Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 137

Thread: Grenfell Tower fire

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    No, it turns out Hammond doesn't know the regulations yet.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    I guess that that actually means that the cladding did not have an Agrement Board certificate.
    The cladding is banned in the whole EU, at least for these applications.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Surely someone should be removing it from the other 30,000 buildings it's currently attached to.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Banned in the whole EU? Bloody meddling Brussels bureauocrats and their petty regu..

    ..oh, hang on. This just in.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    And I suppose if Brussels had introduced a wheel, we'd never have had it without them?

    Reynoband PE is banned for buildings over 18m (60ft), Reynoband FR is not. The planning application only said 'Reynoband' and the council assumed they meant the legal kind.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    The wheel is not a regulation. Your analogy is worthless.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    The planning application?

    Now I admit to being confused. The Council own the buildings. They submit an ambiguous planning application and therefore are not to blame in reading it to mean the safe stuff having just written it?

    I know in reality its two very different teams, and drafting of the application may even have been outsourced, but corporately an ambiguous planning application does not, in this instance, matter one iota.
    Last edited by Beermat; 19th June 2017 at 06:19.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,060
    "The wheel is not a regulation"

    It is if you're in a taxi or on an aeroplane or, even a bike.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    Quote from the London standard link..... funny that, it is what I have been saying all along!

    However John Cowley, managing director of CEP Architectural Facades, which fabricated the rainscreen panels and windows for Grenfell Tower's cladding sub-contractor Harley Facades Ltd, refuted Mr Hammond's claims.

    He said: "Reynobond PE is not banned in the UK. Current building regulations allow its use in both low-rise and high-rise structures.

    "The key question now is whether the overall design of the building's complete exterior was properly tested and subsequently signed off by the relevant authorities including the fire officer, building compliance officer and architect before commencement of the project."
    post in the comments section... which sort of puts Corbyn's bleating on about the Governments role in context.

    boy wonder
    1. The block of flats was run not by the Council but by KCTMO. This body is made up of 8 Tenants, 4 Councillors and 3 Independent Members.

    2 Labour hold the seat that the block is situated in.

    3 Labour run the London Council who manage the underfunded London Fire Service.

    4 Emma Coad the sitting Labour MP for that ward also sat on the KCTMO.

    5 The advice to stay put which Sadiq Khan has been so vocal about was given by the London Fire Service.

    6 The decision to change contractors during the refurb was made by KCTMO.

    7 The decision not to spend an additional £138k on fitting sprinklers was again KCTMO.

    8 The decision to create ALMO organisation such as the KCTMO was made under the Right To Manage legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act.

    9 This was put in place to give leaseholders and tenants a greater say and the ability to self-manage, which in some circumstances has clearly proven to be flawed.

    10 Which Govt was in a charge when this law was passed? It was Labour.

    11 Sadiq Khan as mayor of London Produced a report to say that the fire service did not need further funding.

    12 Emma Coad elected Labour MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.


    -not my work above-
    Last edited by TonyT; 19th June 2017 at 09:14.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The wheel is not a regulation. Your analogy is worthless.
    Have you considered that maybe Reynobond PE was around before EU?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    You think Hammond would have walked into that interview 100% knowing his facts, the fact it appears the stuff is legal and he does not know that, and indeed is spouting the opposite just makes him look like a *******!

    Seriously, it is a damning insight into a Government of all parties that are both so badly informed and factually incorrect... That should never happen, and certainly not in front of the worlds press. Who the hell is advising these muppets?
    Teresa May being a classic example of listening to people during an election who will simply be sucking up to you as their huge wage depends on it.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The planning application?

    Now I admit to being confused. The Council own the buildings. They submit an ambiguous planning application and therefore are not to blame in reading it to mean the safe stuff having just written it?

    I know in reality its two very different teams, and drafting of the application may even have been outsourced, but corporately an ambiguous planning application does not, in this instance, matter one iota.
    They would naturally assume it means legally compliant stuff, why wouldn't they. There is no excuse for a contractor not complying with legislation. I know this due to my profession.

    Reynobond PE is not banned in the UK.
    Which is correct, but only as far as buildings under 18m.

    You think Hammond would have walked into that interview 100% knowing his facts, the fact it appears the stuff is legal and he does not know that, and indeed is spouting the opposite just makes him look like a *******!

    Seriously, it is a damning insight into a Government of all parties that are both so badly informed and factually incorrect... That should never happen, and certainly not in front of the worlds press. Who the hell is advising these muppets?
    Teresa May being a classic example of listening to people during an election who will simply be sucking up to you as their huge wage depends on it.
    Have you ever considered that he might be right?
    Last edited by Ryan; 19th June 2017 at 10:21.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    Well if you watched the report last night they were saying it is legal and it has spurred other councils to check, I think it was Barnet that had identified 3 towers with the same stuff on, they named the blocks... good on them for being so diligent, I can see a lot of remedial work happening across the country. They also said the fire brigade had actually put out the fridge fire on the fourth floor but of course it had by then spread upward.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Tattershall Lincs
    Posts
    1,785
    Sorry, I don't believe that figure, nor do I believe the £200,000 figure I've heard to fit a sprinkler system to Grenfell Tower; I think these figures are just being plucked out of the air (or at least out of context) to fuel the general level of media, political and public (in that order) 'outrage'!

    So what do you think the figure would be to fit a sprinkler system in that building? CD

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    http://www.bdonline.co.uk/grenfell-t...088261.article

    12.5. The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety. The use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings.
    External walls should either meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in the BRE Report Fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings (BR 135) for cladding systems using full scale test data from BS 8414-1:2002 or BS 8414-2:2005.

    12.7 In a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A). This restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with Diagram 34 in Section 9.

    Both Grenfell (and previously Lakanal House) were greater than 18m high. I would suggest “insulation product” would cover cladding panels also and again I very much doubt a product with a Polyethylene core can be considered to be limited combustibility (as per Table A7) nor would meet the recommendations of BR 135 and BS 8414-1:2002 or BS 8414-2:2005.

    "in buildings taller than 18m and insulation product should be of limited combustibility"
    And I don't think anyone watching that fire would agree that what was used had limited combustibility.

    Reynobond PE is Class 0.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-on-grenfell

    Now see page 4. Class 0 is not limited combustibility.
    http://www.rockwool.co.uk/globalasse...16-for-web.pdf
    Last edited by Ryan; 20th June 2017 at 16:50.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    I think Harley Facades is done commercially whether they manage to weasel out of a corporate manslaughter charge on a technicality or not. It's clear the decision to use Pe and not FR was not in the interests of safety or engineering integrity.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Okay these are interesting. Basically they decided the Reynobond PE was legal based on BS476:Parts 6 and 7 but that is the standard for internal walls and ceilings not external cladding. BS 8414:Part 1 is the correct standard for external cladding.

    https://www.impact-solutions.co.uk/p...s-it-all-mean/
    https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloa..._buildings.pdf

    And as pointed out above, Class 0 is not limited combustibility.
    Last edited by Ryan; 20th June 2017 at 19:41.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    Groan... Your at it again Ryan, re read post 99 it's not the people that fit it as such but those that specify it and sign it off.

    I see some political fall out is coming out since.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...se-death-toll/

    The good news is a missing family has been found alive.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,074
    Not really political fall-out, as this is not the claim of the labour party. A non-story, in fact. Someone has a conspiracy theory. The Telegraph are at pains to repeatedly insert the word 'Corbyn' into the piece, attempting to associate the Labour leader with a claim by some members of the public that might even have some basis but probably doesn't. Not so much fake news as non-news.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    TonyT - You obviously have no idea about how engineering liability works. The prime contractor is always responsible if they breach the law, irrespective of who approves it.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    But they might not have breached it and you keep saying they have.... what absolute 100% proof do you have??? i'll tell you what, none, just hearsay.

    It seems the tenants were offered a choice and chose the fire retardant stuff, the council over ruled it.

    http://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-t...s-ago-10921701

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    TonyT - read my two links above. ASTM 84 is the US equivalent of BS476, but that is only applicable to interior walls and ceilings, not exterior cladding, which is what BS8414 applies to. I've posted several links to official legislation on the matter as well.

    It seems the tenants were offered a choice and chose the fire retardant stuff, the council over ruled it.
    That's not what it says at all. Stop making up your own headlines. The work was put out to tender, as all work must be and the contractor chose a substance which is not of limited combustibility. There is I believe an option of doing a secondary desktop study to show it's safe, but that study must be accurate, which clearly, it wasn't in this case.

    I'm positive this contractor's days in business are numbered one way or the other.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    It seems the tenants were offered a choice and chose the fire retardant stuff, the council over ruled it.
    That's not what it says at all. Stop making up your own headlines. The work was put out to tender, as all work must be and the contractor chose a substance which is not of limited combustibility. There is I believe an option of doing a secondary desktop study to show it's safe, but that study must be accurate, which clearly, it wasn't in this case.
    Are you reading the same article??????


    Residents of Grenfell Tower were promised that fire-resistant cladding would be fitted to their building in 2012, before plans were changed and a cheaper, flammable covering was fitted.
    Documents submitted to Kensington and Chelsea Council's planning department show residents were consulted in 2012 over the renovations and were asked what cladding they wanted.

    They show they chose a fire-resistant product called VMZ Composite which was said to have "many benefits".

    A newsletter handed to tenants and submitted with the planning application stated: "Various cladding options have been shown to residents with the composite cladding system being favoured by the majority."

    The document clearly stated the cladding had "fire retardancy".

    Two years later, a cheaper scheme was agreed and new proposals were approved by council planners.
    Last edited by TonyT; 21st June 2017 at 13:56.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The council did not overrule it though. The article does not say that. And the actual scheme itself was Completed but not Approved and 'Reynobond' only was specified, not the actual type.

    Furthermore, a little research would show you that VMZ Composite also has a PE core same as Reynobond PE.

    http://www.vmzinc.co.uk/our-solution...composite.html

    Fire retardancy and limited combustibility are not the same thing. Reynobond PE has fire retardancy.

    This is a job that involves reading standards and tables, not headlines and tabloids.
    Last edited by Ryan; 21st June 2017 at 15:52.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    You get the feeling that is all you do all day, read charts and statistics without any practical experience.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    This matter is about standards and the various tables and points within those standards. Practical experience inherently involves the aforementioned.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122
    I think UK Gov PLC's biggest failing was in the follow up, there was none, it the past you would have the Military.. Sally Anne... Red Cross / St Johns there organising and coordinating the relief effort, also being very visible in doing it.... this just seems like it was left up to those involved with a lot of volunteers that turfed up... It doesn't put anyone in good light and makes those caught up in it all almost feel like no one cares for them, except to get their faces on TV at the scene, I can understand their anger.
    I often think something as simple as a military field kitchen on the ground feeding those involved would do a power of good.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,122

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES