Dec 31, 2017 at 8:02 PM by golf charlie

If it as difficult as you say, and there appears to be no alternative without spending money, lots of it, tenants in high rise blocks are on a to a hiding to nothing :)

tomo & Robert Christopher

Owners of historic buildings have used technology developed for specialist purposes, ships, marine, military, computers/electronics etc. This is technology that is tried and tested. It works, and costs would be reduced by mass production.

Fires at Windor Castle, Hampton Court etc did cause a bit of a rethink, when it came to Listed Buildings.

Offshore, marine, ships etc tend to be built with materials that can get wet, and don't absorb water. Control system are better protected (or have back-ups) from the consequences of fire - heat, smoke, steam, loss of power and water

The UK Building Regulations started with getting people out of a building. There was time to get everyone out of Grenfell Tower using the stairs, when the Fire and Rescue Services first arrived on the scene, and possibly when they realised the fire was not within their control.

Jan 1, 2018 at 4:34 PM | Robert Christopher

Sprinklers are unlikely to extinguish a burning car. A car fire normally starts under the protection of the bonnet. Car tyres are good for spreading fire from one car, to an adjacent car. Once fuel and/or oil is leaking, and alight, from one car......

Fire engines don't fit into multistorey car parks either.

gc

'Sprinklers are unlikely to extinguish a burning car. '

The officials didn't suggest that! No one did.

You appear to have difficulty in comprehending the posts here as your replies veer off, implying something that could not easily be inferred.

In this case, officials said that a sprinkler system would have given the fire brigade a better chance of reducing the damage. The thought of it extinguishing a burning car is only present in your mind: not the officials, nor mine. It isn't relevant as we know it isn't feasible.

Their view must be of some value as they were on site (I would assume unless told otherwise) and would have some previous experience. They might have even discussed it among themselves.

And I can't see what driving a fire engine into the seat of the fire would accomplish: a truly deluded option.

Robert Christopher, if you think a car fire can be extinguished with a sprinkler, you are welcome to try. As tomo points out, a sprinkler/mist spray may reduce the chances of an adjacent car catching fire. Water may be used to cool a car down, to reduce catastrophic failure of fuel tanks, but that requires firefighters to be dangerously close. Multistorey car parks are well ventilated, and cause a "firestorm" effect. Spraying a multistorey car park with water from the outside will help to prevent flames from spreading to other buildings, but may not "save" any specific cars.

Legislation for buildings changes at 18+ metres in height. This is linked to maximum heights achievable with standard ladders. One of the problems at Grenfell was a shortage of appliances with long enough ladders.

Many of the general public are deluded about what fire fighters can actually achieve when attending a fire. Their first priority is saving lives, not buildings. No one was able to save the lives of those in the upper levels of Grenfell. They should not have been trapped there.

gc

I have not suggested that a sprinkler system can extinguish a car fire, so why strongly infer that I have done that? Why even mention it when it is accepted fake news.

It is tantamount to extreme inventiveness of the unpleasant kind.

Please stop it. It does you no good.

I have quoted officials, saying that a sprinkler system could have delayed the spread of the car park fire, giving the fire brigade more time to deal with the fire. Given that the temperatures were reported to be 800 - 1000 Deg C and that the fire spread to many floors, not just to adjacent cars, that is quite a sensible view. Just keeping the temperature down would have reduced the damage.

Given that there was no sprinkler system, I expect determining what fire risks, if any, were considered will be most illuminating, and how competent those involved were in deciding that a sprinkler system was not needed, assuming that a decision was consciously made.

I expect it is possible to install a sprinkler system to be ineffective but sensible people would not expect such a result.

tomo - you still haven't addressed any of the points raised in my last post, only gone off at a tangent.

What a disappointing start to the New Year.

Robert Christopher, I am not ex Fire and Rescue Services, but have been involved with the aftermath, cause etc of quite a lot of fires. I have worked with serving Fire Officers, and retired Fire Officers.

If every building had a sprinkler system, fatalities and devastation caused by fire would be reduced. False activations would lead to a massive increase to property damaged. Fire Officers know this, and have been advocating sprinkler systems for decades. Since Grenfell, the media are broadcasting their views more readily. A sprinkler system is NOT a magic solution to all tyes of fire. What is a sprinkler system? Mist, spray or drench? Automatic or manual?

You refer to my delusions about fighting a fire. What do you think they are?

Mar 2, 2018 at 5:20 PM | tomo

Hopefully she will receive some appropriate, and deserved alternative accommodation for a year or so, for which she may not be truly grateful.

