Innovative Israeli Fire Escape

[kurnal]

Anyone seen this? What do you make of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1h12UfhnA

Dont know how it copes with passing compartments involved in fire..

[Mike Buckley]

Nice idea, but misses out the actual fire, how would it cope with the 9/11 scenario? Best to stick with the internal protected routes.

[Midland Retty]

Hmmm. Interesting, it's certainly different! Looks impressive , novel idea in theory. In practice it would be un workable

I bet it would cost hundreds of thousands to install then:-

1) Im not sure you would easily coerse people into what is effectively a moving tent 20 storeys up!
2) In the UK as we know its not the responsibility for firefighters to evacuate relevant persons.
3) What measures are in place to ensure the equipment doesn't brake down.
4) Staff training implications
5) That was one heck of a steep ramp for a wheel chair user!

Anyway this is much better it doesn't rely on the fire service to attend - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0fFtHlxb8Q

I should make it clear that the above comment was made tongue firmly in cheek!

[Clevelandfire 3]

I like that Midland. Ive just ordered one. Nothing wrong with that. Although it may inspire some people to absail down a building to commit burglary or be a peeping tom. And thats why I bought one.

[SeaBass]

I looked at the Israeli system some years ago. It was one of a number of design proposals for some of the premises that were being designed to replace those damaged in NY on 9/11.

It ticked most of the box’s, and was significantly better than some of the parachute arrangements (Honestly, parachutes)and single use systems that were being pushed by opportunistic companies in the states. The issues that were highlighted by the appraisal team about the system were addressed by the designers who explained that Israeli building codes include considerably more safety features than most national building codes because the risks of attack are that much greater. (With regards to midlands point about people being reluctant to use the system, evidently when faced with the option of dieing people tend to be a little more enthusistic)

However, in the end, and once we had sorted through the understandable emotional drivers that surrounded high rise evacuation in the wake of the twin towers attack, the Port Authority and just about everyone else involved, accepted that interior escape routes were perfectly good means of escape for everything but the most catastrophic incidents which are almost impossible to guard against.

That said there were a number of enhancements to existing high rise evacuation practices that were assessed and included in new buildings. Some were even implemented retrospectively which is a rare occurrence in the states. Some were good, others not so good. Apologies if I’ve gone off track a bit here Kurnal

[Midland Retty]

With regards to midlands point about people being reluctant to use the system, evidently when faced with the option of dieing people tend to be a little more enthusistic

I don't buy that. Naturally people would probably do almost anything to evacuate if their backside was on fire. But if it has gotten to the stage, i.e; where someone is at imminent risk of death, something has gone belly up, and other precautions have failed.

Under normal evacuation conditions where people aren't or shouldn't be at imminent risk they should be able to use the structural means of escape, rather than something like this evacuation equipment

I believe human behaviour studies undertaken some time ago by the Fire Research Station confirmed that people were just not happy using these weird and wonderful types of devices.

Also the system is also vulnerable to breakdowns,terrorist attacks, sabotage or possibly vandalism too (ie it could quite easily be taken out of use) so for me I don't see any benefit in it whatsoever.

For that reason Im out

[SeaBass]

You’ve missed the point completely Midland. These devices are not instead of, they are in addition to.  The Israelis feel that they are at significant risk of enemy / terrorist attack and foresee that such an attack could take out internal escape stairs.  Emotions were very high in NY post 9/11, and it was felt by many fire and life safety professionals that had such systems been installed in the trade centre buildings then many more people would have survived.

Your correct to say that people may be reluctant to use these novel devices. People are reluctant to use aircraft evacuation slides but they still do, and if you spend any time in a NY high rise, you’ll soon learn that most of the occupants welcome anything that might give them a fighting chance if a similar attack were to happen again. A lot of this is about confidence managment.  It should also be remembered that in NY and Israel the law requires tall buildings to have fire and life safety managers on the staff and present during the working day. These F&LS managers spend huge amounts of time training building occupants in safety systems and the means of escape.

As for the vulnerabilities of such evacuation systems, they are no greater or lesser than those associated with any other fixed installation.

All that said, I’m not particularly advocating the use of such systems, I’m merely saying that they shouldn’t be ruled out without properly assessing the risks and benefits, be they direct or indirect.   

[Midland Retty]

I dont think I have missed the point. I fail to see how these devices would have worked as a suitable alternative to structural means of escape.

Any terrorist attack could potentially take out the evacuation aid anyway, and if the structural MOE has been compromised, it usually means the outer structure / primary construction has also been compromised.

Also my response are biased toward the United Kingdom, I can't comment on USA or Israel, but to my knowledge even they understand the principle of protected routes in high rise structures so that people have time to escape from all floors.