Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Vixen]

Are you aware you can't drive a fire engine into a multi-storey car park? They're height restricted, generally 6'6". Cite available, but it's trivial knowledge.

In the Liverpool car park fire, fire teams were able to fight the blaze from the stairwells for two hours. It was only then they were forced to retreat.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you see the problem with the burning fuel leak theory ...

Yes I do. I see you still trying to pretend the point in contention is how the car caught fire instead of what type of drivetrain it had.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Bwahaha! Do you think anyone in this forum accepts you as an expert on anything scientific? You haven't demonstrated even the competence we could expect from a typical lay person. Why should your analysis be given the time of day.

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.

Possibly, but you don't know what important elements are the same and which differ, and what their significance is.

To understand why the Luton car park collapsed as a consequence of fire, we need only look at the Luton car park. But that analysis has to be done according to a whole lot of expert understanding and fact that most people (especially you) simply don't have. And it's so important that such analysis be based on a foundation of appropriate knowledge and understanding that those tasked with determining the cause and making recommendations for the future must be specially licensed according to rigorous standards.

Since you don't have the expertise to perform the analysis the right way, you're doing it the typical conspiracy theorist way: you've selected something you think should be reasonably comparable and you're trying to show that if something differs from that, it should be considered suspicious.

In case you want to look them up, your approach commits the fallacy of begging the question (i.e., that some other occurrence must be considered exemplary or similar) and the fallacy of hasty generalization (i.e., the inability to discern whether a detail is an outlier).

On the other hand, Luton had no sprinklers as was recommended and was made of uncoated steel that become ductible...

The word you don't know is "ductile."

Conclusion suggests...

No. No amount of amateur handwaving makes you a scientist. Armchair detectives are worse than useless. You promised us you were only looking at the "bare objective scientific facts" and you've finished up—once again—by trying to foist your uninformed judgment.

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.

No. As has been pointed out, you're confusing the identification of what kind of car first caught fire with what caused the fire.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Next step: explain how the fire spread...

Not relevant.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

From the same report:







So what was the problem with a bog standard run of the mill electrical fault with the 12-volt battery system?

Way back near the start of this thread I posted a link to hundreds upon hundreds of vehicle fires attended by the London fire brigade, almost all of which had bog standard 12V electrical systems. What point do you imagine you are making?

 

[Andy_Ross]

But wait. The driver was there. He or she or someone nearby applied an extinguisher to it. ( A unverified photo implies.) Some one else has filmed a video of the car in question (unverified) shooting out flames from beneath the vehicle, unlike the classic burning upwards. Another person claims to have filmed the initial vehicle (unverified) from the front. So eye witnesses must surely have called the emergency services promptly. A fire alarm must surely have sounded. Yet the whole building was in the grip of an uncontrollable fire within circa 50 minutes. Do you see the problem with the burning fuel leak theory (albeit caused by electrics and combined with pesky plastics)? In Liverpool, such a fire only spread to two rows of cars on one floor, for almost two hours before spreading upwards to the floor above and it was only then firemen could not contain it?

Yet at Luton despite prompt alarms the whole fire was uncontrollable within fifty minutes of the first call to 999.

So the initial vehicle WAS 'isolated'. It hadn't even been parked.

Different fire in different circumstances with different conditions.

You have this problem in the other thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I did.
https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

That's based on research from 1965 and points out that:

1. “…the parking area for each car is considerably larger than the floor area which each car covers” (Spacing of Vehicles Fire Note 10 p.2). This indicates that cars manufactured in the 1950’s are considerably smaller than the parking spaces provided under regulatory requirements and this would give a greater distance between cars, thus reducing effects of radiated heat.

However, cars are now considerably larger, reducing the distance between parked vehicles.

2. “One of the major hazards considered was the disruption of the petrol tanks and the flowing of petrol under other cars in the vicinity via the sloping concrete ramp. In no case did this occur.” (Fire Note 10 Explosion Risk p.7). It is estimated 85% of European vehicles have plastic fuel tanks (BRE Fire Spread in Car Parks BD 2552 p.12).

(i.e. at the time, tanks were generally metal), and:

Observations and recommendations
1. The cars used and the materials they were constructed from have a far lower calorific value than modern vehicles.
2. The cars used for the experiment were far smaller than most modern vehicles.

In summary, you have cherry-picked to such an outrageous degree that it amounts to nothing more than you presenting yet another lie.

Maybe she hasn't struggled to squeeze in to a parking space then attempt to open the door and get out lately

 

[Vixen]

Way back near the start of this thread I posted a link to hundreds upon hundreds of vehicle fires attended by the London fire brigade, almost all of which had bog standard 12V electrical systems. What point do you imagine you are making?

You haven't answered the question. If it was a bog standard diesel car fire and people saw it ignite from the outset (alarm raised immediately) and it wasn't parked in a space next to other cars, how come the fire was uncontrollable in less than an hour, with the fire brigade unable to even enter the building (for example, via the stairwells as in the Liverpool fire)?


You can't.

 

[Vixen]

Different fire in different circumstances with different conditions.

You have this problem in the other thread.

If anything, Luton had the benefit of hindsight and recommendations from the Liverpool report, together with large teams of fire fighters trained in all kinds of airport fires.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From the same report:



So what was the problem with a bog standard run of the mill electrical fault with the 12-volt battery system?

Already pointed out, bigger cars squeezed in to a small space full of lots more combustibles.

Fire engines can't get in to multi storey car parks

I know that both of the ones I use in Middlesbrough and the one in Stockton is too restricted in height and turning circle for the ramps. You can't even take a big van in.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the Liverpool car park fire, fire teams were able to fight the blaze from the stairwells for two hours. It was only then they were forced to retreat.

But they didn't take an engine in to the car park and had to abandon the building

 

[GlennB]

Maybe she hasn't struggled to squeeze in to a parking space then attempt to open the door and get out lately

There's a term for it - 'autobesity'

 

[Vixen]

Maybe she hasn't struggled to squeeze in to a parking space then attempt to open the door and get out lately

But the car in question wasn't in a parking bay.

My car is relatively wide and I have to cover the car door with my hand to avoid it banging into a neighbouring car.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But the car in question wasn't in a parking bay.

My car is relatively wide and I have to cover the car door with my hand to avoid it banging into a neighbouring car.

Yes, so you see how comparing the small cars of the 60s with large modern cars causes problems with regards the fire spreading?

 

[Steve]

Already pointed out, bigger cars squeezed in to a small space full of lots more combustibles.

Fire engines can't get in to multi storey car parks

I know that both of the ones I use in Middlesbrough and the one in Stockton is too restricted in height and turning circle for the ramps. You can't even take a big van in.

But fire departments have tiny little fire engines, complete with tiny little firefighters, for such emergencies! Prove me wrong!!




/Vixen

 

[Andy_Ross]

As regards the 12 volt system, a car battery can easily push out 400 amps.

 

[Vixen]

Already pointed out, bigger cars squeezed in to a small space full of lots more combustibles.

Fire engines can't get in to multi storey car parks

I know that both of the ones I use in Middlesbrough and the one in Stockton is too restricted in height and turning circle for the ramps. You can't even take a big van in.

But the Liverpool car park fire - far more enclosed than the Luton one - report says firefighting teams were able to fight the fire from the stairwells:

16:45 31.12.17 Event firefighting team arrive at main entrance, under blue
lights
16:50 31.12.17 MF&RS appliance in attendance at main entrance
16:56 31.12.17 Assistance message – “Make pumps 3”
16:56 31.12.17 External firefighting begins
17:01 31.12.17 Assistance message “Make pumps 6”
17:08 31.12.17 First BA team (Alpha 1) committed from stairwell 2 into level 3
(Sector 2)
17:31 31.12.17 Assistance message – “Make pumps 8”
17:40 31.12.17 BA crews report up to 30 vehicles involved and running fuel
fire between rows of cars
17:41 31.12.17 Assistance message – “Make pumps 12”
17:52 31.12.17 Internal CCTV – first signs of flame from level 4, in location
away from ramps and above initial fire on level 3
18:07 31.12.17 First BA team (Bravo 1) committed from stairwell 1 to level 3
(Sector 3). Report clear view of fire due to wind conditions. Fire
confined to two rows of vehicles, away from ramps
18:20 -
18:25
31.12.17 All BA crews withdrawn from sector 2 due to untenable fire
conditions

 

[Andy_Ross]

You haven't answered the question. If it was a bog standard diesel car fire and people saw it ignite from the outset (alarm raised immediately) and it wasn't parked in a space next to other cars, how come the fire was uncontrollable in less than an hour, with the fire brigade unable to even enter the building (for example, via the stairwells as in the Liverpool fire)?


You can't.

Not relevant to what type of car was originally involved

 

[GlennB]

In the Liverpool car park fire, fire teams were able to fight the blaze from the stairwells for two hours. It was only then they were forced to retreat.

You gaily quote the '3-4 minutes' thing and leave it at that. Well, there's a fire station 200yds up the road from me and it's the nearest one to Pontypool centre. There's no way on earth a fire engine can get to one of the Pontypool multi-storeys in 4 minutes. even with clear roads (and they're often far from that).

And then they have to assess the situation, deploy hoses, get people into place and start pumping.

Yet again you pick some factoid that seems to support your case without thinking it through.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If anything, Luton had the benefit of hindsight and recommendations from the Liverpool report, together with large teams of fire fighters trained in all kinds of airport fires.

What kinds of 'airport fires' do you think they are trained in?

How would you describe this as an 'airport fire' apart from by physical location?