Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Jack by the hedge]

So I take it the answer is no.

Of course you're wrong. The message you are desperate to ignore is a news item published on the website of the fire brigade. That is their statement. If you're going to persist in rejecting anything which is not a sheet of paper with "press release" written on the header, I might note you haven't got that for the original statement either.

Implausible deniability is not a good look.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am guessing...

Yep.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Is it your opinion that a diesel fire could buckle a steel reinforced frame within a short period of time, as in a typical multi-level car park?

It wasn't just a Diesel Fuel fire, the tires and Plastic provided the energy to do that.

 

[Disbelief]

I suspect Vixen's concerns arise from the notion that it's a self-oxidizing reaction. The normal precaution against using water on Class C combustibles doesn't really apply to EVs. In some contexts, the battery might be part of a larger electrical assembly that requires proper retardant. (This is the case in the Boeing 787, which I worked on.) In other cases, you don't care about the electrical properties of the combustibles because while the battery is in full thermal runaway it's not powering anything.

More importantly, it's not just the battery that burns. The scary part is when the burning battery ignites materials around it that fall into classes A or B. Those are the materials that are extinguished or prevented from igniting with a water deluge. As Mojo noted, Vixen seems to have it in her mind that only one kind of thing burns at a time in a structure fire.

That's one of the strange things to me, she keeps stating that it's a diesel fire like no other combustibles are in a car. Once the fire gets to the interior witth the cloth and various plastics, then it gets really bad. Add in a large number of cars burning at once, and I am not sure what she expects to happen.

 

[GlennB]

That's one of the strange things to me, she keeps stating that it's a diesel fire like no other combustibles are in a car. Once the fire gets to the interior witth the cloth and various plastics, then it gets really bad. Add in a large number of cars burning at once, and I am not sure what she expects to happen.

Vixen writes as if the whole business is down to one, and only one, burning vehicle, but can't possibly believe that to be the case.

 

[junkshop]

This thread is dumb, and everyone who has engaged with it is being dumb.

Now, before this post is relegated to the bad place, please understand (or at least allow me to explain) my reasoning.

The thread opens with the idea that the local fire service have not confirmed what type of vehicle was the origin of the fire. Said fire service did exactly this on the same day as the OP was posted. Which came first is immaterial. If the confirmation came first, then the OP is null and void. If the OP came first, then once the fire service published their statement the OP is rendered moot, and the percieved problem goes away.

The author of the OP's refusal to accept the statement published by the Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service on their official website is dumb. I AM NOT saying that they are dumb, I am saying that that argument was/is dumb.

Another dumbness is the multitude of digressions, diversions and other distractions that respondents on this thread have been sucked into (myself very much included, please don't imagine that I see myself as some dispassionate external observer of this nonsense). Again, i am not saying that anyone is in and of themselves dumb, I am saying that we have all been arguing about dumb things, and that we have been dumb enough to be drawn back into arguments that have already happened elswhere as if they were novel.


An example: the re-litigating of the "x temperature isn't possible outside of a lab" bollocks. We've done that, and it isn't relevant here.

Many of us (myself most definitely included) are guilty of letting our previous interactions bleed over into this thread, and while I understand that, I'm not sure that is helpful.

Actually,: No, on reflection I am sure that is not helpful.


I hope it is clear that I'm not going after any particular poster, rather that I'm saying we're all being a bit dumb.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I suspect Vixen's concerns arise from the notion that it's a self-oxidizing reaction. The normal precaution against using water on Class C combustibles doesn't really apply to EVs. In some contexts, the battery might be part of a larger electrical assembly that requires proper retardant.

Please don't give her any wiggle room. Firefighters use water to put out EV fires just like they do for gas car fires. The only issue has been getting enough water onto the battery to cool it down. If they do that the fire is often easier to put out than a gas car fire. Part of it is being aware of where the water should be applied. The battery is generally under the floor, so directing water to the underside of the vehicle is often more effective than filling up the cabin.

Of course once the other parts start burning it's pretty much the same deal for both vehicle types - lots of water sprayed into the vehicle if it hasn't gone too far, or stand back and let it burn out. One difference with an EV fire is that you don't have to worry so much about it exploding into a huge fireball, because there is far less 'fuel' in a lithium battery. If the fire didn't start in the battery then it may burn itself out without the battery being involved at all.

Hopefully this incident will goad building engineers into coming up with better fire suppression systems. Conventional sprinklers are probably not very effective. For EVs at least, it might be better to put sprinklers underneath the vehicle or low down on the wall where they can direct water under it. This could be combined with thermal sensors and/or IR cameras constantly monitoring vehicles to (hopefully) catch them before things get out of hand. Vehicle type could be identified when parking so the fire suppression system can tune itself to it.

This will cost money, but unless something is done insurance costs for parking buildings will skyrocket, making a proper (or any!) fire suppression system cheaper overall. Perhaps gas cars will have to be banned from parking buildings due to their much greater fire risk!

 

[JayUtah]

An example: the re-litigating of the "x temperature isn't possible outside of a lab" bollocks. We've done that, and it isn't relevant here.

I argue it's somewhat relevant.

That said, I'm stupid. I held out for ten pages or so, watching Vixen dig herself into yet another cess pit of ignorance, equivocation, and lies. But train wrecks are hard to ignore.

But relevance. Part of Vixen's argument is that photographic and physical evidence from the fire indicates something suspiciously beyond a simple vehicle fire. As usual, she relies on her own (non-existent) expertise to evaluate this evidence. The foundation of that expertise then becomes relevant, and evidence—from wherever source—of that (lack of) foundation becomes relevant. Vixen's abject ignorance of material science matters to how much we can trust her judgment that the fire and collapse of the car park was somehow unexpected.

Edited by jimbob: 

rule 12 violation snipped

 

[JayUtah]

Please don't give her any wiggle room. Firefighters use water to put out EV fires just like they do for gas car fires.

I know they do. You're not wrong. Giant amounts of water are important heat sinks. We have lots of firefighting experience with self-sustaining reactions that are aggressively exothermic. I work in an industry where we have Hazmat on speed-dial.

Hopefully this incident will goad building engineers into coming up with better fire suppression systems.

This is a chronic issue across all sectors of protective and safety engineering.

 

[junkshop]

I argue it's somewhat relevant.

That said, I'm stupid. I held out for ten pages or so, watching Vixen dig herself into yet another cess pit of ignorance, equivocation, and lies. But train wrecks are hard to ignore.

But relevance. Part of Vixen's argument is that photographic and physical evidence from the fire indicates something suspiciously beyond a simple vehicle fire. As usual, she relies on her own (non-existent) expertise to evaluate this evidence. The foundation of that expertise then becomes relevant, and evidence—from wherever source—of that (lack of) foundation becomes relevant. Vixen's abject ignorance of material science matters to how much we can trust her judgment that the fire and collapse of the car park was somehow unexpected.

Edited by jimbob: 

rule 12

[Long response that went quite off topic redacted]

If you are stupid, then I dread to think what I am.

ETA: It's possible/almost certain that we have different defintions/values for 'stupid' & 'dumb'. I can't remember why I wanted to raise this point.

 

[Mojo]

Vixen writes as if the whole business is down to one, and only one, burning vehicle...

For example:

So I am curious to understand why the fire chiefs made the decision to keep well away from the building, tackling it from the outside instead of going in, if the assessment was it was a common or garden diesel car fire.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I know they do. You're not wrong. Giant amounts of water are important heat sinks. We have lots of firefighting experience with self-sustaining reactions that are aggressively exothermic. I work in an industry where we have Hazmat on speed-dial.



This is a chronic issue across all sectors of protective and safety engineering.

Yup, when fighting a fire on a ship it's important to spray the compartment bulkheads around the fire and the deckhead below and deck above to stop heat being conducted to other areas and starting more fires.
Hatches and doorways are sealed to further contain it and starve it if oxygen.

Magazines have arrangements to flash flood them remotely for obvious reasons.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I work in an industry where we have Hazmat on speed-dial.

Chipotle?

 

[Vixen]

You said you want to know the make and model of the car.

Now, faced with doing something to find out, you inflate your requests.

I can see this is just a game to you.

FOI exemptions:

What exemptions are there?
Some exemptions apply only to a particular category or class of information, such as information held for criminal investigations or relating to correspondence with the royal family. These are called class-based exemptions.

Some exemptions require you to judge whether disclosure may cause a specific type of harm, for instance, endangering health and safety, prejudicing law enforcement, or prejudicing someone’s commercial interests. These are called prejudice-based exemptions.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...s-based,are called prejudice-based exemptions.

Whilst the Fire Brigade is responsible for producing the Fire Report in this type of major incident, it works closely with the police because there may be criminal issues arising from it. The idea that one could simply send in a request for FOI for the make and model of the car is absurd given the report won't be ready for at least four months or more.

 

[Vixen]

I think part of the problem may be that Vixen thinks that if a fire starts in a diesel vehicle then it's a "diesel fire". It's a sort of magical thinking in which the nature of something is determined and fixed by its origin.

No, sorry. The absolute insistence by zooterkin that it was a diesel car that started the fire and this is confirmed absolutely means magical thinking on his part, desperately trying to pin the blame on the poor diesel car when there has been no confirmation of (a) which vehicle started the fire, (b) what type of vehicle, and (c) even then you can't know if it was unofficially modified in some way without examining it, and this has not been possible until salvage over the last couple of days.

The claim that the cause of the fire is definitely known and it was a diesel-only vehicle is pure unconfirmed bunkum.


If the images uploaded to social media are authentic then it is clear that the source of the fire is from below the vehicle exactly where a lithium-ion battery would be and shooting out flames as is consistent with such a fire.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The idea that one could simply send in a request for FOI for the make and model of the car is absurd given the report won't be ready for at least four months or more.

Says the person who implies it's suspicious that she hasn't already been told officially.

Once again, please pick a lane.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, sorry. The absolute insistence by zooterkin that it was a diesel car that started the fire and this is confirmed absolutely ...

Zooterkin 'absolutely insisted' the fire brigade say it was diesel car.

They do say it was a diesel car.

 

[GlennB]

YOU made that argument. Own it.

That's a plain lie.

 

[zooterkin]

No, sorry. The absolute insistence by zooterkin that it was a diesel car that started the fire and this is confirmed absolutely means magical thinking on his part, desperately trying to pin the blame on the poor diesel car when there has been no confirmation of (a) which vehicle started the fire, (b) what type of vehicle, and (c) even then you can't know if it was unofficially modified in some way without examining it, and this has not been possible until salvage over the last couple of days.

The claim that the cause of the fire is definitely known and it was a diesel-only vehicle is pure unconfirmed bunkum.

Whose word would you take if not the police and the fire service who attended the fire?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Whose word would you take if not the police and the fire service who attended the fire?

Random people on Twitter/X who claim to have been mechanics or car salesmen.