Coolerking

More than 30 killed off santa cruz island

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

We know exactly how long Sully's plane took.

How long?  Seriously. It's a great example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lark said:

There was a video a while back of a regular charter flight of oil workers.    They had deplaning to an art, I think all the aisle left followed by all the middle, etc, in a zig zag.   A choreographed team of agile people under ideal circumstances in no way reflects reality at the gate or after the crash.    The ringers still kept breaking limbs in their hurry to make their designated exits in 90 seconds, so they were replaced with computer sims....

 

Just put 6 people in the last row of a 737-800.  90 seconds to get out. The woman in 36C weighs 360.lbs.

Go.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, benwynn said:

How long?  Seriously. It's a great example.

24 minutes.
Document page 41.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf

Of course this is from door open to all rescued on boat. Not how fast onto wing. The latter can be extracted from raw datastreams though. Maybe it is in that report. Not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W9GFO said:

The crew member that discovered the fire did so when he went to investigate a "pop" sound that he heard. I did not get the impression that he was asleep.

I take that back, it is clear that this particular crew member was asleep. 

Quote

Anchored in a harbour 18 metres from the shore of Santa Cruz Island, three of the 34 people aboard had celebrated their birthdays at dinner that night, and a crew member went to bed late after doing the dishes. He woke up just a few hours later to the sound of a pop in the dark, thinking someone was up and stumbling around. Instead, he opened a door to find the ship bathed in an intense orange glow, aflame, he recounted to a nearby boater after fleeing it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 3:35 PM, Team Subterfuge said:

A picture of the escape hatch from the sister ship Vision.

20190903_104457.jpg

Perhaps it would have made no difference in this case, but that looks like a horrible way to get up to 46 people out in a hurry. If nothing else I would hope that on the sister ship  they remove those three bunks and put in a proper ladder with a handrail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, W9GFO said:

Perhaps it would have made no difference in this case, but that looks like a horrible way to get up to 46 people out in a hurry. If nothing else I would hope that on the sister ship  they remove those three bunks and put in a proper ladder with a handrail.

And make the trunk of steel to A60, exiting directly to the aft deck without going inside the deckhouse. And insulate the deck to at least steel equivalence. And what about the main stairs? And the fire suppression? Local control (not merely bridge and engineroom). And the alarms? The list goes on. These boats are wood. Not heavy timbered, but lightweight wooden construction. Highly combustible. I feel they need to have fire survival that is in line with the actual rate of escape!. If you don't have A class divisions with appropriate time (30 or 60) then how are those trapped supposed to get out?  If both escapes go to same space, they aren't separate escape routes!

And emergency lighting. And air supply issues? And more.

It is a "connect the dots" issue, (actually much more than that but its a start) to get a rational workable emergency survivability capability. Fire pumps are already required. Alarms are already required. Extinguishers already required. Fire hydrants hoses and nozzles already required. Two escape routes already required. Rational arrangement to achieve comprehensive survivability? Not required. Tragically, all the basic pieces were required and installed somewhere (alarms, escapes, fire suppression) but they were unworkable. Two major pieces missing were of course fixed firefighting / suppression such as sprinkler/fog, as well as restricted combustibility/structural fire protection.

The lack of Structural Fire Protection in Subchapter T is likely to be of interest. That was a major issue that was adopted for subchapter K. While it could perhaps be thought unneeded for a 6-pack in protected waters during daylight with nearby refuge/rapid deployment rafts or something, we see here that 49 persons is really not a small number...that the time issue was unworkable.

Think about being on a 40 foot cabin cruiser with 12 people and having a galley up arrangement with a fire, with everyone in the berths forward. What do you do? Out the fwd deck hatch. Now imagine that chaos and multiply by 3 and go into a blazing inferno.

 

One weird thing? An axe taken to the hull sides below the gunwale may have extracted people. But I think there was severe panic and fire ax? Probably lost in the fire...

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of good points, 90 secs to get out maybe 6 exits is still pretty bold given the way people are now. The potential lack of anchor watch is pretty big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEN8v8Y1PzpfPUxq_5RFVkbcqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Some details, charging station was in galley so if that's where the fire started then it could've blocked the exit. I don't normally think of a battery charging area as a fire hazard but I guess we should make that adjustment. I'm not sure how flames bocked ladder unless it was right adjacent to it, galleys usually have flame resistant finishes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

These boats are wood. Not heavy timbered, but lightweight wooden construction. Highly combustible.

I don't believe the material the hull is made of is a factor here. It could have been a steel hull and been equally deadly. It sounds like this fire happened very fast, which does not indicate to me that it was the structure that was burning initially.

I can't think of any (comfortable) boat that I have seen that doesn't have a highly combustible interior, regardless of hull material.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, benwynn said:

Just put 6 people in the last row of a 737-800.  90 seconds to get out. The woman in 36C weighs 360.lbs.

Go.

 

I watched the from a few rows back flights attendants repeatedly "ask" the ill prepared person that had booked the extra leg room seat by the widow over the wing emergency exit, if they were sure they could perform the task, until the person finally moved. I don't think the person spoke English very well either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BravoBravo said:

I watched the from a few rows back flights attendants repeatedly "ask" the ill prepared person that had booked the extra leg room seat by the widow over the wing emergency exit, if they were sure they could perform the task, until the person finally moved. I don't think the person spoke English very well either. 

Or move the non English speaking family with baby just before landing in the states.   

The report on the plane notes 6% of the passengers remembered to grab the life jackets from under a seat.   14% got one from the crew grabbing them as the plane emptied.   53% used seat cushions.    So at best  (no passengers doubled up) 27% of the passengers had no flotation aids.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read that the boat’s owners have started Admiralty Law litigation to limit their liability to the decedents’ families claims. If they are successful, the families will only be awarded the remains of the boat, which is, of course, worthless.

That said, it was reported that these cases are usually settled out of court. 

I hope the families don’t get screwed. They haven’t even buried their dead and now have just six months to gather facts and file lawsuits....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

I think the regulations that will come out of this is a fire proof vault for rechargeable batteries.
Something for every boat owner to think about.

About 8/9 years ago I started getting into large (1/5th scale) RC cars.

I decided to go with the 2 stroke petrol engine option after reading all the recommended precautions to take with the LiPo (lithium polymer) battery variant, those included flame retardant puches and a fireproof safe to store the batteries in when not in use, plus a specific type of balancing charger to use, along with keeping a very close eye on the physical condition of the batteries, with any bulging or deformation in the batteries being a sign that failure was immenent and the recommendation being to bury the batteries in a bucket of sand or similar until you could find somewhere that could take them and dispose of them properly.

Lithium batteries are a great invention, but when things go wrong it can be in a catastrophic fashion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bruno said:

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEN8v8Y1PzpfPUxq_5RFVkbcqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Some details, charging station was in galley so if that's where the fire started then it could've blocked the exit. I don't normally think of a battery charging area as a fire hazard but I guess we should make that adjustment. I'm not sure how flames bocked ladder unless it was right adjacent to it, galleys usually have flame resistant finishes..

 

4 hours ago, W9GFO said:

I don't believe the material the hull is made of is a factor here. It could have been a steel hull and been equally deadly. It sounds like this fire happened very fast, which does not indicate to me that it was the structure that was burning initially.

I can't think of any (comfortable) boat that I have seen that doesn't have a highly combustible interior, regardless of hull material.

 

 

Larger capacity passenger boats (subchapters K and H) have tight limits on combustible material in the finish. Yachts and passenger boats are very different. Except T-boats.

Here is subchapter K on finishes:
image.png.18f52e3d185d0852ea4674758448ec9f.png

And on interior furnishings here is what subchapter K has to say:

image.png.446c345c7929d8eb140aff881f3d70a7.png

Subchapter T, what this vessel met, is far less stringent:

image.png.24e7c34e68a539d0cda81312c766d1ce.png

Even the structural aspects of Subchapter T are very open. There is a lot about "composites" but not about anything else. Please note that I did not snip the whole part regarding GP resings (c).
 

 

 

image.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, W9GFO said:

 If nothing else I would hope that on the sister ship  they remove those three bunks and put in a proper STEEL ladder with a handrail.

I don't think it a good idea to have a wooden ladder (as shown in the photo above) as part of your fire escape plan.  

Condolences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt a wooden ladder would make a difference. If it is on fire you are already as fucked as that maroon at Burning Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, benwynn said:

I'm thinking of how long it takes a plane to empty at an arriving gate and, even leaving carry on baggage out of the mix, I see no way in hell the typical airliner is going to empty in 90 seconds.

I think that in the drill the over wing exits as well as rear exit are all used, so egress would be x 4.

I could see it, but .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

Just read that the boat’s owners have started Admiralty Law litigation to limit their liability to the decedents’ families claims. If they are successful, the families will only be awarded the remains of the boat, which is, of course, worthless.

That said, it was reported that these cases are usually settled out of court. 

I hope the families don’t get screwed. They haven’t even buried their dead and now have just six months to gather facts and file lawsuits....

The point of filing the motion was to ensure that all cases are heard in federal court.  Whether the boat owner's liability is limited is a question of fact.  I'm not sure the level of culpability required or how the owning entity's insurance policies figure into the 1851 Act, but some level of negligence (by the crew, the owner, the maintainer, the designer, etc.) will likely prevent the damage limitation from being effective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of bad information on this thread. Two things: A sprinkler system(operating) would have 100% given people enough time to get out. Yes it creates a more choking smoke and rarely extinguishes fires, but it is truly a great suppressant. My main theory resides now with some faulty wiring/electrical issue starting the fire with the entire crew asleep. Whoever was at watch sure as shit is not going to say sorry guys I fell asleep and three dozen people died for that. Whoever it was awoke to a well involved fire and there was little time to recover at that point. I have no doubt that a properly maintained watch would have avoided this completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bodega87 said:

Lot of bad information on this thread. Two things: A sprinkler system(operating) would have 100% given people enough time to get out. Yes it creates a more choking smoke and rarely extinguishes fires, but it is truly a great suppressant. My main theory resides now with some faulty wiring/electrical issue starting the fire with the entire crew asleep. Whoever was at watch sure as shit is not going to say sorry guys I fell asleep and three dozen people died for that. Whoever it was awoke to a well involved fire and there was little time to recover at that point. I have no doubt that a properly maintained watch would have avoided this completely. 

I have some doubts a watch would have made a difference, it seems the fire began in the sleeping area with no one able to escape. Someone sitting watch on the bridge would not have been aware soon enough to make a difference, IMO. It seems without a single person staggering to the deck it was a extremely rapid combustion 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, NotTrueWind said:

The media is going batshit on this.  As if the owners are insensitive pricks who don't care about the victims.

 

You misunderstand how this works.  The media is going batshit as if the owners are insensitive pricks who don't care about the victims because the media knows the owner's insurance company are insensitive pricks who don't care about the victims but you can't go after insurance companies because they probably own your media company or at least spend a fortune on advertising.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NotTrueWind said:

woah, slow down.  You give them way too much credit.

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

I have some doubts a watch would have made a difference, it seems the fire began in the sleeping area with no one able to escape. Someone sitting watch on the bridge would not have been aware soon enough to make a difference, IMO. It seems without a single person staggering to the deck it was a extremely rapid combustion 

That is speculation. Not fact. It could have started below main dk. It could have started in the galley. OR in the mess. Or maybe somewhere else. The investigation will get to that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

That is speculation. Not fact. It could have started below main dk. It could have started in the galley. OR in the mess. Or maybe somewhere else. The investigation will get to that.

 

It should go without comment that until the official findings come out postings will be speculation, and that when the official report is submitted in a year or two it will be based on speculation, but I am speculating that ....when it typed “it seems “ I thought that made it clear I was speculating 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NotTrueWind said:

 

Look at the headline.  You think the cunt that wrote knows thinks that some insurance behemoth  may be ultimately underwriting her weekly paycheck?  Or she just wants to be a sensationalist twat waffle to get more views on her hit piece?

What part of that makes it a 'hit piece'?  It seems pretty factual to me, other than the use of the term 'obscure' to refer to an Act that is quite frequently used (or attempted, but there's usually some negligence to be found...) and a quote from an admiralty lawyer on the record?  In fact it makes it clear that the limitation will not apply if negligence is found (like a sleeping watch).

Are you snowflaking?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I don't like the first amendment much. Reading headlines is one of those times.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You misunderstand how this works.  The media is going batshit as if the owners are insensitive pricks who don't care about the victims because the media knows the owner's insurance company are insensitive pricks who don't care about the victims but you can't go after insurance companies because they probably own your media company or at least spend a fortune on advertising.

But, of course, it is the insurance company filing the paperwork. I’m sure the boat owners are horrified once again with shocking news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Parma said:

I think that in the drill the over wing exits as well as rear exit are all used, so egress would be x 4.

I could see it, but .........

There is very real world data on how long it takes to empty a commercial plane.  Real research, real planning, real training,  real history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, benwynn said:

Just put 6 people in the last row of a 737-800.  90 seconds to get out. The woman in 36C weighs 360.lbs.

Go.

 

On a San Francisco-Boston-Portugal flight, we’re pretty much in the dead center of an Airbus A-3Something midway across the Atlantic over a nasty storm. Full turbulence since takeoff, seatbelt light never turns off.  After a series of whoop-de-doos, my travel mate tells me:

 I read an article about a study on airplane evacuations.  The people who took their time to calmly get to the nearest emergency exit had a high likelihood of dying.  Those that scrambled over the seat tops and other people to get to an unobstructed exit had a much higher chance of escape!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Limitation Act does not make a shipowner look good, and the timing here may look uncaring.  But an underwriter (and therefore their insured, the owner) would be unwise not to file one.  It assures all the claims will be heard in one federal court jurisdiction, rather than a multiple of state or federal jurisdictions, as Clean has pointed out.  Has to be filed within six months or it's waived.

This has been a somber-feeling week for me.  Devastation in Northern Bahamas reminded me once again of Katrina, though winds from Dorian were much higher.   And I've been on liveaboard dive boats not unlike the Conception, with those "underground-feeling" sleeping quarters.  We humans are definitely not indestructible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, nolatom said:

The Limitation Act does not make a shipowner look good, and the timing here may look uncaring.  But an underwriter (and therefore their insured, the owner) would be unwise not to file one.  It assures all the claims will be heard in one federal court jurisdiction, rather than a multiple of state or federal jurisdictions, as Clean has pointed out.  Has to be filed within six months or it's waived.

This has been a somber-feeling week for me.  Devastation in Northern Bahamas reminded me once again of Katrina, though winds from Dorian were much higher.   And I've been on liveaboard dive boats not unlike the Conception, with those "underground-feeling" sleeping quarters.  We humans are definitely not indestructible.

 

 

Anything can and does happen in court.  In this case a commercial vessel with paying passengers failing to maintain any kind of watch.  The limitations should be thrown out for failing the basic practice of maintaining an anchor watch.  Further a paid professional crew heard something and fail to look. The judgment and liability will exceed the owners asset value and underwriter limits.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Patriot said:

Still waiting for your link that supports the notion that no one was on watch - or are you just imagining?

here you go: 

Homendy [NTSB] said one crew member should have been looking for dangers.

“There is a requirement in their certificate to have a night watchman,” she said.

somebody may be headed to jail.. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-06/harrowing-stories-of-death-and-survival-aboard-conception-as-fire-ravaged-boat

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, floater said:

here you go: 

Homendy [NTSB] said one crew member should have been looking for dangers.

“There is a requirement in their certificate to have a night watchman,” she said.

somebody may be headed to jail.. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-06/harrowing-stories-of-death-and-survival-aboard-conception-as-fire-ravaged-boat

 

The surviving crews claims are they woke up to a fully involved fire on the main deck.  The decks between passenger sleeping quarters and the pilot house crew sleeping quarters.  The captain made two mayday calls from the pilot house and the surviving crew leaped from the bow into the water.  There was no adequate watch awake.  I can see a practice of long dive work days were everyone needs sleep.  The accident review will not accept that practice. Even the Holiday Express keeps someone awake and alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a slam-dunk in court.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, we are going to show you the defendants stuffed 30 some people into the hold of a flammable wooden boat with no smoke detectors and then all went to sleep"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

I have some doubts a watch would have made a difference, it seems the fire began in the sleeping area with no one able to escape. Someone sitting watch on the bridge would not have been aware soon enough to make a difference, IMO. It seems without a single person staggering to the deck it was a extremely rapid combustion 

Or an advanced fire. The fact that there are little to no accelerants on board leads me to believe that the fire was going for a long enough period that it wasn't feasible for your average bubba gump shrimp boat crew to battle. Everyone is assuming that the crew was awake(ish)? when it happened. Thats why it doesn't add up. If they were all asleep then things start to make a LOT more sense. Overload of an electrical outlet from people charging shit or shitty wiring of some sort along with a fully sleeping crew is where I'd place my bet. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was some comment about fire hoses being available.   Not sure they would be of much use. 

When I bought a new power boat years ago, the salesman went throught the features and safety items.  When he got the the fire extinguisher he said, "When it is time for one of these, it is time to get off the boat and forget about the fire extinquisher because a fire moves to fast."

Automatic fire suppression systems seem like the only really workable solution when you don't have a lot of room from which to fight the fire. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Team Subterfuge said:

There was some comment about fire hoses being available.   Not sure they would be of much use. 

When I bought a new power boat years ago, the salesman went throught the features and safety items.  When he got the the fire extinguisher he said, "When it is time for one of these, it is time to get off the boat and forget about the fire extinquisher because a fire moves to fast."

Automatic fire suppression systems seem like the only really workable solution when you don't have a lot of room from which to fight the fire. 

Salesmen are not authorities on fire suppression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

Salesmen are not authorities on fire suppression.

After I saw a boat catch fire at the fuel dock, I thought his suggestion was spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NotTrueWind said:

yeah, but that's usually for the diving part not for the boat ride.

Here is a release from another dive boat company.

I WILL RELEASE XXX, LLC, Dive Boat XXX, its owner, and their employees and agents, including the boat Captain, and diver masters, from any and all responsibility or LIABILITY for any and all injuries or damages sustained by me or others. I WILL NOT SUE or make a claim against any of the above parties for injuries or damages sustained by me or others, whether it arises or results from any NEGLIGENCE or other liability.

No mention that the release only applies once you enter the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Team Subterfuge said:

After I saw a boat catch fire at the fuel dock, I thought his suggestion was spot on.

Yeah well fueling...
Sometimes you have to fight the fire. The NOAA ship Ka-Imimoana had an electrical fire in then  engineroom in the middle of the Pacific, they put on their SCBA's and dove into it. Middle of the ocean. Save the ship or then what? 30 people on rafts? They successfully put it out.

Not all fires should be left to burn. Especially when there are passengers below. Something went terribly wrong. The fire station #1 is on the port side aft outside of the deckhouse. The escape is about 4 feet forward of the aft bhd of the deckhouse. That hose would have been the way to suppress enough to get that hatch opened. Then again where did the fire start? Below? We just don't know yet.

The timeline is weird too. So did that crew doze off? Or not? The scant stuff I've read isn't clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Team Subterfuge said:

Here is a release from another dive boat company.

I WILL RELEASE XXX, LLC, Dive Boat XXX, its owner, and their employees and agents, including the boat Captain, and diver masters, from any and all responsibility or LIABILITY for any and all injuries or damages sustained by me or others. I WILL NOT SUE or make a claim against any of the above parties for injuries or damages sustained by me or others, whether it arises or results from any NEGLIGENCE or other liability.

No mention that the release only applies once you enter the water.

Everyone who signed that is dead, how could it affect their survivors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Team Subterfuge said:

Here is a release from another dive boat company.

I WILL RELEASE XXX, LLC, Dive Boat XXX, its owner, and their employees and agents, including the boat Captain, and diver masters, from any and all responsibility or LIABILITY for any and all injuries or damages sustained by me or others. I WILL NOT SUE or make a claim against any of the above parties for injuries or damages sustained by me or others, whether it arises or results from any NEGLIGENCE or other liability.

No mention that the release only applies once you enter the water.

That means absolutely nothing. You cannot write a legal contract to negate a statutory responsibility. The vessel operators are required to meet a duty of care as spelled out in the CFR. For instance:

image.png.152bc9500e87afe566397f3ae5c3928d.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

Just read that the boat’s owners have started Admiralty Law litigation to limit their liability to the decedents’ families claims. If they are successful, the families will only be awarded the remains of the boat, which is, of course, worthless.

That said, it was reported that these cases are usually settled out of court. 

I hope the families don’t get screwed. They haven’t even buried their dead and now have just six months to gather facts and file lawsuits....

Every time I get on an Airplane or a Boat I think "This might be my last time I do this."
Why do I say this, because anything can go sideways in a heart beat. And because I am a paraplegic, I tell everyone around me. Save your self first because you cannot help me if you are dead.

Anyone who gets on a boat and thinks they will have a pleasant trip is deluded. Of course we hope for the best, but you had better plan for the worst.

7 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

$50 worth of smoke detectors would have been a good start :rolleyes:

Yea, I find it hard to believe that there was no Fire Alarm going off. Something sounds odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boo-Yah said:

The surviving crews claims are they woke up to a fully involved fire on the main deck.  The decks between passenger sleeping quarters and the pilot house crew sleeping quarters.  The captain made two mayday calls from the pilot house and the surviving crew leaped from the bow into the water.  There was no adequate watch awake.  I can see a practice of long dive work days were everyone needs sleep.  The accident review will not accept that practice. Even the Holiday Express keeps someone awake and alert.

Not in Nowhere'sville  Missouri.   I forget the chain.   She actually left me alone in the continental breakfast to take her kid to school.   If management didn't pay for a second person I'm quite sure they didn't pay her to stay up all night.  

Back to my question of last night.   Does the law require a watch for this class of boat?   Assuming it had alarm systems that failed (either faulty, or the wires just burned in the fire before the alarm in a different location was triggered), to what extent are alarms considered adequate?    I'm sure this is a letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, but a large anchored vessel almost certainly doesn't have management paying people to walk the bilges every hour looking for water, walking the corridors smelling for smoke and taking bearings on the lights to make sure they aren't drifting.  How often does the night watch of an anchored ship actually check these things?   How many compartments do they check on a large ship during a night?   I'll wager a night shift is given reports to file, maintenance to perform and serves as a watch in name only.   A designated crew member napping with hourly checks would provide exactly as much security as a watch confined to his desk most of the night.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

Not in Nowhere'sville  Missouri.   I forget the chain.   She actually left me alone in the continental breakfast to take her kid to school.   If management didn't pay for a second person I'm quite sure they didn't pay her to stay up all night.  

Back to my question of last night.   Does the law require a watch for this class of boat?   Assuming it had alarm systems that failed (either faulty, or the wires just burned in the fire before the alarm in a different location was triggered), to what extent are alarms considered adequate?    I'm sure this is a letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, but a large anchored vessel almost certainly doesn't have management paying people to walk the bilges every hour looking for water, walking the corridors smelling for smoke and taking bearings on the lights to make sure they aren't drifting.  How often does the night watch of an anchored ship actually check these things?   How many compartments do they check on a large ship during a night?   I'll wager a night shift is given reports to file, maintenance to perform and serves as a watch in name only.   A designated crew member napping with hourly checks would provide exactly as much security as a watch confined to his desk of fixing the head most of the night.  

It is absolutely a statutory requirement to have a deck watch 24 hrs a day. End of story.

image.png.4100f9f147711e037e3b9a2e1fffaa35.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard that the investigators are saying everyone died prior to burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fastyacht said:

It is absolutely a statutory requirement to have a deck watch 24 hrs a day. End of story.

image.png.4100f9f147711e037e3b9a2e1fffaa35.png

Thank you.   I couldn't find a clear answer in my brief search.   What other duties may that watchman be given at the same time, or is he supposed to be dedicated to this task?   Suitable number seems like a vague point for the lawyers to argue over.   When something bad happens it is demonstrated the number wasn't suitable, whatever it was.   The missing passenger on a cruise ship headline would suggest the watch was insufficient, and that ship was at sea.   You established zero would be illegal.   If there was no watch I predict the owners will blame the captain and pretend they thought it was happening.   Insurance will claim deception and try to void the policy.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

All the signatories died :(

Their heirs signed no such contract.

Eriksson v. Nunnink (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 708

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sadug said:

Just heard that the investigators are saying everyone died prior to burning.

I doubt an investigator said that before a report... perhaps a talking head or a ham and eager speculator like us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

I doubt an investigator said that before a report... perhaps a talking head or a ham and eager speculator like us

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/06/california-dive-boat-fire-conception-victims-identified/2233466001/

 

 Preliminary investigations of bodies find death from inhalation likely.

SB Sheriff Brown

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how an automatic sprinkler system might work on a small-ish boat.  Like, what holds or generates the pressure, and how will it keep going during a fire while all of the boat's systems progressively (or rapidly) shut down?  Just curious, no agenda.  I get how an engine room fire suppressant system works, with a stored, pressurised gas based system, but you can't do that in a sleeping quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Secret Experiment said:

I'm wondering how an automatic sprinkler system might work on a small-ish boat.  Like, what holds or generates the pressure, and how will it keep going during a fire while all of the boat's systems progressively (or rapidly) shut down?  Just curious, no agenda.  I get how an engine room fire suppressant system works, with a stored, pressurised gas based system, but you can't do that in a sleeping quarters.

Fog works safely in passenger quarters. If you want to know about these systems, go here:
https://www.marioff.com/water-mist/fire-suppression-with-hi-fogr-how-does-it-work

These systems are installed on many yachts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

It is absolutely a statutory requirement to have a deck watch 24 hrs a day. End of story.

image.png.4100f9f147711e037e3b9a2e1fffaa35.png

I understand your point that there are statutory duties - such that an owner can have their license suspended, fined or prosecuted criminally.  However, I believe a release does release liability for injuries or death by a releasing party - even liability based on statute, unless the release is against public policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Team Subterfuge said:

I understand your point that their are statutory duties - such that an owner can have their license suspended, fined or prosecuted criminally.  However, I believe a release does release liability for injuries or death by a releasing party - even liability based on statute, unless the release is against public policy.

OK you just went past my legal pay grade there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Fog works safely in passenger quarters. If you want to know about these systems, go here:
https://www.marioff.com/water-mist/fire-suppression-with-hi-fogr-how-does-it-work

These systems are installed on many yachts. 

Thanks, that's helpful.  So, they do depend on an ongoing electrical supply but that is down to engineering and design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A boat will have a fire alarm system, required like any commercial building. There will be smoke detectors and likely heat detectors in the galley. This boat did not have sprinklers, don’t know the regulations as to when it’s required.  When one smoke goes off the all the strobes and alarms go off.

We all know the fire triangle, fuel, oxygen and ignition source.  What fuel source was there that rapidly spread across the boat?  The commercial smoke detectors are designed to reduce false alarms with multiple way to verify its smoke. They work pretty well and for commercial buildings require an annual inspection by a trained professional. They use canned smoke to test the devices and system. A smoke detector relies on the smoke to rise to it, so in a large warehouse might take a while, but normal ceilings not so long

Toxic gases: CO is one but others can occur on a boat. Most of us are familiar with propane and gasoline both heavier than air and sink. They are of course flammable, but there could have been others  and of course a fire will produce significant toxic gases, but usually the fire system is activated by then.

I have to wonder if the people sleeping were already overcome before the fire erupted.  Those higher up were less affected by it and thus able to react.  The person on watch could have been diminished in capacity resulting from exposure  

i am only offering possibilities that support a crew that their only option was to save themselves  as it was too late for any other action

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Special Ed said:

A boat will have a fire alarm system, required like any commercial building. There will be smoke detectors and likely heat detectors in the galley. This boat did not have sprinklers, don’t know the regulations as to when it’s required.  When one smoke goes off the all the strobes and alarms go off.

We all know the fire triangle, fuel, oxygen and ignition source.  What fuel source was there that rapidly spread across the boat?  The commercial smoke detectors are designed to reduce false alarms with multiple way to verify its smoke. They work pretty well and for commercial buildings require an annual inspection by a trained professional. They use canned smoke to test the devices and system. A smoke detector relies on the smoke to rise to it, so in a large warehouse might take a while, but normal ceilings not so long

Toxic gases: CO is one but others can occur on a boat. Most of us are familiar with propane and gasoline both heavier than air and sink. They are of course flammable, but there could have been others  and of course a fire will produce significant toxic gases, but usually the fire system is activated by then.

I have to wonder if the people sleeping were already overcome before the fire erupted.  Those higher up were less affected by it and thus able to react.  The person on watch could have been diminished in capacity resulting from exposure  

i am only offering possibilities that support a crew that their only option was to save themselves  as it was too late for any other action

 

I don't think this boat necessarily had an integrated alarm system.Understanding was no propane. But that was based on initial information coming apparently from owner in interviews.

There is this eerie idea that somehow the ventilation system was ingesting toxic smoke, feeding it below, no alarm yet, people overcome in their sleep. That not a single person escaped out of there is the really strange and unsettling part. That leaves me with more and more questions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meat Wad said:

Every time I get on an Airplane or a Boat I think "This might be my last time I do this."
Why do I say this, because anything can go sideways in a heart beat. And because I am a paraplegic, I tell everyone around me. Save your self first because you cannot help me if you are dead.

Anyone who gets on a boat and thinks they will have a pleasant trip is deluded. Of course we hope for the best, but you had better plan for the worst.

Yea, I find it hard to believe that there was no Fire Alarm going off. Something sounds odd.

As I told Rick D last Saturday, “Here are the 3 things we need to do today.”

1:  Plan safe 

2: Have fun

3: Do well

We accomplished all 3. No top placing, but safe and fun. 

The Seaport Museum I learned much in had a huge sign THINK SAFETY!

Rick and you have to be more cautious for a good reason. Guys like me have to make sure we remember how to be of help and not limit what you guys know how to do on a boat or get you into too much danger. Shit, in fact, does go wrong in less than a New York second.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The secondary escape, if similar to the sister ship, is criminal. That is in no way a clear way out if you have to do an S-bend over a bunk. And it doesn't escape to an open deck.

That's a greedy owner packing in as many bodies as it can with no regard to the realities of if something goes wrong.

The US CFR Maritime rules have a lot of loopholes. Up until relatively recently, tugs didn't have to have a radar. It took a tug or barge colliding with a train bridge on the Mississippi to change that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Zonker said:

The secondary escape, if similar to the sister ship, is criminal. That is in no way a clear way out if you have to do an S-bend over a bunk. And it doesn't escape to an open deck.

That's a greedy owner packing in as many bodies as it can with no regard to the realities of if something goes wrong.

The US CFR Maritime rules have a lot of loopholes. Up until relatively recently, tugs didn't have to have a radar. It took a tug or barge colliding with a train bridge on the Mississippi to change that.

That was a horrendous calamity. I remember that. Although was it the Miss? Doesn't change the point. Ah, it was Bayou Canot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bayou_Canot_rail_accident

She had radar but improper training. At that time all of our customers ran radar! But yes, it was not required of tugboats only a decade earlier.
image.png.5c4f044b2f2fd03fed6a783c7ab68e0f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zonker said:

The secondary escape, if similar to the sister ship, is criminal. That is in no way a clear way out if you have to do an S-bend over a bunk. And it doesn't escape to an open deck.

That's a greedy owner packing in as many bodies as it can with no regard to the realities of if something goes wrong.

The US CFR Maritime rules have a lot of loopholes. Up until relatively recently, tugs didn't have to have a radar. It took a tug or barge colliding with a train bridge on the Mississippi to change that.

Zonks,

I don't disagree that the secondary escape is totally inadequate, but...it was also totally legal and in compliance.  Not 100% sure you can place all the blame on the greedy owner here.  The owner might well have been naive to the dangers posed.  After all, they have safely operated those vessels for almost 40 years.  My 20 years in the Navy says they were lucky, not good, but still, if you build your boat to be 100% compliant with the regs at the time???

I wonder how a smaller Coast Guard vessel of that approximate size is built?  Does it have a dedicate secondary escape from berthing that is unobstructed with a dedicated ladder, that opens to a separate space?  Are the mess decks considered a "separate space" from the galley?  

I suspect that the apparent lack of a watchstander who was alert and paying attention is going to be critical in this particular incident.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I gotta be honest,  this event is really getting to me, I mean spooked, thinking about it a lot...

I'm not sure resolution of what happened,  when and if that comes to light, will help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Crash said:

I wonder how a smaller Coast Guard vessel of that approximate size is built?  Does it have a dedicate secondary escape from berthing that is unobstructed with a dedicated ladder, that opens to a separate space?

I bet any ladder would be unobstructed. Frankly I don't have a lot of experience with US passenger vessels. 

Perhaps greed of the owner isn't correct. Willful blindness of the Sgt. Shultz variety?  In this case I doubt a better escape would have helped because it seems likely smoke inhalation got them before the fire. 

Here's a self righting lifeboat for the Canadian Coast Guard. This is 19m/62' long. It has a below deck survivor space. Note the 2 well spaced escapes, one leading to an open deck. That's how it should be done.

image.png.6094bcd277267d818c2e73768256a95e.png

 

Here is dive boat operating in Mexico. The crew quarters have an escape that leads to the open deck. Great!

The passenger escape leads into the same space (mess/galley) as the main escape which is very bad. It's usually easy to put the escape out on the side of the ship, have a recessed trunk in the deckhouse and truly get to an outside deck.

image.thumb.png.d020ce72785f1f41b8753a1a1dc0ae7d.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is 20-20 hindsight but the escape arrangement on the boat in question was utterly absurd and obviously dangerous. And easy to fix. As someone pointed out, get rid of 3 berths. Build the trunk to come out aft of the deckhouse. Lose some mess space or rearrange it. Basically they got away with a bad design for 40 years. Luck was on their side--they never had a fire start, that we know of. But this time the three things needed for disaster all fell into place in a 1/2 hour time period (0230 to 0305).

Crash asks about mess/galley spaces being considered separate or not. T-boats have very little to say about fire boundaries and zones (see my direct citations upthread). K-boats however, do. As do H (full sized) passenger ships. If we take the spirit of the H boat rules and apply the paradigms to T-boats, you could not have two escapes into the same enclosed space, as you do here.  Not in my opinion anyway, but I give prudence the benefit of the doubt more often than not when I read the rules.

As I said some time back, engineering and design to a rational safety systems specification are not part of the approval process for a T-boat, in practice. The regulations aren't written that way and don't demand it. If an owner involves a good naval architect or designer who has that mindset, then you'll get a proper arrangement. But many T-boats had no professional experienced designers involved.  As long as you met the regulations, the inspector's comments were addressed, it was all ok.  Larger vessels require significant plan review but the T-boat side is very much more abbreviated.

The smoke inhalation thing may move this whole affair into a different direction. The lack of a watch, apparently at this stage, listening to the chief boardmember of the NTSB, will be important.  We will see how it goes.  PS the alarms were not integrated to each other nor to the bridge. That was confirmed in the NTSB press conferences #2 and #3.

I would hope that the VISION (the sistership) is modified to achieve these improvements along with others--even if the NTSB doesn't bring such recommendations and the CG doesn't implement them.

I wouldn't say this is only a US problem either. That fundamental problem of prescriptive rules versus a comprehensive systems approach is missing in much of regulation the world over. Frankly systems engineering is difficult but necessary for good results.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Systems engineering isn't difficult.  It's time consuming and maybe expensive when done right, but not really any harder than any other engineering...My wife has a PhD in the subject...

Prescriptive rules, well written can be effective, but it hard to write them in such as way as to cover all the possibilities and issues...

In a weird kind of realization, it occurred to me that all the berthing my guys lived on on big grey ships always had multiple escape routes to multiple different spaces/escape routes.  It's obvious that the Navy as learned those lessons the hard way over many years of combat.  But no officer's stateroom I ever lived in had more than one way out.  So even the Junior Officer's Bunkroom with 8 guys in it only had one way out.  Typically we were higher in the ship then enlisted berthing, and I think the 2 ways out was more a flooding then fire issue.  I also only lived on Aircraft Carriers, on the O3 level (right below the flight deck) But most officers would be trapped in their staterooms if there was a fire in the passageway outside there staterooms...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course eliminating three berths cuts the lifetime earning potential, therefore the value of the boat, by 9%.  This is not something an owner or mortgage holder would willingly accept without force of regulation.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Boo-Yah said:

There is very real world data on how long it takes to empty a commercial plane.  Real research, real planning, real training,  real history. 

and real injuries.  When they do the drills, everyone has to sign a waiver absolving the liability for all the damage people do to each other even knowing it is just a drill.  Everything from broken ankles to concussions from people trampling over each other trying to make the 90s limit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Team Subterfuge said:

As for the limitation of liability, I am sure that everyone signed a Release of Liability before getting on the boat.

You cannot signed away the right to something before you have it.  When it comes to negligence or gross error.  Those wavers are worthless when it comes to real damages.  The release might hold of you slip on ice skating.  No chance of the Zamboni hurts you.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sledracr said:

and real injuries.  When they do the drills, everyone has to sign a waiver absolving the liability for all the damage people do to each other even knowing it is just a drill.  Everything from broken ankles to concussions from people trampling over each other trying to make the 90s limit.

 

The release of there is one is BS.  The US air industry has a treaty that determines limits on damages.  Maritime has their own limits and mandatory payments.  The surviving crew will have guaranteed Jones Act benefits.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zonker said:

The secondary escape, if similar to the sister ship, is criminal. That is in no way a clear way out if you have to do an S-bend over a bunk. And it doesn't escape to an open deck.

That's a greedy owner packing in as many bodies as it can with no regard to the realities of if something goes wrong.

The US CFR Maritime rules have a lot of loopholes. Up until relatively recently, tugs didn't have to have a radar. It took a tug or barge colliding with a train bridge on the Mississippi to change that.

One of the original owners and founders was the designer.  He cashed out long ago. He will be one of the next to be roasted in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lark said:

Of course eliminating three berths cuts the lifetime earning potential, therefore the value of the boat, by 9%.  This is not something an owner or mortgage holder would willingly accept without force of regulation.

Yes except they were carrying 34 out of 46 paying berths. So in practice the loss is probably some much smaller fraction than that, if at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lark said:

S Not in Nowhere'sville  Missouri.   I forget the chain.   She actually left me alone in the continental breakfast to take her kid to school.   If management didn't pay for a second person I'm quite sure they didn't pay her to stay up all night.  

Back to my question of last night.   Does the law require a watch for this class of boat?   Assuming it had alarm systems that failed (either faulty, or the wires just burned in the fire before the alarm in a different location was triggered), to what extent are alarms considered adequate?    I'm sure this is a letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, but a large anchored vessel almost certainly doesn't have management paying people to walk the bilges every hour looking for water, walking the corridors smelling for smoke and taking bearings on the lights to make sure they aren't drifting.  How often does the night watch of an anchored ship actually check these things?   How many compartments do they check on a large ship during a night?   I'll wager a night shift is given reports to file, maintenance to perform and serves as a watch in name only.   A designated crew member napping with hourly checks would provide exactly as much security as a watch confined to his desk most of the night.  

A commercial vessel with paid passengers? Enough to ensure the safety of the passengers and any cargo.  In this case the crew, captain, and owners failed that duty and tasks while they were sleeping behind close doors together.  

 

George Washington would have shot them for the  derelictions.    In 2019 the guilty will be tried on CNN and another 1000 media channels.  The defense attorneys of the  various underwriters will demand everyone keep their mouth shut.        5 paid hands survived.  The truth will leak to the surface. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Yes except they were carrying 34 out of 46 paying berths. So in practice the loss is probably some much smaller fraction than that, if at all.

Some spew like all stairs, ladders, and passageways are all the same.  The modern paying dive passenger is not your healthy foredeck or sewer dude.  Many cannot climb a regular rung later just before lunch in daylight.

 

The crew went to sleep in their separate closed door berthing space and woke up after something got well out of hand. No person was stationed or one watch on the primary middle deck. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

img-4857-copie.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Conception's certificate of inspection required a roving watchman, US Coast Guard Capt. Monica Rochester said at a news conference. 

"The role of that person is to rove and check on the safety of the area they have been placed in charge of," she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boo-Yah said:

The Conception's certificate of inspection required a roving watchman, US Coast Guard Capt. Monica Rochester said at a news conference. 

"The role of that person is to rove and check on the safety of the area they have been placed in charge of," she said.

You can see why captains might want to go down with the ship... The board of inquiry is going to be rough.      Even if cleared it would be unimaginably difficult to reconcile what has happened here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at the end of the day, the Captain is totally responsible for the safety of the passengers and crew.  Given all passengers are deceased, and 1 crew is deceased as well, it would seem the Captain totally and completely failed to fulfill his/her responsibility.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe deceased crew was the one on watch who died valiantly trying to help the passengers or fight the initial fire. Or maybe that's the story the captain can weave to save his arse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deceased crew was apparently asleep as well when the fire was discovered.

Here are some of the players. I feel bad for all involved, including the Captain, who is the  one to be held fully accountable for the severity of the tragedy. The owners would have no idea that there was no night watch unless they instructed the Captain to abandon protocol for the sake of sleep, which most likely didn’t happen.

It could be that after decades of safe passage, they just got lazy as to safety procedures or that the night watch just fell asleep at 3am after a bunch of partying with the guests after a night dive.

88EF6C5B-E62E-4B9A-9E1D-05B2A1D5D9DA.jpeg

8157AC32-B5A0-4D95-BF6B-4BC6E42517AB.jpeg

9797BCFD-3E18-4F8F-9466-650391337419.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites