Jump to content

More than 30 killed off santa cruz island


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 452
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Really? That is the stretch of the F'n year! If you have a legit beef against the Administration, O.K. But this drivel???? WOW   So Trump went into a time machine, made them build the boat out of wood

Please refrain from pointing suspicious fingers or arched eyebrows at the crew at this stage?? We weren't there, and don't know how or how fast the blaze started.  In due time we will know. I've

The bullshit has piled up here so deep and fast that I'm actually embarrassed that I even started this thread, If I could delete the whole fucking thing, I would. Some of you should be ashamed, m

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, Bruno said:

Good points, that both stairs emerge side by side in the most likely fire zone seems prima facie stupid.

Not the side by side stairs. Those go to different belowdecks compartments (showers forward, bunking aft).  It was the escape hatch (see photos of someone's feet upthred) up into the mess area. The stairs go into the same area, but the forward end of it. The galley and mess are one fire zone one open area enclosed on four sides by external bulkheads. That is the problem. The spirit of the rules was not met -- two escapes -- because both escapes went to the same place. This may even put heat on the USCG for that very reason. Letter of the rules is never enough. And yes, designing boats can be a pain. Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

So could the awakened guests have gone into the shower compartment and exited through a scuttle on the foredeck?

My understanding is No - there is a full bulkhead separating the bunk cabin from the shower compartment. To get to the shower compartment from the bunk cabin, you had to go upstairs to the galley, effectively stepping over the separating bulkhead and down the adjacent stairs into the shower compartment.

 

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

Lots of lithium batteries for dive cameras, strobes, video lights, flashlights etc charging in one area of the middle deck.

I've seen discussions on dive forums about this, and this is a real possible cause. They are not permitted in the bunk cabin, but are charged in the mess area. I hope the NTSB can relatively quickly find out whether some of the lithium batteries caught fire under charge rather than later burning. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

News said lawsuits against the owners and the captain of the boat will be coming shortly. That’s obvious. Don’t know if any criminal charges, which may be filed after investigation, will affect the crew. The captain may be subject to charges.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, us7070 said:

what have you read so far that would suggest criminal charges against the captain are appropriate?

I heard it on a news channel and thought it was odd that they would mention any such thing before the NTSB has completed the investigation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief skim back through the rules, this vessel appears to be under 65 feet official length--her details do not match over 65 feet.

Do note that overnight vessels under 50 passengers are and always have been Subchapter T; those larger have much more stringent rules.
There is effectively no requirements for combustibility of interiors. No requirement for sprinklers etc. With Subchapters K and H you have extremely stringent combustible material requirements, if you want to avoid sprinklers.

The old adage (I am not kidding here) was, "in the rules, you can burn 49, but you can't burn 50 [overnight] passengers."

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1c2f1cfc2ee1f0458ff0b3ee8eee901a&mc=true&node=se46.7.177_1410&rgn=div8

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Unfortunately this would not have happened had the vessel been built to a higher standard, and had she had a more prudent arrangement with escapes to an outside deck.
The owner is in shock and can only say what his honest feelings are: that if he could have done something he would have already.

The reality is that had a number of experienced passenger ship designers looked at that design before this happened, there would have been questions. Ironically, classed 12 passenger commercial yachts are built to a much higher level of fire safety than 49 passenger commercial vessels of under 100 US GT.

Just a few of the differences:

Fixed firefighting: water fog required for yachts in class (LR etc)

Structural fire protection: required at all main horizontal and vertical zone boundaries. The "non-combustible" requirement for machinery bhd in sub T is a much lower standard than the A (30 or 60 depending) requirement in a classed yacht.

Some background is in order:

Some years ago as designers got more clever with the tonnage rule, it became obvious that (especially for dayboats such as ferries) the size and capacity was outstripping the intent of the rule. You had 400 passengers in "100 gross ton" vessels that were over 120 feet long.  Something. Had. To. Change.  Subchapter K was created, the "large small passenger vessel" subchapter---under 100 GT, but over the 49/149 (night day) threshold. The general way this was done was to apply most of the fire requirements of subchapter H (full passenger ships) to the new K.

This was a good move. But it left the old "you can burn 49 but not 50" intact.
 

What is particularly egregious is that the state of the art has been marching forward. There is no good reason not to protect a cramped crowded passenger vessel with a fixed fog / sprinkler system!  Simply unacceptable really. But the rules are the rules. And that is that. Note however that I am speaking prescriptively here---under the paradigm of the rules. A real safety assessment would find that the level of protection warranted would be a function of the arrangement as well as other factors---but that is not how this is done within the Rules.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Fritzler: "No. On the back deck, that was one of the last things to burn, there [were] some oxygen bottles that the divers use. The rest of the scuba tanks are just air, or what we call Nitrox, which is a higher concentration. It's a 32 percent concentration that divers use, but it's a low oxygen count and they were out on the back deck and that was the last to burn. As far as the accelerant inside the boat, there is no gas, no propane, no diesel. It's all electric." 

 

Still a real mystery how the fire could have started and spread.  Sure hope they can figure it out; not much point in speculating or proposing solutions before that's figured out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big question involves the fire hydrants. Why were there none belowdecks? Well again, look to subchapter T to see how unhelpful that is. You have to be able to reach everywhere, but where do the hydrants need to be?

I expect we will discover that there were NO working fire hydrants and hoses in the accommodation space! Clearly there were none on the bridge deck. The crew could not fight the fire because the hydrants and hoses were englulfed in flames. Because the boat was not only wood, but did not need to meet any combustibility requirements nor fire boundary classification, once the deckhouse interior hit flashover, it was ALL OVER. No way to fight the fire!

Again, like I have said before, meeting the rules is NEVER enough. But that is how it is done--a simple abbreviated, prescriptive document. Period. Get on a bigger boat with 55 passengers, you'd have steel construction, nonflammable surfaces, or sprinklers, etc etc.

This is all looking to me like the subchapter T achille's heel we all knew about. Well, this will be the General Slocum of the 21st century. Expect changes.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fastyacht said:



This is all looking to me like the subchapter T achille's heel we all knew about. Well, this will be the General Slocum of the 21st century. Expect changes.

If the enquiry finds change is required then I hope it happens, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

In the UK we lost the Marchioness roughly 30 years ago under very different circumstances, and about 50 people were killed.  The enquiry recommended many changes, a significant number of which have not been applied to boats still operating 'because they're too difficult in craft of that type and age.'

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fire Hydrants Nozzles and Hoses in Subchapter T. Please note that the rules are silent on anything about location of hydrants.
Simple prescriptive rule which is entirely inadequate to achieve any rational statistical safety result is somehow supposed to protect against a lack of engineering and good design. It doesn't work. But that's how it works.
I have not highlighted the underover 65 foot aspect. I still have to confirm which set of rules applies to this boat.
Do note for the under 65 footers you can use a garden hose! On a 6 pack you can imagine this of course...again, the rules don't have a rational engineering basis. They are arbitrary.
image.png.fb02419af5a0aaf30000915bd4e66be9.png

image.thumb.png.e654162f01b8ff83c64f78fd7ce04b54.png

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

If the enquiry finds change is required then I hope it happens, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

In the UK we lost the Marchioness roughly 30 years ago under very different circumstances, and about 50 people were killed.  The enquiry recommended many changes, a significant number of which have not been applied to boats still operating 'because they're too difficult in craft of that type and age.'

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

If you look at our DUKW and "duckboat" (amphibious vessel) debacles (also Subchapter T) I would share your skepticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be over-thinking some of the fire fighting aspects. It sounds like the boat went from not on fire to fully involved in seconds. The only thing that might have helped would have been fixed sprinklers inside that were automatic or remotely triggered from outside. Fire fighting IMHO on a small(ish) boat is not like some WW II movie with brave crews manning a hose battling back the flames on a battleship. On a boat this size you run out of room real fast, there may be no place to fight it FROM :o

So IMHO what was desperately needed was a way to GTFO very fast and no such way existed :( Second thing is WTF is it that lit the boat on fire so fast? If they were mixing NITROX on the boat, they had bottles of O2. I am pretty sure they had a gasoline powered dinghy. If there was any way 02 and gasoline got together.......

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very heartfelt sentiment. But unfortunately there was no sprinkler system. Or even better a water fog system. He essentially made a very strong case for the need to have an automatic sprinker system: "it's a wooden boat, a plywood boat. There's curtains...lithium batteries...."

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

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

20190903_104457.jpg

It's dark, it's smokey, maybe even on fire. There's mass panic, screaming, yelling, people climbing over each other - you are breathing in that smoke, your lungs searing - and you need to find 'that' hatch.... What a horror.

I was on a a similar boat a few years back. The whole sleeping area felt like a tomb....

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

I think you might be over-thinking some of the fire fighting aspects. It sounds like the boat went from not on fire to fully involved in seconds. The only thing that might have helped would have been fixed sprinklers inside that were automatic or remotely triggered from outside. Fire fighting IMHO on a small(ish) boat is not like some WW II movie with brave crews manning a hose battling back the flames on a battleship. On a boat this size you run out of room real fast, there may be no place to fight it FROM :o

So IMHO what was desperately needed was a way to GTFO very fast and no such way existed :( Second thing is WTF is it that lit the boat on fire so fast? If they were mixing NITROX on the boat, they had bottles of O2. I am pretty sure they had a gasoline powered dinghy. If there was any way 02 and gasoline got together.......

 

I’m with you on all but the Nitrox bit. Every liveaboard dive boat I’ve been on uses a fancy membrane contraption for onboard refills. No big oxygen tanks. I’m sure they had a few small ones for medical reasons, but most of us don’t store the med kit next to the dingy’s fuel tank. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, jeez. Selfish and self centered of me but my thoughts about those people onboard, the horror they experienced, and those who knew and loved and cared about them are mixed with thinking about the 12 days we will spend as passengers on a lob this winter and the one we are bargaining with for next fall. First one is new and steel. Big windows in cabin. Second is old and wood. Uhhhhhh....going to ask a lot more questions. 

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

That's a very heartfelt sentiment. But unfortunately there was no sprinkler system. Or even better a water fog system. He essentially made a very strong case for the need to have an automatic sprinker system: "it's a wooden boat, a plywood boat. There's curtains...lithium batteries...."

Sprinklers are only to slow a fire in large spaces. To protect or slow the perimeter. . . On a boat like space once the toxic fumes happen it is over. The level of toxins in any burning boat like material are almost immediately incapacitating.  The toxins smother the victim just like our engine room fire suppression’s systems instantly cut the life out of the fire.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

DI think you might be over-thinking some of the fire fighting aspects. It sounds like the boat went from not on fire to fully involved in seconds. The only thing that might have helped would have been fixed sprinklers inside that were automatic or remotely triggered from outside. Fire fighting IMHO on a small(ish) boat is not like some WW II movie with brave crews manning a hose battling back the flames on a battleship. On a boat this size you run out of room real fast, there may be no place to fight it FROM :o

So IMHO what was desperately needed was a way to GTFO very fast and no such way existed :( Second thing is WTF is it that lit the boat on fire so fast? If they were mixing NITROX on the boat, they had bottles of O2. I am pretty sure they had a gasoline powered dinghy. If there was any way 02 and gasoline got together.......

 

Options:

 

Something stupid someone brought onboard .

Volatile Gases from a cooking or heating fuel. Grill on the upper deck.

 

Volatile Gases from a small gasoline motor or small gasoline container. Where and how do you store the outboard plus spare fuel? 

 

Methane from a blackwater human waste tank.  A well meaning environmental idea that the USCG never should have allowed on recreational or small passenger boats.  #BlindedByIdeology 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Congress and CNN media will get involved and force all boats to have two massive glass wheelchair size GTFO ports.  So much for the wide booty low profile designs. How many will drown in a seaway when those exits  ports fail under slamming wave loads?  Why do we allow narrow root keels that every. engineer knows will never stand the test of time? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boo-Yah said:

Sprinklers are only to slow a fire in large spaces. To protect or slow the perimeter. . . On a boat like space once the toxic fumes happen it is over. The level of toxins in any burning boat like material are almost immediately incapacitating.  The toxins smother the victim just like our engine room fire suppression’s systems instantly cut the life out of the fire.

Although the US regs don't implement them,  do you know what a fog system is? Do you know the concept of flashover? With a proper fog system, you won't have flashover. Escape is possible when the fog system activates, prevents the fire from going to flashover. These sprinkler and fog systems are not some pie in the sky thing: they are installed on thousands of vessels right now.

Designing a boat to carry over 30 people in one belowdeck space, with both escapes going to the same enclosed space, a space that is a galley by the way, with no firefighting equipment in the accommodations, all wood furniture, combustible construction, is crazy. But legal. It frankly boggles the mind.

 

Now a legitimate question we will wait a year to hear a possible answer to is this: Why did the crew not get an alarm soon enough to climb down to the main deck, pull the hose out of fire station #1, and start dousing the fire that almost certainly emanated from inside the deckhouse between main deck and 01 deck?
The whole concept in the Coast Guard philosophy is alarms, escape, manual fire suppression.  Why didn't alarms go before flashover? Why didn't the crew learn of a fire before flashover?

THAT is the mystery.

BUT even so, I leave my earlier basic design arrangement critique: not a prudent safe design.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder about the air conditioning system. Sources of make-up air, fire dampers, where was the compressor, in what space, was it a chilled water system with compressor in machinery compartment, or was it in the space above the accommodations? There are many possible sources of ignition of course. This is just one more possible source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is almost as appalling as the disaster itself. :huh:

Since the entire structure containing the galley burned away, it seems unlikely that the ultimate cause will ever be known.  Although electrical faults are the leading cause of fire, and easy to come by, I can't help noting that reports state that four of the divers celebrated birthdays a few hours before the fire.  I imagine cakes with large numbers of ceremonial candles... even one of which might have smoldered in the trash...

Most concerning is that I haven't seen one report of anyone hearing a smoke alarm.  Just opening a door and discovering fire...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Fritzler - the owner: "said the company will shut down operations for a couple weeks out of respect for the families involved.

Two weeks? I don't think so..

Link to post
Share on other sites

The surviving crew reports they were all asleep in the wheelhouse when they awoke to a fully involved cabin/main deck fire.  These are three deck boats. If that is fact.  The Captain will be roasted for failure to post a anchor or deck watch.

 

 

 

A0209401-1558-4C02-85CD-CF5413B0380A.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boo-Yah said:

The surviving crew reports they were all asleep in the wheelhouse when they awoke to a fully involved cabin/main deck fire.  These are three deck boats. If that is fact.  The Captain will be roasted for failure to post a anchor or deck watch.

 

 

 

A0209401-1558-4C02-85CD-CF5413B0380A.jpeg

Source please? 

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

The idea of finding the right bunk, climbing to the 3rd level, wiggling through that hatch, with 30 others, in the dark while breathing smoke is beyond comprehension.  

With 29 patiently queuing behind you

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

The surviving crew reports they were all asleep in the wheelhouse when they awoke to a fully involved cabin/main deck fire.  These are three deck boats. If that is fact.  The Captain will be roasted for failure to post a anchor or deck watch.

 

 

 

A0209401-1558-4C02-85CD-CF5413B0380A.jpeg

Where did you get THAT?

If this is true the incident is very different than anyone believes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This year at Düsseldorf International Boat Show a dive computer (or lamp) exploded when the battery misbehaved. 12 injuries. Pressure resistant electronics housings greatly amplify the effect of fires...
https://www.deeperblue.com/dive-computer-explosion-at-boot-dusseldorf-injures-12/

Our battery powered personal electronics can easily start fires and must always be placed near a fire alarm (or two).

Anarchist fastyacht is correct; prescriptive rules, as used in most US industries, are inadequate and create unnecessary regulations and paperwork while discouraging common sense safety measures. Hopefully this tragedy leads to a change in regulatory philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A boat run by all reports (including a close friend who was a regular passenger on this boat on these trips for 15 years) successfully and conscientiously for 39 years has a catastrophic event,  to me points to 

1) a system that aged out and suffered a critical failure, or

2) introduction of elements/systems/tech not originally available/contemplated when the boat was designed, ie the battery charging of personal electronic devices. 

Of course all possibilities will be looked at: maintenance, operation, complacency, myriad others 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Could be someone was charging in their berth off one of those portable USB travel batteries, if the dedicated charging station was full or the person simply didn't want to leave their valuable device in the common area

 

 

 

1 hour ago, BravoBravo said:

I heard yesterday the hull is inverted and they want to bring it up intact for forensic study. So getting it right side up under water or ashore will be tricky in preserving the scene 

According to some wind models, they've got about 40 hours before it will be blowing 30+ knots into that un-sheltered anchorage.

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

 

Look at how many battery incidents have happened the past two years in aircraft . Frankly it is a terrifying problem. I wonder how many houses have burned down too?

https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/media/Battery_incident_chart.pdf

 

A lot of e-cigarettes smoking...ironic

 

"Thermal runaway" doesn't sound good 

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

For all practical situations both escape avenues are together in the same area of the interior... that is frightening 

There are 4 sets of three-high bunks running fore & aft along the center line........the escape hatch is directly above the aft end of the starboard aft bunk in that grouping......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jo forthan said:

image.jpeg.e31da675c54cc27069757715555757e3.jpeg

There's all sorts of not correct in that diagram methinks.
Galley should say mess. Kitchen should say galley. The aft escke is not  shown. It is implied that you could escape through the forepeak but that does not seem substantiated by other evidence. I wonder who drew this thing up and with what information? News can be so faulty.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting quote for a link on Wikipedia - Sinking of MV Conception.  Makes you wonder about the fire alarms.

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 around him bathed in an intense orange glow, completely aflame, he recounted to a nearby boater after fleeing the ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the smoke alarms are battery powered, or powered from the boat's electrical system.  If there was a device charger fire, that might have also caused a fault or short on the galley circuit preventing the smoke alarm from going off?  Especially if the alarms were not linked...

But something still allowed/caused the fire to spread with what appears to be great rapidity..Also doesn't appear like the ventilation system is hooked in with the smoke alarms, meaning that the ventilation system may have well have been blowing toxic fumes into the berthing area early in the fire?

Not sure that an emergency hatch should be above a top berth like that...I realize it met the letter of the regs, but it would seem you want a clear shot out the emergency hatch, with a dedicated ladder.  Not that it may have helped alot in this instance, but the "rate of escape" out through that hatch would not have been very fast even if everyone is calm and cooperative.

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

Fire source could be anything from a rechargeable Li battery brought on board by passenger/crew to some electrical/fuel/gas system on the boat.  Figuring they will get to the bottom of it eventually.

Grease fire in an exhaust shaft; once the grease, built up over decades, begins to burn it "melts" and drips down out of the exhaust shaft.

Those things often spread with a sound like a poof as the grease laden air inside the shaft combusts.

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

Commercial Vessel,  tens of paid passengers.  NO ONE AWAKE on watch. Anchor watch is the standard and known safety practice.  

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

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

Commercial Vessel,  tens of paid passengers.  NO ONE AWAKE on watch. Anchor watch is the standard and known safety practice.  

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes 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.

Italicized bit below was taken from the link in post 204.....the crew member woke up to a noise - but this says precisely nothing as to what the other 4 surviving crew members were doing, thus I’m interested in where Boo-Yah read that ALL crew members were asleep when the fire started.....

 

She said one crew member reported waking up to a noise, leaving his bunk and seeing flames from the galley. Homendy noted that he said he did not hear a smoke alarm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FAA rules require airliners to empty in 90 seconds.    Obviously they are more flammable then even a plywood boat, and survivable accidents are usually at or near airports.   Once you get out there are lots of people to help.   Manufacturers game the system by loading the plane with agile people.    Since there were too many injuries they use computer modeling now.    https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2018/03/28/airplane-emergency-evacuation-tests/462067002/

Cruise ships are supposed to be able to evacuate in 30 minutes.    This is not tested.   Life boats may hold hundreds.  Lifeboats are lowered empty in.drills since people may die if they are full.   http://www.professionalmariner.com/April-2014/Cruise-ship-evacuation-may-be-daunting-task/     I’m sure this boat could have evacuated in 30 minutes, if that was actually a requirement.   Fastyacht’s explanation of the size limited rules was great. 

What are the rules for keeping watch?   Can electronics replace people, like they do for vendee participants and short handed recreational sailors?   Can a person wake up every hour and take a bearing?   After all, an anchor watch on a ship may have multiple duties and is not watching for drift and fire at all times.   He relies on electronics.   I just found “at the master’s discretion”.   Like all things commercial, that means “at the owner’s blessing” since he has to find the money to pay for people and sleep deprivation is another safety hazard.

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

FAA rules require airliners to empty in 90 seconds.    Obviously they are more flammable then even a plywood boat, and survivable accidents are usually at or near airports.   Once you get out there are lots of people to help.   Manufacturers game the system by loading the plane with agile people.    Since there were too many injuries they use computer modeling now.    https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2018/03/28/airplane-emergency-evacuation-tests/462067002/

Cruise ships are supposed to be able to evacuate in 30 minutes.    This is not tested.   Life boats may hold hundreds.  Lifeboats are lowered empty in.drills since people keep dying if they are full.   http://www.professionalmariner.com/April-2014/Cruise-ship-evacuation-may-be-daunting-task/     I’m sure this boat could have evacuated in 30 minutes, if that was actually a requirement.   Fastyacht’s explanation of the size limited rules was great. 

What are the rules for keeping watch?   Can electronics replace people, like they do for vendee participants and short handed recreational sailors?   Can a person wake up every hour and take a bearing?   After all, an anchor watch on a ship may have multiple duties and is not watching for drift and fire at all times.   He relies on electronics.   I just found “at the master’s discretion”.   Like all things commercial, that means “at the owner’s blessing” since he has to find the money to pay for people and sleep deprivation is another safety hazard.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes 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.

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.  

The fact it is too dangerous to launch cruise ship lifeboats with hundreds of people unless the alternative is drowning freaks me even more.   Even more interesting, nobody ever looked at how to get 300 people out of the lifeboat at sea, when a rescue ship shows up.  

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
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.

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.

 

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.

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
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..

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.

 

 

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.   

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....