MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
slowster is right - this is a multi-faceted event and the full jigsaw of lack of containment, spread, and finally emergency egress is yet to be established.
But in a 'Defend in Place' type of building, the fabric and layout needs to protect residents. Materials that add to the fire-load of the building in common parts, apartments and cladding seems counter to this principle. This is especially important in refurb where the layout cannot be altered. Eg additional smoke lobbies to the core etc. So yes, PIR is worse than mineral fibre, but this is only part of the issue here I suspect.
We won't know the full picture for a while, but I support a review of both part B and increased inspection at both installation and during a building's operation.
Truly devastating and thoughts to all affected and the emergency services for their incredible efforts.
Emotive words maybe, but the fire isn't necessarily the "criminal" act but has brought the focus on to it.
The bit that is, is again the fact that there are known fire issues with some types of cladding, the industry has been saying so for many years and the coroner recommended a review after the fire at Lakanal Hse in 2009. And it hasn't been done.
If a mechanic told you your steering was faulty and needed fixing, and you didn't, continued driving, it failed and you hit someone......
I know "experts" are out of vogue but The Fire Protection Association have issued a statement related to the event:
Essentially they are saying that the material likely used can't propagate a fire unless it has frequent penetrations. Which it most likely will do for vents etc. They're saying it's been a big area of concern for them but has not been addressed adequately in the regs.
What I don't get is the cladding would burn very quickly as it doesn't have huge mass like wood. This would account for the fire moving so quickly. But how did the fire then actually get inside the building. If it is a concrete building with cladding on the outside, how come the inside burnt so badly, concrete doesn't burn. As the insulation is a plastic I would also expect it to burn at quite a low temperature on the outside of the building.
Also this isn't to do with austerity or government cuts. They just spent £8m on the building. Bad decisions on how to spend the money, maybe, lack of updated fire regulations and controls, maybe. But not austerity, that's just jumping on the political band wagon.
Flashover would occur inside an apartment if the temperatures were sufficiently hot due to the cladding/window fire. All materials have a flashover point and furnishings etc would have reached this.
They just spent £8m on the building. Bad decisions on how to spend the money, maybe, lack of updated fire regulations and controls, maybe. But not austerity, that's just jumping on the political band wagon.
depends whether £8m is a lot or a little, was the local council inspecting properly, were the contractors on the cheap?
its a question at the moment , nothing more, there are lots of questions and people are genuinely angry
who knows if austerity was a factor?
What I don't get is the cladding would burn very quickly as it doesn't have huge mass like wood. This would account for the fire moving so quickly. But how did the fire then actually get inside the building. If it is a concrete building with cladding on the outside, how come the inside burnt so badly, concrete doesn't burn. As the insulation is a plastic I would also expect it to burn at quite a low temperature on the outside of the building.
Concrete doesn't burn but open windows , curtains, window frames, wall penetration (e.g. for bathroom / kitchen vents) provide a means to get the fire inside. The problem is you can set up a "chimney effect" between the layers on the outside so the combustible buts can burn very vigorously.
@slowster. Thanks for the informative posts pushing back on some of knee jerk stuff (understandable though). Some don't really appreciate how sofisicated fire protection equipment and systems can be in this type of building post a refurb. The full investigation will be where the facts and failings will come out. Like the Kings Cross tube fire of the 90's I suspect there will be a convergence of factors.
Anyway this is all so sad.
The eventual investigation may flag up aspects where austerity could have had an influence, but I agree it's not wise to rush to judgement.
I wonder if there's a possibility that Brexit and the resulting shitshow could have pushed this safety review out of the administrative queue, but even if it was the case I'm sure it'd never be acknowledged.
Is this the new asbestos scandal waiting to break and who is now removing this material from their home which is now widespread in its use and method of fixing?
In high rise, possibly. In standard homes? No. Your average plaster or plasterboard linings will give you at least 30 minutes protection before the insulation starts to go up, which will be adequate to get out of the building. Therefore, I don't see any point in removing it.
It may be that all future projects may move towards using Rockwool, but it is more difficult to achieve the necessary u-values without very thick insulation.
I should think Kingspan and Celotex etc will continue to be used in standard domestic, one and two storey builds. Above that, a rethink may be required.
@slowster. Thanks for the informative posts pushing back on some of knee jerk stuff (understandable though). Some don't really appreciate how sofisicated fire protection equipment and systems can be in this type of building post a refurb
Slowster's posts are informative and he clearly knows his stuff. I think for many the issue is that high rise buildings can be really good in terms of fire protection with each flat designed to contain the fire and stop the spread, sprinkler systems etc. What seems to have happened here is that they addressed the insulation with the cladding which ultimately made the building more thermo-efficient and look smarter, but the actual layout of the building wasn't changed, still a single staircase etc, where they not just "tarting up" an old building of antiquated design? Learnt a lot though from reading many of the posts.
It just amazes me that the fire service managed to get right to the top of that building under those circumstances, i had a fortnight covering some of the lesser jobs they do in a Green Goddess in the army and have every respect for them, it takes a certain type of man or woman to enter into a building like that and place their safety on the line. I remember being sat in the back of a Land Rover in Libya ferrying oil people about when 9/11 happened and finding it so surreal and past comprehension, made more surreal by my surroundings and watching it on a laptop where the signal kept dropping.
perchypanther - Member
The 5 royston ones are all clad. You'd hope somebody is out testing and assessing..
In mineral fibre insulation which is entirely non-combustible...I have full drawings, specifications, BRE testing certificates and reports from the fire brigades safety inspector for those 5 blocks and about 70 others in Glasgow if you'd like a look at them.Edit: There has also been three fires (that I know about) in those 5 blocks since they were overclad. The cladding system performed as predicted.
cool, good to hear, was generally meaning that as I hope someone is starting a proper investigation into all these towers btw, not just those.
Essentially they are saying that the material likely used can't propagate a fire unless it has frequent penetrations. Which it most likely will do for vents etc. They're saying it's been a big area of concern for them but has not been addressed adequately in the regs.
They are referring to External Thermal Insulated Cladding Systems (ETICS) or External Insulated Finishing Systems (EIFS), which is an insulation material affixed to the wall, like polystyrene or mineral wool, covered by a thin render, which is probably the system used on the Royston flats that perchypanther describes above. These systems are much more common in some other countries than the UK, e.g. Germany and the USA. Where the insulation is highly combustible like polystyrene, then as the FPA say, vents through the cladding or damage/deterioration of the render as a result of wear, tear and aging, exposing the polystyrene, increase the risk. In reality you cannot design out such penetrations or the risk of the polystyrene being exposed as a result of deterioration of/damage to the render, so you have to install horizontal fire barriers of mineral wool or similar at every floor level to interrupt the polystyrene, or (as most people in the fire safety industry would much prefer) use mineral wool as the insulation rather than polystyrene. At the end of the day, all products have their advantages and disadvantages, and there are some applications where the properties of polystyrene (or other expanded plastics) make it the best choice. It's not as simple as just saying polystyrene bad, mineral wool good.
The system at Grenfell Tower does not appear to have been an EIFS system or to have used polystyrene. Apparently it was an ACM cladding system, and the reports are saying that the cladding was not a single metal skin, but was a composite panel with a polyethylene insulation sandwiched between an inner and outer metal skin. A photograph in a newsletter I linked to above also shows a foil faced polyisocyanurate/polyurethane insulation board being affixed to the concrete walls, which was then presumably covered with the cladding panels, possibly with an air gap in between.
We don't know the precise mechanisms that were at work in the fire on the outside of the building, i.e. was it the inner combustible polyethylene core of the panels that was the major factor, or did the the air gap (flue) cause the foil faced panels to burn much more quickly and intensely than they normally ever would, or was it some other particular combination of materials and circumstances surounding their installation.
I am slightly surprised that a polyethylene composite panel may have been used at Grenfell Tower: most composite panels in the UK have polyisocyanurate foam cores, and most of those will have passed a large scale fire test ('LPCB Approved'), which is far more demanding than the BS476 surface spread of flame test that is all that is required by Building Regs. The LPCB test came about as a result of a large number of fires in the 1980s and 1990s involving composite panels. Insurance companies will expect any new building to use LPCB Approved panels as a matter of routine, and I think all the composite panels made by Kingspan for example are LPCB Approved. According to Newsnight, the panels were made by a French company, but I would not read anything into that for the moment: a lot of the panels used in the UK are manufactured by non-UK companies and undergo LPCB testing, and conversely Kingspan panels are widely used in Europe.
What I don't get is the cladding would burn very quickly as it doesn't have huge mass like wood...As the insulation is a plastic I would also expect it to burn at quite a low temperature on the outside of the building.
Plastic releases far more heat energy when it burns than wood (think about it - it's a product of the petroleum industry: your car isn't powered by wood but by a petroleum derivative). If you turn it into an expanded plastic foam containing lots of air bubbles you have the perfect combination of a fuel source and oxygen, with the maximum surface area of plastic exposed to air inside the foam. If the fire is outside the building it will continue to have a ready source of oxygen, and if it's in a flue created by an air gap between cladding and the building, it will draw air in and the heat from the fire lower down the building will be drawn up the flue very quickly, heat up the insulation material etc. higher up the building, and so rapidly increase the rate at which fire spreads up the side of the building.
If it is a concrete building with cladding on the outside, how come the inside burnt so badly, concrete doesn't burn.
Take a look around you: our homes are full of combustible material, especially plastic. Your upholstered furniture may be made with fire retardant synthetic fabrics and plastic foam, but fire retardant does not mean non-combustible: it takes longer to ignite and saves lives being lost as a result of careless dispoal of cigarette ends etc., but when it is involved in a major fire like yesterday, it burns as fiercely as non-fire retardant plastic.
Another probem may have been the lack of fire blocks between floors for things like services that was reported to have been a concern of one of the builders working on the refurb.
Things like intumescent collars and putty around water and cable ducts that activate in a fire and seal off holes should be used but the cost does add up and they have to be installed correctly.
I was amazed by how it spread throught eh building but a combination of the above + windows cracking/frames melting from the intense fire on the outside will easy lead to the fire jumping floors.
What is odd is how the fire got to the outside of the building in the first place from inside a flat. I did wonder if it was a gas leak ignited by a fridge or some other appliance and the mention of a ruptured gas main early on in the event could also point towards that but that leak could also be secondary and caused by the first event or the fire.
For the fire to get outside to the cladding them maybe it passed out through a service duct or maybe they had the window open or the window cracked/fell out.
Hat raised.
Definitely so.
There was some guy from the Fire Service on the radio this monrning explaining what it feels like as a fire fighter turning up to a job.
He basically said they plan in their minds before what they are going to. Unfortunately they wouldnt have been planing for what they were met with. To still go in and try and save lives, surrounded by an inferno, and with thoughts that the building could still collapse.
Amazing skill and bravery, incredible to think they got to nearly every floor 😯
What is odd is how the fire got to the outside of the building in the first place from inside a flat.
As said above, lots of windows were open on a hot night.
I the the firefighters must have faced something truly horrendous as they were in contact with and aware of many families trapped inside, some of whom it seems they were unable to reach in time.
Cant imagine the effect that must have on them, the survivors, other emergency services and local residents all in the area at the time
[quote=FunkyDunc ].
Amazing skill and bravery, incredible to think they got to nearly every floor
and the government want firefighters male and female old to do that up to the age of 60yrs, I'm 52 and I'm starting to slow down and struggle to keep up with the younger FF's and don't cope with the heat as well. To continue to do that until you are 60 is bonkers and there will sad to say probably be a death on duty.
and the government want firefighters male and female old to do that up to the age of 60yrs, I'm 52 and I'm starting to slow down and struggle to keep up with the younger FF's and don't cope with the heat as well. To continue to do that until you are 60 is bonkers and there will sad to say probably be a death on duty.
Totally agree with this, whilst they are skilled professionals, they are also human beings and something like yesterday will stay with them for life.
and the government want firefighters male and female old to do that up to the age of 60yrs, I'm 52 and I'm starting to slow down and struggle to keep up with the younger FF's and don't cope with the heat as well. To continue to do that until you are 60 is bonkers and there will sad to say probably be a death on duty
My FIL was a firefighter and had to retire early due to ill health. I understand the rules have been tightened up massively on that too, and he wouldnt have been able to reitre today.
This thread is not the time or the place for this discussion, but apparently if the firefighter rescues you, they then want you to be operated on by a 68 yr old surgeon. 😯
modern high rise buildings are now almost invariably steel framed
Sorry Slowster, but there are still lots of concrete high rise structures being built in London................
One thing that I've not seen mentioned is that the Fire Brigade should be doing annual inspections on buildings like this and they have the power to issue enforcement notices if safety deficiencies are found. If signage etc was missing or inadequate or they found other problems why didn't they do something about it?
When they inspect our buildings they lift ceiling tiles to check for fire stopping, they check every single fire door for intumescent strips and so on - they are incredibly thorough.
The Fire Brigade would also have been consulted as part of the Building Regs application that would have been made when the alterations and improvements were done to the building.
The price of steel usually dictates the type of construction. We had to totally redesign one of ours as concrete worked out far cheaper at the time.
[quote=FunkyDunc ]
This thread is not the time or the place for this discussion, but apparently if the firefighter rescues you, they then want you to be operated on by a 68 yr old surgeon.
Disagree with that.... so when would be the time, when there is a death on duty?
I'll keep raising the issues of FF well being and I'll let the other sectors fight their issues. Ideally it should be combined issue but as proved hard to do.
[quote=Rockhopper ]One thing that I've not seen mentioned is that the Fire Brigade should be doing annual inspections on buildings like this and they have the power to issue enforcement notices if safety deficiencies are found. If signage etc was missing or inadequate or they found other problems why didn't they do something about it?
When they inspect our buildings they lift ceiling tiles to check for fire stopping, they check every single fire door for intumescent strips and so on - they are incredibly thorough.
The Fire Brigade would also have been consulted as part of the Building Regs application that would have been made when the alterations and improvements were done to the building.
In our area we do inspect high rise properties, some are annually and others are quarterly depending on the property risk. Worst we found was that [s]pikeys[/s] persons had stolen every hose outlet on each landing had we needed to fight a fire within that block we would've severely been hampered.
Some of the residents don't help themselves though sofa's and other furniture dumped in common areas are a fire setters dream. There are freephone numbers to get it uplifted but once out of their flat its not their problem.
That's the problem funkydunk it's never the time. Govt ignore studies, advice and even their own reports and no one cares til a big tragic event, Then though it's not the time or place.
I live in a tower block that was similarly re clad 5 years ago. It's one of 5 blocks under the same management, the cladding was put up in a similar way to greenfell. i'm hoping the insulation used has a better fire retardency, I'll be checking that out. I did see them put in rock wool at each level though as a fire break, it will be interesting to see if the rock wool was omitted in GF, the footage suggests this might be an issue as the fire seemed to move uninterrupted theough the cladding betwwe floors, maybe the gap between insulation / rock wool and cladding meant flames leapt too easily past rock wool? or there was no rock wool.
The blocks are far better managed, though not perfect and cut backs saw the intercom system with attendant security guard located 24 hr in an office in one of the blocks removed a couple of months ago.. It occurred to me how having security on site would be very useful in the event of an emergency, improving response times and co-ordination. I'm anticipating that us residents will be pushing for it to be returned asap. I could imagine lots of lives could have been saved in GF and associated blocks had a 24 hr security / cctv operator been based in one of the blocks.
Looking at my block, it's 12 stories high [the height of a fire ladder], 50 two bedroom flats, 75 residents in all, with 2 lifts and 2 stairs, both separated from each other situated either side of the building.. It's a slim building, 4 flats wide but only one flat deep. the stairs aren't central, they are to the edge of the building with large windows on each floor and an open catwalk between each stairs on floors 2, 6, and 10. so in an emergency you're no more than 2 floors away from a catwalk / alternative escape route.
Gas mains were removed 15 years ago as the council thought it daft to continue pumping gas into tower blocks, they replaced appliances if a tenant was still using gas.
I've obviously been planning my escape route and I'm sure some of you reading my description are planning it for me! At GF tower they didn't have the option of planning an escape route, there's only one option, a single central staircase, entirely enclosed, [no windows] with up to 24 floors to negotiate in one go rather than the alternative option every 2 floors I have in my block.
Blocks like GF tower need 2 stairs, either to the edge of the building or as external additions. Gas in a tower blocks? ffs. Any block over 12 stories [height of fire ladder] needs a compete rethink in terms of fire safety / fire fighting strategy.
Former housing minister Brandon Lewis told MP's 2 years ago "We believe it is the responsibility of the fire industry rather than the government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation"
That right there is the Tory ideology.
The market and the profit motive fixes everything.
The government shouldn't hinder the market by putting red tape in the way.
No funding for sprinklers in social housing, and no compulsion for private landlords to put their hands in their pockets either.
If people want to live some where safe, they have to pay for it.
Feenster, brandon Lewis is also a former fire minister who saw through massive budget cuts and destruction of our pension.
Bit of a **** in fairness
My sister went into social housing after her husband passed away without leaving provision for her.
The places she was offered were shitholes unfit for human habitation and the management companies had no intrest in complaints.
On that experience I suspect this tragedy is another symptom of under funded public services and what funding there is being taken by private companies.
Former housing minister Brandon Lewis told MP's 2 years ago "We believe it is the responsibility of the fire industry rather than the government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation"That right there is the Tory ideology.
The market and the profit motive fixes everything.
The government shouldn't hinder the market by putting red tape in the way.
No funding for sprinklers in social housing, and no compulsion for private landlords to put their hands in their pockets either.If people want to live some where safe, they have to pay for it.
Or, if you really want to be partisan and play point scoring political games about such a tragedy, you could look at it the other way - That this goes back to (Ed Milliband's) Climate Change Act. Insulate tower blocks to reduce heating costs as part of the council's obligation towards getting their carbon footprint down, but produces a fire susceptible building which due to it's antiquated design becomes a death trap.
See. Easy to make an extremely complex and multi faceted situation that has taken decades to develop into a political football isn't it? Don't think it really adds much to the debate though.
[quote=ninfan ]Or, if you really want to be partisan and play point scoring political games about such a tragedy
I've no doubt that's exactly what you want to do ninfan.
you could look at it the other way - That this goes back to (Ed Milliband's) Climate Change Act. Insulate tower blocks to reduce heating costs as part of the council's obligation towards getting their carbon footprint down, but produces a fire susceptible building which due to it's antiquated design becomes a death trap.
You could, if it wasn't possible to get such insulation which is fire resistant, which is what they're supposed to use. But don't let that stop you from your point scoring.
hate to say it but think the fatalities here are going to multiply eh? loads still missing. 🙁
I saw that point made in the Telegraph
"Green regulations prioritised over safety"
What a **** you have to be to misrepresent that regulation like that, its not the same as showing ministers have shirked their responsibily at all.
Its a blatent lie.
This is about putting money ahead of (somebody elses) safety nothing else.
Met Commander has expressed hope that fatalities don't reach triple figures - which I strongly suspect is a tactic to soften the blow of news to follow in the next few days on just that subject. Fire USAR and Police Search Advisors will have been in and mapped most of the building and there will be a good ballpark figure on casualty numbers already.
Lots of bobbies from my Force are on standby to assist with victim recovery and mortuary procedures - collectively the Disaster Victim Identification process. Guess which course I passed last week?
What a **** you have to be to misrepresent that regulation like that
I'm not even offended by ninfers any more. Just weary.
Former housing minister Brandon Lewis told MP's 2 years ago "We believe it is the responsibility of the fire industry rather than the government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation"That right there is the Tory ideology.
The market and the profit motive fixes everything.
The government shouldn't hinder the market by putting red tape in the way.
This is a flawed understanding (not that I would dispute firestarter's comment that Brandon Lewis is a bit of a ****.)
The sprinkler industry would love the government to legislate requiring sprinklers to be installed in more buildings. It's precisely the sort of competitive advantage every business would like. By way of analogy, it's a bit like cycle helmet manufacturers wanting governments to pass laws making helmets compulsory for all cyclists, and I think most of us are aware of the flaws in that approach. Ironically, passing legislation that favours a particular business sector is exactly the sort of thing that the Conservatives tend to be accused of.
The reason not to require that more buildings have sprinklers by law, and to say it is up to the sprinkler industry to make that case themselves, is that like most safety legislation, our fire safety legislation is goal based. This means that instead of having laws that prescribe exactly what fire protection measures are in place in any given building, the legislation requires suitable means for warning of fire, detecting fire, suitable means of escape, adequate fire resistance in the construction etc. etc. Official guidance is given on what is suitable or adequate in various codes of practice, including Approved Document B of the Building Regs for England and Wales. This goal based approach allows for changes in technology and the state of knowledge to be taken into account: the problem with prescriptive approaches is that it is impractical to keep updating the legislation as and when new technology appears and evolves. Sprinkler system technology itself is constantly developing and evolving, and not all systems are equal or as good as one another.
Sprinklers are not the be and end all of fire safety. It is perfectly possible to design buildings that are safe without sprinklers, and it is also possible to have buildings with sprinkler systems in them which are inherently unsafe. Most of the sprinkler systems in the UK are property protection systems, i.e. installed to prevent loss of the building and its contents, rather than life safety systems. When sprinklers are installed to protect life, there is often a trade off, and Approved Document B and recognised fire safety engineering principles allow for this, e.g. reducing the fire resistance of walls and floors or permitting bigger compartments because sprinklers have been installed.
If prescriptive legislation is passed making sprinklers a requirement in buildings where the same or better levels of fire safety can be achieved by other means, especially less expensive or even more reliable alternatives, then that is not making things better.
Flogging my cycle helmet analogy to death, spending lots of money and resources on making everyone wear a helmet, may deliver a worse result than other measures such as road safety campaigns, better design of roads and cycle lanes etc.
Slowster
I agree. Another r4 interview on the way home tonight said very similar to you, that it is one of several potential measures and that there is no one size fits all answer.
And apologies to anyone that thinks me insensitive or 'knee jerk' for what i posted before. But I'll defend myself again. I absolutely don't intend to be knee jerk about this, but reports were written years ago recommending a review and if necessary overhaul of the legislation as it is according to the 'experts' not fit for purpose. IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. Despite even the last minister saying in October it would be, and 9 months on admitting it's not even started.
There have been repeated warnings and failures to act on them. Because this tragedy has now occurred, we'll now have an inquest and maybe finally stuff will be done. I don't know what the opposite of knee jerk is, but this seems like it to me, that people whose jobs it is (plural-because it's been across 3 minister's desks afaik) have failed to do them properly and only now will once dozens, maybe hundreds god forbid have died and forced them to.
I'm leaving aside the commercial organisations that may have used the cheapest options available. They are commercial organisations and of course profit is a consideration. At this stage it would be wrong to suggest anything about whether it was conforming to regs and installed properly and so on. That will come from the inquest. The issue is the regs and appropriate review thereof, and the failure to act on previous warnings is a disgrace.
The sprinkler industry would love the government to legislate requiring sprinklers to be installed in more buildings. It's precisely the sort of competitive advantage every business would like. By way of analogy, it's a bit like cycle helmet manufacturers wanting governments to pass laws making helmets compulsory for all cyclists, and I think most of us are aware of the flaws in that approach. Ironically, passing legislation that favours a particular business sector is exactly the sort of thing that the Conservatives tend to be accused of.
The major problem with wide scale sprinklers is whos going to plan the systems, install the systems, and plan the access to private and publicly owned flats, its going to take years for little benefit to most of the residents, but a huge disruption to residents while its all undertaken.
Better to implement it into all new builds of residential blocks, and reinforce the fire regulation of exixting blocks.
its not the same as showing ministers have shirked their responsibily at all.
Theres a bit of a leap isn't it? Something happens, must be the ministers fault.
For what its worth, you might want to look at the CV for the new Labour MP for that constituency...
[quote=ninfan ]Theres a bit of a leap isn't it?
No, that would be blaming this fire on regulations to reduce energy usage.
Having read through here and watched quite a bit on tv / web news channels just another word of admiration for the emergency services especially the fire brigade.
@bunreep I hear you about retirement age but it is very very expsenive to retire that early, ball park 50% of salary per anum all through your service. If you think about it join fire service at 20, retire at 50 and you are retired longer than you where working.
As for budgets / spending etc the building just had £80,000 per flat spent on it. Not many of us spending £80k on our home maintainence. This cladding spec (dangerous ?) and (obsessive) concern over "environment" efficiency in this case appears to have been responsible.
No, that would be blaming this fire on regulations to reduce energy usage.
Er, yes, well done, that was the point...
We don't know the reasons - its as much point blaming it on environmental regulations as it is on government cuts, ministers decisions, cost cutting, dodgy contractors or anything else - we simply dont know, and to try blame anything or anyone at the moment is just people lashing out and trying to either rationalise or politicise something long before anyone has any idea of the reasons or answers
Are these two competing for biggest troll **** award?
Watch this and tell me how Bruneep and his colleagues can do this in their 60s.
Listening to and watching the reports is so sad. Hearing that people jumped reminds me of 911 and makes you wonder the terrifying situation that forces that decision. The political point scoring makes me sick. The block was built in the 70s and likely designed in the 60s. Governments of all persuasions could have made sprinkler installation (for example) compulsory as a retrofit since then yet none did. The people who died, their relatives, those who were affected by the fire, emergency service workers - they all deserve to know what happened and why, and more to the point, steps must be taken to stop it happening again. Good article on Sky News this evening about disasters and how they changed things. - It shouldn't come to that but it does. Amazing work by the fire brigade. Incidentally I went to a seminar by a company called iMist a couple of weeks ago. Look them up - interesting product and retrofitable to your house. Go on - do it.... let me know how many of you get it installed. It could save your life.
[quote=jambalaya ]@bunreep I hear you about retirement age but it is very very expsenive to retire that early, ball park 50% of salary per anum all through your service. If you think about it join fire service at 20, retire at 50 and you are retired longer than you where working.
There are plainly a number of roles that could be carried out by 50+ year old firemen - especially as we are hearing that there isn't enough being done on the [i]prevention[/i] side. Thing is, that would mean additional personnel to replace them in the more physical roles, not just making the existing folk work longer.
@wilburt from what I understand the £2.6m cladding was put on soley for environmental reasons. Hinsight is always 20/20 but clearly that £2.6m would have been better spent on a central fire alarm and maybe sprinklers. (As I posted before we have neither in an 8 story Paris block)
@seaso sadly yes a death toll much hogher seems likely, its all heatbreaking.
@gavinpearce, that iMist thing looks like a great idea, and a hell of a lot cheaper and simpler to retrofit (though still a bit of a hassle) to other blocks.
@jam
We don't get that pension for free, I currently pay 14.7% of my monthly pay into the pension.
@scotroutes
Sadly there a very few other positions left other than ops, they are being done by civilians . If you are not fit for duty they will try to dismiss on capability.
Exactly bruneep. we have just had two lads dismissed on capability, one had a knee injury on duty and one had ME. Sad state of affairs
Jamba - the cladding should have been put on properly to the correct spec then this would not have happened
reports were written years ago recommending a review and if necessary overhaul of the legislation as it is according to the 'experts' not fit for purpose.
If by reports you mean coroners' reports, such as that for Lakanal House, bear in mind that a coroner is not an expert. They may have heard from [u]some[/u] experts during the inquest, but it is unlikely that someone who is most likely a solicitor by profession is somehow going to see where everyone else has been going wrong and what needs to be done.
The reality is that there are lots of 'experts' and they do not all agree. Moreover, with something like fire safety which is so multi-disciplinary, no one expert or group of experts has all the answers.
High rise fires have been a major concern for the whole global fire safety industry for many years, and it takes time for knowledge and experience between different experts and different countries to be shared and discussed, and hopefully to reach a consensus and for optimal solutions to be identified.
Unfortunately, most advancement in fire safety is reactive, and it often takes a major fire, or even several major fires, including loss of life, before there is a general consensus of understanding about what all the underlying causes were and what the best solutions are.
Any review in the UK will probably not be carried out by government officials, but will instead be undertaken by an organistation like the BRE, and it it will probably take a lot of preparation by them to identify the right people to participate, for those people all to be available at the same time, and to establish the right extent of scope. If it were clear that there was still a lot of uncertainty in the fire safety industry about the precise nature of the problems and a lot of disagreement about the solutions, it would not surprise me if the organisation charged with undertaking the review suggested to the minister that it be delayed until there was more consensus. The ministers themselves are not experts, and they are largely dependent upon the advice given to them (with the exception of Michael Gove, who has had enough of experts).
Moreover, I suspect that the sheer scale of loss of like at Grenfell Tower will result in changes which simply would not have been considered if the review had been undertaken earlier. Sadly that is the reactive nature of safety legislation: the nature and extent of risk is often not apparent until some people die, and constantly evolving technology, construction methods and other changes in how we live mean that fire safety is also constantly evolving and changing.
We've come a long way since the 1979 Woolworth fire in Manchester, when employees died because the instructions in a fire were to firstly to empty the tills in case the money were stolen, and they were then trapped on the upper floors with iron bars on windows preventing fire fighters reaching them, but this is a never ending process.
A final point about sprinklers. As I have said, the majority of sprinkler systems in the UK are property protection systems and were not installed to protect lives. A very significant number of those systems will fail due to incorrect design, specification, changes to the occupation of the building, or inadequate maintenance. Because fires are relatively rare, many owners and occupiers of buildings with sprinklers and many sprinkler companies do not get caught out by these defective systems. If we take a knee jerk reponse to Grenfell Tower and require that a very large number of sprinkler systems are installed in flats, and rely heavily on sprinklers over all other forms of fire protection and fire safety, we may well find in 10 or 20 years that we have a large legacy problem of lots of buildings where we cannot adequately rely on the sprinkler system.
Incidentally I went to a seminar by a company called iMist a couple of weeks ago. Look them up - interesting product and retrofitable to your house. Go on - do it.... let me know how many of you get it installed. It could save your life.
And this is precisely what I mean about 'experts' and different opinions and competing technological solutions.
There are major issues with water mist systems, and a lot of cowboys and disreputable salesman are marketing them and selling water mist systems which will not work to ill informed customers, including local authorities. The are being marketed as alternatives to sprinkler systems because they cost a lot less money, but they are not. They do have some very specific uses, e.g. in engine rooms of ships, where they are a suitable form of protection and for which there are recognised design standards based on proper testing for that specific application. In the testing that has been undertaken of water mist systems' ability to provide general fire protection in an office (which is a relatively low hazard risk) in the same way as a sprinkler system, they failed (I think this was undertaken by the BRE).
Slowster, you clearly know your stuff. Your points are fair, mine is not that the coroner or anyone else for that matter made any particular recommendations beyond that there needed to be a review and where appropriate overhaul. Not what the review would find or what the changes should be...just that it was needed. And successive administrations have failed to do it. I don't doubt it's a complex and difficult area, and experts may conflict in opinion but that's no reason to not have the review. No matter how hard, I can guarantee you've no chance of reaching a consensus or outcome unless you actually start the process.
If I may redo my car analogy.... it's like you've taken a car to the garage and the garage has said "I think your steering is borked, but I don't know why, you need to get it looked at by someone who knows what they're doing". But you didn't, and now the car's crashed. Not the original garage's fault, not the fault of the guy you didn't take it to. Yours, for not taking it.
My thoughts are with everyone affected - including the emergency services.
The level of voluntary support has shown human nature at it's best.
The posts by Slowster are helpful for me to understand some of the technical aspects in fire suppression and prevention.
I have a good level of construction knowledge in a technical capacity but this is so specialised that speculation is totally pointless.
Any enquiry must proceed quickly - I acknowledge Slowster's comment about BRE and gathering technical evidence-based findings.
Some observations about responses from politicians - I'm no great fan of Corbyn but he showed a real 'human touch' in talking with residents and literally putting his arm around shoulders; May, regrettably, didn't and it suggests she lacks empathy; Nick Paget-Brown showed an even lesser level of empathy - or contrition.
Kensington council appear to be paralysed into inaction when it comes to finding accommodation for those who are now homeless - and that stinks; it gives the impression they don't care and don't know what to do.
If the wealthy resiidents in the borough all chipped in a day's income and/or opened their doors for their neighbours that, I think, would be appropriate and welcomed.
Facts are in short supply but against a backdrop of Lakamal House, outsourcing of building management to ALMOs, questions about tech specs, designing safety in or designing cost out there should be a clear statement from government that there will be accountability for the enquiry results.
Is retro-fitting cladding to a concrete structure an example of form over function?
Jamba - the cladding should have been put on properly to the correct spec then this would not have happened
And now everyone is an armchair cladding expert ??
How do you know what the spec was ? How do you know if it was fitted correctly ? *
If the cladding is suitable for the current regulations (you normally have to submit your cladding choice / manufacturer etc - along with method statements , risk assessments etc before works coomence (specification will normally be at the estimation stage). All this would have been signed off before any works was started.
For example, If I get a job in to quote for, that the engineer calls up for a specific brand of purlins / cladding / bolts etc, I can't just go to site and install something else entirely. If I want to change any item to a supplier that for example gives me a greater discount , then I have to put these proposals forward, along with evidence that they are equal to or exceed the specification in the original tender. I can't just roll up on site with an alternative .
* If you have evidence to the contrary then please share
no evidence at all - but correctly installed cladding has fire breaks in it or is non combustible. given the way the fire spread it would appear that something failed here in the fire breaks according to the reports I have read which include testimony from folk I would expect to know about this stuff.
the installation was not inspected to ensure its compliance with fire regs
Revs. It seems that tomorrow's times are suggesting exactly that.
Plastic based insulation used as it was £2 per panel cheaper. Some company saved £5k on the job.
Suggestions also that the lowest level of building control scrutiny was applied to the retro fit.
Along with a catalogue of shortcuts, failings and ways to maximise profit as well described in this thread.
A horrible combination and heartbreaking result.
Facts are in short supply. There are lots of 'experts' pontificating and opining in the media but none of them have enough verifiable information to be believed - yet.
Listen to/read their views but don't just assume it's factually correct.
The facts will only emerge at the end of an enquiry with significant input from technical experts who have examined the site and the multiple specs covering product, installation, testing, certification; was it D&B, target cost, competitive tender, specified by the ALMO - in other words, how significant was cost?. QS will check application for payment from contractor; who did the MQS work for and what did they check?
A suggestion; for those who do not understand construction/product specs/product approvals/performance standards - read, listen, learn.
For construction pros (self included) who are not expert in fire control/prevention/suppression - read posts from Slowster who is expert in this and Bruneep who is serving firefighter.
All of us should pray - in private or in church - whether or not you believe.
I own a flat in a low rise block(3 storey), recently refurbed and clad. Obviously I've been thinking hard about it this week, and I mostly feel it's significantly better than the Grenfell scenario, and in a couple of ways I think we should be looking at remedial work.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-07-25_11-08-26_171_zpshpvcrcxr.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-07-25_11-08-26_171_zpshpvcrcxr.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Insulation sheet has been bonded to the wall, whether with adhesive over the full surface or in runs/dab I don't know. Mesh applied over the top to provide a key.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-56-57_242_zpsebqsw0py.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-56-57_242_zpsebqsw0py.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-57-48_984_zpss6myra7v.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-57-48_984_zpss6myra7v.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Trowelled on render, in two passes, under layer and self coloured top.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-10-10_15-26-06_176_zpslrprgnlt.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-10-10_15-26-06_176_zpslrprgnlt.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
The ground floor here is the original concrete, it was clad once the scaffolding was out of the way.
So far so good, I think I'm happy with the cladding, there isn't scope for a metal top layer to peel away, the finish of the original build is such that there aren't large voids behind the cladding to act as chimneys and the render ought to act to hold integrity across the wall if some of the insulation was alight.
What is not so good is the finish of some of the detail work, new doors and windows were installed, and pipes, flues and sills were replaced and extended where they went through the outer wall.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/00d16a47-800e-4a60-b160-e26a6170a5f6_zpsjt2mzrcq.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/00d16a47-800e-4a60-b160-e26a6170a5f6_zpsjt2mzrcq.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Where the new flue was put on the older boiler, it was just expanding foam, at my next gas safety cert inspection my gas man picked up on it and we hacked out the foam by a couple of inches and made good with pointing mortar then plaster.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/IMG_20160206_113141755_zpsxtuhmcry.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/IMG_20160206_113141755_zpsxtuhmcry.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Where new doors were installed, the dreaded expanding foam was overused.
Midlifecrashes I would be submitting those to your building management company and asking some questions about the spec of the foam used.
Is this really about money / rich vs poor if 10m was recently spent on the building. 200 firefighters attended in minutes is this really about cuts? Do we need to hear from celebrities? Does it matter which politican? came out looking best?
Seems to me to be a tragic accident that everyone is exploiting for their agendas. Horrible.
Seems to me to be a tragic accident that everyone is exploiting for their agendas. Horrible.
Seems like lots of people exploiting the tragedy to blame people they already don't like, without any real facts being known yet. Faintly disgusting IMHO.
Not an accident a tragic incident that could've been avoided.
Quite right that questions are being asked and lessons learned.
There are plainly a number of roles that could be carried out by 50+ year old firemen - especially as we are hearing that there isn't enough being done on the prevention side.
There isn't, there's a few but hardly plenty.
I find the whole thing hugely disrespectful. The flames aren't even out yet and politicians are scoring points against each other and making snidey comments.
And don't get me started on the so called celebrities who stand outside their multi million pound homes telling us how angry they are and that people should be doing more 👿
RIP to those who didn't make it out and huge respect for the emergency services.
this may be of interest to some, gives an idea of how panels respond, note that these are composite panels rather than a rainscreen, but they aren't really that different in composition.
Northwind - Member
The pay freeze- ie real world pay cut- is an insult to them. Not sure how saying pay them better and resource them better is an insult. If "now is not the time" then how about 2 days ago:
https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2017/06/13/firefighters-call-immediate-end-pay-freeze
Or, how about last year when the inquiry was supposed to go ahead, but didn't? May's promising an enquiry but clearly "now is not the time", years ago was the time.
Get no argument from about the cuts and the negative impact on the fire service.
My point still remains though that there is no evidence that the cuts had any impact on this fire. Claims made on the day of the fire. It may be proven otherwise, but it was not the time or the place to jump to conclusions like that for political point scoring. Even the fire chiefs have been saying the same. They did also have a rant about the cuts but they made it clear that there's no evidence at this stage that cuts on the fire service had any part to play in this tragedy. The building went up in flames in a matter of minutes. They were there in a few minutes. 200 of them, 400, 800, twice the appliances or more. Doesn't matter, it was too late from the start.
The blame may lie with the council, maybe cuts there in that no investment in sprinklers, but it's far more likely the blame lies with the refurbishing company (speculation here). £1m was spent on that, so not sure "cuts" are to blame there. Incompetence more like. There are questions though on changes and relaxation of building and fire regulations.
At this stage though, we don't know. It's all speculation.
Meanwhile the fire men and women did an outstanding job and have themselves suffered and witnessed terrible things. Using them for political point scoring on the day of the fire is not on.
£1m was spent on that, so not sure "cuts" are to blame there. Incompetence more like
Using a number like that is dangerous, what exactly does it mean? To a lay man £1M sounds like alot of money, but is it? You could have a mineral fibre cored rainscreen and it would have cost vastly more for the materials. Was the job rushed and corners cut, what does that money cover, lifts, doors, rainscreen, etc? you really can't tell from a single number. Think how many Billions they are putting aside to refurb the houses of parliament.
Generally, rents accrued from social housing have to be ring-fenced and re-invested in the stock, so talk about the money spent on refurbishment isn't really evidence of anything other than the council or social housing provider doing what they are legally obliged to do.
and again at this stage pointing accusatory fingers at contractors, manufacturers of the materials, even the KCTMO is premature (although in the case of the KCTMO it does seem residents expressed concerns and were told to shut up). We don't know if anyone did anything wrong in this regard yet (but if they did, bring the full weight of the law upon them)
Until the inquest / fire investigation finds out what caused it and why it got so uncontrollable so fast, we don't know if corners were cut or regs sidestepped. What we do know is that experts (independently and at an inquest into another fire where 6 people died) regularly expressed concerns that regs and specs for fire safety were / are not appropriate, that they need review, and that successive governments have not done it. And to hear Sajid Javid wriggling out of it on the Today programme this morning using 'words' (what was actually said vs what was clearly meant by them - sound at all familiar?) made me punch my car radio repeatedly.
Pressed on why a coroner’s recommendation was not acted upon, Mr Javid claimed “all recommendations were actioned” and that the coroner “did not recommend new regulations”, merely a change to the “guidance.”The coroner’s report refers to updating The Building Regulations 2010 Approved Document B, which is the “statutory guidance” for builders and developers.
While it is technically called “guidance” in effect, it has effect in law.
This is certainly a very sad incident and questions should be asked and responded to appropriately. Clearly lessons will be learned and the cost of those lessons was a very high price.
It seems at the moment as if the cladding was a contributing factor and that the fire issues relating to the cladding were known about (but how widely and by whom we don't know). Was a decision made to use this in preference to something less combustible made with price and known implications in mind - I very much doubt it - but that is a question that needs to be asked and answered.
Who makes the cladding and why are they still selling it for use in high rise or other buildings?
Should sprinkler systems should also be added to blocks of more than x stories?!?
This is a terrible incident but anger as is being stirred by the press will not fix this. Further investment in the housing stock by local authorities to meet as yet to be published fire safety legislation may reduce the likelihood of further tragedy.
I saw on the news a flat with identical cladding fitted by the same company. What I hadn't realised before this is the new windows are moved outwards flush with the outside face of the cladding effectively putting the cladding inside of the flat.
The flat had an extra wide plastic internal window board capping the extra width of the wall created by the cladding and extra wide plasterboard reveals around the inside of the window. Now I take it that what is effectively the end grain of the cladding around the windows is capped with som sort of fire stop, if not it's no surprise that the fire found its way easily in to the interior of people's flats from the blazing outsides.
Deleted to avoid the sack 😉
I think this fire will have a far greater reaching impact on how we manage fire safety in the UK than any previous major fire/catastrophe, such as Bradford Football Ground and Kings Cross.
I say this partly because it has happened in the internet age. The public no longer have no choice but to wait to receive their information about the incident from newspapers or the BBC, whose journalists lack the technical knowledge to be able to comment themselves and who will be dependent on whichever (differing) expert they speak to, and who also are automatically biased towards sensationalism, finding a scapegoat and partisan political point scoring. The ability to share information and knowledge via the internet means that it's much harder for politicians and experts to 'control the narrative' and to avoid possibly uncomfortable facts.
This and the sheer scale of loss of life means that politicians will be more willing and able with public support (and be more forced) to consider making some very difficult but very worthwhile changes to how we manage fire safety. For example, it's fairly easy to change Approved Document B and make new requirements about cladding materials, but if a key problem is builders and others breaching regulations, then that is going to be a lot harder to address because we need to stop it happening rather than relying on the threat of possible prosecution only if later on there is a fire and it's discovered that the contractor broke the rules. Substantially reducing the frequency and likelihood of breaches occurring in the first place would probably mean a major increase in expenditure on building control inspections. Similarly I think this event could/should result in greater resources for the Fire and Rescue Authorities to undertake their existing enforcement role. That might mean that they spent much more time on an inspection, reviewing a building's fire safety in much greater detail than before (e.g. witnessing tests of the fire alarm or sprinkler system etc.).
The other benefit of the internet is that by sharing knowledge and experience, everyone can become better informed, whether they are the occupant of a flat, a builder, a property manager or whatever.
If breaches of the regulations do prove to have been a major factor at Grenfell Tower, I would point out that this is not something particular to social housing for the less well off (counter to the narrative being spun by some that the fire would not have happened if the people living in Grenfell Tower were well off). [url= http://asfp.org.uk/webdocs/West%20Midlands%20Seminar%202014/West%20Midlands%20Presentations%203.pdf ]This link[/url] may not work, but it includes a presentation by a specialist fire contractor, Sharpfibre, detailing the very poor quality fire stopping they were called in to remediate at an upmarket modern block of flats in London. It's the sort of thing that needs to be disseminated much more widely, because it helps everyone to know what good practice looks like, and to spot what is likely to be bad practice.
[quote=firestarter ]Deleted to avoid the sack
its ok I have the screen grab 😉 . I see @crsipymick has deleted his twitter account, I do hope he wasn't getting lent on. 😐
fire starter , re your post , cuts to life saving services do kill , as you pointed out , and for you to be fearful of recrimination for pointing this out is also indicative of the fear and loathing that permeates through our society after all these years of austerity .
there used to be a saying that you judge a society on the value they put on life .........
successive govts have been doing that , with money being the overriding factor to all aspects of life , it's been rejected at the ballot box last week , and will be overwhelmingly next time so that a new dawn can begin , where people come before profit , and we value all life above money .