I don't think a tower would have worked on a fire of this scale with the burning debris coming off, from the post I seen from a fireman who went inside they were already breaking policies and going above and beyond anything they'd trained for.
I keep coming back to this:
firefighting platforms taller than Grenfell tower exist - why does the London fire service not have one?
I don't think a tower would have worked on a fire of this scale with the burning debris coming off, from the post I seen from a fireman who went inside they were already breaking policies and going above and beyond anything they'd trained for.
Everything comes back to money.
Not sure if 'not in the uk' matters. There's only not any in the UK because one hasn't been bought. You can buy them within the EU.They do - however not in the UK.
Money does obviously play a factor... but it's also a fix for a problem that shouldn't really exist.
1. if the flats acted how they were designed to a 60m firefighting platform wouldn't be needed. (however the cladding appeared to be this blocks downfall)
2. Sprinkler systems are pretty effective against fighting fires and are now required on anything above 20m. (But do not have to be retrofitted).
Still, dozens could potentially have been saved if a tall platform had been available to rescue them. In hindsight, though reliant on knowing the cladding issue - which should hopefully never be repeated, the ~£1.5m cost of a tall platform would have been money well spent.
It is shocking.This whole cladding business makes me absolutely livid. Cannot believe the level of failure that occurred here. I can't get my head around it. The lack of legislation (and even that appears a grey area) around the cheap cladding variant, the lack of fire inspection when it was put up, the lack of acknowledgement about all those Grenfell Action Group concerns (including vehicle access). It is sick.
I keep coming back to this:
firefighting platforms taller than Grenfell tower exist - why does the London fire service not have one?
It is shocking.
And shocking that the regulations are seen as almost a get-out for the company doing the work. Just because regs don't prohibit you coating the outside of a tall building with flammable material, doesn't mean you don't have a duty of care to consider what the consequence will be if you do so!
Just to illustrate the point.
Worth mentioning however that this was the worlds tallest one as of 2010, so the London fire service having one like this is a bit unlikely. I think any fire service which might need one should have one, but it comes back to money...
![]()
http://www.brontoskylift.com/en/hlaProblem with that is it apparently only took half an hour for the fire to spread from the 4th floor to 23rd floor. That thing must take at least half an hour to arrive, park and setup.
This range includes the highest truck-mounted aerial platform in the world: The F 112 HLA, with a rescue height of 112 meters. The unit is fully stabilized for rescue, with the auto-jacking function, in just 40 seconds. Rescue operations can proceed quickly and smoothly even from a soaring height of 33 floors above ground.
Problem with that is it apparently only took half an hour for the fire to spread from the 4th floor to 23rd floor. That thing must take at least half an hour to arrive, park and setup.
It spread fairly quickly on one side, I don't know the timescale without checking, but there were people trapped on the other side without fire for at least a couple of hours.Problem with that is it apparently only took half an hour for the fire to spread from the 4th floor to 23rd floor. That thing must take at least half an hour to arrive, park and setup.
That's a legit reason, to be fair (if she's correct)I heard the fire brigade on tv (female fire chief of some sorts, seems to do all the interviews I've seen)
Saying as a unit it's too large to actually get around London streets and also set up outside of most of the tower blocks, including Grenfell.