• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Both statements appear to be self-evident truths as far as they go.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-evident", but very well.

So, there are two vehicles that I'm interested in. The first is the vehicle discussed in the press releases as the initial vehicle to catch fire. We know it's a diesel. We know that it was still in motion when it caught fire, so likely not in a parking space when the driver exited. We know that the driver attempted but failed to extinguish the flames.

Then there's the vehicle from the photo -- more accurately, from the video from with the still we've been discussing was taken. This is, you claim, a hybrid or EV (please correct me if I'm mistaken), so it's NOT the initial vehicle. Someone apparently attempted to extinguish the flames on that vehicle as well, since there seems to be a extinguisher next to it.

So, there are two vehicles that share some similarities (likely placement in a driving lane, failed attempt to extinguish, etc.), but are nonetheless distinct.

I notice that in the video, the cars adjacent to the flaming car are not themselves on fire. The SUV with (you tell us) a Lithium Ion battery is ablaze, but the fire didn't start from any adjacent vehicles.

Seems to me that if this vehicle isn't the initial vehicle, then TWO cars caught fire all by themselves in the same car park at roughly the same time, one a diesel and the other with a lithium battery. Or is there some other way that the fire from the diesel could have indirectly set the SUV in the video on fire?
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
Perhaps a common misunderstanding at your school. Again you demonstrate that you don’t understand the “scoring” listed at the CS website.
Chances of “passing” the Fast Stream tests are not dependent on the number of places available , your test score is.
100% of applicants could achieve a passing score on the Fast Stream test (100% test pass rate) - this still has no bearing on the success rate of the Fast Stream applications - which is only dependent on the number of positions available.

Odd that those of logical superiority should not even understand the “passing” criteria of a test they are taking in order to gain employment - even when the employer explains the “passing” and selection process.

The boast of “passing” the Civil Service Fast Stream doesn’t seem to be the logical cognition flex you hoped it would be.
Click to expand...

When I did the Civil Service Fast Track exam/s it was before the digital age of the'90's. It was simply common currency that you only had a 'one in two hundred' chance of being called to interview (itself, extremely daunting with a panel of interviewers like something out of Judgement Day). You can read the history of these exams here: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/testing-times-a-history-of-civil-service-exams

As you know, the UK is a class-bound country and the original exams were hoping to attract Oxbridge types. Today it is supposedly on merit alone and is fairly diverse. However, I note from P J Denyer's example, someone graduated from say Sandhurst military academy would readily spot the leadership skills element therein (assessment of task importance and priority and when to go in and help your team out, breathing down their neck or from afar) which perhaps an unwary candidate might be less able to recognize but possibly has a natural instinct for leadership skills. <shrug> Who knows?

So firstly, it had to assess how many fast stream vacancies it had in any year, usually a set number, in which the successful candidate spends a brief amount of time in several different departments (hospitals seem to have a similar scheme) and then it had to multiply the number of interviewees by a further factor to ensure there are X no. of candidates of whom only Y no. will be accepted or will accept the job.

How to recognize what skill sets are needed is the first step. In the context of this thread, yes, somebody from the motor industry or with Fire Brigade offspring might be better placed to advise than someone who only has the media to go by. Beyond that, I am not sure it is particularly relevant to be a Master Engineer to be allowed to discuss the issue as it is only current affairs news, after all, and IMV the UK taxpayer is quite entitled to understand the logistics of this fire and why the Fire & Rescue Services were unable to cope with it.
 
Vixen said:
I am not sure it is particularly relevant to be a Master Engineer to be allowed to discuss the issue as it is only current affairs news
Click to expand...

You’re a conspiracy theorist trying to advocate a conspiracy theory about what “really” caused a fire. In doing so, you’re trying to explain to everyone how much better you are at my profession than I am. And along the way, you’re being confidently and obviously wrong in the topics you profess to be an expert in. None of your long winded pretentious drivel has the slightest effect on the elephant in the room: you don’t what you’re talking about.
 
phiwum said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "self-evident", but very well.

So, there are two vehicles that I'm interested in. The first is the vehicle discussed in the press releases as the initial vehicle to catch fire. We know it's a diesel. We know that it was still in motion when it caught fire, so likely not in a parking space when the driver exited. We know that the driver attempted but failed to extinguish the flames.

Then there's the vehicle from the photo -- more accurately, from the video from with the still we've been discussing was taken. This is, you claim, a hybrid or EV (please correct me if I'm mistaken), so it's NOT the initial vehicle. Someone apparently attempted to extinguish the flames on that vehicle as well, since there seems to be a extinguisher next to it.

So, there are two vehicles that share some similarities (likely placement in a driving lane, failed attempt to extinguish, etc.), but are nonetheless distinct.

I notice that in the video, the cars adjacent to the flaming car are not themselves on fire. The SUV with (you tell us) a Lithium Ion battery is ablaze, but the fire didn't start from any adjacent vehicles.

Seems to me that if this vehicle isn't the initial vehicle, then TWO cars caught fire all by themselves in the same car park at roughly the same time, one a diesel and the other with a lithium battery. Or is there some other way that the fire from the diesel could have indirectly set the SUV in the video on fire?
Click to expand...

I remarked that it appeared to be a lithium-ion fire from what people in the general public claiming to be familiar with such matters commented, the speed of the fire and its sheer intensity, together with the floor collapsing. We have only be shown a small amount of CCTV and have not been given any information as to the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned. We have been told it is a diesel-fueled vehicle with a fire that started in the engine bay due to a probable electrical fault but we really need to see the full report to understand why the Beds F&RS could not contain the fire. I am sceptical it is as simple as they claim.
 
Vixen said:
I remarked that it appeared to be a lithium-ion fire from what people in the general public claiming to be familiar with such matters commented, the speed of the fire and its sheer intensity, together with the floor collapsing. We have only be shown a small amount of CCTV and have not been given any information as to the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned. We have been told it is a diesel-fueled vehicle with a fire that started in the engine bay due to a probable electrical fault but we really need to see the full report to understand why the Beds F&RS could not contain the fire. I am sceptical it is as simple as they claim.
Click to expand...

So you are no longer committed to the claim that the vehicle in the video has a lithium-ion battery? Because you seemed pretty sure back in November.

When do you suppose you'll have enough information to admit that you were wrong about the start of the fire involving a lithium-ion battery? When the final report comes out (assuming that it DOESN'T say that the issue was one of them batteries), will you be ready to admit your mistake?

It's possible, of course, that the report actually verifies your claim even though the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. In which case, I'll happily say that your claim was correct. But will you be ready to concede that you were mistaken if it turns out so?
 
phiwum said:
So you are no longer committed to the claim that the vehicle in the video has a lithium-ion battery? Because you seemed pretty sure back in November.

When do you suppose you'll have enough information to admit that you were wrong about the start of the fire involving a lithium-ion battery? When the final report comes out (assuming that it DOESN'T say that the issue was one of them batteries), will you be ready to admit your mistake?

It's possible, of course, that the report actually verifies your claim even though the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. In which case, I'll happily say that your claim was correct. But will you be ready to concede that you were mistaken if it turns out so?
Click to expand...

We haven't been told whether it was a JLR vehicle or which make or model, and why haven't we unless it is somehow considered a 'sensitive' subject?

Was the engine bay corroded? How did fuel leak into it? How did the vehicle pass its M.O.T.? Was it a manufacturing fault?
 
Vixen said:
We haven't been told whether it was a JLR vehicle or which make or model, and why haven't we unless it is somehow considered a 'sensitive' subject?

Was the engine bay corroded? How did fuel leak into it? How did the vehicle pass its M.O.T.? Was it a manufacturing fault?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're asking these questions in response to my post. Here, I'll repeat myself so that you can actually respond.

phiwum said:
So you are no longer committed to the claim that the vehicle in the video has a lithium-ion battery? Because you seemed pretty sure back in November.

When do you suppose you'll have enough information to admit that you were wrong about the start of the fire involving a lithium-ion battery? When the final report comes out (assuming that it DOESN'T say that the issue was one of them batteries), will you be ready to admit your mistake?

It's possible, of course, that the report actually verifies your claim even though the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. In which case, I'll happily say that your claim was correct. But will you be ready to concede that you were mistaken if it turns out so?
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
We haven't been told whether it was a JLR vehicle or which make or model, and why haven't we unless it is somehow considered a 'sensitive' subject?
Click to expand...
Because it's not relevant?

It was a diesel. Do you now accept that?
Was the engine bay corroded? How did fuel leak into it? How did the vehicle pass its M.O.T.? Was it a manufacturing fault?
Click to expand...
Again, your concern in starting this thread was that it might be an EV where the fire started. We have had it confirmed that it was not.
 
Vixen said:
I will wait for the report.
Click to expand...

Yes, but are you likely to accept the report when it comes out?

Ah, well, anyway, it's good to hear that you are no longer claiming that the vehicle in the video is definitely a hybrid/EV. Hence, in fact, there's some pretty good reason to think that it really is a video of the initial vehicle, isn't there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom