Grenfell Tower

[Matt]

You will never chance human nature, they will have always used one and never been a problem except this one time and time is  up.

Next time the fire alarm goes off in a building watch everyone will go for the way out the same way they come into the building, not necessarily exit by the nearest one and probably walking past a fire exit.

[Healdav]

On 15/06/2021 at 15:51, Messyshaw said:

@Kinmel Thank you for sharing this rather depressing but fascinating insight to the history of how Grenfell occurred. How much of this will the Grenfell Inquiry note? Probably very little.

The Inside Housing Article is also interesting for the stuff not included. The Inquiry has heard evidence (from witnesses) that insulation companies used the UK to sell materials they could not sell elsewhere as our testing and compliance regimes were (are) so weak here .

Not just in Britain. When I worked on submarines (operational, not building), we supplied a rubberised floor covering for use when in harbour to protect the tiles, etc when workers were moving about and moving things. They were strictly forbidden to take this covering to sea. Tests had show that it gave off a little toxic fumes and was flammable. It had to be landed.

When I moved to the Continent I went into an unfinished office block and I found that the identical floor covering was being put on the fire exit stair, "People don't like walking down bare concrete. It gives of, I repeat, some toxic fumes and is flammable! I tried to tell the administration, but they said their experts had said it was OK. The experts were all in the administration and had no idea about fire hazards. It was cheap.

[Kinmel]

Phase 2 of the Grenfell Enquiry resumes on Tuesday afternoon with more evidence from Dr Barbara Lane.

Dr Lane is highly qualified and is without doubt the most knowledgable witness so far. It is always enlightening to hear her forensically analize the design and construction faults that led to the tragedy.

https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/

[Messyshaw]

I note that at last, HMG are talking about demolishing the building at last.

I travel past it every day on my commute and I honestly cannot see any value in leaving this scaffolding clad tomb standing 

Everyone has their  idea what should replace it, with a garden being popular.

But I wonder whether a replacement residential block, fitted with the latest innovative fire safety infrastructure as an example of excellence which sets the standard for developers and architects 

Say 12 storeys tall, with spacious luxury interiors and balconies, occupied by survivors on a ballot basis.

Then outside, a memorial and gardens 

[Steve]

Thankfully, these days I don't have to go into West London anymore. I hated looking at the place and often found myself trying not to notice it when I did drive past on the A40, the nearest tangible thing I ever had that I think is related to PTSD. I remember driving past it in the dark, very early one morning when I was going to the GMB studio to do an interview when the phase 1 report first came out. Although it was dark and it wasn't lit up back then, I literally felt it looming over me.

Personally, although I absolutely understand the feelings of the BSR's from Grenfell, I'd like to see it gone. It's awful enough that almost every 70's and 80's  London based TV show seemed to pick that part of London to film in (especially Minder & The Sweeney) so for avid ITV4 watchers like us old boys, a glimpse of the place regularly pops up. 

[Kinmel]

The FBU has submitted their Closing Statement for Module 2 and were very critical of everyone involved in cladding Grenfell Tower with a known to be non-compliant system known to be non-compliant with every regulation and proceedure.

FBU submission starts at  2hr 24 minutes in.

[Kinmel]

Module 5 has started today and the witchhunt of the LFB is in full swing....  

 

[LFB92]

I just watched the first opening statement. So they are basically revisiting the initial part of the investigation, and as you say, it screams witch hunt. What is the bet this part of the enquiry gets more media attention than the part just gone which was actually investigating those who are truly to blame. Absolute joke this is becoming.

[Messyshaw]

If you scream ‘witch hunt’ without listening to the bulk of impressive evidence, all you do is  prove the arguments that are being made during the submission of the 2 QCs in this module which is the LFB has a culture that is resistant to change

After listening to almost 2 hours of this testimony. It was tough going, I have to say, they have a point.

Mostly the QCs criticise the management at all levels and say the LFB is … “heavily managed , but not adequately led”. I have to say, that is difficult to disagree with.

Mistakes will have been made at Grenfell. Its impossible for there not to have been. I cant think of a 4 pump fire where some learning point has been identified following a mistake.

The QCs argue that the culture of the LFB and processes it has adopted do not provide adequate support for front line crews in terms of resources, training of equipment

They say there is a tendency to use well established ‘standard’ procedures or adopt something that has worked in the past and generally that works well. But when faced with an unusual challenge that is not expected or trained for, the systems break down.

Stay put is given as a good example (and it is). Stay put is a building design doctrine , which relies on compartmentation to allow residents to not evacuate for small fires. - That is all. But the LFB seem to apply stay put as an article of faith - a policy that implied people need never be evacuated . There were no plans to deal with a break down of stay put, no training and it was in many ways treated as an event that would never happen. So when it did break down, it took many hours to be recognised

During this time, the QCs recognised that another culture was for LFB staff not to speak up. Many junior staff did speak up and suggest an evacuation much earlier on, but were not heard by senior staff. It was pointed out that in many critical functions elsewhere (aviation, military etc) speaking up is not only encouraged, but mandated .

