Tower Block Fire

john80

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

This section of the building regs covers fire safety for buildings such as Grenfell. Section 12 is quite illuminating. I doubt any of those with a duty to check this stuff actually checked the products used were likely to meet the first sentence in the section.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832633/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_2_-_2019_edition.pdf

You should read up on the evidence given at the inquiry. It is rather more complicated than someone not reading the AD.

It is only complicated because there are a load of people with questionable skills making decisions on which they have no fundamental understanding of. Installing PVC windows and then flammable cladding insulation between the next flat up was a pretty serious breach of common sense if we are being honest. There was a reason the buildings fire compartments worked before a load of monkeys started messing with external cladding. Still it was a couple of quid a metre squared cheaper and might have saved then some cash on their heating bills had they lived through the experience.

rjsterry

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

This section of the building regs covers fire safety for buildings such as Grenfell. Section 12 is quite illuminating. I doubt any of those with a duty to check this stuff actually checked the products used were likely to meet the first sentence in the section.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832633/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_2_-_2019_edition.pdf

You should read up on the evidence given at the inquiry. It is rather more complicated than someone not reading the AD.

It is only complicated because there are a load of people with questionable skills making decisions on which they have no fundamental understanding of. Installing PVC windows and then flammable cladding insulation between the next flat up was a pretty serious breach of common sense if we are being honest. There was a reason the buildings fire compartments worked before a load of monkeys started messing with external cladding. Still it was a couple of quid a metre squared cheaper and might have saved then some cash on their heating bills had they lived through the experience.

I really think you should read up on the details. A lack of understanding of the issues really wasn't the problem. I'm oversimplifying but broadly the manufacturers (the cladding was a composite product so there are more than one) knew their product was unsuitable but concealed this from designers and regulatory authorities. They also exploited the looseness of the UK Building Control system. Another contributory factor was the elongated chain of responsibility with numerous contracts and sub contracts meaning that everyone thought someone else had responsibility for 'that element'. The problem was not that someone 'didn't realise' that cladding a tower in flammable material was a bad idea.

Pross

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

This section of the building regs covers fire safety for buildings such as Grenfell. Section 12 is quite illuminating. I doubt any of those with a duty to check this stuff actually checked the products used were likely to meet the first sentence in the section.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832633/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_2_-_2019_edition.pdf

You should read up on the evidence given at the inquiry. It is rather more complicated than someone not reading the AD.

It is only complicated because there are a load of people with questionable skills making decisions on which they have no fundamental understanding of. Installing PVC windows and then flammable cladding insulation between the next flat up was a pretty serious breach of common sense if we are being honest. There was a reason the buildings fire compartments worked before a load of monkeys started messing with external cladding. Still it was a couple of quid a metre squared cheaper and might have saved then some cash on their heating bills had they lived through the experience.

I really think you should read up on the details. A lack of understanding of the issues really wasn't the problem. I'm oversimplifying but broadly the manufacturers (the cladding was a composite product so there are more than one) knew their product was unsuitable but concealed this from designers and regulatory authorities. They also exploited the looseness of the UK Building Control system. Another contributory factor was the elongated chain of responsibility with numerous contracts and sub contracts meaning that everyone thought someone else had responsibility for 'that element'. The problem was not that someone 'didn't realise' that cladding a tower in flammable material was a bad idea.

Thank you for the concise explanation.

I feel that in USA the manufacturers would have been sued and been on the hook (E.g. BP with Deepwater Horizon) why is that not happening here?

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

He has reserved a special place in hell for people recruiting teachers of architecture

john80

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

This section of the building regs covers fire safety for buildings such as Grenfell. Section 12 is quite illuminating. I doubt any of those with a duty to check this stuff actually checked the products used were likely to meet the first sentence in the section.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832633/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_2_-_2019_edition.pdf

You should read up on the evidence given at the inquiry. It is rather more complicated than someone not reading the AD.

It is only complicated because there are a load of people with questionable skills making decisions on which they have no fundamental understanding of. Installing PVC windows and then flammable cladding insulation between the next flat up was a pretty serious breach of common sense if we are being honest. There was a reason the buildings fire compartments worked before a load of monkeys started messing with external cladding. Still it was a couple of quid a metre squared cheaper and might have saved then some cash on their heating bills had they lived through the experience.

I really think you should read up on the details. A lack of understanding of the issues really wasn't the problem. I'm oversimplifying but broadly the manufacturers (the cladding was a composite product so there are more than one) knew their product was unsuitable but concealed this from designers and regulatory authorities. They also exploited the looseness of the UK Building Control system. Another contributory factor was the elongated chain of responsibility with numerous contracts and sub contracts meaning that everyone thought someone else had responsibility for 'that element'. The problem was not that someone 'didn't realise' that cladding a tower in flammable material was a bad idea.

Thank you for the concise explanation.

I feel that in USA the manufacturers would have been sued and been on the hook (E.g. BP with Deepwater Horizon) why is that not happening here?

I think partly it is waiting for the inquiry to conclude. Also the people who might bring a civil claim are not exactly people of means. It is an incredibly complex case because of the number of different parties involved and will take years for it all to play out, but I don't think the responsible parties are in the clear.

Pross

john80 said:

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

The material was not supposed to be flammable, what part of that are you having trouble understanding?

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

This section of the building regs covers fire safety for buildings such as Grenfell. Section 12 is quite illuminating. I doubt any of those with a duty to check this stuff actually checked the products used were likely to meet the first sentence in the section.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832633/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_2_-_2019_edition.pdf

You should read up on the evidence given at the inquiry. It is rather more complicated than someone not reading the AD.

It is only complicated because there are a load of people with questionable skills making decisions on which they have no fundamental understanding of. Installing PVC windows and then flammable cladding insulation between the next flat up was a pretty serious breach of common sense if we are being honest. There was a reason the buildings fire compartments worked before a load of monkeys started messing with external cladding. Still it was a couple of quid a metre squared cheaper and might have saved then some cash on their heating bills had they lived through the experience.

I really think you should read up on the details. A lack of understanding of the issues really wasn't the problem. I'm oversimplifying but broadly the manufacturers (the cladding was a composite product so there are more than one) knew their product was unsuitable but concealed this from designers and regulatory authorities. They also exploited the looseness of the UK Building Control system. Another contributory factor was the elongated chain of responsibility with numerous contracts and sub contracts meaning that everyone thought someone else had responsibility for 'that element'. The problem was not that someone 'didn't realise' that cladding a tower in flammable material was a bad idea.

Thank you for the concise explanation.

I feel that in USA the manufacturers would have been sued and been on the hook (E.g. BP with Deepwater Horizon) why is that not happening here?

Lawyers in the States would be fighting to start a class action.

john80

Pross said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

The material was not supposed to be flammable, what part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Would you be happy if I clad a nuclear reactor based on a single weak test cert from a supplier. A quick google search for the fundamental properties of the foam would make you double check this. They could not even get the details for a cavity barrier right FFS. It was properly amateur on every level. I suppose the great thing is the number of people that made a good living whilst adding arguably little value. Maybe their CDM risk assessment was banging apart from the obvious risks involved in defeating the fire compartmentalisation of a building. It would appear we have heaped more criticism on fire fighters that did not throw their rule book in the bin on arrival because they should magically have know that the building was a death trap. It would be funny were it not so serious.

rjsterry

john80 said:

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

Like I said: read up on it. Then you wouldn't keep making yourself look silly. You still seem to be labouring under the idea that this whole disaster was down to one or two people not understanding how materials work. That's not what happened. They all knew what they were doing. That's the real horror of the whole thing.

By the way engineering is hardly immune from cutting corners and looking the other way when people raise issues. Least of all in your particular corner of the industry.

Pross

Windscale must be fake news.

john80

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

Like I said: read up on it. Then you wouldn't keep making yourself look silly. Engineering is hardly immune from cutting corners and looking the other way when people raise issues. Least of all in your particular corner of the industry.

These guys kind of blow your argument that due diligence was followed.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/grenfell-fatal-list-of-construction-failures-revealed-05-06-2018/

Have a read of it and come back to me with how no-one could possibly know the risks. You and pross should get yourselves in as expert witnesses.

rjsterry

It's a pattern common to most areas of human endeavour: Some people work out that we're doing something dangerous and it's just a matter of time before people are killed. They are shouted down and told they are exaggerating; after all there hasn't been an accident yet. And then the inevitable happens and everyone throws their hands up asking how could this have happened. Rules are brought in and accidents stop. Then people start complaining that the burden of regulation is too high and look we haven't had any accidents for years. And repeat.

Pross

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

Like I said: read up on it. Then you wouldn't keep making yourself look silly. Engineering is hardly immune from cutting corners and looking the other way when people raise issues. Least of all in your particular corner of the industry.

These guys kind of blow your argument that due diligence was followed.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/grenfell-fatal-list-of-construction-failures-revealed-05-06-2018/

Have a read of it and come back to me with how no-one could possibly know the risks. You and pross should get yourselves in as expert witnesses.

What I said was:

"I'm not convinced an architect or anyone else specifying can do much more than check that a product is certified to the correct standards so as long as the are specifying a product that complies with codes / standards I don't think they are liable. Of course, if they are specifying the wrong product that's different although you would hope it would get picked up by building control."

You were suggesting that those specifying materials are negligent even if the use materials that have been tested and certified for the intended use.

You seem to have moved the goalposts now as what I'm seeing in the NCE report is suggestions that the wrong materials were specified and / or installed and weren't fit for purpose. I'd already said there should be prosecutions in those circumstances

rjsterry

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

Like I said: read up on it. Then you wouldn't keep making yourself look silly. Engineering is hardly immune from cutting corners and looking the other way when people raise issues. Least of all in your particular corner of the industry.

These guys kind of blow your argument that due diligence was followed.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/grenfell-fatal-list-of-construction-failures-revealed-05-06-2018/

Have a read of it and come back to me with how no-one could possibly know the risks. You and pross should get yourselves in as expert witnesses.

You are barking up the wrong tree. If you have followed the inquiry hearings, you'd have seen that it is reasonably obvious that it was not a case of not knowing the risks, but of wilfully ignoring them because the chain of responsibility was so convoluted that each party could convince themselves that it wasn't on them. A very similar fire in a tower happened a couple of years before Grenfell demonstrating exactly the same spread of fire through a cladding system, so the risk was known and understood. The problems are far wider than a few people on one project.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

We can add architecture to the list of jobs John80 thinks are easy and that he can do better than those with years of training and experience.

Good try but no. If seven years can't teach you not to put flammable cladding on a building the maybe architects should not be involved in larger projects doing much more than the aesthetics even if this does hurt their feelings. It is more the attitude that the supplier has given me a cert so I have to believe it and not engage my brain. If the construction industry does not know how to do these types of projects and fails systematically you have to start questioning the model and the competence.

Maybe I am being harsh because I design bespoke equipment and therefore for every job we have to put the right people on the right tasks and consider whether they are competent to do it. We then get another person to check their work who is also deemed competent. Just seems like a very half assed way of working for an industry where people are not on pennies.

Like I said: read up on it. Then you wouldn't keep making yourself look silly. Engineering is hardly immune from cutting corners and looking the other way when people raise issues. Least of all in your particular corner of the industry.

These guys kind of blow your argument that due diligence was followed.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/grenfell-fatal-list-of-construction-failures-revealed-05-06-2018/

Have a read of it and come back to me with how no-one could possibly know the risks. You and pross should get yourselves in as expert witnesses.

You are barking up the wrong tree. If you have followed the inquiry hearings, you'd have seen that it is reasonably obvious that it was not a case of not knowing the risks, but of wilfully ignoring them because the chain of responsibility was so convoluted that each party could convince themselves that it wasn't on them. A very similar fire in a tower happened a couple of years before Grenfell demonstrating exactly the same spread of fire through a cladding system, so the risk was known and understood. The problems are far wider than a few people on one project.

This is the really scary part of the sad saga which will run for decades.