London's Grenfell Tower on fire

Pilot · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:15 am

Redirect Left wrote:

Train<In>Vain wrote:

I wonder if a couple of fire fighting helicopters could have stopped the fire from spreading thru the cladding.

I'm not even sure if the UK has any firefighting helicopters that can aim a water spurt, instead of just dumping it downwards directly.
Aerial firefighting is more common in places with wildfires, such as the US state of California, or Australia. Not sure if the UK has any of any type in regular usage.

The UK generally doesn't need aerial firefighting capabilities. If we bought such Aircraft, they would likely only be used once every 10 years. You don't buy Aircraft for something that might happen once every 10 years though, it just doesn't make sense, especially because, with Aircraft, you need to keep crews hours up on them (so they actually know how to fly them safely), and also make sure they are maintained to the highest possible standards, all at vast expense.

Whilst you could potentially lease them out to other countries (to both pay for the maintenance, and as an easy way to keep crews hours up), you've then got the issue that the Aircraft aren't where you need them, when you need them, so they might as well not be there anyway.

Train<In>Vain · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:03 am

Two potentially life-saving helicopters would bankrupt the nation?

Well, best of luck to the people of the "UK".

Pilot · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:07 am

Train<In>Vain wrote:

Two potentially life-saving helicopters would bankrupt the nation?

Well, best of luck to the people of the "UK".

Where did I say bankrupt? Not once, I'm saying it doesn't make sense to have them when they wouldn't get used. You're maintaining something, and keeping people trained on something, that you might never use.

Of course, you're twisting people's words yet again. :roll:

Train<In>Vain · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:18 am

You don't know that they wouldn't get used.

The UK has maintained nuclear weapons forces for decades. How often are they used?

It's called "insurance".

kamnet · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:22 am

You must admit, however, that this was certainly a unique circumstance. The fact is that most buildings are not clad in a banned construction material, and most buildings have functional fire suppression and fire alarms. something went very wrong in this instance, but it's not like this is a regular occurrence in London.

Pilot · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:27 am

Train<In>Vain wrote:

The UK has maintained nuclear weapons forces for decades. How often are they used?

The Nuclear weapons are a massive waste of money as well :roll:

Of course, as you're an American "national military hero", you've been brainwashed to the extent that you actually believe they're useful!

These Helicopters, if we'd have had them for the last 10 years would have been used just once, for this event, that's it, nothing else. It's a combination of events that led to this even happening, which in (basically) all other cases would not happen. Fortunately we will learn from these events, and all the lives lost will not be for nothing, but Helicopters are not the answer. If anything, this whole incident would have been lessened if the building had had a Sprinkler system, that would have been more useful than any other method (including your once every 10 year Heli's)

SkeedR · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:46 am

kamnet wrote:

You must admit, however, that this was certainly a unique circumstance. The fact is that most buildings are not clad in a banned construction material, and most buildings have functional fire suppression and fire alarms. something went very wrong in this instance, but it's not like this is a regular occurrence in London.

And the big problem with the flammable cladding is that it negated the fire-proofing that is typical of high-rise construction. One flat or floor should be able to contain any fire. The fact it travelled up the exterior points to the cladding being at issue. Properly engineered, built and maintained high-rise buildings shouldn't need particularly specialist firefighting equipment.

Train<In>Vain · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:04 pm

Pilot wrote:

Of course, as you're an American "national military hero", you've been brainwashed to the extent that you actually believe they're useful!

You just can't help yourself from going ad hominem. Well, if gives you some feeling of self-worth that you can't get elsewhere, have at it friend.

Chrill · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:22 pm

Train<In>Vain wrote:

You don't know that they wouldn't get used.

The UK has maintained nuclear weapons forces for decades. How often are they used?

It's called "insurance".

Americans do fancy "insurance". Health insurance, for example. One of the things one could fund instead of two grounded helicopters flying once every 10 years. Of course, America spends it on a vast military fleet hellbent on invading other countries. Team America: World Police is a great documentary.

YNM · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:36 pm

Still, this incident pretty much highlight the vulnerability within the legislation, I think. It doesn't cover external fire, it doesn't regulate proper fire suppression, it doesn't guarantee retrofitting.

@ TiV : Alright, the NHS do have helicopters (i think - what was it that some royal member retired from ? Moorland service thing ?), and helicopters are "prescribed" in car chases (not sure if it still is given the budget cuts), but again, very, very rare to see helicopters flying above any inhabited parts of London. I believe they have a restriction that helicopters are defaultly only allowed over the Thames.

EDIT : And also, i think UK hates too many redundancy. They only keep things that they were given to start with.

Train<In>Vain · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:38 pm

Chrill wrote:

Train<In>Vain wrote:

You don't know that they wouldn't get used.

The UK has maintained nuclear weapons forces for decades. How often are they used?

It's called "insurance".

Americans do fancy "insurance". Health insurance, for example. One of the things one could fund instead of two grounded helicopters flying once every 10 years. Of course, America spends it on a vast military fleet hellbent on invading other countries. Team America: World Police is a great documentary.

Did you mean to post this in another thread? the topic is London's Grenfell Tower. What does "America's vast military fleet" have to do with it??

Pilot · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:52 pm

Train<In>Vain wrote:

ad hominem

That implies that I am personally attacking yourself, that is not true, I am attacking the military for brainwashing you to such an extent. It's very hard to see past this, which is unfortunate for yourself really.

Anyway, we're getting far away from the point, and my point still stands that both Nuclear Weapons, and your every 10 year helicopters are useless (2 NH90s at $32 Million each base price, plus all necessary modifications, as well as flight crew training and spare parts starts to get rather expensive).

Train<In>Vain wrote:

self-worth

Thanks for being so concerned about my self-worth darling, fortunately for you, I don't need to get my self-worth from anything I may say to you! :wink:

Train<In>Vain wrote:

Chrill wrote:

Train<In>Vain wrote:

nuclear weapons

America spends it on a vast military fleet hellbent on invading other countries

What does "America's vast military fleet" have to do with it??

What do Nuclear Weapons have to do with it?

kamnet · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:03 pm

To bring this back around to the point I was last trying to make (and should have completed better), considering the cost of buying the helicopter and the fancy fire fighting system, plus costs of maintenance, training a crew, keeping them trained and ready to go at a moments notice would be quite an expense. And part of the reason this fire was so awful was because governments have hacked away at budgets to do things like support fire brigades, building inspectors, public housing development, etc. Where was the money going to come from to buy and maintain this kit when apparently UK governments can't even keep up a budget for existing programs?

Train<In>Vain · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:15 pm

Pilot wrote:

Train<In>Vain wrote:

ad hominem

That implies that I am personally attacking yourself, that is not true, I am attacking the military for brainwashing you to such an extent. It's very hard to see past this, which is unfortunate for yourself really.

Anyway, we're getting far away from the point, and my point still stands that both Nuclear Weapons, and your every 10 year helicopters are useless (2 NH90s at $32 Million each base price, plus all necessary modifications, as well as flight crew training and spare parts starts to get rather expensive).

Train<In>Vain wrote:

self-worth

Thanks for being so concerned about my self-worth darling, fortunately for you, I don't need to get my self-worth from anything I may say to you! :wink:

Train<In>Vain wrote:

Chrill wrote:

America spends it on a vast military fleet hellbent on invading other countries

What does "America's vast military fleet" have to do with it??

What do Nuclear Weapons have to do with it?

If you aren't capable of comprehending how attacking my simple observation on UK defence spending by referencing "the military brainwashing" me is "ad hominem", then there really is no point in trying to continue any "discussion" with you. Oh, nice touch on trying to refute "ad hominem" by adding "which is unfortunate for yourself really".

Again, have at it friend.

Peace,
out

Pilot · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:26 pm

Nice to see you going back to being as immature as you were in the Donald Trump topic, and completely ignoring several valid points made by myself and several other members of the forums. I sense you're rather sensitive about your military background as an "international celebrity" *cough* bulls*** *cough*

As has already been asked, what did Nuclear Weapons have to do with this in the first place? After all, you brought them up, and it was a completely pointless sidestep, that wasn't required.

Also, once again, what is the point in maintaining and operating two helicopters that will only be used once every 10 years, at a minimum of £70 million just to buy them, and with no need (same as Nuclear weaponry), other than a one-off event, that should hopefully never happen again.

Train<In>Vain · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:33 pm

"Pilot", as much as I enjoy living rent-free in your head, it's time to let this thread to get back to the original topic.

I've made my point, and you've made yours, with the added bonus (for you) of slipping in "personal insults" against me in the guise of hating the military. You're obviously an intelligent and thoughtful person, so it would be a shame for you to waste another second on the likes of me.

The people of London are in my prayers.

That is all

Pilot · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:45 pm

Train<In>Vain wrote:

I've made my point

You haven't though, you've said things, and when people have asked you questions, or said reasons not to have, you have ignored them, or come back with completely irrelevant things (such as Nuclear weapons). :roll:

Redirect Left · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:09 pm

Pilot wrote:

Train<In>Vain wrote:

The UK has maintained nuclear weapons forces for decades. How often are they used?

The Nuclear weapons are a massive waste of money as well :roll:

I disagree with that statement.

But lets not get into that

Born Acorn · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:12 pm

We should probably have individual threads in here stay on their original topics if possible.

We don't need every thread to devolve into some jingoistic competition.

It sounds like hose reels were removed in favour of dry risers, obviously in hindsight that was not a good idea. Interestingly this was also done to the building I work in.

YNM · PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:10 pm

Born Acorn wrote:

It sounds like hose reels were removed in favour of dry risers, obviously in hindsight that was not a good idea. Interestingly this was also done to the building I work in.

Wait... does that mean that the building have sprinklers, just not in a ready-to-work position most (if not all) of the time ? Wonder if it's hard to convert it into the usual always-ready version ?

Transport Tycoon Forums

London's Grenfell Tower on fire

Who is online