# Multiple fatalities in California scuba boat fire



## Minnesail

This sounds terrifying. A charter scuba boat caught fire at night and it sounds like the only people who escaped were some crew that were up on deck. All the people sleeping below died.
Fire Engulfs Scuba Boat With More Than 30 Aboard

This appears to be the boat:
Conception









It has double and triple bunks. By my count it looks like it could sleep 42. I can't imagine how awful it must have been.


----------



## SanderO

Must have been trapped and looks like one exit only... not a good idea!


----------



## GLausin

Horrible tragedy.


----------



## capta

My heart goes out to all those who lost friends and families.
As a professional captain I always had a horror of being the surviving captain in a tragedy like this. Perhaps it would be better to go down with the ship, but even that didn't save the Bounty's captain.


----------



## KayakerChuck

Horrible.

I fear this boat was owned by a friend of a friend. I'll know when I get back in town.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

This just seems extraordinary for this day and age.

What could spark a fire that fast people could not get out? 

I could only think propane/butane cooking gas in the galley. 

How could there not be enough emergency exits that no one at all could get out? 

Old boat grandfathered laws? 

Just shocking.


----------



## KayakerChuck

Commonly, it's not the fire that gets ya. It's the fumes. Pretty much everything on a boat releases stuff that will kill you when it burns. If sleeping, one may not even wake up. :-(


----------



## SanderO

Why were there not multiple deck hatches? Fire suppression systems?


----------



## chef2sail

Tragic


----------



## Minnesail

What are the regs for a commercial boat of that size that takes passengers? Does it have to have automatic fire suppression and alarms? How about multiple exits?

I think it was 3am or something, so it probably wasn't cooking.


----------



## albrazzi

There was a second exit over the bunks, although unclear if it was used. Nitrox was available per sales brochure so apparently Oxygen was on board, whatever happened was so quick only persons on deck (apparently) had a chance for escape. Horrible to say the least and though I never ran overnight charters which changes the landscape considerably from a safety standpoint, I know what could go wrong was always in the front of my mind. Whatever happened here was very fast in progression, sounds like an explosion or rapid accelerate Propane or the like. Only speculation at this point.


----------



## svHyLyte

The two things I want to know are:

Why was there only a single exit from the sleeping quarters, which seems insane; and,

Why was there no one on watch that could have delt with the matter and raised an alarm before it got out of hand? I have never been abouard a ship that did not maintain a night watch when anchored out.

As to the source of the fire, while it might have been cooking fuel, something had to spark the fire and in these days of lith-ion battery devices being ubiquitous; and, the frequency with which they have caused fires when improperly stored or charged, I would not be surprised to learn such a device proved to be the ignition point for the fire.

What a senseless waste of lives...


----------



## albrazzi

svHyLyte said:


> The two things I want to know are:
> 
> Why was there only a single exit from the sleeping quarters, which seems insane; and,
> 
> Why was there no one on watch that could have delt with the matter and raised an alarm before it got out of hand? I have never been abouard a ship that did not maintain a night watch when anchored out.
> 
> As to the source of the fire, while it might have been cooking fuel, something had to spark the fire and in these days of lith-ion battery devices being ubiquitous; and, the frequency with which they have caused fires when improperly stored or charged, I would not be surprised to learn such a device proved to be the ignition point for the fire.
> 
> What a senseless waste of lives...


I'm reading in LA Times coverage there was a second exit (Hatch) accessible above bunks leading to the mess hall. It was quick whatever the cause, yes absolutely horrible waste. NTSB is at the scene. They were trying to talk to crew this morning (reporters not authorities) and of course there was nothing to say.


----------



## zeehag

Rescue crews still searching for passengers trapped aboard Conception. Once the fire started, it was too late for many ? fisherynation.com


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I've read a few utter BS lines in my life but this is the most BS ever:



> regardless of what sparked and fueled the fire, this much is clear: Once it started, it was too late for most of those on board to safely escape.


Bulltwaddle! Utter total bulldust! 
Unless it was a massive explosion there should never be a fire in which no one can escape. No law could allow a floating death trap to be at sea.

The investigation will prove the fire survivable if there was proper emergency exit - and an exit going into the mess that's co-located with a galley is not an emergency exit - proper alarms, proper fire suppression, and as someone smarter than me pointed out, a proper Watch where a crew member is awake to ensure the safety of 35 fare paying passengers and 5 crew.

California seems to have many laws some of which I roll my eyes, but could there really be a loophole so vast 35 people can die like this?

This stinks.


----------



## zeehag

with each hatch chimneying the flames, i can see where there would be no safe exit for anyone below decks.. 
this accident is a damned shame and will change many requirements for construction of these dive use vessels. 
the chimneying from a lightning strike is what destroyed a friends ct41 in clearwater. no escape possible, had he been on board and ct41s have 3 exits. this boat had 2.


----------



## Capt Len

''should never be a fire in which no one can escape. No law could allow a floating death trap to be at sea. '' If the emergency exit is into the cabin where the 'to galley' stairs lead ..!! I gave considerable effort to satisfy Canadian DoT rules concerning this when I brought Thane to Passenger certification. And emergency exits onto deck /w/t bulkheads are a big part of vessel design .( passed as built ,even after CG looked at the 6 dead divers aboard the Huntress ,burned/sunk in Vancouver at the fuel dock.Argued successfully in court that all aboard the 115' vessel were not passengers but club charter members so vessel didn't need any passenger related stuff/papers. (helicopter fuel storage tanks leaked down to reefer compressor and boom.


----------



## zeehag

conception is not a new ship--has been successfully working dive charters since 1981 with the rigid coast guard inspections and other hoops thru which to annually crawl. so.. what happened happened. is still under investigation. 
we cannot always plan for ALL eventualities as nature and mayhem hold different parameters than do we human beings.


----------



## capta

MarkofSeaLife said:


> California seems to have many laws some of which I roll my eyes, but could there really be a loophole so vast 35 people can die like this?
> This stinks.


California had absolutely nothing to do with this vessel other than collect taxes and possibly provide a liquor license. This is 100% USCG. They are responsible for every aspect of this vessel's licensing, operation and safety certificates.
But don't fool yourself when it comes to fires aboard vessels. A small fire in the brig forward aboard a 600 foot ship I was crew on as a teen, engulfed 1/3 of the ship in 25 minutes against the efforts of a well trained and experienced firefighting team.
We can second guess this thing to death, but sometimes things just stack up so that there is literally no stopping them. Ultimately, it will be the captain's responsibility and after a bunch of legal wrangling I'm sure the company will be included. Perhaps laws and procedures will change. But you can't just jump on, let us say California, at this time and point fingers. The boat will be brought up and a thorough investigation will follow. I will be interested in the outcome of that, not idle speculation or unfounded accusations.
Not to say I'm a fan of California or it's manner of doing business.


----------



## Minnewaska

This is a horrible tragedy. I’m just reading this thread from the beginning now and find it fascinating that so many were initially convinced there was only one exit. How do basic facts like this get so out of hand, so early. 

I suspect the cause of the fire will be the learning point, not the location of the multiple exits. We’ll see. 

Horrible, no matter how you slice it. I hope their surviving family and friends can find peace.


----------



## drew1711

capta said:


> But don't fool yourself when it comes to fires aboard vessels. A small fire in the brig forward aboard a 600 foot ship I was crew on as a teen, engulfed 1/3 of the ship in 25 minutes against the efforts of a well trained and experienced firefighting team.
> We can second guess this thing to death, but sometimes things just stack up so that there is literally no stopping them. Ultimately, it will be the captain's responsibility and after a bunch of legal wrangling I'm sure the company will be included.


 @MarkofSeaLife is right.

I don't question your experience, but this was avoidable. Twenty five minutes in a fire situation is an eternity. Were 35 people incinerated on your ship's fire? I doubt it.

The National Transportation Safety Board is going to figure out what happened here and I appreciate others guarding against speculation, but I'm sure we're going to see cascading negligence, from Captain to boat designer, maybe.

I post this with significant professional background in fire suppression. This was NOT a "what the heck, stuff happens" event. NO WAY.


----------



## capta

drew1711 said:


> @MarkofSeaLife is right.
> 
> I don't question your experience, but this was avoidable. Twenty five minutes in a fire situation is an eternity. Were 35 people incinerated on your ship's fire? I doubt it.
> 
> The National Transportation Safety Board is going to figure out what happened here and I appreciate others guarding against speculation, but I'm sure we're going to see cascading negligence, from Captain to boat designer, maybe.
> 
> I post this with significant professional background in fire suppression. This was NOT a "what the heck, stuff happens" event. NO WAY.


There were indeed fatalities, whether you doubt it or not.
Please explain, since we have no idea yet as to what happened, how you are so sure this was avoidable. Perhaps if the boat's captain had your crystal ball this wouldn't have happened.


----------



## zeehag

all of your negativity is not helping the company nor the captain nor the investigation. why dont we stop discussing that which is still under investigation.
the presumptions and ass umptions are not conducive to objectivity in an ongoing investigation.
none of us was there therefore none of us is qualified to make a judgement call. perhaps awaiting the official investigation might be less rude to all concerned including the survivors and the families of the deceased.


----------



## drew1711

capta said:


> There were indeed fatalities, whether you doubt it or not.
> Please explain, since we have no idea yet as to what happened, how you are so sure this was avoidable. Perhaps if the boat's captain had your crystal ball this wouldn't have happened.


We don't have the facts yet, only what we've read in the newspapers. The U.S. NTSB is there and they will figure it out. The lead has already said she's "100% certain" they will figure it out.

All of this is avoidable. If you don't understand that, I will not be stepping upon your vessel, Captain.

Have a nice evening.


----------



## hpeer

At first it seemed the fire started in the galley and trapped the folks down below.

My more recent thought is perhaps it started below as a smoldering fire that released carbon monoxide. Or maybe an exhaust leak? I know they have smoke detectors but also CO detectors?

Anyway, suppose the passengers were asleep and asphyxiated. The fire eventually reached the galley and burst out because it got oxygen. 

Yes speculation.


----------



## jephotog

This is tragic.

I went to college in Santa Barbara and learned to scuba there. I have dove off of this boat at least once back when it was nearly new. It was a high-quality boat run by a high-quality operation. I will wait for an NTSB report before I make a judgment. I do feel though some sort of smoke detector should have been installed and given more warning than sounds like was given.


----------



## Minnewaska

jephotog said:


> .......I will wait for an NTSB report before I make a judgment. I do feel though some sort of smoke detector should have been installed and given more warning than sounds like was given.


Well, that's a little contradictory. :wink I believe smoke detectors are required by the USCG for this type vessel, and they must have been there to get there recent reported inspection.

Reports are that the entire length of the vessel was engulfed. That sounds a bit unusual, if that happened early in the event. I can't fathom what caused this fire and whether it was so dramatic, the entire vessel went up instantly. Just awful.


----------



## roverhi

It may have been a charging station for everyone's battery powered gear that caught on fire. There was an area to charge the devices near the galley and the main passageway to the lower decks. There was also a charging station in the sleeping quarters. Apparently there were two entrances to the lower level but they were close to each other so the fire blocked both of them.


----------



## SanderO

I am guessing this was a propane fire... system leaked and was ignited by an electrical spark. The galley apparently was above the sleeping quarters.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Of course it is not right for us to make judgements prior to the complete investigation and legal process. But one of the things internet forums do well is members valid experiences and opinions. 
No none of us were aboard but we all have our own boats and often have our families and friends sleeping below. 
I am not waiting 2 years for the court process to be completed before I upgrade any safety deficiencies that this tragedy might expose.

In that, I notice the dive company has 3 vessels, one being a very close copy of Conception. 
No doubt when the wreck is floated they will compare the 2 vessels and hopefully better understand a) how this fire started and b) why people didn't hear alarms, and, c) why people could not get out.



> A member of the crew told of hearing a noise from his bunk on the wheelhouse deck of the Conception and seeing flames erupting from the galley, Homendy said, adding that he told investigators he never heard smoke alarms.


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-c...a-boat-fire-that-killed-34-ntsb-idUKKCN1VR041


----------



## Minnewaska

SanderO said:


> I am guessing this was a propane fire... system led and was ignited by an electrical spark. The galley apparently was above the sleeping quarters.


Could be, but a lithium charging station failure would be way more dramatic. Propane will not ignite, simply because it's leaking. It needs the spark you mention, but it also needs a fuel-to-air mixture range, which in the case of propane is pretty narrow. Pure propane will not easily ignite, ironically. That's why it's actually hard to light one's bbq from time to time, with the gas flowing on high.

When lithium ignites, it will not extinguish and it will light the cell next to it as well, since lithium has a fairly low auto ignition temperature. 300 degree F range, iirc. Not to mention it will explode and ignite other things around the room, and so on.


----------



## SanderO

Minnewaska said:


> Could be, but a lithium charging station failure would be way more dramatic. Propane will not ignite, simply because it's leaking. It needs the spark you mention, but it also needs a fuel-to-air mixture range, which in the case of propane is pretty narrow. Pure propane will not easily ignite, ironically. That's why it's actually hard to light one's bbq from time to time, with the gas flowing on high.
> 
> When lithium ignites, it will not extinguish and it will light the cell next to it as well, since lithium has a fairly low auto ignition temperature. 300 degree F range, iirc. Not to mention it will explode and ignite other things around the room, and so on.


Could be so... I was at the boats yard 7 years ago and a boat exploded into massive flames in an instant... I believe it was propane. It was on the hard.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

A fire caused by batteries under the galley floor

I can assure you I was there first and there was nothing anyone could do


----------



## VIEXILE

Before anyone starts casting aspersions, the Company (owner) had to file in Admiralty to get a determination on liability. Maybe a little early, but it's the procedure to get it started in Federal Court as quickly as possible. Complainants have (as I recall) 6 months to reply. Admiralty Law is a practice unto itself, which only a few choose to specialize in. It is a narrow area of practice, with its own "cookbook" (like bankruptcy) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure procedural requirements. Case law could indemnify the owners. The fact (suspicion) that lithium batteries were involved (and probably charging) raises the question of who owned them, etc., etc.


----------



## jephotog

Minnewaska said:


> Well, that's a little contradictory. :wink I believe smoke detectors are required by the USCG for this type vessel, and they must have been there to get there recent reported inspection.


While still waiting for the NTSB report, I am not sure how they can accurately assess this tragedy. This boat literally burned to the water then sunk. They might find out the source of the fire but why it took 34 lives, there is more to the story than a phone charger started a fire if that turns out to be the cause.

From what I have read. 

One crew member was woken up by a "noise". He did not sight a smoke alarm.

One of the surviving crew members broke his leg escaping.

From this, (while still waiting for the NTSB report:wink), I assume one of two things.


The smoke detections system did not work.
The fire spread so rapidly the crew up top barely had time to escape or the crew slept through the fire until the noise from the fire woke one of them up.

I was in Santa Barbara this summer, looked at that boat and thought how cool it would be to go out to Santa Cruz Island on it. The Channel Islands are a great place to sail/dive/hike.


----------



## overbored

This truly a tragic event and my heart goes out to the families of the victims. In one of the reports they mentioned the crew awoke to an explosion. if there was, there was no time to do much to put out the fire . on a commercial diving vessel are they required to have someone awake and on watch at night? and not that it would change anything, I have not seen any information on the construction materials the boat was made of. was that a fiberglass hull and supper structure, certainly not steel the way it burned, maybe aluminum.


----------



## Minnewaska

Jep, I'm really not following. You don't want to speculate, but you really do. That's fine.

I know that smoke detectors are required on inspected passenger carrying vessels, with sleeping quarters. I do not know exactly where they are required. Properly installed equipment can fail. That would be tragic, but no one's fault. We also know that the vessel was recently inspected, so at that time, it must have had whatever it was required to have. 

This fire sure seems to have been rapid and violent.


----------



## Minnewaska

overbored said:


> .....In one of the reports they mentioned the crew awoke to an explosion.....


Could have been an exploding lithium battery. Who knows.


----------



## PhilCarlson

overbored said:


> I have not seen any information on the construction materials the boat was made of. was that a fiberglass hull and supper structure, certainly not steel the way it burned, maybe aluminum.


I read earlier that it was a 1981 wood hull... So glass over wood? I think it was in the link @zeehag posted on page 2 but I can't get that to work now. (stupid work computers)


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> Properly installed equipment can fail. That would be tragic, but no one's fault.


I have to disagree. Life-saving equipment should not fail. If it does, there is either negligence in the boat owner's maintenance practices, or negligence in the manufacture of the item. Someone is at fault.

Same goes for the cause of the fire. There are very few instances where a fire is not due to someone's fault. The only exception might be the so-called "act of god" (i.e., a random lightning strike). Otherwise, someone effed up something in the manufacture, installation or maintenance of an item.

We've come a long way when it comes to safety. As noted by others in this thread, you can't just chalk up events like this to _$hit happens_.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

svHyLyte said:


> Why was there no one on watch that could have delt with the matter and raised an alarm before it got out of hand? I have never been abouard a ship that did not maintain a night watch when anchored out.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ^^ this!


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> .... Life-saving equipment should not fail.


No, they should not. However, no mechanical device has an absolutely zero risk of failure. None. It simply isn't possible, unless you want all safety devices removed from the market for lack of that capability.



> If it does, there is either negligence in the boat owner's maintenance practices, or negligence in the manufacture of the item. Someone is at fault.


That's certainly the view of the US tort system. However, fault is more nuanced. Of course, this will not turn out to be $hit happens conclusion. So far, it's impossible to tell if this could have or should have been reasonably prevented.

For the family's sake, I hope the conclusion is that little more could have been done. Knowing it was human error or negligence will be haunting. A court settlement does not fix that.


----------



## SanderO

I don't know what the requirements are for fire protection and fire suppression on a boat with so many aboard. But it sure seems that there was little to none or it didn't work or was inadequate.

Alternate/emergency egress is required in multiple unit dwellings. It seems that the building code may be better than the codes covering this vessel.


----------



## overbored

PhilCarlson said:


> I read earlier that it was a 1981 wood hull... So glass over wood? I think it was in the link @zeehag posted on page 2 but I can't get that to work now. (stupid work computers)


I see that now, a burning wood structure with burning melting fiberglass resin loaded with aluminum O2 cylinders, through in some diesel and propane and then people question if the crew heard the smoke detector? if the alarm sounded it was not for very long


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I thought the idea with smoke detectors is that more than 1 should sense a fire.
Also that they are each independently powered. 

Obviously I know nothing about USA laws... Just the housing laws at home where there's 2 dectectors in each kitchen. 

Let's just hope these 34 people haven't died in vain. I hope something good comes out of it in improved safety


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> No, they should not. However, no mechanical device has an absolutely zero risk of failure. None. It simply isn't possible, unless you want all safety devices removed from the market for lack of that capability.


Products are engineered to function for a certain lifespan. Take smoke detectors for instance. If they fail within that lifespan, then the product wasn't made to spec. It's a manufacturing defect, and fault lies with the manufacturer (and also with the owner who failed to properly test/inspect the safety equipment). This is true across a wide range of things. Bridges are engineered to last a certain lifespan. If a bridge collapses before that time, it was not built properly.



Minnewaska said:


> So far, it's impossible to tell if this could have or should have been reasonably prevented.


You must be joking. 34 people died on a boat, and you think it's possible that this was a non-preventable event??



Minnewaska said:


> For the family's sake, I hope the conclusion is that little more could have been done. Knowing it was human error or negligence will be haunting. A court settlement does not fix that.


True, money will never fix the negligent loss of life. But it sure does help the victim's survivors carry on if they were financially dependent on the victim. Imagine a widow and young children who lost a husband and father who was the sole wage earner for the family. I highly doubt the widow would rather this tragedy be non-preventable and not due to negligence (which isn't even a possibility in my view) just for peace of mind.


----------



## Minnewaska

SanderO said:


> .....It seems that the building code may be better than the codes covering this vessel.


That's unquestionably a maritime fact. Houses are safer. I'm sure, if we tried to adopt all the same codes, we'd have to beach 90% of the fleet. My stateroom has only one point of entry/egress and it's past the engine room. No way to retrofit, I've seriously thought about it.


----------



## SanderO

Minnewaska said:


> That's unquestionably a maritime fact. Houses are safer. I'm sure, if we tried to adopt all the same codes, we'd have to beach 90% of the fleet. My stateroom has only one point of entry/egress and it's past the engine room. No way to retrofit, I've seriously thought about it.


Noooo boats for hire which carry more than X people overnight


----------



## Minnewaska

SanderO said:


> Noooo boats for hire which carry more than X people overnight


I gottcha, but its still going to be inferior. Getting out of a hold below the waterline is always going to be harder and riskier than even getting out of a basement.


----------



## SanderO

something to think about .... how do I escape this thing! quickly


----------



## mbianka

caberg said:


> True, money will never fix the negligent loss of life. But it sure does help the victim's survivors carry on if they were financially dependent on the victim. Imagine a widow and young children who lost a husband and father who was the sole wage earner for the family. I highly doubt the widow would rather this tragedy be non-preventable and not due to negligence (which isn't even a possibility in my view) just for peace of mind.


