RyanYou cannot honestly say EJ200 is better than M88.3 when neither one implemented all the cutting edge techniques. The EJ200 is the better back end and materials technology. The M88.3 has the better front stages and goes a bit beyond the EJ200 with its extra bypass. Neither engine is a peer of F135 technology.
Snecma M88-3 is only around as a prototype just as EJ230/XG-40-2. At the time the choice was EJ200 or 17,000lbf M88-2 and even the M88-3 doesn’t beat any of the core parameters set by the EJ200, thrust to weight no better, SFC no lower. And yes, I can say the EJ200 was definitely better, and that’s what the other 3 EF partners also said. And you can’t seriously compare an engine that was flying 20+ years ago with the F135. The EJ200 was first ran in 1991. The JSF competition didn’t even start until 1996 and the X-35 wasn’t selected until 2001. You’re talking about a time gap of 15 years.
RyanThere’s Harley Facades, Studio E and Rydon. Harley was the prime contractor, which gives them overall responsibility whatever, but if one of the other two chose the cladding, then they would also be culpable.
RyanYou know, interesting stat, the Tories got 5.5% more of the vote this year than in 2015.
RyanCall it a hunch. Note existing co-operation with Japan on a new version of Meteor.
And things being up in the air? You talking about Turkey or the UK there? We have a stable democratic process here regardless of who gets in, or how close the result is.
RyanYes we do.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3806536/cladding-grenfell-tower-flammable-cheap/
Manufacturers Omnis Exteriors has now confirmed to the Guardian it supplied Reynobond PE cladding to contractors Harley Facades for the project.
He told the Guardian: “We supplied components for a system created by the design and build team on that project.”
A) A rough guess at the surface area of the building says we’re talking about less than £10k difference on a £2.6m project. More likely they just screwed up an specified bad materials.
B) CDM regulations call for all steps reasonably practical to be taken, so the specific prohibition of a material isn’t required.
C) An estate management agency wrote material specs?
http://www.harleyfacades.co.uk/
Harley Facades Ltd provides a comprehensive design and construction package for building envelopes including; curtain walling, windows, doors, structural glazing, and rainscreen cladding systems.
Okay, we have 3 potential culprits.
http://www.harleyfacades.co.uk/File/Grenfell%20Tower.pdf
http://www.studioe.co.uk/?page_id=21
http://www.rydon.co.uk/
RyanBut I am with TonyT on this – that is not the fault of the company that won the tender.
The design and build team at Harley Facades chose that material instead of a fire resistant one of the same brand… for an 18-storey block of flats.
RyanOne, we do not know the cause yet Ryan and Two, it may well have been an approved material, hence the concerns about the lowering of standards by the Government. I listened to Corbyn wittering on about how could a fire spread so quickly in a building that was essentially made up of concrete boxes… well yes, but humans need air, light and access so you need doorways, windows, electric, gas, water conduits, suddenly his concrete boxes are concrete colanders.
Hence why a politician who has no practical knowledge of the building industry, nor is an expert in fire prevention and cause, is probably not the best to comment on it, that is why they have committees to take advice from those that do before making decisions. At the moment sadly it feels it is all about MPs and parties using it to score points against each other.
Take them having ago at May for not talking to the public, I think she did the right thing, she prioritised and spoke to those on the ground to ascertain if any other resources are needed away from prying press, far better than a phone call as she can see first hand and understand and appreciate what the emergency services are telling her, the talking to those involved can come later, it is in no ones interest to have a slanging match on the street… The Lord Mayor of London found that out.You have to remember this building was built in the 70’s, rules and regulations change, and you try to adapt buildings to new regulations, but that is not always possible… you wouldn’t dream of putting a building up today with asbestos in it, but the one I work in has it, even the outside walls are painted with asbestos based paint as well, it is ok if contained, so it is.
Well actually Corbyn is right in this rare instance, the original designer said the same.
HSE fire safety in construction says to use the least flammable materials. Therefore, if there was a fire resistant material that cost £2/m^2 more he should have used it. The guidance also specifically states that this is extremely important where the risks caused by fire is high.
RyanWell, it’s not the tyre manufacturer or the tail light installer, which is what you are arguing.
Your MOT argument would be more akin to asking the fire safety inspector to pass the existing building when it’s actually dangerous.. which is another scenario entirely,
I am not sure the cladding was specifically against HSE guidelines, though it might have been?
BM – If you mean, does it specifically say not to use that cladding, then you are right. However it does say to use the least flammable materials, so given that the contractor’s own design and build team picked a flammable substance (banned in the US for such projects) instead of a fire resistant substance costing £2/m^2 more, they have clearly gone against the guidelines.
The point is BM, he is responsible for making the design decisions of the project.
RyanWell this is interesting.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3806536/cladding-grenfell-tower-flammable-cheap/
Manufacturers Omnis Exteriors has now confirmed to the Guardian it supplied Reynobond PE cladding to contractors Harley Facades for the project.
The aluminium panels are £2 per square metre cheaper than Reynobond FR panels – which are fire resistant.
It was previously revealed the Reynobond PE cladding is BANNED in America on buildings taller than 40ft for safety reasons.
Omnis director John Cowley said all the cladding and panels the firm supplied were “fully compliant with regulations”.
He told the Guardian: “We supplied components for a system created by the design and build team on that project.”
Hep hem.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsg168.pdf
The guidance is relevant to all construction projects, small and large, and
aimed at all with a role in developing, managing and applying safety standards
on site. Construction fire safety needs to be managed from the earliest stages of
design and procurement and needs to address the risks both to site workers and
to site neighbours. This may mean rejecting proposals for particular methods and
materials in a specific location, based on the potential for serious consequences
from any fire during the construction stage, or planning additional, sometimes
expensive or difficult, mitigation methods if a specific design or method is not to
be changed. It is essential that fire safety measures are considered throughout all
stages of the procurement and design process and implemented effectively during
the construction phase. This guidance is aimed at clients, co-ordinators, designers,
planners, contractors and workers.
Where combustible or flammable materials have to be used,
select the least combustible alternatives.
Substitute with less flammable materials.
He’s done.
RyanNo. Just.. no.
For various reasons to do with my job, I know a fair amount about how councils contract out work and the difference between competitive tendering for goods and services and the closing down of departments and migrating their function to a third party organisation. And there is a difference. The former allows continual oversight of the tendering and supply process by the authority with a democratic responsibility to ensure best practice. The latter does not as the responsibility for best practice no longer resides with the council.
Case in point. A) Council orders new cladding, council has a responsibility to ensure fire safety. B) Quasi-commercial private interest orders new cladding, council can deny responsibility to ensure fire safety.
Well I’m sure lots of councils have directly contracted someone and had this cladding put up. The bottom line is that the contractor should not be using such dangerous cladding as it goes against HSE guidelines. JFC, even if they specifically told him to use that cladding, it is still on him. Case in point, I go to have an MOT done, I know I have 3 bald tyres and one tail light out but I tell the garage to pass me anyway. Who’s fault is it if they do?
Yes but BAe will when tendering out spares issue a specification for the materials, dimensions, size, hardness, coatings and finish used in that screw and samples will be periodically tested to ensure those specifications are met.
The same will be for the cladding…. you do not simply issue a tender without any specification and say I want you to tart up the exterior of a building or you could get hundreds of tenders ranging from wallpaper, paint, wood finish, and cladding.
You issue a tender with a set of specifics laid down, companies then bid a price to install that specified material and you then issue a contract and they carry out the work, which again is inspected etc before being signed off. I do wonder as its been mentioned the USA has a building height limit for using these materials if the specification was issued based upon the materials used on the lower school buildings shown to make it blend into the area, but answers will hopefully come.
You vastly over-estimate how specific tenders are. Mostly a tender will refer to a series of regulations, standards and guidelines that the work must be compliant with, not that it needs to in the case of legislation, because that applies whether they do or don’t.
Let’s put things in perspective here, neither an estate management agent or a local council is an expert in the field of construction, yet people are somehow assuming they should be, whilst assuming the person who’s supposed to be, isn’t, and shouldn’t be held accountable. Do you not see that as somehow backwards logic? E.g. if I pay, via a letting’s agent, to have a registered electrician come out and do a routine electrical safety certification or some electrical work on a rented property and he gets it wrong, who’s to blame, me, the letting’s agent or him? I would like to think that so long as I have the invoice and a receipt to show that I paid for the work in good faith, that would put me in the clear. Because, God knows, if it doesn’t, then any random dumb **** could land me in jail at any time and I’d have to pay them for it. And in this case, it would cost £2.6m. Someone took £2.6m from a local council and covered a block of flats in napalm wrap but nobody should question them.
RyanUnless proven otherwise it would appear the contractor put up the cladding he was contracted to put up.
Are you suggesting that the devolution of administrative functions from Local Authorities to private companies that we have seen over the past few years was because the people who’s job it was just found it too much of a pain in the ****, and said ‘why don’t you engage a private company to do this and lay me off’?
Is it also not possible that the reason the people doing the fire safety checks were not properly qualified to do so was because it stopped being the job of the fire service and became that of private contractors under the same programme of devolution?
Just a thought.
That’s unknown BM and it’s very unlikely that anyone specifically told him to use a highly flammable cladding and he should have been in a position to advise against it even if they did. He is the responsible party as the contractor doing the work.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsg168.pdf
The guidance is relevant to all construction projects, small and large, and
aimed at all with a role in developing, managing and applying safety standards
on site. Construction fire safety needs to be managed from the earliest stages of
design and procurement and needs to address the risks both to site workers and
to site neighbours. This may mean rejecting proposals for particular methods and
materials in a specific location, based on the potential for serious consequences
from any fire during the construction stage, or planning additional, sometimes
expensive or difficult, mitigation methods if a specific design or method is not to
be changed. It is essential that fire safety measures are considered throughout all
stages of the procurement and design process and implemented effectively during
the construction phase. This guidance is aimed at clients, co-ordinators, designers,
planners, contractors and workers.
Competitive tendering BM, plus pensions liabilities. It might seem stupid to you, but even in the private sector itself, most large companies go down this route. E.g. at one point BAE made most of its own tools and even stuff like screws, but now not. This allows a company to focus on its main line of business more clearly rather than being a jack of all trades and have horrible problems managing resources. So in this light, the main line of the business of government is governing, not estate management, hence why it was contracted out, just as the management agency contracted out the refurbishment, because it does estate management not construction work.
Well there have been no changes since 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fire_safety_legislation_in_the_United_Kingdom
RyanNonsense, a great big chunk of what become the Eurofighter Typhoon was MBB’s work.
I mean the actual development work post ISD, i.e. upgrades, which never got funding whilst 80% of the German air force remained inoperable. But yes they were responsible for the fuselage, with the landing gear that opens into the inner pylon store.
And the the UK didnt join the TF-X. BAE won an international tender for consulting work for TF-X, vastly different thing. Chances of any hardware coming out of TF-X (if any actually comes out) ending with RAF colours are almost nill.
That was the impression I got too, much more likely to go with Japan.
You are entirely correct. Lockheed and Boeing will be delighted if Europe doesnt get its act together.
There’s absolutely no reason why Europe cant emulate what it did in the missile, the comercial aircraft area, the helicopter and the space business. The market is there, the resources are there (for crying out loud, even in this “almost nill defense budget” times, Western Europe spends three times more than Russia!), the industry is there. Do an “MBDA” out of Dassault and Airbus, get some realistic KKP’s, throw in 35 billion euros in R&D, wait till 2035 and serve the dam thing with white wine.
What it cant happen is having three european xerox airframes that do the same bloody thing.
Sounds good in theory until they start arguing over which engine is the best etc. (And it was the EJ200 BTW, just in case anybody is still wondering.)
RyanTonyT – if only CFCs didn’t obliterate the ozone layer.
RyanTonyT and BM, take a look at CDM regulations and you’ll understand why they’re hounding that guy. Nobody knows what caused the fire, but from the video, a lot of the fire seemed to be burning on the actual outside of the building.
RyanIt is nothing to do with deposits being held by a regulated body not a landlord. That’s smoke. As you know the management agency is not the regulated body responsible for deposits anyway.
You are deliberately conflating two separate concepts. In private rental the ‘average Joe’ landlord if he is lucky enough uses an agency to handle the ‘laws and complexities’.
This is council housing. Such laws and complexities were once handled by the body best suited to deal with ‘laws and complexities’ – the council. Now, like many other ex-council services, it is usually farmed out to a private concern. This change was an ideological one, and it had benefits and pitfalls.
Part B of the building regs was last reviewed in 2006. Gavin Barwell said in parliament that he would review it last year following another tower block fire (Lakanal House), and then didn’t.
No, but the point I’m making is that very few landlords manage their own properties. It’s is usually done by a management agency or lettings agency, and depending on the contract, they are either responsible for making sure the building meets safety regulations, or making sure the building meets safety regulations and paying for it.
It’s nearly always the case. A typical fee is 10% of rent plus VAT, 12% total and if the tenant leaves they then find a new tenant for free and advertise for free in the first place, another reason most go down this route. Then there is the administrative effort; organising fire inspections, gas certification, electricity certificate, general state of property inspections. It’s not ideological, it’s just a ******* big pain in the **** to do it yourself.
Of course one could ask why flats in Southwark council were owned by Kensington and Chelsea council but then Southwark have been none too hot in the past. Lakanal House happened in 2009.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/14/grenfell-tower-fire-safety-tower-blocks
In 2009, when Lakanal House in Camberwell, south London, caught fire, three women and three children died in what was at the time the worst ever tower block fire in the UK. Southwark council was fined £570,000 for breaching fire regulations, after the fire brigade arrived baffled to see how the flames ripped through the building.
Yet even then there were concerns about the lessons learned. Siân Berry, a Green London assembly member, today said the fact that central fire alarms and drills are still not required for residential buildings is deeply worrying. A report commissioned by Berry and London assembly colleagues after the Southwark fire raised huge concerns that many fire safety checks were inadequate and carried out by people without sufficient training, and that tenants were often not given sufficient information on fire safety protocol.
Sign In
