A couple of days after the car ‘bomb’ attack at Glasgow Airport earlier this month I wrote a post commenting on the fact that TV coverage of the attempts to put out the fire appeared to be a bit, er, lame
Whilst not explicitly stating what bothered me about the coverage, the gist of what I trying to get at was that television audiences were treated to the same clip, time and time again selected possibly because it made the car fire look at scary as possible.
A clip of firemen closing with the fire and putting it out would have not been so scary, dare I say terrifying. Which gets to the heart of questions I have about who it is exactly is trying to terrorise the British population
Stills of that blazing car became somewhat iconic in the media hysteria that followed, and continues to follow, what happened in Glasgow
My scepticism of the media coverage of the fire fighting operation wasn’t helped any by a follow-up story on the BBC that, frankly, read like bollocks.
Anyway, a couple of days ago, someone saying they were part of the watch that attended the incident at Glasgow Airport commented under my original post…
being part of the watch that attended the incident at glasgow airport i think u lot should either shut up or put up when it comes to putting fires out.
the crews knew on arrival that there were gas cylinders involved.
so dont approach the fire
hit it with the first readly available of medium (water from hosereels) till a better medium is available (foam).
this is what happend. end result 1 burnt oot car and 1 airport with very little damage considering the possibilities.
even the bomb squad wouldn't hav tried to put the fire out knowing that there was a bomb in the car but the firefighters who first attended did.
so moan away u so call firefighting experts try and give some credit to the guys who had the bottle to stand and fight the fire.
And today, in a follow-up to my own reply...
the airport fs do not turn out to terminal incidents as of 2003 or there abouts as they used to hav a appliance that covered the terminal but done away with it to save money. looks like that was a bad idea. so the local authority now hav full responsibility to cover the airport.
as for appliances having only water ... no they dont but it takes time to set up foam equipment. so the crew fought the fire with water which can be done. (petrol can be extinguished with a high presure watrer spray)
then foam equipment was used to kill the flames. the use of the reels did enought to halt the spread and allow the other crews to get the equip set up.
as for the tv film coverage being looped that aint the brigades fault. seen it before loads of times when a story breaks they loop it till they get move tape in.
finally ta for agreeing the guys did do their best given the dificult situation they faced considering they werent told the full story of what they were going to.being part of the watch that attended the incident at glasgow airport i think u lot should either shut up or put up when it comes to putting fires out.
All of which sounds reasonable to me and an explanation for what we saw on the television (and thanks for taking the time to put me straight)
Though if I lived in Glasgow and used the airport I’d be a little concerned that in these ‘difficult times’ in which we live, with all the security hype surrounding air travel and all the resources being spunked on the War on Terror, a medium-sized UK airport has suffered cut backs on emergency service cover and not a single armed policeman was on duty at the time of the attack.
And nor do those comments on my post change my scepticism about the way the fire was covered on television and the possible reasons why the fire was covered the way it was.
None of this has anything to do with the commitment or bravery of our fire service personnel who regularly risk their necks on our behalf and get to drive around in cool-looking big red trucks