New report shows sprinklers could have delayed spread of Luton Airport fire “increasing the chances of a successful outcome”

The report into the major incident on October 10 last year has been published by Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service (Bedfordshire FRS), and outlines what can be learnt from the fire.

The blaze started after a car began smoking and caught fire inside the Terminal Car Park 2, just outside of the airport entrance on October 10 2023.

The fire quickly spread to other cars on the third level, and the fire service was faced with a ‘major incident’.

But there were no automatic water suppression systems (AWSS) – sprinklers – installed in the car park when it was built in 2019.

Wind blowing through the open-sided car park, paired with the small gaps between vehicles, meant that the fire spread quickly and damaged over 1,300 cars in the process.

The initial planning application for the car park was submitted in September 2017, and an amended version came in July 2018.

The report stated: “Bedfordshire FRS has routinely promoted the installation of sprinkler systems into all buildings through the planning process since January 2019.”

Since the incident, the service says it has worked with the airport and planning authorities “to reinforce the importance of sprinklers should the airport rebuild the car park”.

The report concluded that if a sprinkler system had been installed, “it may have changed and delayed the pattern of fire spread increasing the chances of a successful outcome”.

Alberto Martin, Chief Executive Officer of London Luton Airport, said he welcomes the report’s findings.

He explained: “We continue to work closely with Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and all agencies in relation to this incident. We are grateful for their response to the incident, and for the understanding shown by our passengers and business partners. Construction on a new car park is underway, which includes plans for a fire suppressant system.”

During the fire, crews used radio channels to communicate, but an internal debrief of the incident found that radio discipline was “not good” and resulted in “everyone migrating to the command channel”.

The report stated: “There were difficulties with communicating by radio with other agencies and fire services due to the use different radios and different channels from county fire service to airport fire service.”

But the fire service explained that since the incident there has been planned switch to a new radio that uses digital channels.

While news reports covered the fire throughout the night, the first official statement was not posted on social media until 12.15pm on October 11.

The report stated: “It was identified that initial information about the incident could have been published sooner on service channels. It is acknowledged best practice was not followed and the lack of information published by the Service led to an influx of media enquiries.”

The service said this was due to “inexperience and a lack of training in the communications team”.

An investigation into record keeping during the night found that it “was not as accurate and as comprehensive as it could have been”. But the service said that this could have been down to firefighters acting as scribes in the challenging environment,

For firefighters trying to contain the blaze, the only toilets available to them were in the terminal. The report stated: “Several personnel had to face questioning about the incident and queries about retrieval of cars etc. This led to delays in them returning to the fire ground.”