Back to Squawk list
  • 10

Los Angeles no longer requires helipads on buildings

Submitted
 
Calling the helipad policy a “stupid rule,” Mayor Eric Garcetti suggested the change would inspire architects to design towers with spires and other details. (www.dailynews.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


pilot62
Not many people in a hi-rise fire would agree Eric.
jkudlick
Just how many fully-loaded firefighters do you think a helicopter can carry? Unless the LAFD has a few CH-46s, CH-47s, and CH-53s in their arsenal, they aren't getting many firefighters to the top of a building. The same goes for rescuing people trapped by the fire - you aren't getting many of them down by helicopter without having a fleet of large cargo helos.
ltcjra
ltcjra 1
Or, Jeremy, a large fleet of ordinary helicopters. Anyway, here is a travel note: Never stay above the 7th floor in any hotel; the tallest fire truck ladder in the world will not reach the 8th floor!!
LGM118
LGM118 2
Designing entire cities around the risk of a fire is just silly. I don't normally agree with the New Urbanists because they're a bunch of pretentious jerks, but:

http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/erinitiative_0.pdf

The whole "we need flat roofs so we can land helicopters on top of the buildings" is simply put an excuse by fire chiefs who think of themselves as being action heroes to muddle about in architecture. It's just like the police departments that buy up all that military equipment and run around pointing M-16's at civilians. Yes, in this case the consequence is just "boring/inefficient city architecture" rather than "massive abuse of power by police" but as a matter of course, it's still a bad idea.

Also: In the event of a fire, it would be wildly unsafe to land a helicopter on top of a building due to the risk of the building collapsing, the added weight of the helicopter causing the collapse, the airflow from the helicopter blades creating ventilation that would exacerbate a fire, not to mention the high risk of particulate matter getting into the helicopter's parts. Again, the rule has more to do with some fire chief fantasizing about theatrics rather than any real value.
Lunarstorm777
(v)e Same 1
Well, to play the devil's advocate once more....

"Dangerous as it sounds, this kind of airborne mission can succeed. In 1993, Mr. Semendinger had helped rescue 28 people from the roof of the same north tower. A terrorist bomb had exploded in the trade center's basement garage, sending thick smoke up through the stairwells. That time, a police chopper piloted by Mr. Semendinger had lowered two men by rope to the roof. They cut down antennas to clear a landing area from which the workers were airlifted to safety."

Most likely reason for no roof top rescues on 9/11? Doors were locked from the inside to keep vandals and suicide jumpers off of it, so no one could have made it to the roof without help anyway. Course, if it was like most high rises (and numerous cities' fire codes), had one person from a rescue chopper merely pushed on the door from the outside (Rooftop) it would have opened for the exact reason to attempt a rescue. Since no one was seen on the roof top, the rescue team that was on station 5 minutes after impact didn't attempt a very risky landing. But according to Semendinger, who was back again on 9/11, he thinks it would have been possible and perhaps he could have saved a dozen lives in that 50 minute time span.

So, take that however you will, but logically speaking, it makes complete sense, but I'm sure is much more costly to include one..... Hence, money makers lean on the mayor, he calls it "A stupid requirement", business as usual 'round here.
LGM118
LGM118 2
I used to play "devil's advocate" - it's really not a worthwhile exercise. All it does is force us to waste time going over things that we shouldn't have to, not to mention that the "devil's advocate" basically amounts to creating an argument for no reason other than the simple fact that yes, it's possible to find a reason to disagree with a statement.

That said, it's very unlikely that 9/11 rooftop rescues would have actually been successful thanks to the heavy cloud of smoke that obscured the top of the buildings. In the 1993 bombings, there was no smoke cloud near the roof - the bombing occurred in a basement garage and traveled up stairwells, but not outside.

Regardless, a law that exists solely to appease the desire of firefighters for dramatic helicopter rescues from burning buildings - an event which only occurs once or twice per decade - is silly at best.

"take that however you will, but logically speaking, it makes complete sense, but I'm sure is much more costly to include one..... Hence, money makers lean on the mayor, he calls it "A stupid requirement", business as usual 'round here."

...yeah, because onerous building regulations demanded exclusively by niche constituencies are exactly the definition of the free market, while removing such regulations is against freedom and amounts to some sort of corruption.The fun thing about the free market supporters is that somehow, against all reason, actually doing exactly what you all demand we do (remove regulation) somehow, against all logic or reason or sanity, ends up being derided as an example of some constituency or another having bribed an elected official.
Lunarstorm777
(v)e Same 2
The devil's advocate often times has the glorious task of showing every else just how idiotic they really are. After all, he gets the job of showing everyone the unpopular opinion and forcing them to make a conscious choice between acceptance of risk to their existence and risk to their wallets,personal beliefs, etc. Usually a thankless job, but every once in a while, its worth the time... Like now.

As for 9/11, he was there hovering off the roof, we weren't. He had at the very least 10 years experience doing this job, he says he could have made rescues, I'd imagine he would know, it was his job after all.

"Regardless, a law that exists solely to appease the desire of firefighters for dramatic helicopter rescues from burning buildings - an event which only occurs once or twice per decade - is silly at best." - Again, these are the guys that spend their lives preparing and training to rescue people (often times from their own stupidity), if a requirement of their job is to proactively prevent a potential disaster from occurring, why would officials not listen to them? I'd love to make an analogy here, but, honestly I can't think of one thats any more ridiculous than this actual instance (a reference to the Titanic maybe?). I mean, other than the mayor's constituents with deep pockets crying about shelling out a bit more cash to build a helipad, who else is really throwing a fit about the requirement? I'm not exactly Mr. current events but I can't think of a single citizen's group or riot thats formed to repeal this "archaic" law.. So who else would have a problem with it? I mean, god forbid the architect doesn't get to fully express the visual opulence of his art deco vision in his next high rise...

Oh, and this might be sacrilege to speak here on flightaware's forums, but.... Some things in this world are more important than free market ideals.. GASP.. I know, blasphemy at its worst, STONE HIM! But without those pesky rules and regulations, we'd be planting 737s in people's backyards like day lilies... In other news, there are a lot of professions that make forecasts and threat assessments of future events. Not taking a fire fighter's professional opinion is just as stupid as telling a seismologist to shut up about LA having a large earthquake in the future. And since the Mayor is supposed to be working for the majority of the people in his town, does he really think most of them would back him in this decision? Or did someone else ask for it to be repealed and he hoped it would just fly by under the radar? Or did he have a bad experience with a helicopter as a child that haunts him in adulthood? I'm gonna say the most logical explanation has dollar signs on it.. it usually does.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss