Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 25 to 48 of 62

Thread: Grenfell fire

  1. #25
    It seems like everybody is guilty of something in this fiasco, except the manufacturer.

  2. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler1000 View Post
    So the building managers, and the installers, and the sellers of the product should all have known it was illegal?

    They should all be charged with the equivalent of homicide via negligence. They are all truly responsible for these deaths.
    Yes, unless the law was changed after it was installed (which articles do not suggest was the case) it indeed seems so.

  3. #27
    I'm guessing the guilty parties arent sleeping well tonight

  4. #28
    -`ღ-
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    80,544
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler1000 View Post
    So the building managers, and the installers, and the sellers of the product should all have known it was illegal?

    They should all be charged with the equivalent of homicide via negligence. They are all truly responsible for these deaths.
    Yes they should be charged and yes they should know the code. It's their job to check that the material they install is approved for use.

    ↑click↑

  5. #29
    The cladding material itself is not illegal to sell, so long as its being used on buildings no taller then 18 metres high

  6. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    Yes they should be charged and yes they should know the code. It's their job to check that the material they install is approved for use.
    No.

    The person (or company) that should be charged is the person who designed the building retrofit and specified the product.

    I don't know if this product did or did not confirm with the British Building Code or not.

    In Canada, any retrofit like this would have had a consultant providing the owner with a detailed design package which would include detailed design drawing and specifications. The entire thing would have then been put out to tender and low price gets the job every time. This is how public tendering in Canada works.

    The company that provided the design package is liable for their design.

    The Owner is typically just that, an Owner. In the case of the housing authority, like Toronto Community Housing, they would just be a bunch of bureacrats who depend on the Consultant (architectural and engineering) to know what they were doing.

    The Contractor who did the work is not an engineer or architect and would have simply been supplying and installing what the design package told him to price.

    The lawyers may mud up the situation and apportion blame (as they like to do), however, the architect and or engineering consultant is the only guilty party.

  7. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by james t kirk View Post
    No.

    The person (or company) that should be charged is the person who designed the building retrofit and specified the product.

    I don't know if this product did or did not confirm with the British Building Code or not.

    In Canada, any retrofit like this would have had a consultant providing the owner with a detailed design package which would include detailed design drawing and specifications. The entire thing would have then been put out to tender and low price gets the job every time. This is how public tendering in Canada works.

    The company that provided the design package is liable for their design.

    The Owner is typically just that, an Owner. In the case of the housing authority, like Toronto Community Housing, they would just be a bunch of bureacrats who depend on the Consultant (architectural and engineering) to know what they were doing.

    The Contractor who did the work is not an engineer or architect and would have simply been supplying and installing what the design package told him to price.

    The lawyers may mud up the situation and apportion blame (as they like to do), however, the architect and or engineering consultant is the only guilty party.
    What enables lawyers to "… mud up the situation" is the stuff we dismiss with a sneer as 'boilerplate'. That structure of responsibility is how we ensure what went up does not come down. I'm betting that in every bit of signed-off paper on the ladder of responsibility you laid out, there's a sentence that says the guy on the next rung down is responsible for fixing what he finds and handing off a fault-free job when he's finished. All the way up to the last inspector giving the final sign-off on the first permit the owner took out for all the work they commissioned.

    The architect didn't climb the fence to construct his inspired whimsy without the owner's full knowledge; nor was the owner the victim of pirate gas-fitters, or ironworkers looking for a site to practise their faulty skills on scrap steel. While the guy at the bottom is guilty of that first horrible mistake, every stage after that took responsibility for ensuring they were working on a safe, legal base.

    There may be a whole lot of mud involved, there usually is in construction, but when someone fails, the lawyers are just the ones who sort out the wreckage. But responsibility, that belongs to everyone involved.

    I'm sure they're feeling it now. What we haven't yet fixed, is how to make them — and us — feel it every day.

    You expect progress?

  8. #32

  9. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by oldjones View Post
    What enables lawyers to "… mud up the situation" is the stuff we dismiss with a sneer as 'boilerplate'. That structure of responsibility is how we ensure what went up does not come down. I'm betting that in every bit of signed-off paper on the ladder of responsibility you laid out, there's a sentence that says the guy on the next rung down is responsible for fixing what he finds and handing off a fault-free job when he's finished. All the way up to the last inspector giving the final sign-off on the first permit the owner took out for all the work they commissioned.

    The architect didn't climb the fence to construct his inspired whimsy without the owner's full knowledge; nor was the owner the victim of pirate gas-fitters, or ironworkers looking for a site to practise their faulty skills on scrap steel. While the guy at the bottom is guilty of that first horrible mistake, every stage after that took responsibility for ensuring they were working on a safe, legal base.

    There may be a whole lot of mud involved, there usually is in construction, but when someone fails, the lawyers are just the ones who sort out the wreckage. But responsibility, that belongs to everyone involved.

    I'm sure they're feeling it now. What we haven't yet fixed, is how to make them — and us — feel it every day.
    I disagree that responsibility belongs to everyone involved.

    When it comes to design / bid / build contracts (in Canada at least), the architect and or engineer would have both sealed the detailed "For Construction" drawings. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the design complies with the building code. What may save their hides is IF the Owner said, "I want you to use this cladding" over their objections, or better yet, the Architect and or Engineer specified a superior cladding system and when hearing of the cost, the Owner told them to use an inferior (read cheaper) product. Different story then, though they will still be on the hook since they sealed the drawings. Likewise, if they specified a better quality cladding, and the contractor ordered and installed substandard cladding without telling them, then the Contractor is on the hook (though the lawyers will muddy the waters and still make it everyone's responsibility by saying that some poor inspector should have seen it.)

    BUT if the building was retrofitted as per the sealed drawings done by the Architect and or the Engineer, it is the Engineer's or Architects fault (if the cladding was in fact in violation of the building code). If the cladding was code compliant, well, that's a different story.

    Lawyers like to spread the blame. I've seen it happen where guys who realistically had no involvement or responsibility in a disaster yet they get proportioned a share in the blame.

  10. #34
    Don't know the specifics but it appears that the contractor may have been chosen on their willingness to cut corners. On this side of the pond that certainly would have a huge impact on liability.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Grenfell.html

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by james t kirk View Post
    I disagree that responsibility belongs to everyone involved.

    When it comes to design / bid / build contracts (in Canada at least), the architect and or engineer would have both sealed the detailed "For Construction" drawings. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the design complies with the building code. What may save their hides is IF the Owner said, "I want you to use this cladding" over their objections, or better yet, the Architect and or Engineer specified a superior cladding system and when hearing of the cost, the Owner told them to use an inferior (read cheaper) product. Different story then, though they will still be on the hook since they sealed the drawings. Likewise, if they specified a better quality cladding, and the contractor ordered and installed substandard cladding without telling them, then the Contractor is on the hook (though the lawyers will muddy the waters and still make it everyone's responsibility by saying that some poor inspector should have seen it.)

    BUT if the building was retrofitted as per the sealed drawings done by the Architect and or the Engineer, it is the Engineer's or Architects fault (if the cladding was in fact in violation of the building code). If the cladding was code compliant, well, that's a different story.

    Lawyers like to spread the blame. I've seen it happen where guys who realistically had no involvement or responsibility in a disaster yet they get proportioned a share in the blame.
    Apparently it says right on the packaging not to use it over the height of 20 meters.

  12. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Apparently it says right on the packaging not to use it over the height of 20 meters.
    The $64,000.00 question is, "Who specified it for the application in which it was used?"

    Does not matter what the package says.

    What matters is who specified it and in doing so disregarded the manufacturer's written instructions. (Assuming they read the instructions. (Even if they did not, it does not give them a pass on it.))

  13. #37
    Funny to hear the Toronto fire authority proclaim that 'stand pat' is their advice for fires that happen in Toronto high rises. As if! I'm gone as soon as I hear the alarm!! Many stories from this London fire if people surviving because they disobeyed the order.

  14. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by mclarkez1980 View Post
    Funny to hear the Toronto fire authority proclaim that 'stand pat' is their advice for fires that happen in Toronto high rises. As if! I'm gone as soon as I hear the alarm!! Many stories from this London fire if people surviving because they disobeyed the order.
    Agreed.

    And 911 taught me to always go down, never up. Find a way to ground and out the door.

    Either that or buy yourself a parachute and jump off the roof if you have too.

  15. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by james t kirk View Post
    I disagree that responsibility belongs to everyone involved.

    When it comes to design / bid / build contracts (in Canada at least), the architect and or engineer would have both sealed the detailed "For Construction" drawings. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the design complies with the building code. What may save their hides is IF the Owner said, "I want you to use this cladding" over their objections, or better yet, the Architect and or Engineer specified a superior cladding system and when hearing of the cost, the Owner told them to use an inferior (read cheaper) product. Different story then, though they will still be on the hook since they sealed the drawings. Likewise, if they specified a better quality cladding, and the contractor ordered and installed substandard cladding without telling them, then the Contractor is on the hook (though the lawyers will muddy the waters and still make it everyone's responsibility by saying that some poor inspector should have seen it.)

    BUT if the building was retrofitted as per the sealed drawings done by the Architect and or the Engineer, it is the Engineer's or Architects fault (if the cladding was in fact in violation of the building code). If the cladding was code compliant, well, that's a different story.

    Lawyers like to spread the blame. I've seen it happen where guys who realistically had no involvement or responsibility in a disaster yet they get proportioned a share in the blame.
    Thanks, you've laid out the chain of blame very clearly and very sensibly. What I was trying to get at in my clumsy way was what I see as the difference between blame and responsibility: It's clear the stoker who tied down the safety-valve is to blame for the boiler explosion that sank the ship but the captain who insisted he'd get the Blue Riband for the fastest ocean crossing or know the reason why, is responsible.

    You expect progress?

  16. #40
    -`ღ-
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    80,544
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by james t kirk View Post
    Agreed.

    And 911 taught me to always go down, never up. Find a way to ground and out the door.

    Either that or buy yourself a parachute and jump off the roof if you have too.
    A parachute is extremely dangerous in a building fire, there will be significant, violent thermals from the heat of the fire that will make your odds of a successful jump low in what was already a dangerous thing to do.

    Much better, cheaper, and easier to learn: buy some climbing gear, a really long rope, and learn how to absail down the side of a building. You can learn how on one Saturday and it's a lot less dangerous.

    It should allow you to get past and floors that are impassable if you can't get all the way to the ground.

    Few bucks on Amazon.

    ↑click↑

  17. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    A parachute is extremely dangerous in a building fire, there will be significant, violent thermals from the heat of the fire that will make your odds of a successful jump low in what was already a dangerous thing to do
    Beats the hell out of jumping without a parachute, doesnt it??

    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    Much better, cheaper, and easier to learn: buy some climbing gear, a really long rope, and learn how to absail down the side of a building. You can learn how on one Saturday and it's a lot less dangerous
    How the heck are you gonna climb down when the whole building is on fire??


  18. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by james t kirk View Post
    Agreed.

    And 911 taught me to always go down, never up. Find a way to ground and out the door.

    Either that or buy yourself a parachute and jump off the roof if you have too.
    Most of the people who perish in fires succumb to smoke inhalation. An oxygen bottle and a pair of decent goggles should do the trick in most situations.

  19. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    A parachute is extremely dangerous in a building fire, there will be significant, violent thermals from the heat of the fire that will make your odds of a successful jump low in what was already a dangerous thing to do.
    Fuji you totally leave out that parachutes catch on fire.

  20. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Most of the people who perish in fires succumb to smoke inhalation. An oxygen bottle and a pair of decent goggles should do the trick in most situations.
    Pure oxygen is going to get you into trouble. A SCBA is about $365 But most people would go their entire lives, perhaps four or more generations without ever using it.

  21. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by mclarkez1980 View Post
    Funny to hear the Toronto fire authority proclaim that 'stand pat' is their advice for fires that happen in Toronto high rises. As if! I'm gone as soon as I hear the alarm!! Many stories from this London fire if people surviving because they disobeyed the order.
    That was what happened in this instance. The advice was stand pat, that turned out to be horrifically bad advice.

  22. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Aardvark154 View Post
    Pure oxygen is going to get you into trouble. A SCBA is about $365 But most people would go their entire lives, perhaps four or more generations without ever using it.
    Better to have and not need than need and not have. Every home should have an escape plan. If those poor English buggers had an escape plan, most of them would have avoided ending up in the body bags.

  23. #47
    I saw some pics of the inside of the apartments. There had to be stuff that was very flammable inside to cause that amount of fire damage.

  24. #48
    An air tank and goggles might not be a bad idea (not O2 though, just air)

    But a parachute might work. If it's between getting roasted alive and taking a chance on a building jump, I'd go for it.

    You would need to be trained at jumping from a plane, and have a high quality chute that you can maneuver. Run as fast as you can off the roof to pick up as much horizontal velocity as possible (since horizontal and vertical velocity are independent of one another). Your forward momentum should carry you away from the building.

    It's better odds than nothing.

    Google is your friend.

    Apparently they do make them....

    http://www.sosparachute.com/en/site/sos

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...emergency.html

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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