The amount of time spent/wasted by the Police, before they released the final death toll, should be remembered in the context of fraudulent claims. There is then the distress caused to those who did lose friends and family.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/woman-faces-six-grenfell-tower-charges

A woman has appeared in court charged with seven counts of fraud related to the Grenfell Tower fire.
Joyce Msokeri is accused of falsely claiming her husband died in the blaze and fraudulently claiming £10,000 of support that was being offered to survivors.
The 46-year-old from Sutton, south London, was arrested on 25 July and charged on 4 September. She will appear on Tuesday before Westminster magistrates court in central London.
The charges allege she made false representations to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for money and accommodation at the Hilton hotel, to charities in order to obtain clothing and food, to hospitals that she was the wife of a patient, and also made false representations to HMRC and a GP surgery in Kensington and Chelsea.
Sending the case to crown court, district judge Elizabeth Roscoe said: “It is a substantial amount of money. It is in circumstances where it is akin to a fraud on a vulnerable person who has been injured. It is similar to that in that of course there is a finite pot and the more that is taken out illegally, the less there is for those that deserve it.”

Mar 2, 2018 at 10:50 PM | Robert Christopher

Do you have sprays/sprinklers/mist systems in your dwelling? If not, why not?

People don't want to pay for the damage caused by accidental activation. Insurers would pay for it, having increased premiums accordingly.

In the "majority" of single room domestic fires that are extinguished by the Fire Services (ie the whole house was not an inferno), the cost of repairs will extend to most rooms due to damage caused by water, smoke and steam. The smell lingers permanently, even where there is no visible damage.

Jan 2, 2018 at 9:12 AM | Robert Christopher

What are you expecting a sprinkler system to do in a multistorey car park? A car fire normally stats underneath the bonnet. Bonnets are designed to keep rain out.

Carparks are designed and built to be cheap and simple. These days, very few have attendants 24/7. They have low ceiling heights that will prevent access by Fire Engines and Pumps.

These low ceilings wil also contain any blast or explosion from petrol tanks, bursting tyres, and other pressure vessels. Not a very good environment for a suited and booted firefighter in the carpark, or on the top of a ladder directing a hose, through an opening. Fire Fighters only go into buildings if there are persons missing.

Even without the fuel, a car burns at an intense heat, with a lot of smoke. The car will be a write-off, so Fire Fighters can do little more than direct water jets and sprays from ground level. It is not exactly precision.

Reinforced concrete structures may be structurally flawed after the intense heat of a fire. Access is not normally attempted, until after the remains have cooled.

Multistorey Carparks Public Toilets etc, are used by the homeless, for shelter. Sometimes they do start small fires to keep warming. Sometimes these small fires get out of control, especially if drugs/alcohol are involved.

Once the Grenfell Tower Inquiry started, I was happy to leave this thread alone. I do believe that sprinklers should be installed in Escape Routes. The Residents who escaped from Grenfell Tower ignored the advice to stay in their Flats. Fire fighters had no means of rescuing those that stayed in their Flats as instructed.

The simple fact remains that Grenfell Tower was a safer building for occupants when it was built. The "What to do in the Event of Fire" instructions were safer.
Insurers and Lawyers are very wary of sprinkler mist sprays. The pipework provides the ideal environment for Legionnaires to breed. Activation is the ideal method of introducing it into peoples lungs.

Mar 9, 2018 at 5:11 PM | tomo

If the UN allowed poor countries to develop, the UK Housing Stock would not be so overcrowded with people desperate for a better life.

Mar 10, 2018 at 12:25 PM | tomo

It would isolate them from the perils of the 21st century, by giving them some 19th century perils to worry about.

tomo, from your link:

"One of Britain’s most notorious “crash-for-cash” fraudsters, Masi Naqshbandi, is among the relatives rehoused in new properties, including flats in a luxury development in Kensington, west London, furnished by John Lewis.

The Naqshbandi family insist their main residence before the fire on June 14 last year was a three-bedroom flat on the third floor of Grenfell Tower. However, only four names are believed to appear on the original tenancy agreement.

Concerns among council officials grew when some of the relatives started listing the flat as…" etc etc

People who wondered why it took the Police so long to confirm the death toll, need to bear this in mind.

I doubt whether Grenfell Tower or KCTMO, are unique, and across London and the UK, Council/Social Housing has similar problems. The colours of the local political flags are irrelevant.

Some of these residents may genuinely believe they have valid tenancy agreements, whether they understand UK Law or not. This is "organised crime" against UK residents and Taxpayers on a massive scale.

Local Authorities, whatever their political colour, have turned a blind eye, because it "solves" the "housing crisis"