So… The United Nations Economic Council for Europe (UNECE) who are responsible for the ADR rules, are ignoring information that you are aware of, are they? 
What next? Are you planning to have a pop at NASA, claiming they are insufficiently switched on about orbital mechanics?
Maybe the Russians involved were saying it’ll be fine it’s full not almost empty, going by their UN ADR training.
Go back and read it again, once more you’ve demonstrated your comprehension problem.
There you go again, exaggerating your labouring role, demonstrated by your lack of understanding of fuel issues in an aircraft crash.
The only difference between a jet aircraft fuel fire and a petrol tanker fire is that petrol is more volatile and more explosive than kerosene.
The more the amount of liquid fuel involved the more the danger.The potential effects of the fire are based on how much liquid fuel that there is turning into a combustible fuel air mix.Not how much ullage there is in the tank.
Given the thread title (and invitation) I notice that the REAL expert on all this stuff…(Dave) , seems to be giving it a wide berth.
Yes, I pondered on that. My bet is that Dave’s waiting for the advocate to hang himself with his own rope. We’re already now into classic CF comparison with apples and pears territory. Par example, we are now eliding petrol and parafin (kerosene) in the hopeless argument that high octane levels and high cetane levels are much the same thing. We used to burn trays of diesel under diesel tanks to de-wax the fuel in sub-zero conditions. You wouldn’t do that with petrol.
Octane v Cetane was a totally different argument regarding the respective properties under high levels of compression pressure.
In which high octane levels are to reduce pre ignition/detonation of petrol under high compression.
Cetane is about providing optimal burn and combustion characteristics for diesel under compression ignition.
This topic is just a comparison, of the potential explosive flammability of large quantities of stored liquid petrol v smaller quantities, regardless of more ullage providing more space for any vapour.
Obviously similar applies in the case of stored kerosene albeit with relatively less volatility.
Keep digging Carryfast, that hole is getting bigger.
The irony of Zac referring to a BLEVE situation.In which the amount of explosive vapour and air mix is directly linked and proportionate to the amount of liquid involved and contained in the tank.Explosion is by definition instantaneous.
I’m not digging any holes in that regard.
Nope. In a fixed volume vessel, the amount of vapour/air is inversely proportionate to the amount of liquid.
That is the essence (pun alert for francophones!) of the issue!
You can’t run fast enough. Nobody can.
This is probably out of date, since Carryfast rewrote the laws of physics.
Well, that’s November the 5th sorted. 
Obviously it passes unnoticed here, so I’ll just sit on the terrasse and play this video.
Our neighbour used to celebrate the night before July 14th, Bastille Day, with fireworks rather than go to the next village where there was a proper display on the old viaduct.
Only problem was that he used to set off rockets from a bottle, which wasn’t upright 
We learned to stay indoors after that. 
Probably the ones he’d just finished drinking from if he’s anything like my old French neighbours!
It’s actually entirely consistent with the link between the amount of liquid fuel contained in a tank being proportionate to the level of explosive potential.It’s called energy density and tankful of liquid petrol contains more explosive potential energy than an empty tank full of petrol vapour bearing in mind volatility.
How is it a fixed volume vessel when it’s opened to the air by rupture or an open hatch or relief valve ?.
While the whole liquid load is potentially transformable into vapour regardless of it being confined a tank or or not.
In fact the contradiction between confinement of an explosive volatile fuel air mixture makes it more explosive not less.
Maybe your catastrophic line of thought explains why we’re seeing people caught up in such events when they should be running for their lives at the first sight of a tanker and fire together.
Exhibit 1 M’lud: one moderate sized tank undergoing a single BLEVE. The relevant criteria is not the amount of liquid still to be ignited, it’s (i) the weakening of the metal structure of the tank (ii) over the time the fire outside the tank has been impinging on the tank. Ergo, it is not instantaneous’ Yes it is the second time I’ve used this link, but as it was ignored first time around, I think it is justified
Exhibit 2 M’lud: Multiple mini-BLEVE’s resulting over time as the fire impinges on each individual LPG bottle (propane, butane etc) Again, not instantaneous’.
There’s a version of this I use which has ACDC’s Highway to Hell as the soundtrack, this one doesn’t have the music (due to copyright infringement protection on YouTube)
An event caused by the explosion of LIQUID fuel turning into a fuel and air mix, in a compromised tank, isn’t dependent on the and the amount of LIQUID in the tank and an explosion isn’t instantaneous.That’s what you’re saying ?.
i notice DD has given this post a bodyswerve .
