Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Wait, the driver leapt out of the car with the engine still running, and tried to apply a couple of fire extinguishers to it?
Click to expand...

How on Earth are you getting that from the post you quoted?

Are you feeling ok Vixen? You seem to be reading things that aren't there.
 
Vixen said:
The picture doesn't show the fuel tank is on fire.
Click to expand...

So you're newest tactic in your strategy of willful ignorance and denial is to pretend that the fire must have started with the fuel tank, when no one has suggested any such thing. You're just going to pretend that it doesn't even occur to you that a fire could start in the engine compartment due to say an electrical fault, or a fuel system leak, ignite the combustible materials available to it, and spread throughout the car, and then cause the fuel tank to fail and add more combustible material to the fire.

Look at the KHON2 News video and tell us again how you think a burning automobile should have posed no threat within a parking garage.

Then maybe tell us again how hard it is to light diesel oil - that it needs a lit, oil-soaked rag and a leaf blower before it could even be possible to consider that it might ignite, and that you couldn't possibly start a diesel fire with something as simple as a wooden match.
 
Vixen said:
Wait, the driver leapt out of the car with the engine still running, and tried to apply a couple of fire extinguishers to it?
Click to expand...

What in the name of Ed is wrong with your reading comprehension? Are you just throwing out random responses?
 
Foster Zygote said:
So you're newest tactic in your strategy of willful ignorance and denial is to pretend that the fire must have started with the fuel tank, when no one has suggested any such thing. You're just going to pretend that it doesn't even occur to you that a fire could start in the engine compartment due to say an electrical fault, or a fuel system leak, ignite the combustible materials available to it, and spread throughout the car, and then cause the fuel tank to fail and add more combustible material to the fire.

Look at the KHON2 News video and tell us again how you think a burning automobile should have posed no threat within a parking garage.

Then maybe tell us again how hard it is to light diesel oil - that it needs a lit, oil-soaked rag and a leaf blower before it could even be possible to consider that it might ignite, and that you couldn't possibly start a diesel fire with something as simple as a wooden match.
Click to expand...

You didn't tell us how long that car had been burning for and its cause. If you recall, the Luton fire was reported promptly and was also alarmed and on CCTV, so the Fire Brigade was there promptly. You cannot equate a car that has just arrived and is spurting out classic battery-style flames with some old banger, likely set on fire by vandals, that may have been burning for over an hour.
 
JayUtah said:
I looked up the test protocol. It's pretty lenient.

Two minutes' fire endurance time is kind of cute. For other life-safe components, we generally want fire endurances on the order of half an hour to two hours. But the stuff I design and build is more high-stakes engineering, not commodity wheeled vehicles where final cost is an issue. That said, the intent is clear: two minutes is enough time for people to get out of a vehicle and move to a safe distance.

From the practical perspective, yes, the heat loading from one ruptured fuel tank spreading its burning fuel load is within the realm of the test protocol. Under the presumption that manufacturers will build fuel tanks to only a small margin beyond the test heat load, we should expect fuel systems to be compromised within a small number of minutes. Under a heat profile where several fuel loads have been released and are now on fire, this would exceed the test heat load profile by a considerable factor.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Something that you're an expert in?
Click to expand...

Bedfordshire Fire has nowhere stated 'it was not a hybrid' Andrew Hopkinson in his one and only press conference 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.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-caused-the-luton-airport-fire-b2429048.html

Read it with comprehension.
 
Why must the statement be issued by Hopkinson, and why must it include the specific phrase "it was not a hybrid"?

You keep insisting that that specific statement is the end of the matter. It isn't.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
How many times...ORIGIN is not the same as CAUSE.

It started in a diesel. We don't know WHY it started in a diesel. The two are different. Why are you constantly conflating the two Vixen? Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you genuinely unable to grasp that the two things are not the same?
Click to expand...

Well Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
Bedfordshire Fire has nowhere stated 'it was not a hybrid' Andrew Hopkinson in his one and only press conference 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.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-caused-the-luton-airport-fire-b2429048.html

Read it with comprehension.
Click to expand...


Did you comprehend the date? According to the current Private Eye, which was published almost 3 weeks later:
The chief fire officer from Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue, who it is just possible knows slightly more about it ... actually confirmed the fire started in a diesel car.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Read it with comprehension.
Click to expand...

How about we read it in light of all the other authoritative information subsequently provided? Your stubborn insistence that only one statement from one person is the only source of reliable information is where the real desperation lies.

Armchair detectives are worse than useless.
 
Vixen said:
Bedfordshire Fire has nowhere stated 'it was not a hybrid' Andrew Hopkinson in his one and only press conference 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.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-caused-the-luton-airport-fire-b2429048.html

Read it with comprehension.
Click to expand...

They said it was a diesel (in the definitive statement on their own website, that for some reason you appear unable to read or understand). They didn't need to say it wasn't a hybrid since stating plainly that it was a diesel rules that out. They also didn't say it wasn't steam or nuclear powered, among many other possibilities it wasn't necessary to rule out expicitly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom