ALP

[Dyson]

On ‎21‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 00:09, Keith said:

Putting on the boiler suit here, think its more down to how they are constructed. Originally the two main types were, HP's and TL's. HP's were essentially two solid hinged booms with a cage on a small boom at the top, raised and lowered by hydraulics, TL's a set of ladders extended by wires and cables, though raised by hydraulic rams. Think there was always an option of a basket at the top. ALP's then combined both with a telescopic boom, an articulated boom and cage at top and a full extending ladder bolted to the side.

Don't think Dot has joined the new forum as yet, but he could settle the argument. Failing that we could go with what the manufacturer calls them. Design has evolved a bit and they now can have an articulated section at the top. The Magirus site shows them in more detail.

Biggest advantage a TL always had, was they could be got to work a lot quicker in less space, so is possibly why they seem to have made a big comeback.

This is how understand it to be, I've worked on TL stations with a cage fitted, was still a TL.

[Steve]

On 20/06/2017 at 23:06, Carl said:

If its got a cage on the end, then surely its an ALP, Aerial Ladder Platform,isnt it? I was a Hydraulic Platform instructor and in GMC, we had TLs, which were just that, a ladder with a turntable. We also had ALPs which were a ladder with a cage and we had Hydraulic Platforms which just had a cage on the end of the booms. The ladder on the side of the booms was just as an emergency escape?

TL's were just a ladder under the old JCDD (12 I think, a long time since my exams) but then a newer JCDD (36??) came along, probably as far back as the early 80's or maybe 70's... Dot will have that level of detail, that required TL's to be fitted with a Rescue cage.... They are still TL's but the requirements changed. Early versions had a detachable cage kept on the rear platform, later ones had a mechanism allowing the ladder to fold over the head of the ladder when housed.

That said, although the two TL's ordered and used by LFB in the 70's had cages (These were Metz ladders), they were troublesome and gone from LFB by around 1980-ish while the old 1960's C & D reg Merryweathers were still pounding the streets of the Capital up until 1989. We then had several more come along around 83/84 which were Magirus E & U type ladders... the U type being able to dip below grade (I recall that being another part of the JCDD spec). The 1987 Camiva ladders had cages as did the current 2007 Magirus ladders. I am not sure what went on in 83/84 with the E & U type in terms of them not having cages.... as it was just before my time. I have seen a picture of one at a Fire show in the early 80's with a cage fitted, but these cages never saw the light of day once they were on the run... I suspect they were ordered to JCDD spec but LFB decided to mothball the cages at one of the workshops.

As Keith said Hydraulic Platforms are the common two and latterly three fixed boom aerials with a cage on the end, most popularly made by Simon Snorkel in the 70's and 80's used widely across the UK to replace TL's even in London, which had 2 x  SS70 two boom sets in the 1970's and then ordered another dozen or so SS220 from 1981 to 1983.

ALP's came to the UK in the last knockings of the 80's and through the 90's. These are principally a main telescopic boom with a single hinged boom at the end with a cage fixed to that and a 'useable' ladder running alongside the booms. Principally they were produced by Bronto skylift, but a couple of Brigades (essex) had Simon Snorkel versions with both Metz (now Rosenbaur Metz I think) and Magirus now also manufacturing them.

All of our vast Bronto ALP's from 1991 are long gone, so we have 2x 2002  Magirus ALP's, 5x 2007 Magirus ALP's, 4 x Magirus TL's and 2x HP's which are the 80's booms, put on new chassis in the mid 90's of which the last two have been tidied up again. As I said the plan was to replace everything with articulated TL's which does everything an ALP can do. This replacement has been forced on us quicker than planned becuase of the requirements of the LEZ in London (low emmission zone). Now, I can see a hold being put on this (the tender is out but I don't think the contract is signed) to maybe look at a taller ALP like Surrey have or a taller version of the articualted TL which also goes up to 42m. I think Metz articualted ladders only go to 32m, but Magirus articualted go to 42m.

In terms of Carl's analysis, that may be local terminology... once you have paid hard cash for it, you can call it what you like... big stick, flying staircase?? I think Metz for example call their ALP's HP's so that runs contrary to what we call them in LFB, we use ALP, HP & TL as we have all three in use.

Photos show, one of the 1983 Magirus U-types with cage attached at a fire show, but never used in LFB. A current Magirus TL and ALP and a re-furbed HP

[Dyson]

^ How the hell does he remember this stuff?

[Carl]

He's what we call "Fire Pi****" lol. Mind you, I am the sad one who set up a website about the fire service so can't say owt really. 

Our old friend @Dot has just rejoined the forum and what he doesn't know about Aerials isn't worth knowing really. 

[Becile]

As Steve has touched on we all call them what we like , like our appliances ..its fine when you know your own brigade but when officers or others like me  ask for specifics - "like get me an alp" or a tl -with our borders starting to be grey and fuzzy...what's the effect we want, something that gets to the 14 th floor capable of rescue and water.weve sent height vehicles into neighbouring countries  (Not lfb I.may add)and then them saying oh I wasn't expecting that- that's what was requested that was what was said. That's maybe where our wonderfull control staff come in.

 

[Keith]

On ‎21‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 11:07, Noddy said:

Keith, Carl is the boss so he is right

@Noddy, Carl might be the boss but Steve is still the guvn'r.  Also, I'm very much from the Brian Clough school of management, we can discuss it for 20 minutes and then decide I was right all along.

Got to be said though good to see brigades investing in proper aerial appliances again after the nonsense that were CRAP's

[Steve]

2 hours ago, Dyson said:

^ How the hell does he remember this stuff?

Could've been the Chief.... but I could only remember this type of detail and not all of the political crap or to nod and smile and the right time.

C'est la vie...

[Ian]

As promised this is Hertfordshires new 45m ALP which goes on the run at the end of the month at Stevenage fire station....call sign H23A1

[Dot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40357535

Morning All,

Found my way back in! A nice discussion....

It seems the armchair firefighters have had their say in the news about this subject and that a 90m unit would've been able to save people from Grenfell. TBH the comments from the FBU rep on there I didn't agree with, but then that's just indicative of the general ignorance as to aerial appliances capabilities by fire brigade personnel of all ranks (present company excepted). I'm not going to rant any further about it, there's no point, but I will hopefully prompt some discussion...

Yes I attended that place at various points, so I know the site. Until I moved to Tottenham that area was all covered by aerials on the PDA, and I've been to Grenfell many times on TLs and HPs from Paddington and struggled to get in there. This was pre-refurb of course. I met with the operators this week to inform the meeting I had at HQ on Weds. The positioning of the first TL crew in attendance that night was the best possible in line with our operating procedures. Hard-standing ground, close to the building etc... They were getting absolutely hammered by falling debris, with a jet assisting in trying 'knock-out' what was hitting them. Not good. They then retreated and attempted to re-site by doing a 'double-staircase' type pitch, whereby they position their turntable right on the corner of the building, which enables them to sweep as many windows along two faces of a building without the need for training in and out to the objective all the time. In TL operator terms, it's the sexiest of all pitches. The fact they had the presence of mind to attempt this in the developing circumstances they were faced with, for me shows their great professionalism and experience and I would applaud them for that. They couldn't do it though, the dropping debris was too relentless. From that point onwards they effectively became part of the firefighting effort. The TL crew were never going to win with that one, but bear this in mind... until approximately two years ago an aerial was on the PDA for this address, and many others across London, when it came down from the top that they were being rationalised and almost myself got disciplined for not removing them from a majority of attendances on my ground, having reviewed them and not wanting to change any.

So, if the TL in this instance had been on the first call, i wonder what might have happened, we will never know. It's my personal opinion that the system has failed the IC and firefighters with this particular point. The TL would have gained almost 30 minutes firefighting/rescue time.

So, on to height. 32m...

Ever since the advent of the all-steel TLs which London first got in 1932, we've had 30m. Back in those days with in-line jacks and narrower vehicles, they were pretty much limited to 15m projection as an absolute maximum. As jacking systems have developed a 32m TL can now achieve 27.6m projection on a rest-down which, given the geometry of the vehicle is pretty much at full extension. You simply can't get better than this. 32m gives the best balance between projection and height. In my 25 years operating these things I have only once been found wanting for height. A multi-rescue job off the Edgware Road one Saturday night in August with 28 pumps and 6 aerials off the run, but that's another story. In my experience, aerial operators love projection which for the uninitiated is lateral reach. You don't hear them say they're not high enough. Above 30m, in the UK, our expectation is that fire safety and fire engineering will take care of things. Until now that is...

The attendance of B42 Metz from Surrey obviously assisted at the incident, but let's not forget it only added 3-4 floors height, and the guys were sited on grass, which if it wasn't for the dry spell we've had recently I doubt anyone would dare pitch up there otherwise. See the attached 2nd link for how far they had to site. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

They did also pitch at the rear building face which got them closer. The chaps there did what they could and I was most impressed with their monitor and skills. Becile I've got the first operator's number to give him a call to chat 'aerial' but this week has been somewhat busy for me again. I know why everyone's getting in such a pickle about them attending, massive incident, LFB not having one big enough, whole world watching etc.. but when you look at it, it's a mutual assistance call and this has been going on since organised fire brigades began. If I start recently, Swinley Forest, I lost count of how many Brigades I saw there, Windsor Castle LFB sent aerials there, we've been down into Kent for stuff, pumps to Suffolk for their floods in 1953, not to mention the war where it was rife. My 'Old Gloster' TL was ordered by Churchill to St. Paul's Cathedral! It's a proud thing and we all help each other don't we? 

The geography of a lot of high rise premises doesn't allow good aerial access. I've refreshed on the Building Regs this week, and I'll stand corrected but there is no requirement for aerial appliance access, but it can be specified. So, any fire brigade aerial attendance is already hampered by that fact. The aerial appliance is not the panacea for this incident type, but I believe there are steps we can take to make things better, like PDAs and better pre-planning. I can't say anything about the review that's going on, as it's too sensitive a subject right now, apologies for that. 

So, just to cover the mega-height scenario, and I'll just plant this seed for now so we can discuss it. Let's say we got a 90m ALP. aside from it's 6 axles and 40-50t kerb weight, it was actually able to pitch to a high-rise in North Kensington. How many people and how quickly would it be able to rescue people? With the amount of people here, the operators would be over-run with people trying to get out and on to it.... what would happen then? It's only got a 4 person cage capacity... hmmmm

Dot

[Dyson]

The PDA thing is interesting. I wasn't aware of this, we still have four pumps on any residential high rise call, including AFA's. Although interestingly the ALP's were taken off and only get added to confirmed fire or on request. This was following a series of low speed bifs while attending AFA's.

 

[BurtMacklin]

The PDA for aerials in London definitely needs looking at, I've seen our aerial go on stuff like smell of smoke in basement and shed fires yet be left alone for fires on balconies of high rises, bizarre. 

[Dot]

That's to do with addressing on the system Burt. If 1 High Street gets an aerial for a fire related call, then it'll go on everything including a basement , there's no differentiation. I once went to the same basement job five times at the Cumberland Hotel, Marble Arch each time it got made up. When it went 12 and starting coming out of the roof, I was asked to stay!

It's a massive job, chiefly because most don't know what their requirements are, but I don't think it's a difficult one. Inclusion within ORD would be a good start. Maybe it'll happen....

[Steve]

I remember that job.... the TL coming and going was remarked on at the time I recall.

[Keith]

Dot, good to see you back, with your undoubted knowledge of aerial appliances.

Been a while since I was an ALP operator, but one thing I do remember is how difficult it was to get the jacking right in an off camber situation to allow the appliance to be got to work, so hats off to the Surrey crew looking at the pictures. I appreciate the technology will have moved on but with the latest generation of appliances what are the limitations of what they can work in?

On the TL front what do you think of the articulated versions now available? It certainly looks impressive looking at the manufacturers videos and specs, but do they cut the mustard?

[Dot]

Keith I think the Metz and Bronto jacks have really upped their game in terms of their speed and levelling, but that still doesn't take away from the fact those babies have got to lift and level 23 tonnes plus quickly, and that's no mean feat. 

With regard TLs, they fit well for us within our requirements, and we are, as it currently stands, about to get 15 either Metz or Magirus 32m with articulating heads. They bring speed, agility and reach, but in such a compact form. Their technical rescue capabilities have come on leaps and bounds, and all this equipment will be on the vehicles. My only reservation is whether or not we will be able to get them into use. We've purposely ensured ALP operators requirements have been addressed. 4 person cages and permanent waterway being the main ones. Obviously the game has changed slightly in the last fortnight, so the final number may change, but the bulk of the fleet will be these ones. 

Dot

[StephenKP]

Just to back up Dots comments on the building regulations.  The usual table you would go to for a building (not a dwelling house, i.e. all buildings by individual houses/bungalows etc.) Table 19 of of Approved document B2 (page 108) does not apply to flats. "The vehicle access requirements described in Table 19 for buildings without fire mains, do not apply to blocks of flats, because access is required to each individual dwelling (see paragraph16.3), or to buildings with fire mains"

Paragraph 16.3 states- "There should be vehicle access for a pump appliance to blocks of flats to within 45m of all points within each dwelling."  it mentions that if this can't be met then a riser would need to be isntalled with vehicular access for a fire engine to be within 18m.  There is no guidance or requirement in the current regulations for high rise access to flats.

Link below for reference to Part B2

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

 

[Keith]

Dot, I suppose ultimately it comes down to a trade of in terms of what we use them for in the majority of occasions as opposed to what potentially they could be used for. The new generation of articulated TL's do seem to be well suited.

If the extra height or projection is required then it has to be excepted that a bigger heavier appliance will be required, with the associated problems that brings. If you take this to the extreme and look at the monster Bronto in Messy's earlier post even if you had the access required at the building, imagine driving it to the call and then setting it up. Surprised to see how small the jacking pads are for it given the weight the booms must be and the number of road wheels. Also interesting to see at that height no ladder is fitted so its essentially an access platform, which raises the question do we actually need the ladder on an ALP's?

Come to think of it what safety systems are fitted to allow you to actual climb either an ALP or TL to comply with working at height regulations, somehow I don't think a TL belt would cut it.

[Dot]

Keith mate they are well suited. The current TLs are universally liked, and now with the extra capability and equipment they will only go from strength to strength. The height thing will get addressed in time, but having researched this over the past few days the vehicle weights for a high (55m+) Bronto are 36t which means 4 axles minimum. I can't say because I don't know what it going to happen, but we've got some work ahead of us.

Regarding ascent and descent of a ladder. I ascended one the other day with a 3/4" wire cable that runs with the ladder on the right hand side of it. A one way running attachment affixes to it to prevent a fall. it was ok, but would take some getting use to. Some pictures were taken, but I haven't got them yet. When I do I'll post.

Another interesting thing I've learned over the weekend from a German colleague is that they only class an ALP as a working platform, and Brigades MUST have a TL as their first line rescue appliance. Food for thought...

[Keith]

I wonder then, was it why, when we had National Standards of Fire Cover, there were attendance times for TL's?

Thought there would have to be some sort of fall arrest system as you wouldn't be allowed to climb that height now. Also guessing that the old method of standing on the top step with your left arm out indicating a clean pair of heels is a no, no.

On the return of the TL front, heard on the grapevine that we have 2 TL's on order. Don't know the details of make / models as yet or if they're the first phase in a complete replacement of our aerial fleet. As in Steve's post we had a mix of TL's, HP and ALP's which at the last replacement was standardised to ALP's with HP spares but this became 3 stations with Vema ALP's and one HP station.

[Matt]

@Keith I can confirm an order for 2 Magirus TL's from Emergency One with the possibility of another 3 to be added but size and chassis not yet confirmed.  GMC have done the same again not confirmed finer details, they have 2 with the possibility for another 2.