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

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

"John" wrote in message
2.222...
One hell of a cherry picker used in that chimney rescue attempt in
Cumbria.

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

So sad that it didn't get there in time to save the man. I wonder why he
went up the tower - a prank, or an attempt to unfurl a protest banner?

If Fred Dibnah had still been with us, I bet he'd have shinned up the ladder
and rescued the guy, with no regard to health and safety or whether it would
lead to "half a day out with the undertaker".

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

I suppose it would have got some people out, though I imagine it takes quite
a while to lower and raise, so there may have been a long delay between
rescuing one load of people and the next.

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

In article , "NY"
wrote:

So sad that it didn't get there in time to save the man. I wonder why he
went up the tower - a prank, or an attempt to unfurl a protest banner?

The local news (Look North, NE&Cumbria) talked about issues with mental
health.

J.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:16:52 -0000, NY wrote:

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

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

The Dixons chimney is 290 feet...

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

If there was space and suitable ground with access for a big rigid
truck close enough to the base maybe. Suitable ground is the biggest
problem, it's not unknown for them to fall over when the ground under
an outrigger stabiliser gives way... How do you know what load a
random bit of ground can take? With Grenfell you also have the issue
of all the falling and burning debris...

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.
--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wednesday, 30 October 2019 19:57:13 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
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.

And Grenfell had only one stair which probably wasn't sized for full simultaneous evacuation. People coming down would also have obstructed firefighters going up.

I think there was a Fire Service shortcoming in passing information from the scene back to the 999 call handlers, but 999 call handlers aren't a substitute for a proper whole-building public-address voice alarm system.

Owain

Jethro_uk wrote:

Did I learn that wheelchair users were also housed above ground level ?

I don't know, but ... I could see a possible thought process that if
everyone is meant to stay put, it doesn't matter if you don't use the
lift on foot, or don't use it in a wheelchair, then the emergency
services can evacuate you via the stairs if it comes to it ...

On 31/10/2019 07:18, Andy Burns wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:

Did I learn that wheelchair users were also housed above ground level ?

I don't know, but ... I could see a possible thought process that if
everyone is meant to stay put, it doesn't matter if you don't use the
lift on foot, or don't use it in a wheelchair, then the emergency
services can evacuate you via the stairs if it comes to it ...

I've certainly worked in offices where the stairwells are designated
refuges. In the event of fire. People are supposed to get themselves
out, but to leave anyone with a disability on the (large) landings to
wait for either the fire marshals or the emergency services to bring
them down.

SteveW

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
idual.net:

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:16:52 -0000, NY wrote:

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

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

The Dixons chimney is 290 feet...

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

If there was space and suitable ground with access for a big rigid
truck close enough to the base maybe. Suitable ground is the biggest
problem, it's not unknown for them to fall over when the ground under
an outrigger stabiliser gives way... How do you know what load a
random bit of ground can take? With Grenfell you also have the issue
of all the falling and burning debris...

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.

Agree 100%

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
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
ignited.

And so the advice was *not* correct for the building as it existed at the
time. Either the fire brigade survey of large residential buildings was not
kept up to date when the cladding was applied, or else the first crews to
arrive didn't recognise that burning debris was falling off the surface of
the walls and/or weren't able to get authority to alter the existing "stay
put" instructions to residents.

The fire brigade (especially senior managers) have come in for a lot of flak
at the recent enquiry...

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
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
ignited.

And so the advice was *not* correct for the building as it existed at the
time. Either the fire brigade survey of large residential buildings was
not kept up to date when the cladding was applied, or else the first crews
to arrive didn't recognise that burning debris was falling off the surface
of the walls and/or weren't able to get authority to alter the existing
"stay put" instructions to residents.

One of them did make the point that once they showed up
and were aware that the outside of the building was going
up in flames very spectacularly indeed, there was no way
to THEN notify everyone that they needed to evacuate.

The fire brigade (especially senior managers) have come in for a lot of
flak at the recent enquiry...

Yes, but that's a separate issue to how feasible it
would have been to evacuate the building once it
became clear that that was NOW the best thing to do.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:19:24 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


One of them did make the point that once they showed up

Grenfell, you senile Ozzie pest? NONE of yours, you abnormal idiot!

