Grenfell Tower

[Aspire]

On 15/06/2022 at 11:29, Matthew Hilton said:

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 

Whilst I take the point about the swimming pool, the TL referred to on the east side was withdrawn early on due to the amount of debris coming off the building. If left there, it may have been damaged beyond repair and certainly not in a position for crews to operate.

The ALP was jacked on grass (a cardinal sin) such was the lack of access to the tower. I remember demonstrating my surprise at the fact it even went up to Soho’s guv’nor.

Whilst we should/always seek to learn, these experts do not always add the other external factors into their area of expertise.

 

[Messyshaw]

Sitting in an air conditioned office with a laptop, calculator, sliderule, cup.of coffee and plenty of time,  I am sure all these calculations are spot on

Compare that with crews having to deal with a literally unimaginable fire dynamically with no procedures and no time to plan - and in the dark where many crews had no knowledge of this tight site with poor access...... its a completely different kettle of fish

But if you don't see this as a criticism of the crews on the night , but more an alternative way of working, then these findings should be welcomed 

The only caveat being, no matter how much you plan, equip and practice, there's in theory and there's in practice and they will rarely be the same

[Steve]

On 15/06/2022 at 11:29, Matthew Hilton said:

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?

Yes, I watched him... and as Messy & Aspire. (who was actually there throughout) said, it is all theoretical bullsh1t that takes no account of the dynamics of the incident or the operational arena on the night. Everything he said, thinking back to where those appliances were, the layout of the building and lack of real potential for access, where people were and what they were actually concentrating on doing. Yet again demonstrates that they are lining up the experts who are looking at theoretical responses from only a two dimensional point of view that would have literally been laughable on the night.

What are you actually asking here? Are you troubled by what was said or troubled by our actions on the night?

To be fair, I am sick to the back teeth of the whole thing. 

[Kinmel]

The whole "water supply necessary to provide  water to a monitor" discussion fails to examine what the water is intended to do.  No-one has successfully prevented fire spreading through a flammable core rainscreen by squirting wet stuff at hot stuff.   The experts need to decide on an effective water application per square metre to stop spread and then tell us how to exceed that figure for the whole facade simultaneously.

The Chairman has still not demonstrated his Phase One report's plan to evacuate a smoke logged staircase.

Next Monday afternoon and all day Wednesday look interesting.

[Steve]

Actually Kinmel, you've taken the words out of my mouth... that's a point I might have got to had I not been raving on. External Firefighting was pointless... it was a RAINSCREEN. And internally, no matter how much water you'd have got to the base of the building, you are still restricted by the limitations of a single DRM. Yeah, I hear the 'theory' about aerials being used to run water from the top of the ladder into the building. We've all done those drills (and some of us in real fires) but they tend to be where the fires is well above the head of the ladder and not where the whole external envelope of the building is either on fire or pieces of guillotine like cladding are not falling on your Fire crews or hose lines.

[Messyshaw]

I have no idea why the UKFRS need listen to people like @Kinmel and @Steve (with his experience, articles and now a book), when all that is needed is to carry a Boffin in the nearside front locker on every job..........😉

Feed them a copy of New Scientist every month, with an added slide rule at Xmas and the fire service would be so more efficient 

[Matthew Hilton]

Thanks to all those who responded to my post. My last operational job was Summit Tunnel fire in 1984 so you can well say I'm in the armchair now. Everything said about how things fell out on the night is true - you can't think of everything but if you read Dr Stoianov it is pretty clear that nobody seriously picked up and ran with consistently the water supply problem. Maybe their needs to be a presumption on certain make-ups that following pumps will automatically slot into a water relay pattern.

What "troubled" me was identifying with the teams meeting intense heat and finding they had no or very little water - it is not a blame thing.

[Tiggs]

Would Compressed Air Foam Systems (CAFS) be if any use at these cladding fires? 

[Crog]

Surely the same issue as water. Not actually being able to penetrate the cladding to put a foam layer on. 

[Messyshaw]

18 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Would Compressed Air Foam Systems (CAFS) be if any use at these cladding fires? 

Removal of combustible cladding is the only option rather than retro fitting of any firefighting systems or buying even more kit for the fire service. Its a bloody disgrace that 600,000 people live in buildings with non compliant cladding FIVE years after Grenfell

An 8 pump fire yesterday (photo below), about 700m from Grenfell in a 22 storey block was out of the windows but didnt progress up the cladding. No CAFS, no drone mounted jet...... just newish cladding with limited combustibility - how it should be done

 

[Kinmel]

The time to stop any fire is when and where it starts - only sprinklers can do that.

