Luton Airport flights suspended after large car park fire

Maybe we need to ban airports, or parking decks? They seem to be directly connected to parking deck fires at airports.

EVs. EVs are the cause of all this damage. 40,000 passengers' flights lost, over a THOUSAND cars destroyed and the car park itself turned to rubble. When EVs blow, they REALLY do blow! And you only need a few EV 'seeds' within a cluster of other cars to ensure the whole lot goes up in smoke. And of course, the increased load due to the heavy weight of EVs causes structural collapse of these buildings in addition. God help anyone trapped under the collapsed floors. :(

It must be the fire officials who are to blame. Both the Stavanger airport fire and the Luton airport fire were blamed on faulty diesel cars. So, clearly the fire officials don't understand the difference between a diesel car and an electric one!!!

For whatever reason, they also don't seem to require sprinkler systems in parking garages, which would keep any such fires under control until the fire departments arrive.

I bet they will have sprinkler systems in Luton and Stavanger in the future.

Why don't you publish you civil engineering credentials and the exact engineering deficiencies of this structure so we can appropriately evaluate your comment.

Fred Bloggs is an anonymous troll, just like you. If he published engineering credentials he'd be exposing his real name, which is something you haven't bothered to do do either.

I don't need to see his credentials to evaluate his comment. ;->

He seems to be unaware that no petrol/diesel fire has ever collapsed a steel-framed building. He also seems to be unaware that at the same time as the fire chief's remarks were being quoted by the BBC and the Guardian as attributing the fire to a diesel vehicle, he was speaking live on the radio stating that to find the cause of the blaze could take weeks. Operation EV Damage Limitation was already underway, clearly.

The fire chief did, but the media who reported his remarks ("reported his remarks") clearly didn't.

It was Luton Airport, which has its own Fire Service on-site. They were there in the blink of an eye, but it was already too late. Sprinklers against lithium fires are about as effective as pissing on a burning tyre.

And they won't do a blind bit of good.

I believe there is ONE thing we call all agree on for once and that is the legislation needs to be introduced in all countries where EVs have been sold which requires the drivers of them to confine themselves to the ground floor of multi-story car parks only.

Ask any anti-EV half-wit.

What makes you think that? Gasoline- and diesel-engined vehicles have fuel tanks which are no less vulnerable to a fire in the environment.

EVs are 30% heavier than internal combustion engined vehicles of the same size, which is to say that they aren't going to collapse any parking garage, which have to be designed so that they won't collapse if the are entirely filled with big internal combustion engineered vehicle which can be a whole lot heavier than regular cars.

Or didn't share Cursitor Doom's bizarre delusions about electric vehicles.

They don't put the fire out, but they do stop it spreading - evaporating water soaks up. a lot of heat

In Cursitor Doom's ever-so-expert opinion.

So they will stop anybody on the higher floors from getting out if they catch on fire? It's a really stupid idea, but Cursitor Doom gets off on stupid ideas, the more moronic the better.

Sorry, Bill, but I believe you are wrong (as usual in these matters). This has ALL the hallmarks of an EV fire. They can't cover it up nowadays and the truth will out eventually. YOU MARK MY WORDS......

You and Flyguy do like to believe that I am wrong and you are right. It's much more comforting than the other choice. You do like to believe in fatuous nonsense, so a lot people do think that you are wrong. They are probably right.

Which you can't actually list. EV's burn because they use an organic electroyte inside the cells, and if the cells got hot enough they burst and the electrolyte catches on fire just like petrol and diesel fuel. The lithium and graphite in the electrodes burn too. Electric vehicle batteries do have a failure mode that can make it appear that they burst into flame spontaneously, but any kind of battery monitoring system can give you early warning of that in plenty of time to let you discharge the battery and make it safe. Idiots may ignore the early warning, but putting a mobile phone in the car can let it call the fire brigade in plenty of time. It could probably flatten the battery for you as well, but the car owners wouldn't like it - not as much as they'd dislike the car catching on fire, but they wouldn't think about that.

You get the usual mark - "f" for fatuous.

Do try to learn a bit more about the subjects you pontificate on. You did try to become more expert about global warming, but you are dim twit, so it didn't help.

Reminds me of Stavanger Airport in Norway a few years ago.

It doesn't have to melt just weaken enough that it can no longer support the static load and it will pancake. Exactly the same mechanism as did for the 9/11 Twin Towers. You can protect steelwork with intumescent paint which buys at least a couple of hours more for fire fighting.

I think he isn't far out with his assessment of that structure. It was a cheap and nasty open frame unprotected steelwork by the looks of it and without much of a safety margin on total loading. More like an open frame tin shack than anything else.

It didn't have to suffer much overheating from an internal fire before it would collapse - as is evidenced by the fact that it did!

ITYM top floor. Heat and smoke rises so you want them on the top deck where any fire and smoke can escape. Liquid fuel and LPG flow downhill so ideally you do want any of them near the bottom so that they don't drip burning fuel down through every deck of the car park.

Some UK multistorey car parks will not accept LPG vehicles at all.

Anyway it was a *diesel* vehicle and according to UK sources and possibly one with a "risk of fire" voluntary recall pending on it. The insurance aspects of that could get very interesting indeed...

Video is online here. It should have been containable at that stage by anyone properly trained in solvent fires with the right extinguisher. A brave lady did her best but was hampered by inadequate extinguishers.

Whether or not the carpark had the right extinguishers is another matter (the ones nearest the fire were empty according to an eye witness). By the time they got back with a useable one the fuel tank had exploded.

I do know diesel fuel is not volatile enough to start such a fire. It doesn't catch fire in the same way as petrol. We're told this is a diesel vehicle incessantly; doesn't make it true. This has the stamp of EV all over it. At least we're now starting to see eye witness testimony start to come out - as it will in this age of mass communication. Still wanna bet it was diesel? Just doesn't add-up, Bill. You can add-up, can't you? Please tell me you *can* add-up!

[...]

The eye witness accounts of the start of the Stavanger fire said it was an electric car that caught fire. They reported this when they rang the fire brigade, so presumably the call was recorded - but the official record still shows it was caused by a diesel car.

It seems strange to me that suddenly diesel cars have started causing fires when previously they didn't. It also seems strange that diesel cars caused such a rapid spread of the fire when all around them were petrol and electric cars that were completely innocent of such disastrous behaviour.

Interesting that you appear to know the vehicle involved but decline to name it. I'll help you out here. It turns out to be a Landrover Discovery Sports SUV *hybrid* with a PHEV plug-in lithium battery under the front passenger seat, so I think we can guess where all those flames came from now. So there we go, the MSM got it wrong again.

Good critical thinking there, Liz. And you're right. It's now been identified as a hybrid vehicle. I knew we'd get to the bottom of it sooner or later.

You mean the diesel fire? Yes, someone initially reported it as being started by an EV which was not confirmed by the fire officials. Later the fire officials accurately reported the fire to have been started by a diesel car.

You mean the Luton garage fire that was started by a diesel vehicle?

It's funny how the fire officials disagree with you. I bet you get that a lot, no?

That's a very silly idea, but I can see where it makes sense to you.