Originally Posted by
Turb
Very accurate post and very much on topic.
- Old thing with safety critical new stuff grafted on top which changed fundamental characteristics
- Inadequate testing (in the case of Grenfell no testing at all) and definitely no destructive testing
- Pretence that the new thing is the same as the old thing, just better performance
- Insufficient training ( in Grenfell's case the fire crews hadn't got a clue what they were dealing with or how to deal with it and they killed a lot of people by telling them to stay put when they should have bust a gut to get everyone out ASAP)
- Insufficient or compromised or just non-existent regulatory oversight
Is any of this going to change? Is society willing to pay the cost of doing things right?
In the case of Grenfell, decades long experience, i.e. "testing" of buildings actually occupied by people, and with varying number of casualties aquired, had already documented the problems with the concept of cladding a building using flammable material.
And the "stay put" principle had apparently been "tested in situ" with similar results at those same occasions as well.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDdO-FVNfQI