# Nightclub fire in Romania



## JohnD

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/31/us-romania-blast-idUSKCN0SO2UG20151031
Another nightclub fire with pyro involved and limited egress.


----------



## dvsDave

Anybody have any more details about this?


----------



## JD

Saw the report. Reminds me of the Rhode Island fire. Pyro ignites flammable surroundings, climbs to the ceiling which appears to be a matchbox of flammable materials. Everybody heads for the main entrance and ends up trapped. Unclear if there really may have been other exits that did not get used such as Rhode Island. 
No idea about the "blast" that is quoted in the video above, what I saw was some cellphone video from someone who was in the club when it happened.


----------



## JohnD

A couple of links:
http://www.jimonlight.com/2015/10/30/more-stage-death-bucharest-stage-fire-27-dead/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/world/bucharest-romania-nightclub-fire/index.html
From several reports I understand that the club was in a basement location of a former factory with a single entrance. I also wonder if the "explosion" was possibly flashover.
EDIT: Some photos from the Blueroom forums.


----------



## Les

Ugh, when are clubs going to stop DIY'ing pyro...?

There are some more obscure problems with the building itself (exits, fire suppression, etc) but the three main pyro rules broken here are:

• Pyrotechnics in close proximity to combustible or flammable material (root cause)
• Pyrotechnics positioned less than 15' from audience
• Pyrotechnics positioned so that the trajectory of the effect is over spectator's heads

And speculating:
• No permit pulled
• No licensee on site

If you see any of these things at an event you're attending, get out. They're not being responsible.


----------



## Amiers

Is that plastic or wood ceiling above the truss. That lit up pretty quick.

Asking a silly question but what laws are there in Romania about pyro?


----------



## Chris15

Les said:


> And speculating:
> • No permit pulled
> • No licensee on site



Further speculating, but those things may not necessarily be out of place in Romania, I doubt any of us knows the regulations applicable to that jurisdiction...


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Indoor pyro should be banned.


----------



## JohnD

The updated Reuters article mentions that criminal charges are being considered and also that fire and fireworks in indoor spaces need a special permit and none were issued.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/01/us-romania-blast-idUSKCN0SQ1Y520151101


----------



## Les

Chris15 said:


> Further speculating, but those things may not necessarily be out of place in Romania, I doubt any of us knows the regulations applicable to that jurisdiction...



I didn't come out and say they were operating illegally. Just that those things were probably not in place, legal or not. Either they need to work on their laws, or the enforcement of those laws. The 'pyro rules' I mentioned are regulations in the US but are also common-sense indicators that this was not done professionally and that the setup was unsafe.


BillConnerASTC said:


> Indoor pyro should be banned.



That's quite a broad statement, akin to saying "outdoor concerts and overhead rigging should be banned". Indoor pyro can be done quite safely when a professional is involved - I mean, it is what I do for a living. Further, just because it's illegal doesn't mean people will stop doing it. Of all the mass-casualty pyro incidents I've heard about in my career, it has always been at the hands of an unlicensed shooter - which is *_*already*_* illegal* *throughout the US and in most/if not all developed countries.

When done correctly, the process should look like this. 


JohnD said:


> The updated Reuters article mentions that criminal charges are being considered and also that fire and fireworks in indoor spaces need a special permit and none were issued.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/01/us-romania-blast-idUSKCN0SQ1Y520151101



Well color me not surprised.


----------



## tjrobb

Bill- I work with an indoor arena. With our 75' noncombustible ceiling pyro can often be done safely. That being said, we are also fully sprinklered and have plenty of exits.
Lastly, flashover is often seen as an explosion to those that have never seen one. It is, literally, everything in a room reaching combustion at the same time.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Pretty familiar with how this works, having been at days of meetings as member of NFPAs assembly occupancy committee after station fire, and having access to most documents. Pyro can be done safely indoors, but too often isn't. Making it a right, which is what the 1992 change in the codes did, assured these kind of disasters. And I hadn't noticed where outdoor concerts or overhead rigging had killed 100 people in one event. Indoor pyro compares better to terrorist attacks.


----------



## Les

BillConnerASTC said:


> Pyro can be done safely indoors, but too often isn't.



I agree, since any repeated incident is "too often" in my book. However, indoor pyro is done safely probably more often than you seem to realize. My place of business produces such events no less than a dozen times per month and have done so for many years with zero accidents or near-misses; and we're just one small company in Texas.


BillConnerASTC said:


> Making it a right, which is what the 1992 change in the codes did, assured these kind of disasters. And I hadn't noticed where outdoor concerts or overhead rigging had killed 100 people in one event. Indoor pyro compares better to terrorist attacks.



By banning pyro, you'd only keep the legitimate companies from working. I doubt you'd stop all the garage bands in basement bars, which is where the problem is. They're already operating pyro illegally -- what makes you think a sweeping ban would stop them?


----------



## gafftaper

Les said:


> By banning pyro, you'd only keep the legitimate companies from working. I doubt you'd stop all the garage bands in basement bars, which is where the problem is. They're already operating pyro illegally -- what makes you think a sweeping ban would stop them?



I think that's the key point. You never hear of these problems when the pyro is being operated by a legitimate licensed company. It's the people who are already operating illegally who cause the problems. Banning indoor pyro will prevent the safe licensed companies from operating. But, a ban won't stop Billy Bob from taking a few things he bought at the reservation last 4th of July and modifying them for a real cool effect in his buddy's bar.

I think the best approach is educating everyone with the Entertainment Safety Alliance's idea of EVERYONE is responsible for safety. We as everyday technicians need to be trained, and empowered with the idea that the show doesn't have to go on and sometimes we need to say "Stop! This is unsafe". Doing so may mean you lose the gig, but it least you won't lose your life. If you go call the fire marshal, you can even save other lives. You don't want to be the guy who has to live with the guilt of knowing the pyro was a bad idea and people died because you did nothing.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

I don't see how banning this is different than banning anything else deemed too high of risk for the public good - whether it be drinking and driving, terrorism, or indoor pyro. Probably not politically correct but I'd feel better and bee safer with a ban on indoor pyro than a ban on hate speech. And maybe the cat is out but indoor pyro wasn't a problem until it was allowed by fire codes.


----------



## Les

Talk about analogies. Drinking and driving - something that is already very much illegal yet still rampant. We're just going to keep going in circles here, so let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## gafftaper

BillConnerASTC said:


> I don't see how banning this is different than banning anything else deemed too high of risk for the public good - whether it be drinking and driving, terrorism, or indoor pyro.



I find drinking and driving to not be a fair analogy. There is a process to become a legal licensed driver and a safe responsible way to drive. There is a legal way to become a drinker of alcohol and a responsible way to drink. There is no possibility of being a legal drinker and driver, because it is always unsafe. 

Bill Are you saying that there is no such thing as safe indoor pyro? Are you saying that it may be possible to be safe but the risk isn't worth the reward? Or are you more at, it was safer before the law was changed. Why change a law that adds danger to a facility? 

How do you feel about human flying effects or use of weapons in a show? I see these as very similar to indoor pyro. They are all inherently dangerous, but when done under the supervision of a trained professional the danger is drastically reduced. While yes there are tragedies that happen with professionals present, the vast majority of tragedies happen because they are being overseen by "Billy Bob" the rock climber/hunter who thinks he knows how to do things safely but doesn't. 

Note: 
@BillConnerASTC I'm not trying to argue with you or to stir up controversy with Les. I think I currently agree more with Les, but I have learned to really respect Bill's thoughts and am truly interested in fully understanding the arguments for and against. 

@Les I truly respect you for walking away from the conversation without turning this into an ugly flame war. I hope to lead a calm discussion of the issue here and lay out all the arguments for consideration. I think your argument is pretty clear. You are a licensed professional. You do the job the right way following, and probably exceeding, the safety requirements of all national and local codes. Why should your safe business be punished when "Billy Bob" decides to set off roman candles in a basement with a flammable ceiling? Shutting down your company's legal activities will not stop Billy Bob's already illegal pyro from happening again.


----------



## DuckJordan

I see no reason to ban indoor pyro. Like many have pointed out, banning something doesn't make it disappear, Just like the case on marijuana. They banned it, yet its still as common if not more easily accessed. The issue isn't in indoor pyro. Its the small bands that are not hiring the pro's to do it. I've worked several shows where there was a company out with the tour that solely did pyro. That's it. In fact I'm working a show today that is that exact scenario. Indoor pyro, with a qualified professional, thats sole responsibility is pyro. He works not for the artist but for the company using and setting up the pyro. He can and will tell the artist no, I'm not doing that effect tonight. He also told the fire Marshal exactly what each effect does, how high it will go, how much heat it will put out and in case of emergency strategy. He's also previewing the pyro with the fire marshal so there are no surprises. This is how its done legally. In a state that has almost no laws regarding pyro use indoors or at all for that matter.


----------



## Les

gafftaper said:


> How do you feel about human flying effects or use of weapons in a show? I see these as very similar to indoor pyro. They are all inherently dangerous, but when done under the supervision of a trained professional the danger is drastically reduced. While yes there are tragedies that happen with professionals present, the vast majority of tragedies happen because they are being overseen by "Billy Bob" the rock climber/hunter who thinks he knows how to do things safely but doesn't.



That is a perfect analogy, and I probably should have used it as opposed to the rigging example I started with. No, there are no mass-casualty incidents resulting from amateur flying acts, but it seems that we hear about fatalities at least once a year. Get on YouTube (if you dare) and witness "stage flying gone wrong". While often shown in a humorous manner, it is not funny. It is a very real problem solely because some individuals have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. It is no different with indoor pyro (except that pyro is way more regulated already).


gafftaper said:


> Note:
> @BillConnerASTC I'm not trying to argue with you or to stir up controversy with Les. I think I currently agree more with Les, but I have learned to really respect Bill's thoughts and am truly interested in fully understanding the arguments for and against.
> 
> @Les I truly respect you for walking away from the conversation without turning this into an ugly flame war. I hope to lead a calm discussion of the issue here and lay out all the arguments for consideration. I think your argument is pretty clear. You are a licensed professional. You do the job the right way following, and probably exceeding, the safety requirements of all national and local codes. Why should your safe business be punished when "Billy Bob" decides to set off roman candles in a basement with a flammable ceiling? Shutting down your company's legal activities will not stop Billy Bob's already illegal pyro from happening again.



I welcome any and all reasonable discussion, especially if others are involved. After all, this is an educational forum and I think there is education to be had in this discussion. What I don't want to happen is to have this turn in to a thread where it's just Bill and I arguing back and forth, since that's not really useful to anybody.
You are correct that my company's policies meet (and exceed) the written standards, especially where safety distances are concerned.


DuckJordan said:


> In fact I'm working a show today that is that exact scenario. Indoor pyro, with a qualified professional, thats sole responsibility is pyro. He works not for the artist but for the company using and setting up the pyro. He can and will tell the artist no, I'm not doing that effect tonight. He also told the fire Marshal exactly what each effect does, how high it will go, how much heat it will put out and in case of emergency strategy. He's also previewing the pyro with the fire marshal so there are no surprises. This is how its done legally. In a state that has almost no laws regarding pyro use indoors or at all for that matter.



That's exactly how it should be, and absolutely not what took place at The Station or in Romania. The ban would put this professional out of work, but Billy Bob can't be bothered to get a license or permit - let alone pay attention to some ban.

Just to be very clear - there are certain venues which just aren't suitable for pyro. Of all the pyro gigs I've done, never has one been in a dark, cramped, and crowded bar. Sometimes we will do a site visit and say "Nope, can't do anything in here. How about some cryo jets and confetti instead? Maybe a laser show?" Unfortunately, it is _rarely_ those types of establishments who call us in the first place. They either don't want to pay for it or they realize they aren't up to code to begin with. Those are the ones who scare me because they fly under the radar and push the limit until something very bad happens. There are already laws prohibiting them from doing it, but they either don't know or don't care.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

How many people can one performer flying event kill? How many people can one indoor pyro event kill? Talk about faulty analogies. Find things that can kill 100+ people as a result of one event. Perhaps the regulation and oversight that the FFA has on commercial airlines is what is needed for indoor pyro.

And I've heard too many tell me licensing and permitting for indoor pyro is just paperwork with little scrutiny.

Gafftaper - it was harder before it was allowed as a tight, rather than having to prove it would be safe with many safeguards. The law was changed with much lobbying and money from the pyro industry. I was there, spoke and voted against the change, and lost. 10 years later 100+ people died because of the change. Ironic that the manufacture of the pyro per photos of the station was same manufacturer who was leading lobbying of code committee.

I wasn't going to reply but calling my analogies false and saying performer flying and outdoor concerts - well - its like you can't count dead bodies or they don't bother you.


----------



## MNicolai

@BillConnerASTC, do you mind if ask what your feelings are on pyro in spaces that have proper fire protection systems?


----------



## Les

BillConnerASTC said:


> Find things that can kill 100+ people as a result of one event.



Electrical fires. You need a licensed person to do electrical work, but does that always happen? It can be just as devastating as pyro and could affect anyone at any event.


BillConnerASTC said:


> And I've heard too many tell me licensing and permitting for indoor pyro is just paperwork with little scrutiny.



Tell that to my guys who perform numerous site visits, meet with AHJ's, draw up site plans, etc, etc. Many hours are spent in contact with officials and clients weeks before an event. Then during setup, even more measuring and calculating takes place, with the fire marshal present. Hearsay doesn't get you anywhere in court and it won't convince me either, as my professional pyrotechnic experience differs from what you have heard. I must point out again that no event cited in this thread followed any permitting procedure [even if rudimentary as you say] in the first place.


BillConnerASTC said:


> I was there, spoke and voted against the change, and lost. 10 years later 100+ people died because of the change.



Causation or correlation? Sounds more anecdotal to me because what happened at The Station was just as illegal then as it would have been before the law change. Saying A _caused_ B is quite a bold statement which I would expect to see backed up by some reputable source. It isn't as if the law passed and suddenly we had all these professionally-started club fires. I respect that you have an ax to grind, but so do I.


BillConnerASTC said:


> Ironic that the manufacture of the pyro per photos of the station was same manufacturer who was leading lobbying of code committee.



Not really that ironic since there not many popular US-based pyro manufacturers out there. Not that it matters since the incident wasn't by any fault of the product itself.


----------



## Dover

If anything is going to be banned it should probably be the use of foam insulation in places of assembly. The pyro did not directly injure anyone nor did it ignite something normally nonflammable. Spray foam is a known fire hazard, yes with out the pyro it would not have gotten ignited that particular night, but that does not make it safe. Any other ignition source could have the same effect, in the case of the Coconut Grove it was a busboy lighting a match for light.
What these fires come down to is a fire safety and egress problem, removing one ignition source will buy you time but only till the next spark comes along.


----------



## Les

Dover said:


> If anything is going to be banned it should probably be the use of foam insulation in places of assembly. The pyro did not directly injure anyone nor did it ignite something normally nonflammable. Spray foam is a known fire hazard, yes with out the pyro it would not have gotten ignited that particular night, but that does not make it safe. Any other ignition source could have the same effect, in the case of the Coconut Grove it was a busboy lighting a match for light.
> What these fires come down to is a fire safety and egress problem, removing one ignition source will buy you time but only till the next spark comes along.



Amen to that. Using The Station as an example, it was a deathtrap even without pyro. In actuality, a hot par can or shorted extension cord could've done the same job. That's the common denominator I'm seeing here. These places are dangerous to begin with, having so many contributing factors just waiting for one irresponsible choice to set in motion a perfect storm of events.


----------



## josh88

I'll add this. No pyro experience and no commentary on this fire. It seems impossible in rhode island to get away from the station fire in this business. It comes up at least once a month, most of the venues I've been around can't even use fog or haze because of it, thats how tight the local laws became. Fire suppression systems are more intense and the fire marshals aren't apt to let much slide. I can't speak for the entire state but I've got my small part of the state and Providence covered, even Trinity Rep has the same stuggles and they're the state theatre. I suppose its warranted but the pendulum swung hard after the fire.


----------



## JohnD

Update on the story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/02/us-romania-fire-idUSKCN0SR1SQ20151102


----------



## GreyWyvern

It appears Bill isn't going to change his mind, good or bad analogies aside. He is just stating his opinion, which is just that, an opinion. That means it isn't right or wrong and he shouldn't be attacked for stating. A healthy conversation, without too much arguing, is great though.

The fact is that pyro itself is dangerous. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. However, taking pyro indoors doesn't make it any more dangerous. A specific effect is the same indoors and outdoors. It doesn't know where it is. Like has been said by many already, the issue is who has the pyro. Someone like Les knows what can and can't be done. Billy Bob does not and likely doesn't even think about it. That is the issue.

I fired pyro indoors 2-3 times a day, 4-5 days a week for almost a year. Never had an issue. I was thoroughly trained and certified in all aspects; storage, handling, loading, firing, etc. Proper advances were done for each venue. In one case, it resulted in one effect being changed. The venue ceiling was barely high enough for the towers to be raised and because of beams, the trim height of the truss had to be quite a bit lower than the usual 40'. The result was getting gerbs with a shorter throw to avoid any risk of sparks hitting the truss and fixtures. Would it have been an issue? Probably not, but why risk it. That is where things are going wrong in these cases. Putting the problem of flammable materials aside, the wrong (size) effect is being used. Could pyro effects have been safely used in The Station and in this place in Romania? Quite possibly, yes. The pictures of this Romania incident make it clear that not only was the wrong size effect being used, but it was also poorly aimed. These are things that these guys aren't thinking about. They are just thinking about making an impression. The difference comes in being trained or not having a clue.

That being said, I am not trying to blame just the people who got and used the pyro (without proper training). As has been said, we as technicians, need to be vigilant about keeping an eye on our surroundings and watching for potential safety issues, be it pyro, cords being laid across an egress, flying things with people around, and the list goes on and on and on. The other staff of the event's location needs to be doing the same. We are all in this together.


----------



## mikeydoesstuff

After reading the update article (thanks for that JohnD) It sounds like the pyro itself was one of a pile of issues going on. It also sounds like this is having a strong impact on other clubs and hopefully the desire to push for safer spaces will continue in the long term. While obviously we all agree that there should never be an accident (especially of this magnitude) needed to push for change, change happening there is important and I can only hope it continues. As professionals I hope that we can all continue to spread the idea of "do it safely, get qualified help, or dont do it" that seems to be the driving force on this website for everyone's betterment. 

Speaking for myself, its improved me.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

MNicolai said:


> @BillConnerASTC, do you mind if ask what your feelings are on pyro in spaces that have proper fire protection systems?


It would make a difference for sure. More vigilance and inspection would help more, akin to commercial airline pilots including ongoing training, testing, and unscheduled inspections. I have considered reintroducing a change proposal for partial ban on indoor pyro in the Life Safety Code, that would require, no exceptions, certain building features, like fire sprinklers and maybe a fire safety curtain. I'd like first to keep the high school band director from even thinking they can do it without a lot of preparation, expertise, and frankly cost. It's wonderful how high cost is a deterrent. We also have to make sure that anytime they are used that there are specific individuals - ones who have a lot to loose - that will be held responsible for any injuries or deaths. Again, no exceptions, something like the owner of the building. Perhaps there should always be a fire watch (eg: off duty fireperson) from beginning to end of event. I'd like anyone contemplating indoor pyro to ask if indeed the risk is worth it if they are going to be held personally responsible. I'm sure some do but probably a bond should be required. (That goes along with cost is a deterrent.) Just tell then they loose their business, savings, house and car, credit, and anything of value and go to prison for a long time if anyone gets killed as a result of pyro in their building. If its so safe as so many here claim, this shouldn't be a problem. 

Someone mentioned indoor vs outdoor and it being the same. I think that is really silly. Out in a field and able to move any direction, nothing over head to burn and fall or trap the products of combustion; versus in a building with limited means of egress. Come on, not the same at all. Would a campfire inside be a different hazard than outside? Using tobacco products? Even cooking?


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

GreyWyvern said:


> It appears Bill isn't going to change his mind, good or bad analogies aside. He is just stating his opinion, which is just that, an opinion. That means it isn't right or wrong and he shouldn't be attacked for stating. A healthy conversation, without too much arguing, is great though.
> 
> The fact is that pyro itself is dangerous. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. However, taking pyro indoors doesn't make it any more dangerous. A specific effect is the same indoors and outdoors. It doesn't know where it is. Like has been said by many already, the issue is who has the pyro. Someone like Les knows what can and can't be done. Billy Bob does not and likely doesn't even think about it. That is the issue.
> 
> I fired pyro indoors 2-3 times a day, 4-5 days a week for almost a year. Never had an issue. I was thoroughly trained and certified in all aspects; storage, handling, loading, firing, etc. Proper advances were done for each venue. In one case, it resulted in one effect being changed. The venue ceiling was barely high enough for the towers to be raised and because of beams, the trim height of the truss had to be quite a bit lower than the usual 40'. The result was getting gerbs with a shorter throw to avoid any risk of sparks hitting the truss and fixtures. Would it have been an issue? Probably not, but why risk it. That is where things are going wrong in these cases. Putting the problem of flammable materials aside, the wrong (size) effect is being used. Could pyro effects have been safely used in The Station and in this place in Romania? Quite possibly, yes. The pictures of this Romania incident make it clear that not only was the wrong size effect being used, but it was also poorly aimed. These are things that these guys aren't thinking about. They are just thinking about making an impression. The difference comes in being trained or not having a clue.
> 
> That being said, I am not trying to blame just the people who got and used the pyro (without proper training). As has been said, we as technicians, need to be vigilant about keeping an eye on our surroundings and watching for potential safety issues, be it pyro, cords being laid across an egress, flying things with people around, and the list goes on and on and on. The other staff of the event's location needs to be doing the same. We are all in this together.



Thank you. I'll use this to report a comment from a recent code committee meeting (and forgive me i I'm repeating myself). IIRC, the researcher (and individual who is highly regarded world wide for his work on safety and human factors) summarized that each year in the US 6 of 100,000 people go to a hospital for injuries from (structure - not camp, etc.) fires; 60 of 100,000 people go to a hospital for injuries from falls in a shower (so add a rail in yours and the dressing room showers of you theatres soon); and 600 of 100,000 people go to a hospital for injuries from falls on stairs. I love research and the prospective it brings.


----------



## Les

BillConnerASTC said:


> It would make a difference for sure. More vigilance and inspection would help more, akin to commercial airline pilots including ongoing training, testing, and unscheduled inspections. I have considered reintroducing a change proposal for partial ban on indoor pyro in the Life Safety Code, that would require, no exceptions, certain building features, like fire sprinklers and maybe a fire safety curtain. I'd like first to keep the high school band director from even thinking they can do it without a lot of preparation, expertise, and frankly cost. It's wonderful how high cost is a deterrent. We also have to make sure that anytime they are used that there are specific individuals - ones who have a lot to loose - that will be held responsible for any injuries or deaths. Again, no exceptions, something like the owner of the building. Perhaps there should always be a fire watch (eg: off duty fireperson) from beginning to end of event. I'd like anyone contemplating indoor pyro to ask if indeed the risk is worth it if they are going to be held personally responsible. I'm sure some do but probably a bond should be required. (That goes along with cost is a deterrent.) Just tell then they loose their business, savings, house and car, credit, and anything of value and go to prison for a long time if anyone gets killed as a result of pyro in their building. If its so safe as so many here claim, this shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Someone mentioned indoor vs outdoor and it being the same. I think that is really silly. Out in a field and able to move any direction, nothing over head to burn and fall or trap the products of combustion; versus in a building with limited means of egress. Come on, not the same at all. Would a campfire inside be a different hazard than outside? Using tobacco products? Even cooking?




Most of this already exists in my jurisdiction. If it isn't widespread, it should be. There are, of course, some things that aren't practical for every venue (ex: fire curtain in a ballroom). But fire sprinklers have been present in every building I've worked in and putting the system in to Test while having a fire watch from the FD is standard operating procedure. Cost is indeed an excellent deterrent, which is coincidentally why we don't get many calls from schools, community theatres, or basement bars. Most of our business is high-end corporate. Unfortunately, I believe the high cost and sheer amount of red tape is also what drives people to do it themselves.

As for personal responsibility, if something went wrong and it was due to my negligence, I could easily be in a lot of legal trouble (and my boss and probably even the AHJ on site since they sign off on everything). We also carry multi-million dollar insurance policies.


----------



## JohnD

Interesting development:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8e09...ian-prime-minister-resigns-following-protests


----------



## JD

Les said:


> Amen to that. Using The Station as an example, it was a deathtrap even without pyro. In actuality, a hot par can or shorted extension cord could've done the same job. That's the common denominator I'm seeing here. These places are dangerous to begin with, having so many contributing factors just waiting for one irresponsible choice to set in motion a perfect storm of events.



Look at the first picture in post #4. One bright spot on the support that is covered in soundproofing. Yes, the pyro caused this fire, but that could have just as easily been a different scenario. (Ex- a cigarette lighter) The bigger fault is building codes that allow a public place to be a tinderbox waiting for a source of ignition (or lack of following such codes.) Any reasonable fireproofing should have prevented the covering on that support from going up like a Roman candle. And, how many times do we have to learn about the dangers of a flammable ceiling? One would have thought we would have learned that a century ago with the Coconut Grove nightclub fire. Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I do believe there needs to be heavy regulation of any use of pyro. I just believe the stage should not be set beforehand by the construction and decor. And as much as I hate to say this, vigorous ongoing inspection by local jurisdiction! I think the regulations (for the most part, in the US) are already on the books, so how do these places exist for years as potential death-traps without getting inspected of flagged?


----------



## MNicolai

JD said:


> so how do these places exist for years as potential death-traps without getting inspected of flagged?



In the US,

Buildings get adapted into assembly spaces by owners under the the radar of AHJ.
AHJ is unfamiliar with the specific requirements for theaters/clubs. (more common in rural/suburban areas than in urban)
AHJ is friendly with the building owner and lets some violations slide or neglects to thoroughly inspect in the first place.
Grandfather clauses (revisions after The Station resolved some of this as an issue)
By and large though, after The Station, these mass casualties are happening outside of the United States. Within the US, the common accidents seem to be more of stage/pit/truss collapse incidents as opposed to fires within assembly spaces.

In an assembly within the US, you're more likely to have a mass casualty from an active shooter than from a fire. If only we took gun violence as seriously as we take fire protection.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

One of the significant contributing factors in the stations was multiple points of ignition. There were three fires started simultaneously. Par cans and cigarettes don't do that. The only thing at the station which could be removed and be sure there was no tragedy was the pyro. Another door, less overcrowding, no foam - non of those elements with as much certainty would have prevented the loss of life completely like no pyro would have. Sure, had it been a NBA arena, the same pyro would not have been a problem.


----------



## Les

BillConnerASTC said:


> One of the significant contributing factors in the stations was multiple points of ignition. There were three fires started simultaneously. Par cans and cigarettes don't do that. The only thing at the station which could be removed and be sure there was no tragedy was the pyro. Another door, less overcrowding, no foam - non of those elements with as much certainty would have prevented the loss of life completely like no pyro would have. Sure, had it been a NBA arena, the same pyro would not have been a problem.



Of course, remove the [idiot] band manager and there wouldn't have been any pyro . 

Not to argue your point, but I'm reminded of the Iroquois theatre fire, where (supposedly) one shorted lighting fixture caused a similar cascade of events.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

MNicolai said:


> In the US,
> 
> Buildings get adapted into assembly spaces by owners under the the radar of AHJ.
> AHJ is unfamiliar with the specific requirements for theaters/clubs. (more common in rural/suburban areas than in urban)
> AHJ is friendly with the building owner and lets some violations slide or neglects to thoroughly inspect in the first place.
> Grandfather clauses (revisions after The Station resolved some of this as an issue)
> By and large though, after The Station, these mass casualties are happening outside of the United States. Within the US, the common accidents seem to be more of stage/pit/truss collapse incidents as opposed to fires within assembly spaces.
> 
> In an assembly within the US, you're more likely to have a mass casualty from an active shooter than from a fire. If only we took gun violence as seriously as we take fire protection.



Cumulatively, I think you'd find falls of all sorts are the cause of the most injuries and deaths - or from a big picture - the largest cost to society, usually calculated by lawyers by the dollar value of lost productivity.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Les said:


> Of course, remove the [idiot] band manager and there wouldn't have been any pyro .
> 
> Not to argue your point, but I'm reminded of the Iroquois theatre fire, where (supposedly) one shorted lighting fixture caused a similar cascade of events.



I'm glad you pointed out the Iroquois. It is at the heart of my opposition to allowing indoor pyro. Before the electric light bulb, when the lighting on stages was flame and arc - the arc lighting being the ignition for the Iroquois fire, not an electrical short - the average life of a theatre before burning down was about five years. Since the light bulb, theatre fires have all but disappeared. That is until we introduced a source of ignition similar to a sputtering arc light - pyro - on the stage.


----------



## gafftaper

My hope here was to encourage some discussion about both points of view on indoor pyrotechnics. I think we did that. Bill and Les aren't going to change each other's mind, but I hope you all have learned something, I know I did. Modern, legal, licensed, pyro here in America has been about as safe as you can imagine it could be, so I'm not inclined to want to see it shut down. On the other hand I see validity in Bill's basic point: Theaters are dangerous places. Why should we allow the addition of any risk, no matter how well regulated, to the theater when it can easily be avoided?

In the end I'm sure Les and Bill would join me in agreeing that the most important message of this thread is NEVER use pyro without the supervision of a professional who follows all legal regulations. We've seen over and over that illegal pyro in hands of amateurs is a deadly combination. 

This debate has run it's course and is starting to get personal again so I'm cutting it off. I've removed and edited a few posts as they were getting a little rude.* I would like to leave this thread open so that the discussion on the fire in Romania can continue, but I will close it if we can't play nice. **The debate is over and I return you to the news from Romania.  *I will edit or remove any posts that continue the debate. If you have questions for @BillConnerASTC or @Les please start a private conversation with them. If you want to argue with them, please don't. We take a dim view of troll behavior around here and you will quickly find yourself, staring at mod with a fully loaded automatic ban hammer.


----------



## JohnD

The Wikipedia article has a few more details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectiv_nightclub_fire


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

JohnD said:


> The Wikipedia article has a few more details.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectiv_nightclub_fire


Interesting entry but too bad it blamed the victims as do often is done in tragedies of this sort. They didn't use the often misused "panic", bout instead said " stampede " which by its link suggests "A *stampede* is uncontrolled concerted running as an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running, often in an attempt to escape a perceived threat." Perceived threat? The fact is these people, like at the station and many other large loss of life fires, wanted to get out and away from the hazard. Beware of anyone who blames the victims by claiming panic, implying irrational and antisocial behavior. It just ain't so. People try to get out and almost always act altruistically in these situations (unlike portrayed in fictional movies). Forensic work has shown this time after time.

Nature is sometimes to blame, like tornadoes and earthquakes, but most often someone's poor choices or miscalculations or negligence, too often with greed mixed in, are often to blame.


----------



## JohnD

Death toll now at 38, former mayor arrested.
http://news.yahoo.com/death-toll-romania-fire-reaches-38-former-mayor-143727983.html


----------



## mikeydoesstuff

JohnD said:


> Death toll now at 38, former mayor arrested.
> http://news.yahoo.com/death-toll-romania-fire-reaches-38-former-mayor-143727983.html


 Article updated to 41.


----------