The training and development of staff was questioned as was the lack of openness to allow flexible thinking corporately or on the fire ground

Mr Friedman, the first QC to speak heavily criticised the LFB’s decide making model (DMM). It is generally recognised that the DMM forces incident managers to carry out decision making in extreme situation under great stress using a methodology that is counter intuitive . Every fire rescue service has dropped DMM in favour of DCP (a shorter process of 3 questions used to verify one’s decisions). All 999 services in London have adopted this…. Except the LFB

There’s loads more

It really is worth listening to these submissions, but only if you use an open mind. The QCs repeatedly commended the bravery of crews on the night, but critical of the way the rank and file were trained to work

It was said That WM Dowding was hampered by applying the DMM which was always going to lead him to fail. If true, that is an awful failure by the LFB - along with a number of other issues such as the lack of training on cladding fires and the lack of sharing information on those risks.

My own view is that the LFB is too large and too cumbersome.  Operational staff should be engaged only in operational preparedness and no other work. That is training (and lots of it), exercises, 7(2)ds and personal development.

Community engagement in schools, CFS, HFRAs and other work should be carried out by support staff

I had been operational for almost 25 years - much of it as a watch manager in charge of crews - before I went into fire safety. I did so much training in FS and learned stuff that would have benefitted me wen operational. Building construction, and firefighting infrastructure are two areas, including  information on high rise fighting that I wasn't aware of.

Thats ridiculous isn't it? A a member of support staff getting better training than front line crews?

I hope that the LFB, FBU and rank and file FFs listen and learn with an open mind and do not dismiss this evidence as some on here already have. That would be a lost opportunity

[Steve]

Messy, I have to agree with you pretty much word for word, I watched a little bit of the BSR's representatives today, but it was too painful (Maybe painfully true)? I spent more time listening to the FRS QC's. The FBU QC really hit the nail on the head. The real tragedy is, those behind the mismanagement of the LFB.... and the rest of the UKFS. The unique leadership of the British Fire service via CFOA/NFCC which seems to be standalone (in relation to other such as the Police & Military) in their unique ability to see the workforce as the enemy instead of getting right behind them.

Those behind the poor UKFRS leadership, the politician's and in LFB's particular case the person who now (God help us) is running the Country, in his time as Mayor did little to challenge poor leadership and pretty much encouraged the widening of the gulf between principal managers, middle managers, motivated by and large through fear and not through doing the right thing (those who did had their wings and careers clipped & were banging against closed doors) and finally the rank and file. 

The success of the UK Fire service is in spite of, not because of it's leaders and even though the FBU are on the right lines, they too are often niche in their views, frequently concentrating on the political win before the greater good of the members and the public they serve. My reflection of the second half of my career, from the 2002/3 dispute until I retired is that it was a sh1t show, held together by the determination of the rank and file and a few good Officers who battled against all the odds to continue to provide a decent service. 

I see or hear nothing in the years since that has improved and in LFB's case I fear it has got worse... a lot worse.

What really hurts though, is what has been mentioned already, yet again the headlines are about statements from QC's... opening statements at that, slating the fire service (whether deserved or not) that are attracting much more air time that even the most shocking of the revelations from those involved in the refurbishment. And it isn't as if that is not acknowledged constantly, numerous times people made reference today to the state of the building, but those words became a sideshow to the incomprehensible fascination of trying to blame the fire service. 

[BurtMacklin]

regarding the water, an expert witness with no firefighting background has said the aerial monitors could have reached the top of the building if used correctly. while the case has been made regarding the survivability of the flats protected by the ground monitor, it’s a big claim to say we could have reached the top, I will be interested to see if this evidence is based on maths and specifications alone or if real world testing was carried out with the equipment after the fact. 

[JonnyHolbs]

Given that the comments regarding the aerial monitors were made by an individual who would have a deep knowledge of everything that has happened in the inquiry, they would be well aware that the fire was behind the cladding, and therefore a monitor would have had very little effect.

I’m of the belief those comments were made in bad faith to give the press something negative to print that the layman can understand, so the attention can be brought back to LFB’s failings.

For the record, I do agree with the above though.

[Steve]

I agree, the sh1t they are coming out with, the lawyers of the BSR's are literally random bulls1t that it looks like they have junior staff trawling through journals to dig up and then they get an experts theoretical view that is presented without context. If you could have got aerials on all sides of the building, if there had been a limitless water supply, nothing would have changed the external spread, because of physics. The burning material was behind a layer of aluminium cladding which by its nature, and the reason the product was installed in the first place... is water resisting.

[Becile]

9 hours ago, BurtMacklin said:

regarding the water, an expert witness with no firefighting background has said the aerial monitors could have reached the top of the building if used correctly. while the case has been made regarding the survivability of the flats protected by the ground monitor, it’s a big claim to say we could have reached the top, I will be interested to see if this evidence is based on maths and specifications alone or if real world testing was carried out with the equipment after the fact. 

Having been there with our 42m ALP and understanding its capabilties  , you may have got a jet to reach some of the upper floors, effective...doubt it, given all the factors involved, and building design (or not )

[Messyshaw]

The difficulty here is that crews on the night had to deal with the situation with the emergency unfolding and without sliderules and computer simulation exercises 

The academics found a number of hydrants that were never utilised and which they believe would have provided additional supplies that would have had a beneficial  result on the fire.

There is no massive  criticism of the crews on the night, but the question mark is the training, procedures and competence that is provided by employers 

After every job, we all get around the mess table and grumble.  The evidence given in recent days is an academic version of the same moans. Poor managers, poor kit, under resourced training etc

So hang on in there guys and wait and see what the public inquiry comes up with. It might be beneficial

[Steve]

19 hours ago, Becile said:

Having been there with our 42m ALP and understanding its capabilties  , you may have got a jet to reach some of the upper floors, effective...doubt it, given all the factors involved, and building design (or not )

I don't see how it would have done anything to prevent the spread of fire externally for the reason stated; alluminum being water resistant. Knowing aerials myself as a long time operator, the success of the 30m TL early and the 32m ALP before your's turned up was still limited to defensive fire attack into the compartments within reach and as evidenced in the video of Paddington's TL, which had a reasonable supply of water, not having any effect on the cladding.

[BurtMacklin]

personally, I just want to know what combination and configuration of available equipment and appliances they reckon could get meaningful water to the very top.

[Becile]

Absolutely agree Steve, lfb crews did a sterling job.

[Kinmel]

Dany Cotton is back in the witness box this week - all Tuesday, all Wednesday and Thursday morning

[Messyshaw]

I do hope she is a bit more careful, indeed guarded, as to giving her evidence 

Last time all of the LFB witnesses were totally open and honest, doing what they could to contribute to the process which may prevent a similar disaster.

But in their rush to help, some like Dany were rather naive in their statements- seemingly insufficiency briefed against their words being used out of context against them.

Dany's 'space shuttle crashing in to Canary Wharf' and when she said she 'wouldn't have done anything different' if faced with the same fire again are examples of the media naivety a Chief Officer should have steered clear of.

I wish her luck though. Its gunna be a tough week for her

[Steve]

I don't think it went particularly well (although I haven't watched it all). Millet did a job on her (as only he can) and already the press have rounded on her. What shame the establishment, via their whipping boys the media have decided to take down one of the previously most celebrated personalities in the UK Fire Service. I really feel for her as her previous two roles and that of Commissioner have lined up perfectly to put her right in the thick of it. 

Conversely, former Commissioner Ron Dobson was up today, he sounded assured, confident, very professional and gave Andrew Kinnier QC a run for his money and pushed back successfully on a couple of significant points that came his way. 

[Matt]

I've not seen of the enquiry since November due to work commitments did see a trend on Twitter this week with Pickles.  

Bit his comments, cannot believe I heard when I saw the clip of that.

[Matthew Hilton]

Reading thru LFB Operational Response Volume 2 I was troubled by the number of references to « insufficient water ». Since putting wet stuff onto hot stuff should be the bread and butter of firefighting I looked further and found the, very recent, testimony of expert witness Dr Stoianov.

Dr Stoianov demonstrates that if the ground monitors and arial appliances had been fully exploited in terms of water supply wet stuff could have been applied to hot stuff well above where it actually was. Alternatively hose could have been run into the building from arial appliances reducing the congestion on the stairway.

Dr Stoianov makes the following points amongst much other interesting material relevant to water supply:

« ...in the case of A245 ALP and $13A1 ALP, the use of a wash-out hydrant (HS), which was
wrongly labelled fire hydrant. A wash-out hydrant is not designed for the supply of water
for firefighting ».

« ...the simultaneous use of multiple hydrants to supply a single pump appliance and aerial
or monitor. There is no evidence of multiple hydrants being used in this way at Grenfell
Tower ».

« ...the use of alternative water sources, such as the Kensington Leisure Centre’s swimming
pools, which were in close proximity. The three swimming pools store over 800 m3water
(800,000 litres), which would have been sufficient to provide a water supply of 2,000
I/min (33 I/s) for a period of 5 hours and 35 minutes for an aerial appliance such as A213
TL on the East side ».

Did anybody else read Dr Stoianov?

[Rory-495]

Have you got a link for this?

[Kinmel]

Grenfell Tower Enquiry

Link formatted correctly

Edited June 15, 2022 by Carl