Home Forums Chat Forum This fire at Luton Airport car park

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 219 total)
  • This fire at Luton Airport car park
  • johndoh
    Free Member

    nice back-pedalling

    Not back-pedalling at all – that is exactly why I put the gritted teeth emoji there in the first place.

    villageidiotdan
    Free Member

    It is interesting that the point even comes up, I wonder if before ICE you’d have petrol drivers suggesting it was diesel? (too young to know if there was that divide, honest).

    On subject of propaganda, it’s similar to the “EV is so heavy they cause way more damage to roads”

    andy4d
    Full Member

    For those asking who is liable, a similar case happened here a few years ago and it seems they went after the car manufacturer and the garage that sold it.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0713/1153085-shopping-centre-fire/

    whatgoesup
    Full Member

    It’s really easy to be mis-understood.
    Statement like “I wonder whether” also read in a quite accusatory manner.
    For example….

    I wonder whether @johndoh reads the Daily Mail 😬

    Note – this is not a personal attack – I’m not actually suggesting he does, just illustrating how this type of sentance can come across.

    prawny
    Full Member

    5labFull Member
    if the owner hasn’t been demonstratably negligent then they’re only on the hook for their own car. everyone else claims off their own insurance. 3rd party coverage doesn’t cover “everything caused by your car” it just covers “things you negligently did in your car”, so if your car is burned by a “random” fire event in the car next door (which is possible, I’ve had a car do it), their insurance isn’t covering jack.

    This is correct, every man for themselves insurance wise, unless they can prove that the owner of the vehicle that caught fire was negligent, which is very unlikely, on account of everything having been on fire. This is a common misunderstanding even within the insurance industry, just because the fire started somewhere else, doesn’t mean that someone else will pay your claim.

    muddy@rseguy
    Full Member

    TBH its way more likely to be a petrol or diesel fire : A week back I drove past the remnants of a new-ishdiesel Merc that went bang and was still being dampened down by the fire brigade. Such things tend to be caused by either oil or fuel leaking onto a hot Turbo or catalytic converter from a worn linkage or broken pipe. A lot of the FUD (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) regarding EV catching fire is from people who ignore all of the “normal” car fires that dont make the news.

    Anyway, lots of cars in a semi-enclosed space such as a multi storey car park will make for a very big fire.  Consider the amount of Diesel, Petrol, Oil, Brake fluid, plastics,Rubber and Aluminium that are present in several hundred vehicles that will burn very intensively. Open sides on the car park means there is a lot of airflow too. Its no wonder the structure colapsed the heat from all of the fuel/oil/platics fire would start to melt the steelwork in the carpark (so nothing to do with the weight of all of the vehicles)

    3
    Drac
    Full Member

    Not back-pedalling at all – that is exactly why I put the gritted teeth emoji there in the first place.

    Ah! Maybe you needed an Edinburgh castle emoji instead.

    mert
    Free Member

    Its no wonder the structure colapsed the heat from all of the fuel/oil/platics fire would start to melt the steelwork in the carpark (so nothing to do with the weight of all of the vehicles)

    But according to the 9/11 truthers out there, fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel.

    Makes you think.

    whatgoesup
    Full Member

    Now it’s come out it was a Diesel I’ve seen quite a lot of conspiracy theory type posts over on facebook / twitter. Anything to fit their pre-existing belief it was an EV. However, the lack of trust in “the establishment” not to cover this up is quite worrying.

    1
    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    However, the lack of trust in “the establishment” not to cover this up is quite worrying.

    It’s nothing to do with trust. It’s a conscious decision not to belive any narrative that doesn’t agree with their own.

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    Yippee, another excuse for why the building works are not completed by 2030!!

    ButtonMoon
    Full Member

    EV Insurance will sky rocket after this….

    whatgoesup
    Full Member

    @buttonmoon -I don’t follow – why will EV insurance rise ?

    ButtonMoon
    Full Member

    My thinking, so totally unsubstantiated.

    It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.

    Yet the fire engulfed the whole building. Something must have prevented the fire being extinguished.

    1
    crossed
    Free Member

    I’d guess that the several hundred cars complete with their fuel tanks, bodywork and tyres etc combined with the air coming in from the open sides would make for a difficult fire to extinguish, with or without EV’s in there.

    SirHC
    Full Member

    https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/1712075303428751832?s=20

    Yet the fire engulfed the whole building. Something must have prevented the fire being extinguished.

    -Access

    -The speed at which the fire spreads

    -The amount of water you can flood in there

    -No sprinklers

    -Diesel and oil will burn with the temperatures seen

    Flaperon
    Full Member

    It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.

    Presumably if the airport fire engines are busy in the car park it can’t remain open anyway, but initially they can’t be redirected immediately if aircraft are landing or taking off.

    ButtonMoon
    Full Member

    The cars aren’t all stacked 700 ontop of each other 😅

    Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.

    I guess they are big though, so maybe they couldn’t get close enough to lay the foam blanket over the fire.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    It’s an airport. You have both airport fire appliances and civilian. Both are equipped to deal with fuel fires, especially the former.

    The report and video indicate it was a couple of floors up and tucked away inside. So doubt the appliances would have been able to get close enough to be useful initially before it spread enough to be difficult to put out.

    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.

    On a runway. Not buried inside a carpark.
    On their own. Not surrounded by other giant aluminium frames full of fuel

    You may as well ask why they don’t use those same appliances to fight fires on a submarine given they’re so good at fighting fires or why not use halon on the fire engines given it is good enough to use on a plane in flight.

    Even the best tech has limitations.

    [edit: u also imagine all the security infrastructure designed to stop you driving a truck onto the runway is also a pita for rapidly deploying airside assets to a publicly accessible carpark. Response time is at least as important as the quality of your equipment for stopping “just another RR with a heater problem” taking hold and becoming towering inferno in that situation.]

    dakuan
    Free Member

    the daily mail comments are quite the thing

    – it was an EV

    – ok it wasn’t an EV that started it, but it was only this bad because of EVs

    – it was EV’s that caused it to collapse

    – it was an EV but its being covered up because conspiracy

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    it’s going to be way too hot inside to deal with anyway once a few petrol/diesels are on fire in such a confined space, surely!

    Sprinklers aren’t just for cooling, the steam released snuffs out the fire by starving it of oxygen.

    I wouldn’t have thought most car parks had sprinklers unless they’re part of another building like underground car parks, they wouldn’t have high enough occupancy rates to justify them.

    1
    fossy
    Full Member

    Range Rover that started it – that explains it ! Dodgy electrics as fitted standard at factory. LOL

    natrix
    Free Member

    BTW it takes a good long while to melt a plastic tank

    To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………

    <h1 class=”main-publication-title”>Regulation No 34 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the prevention of fire risks [2016/1428]</h1>

    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………

    How does it compare with a metal one?

    Also the hoses and so on. No point the fuel tank outlasting the rest of the vehicle – or indeed just developing a lovely hole at either end that allows burning vapour to escape right down to the point it has a good mix of air and fuel.

    1
    Drac
    Full Member

    Airport fire appliances are designed to extinguish giant aluminium frames with wings full of fuel in literally minutes. Roughly the same materials as ICE cars.

    They also are used on the runway and don’t respond to the car parks. 

    Bunnyhop
    Full Member

    I hope the driver is insured, as so many Range Rovers are getting stolen now, the insurers either won’t insure or they have put their prices right up.

    natrix
    Free Member

    How does it compare with a metal one?

    I don’t have the time to search for the Standard for metal tanks but here’s a firefighters view from https://www.fireengineering.com/firefighter-training/vehicle-fires-plastic-fuel-tanks/#gref

    Metal fuel tanks can be exposed to and resist the high temperatures brought on by fires for much greater times. When fires occur, metal tanks are far less likely to break down when compared to the newer style plastic tanks. When I first began my firefighting career, it seemed as though most of the vehicle fires to which we responded simply involved vehicle components. Fast forward 15-plus years, and it’s not uncommon to roll up to a car fire with a stream of gasoline on fire and flowing down a graded slope on Interstate 95.

    avdave2
    Full Member

    A Land Rover diesel tank was responsible for the most disappointing day in my time at the MOD. Sat in front of 4 jets of mixed propane, aluminium powder and liquid oxygen it failed to do anything interesting at all. A dreadful waste of hundreds of feet of 16mm film 🙂

    doomanic
    Full Member

    The anti-ev lobby are out in force over the Luton fire. Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary. 

    1
    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    A Land Rover…
    …failed to do anything interesting at all

    No surprise there.

    In all likelihood it failed because being a LR it has fallen off and rusted through about two days before leaving solihull and was consequently bone dry

    whatgoesup
    Full Member

    The anti-ev lobby are out in force over the Luton fire. Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary.

    *Gets popcorn and sits back to watch*

    1
    dissonance
    Full Member

    Desperate to prove it was an EV and not a diesel Range Rover that started it, despite video evidence to the contrary.

    Wasnt the Liverpool carpark fire also caused by a Range Rover?
    Sounds like they need banning.

    2
    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    Wasnt the Liverpool carpark fire also caused by a Range Rover?
    Sounds like they need banning

    Carparks or scousers?
    Does it have to be only one of them? I mean, it’s an easy choice but there’s definitely merit in both answers.

    mert
    Free Member

    To comply with the regulations (see below) a plastic fuel tank has to last for TWO MINUTES subjected to a flame without losing fuel. Not what I’d call a good long while……………

    Current tanks will go *slightly* over 2 minutes before failure.

    wbo
    Free Member

    Fire in car park at Stavanger airport that trashed my neighbours car. Started by a diesel

    https://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/i/EaEnmG/kort-oppsummert-brannen-i-p-huset-paa-flyplassen

    1
    villageidiotdan
    Free Member

    Fire in car park at Stavanger 

    Ooo, off topic but I do like Stavanger, you’re very fortunate to live in such a part of the world 

    ayjaydoubleyou
    Full Member

    Going back to the “EV being too heavy, damages carpark strucutrally” argument, seems a Range Rover can be up to 2.8 tonnes, compared to 1.9 for a tesla model Y.

    Edit – an Evoque, which it appears this is, can be up to 2.1.

    dangeourbrain
    Free Member

    Range Rover can be up to 2.8 tonnes

    Can’t be true. I often see them towing 3.5t trailers.

    2
    politecameraaction
    Free Member

    Ah! Maybe you needed an Edinburgh castle emoji instead.

    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
    🏰

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 219 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.