Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am aware of that. For it to leak there needs to be some kind of rupture, no?

Ah.

Since you were aware of what a 'fuel line' is when you said the Liverpool fire began with a running burning 'fuel line' between rows of cars, it seems like a given that something had ruptured if that part of one car's fuel system was lying on the ground and burning between some rows of parked cars.

You're sure you didn't just misunderstand what you read, then?
 
Police won't care. It'll be Prime Minster Rishi Sunak and his wife not wanting anything to besmirch the Tata brand. Imagine if the Range Rover had a dud lithium battery, albeit a mild hybrid, just as they are champing at the bit to build a factory of the things...? Of course, Rish! wouldn't lie. It'd just be an 'inadvertent' oversight that he forgot to state his wife's interests. Whoops. He did it again. Silly him.
Bollocks. You're making up childish, conspiratorial, drivel again.
 
That would be the purpose of the fire report, to explain what caused the fire, whether standards and regulations (Fire, Building, Staffing, etc.) were adhered to and then it will set out its recommendations. A Fire Report would not be setting out to reprimand the brand of vehicle as that is not its function. Jaguar Land Rover's greatest fear will be the Insurance companies and possible private litigants. If the incident can be blamed on the driver, it gets then off the hook. But the Fire Report will be highly unlikely to 'name and shame' them.

Again, there are numerous ways in which a car can catch fire, especially an older car, that don't involve culpability by the manufacturer.

Do you think if you're rear-ended at a traffic light because the decade old Focus behind you loses brake pressure when the master cylinder fails, that you can turn around and sue Ford?
 
If the driver had to leap out of a burning car sharpish then it is stating the Bleedin' Obvious to state it appears to be a 'vehicle fault'. Again, you have very carefully been told nothing at all. Yet you believe you know all about it.

I don't think I know all about it. I know a few things. Here are some things I know.
  • The chief said it was a diesel vehicle, pending final confirmation.
  • The official website said it was a diesel vehicle, with no caveats.
  • The fire brigade confirmed the cause was vehicle fault.
  • It is widely believed that the vehicle is a Range Rover, though I've seen no explicit confirmation from authorities.
Now, a driver fault is different than a vehicle fault, so when the authorities confirm it is a vehicle fault, it seems to me that they are saying the driver is not the cause of the fire. Rather, something wrong with the vehicle is to blame.

Given that most folks reckon the vehicle was a Range Rover, it follows that because of the fact that the authorities have said the fire was a result of vehicle fault, most folks will reckon that something was wrong with the Range Rover causing the fire. Hence, if the aim was to deflect blame from the manufacturer, the authorities did a really **** job and arresting some unknown person for criminal damage doesn't really deflect any attention from that fact.

Consequently, if the aim was to deflect attention from the manufacturer, then any competent person would not have disclosed that the fire resulted from a vehicle fault. Surely, the manufacturer wants to avoid blame, regardless of whether a Lithium battery was involved or not.

Furthermore, at present, the overwhelming evidence is that no lithium battery was involved. Now, I'm not positive on this, but I think that people have said the Range Rover make and year did not come in a hybrid model. It seems exceedingly unlikely that anyone would have spent such a large sum converting to a hybrid when it must be more cost effective to simply by a newer hybrid. So, although I am willing to revise my opinion if startling new information comes to light, I am more than willing to take the word of the authorities that this vehicle has a bog standard diesel internal combustion engine. The evidence seems quite sufficient for that conclusion at this point.

Your story about covering for the manufacturer, on the other hand, just doesn't make much bloody sense. Why call out a vehicle fault on Oct. 23? How does that help matters when one could have easily said that there is just not enough information at present to know how the fire started? I just can't see any reasonable explanation for this announcement, given that the authorities are trying to protect the manufacturer.

It is also worth stating that insofar as the fire officials keep mum about evidence of the actual cause in order to give a false sense of security regarding Range Rovers or lithium batteries, then they are neglecting their duties. Of course, they shouldn't report prematurely, but you seem to suggest that they know damned well it was a lithium battery fault. Were this the case, they'd be failing to warn the public of an apparent danger.
 
With your 27+ years of expertise in the motor industry, what in your view would cause a fire on one level of a car park to have spread to the next level within, let's say fifteen minutes? The initial car is a diesel-only. You know the timing because the driver has only just left the vehicle and it has been reported.

Talk us through it.

Why would I waste the time since you have been told repeatedly in this thread how the fire could spread, but you won't even acknowledge the possibility. You fake post by continuing to say things about diesel fires, but when called out that there is much more combustible material than just diesel, you backtrack and claim you never said it was just diesel. Your games get old and you're not very good at them since everyone sees through them.
 
If the driver had to leap out of a burning car sharpish then it is stating the Bleedin' Obvious to state it appears to be a 'vehicle fault'. Again, you have very carefully been told nothing at all. Yet you believe you know all about it.

Have you been told anything that no one else has? No? Then we can safely conclude that you also know nothing about it. Right?

And yet you have written thousands of words in this thread on a topic you know nothing about.
 
Is it 'Rev' as in 'Rrrrrrrevvvvverend'...?

I like the joke, but it doesn't defect from my point. I work for Transport for London dealing with the LEZ and ULEZ among other things. My title is real, I'm ordained with a legally recognised church, but it isn't my job.
 
Actually, they haven't identified the vehicle as far as the brand is concerned but haven't denied it was a Range Rover as pictured by a nearby witness and presumed CCTV image, either.

The Liverpool car park fire was deemed to have been caused by a running burning fuel line between initially a couple of rows of cars and then spreading upwards after two hours after which it was declared uncontrollable. In the interim, this burning fuel, according to the Fire Report into this fire, had spread to lower floors via the drainage system, which unfortunately was not able to withstand the high temperature of it.

Looking at the time line of the Luton Fire:

10 October 2023

20:47 first call to the emergency services to report the fire Level 3.

20:57 Fire brigade arrival within 'ten minutes'

21:00 just after - eye witness sees car 'flame throw' on open air top deck Level 4. He says cars alighting every few minutes thereafter with bangs and pops.

21:38: Fire Brigade call it a 'Major Incident', four fire fighters and one airport worker rushed to hospital with smoke inhalation problems. Fire fighting from outside the building with 100 firemen from surrounding districts and London Fire Brigade.

23:32 a time stamped video shows a vehicle plunging through the ceiling to the floor below.

11 Oct 2023

00:22 Fire brigade says it is no longer a major incident.

09:30 Fire now quenched to smouldering level.

Time to reach uncontrollable level: 51 minutes, half that of the Liverpool fire which the Fire Brigade said was one of the worst they had ever seen.

A Romanian eye witness said she saw the burning vehicle - the driver had already left - and she and her companion went to a lower floor to get a fire extinguisher because two nearby the vehicle were already empty.

She told a press reporter at the scene that they left when 'the fuel tank exploded'.

This must have been before 21:00-ish whilst still relatively escapable without injury. This is because an eye witness said he saw cars catching fire on the roof just after 21:00.

So, for a diesel fuel tank to 'explode' (or deflagrate, rather), the vapour int he tank has to reach circa 100



But where would that nearby heat have come from in the first place in Vehicle Zero? Assuming the fuel tank is not leaking - remember, it is the fuel tank exploding according to the Romanian lady - a piece of shrapnel piercing the tank, say from a lithium-ion battery, that is already aflame at a high temperature could have been the catalyst to cause this fire ball. If it was an electrical fire from the engine area (under the bonnet/hood) how did it reach the fuel tank at the back to cause it to appear to explode?
.
Brian Trotta 'firefighter'

For the diesel tank to self-ignite it needs to have reached its ignition point temperature. (This is a different scenario from a leak fuel line.)

Of course, it is possible there was more than one fault with the vehicle but for the fuel tank to 'explode' or rather, burst into flame within less than ten minutes of the reported alarm call, something must have either penetrated the tank, which would have to be shrapnel of high velocity to pierce it and then trigger the vapours inside the tank; or its temperature must have been brought up to a very high temperature very rapidly for it to be able to combust and cause the tank to melt away completely in a fireball.

Within ten minutes of the first call, the fire had spread to a car on the roof, or to the roof setting off some cars or one car.

Whilst it may be useful to use the Liverpool Fire as a precedent for this one, I cannot see that it is similar other than that it was an intense fire, as you'd expect when a whole bunch of cars parked together all catch fire, if what the eye witness saw was an accurate depiction. And of course, we know lithium-ion fires are particularly toxic to inhale. A burning fuel line leak certainly would not look the same as a fuel tank exploding.

It has been confirmed by the fire service that it was a diesel car
 
Not Big Oil, although various ministers have contacts with Shell and fracking companies. The UK government have complex plans to bring about Net Zero, albeit put back a few years. However, anything that calls into question the safety or costs of implementing the phasing out of fossil fuel-powered would certainly be a big concerned. No way would the government allow one incident, which might have zero to do with safety per se but everything to do with a faulty model or driver error allow such a possibility to be expressed in the national media. Plus the £4bn investment by Tata owners of JLR in the UK to build a million square foot car battery factory creating jobs in that region; it would be a massive spanner in the works were there to be a moral panic about lithium-ion car batteries.

It has been confirmed by the fire service that it was a diesel car
 
With your 27+ years of expertise in the motor industry, what in your view would cause a fire on one level of a car park to have spread to the next level within, let's say fifteen minutes? The initial car is a diesel-only. You know the timing because the driver has only just left the vehicle and it has been reported.

Talk us through it.

Lots of burning cars packed closely together
 
Police won't care. It'll be Prime Minster Rishi Sunak and his wife not wanting anything to besmirch the Tata brand. Imagine if the Range Rover had a dud lithium battery, albeit a mild hybrid, just as they are champing at the bit to build a factory of the things...? Of course, Rish! wouldn't lie. It'd just be an 'inadvertent' oversight that he forgot to state his wife's interests. Whoops. He did it again. Silly him.

It was a diesel car, the fire service confirmed it
 
I think the 12v battery would be lead.

Lead acid batteries with a liquid are getting less common.
I haven't had one in my car for a couple of years, it's a dry cell. Charges a lot faster and lasts a lot longer with higher output.
 
Last edited:
If as is feared they are a fire hazard when they do catch fire,


FYI: Most things that catch fire are a fire hazard when they do catch fire.

By the way, it has been confirmed that the fire started in a diesel vehicle. (I'm mentioning this only because you appear to be unaware of that confirmation.)
 
Police won't care. It'll be Prime Minster Rishi Sunak and his wife not wanting anything to besmirch the Tata brand. Imagine if the Range Rover had a dud lithium battery, albeit a mild hybrid, just as they are champing at the bit to build a factory of the things...? Of course, Rish! wouldn't lie. It'd just be an 'inadvertent' oversight that he forgot to state his wife's interests. Whoops. He did it again. Silly him.

If only you had similar skepticism with respect to Meyer Werft and the German Group of Experts...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom