Helicopters and skyscraper fires

[Bronx]

The firefighters' union have been calling for the New York Fire Department to get a helicopter to help put out skyscraper fires and help evacuate people trapped in the buildings.
The FD says it's a bad idea.

Firefighters Association -
"It is a disgrace that the city of New York does not have a helicopter that can put water on a fire. Besides getting water on a fire, it could be used for evacuation, as well as comand and control." LA, Chicago, Miami, Tokyo etc have got them.
FDNY -
"It is simply unsafe to use helicopters to suppress high-rise fires in New York City, and the Fire Department has repeatedly rejected that idea due to many operational concerns."

On Wednesday this week, the firefighters association released an internal Fire Department presentation that got leaked to them by one of the high ranking members of the FDNY who support them. It's from March of 2005 and calls for the FD to get a fire helicopter using Homeland Security funding. The FD refused to comment.
http://imgsrv.1010wins.com/image/wins/UserFiles/File/FDNYHelicopterPresentation.pdf

Unsafe???
Bullsh1t. :rolleyes:



What do other guys think?

B.

[Blackhawk9]

The Tokyo Fire Department operates AS332 Super Pumas in the highrise fire suppresion role very successfully, they have a snorkel setup with a trainable boom on the belly with a 1200 Litre tank, they fight fires over 10 stories high, put Tokyo Fire Dept Helicopters into Google and they have some great shots of the Helo in action (beyond my ability to do a link!!)

I don't agree with FDNY , an S-92 set up as a fire helo would be great for a place like New York.

[Bravo73]

put Tokyo Fire Dept Helicopters into Google and they have some great shots of the Helo in action

It's not the biggest of images but this is what I think that you mean:


http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/products/image/43-03.gif

[SASless]

Rescue work on tall buildings that are fully enveloped by fire presents a huge obstacle in the form of smoke, heat, flame, and FOD.....not to mention world class turbulence.


Erickson has developed a fire cannon for the S-64 that would be of some value perhaps.


Belly tanked aircraft have proven to be very useful in knocking down urban brush fires.

http://www.ericksonaircrane.com/images/EACalbum2/images/CannonCU.jpg

[Foggy Bottom]

I was involved in the rescue off of the rooftop of the Hilton in Las Vegas back in the 80's.
There was also a fire at the MGM earlier that I did not participate in directly, but know several who did.

It is my opinion that the helicopter evacuation from the rooftop of these two burning buildings saved dozens of lives, mostly from smoke inhalation.

[toolguy]

In Sao Paulo, Brazil in the 70's there was a huge skyscraper fire and many were saved by helicopter.

In Brazil, all tall buildings must to have a rooftop helipad for safety, but it has created a positive environment for helicopter transport, a win-win situation.

[TRC]

Rather than try to fight the fire on a high-rise, helicopters should be used to get the people off the roof.

Forget the building until it's empty.

[Blackhawk9]

I think the idea of a high rise fire fighting helo is not so much to put the fire out but to contain the fire enough to allow the occupants to make it to a safer place, if that is a roof top for helo evacuation so be it.

You also need the building to have flat roofs or helo pads, people could of come off the world trade centres if they had pads on top.

In Australia many of the highrise on the Gold Coast were originaly built with helo pads on top but as CASA and others refused to allow there use they are now covered in antennas and satellite dishes.

[SASless]

In Australia many of the highrise on the Gold Coast were originaly built with helo pads on top but as CASA and others refused to allow there use


Don't you just love it? I know of a community that got a helipad closed at the regional heart center.....due to noise issues.

I pray one of the protesters have a massive heart attack while skiing or beach combing and have to ride in a ground ambulance to the same hospital.

Why would CASA have a problem with limiting the pads to "Emergency Use Only" and thus arrive at a compromise solution that in the end serves the community needs and concedes to the NIMBY's?:ugh:

[MBJ]

IMO there are three uses for a helicopter within an urban fire department.

Command and control - this is so obviously beneficial I'm surprised there is any argument other than budget. When budget is an issue (All the time!), there should be an established and frequently practised use of Police helicopter assets to carry a fire chief with proven comms of his own.

Evacuation - until all buildings have safe flat roofs this'll be a major issue since taking out an aerial and spearing into the building won't help anyone. If you do have a helipad how do you control the 200 people trying to hang on to the skids of a passing AS355? A dedicated fireservice Puma, well, maybe. A reliable arrangement with a nearby military base may work. But not in the UK where we seem to be unable to properly support troops abroad with enough helicopters.

Suppression - nice idea but can even a skycrane carry enough to make a real difference? Dunno

Historic note for London - there used to be a cunning plan in place for emergency only use of the HAC cricket pitch in the City for evacuation from high rises. Any passing helicopter could join in to help. Whatever happened to that?

[AlanM]

Whatever happened to that?

Still in the plans, from our point of view mate.

(you boys will do anything for double bubble!!!) :)

[PANews]

Politics.

It is my understanding from NYPD sources that the hierarchy of the NYFD has a hang up over helicopters and the WTC.

At the time of the first attack NYPD flew a number of sorties to the roof and took off a few and landed a number [of emergency services]. There was no need for any true evacuation that time.

The result of the NYFD having their nose put out of joint was that they talked the city into sealing the rooftops of both WTC towers prior to 9-11. This was partly a result of a negative reaction to the various pro-rooftop rescue reports written by the then commander of the NYPD Air Unit William Wilkens.

At 9-11 there were no persons on the roof to rescue because they were locked down below to die in the toxic fumes - if they were lucky.

There was always a desire in NYPD to go in there on 9-11 regardless of the smoke and the rooftop obstructions and I feel sure that they would have done what they could if anyone had been seen to have battled their way through the closed doors.

[Brilliant Stuff]

I am speechless.

[stas-fan]

While at the Middle East Heli conference this year we were shown photos of the American Heli-Basket deployed in Qatar. The training they completed included an abseil arrival, clearing the roof first, securing the site with bods and then bringing a helibasket (capacity 15+pax I think) then fly circiuts picking up and dropping off. They used a S61 or Sea King I think

The reason the basket is so effective was demonstrated a few months ago when in Dubai a building burnt and they tried to winch off the roof top crowd one at a time under a Puma. several hours later less than one basket load lifted!

During Heli -mid east myself and others were initially critical of the concept but admit now we were basing our thoughts on our European standards of reliable fire service, unlocked Stairways and good build standards. Not always there in all parts of the world

Then you look at ships, Rigs, buildings too tall even for Western tenders and flooding and I think roof top rescue is the tip of the iceburg in new ideas for Heli rescue.

We also saw a rescue Umbrella called E.S.C.A.P.E which looked much more fun but not for Joe publics use, unless you want to scare everyone you rescue shi*less!!

[mfaff]

I'll refrain from making any comment on the piloting or flying side of this issue, but will comment on the building side.

Escape core design is about getting people into a 'safe' area (the escape core) and hence out of the building as quickly as possible, with little thinking being required of the people using it, by means of a fixed stair rather than lifts etc).

Current regs, certainly in Western Europe and the US require escape stairs to allow people to go down and directly exit the building at ground level, with a separate set of stairs leading up from the basement to ground level exit.

This aims to ensure that people 'know' that if they go down the escape stair they will be (in theory) able to escape at ground; not be lead down to the basement. Similarly if they go up from the basement they will exit a ground and not climb to the top of the building.

Now add a potential roof top escape possibility. If the same stair serves both ground level exit and roof top exit in an emergency evacuation you would be trying to deal with opposing flows... which leads to congestion, reduction in flow capacity, confusion etc etc, all of which conspire to reduce the possible safe exit strategy for that building. This would massively negate the additional evac capacity a roof top evac via helicopter could bring (Remember that ground level exit is calculated in 100s and at times 1,000s of people per minute...)

The current logic would be to add another stair case, which is only to be used to access the roof. The challenge is then how do you make sure that people know which is which in an emergency, in a highly fool proof manner? A very difficult issue. (Remember this means it needs to be comprehensible by hysterical people, who are totally unprepared for emergency action, both physically and mentally and who lose all power of 'reasoning' when that fire alarm goes off...for example we have seen people unable to understand that lifts are out use in an emergency, the stair is to be used, yet they stand there hysterically pressing the call button...refusing to use the stair.)

Similarly the flow rate is a massively difficult issue. How many can get off the roof compared to the number arriving? Is there a 'safe place' for them on the roof? etc etc. Imagine 100 people arrive up there per minute, but only 15 can be lifted off per minute.. what to the other 85 do? And the next 100 who arrive in the next minute, with only another 15 being lifted off? Leaving 170 people waiting? And so forth...it becomes a space issue as much as a people management issue.

This is in addition to the space take issue of another staircase within an already area-limited building, which affects the fundamental building viability. This in turn affects whether or not high rise buildings get built and hence the potential need for this type of evacution option.

So whilst there are examples of roof top or balcony rescue saving lives, which naturally provides great support to this additional resource, the step to making it a fundamental part of the overall strategy of building evacuation needs to be considered on both a number of people scale and flow as well as overall operational issues to allow safe access to the roof, without reducing the overall evacuation capacity of the building.

This is not to say that Fire Departments should not have helicopters as part of their resource base, but their role needs to be very carefully considered.

[TRC]

I think this is what stas-fan was referring to. I mis-posted a direct link the other day. This (http://www.helisupport.co.uk/page6.html) is what I should have done.