Jump to content

Notre Dame on Fire

DarkOwl57

By DarkOwl57
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 4/17/2019 at 12:54 PM, DarkOwl57 said:

I think that possibly they might have been scared about possibly collapsing what was left of the roof with the hoses, so they had to do it the old-fashioned way.

Expand  

They were going to replace the roof anyway. It was pitch-coated wood, lined with lead - probably the best fuel ever - and keeping it isn't the best of ideas.

  On 4/17/2019 at 1:55 PM, kerbiloid said:

They said, it has a lead roof. Does it mean it now has a lead floor?

Expand  

No, the vaulted ceiling prevents the fire from actually burning anything inside the rooms below. And that's where the firefighters kept their eyes on - if the limestone works are destroyed, then it'll truly fall apart.

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LordFerret

LordFerret

Posted
Posted
  On 4/17/2019 at 8:39 AM, kerbiloid said:

(The title is about helicopters, but the interview itself is more general)

https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-47946815

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Expand  

Why don't you just post it or the link in Russian?  I'll have my wife read it to me; She speaks better Russian than most Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheif Operations Director

Cheif Operations Director

Posted
Posted
  On 4/17/2019 at 12:54 PM, DarkOwl57 said:

I think that possibly they might have been scared about possibly collapsing what was left of the roof with the hoses, so they had to do it the old-fashioned way. Also, just saw some images and this is crazy stuff. All the windows look relatively intact, the gold cross is still 100% alright, and even the wax on the candles is unburnt. 

Expand  

They do not build things like they used to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gargamel

Gargamel

Posted
Posted
  On 4/16/2019 at 2:54 PM, LordFerret said:

I'm to understand it burned for a full 2 hours before firefighters arrived... and then, only 1 sole hose arrived initially.  What's up with that?

Expand  

I can't speak to the timeline, as that does seem odd, but the rest is standard practice for most fire services.

.   Usually a single unit will arrive on scene first.  This may have been the only dispatched unit, or depending on the structure in question, just the first to arrive.  This unit gets eyes on the situation, and reports in with what is actually going on.   Then they decide to escalate the response if necessary.

Each structure within a fire district is (usually) routinely inspected.  These inspectors then take their notes, and help create what known as a MABAS card.  This card, originally kept in a roll-o-Dex on the dispatchers desk, lists the various response levels a structure requires for the amount of fire that they find.   This is where the term '5 (or whatever) alarm fire' comes from.    If the situation can be handled by just the initial responders dispatched, then it remains a 1 alarm fire, but if they need some backup, it will escalate to a '2nd alarm fire'.   Which means, the dispatcher looks on the card (or computer screen today), and alarms out the units listed on the 2nd alarm for that structure.   The initial units can easily request higher levels of alarm if needed, requesting the 3rd alarm, 4th alarm, etc, to be dispatched to that location.   And that's why you hear on the news, "There was a 6 alarm fire today in the warehouse"....

Since the alarm levels vary from structure to structure, the meanings of the various alarm levels are hard to compare.   A small cabin might only have two alarms on it's card.  First alarm being whatever unit that can get there with a portable fire extinguisher, and the second being, "oh let's send a real fire truck".   But a factory's first alarm might be 3 engine's, a squad, and an officer, just because the size of building requires that many people to just find the trash can fire.    In college, I lived next to an "Advanced Materials Lab", which we found out when there was a simple trash can fire, had a first alarm of 5 engines, a bunch of squads, and a full hazmat team.    Just cause if that place started burning, it would get nasty quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LordFerret

LordFerret

Posted
Posted
  On 4/17/2019 at 11:55 PM, Gargamel said:

I can't speak to the timeline, as that does seem odd, but the rest is standard practice for most fire services.

.   Usually a single unit will arrive on scene first.  This may have been the only dispatched unit, or depending on the structure in question, just the first to arrive.  This unit gets eyes on the situation, and reports in with what is actually going on.   Then they decide to escalate the response if necessary.

Each structure within a fire district is (usually) routinely inspected.  These inspectors then take their notes, and help create what known as a MABAS card.  This card, originally kept in a roll-o-Dex on the dispatchers desk, lists the various response levels a structure requires for the amount of fire that they find.   This is where the term '5 (or whatever) alarm fire' comes from.    If the situation can be handled by just the initial responders dispatched, then it remains a 1 alarm fire, but if they need some backup, it will escalate to a '2nd alarm fire'.   Which means, the dispatcher looks on the card (or computer screen today), and alarms out the units listed on the 2nd alarm for that structure.   The initial units can easily request higher levels of alarm if needed, requesting the 3rd alarm, 4th alarm, etc, to be dispatched to that location.   And that's why you hear on the news, "There was a 6 alarm fire today in the warehouse"....

Since the alarm levels vary from structure to structure, the meanings of the various alarm levels are hard to compare.   A small cabin might only have two alarms on it's card.  First alarm being whatever unit that can get there with a portable fire extinguisher, and the second being, "oh let's send a real fire truck".   But a factory's first alarm might be 3 engine's, a squad, and an officer, just because the size of building requires that many people to just find the trash can fire.    In college, I lived next to an "Advanced Materials Lab", which we found out when there was a simple trash can fire, had a first alarm of 5 engines, a bunch of squads, and a full hazmat team.    Just cause if that place started burning, it would get nasty quickly. 

Expand  

Usually.

Having past involvement with our county office of emergency management, where one of the main communications hub resides, including ARES (ARRL hams), I'm aware of such contingencies and operations.  In a very big way, the whole communication network here (including current day MARS) is all tied together... military, police, fire, rescue, and ham volunteers... even NWS SKYWARN.

As for Notre Dame, the State Police building is all of 500 feet away.  I don't know where the nearest fire station is, but anyone looking out of that Police building should have known something serious was afoot.  I would think the very first call of "Notre Dame is on fire" would produce an all out army of fire fighters.  I've noted many people have questioned the timeline, all of the could have should have would have, and circumstances, but that's for France and the officials in Paris to deal with. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
p1t1o

p1t1o

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 4/17/2019 at 5:52 PM, Cheif Operations Director said:

They do not build things like they used to. 

Expand  

You say that, but  its apparently the building has been crumbling for a long time and restoration work delayed due to socio-political manouvering. It is going to cause a kerfuffle in the aftermath for sure, when it comes down to blame and responsibility, once the contractors responsible for the site have been dealt with.

**edit**

(once I thought about it for a second, it might be crumbling but damn, its old)

Edited by p1t1o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 4/17/2019 at 5:52 PM, Cheif Operations Director said:

They do not build things like they used to. 

Expand  

Yeah, because it makes no sense today.

  On 4/18/2019 at 4:44 AM, kerbiloid said:

Just googled: "how far is fire station from notre dame"

Expand  

Only 900 m away.

https://goo.gl/maps/Ss7t3CvsaFa6rFBH7

https://goo.gl/maps/AE8bnfp7bf3x1PE47

https://goo.gl/maps/TCuBJX7oBvW6cLH89

  On 4/18/2019 at 9:45 AM, p1t1o said:

it might be crumbling but damn, its old

Expand  

Survived 850 years since building started.

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheif Operations Director

Cheif Operations Director

Posted
Posted
  On 4/18/2019 at 9:57 AM, YNM said:

Yeah, because it makes no sense today.

Only 900 m away.

https://goo.gl/maps/Ss7t3CvsaFa6rFBH7

https://goo.gl/maps/AE8bnfp7bf3x1PE47

https://goo.gl/maps/TCuBJX7oBvW6cLH89

Survived 850 years since building started.

Expand  

What do you mean by it makes no sense today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheif Operations Director

Cheif Operations Director

Posted
Posted
  On 4/18/2019 at 3:50 PM, razark said:

If you were going to build a cathedral today, it would make no sense to build it the way it was done 800 years ago.

Expand  

In term of construction time, obviously. It terms of style I do not agree

It terms of survivability and resources used they should still use the same stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
razark

razark

Posted
Posted
  On 4/18/2019 at 3:51 PM, Cheif Operations Director said:

In term of construction time, obviously. It terms of style I do not agree

It terms of survivability and resources used they should still use the same stuff.

Expand  

Style is a different category from methods and material.

Materials?  I'm not sure.  They could possibly come up with better materials than were used in the 1200s.  Steel reinforcement of stone construction would probably be "better", and replacing the wood roof support with steel would reduce the chances of such a fire occurring again.

Methods?  Definitely.  It makes no sense to use human/animal power and labor intensive means to construct a building.

 

Of course, I'd be surprised if any buildings constructed today looked as good as Notre Dame in 800 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSaint

TheSaint

Posted
Posted
  On 4/18/2019 at 4:03 PM, razark said:

Of course, I'd be surprised if any buildings constructed today looked as good as Notre Dame in 800 years.

Expand  

This.

However they choose to rebuild Notre Dame, you can be assured of two things:

1. Half of Paris will hate it and half of Paris will love it. They will argue about it incessantly.

2. In 20 years all of Paris will all agree that it is the greatest architectural triumph of the 21st century, whether anybody else likes it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted (edited)
  On 4/18/2019 at 3:45 PM, Cheif Operations Director said:

What do you mean by it makes no sense today. 

Expand  

Pitch coated wood, lined with lead ? Unreinforced stones ? Yeah thanks.

 

They'll have to restore the facade/looks, but the structure needs a full redoing with more modern materials and methods. Get some steel and concrete.

They do a lot of them in the UK to old structures - the facade may look the same, but the inside is entirely different.

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...