Kensington Fire

[Hompy]

What a tragedy. RIP to all those lives lost and condolences to the families of the missing.

I salute the firefighters who went in to save lives. Brave.

Difficult to pick out the facts and I know there is an inquiry. However, I read a report that there were no units tall enough to reach the upper floors. There are many questions yet unanswered about why regulations were not in place etc. However, as a helicopter pilot I was looking at the footage taken during the night and it was possible to make out the roof in the aerial shots which seemed to stay clear of flames. With coastguard helicopters ready and within range would this be considered an option by anybody and if not why not? It seems people were in the tower hours after the first firemen got there, within the response time of the coastguard. I am aware that there would be updraught, danger from smoke, bad flyaway. However, I believe there are/were marine fire teams ready to be deployed to burning ships and rigs, what about for tower blocks built in the 70s? Would it be considered by the coordinating team and if not why not?

Hompy

[handysnaks]

Hompy, the short bit of film I watched showed thick black smoke billowing vertically upwards from the flats. I dread to think what the temperature was just above the flats. I don't think hovering a helicopter above that block would have been feasible.

[Hompy]

I don't know if it was feasible, probably not, but the question is rather whether it was considered or not? It has helped before in Bangladesh:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161793/Towering-inferno-Helicopter-plucks-survivors-blazing-skyscraper.html


I know it has been discussed before on this forum:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/292056-helicopters-skyscraper-fires.html

Just wondering if or why they weren't tasked to 'have a look'.

[heli1]

More to the point. If we had just one helicopter equipped with the Simplex Water cannon system,as they have in Japan,China,Moscow and elsewhere with high rise blocks a lot of grief could have been avoided.

[Hompy]

More to the point. If we had just one helicopter equipped with the Simplex Water cannon system,as they have in Japan,China,Moscow and elsewhere with high rise blocks a lot of grief could have been avoided.

True, but that costs money, as do sprinklers and fire retardent paneling. I was just wondering if the existing paid for resource - winch and flir equipped S92s on 24hr standby could be used for this sort of job. Land on a field, pick up a team and winch down or flir spotting. It has probably all been considered and ruled out, but maybe not and it would cost little extra.

[heli1]

Hompy...don't disagree but well worth the investment as are Bambi buckets for Heath fires, and equipment easily kept at a central base for installation on helicopter when needed.We are behind the rest of Europe and the world.

[chopjock]

Handy
I dread to think what the temperature was just above the flats. I don't think hovering a helicopter above that block would have been feasible.

I have hovered drone helicopters very close to raging fires, including buildings.
The airflow through the rotors has a cooling effect to the fuselage especially if hovering in clean air on the upwind side of the building or just to one side.
The downwash can fan the fire but this is usually insignificant in comparison to a fuel fed raging fire.

Perhaps in the future the fire and rescue services could look at what may be done with a bamby bucket at least.

[Hompy]

Hompy...don't disagree but well worth the investment as are Bambi buckets for Heath fires, and equipment easily kept at a central base for installation on helicopter when needed.We are behind the rest of Europe and the world.

Sadly, it is becoming obvious.

[Cornish Jack]

Welcome back to the Kaman Husky. Its primary advantage as a fire/rescue helo was that the rotor downdraught was well ahead of the aircraft giving a flame free working environment for the fire crews. Having done a sortie of sea winching in one with a 'visiting fireman',(;)) land use would be my preferred option!

[mickjoebill]

Thoughts are also with the crew of the Met police helicopter.

Mjb

[Animal Mother]

Thoughts are also with the crew of the Met police helicopter.

Mjb

What's that in relation to?

[Democritus]

What's that in relation to?
If you have never been in a situation in a helicopter where you know people are dying nearby and you can do nothing about it then I'm not surprised you don't understand. From personal experience I do understand and agree with mjb's sentiments.

[Colonal Mustard]

Important to also note that many UK Fire & Rescue Services cut their maritime firefighting capability when their budgets were slashed... i think its now a small smattering of regionally deployed firefighters that convene at a given location to be picked up by UKSAR, the difference in this tragedy is that there were many firefighters on scene at Grenfell with an impossible task of reaching the upper floors.

[EddieHeli]

You have to wonder when there is only one stairwell, why we do not insist on outside fire escapes as seen in the USA.
There didn't seem to be a central main gas shut off, or if there was it wasn't used, you could see and hear the gas making the fire worse as each floor went up.
After recently seeing several HiRise fires in the middle east with similar external cladding, I find it hard to believe that this stuff is even allowed to be manufactured, let alone used.
Criminal not insisting on automatic Sprinklers for any building higher than a fire appliance can reach.
Bambi buckets might well have helped in this instance.
A lot of lessons to be learned on this, but will they?, or will we be having similar discussions in a few years time.