--
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 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:38:03 -0000, NY wrote:

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

The problem was that some **** had wrapped the building in highly
flammable plastic, aluminium and insulation that the small flat
fire
ignited.

And so the advice was *not* correct for the building as it existed at
the time. Either the fire brigade survey of large residential buildings
was not kept up to date when the cladding was applied, ...

Inspections that I believe are/were no longer under the local Fire
and Rescue services.

... or else the first crews to arrive didn't recognise that burning
debris was falling off the surface of the walls ...

The first crews put the fire out in the flat, they also noticed that
it had got into the cladding/insulation. But how do you fight a fire
in a cavity behind waterproof cladding at fourth floor level? A
cavity acting as a bloody great chimney with missing/badly fitted
fire stops?

... and/or weren't able to get authority to alter the existing "stay
put" instructions to residents.

The fire brigade (especially senior managers) have come in for a lot of
flak at the recent enquiry...

The delay, visible with hind sight, in changing the instruction from
stay to get out is the only thing that the LFB got, for want of a
better word, wrong. The fire breached the kitchen window at 0108 and
reached the roof, 20 stories higher, within 20 minutes. 20 minutes is
the blink of an eye in rapidly changing, live, situation.

It'll be very interesting to see whose heads roll, if any, with the
2nd enquiry. Those that signed off the use of the cladding, outside
of it's specified use constrains, those that didn't correctly assess
*all* the implications of the changes to the building on the fire
risk, those tasked with ensuring the work was actually done to spec.
etc etc.

They are the ones to "blame" not the LFB sent in to pickup the
consequences of others incompetence or spreadsheet gazing.

--
Cheers
Dave.

After serious thinking Dave Liquorice wrote :
It'll be very interesting to see whose heads roll, if any, with the
2nd enquiry. Those that signed off the use of the cladding, outside
of it's specified use constrains, those that didn't correctly assess
*all* the implications of the changes to the building on the fire
risk, those tasked with ensuring the work was actually done to spec.
etc etc.

They are the ones to "blame" not the LFB sent in to pickup the
consequences of others incompetence or spreadsheet gazing.

+1 to all of that.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:33:20 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 20:38:03 -0000, NY wrote:

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

The problem was that some **** had wrapped the building in highly
flammable plastic, aluminium and insulation that the small flat
fire
ignited.

And so the advice was *not* correct for the building as it existed at
the time. Either the fire brigade survey of large residential buildings
was not kept up to date when the cladding was applied, ...

Inspections that I believe are/were no longer under the local Fire and
Rescue services.

... or else the first crews to arrive didn't recognise that burning
debris was falling off the surface of the walls ...

The first crews put the fire out in the flat, they also noticed that it
had got into the cladding/insulation. But how do you fight a fire in a
cavity behind waterproof cladding at fourth floor level? A cavity acting
as a bloody great chimney with missing/badly fitted fire stops?

... and/or weren't able to get authority to alter the existing "stay
put" instructions to residents.

The fire brigade (especially senior managers) have come in for a lot of
flak at the recent enquiry...

The delay, visible with hind sight, in changing the instruction from
stay to get out is the only thing that the LFB got, for want of a better
word, wrong. The fire breached the kitchen window at 0108 and reached
the roof, 20 stories higher, within 20 minutes. 20 minutes is the blink
of an eye in rapidly changing, live, situation.

It'll be very interesting to see whose heads roll, if any, with the 2nd
enquiry. Those that signed off the use of the cladding, outside of it's
specified use constrains, those that didn't correctly assess *all* the
implications of the changes to the building on the fire risk, those
tasked with ensuring the work was actually done to spec. etc etc.

They are the ones to "blame" not the LFB sent in to pickup the
consequences of others incompetence or spreadsheet gazing.

To that, add those who delayed getting the smoke extraction fixed. It had
broken eight days before and they were not hurrying to fix it.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
NY wrote:
The problem was that some **** had wrapped the building in highly
flamable plastic, aluminium and insulation that the small flat fire
ignited.

And so the advice was *not* correct for the building as it existed at
the time. Either the fire brigade survey of large residential buildings
was not kept up to date when the cladding was applied,

You think the council should have informed them it had had unsuitable
cladding fitted badly? Or that they should have removed some to do their
own tests? And examined the way it had been applied? And do the same for
every building in the UK that had been refurbished? And after all the
Boris cuts in manpower? And still have time to perform their primary
function?

--
*Procrastinate now

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 19:55:45 +1100, Chang, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

But it's far tome clear

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane, nym-shifting,
trolling, senile asshole?

--
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:

In message , at 19:55:45 on Thu, 31
Oct 2019, Chang remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

The getting them to phone back the previous callers.
--
Roland Perry

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 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 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.

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
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 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 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.

Problem with that line is that at times sticking to the rules makes no
sense.

Those senior people are there to make important decisions when
those need to be done. If rules are followed regardless, you dont
need a highly paid experienced individual in charge at all.

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

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:16:52 -0000, NY wrote:

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

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

The Dixons chimney is 290 feet...

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

If there was space and suitable ground with access for a big rigid
truck close enough to the base maybe. Suitable ground is the biggest
problem, it's not unknown for them to fall over when the ground under
an outrigger stabiliser gives way... How do you know what load a
random bit of ground can take? With Grenfell you also have the issue
of all the falling and burning debris...

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.

Unfortunately you could also have the situation that people understandably
in the circumstances seeing a cherry picker platform as the last resort
would try to get to it in a non orderly manner and overwhelm any controlled
rescue plan for using it, when the Titanic went down the officers kept
order by having pistols available though as one noted in his book written
in a different era they werent used to influence Britishers,
so it must have been for the more excitable immigrants going to the US from
elsewhere.
Things would be very different now can you imagine the outcry if Police
today had to threaten use of a Tazer from the platform to keep potential
survivors in order so that at least some could be got off.

GH

"Marland" wrote in message
...

When the Titanic went down the officers kept order by having pistols available
though as one noted in his book written in a different era they weren't used to
influence Britishers,

Clearly having pistols also helped some of the officers to subsequently write books
about their experiences. Rather than do the decent thing and go down with their
ship.

michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:

"Marland" wrote in message
...

When the Titanic went down the officers kept order by having pistols available
though as one noted in his book written in a different era they weren't used to
influence Britishers,

Clearly having pistols also helped some of the officers to subsequently write books
about their experiences. Rather than do the decent thing and go down with their
ship.

michael adams

The one who survived saw as many off as possible till there were no boats
left that could be launched,
he didnt leave on a boat and jumped into the sea as the ship went down.
and later in life proved no coward in acts in WW1 , in WW2 rather than hand
his own boat over to be used at Dunkirk he took it there himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle...s_at_inquiries

In his own voice recorded in the 1930s

https://youtu.be/uzG4cjm5mKo

GH

On 30/10/2019 20:10, Chris Hogg wrote:


I think the fire brigade is being made a scapegoat. OK, so perhaps
they should have kept their advice updated in line with the changing
structural additions to the building, but at the time there was
nothing to suggest that the place would go up like a torch. I'm sure
on the face of it the components of the cladding met all the right
fireproof specifications, so there would be no expectation of a need
to change the advice given about evacuation.

Rule 1: if a building is on fire get out if you can.

Rule 2: if a building is on fire get out anyway.

Sod leaving space for the firemen to get up and save the building.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:02:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

I think the fire brigade is being made a scapegoat.

+1

OK, so perhaps they should have kept their advice updated in line
with
the changing structural additions to the building, ...

I don't think local Fire and Rescue services do building fire safety
inspections any longer it's been "out sourced".

... but at the time there was nothing to suggest that the place
would
go up like a torch. I'm sure on the face of it the components of
the
cladding met all the right fireproof specifications,

ISTR in the weeks after Grenfell it emerged that the cladding
actually fitted, rather than that originally specified, was not fire
rated to be used above a few stories high. Any reappraisal of the
affects the change of cladding may have had was only a paper
exercise. Using data gathered from tests for the intended (low
height) use of the cladding rather than what actually happens when
you wrap a tower block in it.

... so there would be no expectation of a need to change the
advice
given about evacuation.

Rule 1: if a building is on fire get out if you can.

Rule 2: if a building is on fire get out anyway.

I'm inclined to agree but that's my decision. Given the choice
between a smoke logged stairwell and a (supposedly) 60 minute fire
safe flat I'm not sure when I'd change to "**** this I'm outta here".
Bearing in mind from inside the building you can't see that it's
going up like roman candle.

Sod leaving space for the firemen to get up and save the building.

Or persons trapped by the smoke/fire...
--
Cheers
Dave.

On 30/10/2019 20:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 19:57:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:16:52 -0000, NY wrote:

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

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

The Dixons chimney is 290 feet...

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

If there was space and suitable ground with access for a big rigid
truck close enough to the base maybe. Suitable ground is the biggest
problem, it's not unknown for them to fall over when the ground under
an outrigger stabiliser gives way... How do you know what load a
random bit of ground can take? With Grenfell you also have the issue
of all the falling and burning debris...

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.

I think the fire brigade is being made a scapegoat. OK, so perhaps
they should have kept their advice updated in line with the changing
structural additions to the building, but at the time there was
nothing to suggest that the place would go up like a torch. I'm sure
on the face of it the components of the cladding met all the right
fireproof specifications, so there would be no expectation of a need
to change the advice given about evacuation.

It will be interesting to see what the second report comes out with.


IIRC there were a couple of buildings abroad which suffered in a
simmilar way due to cladding. The fire brigade is being made a
scapegoat because of the way the enquiry has been split into two parts.

The real problem is the government not keeping the fire regulations up
to date but concentrating on Brexit instead. They have now downed tools
for an election.


--
Michael Chare

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:57:36 +0000, Michael Chare wrote:

The real problem is the government not keeping the fire regulations up
to date but concentrating on Brexit instead.

Irrelevant.

The planning and design of the refurbishment of Grenfell started in
2012 with the work done 2015-16. I think the Law changed in 2005
regarding who is the "responsible person" or, if they don't have the
knowledge/skills required, "compentent person" required to draw up a
fire risk assesment. Suffice to say the Fire and Rescue services
don't do it but they do carry out
inspections.

https://www.gov.uk/workplace-fire-sa...lities/fire-ri
sk-assessments

Help with the assessment

You can do the fire risk assessment yourself with the help of standard
fire safety risk assessment guides.

If you don't have the expertise or time to do the fire risk assessment
yourself you need to appoint a æcompetent personÆ to help, for example a
professional risk assessor.

Your local fire and rescue authority might be able to give you advice if you're not sure your risk assessmentÆs been carried out properly.
However, they can't carry out risk assessments for you.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 30/10/2019 17:16, NY wrote:
"John" wrote in message
2.222...
One hell of a cherry picker used in that chimney rescue attempt in
Cumbria.

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

So sad that it didn't get there in time to save the man. I wonder why he
went up the tower - a prank, or an attempt to unfurl a protest banner?

If Fred Dibnah had still been with us, I bet he'd have shinned up the
ladder and rescued the guy, with no regard to health and safety or
whether it would lead to "half a day out with the undertaker".

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

I suppose it would have got some people out, though I imagine it takes
quite a while to lower and raise, so there may have been a long delay
between rescuing one load of people and the next.

Good that the Grenfell enquiry may lead to a change in the "in case of
fire, stay put" advice to people in tower blocks.
This article gives some info on the reasons for the Fire Brigade Actions.
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/1...s-day-tragedy/

In article , NY wrote:
"John" wrote in message
2.222...
One hell of a cherry picker used in that chimney rescue attempt in
Cumbria.

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

So sad that it didn't get there in time to save the man. I wonder why he
went up the tower - a prank, or an attempt to unfurl a protest banner?

If Fred Dibnah had still been with us, I bet he'd have shinned up the
ladder and rescued the guy, with no regard to health and safety or
whether it would lead to "half a day out with the undertaker".

Would it have helped at Grenfell?

I suppose it would have got some people out, though I imagine it takes
quite a while to lower and raise, so there may have been a long delay
between rescuing one load of people and the next.

and it came from Glasgow, so probably wouldn't have got to West London in
time.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 30/10/2019 17:16, NY wrote:
"John" wrote in message
2.222...
One hell of a cherry picker used in that chimney rescue attempt in
Cumbria.

Yes it was. 260 feet high (probably a bit more since they are always
operated with a least a *bit* of a bend at the elbow joint.

So sad that it didn't get there in time to save the man. I wonder why he
went up the tower - a prank, or an attempt to unfurl a protest banner?

Maybe he just wanted to hang around.



--
Adam

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
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 30/10/2019 18:25, Chris J Dixon wrote:


Very interesting post.

Bill

In article , Chris J Dixon
writes
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
They initially tried a helicopter but the down draught was too severe.
--
bert

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.

Harry Bloomfield; "Esq." wrote in message
...
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.

They reason they gave is the downdraft caused by the helicopter
blowing the chap off of the chimney. I looked this up on the net
with little success but climbing and other fall arrest ropes capable
of taking the weight of a man go to 100's of metres and I very much
doubt ( without any concrete evidence ) that a helicopter hovering
would cause appreciable down draft on the top of a chimney 100 or
more metres below. 10 metres or less, yes, obviously. The rescuer
could be winched down with an easily fitted rescue harness attached
to a separate rope.


michael adams

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

Harry Bloomfield; "Esq." wrote in
message ...
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.

They reason they gave is the downdraft caused by the helicopter
blowing the chap off of the chimney. I looked this up on the net
with little success but climbing and other fall arrest ropes capable
of taking the weight of a man go to 100's of metres and I very much
doubt ( without any concrete evidence ) that a helicopter hovering
would cause appreciable down draft on the top of a chimney 100 or
more metres below. 10 metres or less, yes, obviously. The rescuer
could be winched down with an easily fitted rescue harness attached
to a separate rope.

My first thought when I heard about the incident was "send a helicopter
winchman down", without thinking of the downdraught. I think the problem
with having the helicopter higher is that the winch cable is then much
longer so any movement in the helicopter or winchman being blown in the
breeze/downdraught like a pendulum is going to be much greater so it will be
much harder for the winchman to stay in exactly the right place as he is
trying to "hit" the chimney to secure his line so he can "land" safely and
jettison the line.

Interesting that when the cherry picker was brought in, its cage was round
the opposite side of the chimney to the victim. I wonder if that was simply
due to which side had access at the bottom, or whether there was another
reason for approaching from that side.

Chris Hogg explained on 31/10/2019 :
I read on BBC red button that he was hanging upside-down for much of
the time. How'd he manage that, and what was he hanging by?

He had somehow gone himself trapped and hanging by his leg. Quite easy
to hook a leg through a ladder, to leave both arms free to work, though
I appreciate he wasn't there to work.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:33:15 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:41:57 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Harry Bloomfield; "Esq." wrote in
message ...
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.

They reason they gave is the downdraft caused by the helicopter blowing
the chap off of the chimney. I looked this up on the net with little
success but climbing and other fall arrest ropes capable of taking the
weight of a man go to 100's of metres and I very much doubt ( without
any concrete evidence ) that a helicopter hovering would cause
appreciable down draft on the top of a chimney 100 or more metres below.
10 metres or less, yes, obviously. The rescuer could be winched down
with an easily fitted rescue harness attached to a separate rope.


Air-sea rescue helicopters operating out of Culdrose on the Lizard in
Cornwall or Chivenor in North Devon, regularly winch a man down onto the
heaving deck of vessels in distress or to recover a casualty, under the
most horrendous conditions - gale force winds, mountainous seas and the
boat plus rigging swaying around all over the place. Getting that man
off the chimney would have been a doddle for them.

I read on BBC red button that he was hanging upside-down for much of the
time. How'd he manage that, and what was he hanging by?

His leg was jammed between the ladder and the chimney. The ladder was a
temporary one and not fixed very well.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor