 centre can be dealing with both.

But the callers cant be doing both.

Time to stop feeding the troll.

Yes I will.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But choosing to not do what he was told isnt.

When you're hanging upside down on a ladder at the top of a chimney with
your lower leg trapped behind a rung of the ladder possiblty pressing
against the back of your knee and cutting off the ciculation and thus
quite possibly in considerable pain there's very little choice involved.

There is with how you get out of that situation.

Same with those who can't swim being rescued
from drowning. Plenty of the not drunk panic
and don’t do what they are told in that situation.

Had he spent day ten minutes each day doing trunk curls then maybe he
would have had sufficient strength to right himself despite the pain.

Unlikely with the pain in the trapped leg.

And you can actually be killed by being hung
upside down and unable to get upright.

But he obviously hadn't and so he didn't.
Seeing as his photo featured in lots of places clearly
the tabloids were quick off the mark chasing down his relatives and they
may have been the only source as to his background, supposed mental issues
etc.

But its likely that that was only after he was dead.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I've been reading the memoirs of a sergeant in Napoleon's Grande Arme in
the utter fiasco of the retreat back from Moscow in 1812

Andrew Roberts wrote a very readable biography of Napoleon which is
lightened by his very dry sense of humour.

Yeah well worth reading.

(On the basis of new letters being made available) Napoleon is something
of a hero for Roberts who he somewhat physically resembles and so he does
spend a lot of time defending him against mostly baseless charges which
have laid against him by his detractors down the years. Which is maybe not
surprising given the hundreds of books that have been written about him.

From the book Napoleon happily mixed with his troops and would take naps
by the fire almost anywhere. He put in lot of work drawing up new
enlightened constitutions for each new country he conquered only for them
to be largely abandoned after his fall.

And in France too.

The big mistake was in burning Moscow in a scorched earth move when he
could have used its resources himself.

He didn’t burn it himself, the russians
did that. That’s very clear from
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

He wasn't only a brilliant general who commanded unrivalled loyalty from
his troops but an enlightened statesman who simply ran out of luck.

It wasn’t a lack of luck that produced that utter fiasco,
it was the russian scorched earth policy that meant
that even when he did succeed in capturing Moscow,
there was nowhere for him to go once he had done
that and the russians didn’t put their hands up.

i.e if the Prussians hadn't shown up, who knows ?

That’s not what the retreat from Moscow was about.

In message , at 22:46:41 on Fri, 1 Nov 2019,
Steve Walker remarked:
Good that the Grenfell enquiry may lead to a change in the "in case of
fire, stay put" advice to people in tower blocks.

For Grenfell, as designed and built, that was the correct advice.
Each flat had a 60 minute fire resistance. The orginal fire was
extinguished within the single flat well within 60 minutes.

The problem was that some **** had wrapped the building in highly
flamable plastic, aluminium and insulation that the small flat fire
ignigted.
*The problem (with the Fire brigade's command and control) was that
they* didn't change the advice to the residents when it was clear
that the* fire wasn't being contained in one flat.

They had no way of quickly communicating the change to residents
They were phoning 999 in droves.

and for the person in charge, it would have been a huge
responsibility anyway. It is bad enough when you stick to the rules
and things go wrong, but imagine that that person had quickly
decided to reverse the rule in place
The rule should not have been in place in the form it was,
especially after Lakanal. And training should have been given in when
to start an evacuation. That's why the LFB was criticised by the enquiry.

But the rule *was* still in place and the person in charge had to work
to those rules or decide to break them and take the personal risk of
doing so.

You are still confused about where the criticism lies. It's not at the
feet of the people on the ground on the night, it's the LFB management
for not having brought in new rules after Lakanal, such that a change of
policy to "evacuate" rather than "stay put" could be taken as soon as it
was clear the fire had *not* been contained in one flat.

The stuff about letting residents know that it was now recommended to
evacuate is where logistics like starting with those still on the phone
to 999, followed by those subsequently phoning 999, and calling back
those who had previously phoned 999, kicks in.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 14:08:57 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But the callers cant be doing both.

Time to stop feeding the troll.

Yes I will.

You are one despicable, obnoxious, trolling senile pest, Ozzie cretin!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 14:39:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

....and better air in here, again!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 14:55:55 +1100,cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the clinically insane trolling senile pest's troll****

....and better air in here, again!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: