Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't make a claim, I speculated about your understanding of how the fire spread and lead to the destruction of the building. Surely someone six steps ahead of everyone else would know the difference between a claim and a question.

And you still haven't responded to that query. Do you understand that the building was destroyed by a fire involving many vehicles, not just the initial vehicle?

Stop arguing against straw men. Stop pretending you do not know what these are, as I have pointed them out before.

  • Strawman no. 1: I am an advocate against EV's and hybrids.
  • Strawman no. 2: I am an advocate for diesel and petrol ICE only cars.
  • Strawman no. 3: I have no understanding of how car park fires work.

Compounding these ipso facto logical fallacies (strawman) are your attempts at either misunderstanding (let's be charitable and say it is innocent) or actively attempting to deceive, in the following issues:

  • Your claim no. 4: that fires in diesel cars (together with plastics and other combusitbles) are of the same quality as in EV's and HEV's.
  • Claim no. 5: that diesel cars do self-combust and the statistics show this is more likely than in EV-equivalents.
  • Claim no. 6: You appear not to understand the difference between flash point and ignition point in diesels.
  • Claim no. 7: you claim not to understand that the type of fire in an EV lithium battery is materially different from that of a diesel or ICE car.

For your ease of reference, this video here illustrates why and how a lithium-ion battery fire differs from that of diesel. If you recall, a poster tried to claim that you could start a diesel fire easily but omitted to mention the lit rag soaked in kerosene and application of a leaf blower to do so.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1j9TUV5coc
 
Last edited:
Stop arguing against straw men. Stop pretending you do not know what these are, as I have pointed them out before.

  • Strawman no. 1: I am an advocate against EV's and hybrids.
  • Strawman no. 2: I am an advocate for diesel and petrol ICE only cars.
  • Strawman no. 3: I have no understanding of how car park fires work.

Compounding these ipso facto logical fallacies (strawman) are your attempts at either misunderstanding (let's be charitable and say it is innocent) or actively attempting to deceive, in the following issues:

  • Your claim no. 4: that fires in diesel cars (together with plastics and other combusitbles) are of the same quality as in EV's and HEV's.
  • Claim no. 5: that diesel cars do self-combust and the statistics show this is more likely than in EV-equivalents.
  • Claim no. 6: You appear not to understand the difference between flash point and ignition point in diesels.
  • Claim no. 7: you claim not to understand that the type of fire in an EV lithium battery is materially different from that of a diesel or ICE car.

For your ease of reference, this video here illustrates why and how a lithium-ion battery fire differs from that of diesel. If you recall, a poster tried to claim that you could start a diesel fire easily but omitted to mention the lit rag soaked in kerosene and application of a leaf blower to do so.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1j9TUV5coc


First, ipso facto, you don't know what a strawman is.

Second, dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori, you've been repeatedly shown that the relevant fire authority itself has **confirmed** that the car that was apparently responsible for starting the fire was a straight diesel model.

Third, audere est facere, you are insufficiently skilled in either vehicle combustion or the scientific method to give your views any weight of authority, and you've repeatedly been shown to be either wrong or ignorant or both.

Fourth, in loco parentis, there is not yet any wider public understanding of what actually **caused** the fire, nor how/why it spread so quickly and widely. Something which you've repeatedly now conflated with the make & model of the causatory vehicle.

Veni, vidi, vici. Per ardua ad astra
 
First, ipso facto, you don't know what a strawman is.

Second, dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori, you've been repeatedly shown that the relevant fire authority itself has **confirmed** that the car that was apparently responsible for starting the fire was a straight diesel model.

Third, audere est facere, you are insufficiently skilled in either vehicle combustion or the scientific method to give your views any weight of authority, and you've repeatedly been shown to be either wrong or ignorant or both.

Fourth, in loco parentis, there is not yet any wider public understanding of what actually **caused** the fire, nor how/why it spread so quickly and widely. Something which you've repeatedly now conflated with the make & model of the causatory vehicle.

Veni, vidi, vici. Per ardua ad astra

Quod erat demonstrandum.
 
Involving hundreds of vehicles containing tens of thousands of litres of hydrocarbon fuel (say 80GJ worth) and perhaps 250 tonnes of combustible plastics (say 2TB)?
Yes plenty ofenergy there.

Let's disregard the politics and the lobbying and look at the bare objective scientific facts.

We have a precedent in the Liverpool ECHO Arena Fire of 31 Dec 2017. We have the Fire Brigade Report into that matter. This gives us a point of comparison.

In the Liverpool car park fire, the culprit was a diesel-only Range Rover.

16:29 first signs of smoke on CCTV
16:42 first call to Fire Brigade
16:43 first fire alarm activated x 2 extinguishers applied
16:45 Event (horse show) fire-fighting team arrive
16:56 external fire-fighting begins
17:08 first BA team fire fight from stairwell 2 into level 3
17:40 BA crew reports up to 30 vehicles running rows of burning fuel between two rows of cars
17:52 CCTV shows first sign of flames from level 4 above intial level 3 fire
18:07 first BA team committed from stairwell level 1 to level 3. ‘Fire confined to two rows of vehicles, away from ramps’.
18:20 All BA crews withdrawn from stairwells 2 and 3 due to ‘untenable fire conditions’.
18:38 Emergency evacuation of all teams due to firefight safety issues.

Time taken for the Liverpool car park to develop into a major fire:

Two hours nineteen minutes from when smoke first noticed to fire teams having to withdraw. Alternatively, one hour 56 mins from when first call made to Fire Brigade (999).

Let’s call it two hours for simplicity. 1,150 vehicles lost car park full due to equestrian event. The car park had to be demolished. Structure unsafe and collapsing from the centre - safe enough for firemen to stand around the outside of each level.

Ultimate cause of Liverpool car park spread:

“CCTV footage shows that the fire started in a vehicle on level 3. Attending fire crews reported rapid lateral fire spread, running fuel fires, vertical fire spread from level of origin and a “waterfall” of fire from the ceiling of level 3. It was initially thought that fire spread was via the central ramps, but upon further investigation it is considered that the drainage system was the likely cause of vertical fire spread.” Merseyside-FRF-Car-Park-Report.pdf

From a fire safety research paper of 1968:

Running fuel fires, due to failure of plastic fuel tanks, in early stages of vehicle fires can be expected. It is estimated 85% of European vehicles have plastic fuel tanks.
Sprinklers are effective in both controlling a developing and fully developed fire. Without sprinklers fire is likely to spread from car to car and dangerous levels of smoke are likely for long periods (BD2552 p.46). Designers should seriously consider sprinkler provision to avoid multiple vehicle fires, resulting in huge insurable losses and the possible loss of life. Fire may spread beyond floor of origin. In the case of Kings Dock evidence would suggest that this was initially through the failure of the drainage system. Designers should give serious consideration to the implications of drainage design that could aid fire spread between levels
1968 research shows ““The experimental work carried out…..confirms the fact that an outbreak of fire, within a single parked car, is unlikely to result in uncontrollable fire spread in the car park or in serious damage to the structure of the building.”

So nota bene that the Liverpool car park fire was due to a fuel leak which due to an electric fault caused burning and this burning fuel spread from car to car along two rows, initially, but owing to the sloping floor designed for drainage, the burning fuel seeped into other floors.

So conclusion: fuel leak, burning fuel spreading to other cars then onto other floors. Firefighters able to work from the stairwells for at least two hours trying to extinguish it.

Fast forward to the Luton Fire:

First call to the Fire Brigade 999 was at 20:47

21:38 Major incident declared.

Firefighters tackling the intense blaze from outside the building, unlike at Liverpool.

'Major incident' within 51 minutes - half the time of the Liverpool fire.

As can be seen in the video posted earlier, a lithium car battery fire explodes outwards at high temperature and its contents flare out as projectiles for several metres, thus no fuel line leak required. Concrete floors collapsed quickly.

On the other hand, Luton had no sprinklers as was recommended and was made of uncoated steel that become ductible at circa 500°C, when Liverpool car park was made of concrete.

Conclusion suggests this may not be an ordinary ICE car fire involving the usual fuel leak and electrical fault.

AA technical expert Greg Carter said the most common cause of car fires is an electrical fault with the 12-volt battery system.
He added that diesel is “much less flammable” than petrol, and in a car it takes “intense pressure or sustained flame” to ignite diesel.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-10-11/fire-service-chief-cause-of-luton-airport-car-park-fire

This is why it is not possible at this stage to 'confirm' that the fire was definitely caused by a diesel-only powered car because it doesn't explain the super rapid spread and intensity of heat that kept the fire brigade external to the building.
 
Last edited:
Stop arguing against straw men

[*]Strawman no. 1: I am an advocate against EV's and hybrids.

No indeed. You already said you own a hybrid. The point is not that you have any personal antipathy to these vehicles, it's the absurd lengths you go to in order to maintain a fiction that there is any realistic chance that the car in this case was not the diesel car it was declared to be.

I am quite convinced you don't give a damn about the topic so long as the squabble stumbles on. You are the embodiment of the cheese shop sketch.
 
First, ipso facto, you don't know what a strawman is.

Second, dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori, you've been repeatedly shown that the relevant fire authority itself has **confirmed** that the car that was apparently responsible for starting the fire was a straight diesel model.
Third, audere est facere, you are insufficiently skilled in either vehicle combustion or the scientific method to give your views any weight of authority, and you've repeatedly been shown to be either wrong or ignorant or both.

Fourth, in loco parentis, there is not yet any wider public understanding of what actually **caused** the fire, nor how/why it spread so quickly and widely. Something which you've repeatedly now conflated with the make & model of the causatory vehicle.

Veni, vidi, vici. Per ardua ad astra


Point of information: it has NOT been confirmed. Even today, the SUNDAY TIMES reports:

Early investigations by Bedfordshire police suggest the fire started by accident as the result of a vehicle fault in a diesel car.

Note the operative qualifier: 'suggests'.

I know that word is not popular with people who like to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.
 
Stop arguing against straw men. Stop pretending you do not know what these are, as I have pointed them out before.

  • Strawman no. 1: I am an advocate against EV's and hybrids.
  • Strawman no. 2: I am an advocate for diesel and petrol ICE only cars.
  • Strawman no. 3: I have no understanding of how car park fires work.

Compounding these ipso facto logical fallacies (strawman) are your attempts at either misunderstanding (let's be charitable and say it is innocent) or actively attempting to deceive, in the following issues:

  • Your claim no. 4: that fires in diesel cars (together with plastics and other combusitbles) are of the same quality as in EV's and HEV's.
  • Claim no. 5: that diesel cars do self-combust and the statistics show this is more likely than in EV-equivalents.
  • Claim no. 6: You appear not to understand the difference between flash point and ignition point in diesels.
  • Claim no. 7: you claim not to understand that the type of fire in an EV lithium battery is materially different from that of a diesel or ICE car.

For your ease of reference, this video here illustrates why and how a lithium-ion battery fire differs from that of diesel. If you recall, a poster tried to claim that you could start a diesel fire easily but omitted to mention the lit rag soaked in kerosene and application of a leaf blower to do so.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1j9TUV5coc


Speaking of strawmen.

Has anyone claimed you are an advocate against EVs or hybrids?
Has anyone claimed that you are an advocate for internal combustion engines?

You may not be aware of it but your #3 is in fact the topic being discussed here.
 
Vixen, why do you think one example of a car fire rather than the thousands of others is particularly significant? A car fire that happened in a parked car and took a long time to develop is obviously different from one where the car was being driven so its electrics were live and its fuel pump was running.

That it was in a car park is significant to how the fire developed after the first car was well alight, but not to how fast the fire got to that stage.

So I reject your selection of the Liverpool fire as a good or relevant comparator.
 
No indeed. You already said you own a hybrid. The point is not that you have any personal antipathy to these vehicles, it's the absurd lengths you go to in order to maintain a fiction that there is any realistic chance that the car in this case was not the diesel car it was declared to be.

I am quite convinced you don't give a damn about the topic so long as the squabble stumbles on. You are the embodiment of the cheese shop sketch.

No, the only issue in dispute seems to be the ridiculous claim that the cause of the fire has been settled when objective evidence via unjaundiced eyes doesn't see that as a logical conclusion at all given (a) there is no confirmation that the car in the photos circulating is the same car that caused the fire (b) there is no confirmation that the number plate on one of the photos is genuine.

The person who took the picture on a mobile may not even have taken it at Luton Airport Car Park.

This might explain why the Fire Brigade have declined to confirm it is the culprit car.

AFAIAA there has been no confirmation* from an official source of anything at all as to the cause.

*Look up the meaning of the word 'confirmation'.
 
Nobody is claiming that the cause of the fire has been settled or confirmed. That's your strawman.

It has been confirmed by Beds Fire & Rescue that the fire started in a diesel car, but not how or why it started. This is not a difficult distinction to grasp.
 
Burning plastics with the diesel fuel 'and other combustibles' doesn't turn it into an especially different type of fire.


The character of a fire at a particular moment is dependent on what is burning at that moment, not where it started. Elementary chemistry, as you might say.
 
Vixen, why do you think one example of a car fire rather than the thousands of others is particularly significant? A car fire that happened in a parked car and took a long time to develop is obviously different from one where the car was being driven so its electrics were live and its fuel pump was running.

That it was in a car park is significant to how the fire developed after the first car was well alight, but not to how fast the fire got to that stage.

So I reject your selection of the Liverpool fire as a good or relevant comparator.

If as is the fire brigade's stated aim for public buildings to to arrive within 3 - 4 minutes, how is it possible that a driver leaping out of his smouldering car, contacting 999 and all the alarms going off, promptly, stops the fire teams from effectively containing the blaze swiftly?
 
Because you don't know how quickly they were called, how quickly they arrived or how quickly the fire developed.
 
Point of information: it has NOT been confirmed. Even today, the SUNDAY TIMES reports:

Early investigations by Bedfordshire police suggest the fire started by accident as the result of a vehicle fault in a diesel car.

Note the operative qualifier: 'suggests'.

I know that word is not popular with people who like to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.

Note the words immediately following the word suggest;

...Bedfordshire police suggest the fire started by accident...

They're questioning whether or not it was deliberate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom