Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Jack by the hedge]

What about Eric Morecambe?

<FX: Fire engine siren goes past> "They won't sell much ice cream going at that speed."

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[P.J. Denyer]

<FX: Fire engine siren goes past> "They won't sell much ice cream going at that speed."

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Genuinely LOLed

 

[Mojo]

That is not for fire engine access. Do you think a fire engine goes up to the 11th floor in a block of flats?

Only if the lift is working.

 

[Mojo]

Those would be the battery fuel lines, right? Carrying all the battery fuel? And they have to go along that side to pass around the grassy knoll.

Is this the battery fuel that powers the lights at the rear of the vehicle where there isn't any electricity?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Only if the lift is working.

Not a chance, do you really think they're going to want their Fire Engine to smell like piss?

 

[JayUtah]

If you understood statistics, you would know that EV's are a small percentage of cars on the road and probably...

If you say "statistics" and "probably" in the same sentence, I'm going to want to see some maths. I'm going to bet you don't actually know statistics.

If as another post claims, EV's are just 0.02% of cars on the road, of course they will not figure in decades-long statistics.

And if the descriptive statistics were over decades of data, you'd have a point.

As they age with wear and tear, we will see their fire damage rates also increase.

Assumes facts not in evidence. And you can't have it both ways. If the EV experience base is too new, you have no basis for statistically predicting failure modes and rates. If it isn't, then the statistical basis for their estimated safety now is valid.

You don't seem to get how statistics works in terms of probability and prediction.

OTOH the electronic system is designed to immediately switch off if there are danger signs from the battery so in that respect, electrical fires pertaining to operation systems are minimised...

Disconnecting the load from a lithium-ion battery that is or about to experience thermal runaway does absolutely nothing to prevent it. The reaction you fear in that kind of battery is a chemical reaction inside the cell, not a problem with the load circuit. And you can still have problems with the load circuits with the battery in perfectly good condition and indicating no failure. Then you'd have the same scenario as with any other car's non-propulsive electrical system.

 

[jimbob]

Remember that rules 0 and 12 (and 11) apply in this section.

I might clear this thread up later, but lay off the personal attacks

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Roger Ramjets]

After all, if the final report is similar to that of the Liverpool report,

Very interesting case.

The vehicle which started that fire was a Range Rover.

On 31st December 2017 Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service (MFRS) attended a fire at Kings Dock Car Park, Monarchs Quay. The car park comprised of eight storeys consisting of a ground floor with seven levels above. The fire started in a car which was parked on the third level of the car park. The vehicle was parked shortly before the fire started. The fire spread to involve other vehicles on level three and to the levels above and below. The fire developed to cause significant damage to the building and 1309 vehicles...

The actions captured on the car park CCTV footage of the owner’s activity after he had parked the vehicle suggest that he suspected there was something wrong with the vehicle. The CCTV footage also showed unusual activity with the vehicle lighting which further suggests that there was something wrong with the vehicle.

From the vehicle stopping in the parking bay it takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds for smoke to start issuing from under the bonnet of the vehicle. This timing is consistent with a vehicle being driven, parked and the first signs of fire being seen externally from under the bonnet. Coupling this timeline with the owner’s actions suggest that the fire had started at around the time the vehicle was parked. It is more than likely that the fire started accidentally, either due to an electrical fault or a component failure.

If sprinklers had been installed, Kings Dock fire 'could have been contained'

the report says that the Kings Dock fire in a building adjacent to Liverpool's Echo Arena on 31 December last year, which caused the destruction of some 1400 cars, would not have spread as quickly as it did if sprinklers had been installed. They would have delayed “fire development and prevent fire spread to multiple vehicles before the attendance of the Fire and Rescue Service”...

The report says that "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."

‘Lessons not learnt’ from multi-storey car park fires

18 Oct, 2019

A major fire at the Kings Dock multi-storey car park in Liverpool on New Year's Eve in 2017 saw over 1,000 vehicles destroyed with temperatures reaching over 1,000 °C during the inferno.

The Cross report said that it was “disappointed” that previous alerts which were published to assist those who own, commission or design car parks had not been heeded...

According to a report by the Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service following the Kings Dock fire, the use of slots in the floors for drainage, combined with aluminium gutters and PVC downpipes allowed the fire to spread rapidly between floors and the structure was severely damaged.

A reporter to the Structural-Safety organisation noted that during a visit to a recently constructed car park they saw the same issues which had been highlighted by the Merseyside fire service. They noted that they “find it difficult to believe that this car park could survive for significantly more than 15 minutes in a fire without collapsing”.

 

[Tristan Chi]

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/363c5f5e-c47e-44d1-8a94-1f5edd3aaaa2#hnO3iTL0.copy

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You just made that up.

More like "I'm going to casually ignore whatever doesn't support my pre-conceived notions and hope nobody notices even though everybody is noticing just like all the other times I've tried this tactic."

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Disconnecting the load from a lithium-ion battery that is or about to experience thermal runaway does absolutely nothing to prevent it. The reaction you fear in that kind of battery is a chemical reaction inside the cell, not a problem with the load circuit.

True. However thermal runaway is most often triggered by overheating due to high current draw, over-charging, or over-discharging followed by charging. These events are detected by the battery management system, which disconnects the battery if such faults occur. The BMS also monitors the voltage on each block of parallel cells, shutting down if significant variance is detected. This will detect 'leaky' cells that slowly discharge. EV batteries generally have fuses between individual cells too, which prevents an internally shorting cell from taking out those around it.

The biggest electrical fire risk in an EV is the same as a gas car - the 12V battery. However EVs are generally safer there too because the wiring is less exposed to heat and vibration, and there is less 'fuel' to set alight if a spark occurs. EVs also tend to be less cramped due to the smaller size of the electric motor etc. Hybrids are probably worse because they have to pack more stuff into a hot engine bay. Last year 180,000 Toyota RAV4s were recalled in the US due to the possibility of wiring rubbing on a fuel line - just one example of something that wouldn't happen in an EV.

BTW a few minutes ago I was given a large box full of RC plane Lipo batteries to dispose of. To save weight and get maximum possible current draw these batteries don't have BMS circuits. The only 'protection' is a thin plastic wrap that won't even prevent damage if they are dropped on a hard surface. All have bad cells that have self-discharged and/or puffed up from internal gassing.

I will be making them safe by slowly discharging each cell until there is nothing left. In the unlikely event of one overheating my fire suppression system is... a bucket of water to put the battery in.

 

[zooterkin]

If you understood statistics, you would know that EV's are a small percentage of cars on the road and probably being better maintained and service than most cars, many of them being leased company cars. If as another post claims, EV's are just 0.02% of cars on the road, of course they will not figure in decades-long statistics.

Where did you get that nonsense from? The actual figure is between 2 and 3%, so you're out by two orders of magnitude.

 

[GlennB]

Where did you get that nonsense from? The actual figure is between 2 and 3%, so you're out by two orders of magnitude.

Ah, be fair - she got the 2 and the % right. Or is that the way they taught it back in her school?

 

[Vixen]

Does 'pronto' mean before there were multiple cars involved in the fire? You don't know.

Now you are beginning to catch up.

 

[Vixen]

So you're guessing this was a well-designed modern car park despite the one feature we know about being a tragically poor design choice.

As a heavy-duty (expected full capacity or near-full capacity at all times) and serving an airport - in fact, in close proximity - one would have thought so, given the previous Liverpool fire.

 

[jadebox]

Where did you get that nonsense from? The actual figure is between 2 and 3%, so you're out by two orders of magnitude.

I think someone posted earlier that .02% of vehicle fires involved electric vehicles or something like that. She may have remembered that figure.

 

[Vixen]

Let's suppose that this was in fact a hybrid fire and the fire department is trying to mislead the public about that fact. So, it's a diesel hybrid, but for now they claim that it's a diesel powered car, so as not to alarm the public or something. They do so by couching their findings with caveats in the press conference, although they omit the caveats on their web pages because, you know, simplified English or something.

These smart lawyers who told the chief to do this must have a plan. What could it be? Seems to me there are only two obvious options.

The first option is to admit that it was a hybrid at a later date. After all, if the final report is similar to that of the Liverpool report, it begins with a statement of truth and compliance, so there's legal pressure that the final report is accurate.

But if they have to admit publicly that it was a hybrid within months, what has been gained? The public will know the truth and will be greatly offended about the lie. Oh, you could say that the public will forgive them, because maybe the facts were only discovered later, but there's two problems with that prediction. First, a number of people have said from the start that it was a hybrid or EV, so the fact that laymen know the truth suggests the fire experts were lying from the start. Second, according to your posts, average folks are too stupid to understand caveats like "pending final investigation", so they will conclude that the fire brigade was just lying from the start.

So I see no benefit at all from the first option.

The second option is to continue the lie in the final report. Never admit the truth, just keep saying that this vehicle was a bog standard diesel car. But if that's the plan, then what purpose do the chief's caveats serve? He might as well have claimed certainty from the start. For that matter, if we're willing to consider that the officials are likely to baldly lie to us about the origin of the fire, why should we put any stock in their press releases at all? Everything they say should be regarded as suspect, so we're better off, I guess, looking at grainy photos and ignoring what they say.

Thus, the second option puts us in the miserable position of having no authority we can trust. That doesn't make the second option false, but it means that we might as well just ignore whatever the fire experts say. No need to parse the press release for caveats, since if the car really was a hybrid, they'll have to continue the lie straight into the final report or else the initial misleading statement would be for naught.

So we can see that there's no real reason to claim it was a diesel pending verification unless they really believed it was a bog standard diesel but felt compelled to admit that they just might be mistaken. Since, if they had evidence that it really was a hybrid, either they would have to admit this some time later for no gain, or they intend to just flat out lie about it in the final report so why not flat out lie now?

These lawyers don't seem so smart. They seem to be unable to recognize that there's a final report coming at some point.

(Note: The Liverpool fire occurred on Dec. 31, 2017 and the investigation team report was released on May 22, 2018. So we're looking at less than half a year in that case. Of course, different fires are different, but surely this final report will be released within, oh, say two years at the very most. It can't be kicked down the line forever. The very people who make statements now will still be around at that time, at least for the most part.)

The thing is, when Andrew Hopkinson chief fire officer of Beds said, "“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said.

“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”

He was not lying.

A picture was circulated of the suspect car, which the public were supposed to work out for themselves was a Range Rover. As Range Rover are not bringing out a full EV until 2024, then Hopkinson can say it is not believed to be an EV with full confidence. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent a diesel car from also being a mild hybrid or a plug-in hybrid as the diesel will be the majority power of the car. So he is not lying there, either.

In the Liverpool Fire the make and model of the originating vehicle was named immediately (Range Rover) but on this occasion the fire brigade has not actually uttered those words, so your number one surmise that legal advise is what has come into play here. This could be because:

• There is a trheat of legal action against the car brand which could backfire if wrongly named.
• Political pressure from high up due to the recent investment in a Jaguar Land Rover gigfactory to make Car Batteries via Tata, the owners of JLR.
• There may be a polcie investigation ongoing. That will be a gag.
• The Fire Brigade works closely with the police to draw up its Fire Report, so it would be unethical to announce a cause before the investigation has been completed.
• A man has been arrested 'as a precaution' on suspicion of Criminal Damage. The police might not want to alert other suspects, so he is effectively also gagged and stopped from leaving the country.
• The press are gagged from identifying this guy or discussing him due to the police arrest.

So you see, there is no conspiracy or 'lie' per se.

If as expected it is revealed to be a q-lithium battery fault then there is no loss of face for the fire brigade as they did say subject to verification and it was diesel as they believed.

As with the Liverpool car park fire, no-one was killed or seriously hurt so I expect that by the time the report comes out it'll be yesterday's news hidden on page 5 which most people will have forgotten about already. But there has been a lot of public interest in this particular case so it will be interesting to see how it is handled if it turns out it was indeed a lithium battery issue initially. They may never know for sure.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Now you are beginning to catch up.

Laughable comment.

 

[zooterkin]

The thing is, when Andrew Hopkinson chief fire officer of Beds said, "“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said.

“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”

He was not lying.

A picture was circulated of the suspect car, which the public were supposed to work out for themselves was a Range Rover. As Range Rover are not bringing out a full EV until 2024, then Hopkinson can say it is not believed to be an EV with full confidence. Likewise, there is nothing to prevent a diesel car from also being a mild hybrid or a plug-in hybrid as the diesel will be the majority power of the car. So he is not lying there, either.

In the Liverpool Fire the make and model of the originating vehicle was named immediately (Range Rover) but on this occasion the fire brigade has not actually uttered those words, so your number one surmise that legal advise is what has come into play here. This could be because:

• There is a trheat of legal action against the car brand which could backfire if wrongly named.
• Political pressure from high up due to the recent investment in a Jaguar Land Rover gigfactory to make Car Batteries via Tata, the owners of JLR.
• There may be a polcie investigation ongoing. That will be a gag.
• The Fire Brigade works closely with the police to draw up its Fire Report, so it would be unethical to announce a cause before the investigation has been completed.
• A man has been arrested 'as a precaution' on suspicion of Criminal Damage. The police might not want to alert other suspects, so he is effectively also gagged and stopped from leaving the country.
• The press are gagged from identifying this guy or discussing him due to the police arrest.

So you see, there is no conspiracy or 'lie' per se.

If as expected it is revealed to be a q-lithium battery fault then there is no loss of face for the fire brigade as they did say subject to verification and it was diesel as they believed.

As with the Liverpool car park fire, no-one was killed or seriously hurt so I expect that by the time the report comes out it'll be yesterday's news hidden on page 5 which most people will have forgotten about already. But there has been a lot of public interest in this particular case so it will be interesting to see how it is handled if it turns out it was indeed a lithium battery issue initially. They may never know for sure.

 

[Vixen]

To remind you, here's what you posted again:


That's a clear claim that the "legally-advised fire chief" was following "the party line" rather than giving his own opinion, neatly clearing the way for a claim that he's therefore not a reliable source.

What evidence do you have for your claim that he was following "the party line" as a result of legal advice? That's the clear implication of your statement.

He will have liaised closely with the police. Clearly he was told not to name the brand of car.