[newfieboy]

Having spent many an hour on a Bambi Bucket on many extremely large forest fires, I can safely say I wouldn't of gone anywhere near that building.
I have experienced first hand the winds, up drafts and turbulence around large fires. When a fire burns with that heat and intensity, you don't actually drop on the fire, the water/foam would evaporate before it hits the target. You drop around it to soak the bush to slow it down.

[MightyGem]

Not sure that external fire escapes would have been much use in this situation.

How many stories up do the US external ones go? Not that high I think.

[atakacs]

Having spent many an hour on a Bambi Bucket on many extremely large forest fires, I can safely say I wouldn't of gone anywhere near that building.
I have experienced first hand the winds, up drafts and turbulence around large fires. When a fire burns with that heat and intensity, you don't actually drop on the fire, the water/foam would evaporate before it hits the target. You drop around it to soak the bush to slow it down.

Well most of the facades remained fire free before being eventually engulfed. In my humble opinion that was definitely opportunity for some aerial rescue. The problem is that the initial response was to "stay in" and when the firefighters realized how terrible that option was they pretty much watched people die before their very eyes left, right and center. Just terrible.

Much easier with hindsight but aerial evacuation was possible. To what extent, with what risks and with what material are all questions I don't have the answer to. I too would be interested to know if it was considered.

[henra]

Well most of the facades remained fire free before being eventually engulfed.

Agreed.
Footage around 3 AM shows that it took at least one hour before all sides of the Building were engulfed. So there would have been a time window of roughly one hour.

In my humble opinion that was definitely opportunity for some aerial rescue.

The question would have been how to extract the people from the building?
Would not have been easy with a helicopter since there were no balconies or other platforms from where to extract. Extracting from open Windows would have been very difficult and risky. And all that at night over a heavily burning building. I'm not sure if that would been really possible.

The problem is that the initial response was to "stay in" and when the firefighters realized how terrible that option was they pretty much watched people die before their very eyes left, right and center. Just terrible.
That must be absolutely horrible. Staying put in this case unfortunately meant certain death. In hindsight.
A few might have survived had they tried to flee through the staircase or even the elevator (which is normally not a good idea in a burning building).

A big and high building with only one rather small staircase, no other emergency exits, no sprinklers is really a death trap and if this wasn't enough on top of all this an easily flammable Insulation. I wonder how this can be legal. Someone should really go to jail for allowing this. If I were living in a high rise building I would check my housing immediately for similar traits and leave ASAP if I were to find more than one similar aspect.

The initial cause of the fire is an almost irrelevant minute detail to this tragedy. In such a big building there is always a possibility that a fire might break out. But that shall never, ever spread like in this horrible case.
Honestly, I wouldn't have thought this to be possible in a first world Country.

[mickjoebill]

This resident says he woke to the smell of smoke, approximately 40 minutes after the first 999 call.

https://youtu.be/2cMaT5t6wxc
Having studied the usefulness of aerial loud hailers in bushfires, is there a role for police helicopters to alert public who are likely to be asleep?
At very least a few very low noisy orbits and zero the night sun into windows for good measure?
2 minutes of mayhem to help awaken residents, before moving back?

Do the Met still have skyshout?

Mjb

[SASless]

Folks....read the JB Thread about the Fire.

Short version....Welcome to the Big City with all its attendant problems and issues.

Old buildings, poor Fire Codes, worse enforcement of Fire Safety Requirements, Privatization of Inspections, obsolete design of buildings, lack of emergency evacuation routes and procedures, bad Response Protocols, inability of Fire Equipment to reach the site....the list is a long one.

The Investigation, if done properly, shall be a very nasty review of what is wrong with multiple layers of Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political failure, and lack of proper prior planning and execution of emergency efforts.

Lots of brave people trying to help others in a terrible time....but a disaster that was easily foreseen had anyone really been looking and wanting to do something about preventing it.

[9Aplus]

I know it has been discussed before on this forum:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/292056-helicopters-skyscraper-fires.html

Just wondering if or why they weren't tasked to 'have a look'.

Solution exist, was discussed in 2010. here ->
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/410202-fire-fighting-helicopter.html

Who is ready to pay that :cool: ?