In Wales,  all new build residential premises of any kind must have a domestic sprinkler system and the sprinklers must also be retro-fitted in such premises during any major refurbishment.

There has not been a single death in these sprinkler protected buildings and most fires are not only confined to the room of origin, but the damage to that room is often superficial.

The cost is remarkably low, the usual domestic water supply passes through a diverter valve and if the sprinkler system drops pressure then the domestic supply is automatically shut off to provision the sprinklers. The cost of retro-fitting sprinklers would be much lower than the "fixes" being discussed now.

The damage shown in the above photo is totally avoidable, all it needs is for the English fire service to push as hard as the Welsh brigades did.    It took the voice and hard work of just one North Wales F.C.O. to set the ball rolling.

[Messyshaw]

@Kinmel

Is there legislation in Wales to ensure the domestic sprinklers are serviced and switched on?

I have known people to fit domestic sprinklers as an engineered solution to get thru building control. For example a proposed loft extension above two story house where the stairs discharge into an open plan living room and kitchen and not directly to a front door.

The owners got their completion certificate and switched off the sprinklers. They would only switch them on if they sold the house in the future

Domestic sprinklers will only be effective is residents - like commercial buildings- must maintain them by law

No government would bring that sort of legislation in 🎂

[Kinmel]

The Legislation does not require the sprinkler system to be turned on or serviced, but that is also the case in the U.K. for domestic gas and electrical systems.

However, the official Householder's Guide clearly sets out the benefits and the case for sprinkler maintenance.

Most people see the benefits of having the system turned on, brigades always give heavy publicity to fires where sprinklers saved the day.

A number of companies have sprung up that specialise in retro-fitting systems in houses and it may possibly be the next "big thing" when everyone has converted to PVC windows and bargeboards !

They are quoting £5000 for a 3 bedroom installation.

[Messyshaw]

23 hours ago, Kinmel said:

The Legislation does not require the sprinkler system to be turned on or serviced, but that is also the case in the U.K. for domestic gas and electrical systems.

However, the official Householder's Guide clearly sets out the benefits and the case for sprinkler maintenance.

For some premises, sprinklers are indeed a huge asset in saving lives. I am a huge supporter of sprinklers and although I have only been involved with one domestic set up, I have been involved with several commercial projects including two significant water mists systems.

In fact I am rather proud to have originated a design which utilised a grey water in a water mist system of a type which was the first in the UK 

My point is that some see sprinklers as a panacea for high rise fire safety. I most definitely do not.

In social housing for example as soon as there is one significant flooding incident which damages multiple premises, residents will Strat to isolate their systems. Of course this phenomenon is not restricted to social housing, but one could argue that this area of housing has the highest risk of both accidental, deliberate and nefarious sprinkler operation, and of course the highest fire risk.

It bothers me that once sprinklers are installed, those responsible for fire safety for that premises will take their eye off the ball in other areas. 

[Kinmel]

9 hours ago, Messyshaw said:

It bothers me that once sprinklers are installed, those responsible for fire safety for that premises will take their eye off the ball in other areas. 

I absolutely agree with you, but it appears that all their eyes have already been taken off the ball on existing measures, not just at Grenfell where four levels of supposed protection failed, but throughout the U.K.

It appears that complex multi-layer defences are hard to design, hard to install correctly and impossible to maintain in the long term.  Until someone finds the universal solution to compartmentation we need a fifth tool that drastically reduces the risk of failure even further.

Every mitigation always fails to protect some who deliberately defeats every effort.  Batteries taken out of fire alarms to use in toys,  fire doors with closers removed, motorcyclists doing 90mph through the 40mph mountain passes in Snowdonia.

Sprinklers are not a complete panacea, but is it sustainable for  100's of firefighters to take 5 hours to deal with what started as a small domestic fire?

The next plan will take a long time to implement everywhere, but I don't think you can simply patch up the existing failures and then hope for a different outcome.

[Kinmel]

The Grenfell  Inquiry is back taking closing submissions, Monday 7th November included submissions from the FBU and the London Fire Commissioner which are well worth watching....

Recorded on Youtube