Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

One detail which was previously contentious: the initial 999 call came from the driver of the Range Rover that was on fire. He didn't just run away and leave others to deal with the emergency, or whatever fairytale version was being suggested. He also advised it was a diesel car, when asked.
 
Can we close the thread now?

Or must we spend tens of pages arguing that "2993cc diesel engine" actually means "electric powered", because a wise old man, who may or may not have been in a pub, and may have a nationality which can be seen to confer spurious credibility on him, nudged and winked in a very knowing manner in location with a Birmingham post code?
 
Tch. They made a silly mistake on p87, saying an average car parking bay is 2.4-2.6m wide and an average car 1.8m wide, allowing 290-300mm gap between adjacent cars. No, that's the typical gap to the edge of a 2.4m bay (only half the distance to the adjacent car). If there was less than a foot between cars, you couldn't use the doors.
 
Can we close the thread now?

Or must we spend tens of pages arguing that "2993cc diesel engine" actually means "electric powered", because a wise old man, who may or may not have been in a pub, and may have a nationality which can be seen to confer spurious credibility on him, nudged and winked in a very knowing manner in location with a Birmingham post code?


Everyone knows it actually means "2993 C Cell batteries" but Jenny from PR has phrased it to fool the sheeple..
 
Tch. They made a silly mistake on p87, saying an average car parking bay is 2.4-2.6m wide and an average car 1.8m wide, allowing 290-300mm gap between adjacent cars. No, that's the typical gap to the edge of a 2.4m bay (only half the distance to the adjacent car). If there was less than a foot between cars, you couldn't use the doors.

It's either a mistake or the author frequents my local CO OP.
 
I believe I found the out of context cherry she's going to pick.

The report does not say it wasn't a hybrid; it specifies EV or plug-in hybrid. If you ignore the previous sentence in the report, you could (dishonestly) read the report as leaving the possibility of a hybrid.

I'm not sure your prediction squares with page 10 of the report :—
The initial 999 call was "received by Bedfordshire FRS Service Control at 20:47:20 hrs by Crew Manager Service Control B from the driver of the Range Rover that was on fire. When questioned by Service Control, the caller advised their car was a diesel Range Rover that it was located on the third floor." The subsequent fire investigation confirmed that the vehicle was powered by a diesel non-hybrid internal combustion engine. (internal citations omitted)​
Unless your point is that a quibble over "non-hybrid" might now be the focus of conspiratorial handwaving, I'd say the report precludes both the EV and the diesel-electric hybrid hypothesis in sufficiently clear language.

One detail which was previously contentious: the initial 999 call came from the driver of the Range Rover that was on fire. He didn't just run away and leave others to deal with the emergency, or whatever fairytale version was being suggested. He also advised it was a diesel car, when asked.

This is salient. The fuller picture of available evidence shows that there was little if any question from the very beginning regarding the identity and type of vehicle, and little if any reason to question the confidence of that determination. Thus the conspiratorial claim that the responsible officials waffled or groped toward a conclusion based on unsure evidence or under pressure from highers-up is contradicted and rejected.

It would be proper for the fire service to question the driver regarding the vehicle type, because that will inform fire fighting efforts. It remains a defensible proposition that fires involving lithium ion batteries are fought using different techniques than for hydrocarbon fuel. Thus it would be untenable to suppose that the initial information gathering somehow missed the salient detail. The report specifies that the fire service initiated the questioning regarding engine type, so it's unreasonable to suppose the conversation did not produce the intended results.

While that information serves in the moment to inform fire fighters, it does not suffice for an investigation intended to determine cause and evaluate the accident. A factual determination by inspection is most desirable. Hence the subsequent determination by inspection that the vehicle was diesel-powered and did not contain any elements of a hybrid power plant that would have affected the fire service response.

It is not too strong a statement to say that the power source of the vehicle is determined conclusively according to reliable and properly developed evidence. Since a conspiracy theory can never be let go, I predict the discussion will shift markedly to other nit picky quibbles with the report in an effort to show some part of it is still somehow in doubt and therefore that a cover up is still somehow in play. The question over the car spacing is just such a detail that invites improper dismissal.
 
Last edited:
0.3 on one side + 0.3 on the other + 1.8 = 2.4
I don’t see the problem

The distance between adjacent cars must add the left-side gap of one car to the right-side gap of the car to its left, for an average of 0.6 m between cars. The nominal edge of the bay splits this gap. The derived distances within a single bay are correctly summed.
 
From p87 of the report:

In the immediate aftermath of the incident there was considerable speculation within the press and across social media platforms about the fire originating from an electric vehicle (EV). This was despite statements at the time from Bedfordshire FRS stating that the Service believed the vehicle to a be a diesel vehicle. Subsequently it has been confirmed by the fire investigation report that the fire originated in a diesel vehicle and the cause was accidental.

*coughs theatrically and points at Vixen*

(Of course it was - long long ago - abundantly clear to anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking skills that this fire originated in a non-electrified diesel ICE vehicle. It was only habitual conspiracy theorists, coupled perhaps with people possessing pitiful comprehension and thinking skills, who conceived and perpetuated the myth that the fire was started by an EV car combusting,)
 
*coughs theatrically and points at Vixen*

Indeed the report makes plain that the official statements from the fire services were expected to be taken as such, not written off as allegedly only from "Jenny in communications." Obviously the conspiracy crowd heard and read the statements at the time. But they concocted all sorts of fictitious reasons for not being obliged to regard them. Once you've asserted the premise that the Powers That Be are lying, you can spread that conspiracy Vegemite all over anything, including the integrity of the final report.

The goal of conspiracy mongering is not to argue an alternative that should be accepted. Instead it's to perpetuate the self-perceived relevance of the conspiracy theorist. Toward that end, conspiracy mongering is about any alternative. In fine, it's about the conspiracy theorist's asserted ability to detect lies from people in authority, regardless of how those imagined lies might change from day to day. And then paradoxically, it's about whatever lie the conspiracy theorist has to tell from day to day to maintain the illusion that they are a relevant genius.

The easiest way to maintain the illusion of relevance is to focus on decreasingly significant details about which either some genuine (albeit inconsequential) controversy can be maintained, or on which no resolution from evidence is available—thus relegating the discussion to endless speculation and hypothesization. The goal is to bog down in details, not to arrive at a conclusion. The conclusion is clear: there was no lithium ion battery at fault, no coverup of EV horrors. There is no need to reach for blind trusts or offshore corporations or wink-wink-nudge-nudge good ol' boy tactics. Properly viewed, the evidence is entirely conclusive.
 
I was interested to learn, in the section about the significance of electric car batteries to the fire, that there had been a fire in a car park at Stavanger in 2020 and they did not find that EV batteries were a significant contribution to the fire nor to pollution it caused. (Of course Norway was an early adopter of EVs and they're a much higher proportion of the car fleet there than in the UK.)
 
The distance between adjacent cars must add the left-side gap of one car to the right-side gap of the car to its left, for an average of 0.6 m between cars. The nominal edge of the bay splits this gap. The derived distances within a single bay are correctly summed.


My mistake
 
Vixen has never, to my knowledge, stated that she will accept the final report. Vixen has merely been "awaiting the release". Ostensibly so that she can find some minor inconsistency that she will then point out as a slip up by the authors that invalidates the entire report and proves a coverup.
 
My mistake

Don't be so hasty. You inadvertently illustrated how easy it is for this mistake—and many like it—to arise even among well-meaning people operating in an official technical capacity. Even though the glitch doesn't bear on the final findings, it informs our interpretation and analysis of error in official reporting.
 
Everyone knows it actually means "2993 C Cell batteries" but Jenny from PR has phrased it to fool the sheeple..

Yeahbut, what if they weren't Li ion C cells? We have been most assuredly assured that the fire was absolutely clearly and incontrovertibly a Li-based fire...

What if, just to consider for a moment, they were actually one of the other types?

How do we explain this?

Have Big Nickel or Big Cadmium or Big Carbon or Big Zinc or - whisper it - a collaboration between some combination of them has tried to pin it all on Big Lithium?

This dastardly conspiracy becomes even more dastardly and conspiratorial by the moment!
 
From p87 of the report:

This informs us also that statements in the report that identify and characterize the initial vehicle are to be interpreted with the understanding that the author is aware of the speculation over EVs. Thus when the report uses language that precludes hybrids and EVs and specifically identifies the vehicle as being diesel-powered, there can be no reasonable construction to the contrary. The whole-text canon of language precludes the argument for any sort of clever, lawyerly omission or evasion that a different, allegedly better wording would have purportedly avoided.
 
I have read the report and I appreciate Beds F&R Service revealing the make, model and year of the vehicle, thanks to public pressure.

I was absolutely right that all the so-called updates everybody kept insisting was new information was pure PR, based on what was announced on Day One, as I said. And note, the Home Office was appraised from get-go.

Within a few hours of the start of the incident, Bedfordshire FRS received numerous requests for information; these were received via phone call, emails and via the online portal of the Service’s website. To date, Bedfordshire FRS has received over 50 requests for information. Most of the requests were dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with a statement jointly agreed between Bedfordshire FRS and Bedfordshire Police being provided with limited information that was already in the public domain and advising further information would be released when the investigation had been concluded.

So all those trying to force me into admitting the press releases were all new updates, were wrong.

It also confirms that the Range Rover Sport (and there was a 2014 version that did have a lithium ion battery, although I accept this one did not) on arriving at the car park was emitting white smoke from under its bonnet. So the smoke was light-coloured and not an error of the colour spectrum settings on one's laptop.

I should have liked to have seen a recommendation that in future, such an observation - of smoke emanating from a car bonnet - in any arriving vehicle would be flagged and refused entry.

I'd also have appreciated a detailed explanation of how the flames developed so rapidly but I am sure experts on youtube will be along shortly.

Whilst the report is immaculately well-written, I thought the Merseyside Fire Brigade Report of 2018 was more comprehensive and better presented.

I was quite shocked that none of the Liverpool Fire Report recommendations had been taken on board, the Fire Services seemed quite ill prepared for such a major incident, with no logistics manager with a central list of available personnel and up to date contact information. Also, the location of the water tanks were hidden away in the Airport's risk schedule, kept separately from LLA, the car park authority, so not discovered until after the Fire Brigade had located an alternative source of water, at the bottom of a hill. A car drove over the hose, causing it to break at one point.

An airport worker decided he was going to fetch his car one hour into the fire and he was let through but then had to be rescued (really!). It seems people are still not aware of fire safety procedures. Only four people rang 999, emergency services, that was a theme also common to Liverpool.

Biggest eyebrow raiser was the team of arriving firefighters who scoffed all of the food on their arrival, leaving those coming off their four-hour shift with nothing eat, except a van was sent to fetch some more food. It all seemed quite chaotic with the communications radio channels all on one frequency meaning the senior commanders had to use a second device to communicate with each other given the sheer amount of calls being exchanged.
 

Back
Top Bottom