Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Steve]

Apparently UKian hydrants are installed below the grade, instead of above it. Thus, presumably, the need for additional signage.

Our hydrants locally have extra signage by way of a flag on a tall pole so they can be located under the snow in the winter.

 

[GlennB]

"A quick squirt of fire hydrant under the bonnet..."

Where do we even start with that? Isn't a fire hydrant one of these things you see on American roads that the fire trucks connect to when they need water?

Presuming she meant fire extinguisher, a quick squirt under the bonnet is enough to put out an engine fire? Really? How come there are so many of these fires then, if they're so easy to put out? But seriously, don't open the bonnet if your car has an engine fire, you know what a good air supply does to fires.

My last several cars all had a catch at the front of the bonnet that has to be released to get the bonnet up. Then you organise a prop to keep it up.

Good luck with that if there's a fire in the engine compartment.

But, hey, Vixen typed some stuff, so that's good enough for her

 

[Steve]

My last several cars all had a catch at the front of the bonnet that has to be released to get the bonnet up. Then you organise a prop to keep it up.

Good luck with that if there's a fire in the engine compartment.

But, hey, Vixen typed some stuff, so that's good enough for her

When it comes to fighting fires Vixen knows a lot some stuff very little absolutely nothing, not even the approaches that have been explained to her here.

 

[junkshop]

"A quick squirt of fire hydrant under the bonnet..."

Where do we even start with that? Isn't a fire hydrant one of these things you see on American roads that the fire trucks connect to when they need water?

Presuming she meant fire extinguisher, a quick squirt under the bonnet is enough to put out an engine fire? Really? How come there are so many of these fires then, if they're so easy to put out? But seriously, don't open the bonnet if your car has an engine fire, you know what a good air supply does to fires.

Yes, Vixen is using the wrong word, but fire hydrants are standard in the UK, too, used to supply water for the fire service. Look out for the yellow signs with a large black H. https://www.cambsfire.gov.uk/community-safety/hydrants/

There is one right outside my house. I think this is a good thing, my mother thinks it is a bad thing, because it is 'ugly', and will make the house less desirable to potential buyers, but then she watches GBNews.

Also, I like my house, and have no desire to sell it, which is a concept she cannot comprehend.

 

[Metullus]

"A quick squirt of fire hydrant under the bonnet..."

Where do we even start with that? Isn't a fire hydrant one of these things you see on American roads that the fire trucks connect to when they need water?

Presuming she meant fire extinguisher, a quick squirt under the bonnet is enough to put out an engine fire? Really? How come there are so many of these fires then, if they're so easy to put out? But seriously, don't open the bonnet if your car has an engine fire, you know what a good air supply does to fires.

I have had some experience with this...
Important Safety Tips

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Oi!

Settle down there cobber, you can't besmirch Vegemite mate, that's fighting words!

More importantly, it's a British event/BS conspiracy theory, so it should be Marmite.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

"A quick squirt of fire hydrant under the bonnet..."

Where do we even start with that? Isn't a fire hydrant one of these things you see on American roads that the fire trucks connect to when they need water?

Presuming she meant fire extinguisher, a quick squirt under the bonnet is enough to put out an engine fire? Really? How come there are so many of these fires then, if they're so easy to put out? But seriously, don't open the bonnet if your car has an engine fire, you know what a good air supply does to fires.

Apparently not since way back in Pt1 she suggested that if one's engine is on fire one should "lift up the bonnet to let the thick black fumes escape".

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, Vixen is using the wrong word, but fire hydrants are standard in the UK, too, used to supply water for the fire service. Look out for the yellow signs with a large black H. https://www.cambsfire.gov.uk/community-safety/hydrants/

I never knew that. I don't think I ever thought what these signs were for.

 

[Rolfe]

I have had some experience with this...
Important Safety Tips

 

[Rolfe]

My last several cars all had a catch at the front of the bonnet that has to be released to get the bonnet up. Then you organise a prop to keep it up.

Good luck with that if there's a fire in the engine compartment.

But, hey, Vixen typed some stuff, so that's good enough for her

Yeah, mine too. (Not that my current car is ever likely to have a fire under the bonnet. I mean yes there's a 12v battery there and some coolant and stuff, but it's so non-hot in there I use the extra space to store my type 2 charging cable.)

 

[Rolfe]

Apparently not since way back in Pt1 she suggested that if one's engine is on fire one should "lift up the bonnet to let the thick black fumes escape".

I remember. Sigh.

 

[Rolfe]

Why is it always these same cars? I swear they're death traps, but nobody seems to be running a hate campaign against Land Rover Discovery Sports, or making jokes about how you can always keep warm from the flames of your engine compartment fire if you're stuck in bad weather in winter?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crg4gw09e1qo

 

[Craig4]

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.



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.

Sure, but I never suggested she was going to make sense.

 

[Craig4]

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...

And that straw you're grasping at is just out of reach.

 

[JayUtah]

And that straw you're grasping at is just out of reach.

How else is she going to prove she’s the smartest person in the room?

 

[Georg]

The report is out, and shortly after that the old Tata died.
Coincidence ?

 

[catsmate]

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.



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.

 

[catsmate]

My supplies are running low, but I seem to have one left.

Here, have a few more. You may need them.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So the official report is out and the car was a 2014 Range Rover Sport diesel. What a vindication, nay a triumph for the people who steadfastly refused to believe any previous reports it was a 2014 Range Rover Sport diesel. Without their steadfast denialism we might never have known what we've known all along.

 

[catsmate]

I've been reading this thread right from the beginning, even before Darat moved it to Conspiracy Theories, and what can I say but it has been a very slow motion car crash. The year, make, model and colour of the car were in the public domain from a very early stage, and the rest was just so much hand-waving.

The real denial that's going on relates to the frequency of ICE vehicle fires. These are really really common. So common that if you just enter into Google the number of a UK road, or even a county, and the words "vehicle fire", you'll be overwhelmed with results. Many of these are from small local newspapers needing something to fill their pages, and even so they usually incorporate a "local angle" in the story, like "local mum's lucky escape" or "bus route diverted on Tuesday". The reason is that these things are happening all the bloody time. Stats say 300 vehicles per DAY. So it's hard to make them news.

EV fires on the other hand, are uncommon. Stats vary, but it's something like 20 to 60 times less likely that an EV will go on fire than an ICE car. And such has been the catastrophising of conspiracy theorists like Vixen, that these are NEWS. And the public run away with the idea that EVs are a huge fire risk. Which they manifestly are not. It makes no sense at all to jump to the conclusion, when we hear about a fire caused by a vehicle, that this is an EV. But that's where we are, thanks to this skewed perspective.

It has been the case that EV fires got the reputation of being hard (or even impossible) to extinguish, but this is to a large extent a result of firefighters not being trained in the best way to approach these incidents. Indeed, of the "best way" still being under development, given that the technology is relatively new. Things are changing however, and firefighters are being trained to deal with these as chemical fires where depriving the fire of oxygen is not the way to go. There are a number of videos on YouTube demonstrating how to put out an EV fire, and it's not that scary.

There is good reason to believe that the advent of EVs will make vehicle fires a much smaller risk than previously. First, the actual number of incidents is demonstrably falling in countries where EV adoption is high, simply to reflect that "20 to 60 times less likely to catch fire" thing. Second, the fires usually develop more slowly than ICE fires, giving time for people to escape or be rescued. Third, the actual amount of energy in a car battery is vastly less than in a tank of petrol or (even more so) diesel. A huge benefit is the absence of these "running fires" of burning fuel that are referred to several times in the Luton report, and which rapidly set light to vehicles a fair distance from the vehicle whose fuel has escaped. But that doesn't suit the narrative.

There's also a lot of misconception about what exactly is involved in an EV fire. These can be divided into three broad categories. The commonest category, by a long way, doesn't involve the battery burning at all. The fire starts elsewhere, either outside the car (maybe it has been parked next to another car that caught fire, or it's in an integral garage in a house that caught fire) or inside the car but not involving the battery (someone dropped a cigarette end, or there was a fault in the 12v electrical system - as may have been the case in the Luton fire, with the diesel car). In the great majority of cases, the battery of the car doesn't catch fire at all. The car (or even the house) burns down around the battery, which remains intact. This seems to have been what happened in the Swedish incident. The EVs involved burned like cars, except (unlike ICE cars) their fuel source didn't contribute to the intensity of the fire. The batteries were still there, intact, in the ashes, at the end of it all. There is a video on YouTube of a guy checking out his ruined Tesla after it was involved in a house fire, and the remote control was still able to open the tailgate.

So of all these EV fires (20 to 60 times less frequent than ICE fires), in the majority the battery simply wasn't involved in the fire at all, and the fire was as a consequence much less destructive than a typical ICE fire.

The next category is EVs where the cause of the fire is not the HV battery, but nevertheless the HV battery does start to burn as a result. These are often the result of crashes, where the battery has been damaged in the crash. Nasty affairs, but for the reasons given above, usually less scary than similar ICE cars. (Indeed, there are also videos around of crashes between Teslas and ICE cars, where the Tesla is sitting there going "ouch" over a smashed wing, while the ICE car beside it is in flames.) Usually time for people to get clear, less stored energy to fuel the fire, and techniques of fire-fighting getting better all the time.

The smallest category of all in EV fires is the one where the HV battery itself is the source of the fire. It's very rare. Most of the cases are attributable to a known fault, the main example being the Jaguar iPace, which was subject to a recall because of this. Aside from these known recall-triggering faults, HV batteries going into spontaneous thermal runaway is really really rare. There is an Australian group keeping stats on all this and I was gobsmacked by how low the numbers were. And that the cars were (almost?) never on charge when it happened.

So it's all really good news going forward. Not only are car parks being made safer by the incorporation of sprinkler systems and so on, but the likelihood of destructive fires is getting less and less as a larger and larger percentage of the car fleet goes over to EVs. They're 20 to 60 times less likely to catch fire in the first place. They don't produce running fires of liquid fuel that spread (literally) like wildfire along gutters and through drains. And the slower development of the fires makes it much more likely that the firefighters will be able to control them before they engulf an entire car park.

But this doesn't make the anti-EV conspiracy theorists happy, for some peculiar reason.

This is an excellent summary of the situation.
I posted much of this previously, regarding vehicle fire stats and the main risk of a battery fire being collision damage. It was, of course, ignored.


As a slightly OT addendum, having completed my fire-fighting refresher course at work, there is more emphasis on Li-ion battery fires simply because that battery technology is more common.
The main cause of such fires are not cars or small consumer electronics (e.g. notebooks) but intermediate size devices such as e-scooters, which are frequently of shoddy and illegally unsafe standards, to the extent that my employers are restricting when they can be stored for charging on-prem. There are no such restrictions for EVs.
I believe the UK sees proportionately far more e-bike.scooter fires than e-car fires.

Dedicated Li-ion extinguishers, such as AVD, are also becoming more common, though the classic pairing of water/CO₂ is still the standard, and water is still recommended for Li-ion fires.