[Self loading bear]

There has also been some testing with a skycrane in Istanbul fitted with a watercanon?
Can't find a decent reference on the web (from my mobile)

SLB

[[email protected]]

Was the SAR helicopter at Lydd even thought of or requested? Even if they had managed to get in and save one life it would have been worth the effort.

[PANews]

The short answer is that no crew should ever attempt to undertake a rescue [particularly at night] without a great deal of practice, onto an unsurveyed site in an environment where there are unknown thermals.

The need for a roof rescue appears to be once in a lifetime across the UK. So you might consider training up one crew [police, fire or coastguard perhaps] to undertake the mission that they might have to undertake just once in their career. If that crew is untrained for the mission they should not promote the capability because it will just add three more to the pyre.

Simply to pre-survey the rooftops in London during daylight will take weeks and that needs to be done every year without fail to guard against some new aerial, some new wire...... now multiply that by every city in the UK with high rises..... 6,500 is a number that has been bandied about.... and the planning alone is breathtaking.

Then you need to consider how you lift 50 people off a roof using a 20 seat helicopter.

The plan in New York [where they have some experience of planning and training for just such an instance] includes interting armed officers first to clear the rooftop of debris then to control boarding....

During 9-11 the trained NYPD crew in a Bell 412 considered a roof landing in daylight. After one tower was hit both towers were covered in smoke and only a tiny part of one tower could be considered a landing spot clear of smoke shrouded wires. We now know there was no way anyone could get through the locked roof doors of the WTC but clearly there were other issues that suggest that roof rescue is fraught with so many questionmarks.

Perhaps, and it is a big ask, the only people who might have the experience [?] would be the remaining military SAR as they might be training to undertake risky rescues that might be not too different from high rise .... but that does not remove the need to survey 6,500 roofs and make it readily available 24/7.

This is not my personal opinion, it is simply a condensed version of an experts presentation - a man who was at the WTC on the day.

[Cornish Jack]

Re. use of military S&R, possible but. The main point made when I trained was that we had standard procedures but it was drummed into us that EVERY job was different and that most would require some 'on the spot' adaptation. Considering three out of those I was involved in, one was 'unusual' and successful, one, 'unusual' and became a body recovery and one was rejected because it was impractical ... recovering an injured rigger from the middle of an aerial 'farm' of numerous 300' plus structures with a maximum winch length of 180' (60' of cable plus 120' of long line tape).
Considering this incident (from a distance, via TV) helos possible, maybe for the initial period (30 minutes?) but, thereafter, I would suggest that you would likely be adding to the casualty toll.

[[email protected]]

It's not military SAR any more but most of the crews are ex-mil.

Every job is different and you use your best judgement and experience to perform the rescue and, if it really is too risky, you don't do it.

But they should have been given the chance to assess it and winch if required rather than landing.

A rooftop in the dark is no more tricky than a mountainside in the dark or a fishing boat being tossed around in 30' waves.

I have put a winchman into a building through a window before and it isn't that difficult - at least the building stays still.

Have a look on jetblast - there is a link to a hotel fire in Las Vegas many years ago where military helicopters winched from balconies on the burning building - they saved many lives.

[S76Heavy]

Even a standard SAR job can become non-standard in the blink of an eye. Which is why SAR training should be aimed at being flexible and extremely proficient in the use of the equipment and teamwork. It is not about training every scenario ad nauseam, it is about learning to put what you have to optimum use in different conditions and knowing when to call it quits.

In my limited experience in SAR, the crews were highly motivated, very intelligent and practiced very good CRM. We were maritime SAR in a mountainous region, so take your pick of scenarios..we trained for many, in the " train hard, fight easy" mindset.

I am confident that the available SAR assets could have saved lives had they been deployed, and that they would have backed off when it became too dangerous. Like Crab said, most likely winching ops as landing on a building that is on fire at night does not sound like a winning plan. Having said that, perhaps a " light on wheels" touchdown might have been feasible; we will never know.
Time to start putting the trust back where it belongs, with the professionals. Procedures only go so far. A sadly missed opportunity and one of the many hard questions that needs to be asked in the aftermath of this drama.

[SASless]

How about running the winch cable out to its practical limit....."long lining" type of a rescue procedure.

If you worry about dropping someone to their death.....think about the alternative of them burning to death with no rescue attempt made.

We call a fixed length line...."Short Hauling" and practiced that each quarterly training session for the Sheriff's Office Dive Team.

As Crab correctly states....it has been done before in other places.

[Lonewolf_50]

Folks....read the JB Thread about the Fire.

Short version....Welcome to the Big City with all its attendant problems and issues.

Old buildings, poor Fire Codes, worse enforcement of Fire Safety Requirements, Privatization of Inspections, obsolete design of buildings, lack of emergency evacuation routes and procedures, bad Response Protocols, inability of Fire Equipment to reach the site....the list is a long one.

The Investigation, if done properly, shall be a very nasty review of what is wrong with multiple layers of Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political failure, and lack of proper prior planning and execution of emergency efforts.

Lots of brave people trying to help others in a terrible time....but a disaster that was easily foreseen had anyone really been looking and wanting to do something about preventing it.
SASless, but that costs money!
For any interested, nice video of the 1980 MGM grand hotel fire. See this post by megan (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/595949-helicopter-rescue-feasibility.html#post9804481).

[Rotate too late]

So what stopped the SAR from self deploying?

[mickjoebill]

After watching numerous interviews by witnesses it is clear that many victims could have made it down the stairs, but they were fearful of the smoke.
In particular a guy had prepared a rope made of sheets and had tied his daughter to his back! He said he wasn't going to die not trying to escape. He was on the 14th floor.
https://youtu.be/U8A8KgBV6J4
Fortunately Firemen arrived and told them to run down the stairs.


Whilst it's easy to throw forward alternate scenarios after the event, Fireman did make the call to evacuate, by my esiimates at 1.20 am, but they had no resources and no plan to lead residents down through a smoke filled stairway.


Apparently for around at least two hours (probably for the duration of the entire event) the radient heat on the fourth and fifth level in the stairwell was bearable.
Seems that the smoke extraction was ineffectual.

Even wearing BA, a densely smoke filled environment is a frightening experience, some people will freeze others won't. Once in starwell, navigation is not a problem.
Breathing filters, ogygen generators ect delivered to residents both by firemen climbing stairs and a few on call specialists (SAS?) dropped onto roof is doable using existing tech.

The influential folk working in highrise towers in the City of London are all ears.

Mjb

[etudiant]

SASless, but that costs money!
For any interested, nice video of the 1980 MGM grand hotel fire. See this post by megan (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/595949-helicopter-rescue-feasibility.html#post9804481).

Money is no good unless it is spent.
Here it seems the funds were abundantly there, 250 million in reserves and yet a 30 million underspend in the most recent year. No savings was too small, so 5000 pounds which would have allowed fire retardant cladding to be used was disallowed.
Appalling meanness with lethal consequences. There is no technical fix for that.

[SuperF]

A good pilot in anything with a hook on it could place a line, with a cage or scoop net, onto a roof top have people hop in and then fly them down to the ground. Obviously want VFR but as long as you are out of the smoke, and generally smoke doesn't go directly up in these fires, often one side/corner of the building is reasonably clear.

Lots of problems and issues with it, i.e. access to roof top, too many people trying to get in at once etc, however if the building is reasonably stable, you fly one fire fighter/crewman up they coordinate loading people and you get into it.

I would guarantee that a JR or 500 short hauling on a hook, will get more people off the roof faster than any heli out there winching, simply four or five jump into a cage within 30 secs-1 minute they are on the ground and the cage is going up for another load. Obviously a bigger cage under a bigger helicopter would be faster again. Imagine how fast they could get people off a roof 20 at a time under a 92!!

Helicopter goes nowhere near the roof, so less worries about wires, aerials etc.

In a big city with lots of high-rises you wouldn't even need to take them down to ground level, it would be quicker to just fly across the road to the next rooftop, let them off there and coordinate evacuation from that building...

[Cornish Jack]

"So what stopped the SAR from self deploying?"
In the 60s it was accepted that we could do so and even up to the mid 70s (in Cyprus), however, the heavy hand of the bean counters entered the arena and call-outs for hospital transfers etc. would be billed against the hospitals involved and so it went on. I have been a long time away but I understand that, nowadays, most anything will require 'central' authorisation. 'Crab' will, no doubt, have the correct detail.

[Colonal Mustard]

All well and good having an S92 circling outside the block to collect people from the roof, but if you cannot get out your flat door due to the smoke filled stairwell then its completely irrelevant.

Many people have already asked why the NPAS aircraft circled and didn't appear to do anything, (if it was the london cab then it should have been relaying imagery of the fire on the upper floors to the LFB command unit).

Whilst sprinklers may have made a difference, so would smoke hoods....

CM

[jimf671]

"So what stopped the SAR from self deploying?"
In the 60s it was accepted that we could do so and even up to the mid 70s (in Cyprus), however, the heavy hand of the bean counters entered the arena and call-outs for hospital transfers etc. would be billed against the hospitals involved and so it went on. I have been a long time away but I understand that, nowadays, most anything will require 'central' authorisation. 'Crab' will, no doubt, have the correct detail.

ARCC desk, run by MCA Aviation, at the NMOC, is the tasking authority.


(MCA Aviation's periodic reports, though excellent, do not plot the requesting organisation. Previously, MoD-DASA reports plotted this variable. Most jobs were requested by Coastguard, Police or Ambulance Service. Fire requests, if any, would have appeared under 'other'.)

[mickjoebill]

Obviously want VFR but as long as you are out of the smoke, and generally smoke doesn't go directly up in these fires, often one side/corner of the building is reasonably clear.

How likely is a flameout in a hover in or near the rising plume?

Mjb

[[email protected]]

So what stopped the SAR from self deploying? In practical terms because the crew will have been asleep in bed in the wee small hours, not watching TV. The MCA control room could have scrambled them if they had thought it necessary or if they had been asked - chances are neither happened because the MCA are maritime focussed (the clue is in the name) and that the Met police probably have had few dealings with the SAR flight at Lydd and barely know they exist let alone what capabilities they have.

As to costings - the new system may have changed but the only thing SAR billed the NHS for was hospital to hospital transfers - any rescue/medrescue that resulted in a casualty being taken to hospital was always free of charge.

[MOSTAFA]

Surely a job for a Billy Pugh on a winch or even the hook - might scare them fartless but I'd guess they'd have preferred the option - and yes maybe they couldn't get to the roof after the fire took hold but surely a muster on the roof before it did would at least be an option.

[Hompy]

As everybody is 'all ears' somebody senior at the ARCC or MCA should have a word with somebody senior in the fire service to let them know that tasking is possible.

As has been stated, there are thousands of towers in the U.K. and if this 'once in a lifetime' event should happen again I am sure the crews would want to have a go, at least. It might not have made a difference in this case but it just might have, even for just one or two lives. The tasking authority should have confidence in their 'asset's' professionalism not to add to the casualty list, despite the danger. Risk assessment is what they do on every tasking.

[Colonal Mustard]

Surely a job for a Billy Pugh on a winch or even the hook - might scare them fartless but I'd guess they'd have preferred the option - and yes maybe they couldn't get to the roof after the fire took hold but surely a muster on the roof before it did would at least be an option.

You are talking about tenants who are untrained / unaware of what to do if they reach a basket on the top floor, many would panic, many would refuse to get on the winch / pugh or whatever you lower down until the very last minute.

Those you try and rescue would not conduct an orderly climb on and you would thus put the aircraft in jeopardy, you cannot put crew on the roof (even if you could get close) as it would push the acceptable risks beyond safe operating limits - you have to remember it was dark - the LFB never requested SAR - and SAR would not have primacy - LFB took the lead and co-ordinated a rescue of those that were saveable.

Yes it's worth looking at the viability but lets get away from the statement that a helicopter would have made a difference.

Oh and regarding the muster on the roof option - if you opened your flat door and found you could breath (limited smoke damage) in the stairwell - would you

A) make your way downstairs in the hope you could get out
B) make your way to the roof (even though you could perform A) in the hope that someone sent a helicopter...:ugh:

[Colonal Mustard]

As everybody is 'all ears' somebody senior at the ARCC or MCA should have a word with somebody senior in the fire service to let them know that tasking is possible.

As has been stated, there are thousands of towers in the U.K. and if this 'once in a lifetime' event should happen again I am sure the crews would want to have a go, at least. It might not have made a difference in this case but it just might have, even for just one or two lives. The tasking authority should have confidence in their 'asset's' professionalism not to add to the casualty list, despite the danger. Risk assessment is what they do on every tasking.

The Fire Services are well aware of the capability across the UK, they exercised with UK Mil SAR at the fire service college regularly (not sure what the position is with Civ SAR, rescues from high rise have been done, just not when they are burning..

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woman-airlifted-to-safety-after-becoming-trapped-in-cathedral-tower-6p825qmf709

[jimf671]

The word FIRE does not appear in the specification of the current UK SAR Helicopter Service contract in a tasking context.

Although a typical UK SAR situation involves flying in moving air, and in a fire situation this would be an advantage in a number of ways, the situation at the time of this fire appears to have been very still air.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/nintchdbpict000331570902.jpg?strip=all&w=960&quality=100

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/nintchdbpict0003313776502.jpg?strip=all&w=960&quality=100

[mickjoebill]

Hardware such as Quick release hinges exist and can be retrofitted. In theory they would allow access to top floor from the roof.

Minimal cost, no training required to activate ect

Mjb

[Washeduprotorgypsy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MOSTAFA
Surely a job for a Billy Pugh on a winch or even the hook - might scare them fartless but I'd guess they'd have preferred the option - and yes maybe they couldn't get to the roof after the fire took hold but surely a muster on the roof before it did would at least be an option.

Really before the fire builds to a conflagration on all corners of the building, is a light single perhaps boosted with an AFCS, dual belly hooks and billy pugh with remote loud hailer not sufficient for the task?

The right pilots obviously being the most important key to the whole operation. Ones with extensive (thousands of hrs) and current practice in vertical reference flying. Perhaps moonlighting periodically from his/her real job logging, power line, mountain rescue, seismic, (forest fire work being a given)etc etc. People who know and operate consistently to the ultimate limits of the machinery, allowed to use their own discretion to the possibilities versus the bureaucratic channels and risk assessment algorithms and matrices so lauded by folks trying to keep up appearances. Hey isn't that the whole point of self deployment?

Ah yes and then I woke up! Rescue work + government = nothing but vicious politics.
Question is? Who ends up getting screwed because of it?

A cunning linguist would define CASTRATION as the CAST(trap) of excessive regulation, politics and bureaucratic STRATA. Have our best efforts to provide the utmost aerial capability been castrated and hamstrung by obedience to political structure and protocol?

Maybe add a pair of rubber "choppersticles" to supplement the cargo hooks?





Question is

[9Aplus]

How likely is a flameout in a hover in or near the rising plume?

Mjb
Right question :ok:
On the other hand average FF helicopter engines have built in mods
to prevent plume and thick smoke flameouts...

[MOSTAFA]

Sorry Col Mustard but the man with the the lead piping says get in or get out of the way, as there are others queuing up to get in. Of course its not the perfect answer, but for me I'd kinda like the option of either getting in, closing my eyes and screaming; to an early cremation.

[Hompy]

The word FIRE does not appear in the specification of the current UK SAR Helicopter Service contract in a tasking context.

Although a typical UK SAR situation involves flying in moving air, and in a fire situation this would be an advantage in a number of ways, the situation at the time of this fire appears to have been very still air.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/nintchdbpict000331570902.jpg?strip=all&w=960&quality=100

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/nintchdbpict0003313776502.jpg?strip=all&w=960&quality=100


Is it important that the word FIRE doesn't exist? Surely not every situation is detailed in the contract. There's a lot we don't know here, which will be covered in the inquiry. Assuming the ARCC were not contacted, who in the fire service would not make that call? No ladders/lifts high enough, no way of retrieving casualties from the top floors, surely it is an option that should be considered in the future, if it wasn't this time?

I understand it would possibly have been an impossible mission with recirculating air, bad references and no viable winching location, not to mention the debris, ash and smoke. Even without differential gps height hold(ridiculous in 2017) a dual hoist, flir, night sun sky shout 4 crew coastguard s92 MIGHT have been able to do enough to help one life and surely that is enough to allow them to exercise their own skill and judgment in future cases such as this? To leave them in their beds doesn't seem fair to them or the casualties. More than likely no additional rescues could have been made but without being called the crews were denied the opportunity. I wonder what beaurocratic mechanism denied them the opportunity?

Self deploying is a nonsense and whether on fire or not the last thing cities need are old/young and bold pilots 'having a go'. But that is not what we are talking about with a well equipped multi crewed helicopter with many years combined relevant experience onboard.

[Cazalet33]

Even in one of the most helicopter-savvy countries in the world it was not feasible to rescue anyone from either of the two towers (more than two, actually) of the WTC on 9/1/01.

With Piper Alpha the prime planned evacuation method was by helicopter from the helideck, but there too it was quite impractical to use helicopters despite having several well equipped rescue helicopters onsite with some of the best winching crews in the world.

Sadly, helicopters aren't the answer in this case.

[heli1]

All interesting comments but I conclude that only a water cannon would have been of real use in stopping the fire spreading and damping down the smoke. Rescue from the roof impossible with obstructions and the smoke cloud .

[Pozidrive]

Is it important that the word FIRE doesn't exist? Surely not every situation is detailed in the contract...


If it isn't in the contract it probably isn't covered by insurance.

[jimf671]

If it isn't in the contract it probably isn't covered by insurance.

That would be my expectation.