Fire Incident at 63 Robinson Road
-
gettin rid of evidence?
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
"An SCDF aerial appliance which was being deployed as a supportive element in the fire-fighting operation, encountered technical difficulty in extending the boom. The inability to deploy the aerial appliance did not affect the fire fighting operations. An aerial appliance is normally used in such situations for aerial reconnaissance and to provide any fire fighting support, if required. In this instance, it was not required because our fire fighters were able to access the fire and mitigate internally."
I find the words in bold very contradictory. "Inability" means they tried to deploy but it failed. And then they go on to say it is not required. So why freaking deploy in the first place?
Which brings me to the question: Don't they have anyone in the PR dept to vet it?
well, even with checks there will still be times where it may fail & its just a matter of when as nobody can predict..
from this case, I can only say that it was just bad luck that it failed to deploy but nevertheless it did not hinder the fire fighting process..
-
Originally posted by QX179R:
well, even with checks there will still be times where it may fail & its just a matter of when as nobody can predict..
from this case, I can only say that it was just bad luck that it failed to deploy but nevertheless it did not hinder the fire fighting process..
an emergency rescue equipment failed n u call it "bad luck"?some1 didnt do his job n 1 died
-
post edited due to rudeness involved..
yo look at my avata. tat for editing my post
-
and how did you know that someone you mentioned didn't do his job?
kindly state source & please mind your language.. -
Originally posted by QX179R:
and how did you know that someone you mentioned didn't do his job?
kindly state source & please mind your language..EMERGENCY AMBULANCE = OPERATIONAL READYis this answer gud enough for u? -
dun need one to admits his mistake
-
Shit can happen when we least expect.....it's the way they explain it that peeves one off. Witnesses say they took one hour but SCDF claims they took half that time. And their contradictory explanation..........
-
wonder if the smoke/ heat detector did alarm the security? perhaps that would be a faster response to save a life...
aside to rely on scdf, other stakeholders could be life savers....
-
arson + murder case
-
the problem with such low rise commercial building is that they do not require fire safety managers, hence they rely heavily on automatic fire alarm panels which in turn require the smoke/ heat detectors to be maintained regularly...
was the fire alarm isolated at the time of the crime? weren't there security guards manning near to the panels?
-
Originally posted by FireIce:
arson + murder case
Heard that it is a murder case. -
Man charged with the murder at Afro Asia Building
Singapore: A 66-year-old man has been charged with the murder of a woman whose body was found following a fire at the Afro Asia Building at Robinson Road on Wednesday.
Govindasamy Nallaiah is accused of killing 56-year-old Low Foong Meng in an office belonging to B Rengarajoo & Associates.
The law firm is run by Low's partner, lawyer Rengarajoo Balasamy, whom she lived with.
Low had also helped Mr Rengarajoo with his administrative work at the office.
It's believed that Govindasamy was one of the lawyer's clients.
The small-sized, bespectacled Govindasamy kept his head bowed when the charge was read out to him.
He is now remanded at the Central Police Division and will be back in court next Friday.
Three men and a woman, believed to be Govindasamy's family were present in court but they rushed off and refused comment when reporters approached them.
If convicted of murder, Govindasamy will face the death penalty.
The charred body of Madam Low was found by fire-fighters after they put out a blaze in the law office situated on the sixth floor of Afro Asia Building.
- CNA/sf -
post edited due to rudeness involved..
-
QV179R
get the record straight - u as a member of a resuce team ( if tats wad u r)
if your emergency rescue equipment failed n u lost a life
shld u blamed it on bad luck or tat guy who did not maintain tat pc of equipment in operational ready condition?
-
no matter how much maintenance you put into any equipment & not just life saving ones but others for example machines in factories, there's a chance that it may still fail on that person..
-
Originally posted by QX179R:
no matter how much maintenance you put into any equipment & not just life saving ones but others for example machines in factories, there's a chance that it may still fail on that person..
u noe shit about equipment?need me to teach u?
-
while maintenance is of utmost importance for any equipment....lets look at the no. of such occurences as a fair and balance approach .... the loss of a life may not wholly be attributable to a single factor....
so far SCDF has been doing a great job in fire protection of the nation...
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
while maintenance is of utmost importance for any equipment....lets look at the no. of such occurences as a fair and balance approach .... the loss of a life may not wholly be attributable to a single factor....
so far SCDF has been doing a great job in fire protection of the nation...
can u understand the term " zero downtime"?
-
Originally posted by lce:
u noe shit about equipment?need me to teach u?
有眼�识泰山 -
Originally posted by FireIce:
有眼�识泰山
only if u r jane -
zero downtime is of utmost importance to any life saving industry...as well as zero defect or accident...
but that should not erode the great efforts put in by SCDF ... i share partially your views...but with the great responsibilities held by a great force, any mistakes are regrettable as much as lives were concerned...
but they should quickly review, rectify and do it better to sustain their great reputation...
-
one could shoot from the platform as an observer....while the other is fighting fires with a failed weapon....
i do not think the fire fighter feels any good as much as the observer taking a snapshot view of things
-
its disheartening to hear a member in the life saving industry to blame it on bad luck n not looking into the root of the problem
-
there is no 100% in anything