And then there is this development: https://news.yahoo.com/owners-boat-...3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

"The owners of the boat that caught fire in Southern California - leaving 34 people dead or missing - are attempting to use a common maritime legal strategy to prevent them from having to pay any damages to families of those who died, a move some experts are calling "heartless."


----------



## SanderO

mbianka said:


> And then there is this development: https://news.yahoo.com/owners-boat-...3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--


SOBs... I trust they have insurance.... and these people are financially ruined because of that attitude. Sickening


----------



## Minnewaska

Oh boy. We still don't know the facts, but the owners are already guilty. 

Whether one likes maritime law or not, is no reason to think anyone would volunteer for financial ruin, if they hadn't violated the law. Of course, we don't know if they made a big culpable mistake yet, maybe they did. Maybe it was a passenger's battery that exploded, will that passengers family be held accountable? 

I'm not defending the owners, I'm only reacting to the lynch mob. Show me what they did that they shouldn't have or otherwise and I'll cast my verdict of guilt too.


----------



## Minnewaska

p.s. There insurance policy would absolutely require mitigating loss or it would not provide any coverage. They certainly aren't going to volunteer for a loss they aren't legally liable for.


----------



## scratchee

Just a note for what it's worth: I've heard a few people comment on "oxygen tanks" as part of the fire hazard in this scenario. Recreational scuba tanks are filled with air, not oxygen.


----------



## Minnewaska

scratchee said:


> Just a note for what it's worth: I've heard a few people comment on "oxygen tanks" as part of the fire hazard in this scenario. Recreational scuba tanks are filled with air, not oxygen.


Someone said they advertised Nitrox diving, which is atmospheric air, supplemented with pure oxygen. It supposedly reduces the onset of the bends or theoretically allows one to stay below longer. Therefore, they'd may have had the pure O2 aboard to make the mix. I can't say if it wasn't mixed ashore, or if it's even true the had such ability.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

scratchee said:


> Just a note for what it's worth: I've heard a few people comment on "oxygen tanks" as part of the fire hazard in this scenario. Recreational scuba tanks are filled with air, not oxygen.


Nitrox?



> The Risk of Explosion When Using Enriched Air Nitrox
> The use of enriched air nitrox involves the manipulation of gasses containing higher percentages than normal air, and some precautions are necessary as oxygen catalyzes explosions.
> 
> Pure oxygen is often used when mixing enriched air nitrox. Oxygen is either added directly to the scuba tank or mixed into normal air prior to filling the tank. Any equipment that comes in contact with pure oxygen must be "oxygen clean" - meaning that special lubricants and materials must be used to avoid an explosive reaction. Mixes of enriched air nitrox that contain more than 40% oxygen can only be used with regulators and tanks that are oxygen clean.


----------



## Arcb

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Nitrox?


Read there were a couple of bottles of oxygen on board for medical purposes (treating dive related injuries etc).


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Nitrox.

Read this primer... Especially Burning Question!read it very carefully. So the most easy way of filling is putting pure oxygen in first.... Gulp.

https://archive.divernet.com/tek-diving/p302652-whatever-happened-to-nitrox.html


----------



## Minnewaska

svHyLyte said:


> ....Why was there no one on watch that could have delt with the matter and raised an alarm before it got out of hand? I have never been abouard a ship that did not maintain a night watch when anchored out.......


Is this an actual requirement? I've slept aboard many small commercial ships that did not have a night watch at anchor, nor at the slip (for which I'm not sure there is a practical difference). Most, coincidentally, were dive boats. I've tried to look this up, but can only find adequate watch is required based on circumstances, which wasn't even referring to night. Maybe there is some precedent case law that clarifies a night watch, if not an actual clarification in a reg?


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Glad to hear of people like yourself that don't do just the minimum safety wise and try to make things as safe as they reasonably can.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Here's the complaint that the owners filed if anyone is interested. (Two parts). I'm new to posting here.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Part two of the complaint filed by the dive boat owners.


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> Here's the complaint that the owners filed if anyone is interested. (Two parts). I'm new to posting here.


While it certainly reads like it's morbid and selfish, I understand it's standard operating procedure in a maritime event like this. It seems backwards that they would sue to defend themselves, but I'm told that's the way it works, in order to consolidate what are undoubtedly 30 or so claims to come and establish maritime jurisdiction. At least that's how a colleague explained it to me. It doesn't mean the court will agree with all the assertions, but they need to be made that way.

I haven't heard any updates since yesterday on any actual or alleged findings of fault.


----------



## svHyLyte

Minnewaska said:


> Is this an actual requirement? I've slept aboard many small commercial ships that did not have a night watch at anchor, nor at the slip (for which I'm not sure there is a practical difference). Most, coincidentally, were dive boats. I've tried to look this up, but can only find adequate watch is required based on circumstances, which wasn't even referring to night. Maybe there is some precedent case law that clarifies a night watch, if not an actual clarification in a reg?


Minna--If you have been aboard a ship that did not maintain a night watch, regardless of where ever, then you have been aboard poorly mastered ships. One of the First Questions asked by the Coast Guard Investigators was why there was no Night Watch to alert crew and passengers to the situation and take necessary actions. Any ship I have been aboard in the last 65 years has maintained a Deck Watch, also commonly known as a "Charge of Quarters" (aka "CQ") at all times the ship was not under way and under the charge of the OOD. For that matter, even we maintain a night watch. It "ain't" that demanding...

FWIW the most recent report from the Santa Barbara Coroner's office was that of the bodies that they could examine, the persons appear to have died from smoke/inhalation of toxic fumes, likely in their sleep, rather than having been burned to death. A CQ/Deck Watch (and, of course, functional smoke alarms) could have prevented this senless loss of life.


----------



## hpeer

> appear to have died from smoke/inhalation of toxic fumes, likely in their sleep


That's what I was speculating upon up thread, post 25.

Did they have CO detectors? Would they have done any good?


----------



## Minnewaska

svHyLyte said:


> Minna--If you have been aboard a ship that did not maintain a night watch, regardless of where ever, then you have been aboard poorly mastered ships.


Perhaps that's true, but most were vessels with two crew members and maybe a dozen divers. I get the best practice, but is it a legal requirement? That will and should matter with respect to holding the operator legally accountable. The safety culture of the boats I was on was always very high on my radar. I often had a class of students along. I never considered needing someone awake all night.

For that matter, we have guests aboard our vessel all the time and no one stands night watch. Safety doesn't really change, just because the guest is paying.



> A CQ/Deck Watch (and, of course, functional smoke alarms) could have prevented this senless loss of life.


That sounds plausible, but it's still unclear how quickly this fire/explosion occurred. I'm not trying to defend the owner, but only consider the facts we've heard rationally. I understand the explosion was heard, so that may have been as timely as a smoke detector, but still didn't help. I'd still like to know if there were smoke detectors down below and whether they were required there specifically. One would think they were, I know they were required to have them.


----------



## Minnewaska

I just listened to a media talking head, who referred to the surviving crew members as cowards. I find that a horrible thing to say. The surviving crew will undoubtedly live with this horror the rest of their lives. Unless it's shown they did something to cause this or were clearly negligent in not awakening the passengers, I can't blame them for abandoning a burning vessel. I'll bet that idiot commentator has never been so close to a raging fire.

Enough of the crew survived for the Coast Guard to sort out the chain of events. So far, I've not heard any reports of this being a shoddy operation, just the opposite. Unlike the Bounty tragedy, were there was already ample reports of reckless behavior and bad decision making.

There may prove to be some here too, but I'm waiting to hear what it was.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Minnewaska said:


> For that matter, we have guests aboard our vessel all the time and no one stands night watch. Safety doesn't really change, just because the guest is paying.


My understanding is that it is a HUGE difference in every way between you taking your buddy Tom for a sail or running a commercial operation. Those with actual CG licences here will probably educate you in more detail.


----------



## Minnewaska

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> My understanding is that it is a HUGE difference in every way between you taking your buddy Tom for a sail or running a commercial operation. Those with actual CG licences here will probably educate you in more detail.


That was my point, Mast. The rules may be different, but not the safety concern. I'm still asking whether it is a regulatory requirement to stand a night watch on a commercial vessel such as this. If it's not required, I don't see the choice being any different for those of us with guests aboard or paying passengers. We're still morally responsible for their safety, but I don't think most stand night watch, unless weather required.

p.s. I've passed all the USCG captain license testing from OUPV to Master to Sailing endorsement and just don't recall the rule, nor can I find it. I'm certainly no pro, nor did I fully ace the tests. I'm genuinely interested in the reg.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Minnewaska said:


> That was my point, Mast. The rules may be different, but not the safety concern. I'm still asking whether it is a regulatory requirement to stand a night watch on a commercial vessel such as this. If it's not required, I don't see the choice being any different for those of us with guests aboard or paying passengers. We're still morally responsible for their safety, but I don't think most stand night watch, unless weather required.
> 
> p.s. I've passed all the USCG captain license testing from OUPV to Master to Sailing endorsement and just don't recall the rule, nor can I find it. I'm certainly no pro, nor did I fully ace the tests. I'm genuinely interested in the reg.


I don't know how authoritative this is, from the L.A. Times:

"A preliminary investigation into the Conception boat fire has suggested serious safety deficiencies aboard the vessel, including the lack of a "roaming night watchman" who is required to be awake and alert passengers in the event of a fire or other dangers, according to several law enforcement sources familiar with the inquiry." . https://www.latimes.com/california/...nia-boat-fire-victims-crew-members-passengers

I don't have the experience of SVHyLyte but on every commercial (and military) ship I have ever slept, there surely was a watch aboard.


----------



## Minnewaska

I read that same quote in the LA Times and it's literally the only place I can find it. I think that's what got this regulatory concept started. 

There is no doubt that large commercial and military ships have their own operating standards. The question is whether this ship was required to have a night watch. If they were, they're screwed.

edit:if they weren't, I don't really see their choice not to as any different than our choice not to with a half dozen guests sleeping aboard.


----------



## Minnewaska

Just to be sure we're on the same page, I understand we're talking about a ship at anchor, in harbor, not underway, where Rule 5 would clearly apply. 

The rhetoric about the ship having safety issues, if not violations, is quite accurate. Just like most of the fleet I'm afraid.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Minnewaska said:


> I read that same quote in the LA Times and it's literally the only place I can find it. I think that's what got this regulatory concept started.
> 
> There is no doubt that large commercial and military ships have their own operating standards. The question is whether this ship was required to have a night watch. If they were, they're screwed.
> 
> edit:if they weren't, I don't really see their choice not to as any different than our choice not to with a half dozen guests sleeping aboard.


I have seen it in several places, like

https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/doome...erious-safety-deficiencies-early-probe-finds/

https://ktla.com/2019/09/05/prelimi...t-suggests-serious-safety-lapses-sources-say/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-boat-fire-what-we-know-about-the-victims/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/california-boat-crew-members-describe-fire-panic

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tims-safety-issues-compensation-a9094921.html

https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/new...cle_4a533e94-4984-5d0d-9307-8a4f5b01236a.html

https://americansecuritytoday.com/ca-boat-fire-early-investigation-suggest-serious-safety-lapses/


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Assuming 46 CFR 177.500--Means of escape is the proper regulation for the Conception (cited to by Paul Kamen, a forensic naval architect in an ABC news article) and from reading comments by the NTSB, it sounds like Conception's emergency escape hatch would not meet the standard.

The hatch has to be big enough that someone wearing a life jacket can use it, it must be capable of being opened in both light and dark conditions, and it must be adequately marked, among other things. The NTSB commented that they had a hard time finding a light switch and locating the emergency escape hatch in a sister boat of Conception. They also commented something about it being tight quarters where the hatch was located.

Perhaps the Conception was grandfathered in on some of these regulations. And of course, when there is not a hard and fast rule (i.e., 32 inches wide), what is acceptable is subject to the opinion of the inspector.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title46-vol7/pdf/CFR-2018-title46-vol7-sec177-500.pdf


----------



## Minnewaska

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I have seen it in several places, like


I only open the first couple, which either quoted the same source (LA law enforcement) or quoted the LA Times article specifically. Did you find anything new or authoritative?


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> ....And of course, when there is not a hard and fast rule (i.e., 32 inches wide), what is acceptable is subject to the opinion of the inspector.


I'm beginning to wonder if this is the issue. Marine architecture is more confined and limited than land. Perhaps codes are not as well defined and the inspectors have to make a judgement call. From reports, this vessel had recently passed it's inspection.

I still wonder if we're missing the bigger picture......... what started the fire and why did it spread so quickly.

One thing that has come from this, without even knowing the cause yet, is I'll never go to sleep with a lithium battery plugged in again. I'm sure I've done it. I have smoke and CO detectors, but not in every cabin, just common area. Thinking that guests may leave phones, cameras, etc, charging in their staterooms, I think I'll add a few more. We have fire extinguishers in every individual living space, far more than required. Although, I suspect many fires aboard are futile to fight. Hope I never test the theory.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Just imagine 34 people trying to get through here...









https://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Charging-electronics-cell-phones-dive-boat-fire-14417047.php


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Minnewaska said:


> I'll never go to sleep with a lithium battery plugged in again. I'm sure I've done it. I have smoke and CO detectors, but not in every cabin, just common area.


This is something that we should all re-examine--whether for our boats or dry-land homes. My kids, for example, charge all manner of electronic garbage in their bedrooms. We have a smoke detector in our hallway, but not in each bedroom. We all sleep with bedroom doors closed for a variety of reasons, which I would imagine would negate the effectiveness of a hallway smoke alarm.

I'm going to be buying a few more detectors.


----------



## Chris271828

The FAA & airlines allow people to charge their phones etc. on planes and they are very concerned with safety. Based on my flight experience, charging devices on planes is very common. I don’t think charging phones is a big risk. I’ve always charged my phone on the nightstand next to my bed. Am I wrong about this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zeehag

as samsung j7 was notoriously hot during charging to the point of flames, i think that blaming the company is premature. 
i do foresee regulation requiring all cell fones be left home, ditto other items requiring charging during the charter. 
fire started in sleep section of boat..... how can company be held accountable for someones cell fone or go pro burning down the boat. 
the only answer is to totally ban these items from charters. 
as for cigarettes in bed-- those have been banned for many years. however some still smoke in bed. 

there is much to investigate and this investigation willnot be easy nor soon to reach completion.


----------



## Minnewaska

Chris271828 said:


> The FAA & airlines allow people to charge their phones etc. on planes and they are very concerned with safety. Based on my flight experience, charging devices on planes is very common. I don't think charging phones is a big risk. I've always charged my phone on the nightstand next to my bed. Am I wrong about this?....


It's a strange, split the baby, sort of rule at the moment. You can pack devices that contain lithium batteries in your check luggage, but you can't check spare batteries. Those all must be in your carry on. I presume the thinking is that the batteries in your luggage are not being charged and areless likely to self ignite. Lithium requires temps in the 300 deg range to do so.

I suppose charging in the cabin is permitted, with the thinking they could extinguish an identified fire, or you'd notice and unplug in time. That may be the real flawed logic. I do not believe burning lithium can be extinguished. Period. It's just an acceptance of risk.

I had the battery changed in my iPhone (at Best Buy) and two months later it got so hot, I couldn't touch it. It was not plugged in when it felt like it was melting down. Then the screen fried. Scary.


----------



## midwesterner

zeehag said:


> ....i do foresee regulation requiring all cell fones be left home, ditto other items requiring charging during the charter.....
> ...the only answer is to totally ban these items from charters.


I don't see anything like this happening in our current time. It is all current technology. I don't see people willing to go on scuba vacations without cameras and phones, or iPads used for navigation. I can maybe some change in practices or regulations, requiring that all devices be stored in a designated charging area that has some fire protection. In our modern-day culture of mobile devices, that would seem about as likely as getting laws passed to ban guns in America.


----------



## midwesterner

zeehag said:


> As samsung j7s were notoriously hot during charging, to the point of flames, I think that blaming the company is premature.....
> ......how can a company be held accountable for someone's cell phone or GoPro burning down the boat.


In our extremely litigious culture, I can imagine that it will get very complicated, and there will be all kinds of issues brought up. It sounds like there may have been inadequate smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and lack of a Night Watch Person.

The alternate escape route was a hatch in the forward part of the sleeping quarters. I saw a demonstration on the news where a news broadcaster demonstrated how difficult it was to climb up the hatch in the vessel's sister ship. It looks like only fit people in their 20s would have been able to quickly get through that hatch.

I imagine there will be questions about why the captain and crew got in the dinghy and left the vessel to go to another vessel anchored nearby, rather than standing by to assist any other survivors that might have gotten out. I understand that the fire may have started from devices that were brought on by passengers. I imagine there will be debate in the courts, for years, about whose responsibility it is to maintain safety and oversight, regarding dangerous devices and substances that are brought on a boat.

It's all a very sad, tragic, and nasty business.


----------



## Minnewaska

Best I've identified to date.

There are USCG regulations for watchmen, including nighttime,.....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/78.30-15

.....but the specific requirement for each vessel is detailed in the specific boats Certificate of Inspection.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/15.705

Ultimately, the entire section that applies to US Flagged Passenger Carrying Vessels only applies at 100 gross tons or more. I did read that Conception was smaller than 100 ton, above which the hull may not be constructed of flammable materials (fiberglass and wood).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/70.05-1

I think the LEO quoted by the LA Times may not have understood these nuances.

We could argue these should be tightened up and perhaps they will be. I still have to ask myself whether I would post a night watch every time there were passengers sleeping aboard our recreational vessels. Same risk.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Minnewaska said:


> I only open the first couple, which either quoted the same source (LA law enforcement) or quoted the LA Times article specifically. Did you find anything new or authoritative?


I thought I eliminated all that quoted the LA Times (there were quite a few). Did I overlook one?

As far as quoting "LA law enforcement," well what do you expect? I suppose that is the authority (or at least one of the authorities) that is in charge of sorting things out. So this seems as close to the horse's mouth as you can get at this early stage of the investigation/


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Attached are Coast Guard records concerning inspections and the deficiencies found (none in Feb 13 2019 and Aug 5 2018 inspections). Per the Feb 27 2017 notation, there was a B-1 portable dry chemical fire extinguisher on the bridge and a heat detector in the galley, per the Feb 24 2016 notation. There also were some sort of fire pump (Feb 19 2016) and fire hoses (Jan 14 2015) onboard. Did not post all deficiencies because of file upload limits.


----------



## Minnewaska

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I thought I eliminated all that quoted the LA Times (there were quite a few). Did I overlook one?


The first one on your list in nearly the first paragraph, which is why I didn't go much further. Even the second didn't attribute the LA Times, but seemed to be quoting the same LEO source.



> As far as quoting "LA law enforcement," well what do you expect? I suppose that is the authority (or at least one of the authorities) that is in charge of sorting things out. So this seems as close to the horse's mouth as you can get at this early stage of the investigation/


Is that the authority here, or the USCG and NTSB? It doesn't seem logical that a land based LEOs would be the authority over a fire at sea, any more than the CIA. Maybe the boat was anchored in their jurisdiction, I don't know. I would think a lay person would at least be suspicious it wasn't the horse's mouth and confirm the nightwatch rule really existed, before spreading the rumor far and wide.

This past summer, the boat next to me at a transient marina had a State Police officer questioning the foreign Captain on some customs and immigration mistakes they apparently made. The officer was quite clear that he was the middle man for CBP and had no idea what the rules were. Everyone was being polite, the Captain apparently failed to properly notify CBP of his movement, even though he was operating under a legal cruising permit. He was being asked to return to Newport for a do over. Overhearing the issue made perfect sense to me, it was all a foreign scrambled language to the LEO.

In my estimation, some LEO knew just enough to be dangerous and the media were salivating for something to add to the story. I guess it's human nature, as several above were looking for blame at every step too.

I strongly hold that our media should be more responsible than this. If my research is correct and it was not required for this <100t, think what this irresponsible reporting did to the Captain, who's undoubtedly being tortured. Perhaps something will surface, but to date, I've not heard he/she did anything wrong. Many, including the LA Times reporter, were looking to throw a noose over a tree limb.

More will come out to clarify. I've read quotes from USCG sources that said the vessel was in full compliance. I also read the wikipedia page that reported the NTSB lead claiming they should have had a nightwatch. When I clicked the link that supported this entry, it brought me to the LA Times article, which did not attribute this to the NTSB. I don't edit Wiki so the error stands and gets spread around, until someone else corrects it.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Minnewaska said:


> I would think a lay person would at least be suspicious it wasn't the horse's mouth and confirm the nightwatch rule really existed, before spreading the rumor far and wide.
> 
> I strongly hold that our media should be more responsible than this. If my research is correct and it was not required for this <100t, think what this irresponsible reporting did to the Captain, who's undoubtedly being tortured. Perhaps something will surface, but to date, I've not heard he/she did anything wrong. Many, including the LA Times reporter, were looking to throw a noose over a tree limb.
> 
> More will come out to clarify. I've read quotes from USCG sources that said the vessel was in full compliance. I also read the wikipedia page that reported the NTSB lead claiming they should have had a nightwatch. When I clicked the link that supported this entry, it brought me to the LA Times article, which did not attribute this to the NTSB. I don't edit Wiki so the error stands and gets spread around, until someone else corrects it.


I'm not an expert in these rules, and I will be the first to admit that there might be an exception somewhere that negates this, but it seems to me that the Conception falls under Subchapter T of Coast Guard regulations--that is, it is under 100 gross tons, carries less than 150 passengers, or has overnight accommodations for less than 49 passengers (see attachments showing tonnage and Subchapter T criteria).

Under Subchapter T, there is a regulation 185.410 Watchmen (attached) that requires that a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime whether or not the vessel is underway.

If this is accurate, I suppose it would matter whether or not someone normally stayed awake all night or whether this was a one-time thing.


----------



## zeehag

this boat is out of santa barbara. 
as last i heard santa barbara is NOT in lapd jurisdiction. 
with boats in lost angels, there is port authority which has jurisdiction over lapd. lapd has no jurisdiction on water, nor do they have any clue as to regulations rules or laws pertaining to watercraft and issues thereto.
why are lapd being quoted in anything to do withthis issue santa cruz island isnot lost angeles pd jurisdiction. catalina is, for some reason.
latimes has been a source of fakenews for decades.


----------



## caberg

46 CFR § 15.855 - Cabin watchmen and fire patrolmen.



> On vessels carrying passengers at night, the master or person in charge must ensure that a suitable number of watchmen are in the vicinity of the cabins or staterooms and on each deck, to guard against and give alarm in case of fire or other danger.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/15.855


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> 46 CFR § 15.855 - Cabin watchmen and fire patrolmen.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/15.855


Good find. However, it's listed under the Merchant Marine Officers and Seaman section of the code, for which the General Application section, at the beginning reads.......



> (g) Owners and operators, and personnel serving on the following small vessels engaged exclusively on domestic, near-coastal voyages are in compliance with subpart K of this part and are, therefore, not subject to further requirements for the purposes of the STCW Convention:
> 
> (1) Small passenger vessels subject to subchapter T or K of 46 CFR chapter I.
> 
> (2)Vessels of less than 200 GRT, other than passenger vessels subject to subchapter H of 46 CFR chapter


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/15.105

STWC refers to the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, which may hold the final answer here.

I didn't trace through all the cross references, to know if Conception was exempt, but it stand to reason that not all small passenger carrying vessels would have someone on watch 24/7, like larger vessels would. Otherwise, why wouldn't these apply to recreational vessels, with guests aboard, too.


----------



## Minnewaska

From the section that details which vessels are subject to the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping. It sure seems like smaller vessels are exempt.......



> (2) The following small vessels engaged exclusively on domestic, near coastal voyages *are not subject to any obligation for the purposes of the STCW Convention*:
> 
> (i) Small passenger vessels subject to subchapter T or K of 46 CFR chapter I.
> 
> (ii) Vessels of less than 200 GRT (other than passenger vessels subject to subchapter H of 46 CFR chapter I).


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/15.1101


----------



## olson34

The part of the discussion about having a watch on duty just made me recall a temporary assignment aboard a Destroyer Escort, crew of a tad over 200. That was a rather long time ago.
Someone, usually a new crew member like me... would be on watch, walking the whole ship in the middle of the night. I recall sounding a series of "tanks" and noting the water levels in a log.
Different time, and a 3X larger vessel, but the need for a watch would seem to be similar.

OTOH, looking at the lack of a useful and quick means of escape in an emergency on the burned vessel is just outright depressing.
I wonder what sort of fire suppression and alarm system they had? 
(Makes me appreciate the factory Halon system with its indicator light on my 1988 sailboat, with it's little 23 hp diesel in our miniature "engine room".. 
I did get that fire bottle re-certified last year.)


----------



## Minnewaska

olson34 said:


> ....Different time, and a 3X larger vessel, but the need for a watch would seem to be similar.


I'm curious how folks see this. Undeniably, a watch is safer. However, should there be no floor to which one need be maintained? If so, why not require them aboard recreational vessels, at least with guests. Of course, I don't see why the lives of passengers are more important than crew, so every vessel, all the time?



> OTOH, looking at the lack of a useful and quick means of escape in an emergency on the burned vessel is just outright depressing.


Agreed and reports read like it was grandfathered. If there had been a fire in the sleep quarters, it would have seemed adequate. I think. The fact that the fire blocked both exits, from above, is the tragedy. On the other hand, I'm curious if there could have been egress through the windows on the galley deck and not necessarily require transit through the galley, which is described as the design flaw.

It seems the fire grew so fast, the entire boat was consumed too quickly to escape. Even those above suffered injury. I hope they determine the cause of the fire, as that may be most instructional to us all.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> Good find. However, it's listed under the Merchant Marine Officers and Seaman section of the code, for which the General Application section, at the beginning reads.......
> 
> I didn't trace through all the cross references, to know if Conception was exempt, but it stand to reason that not all small passenger carrying vessels would have someone on watch 24/7, like larger vessels would. Otherwise, why wouldn't these apply to recreational vessels, with guests aboard, too.


Conception may or may not be exempt from the reg I cited requiring a night watch, but that's not the critical issue to me. Undeniably (as you later agreed), a night watch is safer, and this reg is evidence of that fact. Is there some reason why Conception could not maintain a night watch? Maintaining a safe environment for paying customers is not all about doing the absolute minimum required by the law. It's about doing what is reasonable under the circumstances.

And, there is a huge difference between non-paying social guests and paying customers. This is true in many contexts beyond boating. When profit motive is involved, there is an incentive to cut corners when it comes to safety and paying customers are not always in a position to assess safety of a business operator prior to engaging with them. The social guest context is entirely different. There is a very big distinction practically speaking, and legally in just about every context you can imagine.

If I had to guess, I would say you have a background in the corporate/business owner side of things. I can almost hear the "tort reform" drum beating in the background of your posts. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that it's very obvious.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Minnewaska said:


> From the section that details which vessels are subject to the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping. It sure seems like smaller vessels are exempt.......
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/15.1101


46 CFR 15.855 does not apply to Conception because the vessel is instead regulated by Subchapter T.

Vessels that fall under Subchapter T are required to have a watchman (46 CFR 185.410).


----------



## SanderO

Sounds more like "escaped spread fuel" than combustion of the ship's contents. I presume the hull and structure were steel and it doesn't burn really at those temps.

Perhaps a propane leak? 

Was it powered by diesel?


----------



## overbored

SanderO said:


> Sounds more like "escaped spread fuel" than combustion of the ship's contents. I presume the hull and structure were steel and it doesn't burn really at those temps.
> 
> Perhaps a propane leak?
> 
> Was it powered by diesel?


as mentioned early in the thread wood and fiberglass hull


----------



## SanderO

overbored said:


> as mentioned early in the thread wood and fiberglass hull


OOOPS... I missed that ... thanks....

My comment would be... commercial use boats carrying passenger for higher need to meet a very high fire safety standard. If they have hulls and structure of flammable materials they should be required to have advanced comprehensive fire detection, and suppression as well as multiple egress. 2 means of egress is a NYC code requirement for residential occupancies.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> .....And, there is a huge difference between non-paying social guests and paying customers. This is true in many contexts beyond boating. When profit motive is involved, there is an incentive to cut corners when it comes to safety and paying customers are not always in a position to assess safety of a business operator prior to engaging with them. The social guest context is entirely different. There is a very big distinction practically speaking, and legally in just about every context you can imagine.


Yes, this is a legal distinction for sure. There is no uniform commercial code that applies to social guests. However, I fully disagree that there is a practical safety distinction. In fact, I'm willing to bet that far more recreational vessels have far more safety concerns than do commercial vessels. Lives are still at risk.

Will you stay awake all night, next you have guests aboard?



> If I had to guess, I would say you have a background in the corporate/business owner side of things. I can almost hear the "tort reform" drum beating in the background of your posts. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that it's very obvious.


I'm not trying to offend you, so please quit the offensive psychoanalysis. This entire aspect of the the thread is based upon whether the media reporting about the law requiring a night watch was accurate. There is one more post above that suggests it was and I'm interested in that fact. I intuitively think there need be a floor where an alert night watch is not necessary, just as we determine them not to be on our relatively less safe recreational vessels. Same reason a fiberglass/wood hull was allowed at all.

You can't lynch someone, in the media or otherwise, for laws that don't exist. In fact, there is a law that makes that clear. It's got nothing to do with tort reform.


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> 46 CFR 15.855 does not apply to Conception because the vessel is instead regulated by Subchapter T.
> 
> Vessels that fall under Subchapter T are required to have a watchman (46 CFR 185.410).


Good reference. Seems to seal the deal. However, the link I provided specifically states that vessels subject to Subchapter T are exempt from the standards of the STWC. Sub T does require a night watch, so how in the world is one to know which applies?

As noted earlier, I wonder if it's specified in their COI.


----------



## Minnewaska

According to the same news article, it sounds like a crew member actually was awake anyway, so I'm more confused about this line of criticism than ever........



> A crew member was awake on the boat and straightening up items in the galley and mess area but went upstairs to the wheelhouse about 2:35 a.m.
> 
> Before the crew member went upstairs, he checked that the stove was cold and nothing flammable was out, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. Sometime between 2:35 a.m. and 3:15 a.m., the crew member heard a noise and thought somebody had tripped. The crew member went down to the middle level and saw the fire.


https://www.latimes.com/california/...nia-boat-fire-victims-crew-members-passengers


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Every word in this quote is loaded. Just this could be hours in the witness stand.



> the crew member heard a noise and thought somebody had tripped. The crew member went down to the middle level and saw the fire.


A tripping sound... But trip or little trip. Not an explosion or an explosion muffled by the distance?
The same crew that assured he ensured the syive was cold. But didn't check the USB chargers were cold. 
Does a propane tank pipe leak ignition explode? Go thump? Or whistle?

It's so frustrating not to know!


----------



## cherylchecheryl

The LA Times is blocking my access, so I can't double check and am responding from memory.

I believe that the crew member checked that everything was OK in the galley at 2:35 am and went up to the bridge. The crew member was then awakened sometime before 3:15 am and thought someone downstairs had tripped.

So, to me, it sounds like they went upstairs and fell asleep. Whether that was normal operating procedure or whether someone was always supposed to be awake will be important.

I saw that the authorities took a lot of material from the owner's business via a warrant. I wonder if they have served a warrant on the various cell phone companies to figure out what sort of electronics the passengers had onboard with them. Samsung, Apple, and GoPro have had problems.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> Yes, this is a legal distinction for sure. There is no uniform commercial code that applies to social guests. However, I fully disagree that there is a practical safety distinction. In fact, I'm willing to bet that far more recreational vessels have far more safety concerns than do commercial vessels. Lives are still at risk.
> 
> Will you stay awake all night, next you have guests aboard?


A few posts back you weren't talking about which type of vessel has more safety concerns. You were talking about whether the same safety standards should be applied to recreational vessels as commercial vessels (seemingly to argue that the lower standards of recreational vessels should be applicable to commercial vessels). This is beyond ridiculous for many reasons. Should my kitchen and dining room at home have the same safety and food handling requirements as a restaurant? When profit motive is involved, together with a higher volume of passengers, who likely have no practical way to get to know the owner/operator beforehand -- unlike in the friend situation -- it's a very different situation.



Minnewaska said:


> I'm not trying to offend you, so please quit the offensive psychoanalysis. This entire aspect of the the thread is based upon whether the media reporting about the law requiring a night watch was accurate. There is one more post above that suggests it was and I'm interested in that fact. I intuitively think there need be a floor where an alert night watch is not necessary, just as we determine them not to be on our relatively less safe recreational vessels. Same reason a fiberglass/wood hull was allowed at all.


I apologize. I wasn't trying to offend either; just making an observation. Your comments in this thread really seem to argue, in a veiled manner, for less liability on the part of the owner -- starting back when you suggested that this event, with 34 dead people, might have been non-preventable (i.e., no one should be held responsible).


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> The LA Times is blocking my access, so I can't double check and am responding from memory.
> 
> I believe that the crew member checked that everything was OK in the galley at 2:35 am and went up to the bridge. The crew member was then awakened sometime before 3:15 am and thought someone downstairs had tripped......


I quoted the section from the LA Time article above. It does not say awakened, although, that doesn't mean it wasn't the case.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> A few posts back you weren't talking about which type of vessel has more safety concerns. You were talking about whether the same safety standards should be applied to recreational vessels as commercial vessels (seemingly to argue that the lower standards of recreational vessels should be applicable to commercial vessels). This is beyond ridiculous for many reasons. Should my kitchen and dining room at home have the same safety and food handling requirements as a restaurant? When profit motive is involved, together with a higher volume of passengers, who likely have no practical way to get to know the owner/operator beforehand -- unlike in the friend situation -- it's a very different situation.


I was not arguing these lower standards apply, I was saying I would understand that smaller vessels would have lower standards. Otherwise, every vessel, including recreational, should have these same standards. There is no guest on any of our recreational vessels that can make any safety assessment, just by knowing us.



> I apologize. I wasn't trying to offend either; just making an observation. Your comments in this thread really seem to argue, in a veiled manner, for less liability on the part of the owner -- starting back when you suggested that this event, with 34 dead people, might have been non-preventable (i.e., no one should be held responsible).


Thanks for the olive branch. I have no horse in the race on whether this owner is ultimately liable. I was only standing up and saying, until someone points to something he did wrong, he isn't. That may happen, but most were just looking to string him up. Once due process (or even some evidence of wrongdoing) suggestes he's guilty, I've said repeatedly I'd cast my own guilty verdict.


----------



## svHyLyte

Minne--

A criminal investigation of the "Accident" has been initiated by the authorities and, at the least, the owner/operators of that Company, and particularly the master of that ship, is/are guilty of Criminal Negligence, regardless of what rules may or may not be inscribed. The criminal negligence standard--described as "aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless conduct that is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an *ordinarily prudent or careful person* under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life." Criminal negligence occurs when a reasonable person in a defendant's position would/should have been aware of the relevant risk, and that a jury could have considered the risk obvious. (People v. Valdez, 27 Cal. 4th 778 (2002).)

I could/would go into further discussion on the whole but merely thinking of this event raises my blood pressure too much. As one of the parents of a beautiful 26 year old girl who is an enthusiastic diver and has gone on many of such dive trips, I cringe at the thought of what the parents, wives, husbands, children and siblings of the victims are enduring.

Moreover, my daughter informs her mother and I that on every trip she has been on, not a few, the boats have *always maintained a Deck Watch or "Fire Watch"* during the night--exemplifying the conduct of an *ordinarily prudent or careful person* . From our own "Rules", drilled into her since she was a little crumb cruncher, aboard our boat, the "First Rule" is Safety First. Moreover, she assures us that she always ensures that she knows the way, and the number of steps it takes to reach, the escape exits from the crew quarters and that such escape exits Do Not Include deck scuttles which, if opened, would certainly create a "Chimney Effect" as alluded to in a previous post, making a poor escape route but exacerbating a fire. Moreover, she informs us that on her boats, guests and crew were specifically prohibited from leaving their personal electronics on chargers overnight due to the know hazards of such practices as evidenced by the total destruction of the multi-million dollar Swan in Sint. Marrten a few years ago, in a fire ignited by a laptop left on a charger in a crew cabin.

Here Homer Nods...


----------



## Minnewaska

Sounds damning for the owner, but we're still focused solely on the fact that people died and not on what actually happened and whether they should have reasonably prevented it. We're working on the theory that chargers exploded and the escape hatches were poorly conceived and they didn't have a night watch. Will dirt based negligence laws apply on the water? I didn't think so. If we want them to, we can't retroactively do so. 

I've not read any reference to a reg that one is not supposed to be charging devices at night.

The requirement for a night watch is unclear, but seems one is required. Reporting says there was a crew member awake and active approx 30 minutes prior to the fire. There may have actually been one. How did the LEO know one way or the other?

The escape hatches were obviously approved during their USCG inspection. 

If the owner/captain violated a reg or law, they're toast and should be. I'm only saying, if they didn't, you can't string them up just for vengeance. I'm appalled that people died. There may very well need to be laws that say electronics can't be charging overnight or maybe we beach all grandfathered vessel designs. However, it's pretty darn common for there to be batteries charging, despite your daughter's experience. The ships own batteries were probably charging. Do cruise ships ban unattended or asleep charging in one's cabin and do they police this?

I guess I'm worried that too many are saying, people died so I need to find something to string him up. That's not civilized rule of law. That's mob rule.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

svHyLyte said:


> Minne--
> 
> A criminal investigation of the "Accident" has been initiated by the authorities and, at the least, the owner/operators of that Company, and particularly the master of that ship, is/are guilty of Criminal Negligence, regardless of what rules may or may not be inscribed. The criminal negligence standard--described as "aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless conduct that is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an *ordinarily prudent or careful person* under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life."...
> 
> Moreover, my daughter informs her mother and I that on every trip she has been on, not a few, the boats have *always maintained a Deck Watch or "Fire Watch"* during the night--exemplifying the conduct of an *ordinarily prudent or careful person*...Moreover, she informs us that on her boats, guests and crew were specifically prohibited from leaving their personal electronics on chargers overnight due to the know hazards of such practices as evidenced by the total destruction of the multi-million dollar Swan in Sint. Marrten a few years ago, in a fire ignited by a laptop left on a charger in a crew cabin.


The FBI/NTSB grabbed a lot of materials from the owners' office. 
They will certainly be looking to find any smoking guns like email discussions between the owners and captain about whether or not to ban electronics charging like other dive boats.

If what your daughter says about other dive boats prohibiting crew and guests from charging electronics overnight is indeed the de facto industry standard and add in the lack of a watchman despite a regulatory requirement (46 CFR 185.410), then the owners are definitely in serious trouble, as you point out.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> we're still focused solely on the fact that people died and not on what actually happened and whether they should have reasonably prevented it.


I get what you're saying and I fully agree with the fundamental concept in our justice system of not casting judgment until all the facts are in -- i.e. innocent until proven guilty.

But sometimes as casual observers -- not as the investigators, judges or juries -- we can draw our own conclusions when we feel satisfied that no other conclusion is possible. In this case, I am satisfied that this type of outcome, where every single passenger on a commercial vessel has died, does not occur without negligence. It's akin to a fully occupied hotel going up in flames and not one guest escaping. In either case, there is a serious failure -- probably on several levels -- that had to have occurred to cause the outcome. There is virtually no possibility that investigators will reach the conclusion that this tragedy could not have been prevented.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> .....There is virtually no possibility that investigators will reach the conclusion that this tragedy could not have been prevented.


I'm sure this will be the case. There is logically something that could have been done differently.

That's very different from whether they followed the rules, as currently defined, and will be legally liable for doing something in violation. We can change them going forward, not backward.

Again, they may have violated current rules. Not clear.

The tone that they "must have done something" is dangerous.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> The tone that they "must have done something" is dangerous.


In a court forum, yes.

In an internet forum, not so much.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> In a court forum, yes.
> 
> In an internet forum, not so much.


That works, as long as their is no call to conflate the two. I have no issue with anyone expressing their emotions.

These issues reveal some real learning, which is what I prefer to focus upon. Understanding the regulation is something that interests me. Often, they aren't as clearly defined (such as ColRegs) as we might hope.

More importantly, I'm interested in what actually happened and what we might do differently on our own boats. I doubt anyone is going to stand a night watch, short of weather concerns. Yet, lives are equally at risk, perhaps more so. The average commercial vessel is professionally maintained and has superior outfitting. I do expect I will add more smoke detectors and avoid charging lithium at night. That latter will be tough, as it's the common time most recharge their phones and tablets. Personally, I even leave my iPad plugged in, right next to my bunk, at night, with the anchor alarm running.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> More importantly, I'm interested in what actually happened and what we might do differently on our own boats. I doubt anyone is going to stand a night watch, short of weather concerns.


Thats exactly the crux of the matter. If theres some inherent danger for our own boats I dont want to wait for 2 years for a court to finally tell us what to change.

Sure, im not staying awake all night to pander after 2 friends on board Sea Life.... but 34 people crammed into a 70 footer who've paid good money to do a dangerous sport of scuba safely. Well that "safely" includes the accommodation. 
If your making 34 x $$$ then I think you need to spring for an extra crew member so you can cover night watches properly awake.

I don't know.... but.... I guess a 1980 boat with that many guests on board is the low budget diving trip. Maybe the most affordable in that area. But being affordable does not mean the guests were expecting a 1 Star vacation.
Thats the problem with cheap travel... people want to pay $10 but expect $500 service and facilities.

Lastly, I, as could imagine, don't give a tinkers cuss about USA laws because I travel mainly outside the USA... but if the USA has a good law covering this situation you can bet your bottom dollar that the rest of the tourist world has no laws at all. Look at all those overcrowded Asian ferries that continually capsize as soon as the weather goes above 10 knots. (or that car carrier!).

We need to know if multiple phones and cameras recharging off one power point is dangerous or not.

I have one quadruple USB adaptor that goes into 220 volts... 2 USBs are 2 amps and 2 are one amp = 6 amps.
A power-board of 4 sockets with 4 x quadruple chargers = 24 amps... but 220 volts max out at 13 amps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As someone said earlier, all these tourists whove paid good money have their GoPro _and_ their phone/camera at LEAST.
Thats 34 x 2 things to be recharged.. 2 people per quadruple charger = 17 power points needed = 17 x 6amps = 102 amps.

Is that 102 amps at 5.6 volts? I dunno, but you know what I mean.... its a truck load of electricity sitting there in the middle of the night getting hot...

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> .....Sure, im not staying awake all night to pander after 2 friends on board Sea Life.... but 34 people crammed into a 70 footer who've paid good money to do a dangerous sport of scuba safely. Well that "safely" includes the accommodation.
> If your making 34 x $$$ then I think you need to spring for an extra crew member so you can cover night watches properly awake.....


While I follow that their funds should have been able to pay for a watch, I don't follow why it's any more necessary based on the number of innocent victims, then if our boats burned in the middle of the night. For that matter, someone was reportedly awake 30 mins prior to the fire, so unless they just fell asleep, it didn't much matter in this case.



> Lastly, I, as could imagine, don't give a tinkers cuss about USA laws because I travel mainly outside the USA... but if the USA has a good law covering this situation you can bet your bottom dollar that the rest of the tourist world has no laws at all.


You can say that again. I taught scuba diving for years. I would often train folks who were heading directly for dive vacation in the Caribbean and Central America. Forgive any offense, but I always told them there was a much lower concern for human life down there. Much lower. Trust no one to have your back.



> Is that 102 amps at 5.6 volts? I dunno, but you know what I mean.... its a truck load of electricity sitting there in the middle of the night getting hot...


Yes, it should be at 5volts, so fewer amps by half, when thinking in terms of 12v. Still, I can't say everything I charge creates any noticeable heat.


----------



## Minnewaska

The thing that I’ve always considered dangerous are the bastardized cigarette lighter receptacles. It’s not what they were ever designed to do and have pretty lousy electrical connections. Many of the plug in “USB adapters” are cheap POS too. I bought what I understand are top quality adapters for our boat, but I still think the wiring to these “outlets” is suspect. I’ve known them to melt.


----------



## hpeer

Given the degree of appropriate interest in the Lithium battery charging issue maybe we should ask the moderators to split that off as a new thread title “Lithium charging safety” or some such. That would make it easier to follow that train of thought.

It’s a completely separate topic aside from this boat tragedy. 

2¢


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

hpeer said:


> Given the degree of appropriate interest in the Lithium battery charging issue maybe we should ask the moderators to split that off as a new thread title "Lithium charging safety" or some such. That would make it easier to follow that train of thought.
> 
> It's a completely separate topic aside from this boat tragedy.
> 
> 2¢


I'm not sure it is a separate topic because it's one of the 2 or 3 most likely reasons for the fire ignition.

I'll get one of the other Mods to adjudicate but I know everyone else is a bit busy this week I'm the lame duck here :crying

Let me think overnight and I'll re-read it all tomorrow


----------



## Minnewaska

Not seeing why a reported potential cause of this fire would out of bounds for this thread. It wasn't a random drift. Discussing what we'd do about the issue is really all that's directly sailing related about the subject. The fire itself was not.


----------



## hpeer

Not that it is out of bounds but that the information is useful far beyond the confines of this topic. 

I’m picking up some good information about the dangers of lithium batteries and the appropriate means to provide for their safe use. And that is information that is useful in its own right and would be useful to a larger group of readers if it were made accessible outside this narrow group.

As related to this incident we want to know the source of ignition.

As related to the wider Sailnet community it would be nice to let folks know this conversation is going on and share the technical information. 

We can still discuss the source of ignition but share the safe handling practices elsewhere.

I hope that both makes sense and clarifies my thinking. Not to exclude but to make more broadly available.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

What do folks here think of the inspectors that permitted the inadequate escape routes (particularly the secondary one) to pass each year?


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> What do folks here think of the inspectors that permitted the inadequate escape routes (particularly the secondary one) to pass each year?


Tragic, of course. I read that this vessel was grandfathered in some way, but I'm not sure if that was the escape hatches. Maybe the size of them, more than location? Therefore, the question would be the rules, more than the inspectors permitting something.

I'm willing to bet most of the commercial fleet does not comply with the most modern safety standards, but comply with the rules that existed when they were built. Perhaps hatches could be retroactively made larger (although I can't do so in my stateroom), but I doubt escape routes could be altered later. I read that certain requirements are detailed in the vessel's certificate of compliance, which would have been written in the 80s. I'm only guessing they don't update them for things that can't physically be altered later.

This vessel did have two ways out and, unlike some reports, and those two ways did not exactly go to the same location. However, once out of the forward stairs, you had to reportedly walk past the rear escape hatch. I wonder if one was supposed to be able to exit via a window on that deck.

I think this will be a story of what caused the fire, why it spread so quickly and, perhaps, why it wasn't detected sooner, more than vessel inspection. When you are below the deck and the waterline, there is no design that can guarantee your egress, if the event is broad enough. Just like being on the upper floors of a building on fire, despite multiple stairwells. Could be wrong.

I do worry, with all the damage and the sinking, the event could be impossible to fully identify. I hope the surviving crew have sufficient accounts.


----------



## SanderO

Hopefully this will lead to new code standards... for new boats and for retrofitting the existing ones.

The collapse of the buildings on 9/11 resulted in code changes for fire protection, suppression and egress.


----------



## Minnewaska

SanderO said:


> Hopefully this will lead to new code standards... for new boats and for retrofitting the existing ones.
> 
> The collapse of the buildings on 9/11 resulted in code changes for fire protection, suppression and egress.


I highly suspect that will be the case. However, not all vessels can be retrofitted. Maybe most can not. What would you do with them?

Unless I'm mistaken, most buildings are grandfathered too. We just built a large commercial building (in 2018) and the code for ventilation of the elevator shaft changed during the 18 months it took to build. We upgraded, before it was installed, but I'm certain every previously built elevator shaft in the city is grandfathered. It can be physically, let alone economically, impossible for everything to remain current. What would you do?


----------



## SanderO

Minni obviously not all retrofits can be made code compliant. And they might get a pass or have to come up with some other remediation. The very least they should have to notify passengers and crew that the boat is not compliant with the new code.... and leave it to them to decide whether to board.


----------



## Minnewaska

SanderO said:


> Minni obviously not all retrofits can be made code compliant. And they might get a pass or have to come up with some other remediation. The very least they should have to notify passengers and crew that the boat is not compliant with the new code.... and leave it to them to decide whether to board.


That might make sense, but what if it's literally every vessel built prior to this year. Should we have the same warning at the front door of every commercial building? Perhaps house? How about automobiles, which clearly have higher safety standards than in the past, but no one retrofits their car, before carrying a passenger.

Logically, there would come a point where you simply would not have dive boats, commercial vessels, buildings or automobiles, if one's million dollar investment could be eternally closed down for another million dollar upgrade. It's a tough balancing act.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

cherylchecheryl said:


> What do folks here think of the inspectors that permitted the inadequate escape routes (particularly the secondary one) to pass each year?


I think these questions are a crux to the investigation. Why did the USCG allow this vessel a permit?

Let's look at the basics:
Built in 1981
Length 75 feet
Sleeping berths below 46 - 34 in use on the night
Egress: 1 stair into the Galley; 1 hatch.

You've seen photos of the boat before the fire.

My first reaction to the news was how do you fit 34 people on a 75 foot boat? But it had room for 12 more... plus the 5 crew = 51 total. On a 75 foot boat

Would a new boat design even try to put in 46 bunk berths in a 75 ft boat? Even Navy submarines have much more crew room nowadays.

It looks like and old boat. In the near 40 years since construction just about everything has advanced hugely. There'd be very little a boat builder would use today from 40 years ago, definitely not the design. Probably none of the materials, few of the electrics, none of the electronics; few of the on-board appliances etc.

A Galley on _any _boat is one of the most dangerous areas for fires to start. An escape route that goes into or near the galley is no escape route at all imho.

How in the world do you cook for 35 people on a 75 footer?

"Re-fitting" is an oft used term that means nothing.. maybe the seat covers re-made or maybe the whole boat stripped of interior and replaced.

But many 're-fits' might not include changing the wiring throughout the boat. in 1980 power consumption would have been vastly less than now. So was there 're-fitting' for new power plugs or 'jury rigging' of new electrics (i.e cheap make-do methods of installation)

So the boat is old... the company tells the USCG that if they dont get passed on the Inspection they go out of buisness and 30 people get sacked. To get around this they say their boat DID comply to the laws in 1981:


> Grandfathered in Law and Legal Definition. Grandfathered in is the right or sanction provided in a statute, zoning ordinance, law etc exempting a person or entity from certain provisions contained there in, to maintain their present activities, which will be affected by the new statute, ordinance etc.


Thus there is this warm-and-fuzzy term Grandfathered Laws... The Bounty used/abused a zillion of them. Under USCG rules it was a "Dockside Attraction" not licensed to go to sea with passengers... so they used 'volunteers'. in fact, I reckon most bad shipping/boating disasters would have used Grandfathered Laws. Remember that old cargo ship, El Faro, that tried to sneak around the Bahamas into a Hurricane and the engines gave out and it sank?

Nowadays the stairs and passages probably need to be so wide and easy to access that you just cant fit 46 people in that space on Conception. But using Grandfathered Laws its down to who stamps the paper each year.

The Company that owns Conception had on its website a photo of 3 boats, Conception, its twin sister and a slightly smaller boat. they were all of the same vintage. So was the company always upgrading to newer boats as they could? It doesn't appear so. It appears to me, my own opinion, that the company offers the cheapest liveaboard dive trips by having the oldest fleet possible staffed with the smallest crews. A backpackers Hostel on water...

Maybe Granfathered Laws need a Sunset Clause... a time when they will not comply with out-dated, unsafe laws any more.

Lawyers site is an interesting read:
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/boating-accident/conception-dive-boat-fire/


----------



## SanderO

Minnewaska said:


> That might make sense, but what if it's literally every vessel built prior to this year. Should we have the same warning at the front door of every commercial building? Perhaps house? How about automobiles, which clearly have higher safety standards than in the past, but no one retrofits their car, before carrying a passenger.
> 
> Logically, there would come a point where you simply would not have dive boats, commercial vessels, buildings or automobiles, if one's million dollar investment could be eternally closed down for another million dollar upgrade. It's a tough balancing act.


Public needs to be informed of risk..... YES post at entrance.


----------



## Minnewaska

Sunsetting is an interesting idea. Nevertheless, that mean some acceptance of less than current standards for some period of time. It's an acknowledgment that not everything can or should be fully current, or no one would operate any of these vessels. Would you start a business, if you had no idea whether someone would require you to toss the boat you just bought and get another one? 

I get the safety advantage, but it has to come at a price of having these available at all. At least in the US or any country with too draconian a law. 

I don't mean to be callous, but given the number of times the outdated fleet is operated, it doesn't seem these tragedies are particularly common. Maybe one is too many, but that's a hard standard to regulate.


----------



## SanderO

Minnewaska said:


> Sunsetting is an interesting idea. Nevertheless, that mean some acceptance of less than current standards for some period of time. It's an acknowledgment that not everything can or should be fully current, or no one would operate any of these vessels. Would you start a business, if you had no idea whether someone would require you to toss the boat you just bought and get another one?
> 
> I get the safety advantage, but it has to come at a price of having these available at all. At least in the US or any country with too draconian a law.
> 
> I don't mean to be callous, but given the number of times the outdated fleet is operated, it doesn't seem these tragedies are particularly common. Maybe one is too many, but that's a hard standard to regulate.


With a due respect... if you start a marine business. it is mission critical to do your due diligence and I would think one of the main considerations is to offer safety to your passengers and crew. A lawyer could research and give you guidance as to what's going on with such matters.


----------



## Minnewaska

SanderO said:


> With a due respect... if you start a marine business. it is mission critical to do your due diligence and I would think one of the main considerations is to offer safety to your passengers and crew. A lawyer could research and give you guidance as to what's going on with such matters.


Of course, but I don't follow the point your are trying to make, with respect to my post. I was saying that, tighten down the need to modernize to an extreme and the result of that legal due diligence is to not get in the business at all.

The question is where does regulation balance perfect, with acceptable. Acceptable exists in every single aspect of our lives already. That line can move to create more safety and always has. How far back you force these standards is the question and a hard one.


----------



## SanderO

The point I am trying to make is one to first provide the state of the art safety for people on board. In the cases that this may not be possible completely.. the operator/owner of the operation needs to post a notice of the limitations of their compliance so that people can make their own INFORMED decision whether to board.

For an operator contemplating starting such a business they should do their do diligence before committing to any vessel... and this includes their liability. It may be that there is an incident that caused injury which theoretically might not have happened had the vessel been in full compliance. This would clearly make them responsible for damages, personal injury etc.


----------



## Minnewaska

Got it. You okay if that closes most marine businesses? I think it would. 

The sign would, by definition, appear on virtually every vessel not built this year. 

If you’re going to borrow/invest millions in your business, you need to reasonably know what to expect. If you’re going to held accountable for any future updated rules, of all kinds, you probably don’t take the risk. 

How about the architect that originally designed the vessel or building. Should they be responsible for liability, for design lacking current standards? I don't think so. Should they be required to perpetually update their designs, at their cost, to comply with new rules. Sounds harsh, but no different than forcing the vessel/building owner to incur an unknown obligation, in the name of safety. 

Ultimately, these issues require some judgement. If a hatch can’t be made bigger, maybe that requires increased detection systems, for example. Our government makes that decision. If the owner complies, I don’t see why they’re liable to current standards. If that’s not good enough, I think these businesses just don’t exist at all.


----------



## drew1711

_Like other such commercial boats, the Conception was subject to annual inspections by the Coast Guard, most recently in February, when it was certified to be in compliance with all regulations.

But just because it passed muster with the Coast Guard does not mean the Conception was as safe as it could be, according to some naval design and safety experts who have raised concerns about the placement of the escape routes from the bunk room.

*John McDevitt, a former assistant fire chief from Pennsylvania who is an accredited marine surveyor and the chairman of a National Fire Protection Assn. committee on commercial and pleasure boat fire protection, called the Conception "a compliant fire trap*."
_

That's from the LA Times. If fire traps are compliant, we need new standards.


----------



## Minnewaska

I bet there will be some new standards for detection or alarm or something. I really wish we understood what caused the fire.

Perhaps Conception was unique in this regard, but I really doubt it. Every boat is a fire trap down below, to some degree. If you're below the waterline, you have to go up. Up can be fully blocked, if the fire or issue is large enough.

What standards would we require for passengers on submarine tours to escape a massive fire?

https://www.viator.com/USA-tours/Submarine-Tours/d77-g3-c67


----------



## drew1711

Minnewaska said:


> I bet there will be some new standards for detection or alarm or something. I really wish we understood what caused the fire.


We will. They haven't been able to raise the wreck due to weather. When the current front passes, they will raise it.

Fires almost always tell a story. It's likely they'll be able to determine the cause.


----------



## Minnewaska

drew1711 said:


> We will. They haven't been able to raise the wreck due to weather. When the current front passes, they will raise it.
> 
> Fires almost always tell a story. It's likely they'll be able to determine the cause.


I didn't realize it was still at the bottom. I fear the salt water and agitation is erasing evidence. It's nearly miraculous what forensics can do, but only if they get the artifact intact.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> Every boat is a fire trap down below, to some degree. If you're below the waterline, you have to go up. Up can be fully blocked, if the fire or issue is large enough.
> 
> ]


Oh, twaddle!

My boat is not a fire trap below. There's 6 opening hatches large enough to get out of on a 39 foot boat. 
. As for being below the waterline MCA rules say you can not house crew below the waterline. But they allow paying guests!



drew1711 said:


> called the Conception "a compliant fire trap[/B]."
> s.


I'm amazed they can get away with saying that in a published paper... But then no one has been charged yet. But still.

As right as the statement may be,


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Oh, twaddle!
> 
> My boat is not a fire trap below. There's 6 opening hatches large enough to get out of on a 39 foot boat.......


I just looked up the bene 39. Do you have hatches large enough to escape through in the aft cabin(s)? I don't on a 54. The layout I saw looks like the same fire trap I have. The forward hatches are large enough, not the aft.

This is very common. Not to mention, we own models from the most prolific manufacture ever to produce sailboats. There are over 800 versions of my specific hull out there.


----------



## Minnesail

I much prefer an L-shaped galley at the foot of the companionway over a linear galley in the center of the saloon.

But on a lot of boats with two aft cabins the only way in or out of one of those cabins is through the galley. If there was a stove fire anyone in that cabin would be trapped.

I think some newer designs have access to an aft cabin by lifting up a cockpit seat, but to work as a fire escape it would have to be openable from the inside.


----------



## Minnewaska

Minnesail said:


> .....But on a lot of boats with two aft cabins the only way in or out of one of those cabins is through the galley. If there was a stove fire anyone in that cabin would be trapped.......


Exactly. The twaddle holds up. Most boats are fire traps to some degree.

Regardless of the galley in the way, all you need is a salon or engine room fire of any kind and there is no way out of most aft cabins. Most fires are electrical, by far. Could start anywhere.


----------



## jppp

The boat fire I was in was caused by a propane leak. The explosion was in engine room. the blast threw me to the Vberth. I scrambled to my feet and up through forward hatch. The blast was minimized by my shutting off propane solenoid right before blast. The blast ignited the diesel in the new plastic tank. The cabin was ablaze within 2 minutes. The fire took about an hour for the FD Boat to put out. 
I gotta believe the Dive boat fire started with an explosion near the exit. The horror must have been worse than hell. 
After the basement of the WTC in '93 and a 4th of July bonfire gone bad when I was 10 and the boat fire, I'm thinkin' I'm down to 6 lives. But I'm not a cat. So there's that.
We've owned Hideaway for going on 5 years. Have not lit the stove yet.


----------



## jppp

just skimmed through all 15 pages. 
IF the fire was propane related, I don't think anything would have improved the outcome much. maybe sprinklers. 
From looking at the line drawing of the bunk layout you don't see the same claustrophobic image the photo of same depicts.
I'm sure with all the underwater lighting and cameras and phones and whatnot, the chargers were in full swing. 
The whole liability thing is a tough one. I would venture to guess they were in compliance with CG regs. I'm sure their Ins carrier insisted. 
If it were my dive boat I would not feel comfortable with minimal exits. 
I dove from the Belize aggressor back in 1906 I think it was(1980ish) before cell phones. 
The cabins were separate that opened to a hallway passage. Three ways to the lounge above. 
The breakfast cook did start early as I remember. 
In our boat fire case we only had liability and we hired an Admiralty Atty. Settled 3 years to the day, of the explosion. 

Yes, all "ifs" and "could be's". And it's all good to discuss. Keeps us on our toes. 

When the CG Aux came down our dock early in the season offering "free inspections" I invited her aboard. "Show me your extinguishers"......


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

jppp said:


> just skimmed through all 15 pages.


In your User CP options theres an option to get more posts per page... it brings this thread down to just 3 pages. We are experimenting with a BS Detector which would bring this thread to 3 posts (mine!). 

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska

Are you posting from your aft cabin? May not be enough airflow back there either.


----------



## SanderO

The charging of mobile device batteries thing.

In a boat with people sleeping aboard and charging over night the solution may be charging "stations" which have proper circuit protection and are enclosed in a strong containment and have fire suppression built in in the unlikely event that a battery or charger explodes or catches fire.

Wiring is the cause of many or even most residential fires. I know from personal experience on Shiva that corrosion of wiring causes resistance and heat. This can lead to fire. In my case it didn't, just a tripped breaker. Corrosion in the marine environment is insidious. Old boats with old wiring would be a concern... especially with added 110v circuits for chargers.


----------



## drew1711

Coast Guard issues warning on charging phone batteries after California boat fire

"_The Coast Guard has issued a safety bulletin following the California boat fire that killed 34 people, recommending commercial boat operators limit unsupervised charging of cellphones and other electronics."_

Edit to add: Here is a link to the bulletin.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

drew1711 said:


> "]Coast Guard issues warning on charging phone batteries after California boat fire
> 
> [


Wow!

Fast work!

Obviously the USCG reads our discussion!


----------



## Minnesail

Are there any stats on lithium battery fires?

I mean, right now at home I have two laptops, two iPads, a Roomba, a weather radio, and probably a couple things I've forgotten about, all charging lithium batteries. And I'm not terribly worried that my house will burn down while I'm at work.


----------



## Minnesail

I think I'd actually worry more about cheap-*ss chargers. Janky little wall warts massed on multiple outlet strips — yikes!


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Minnesail said:


> Are there any stats on lithium battery fires?
> 
> I mean, right now at home I have two laptops, two iPads, a Roomba, a weather radio, and probably a couple things I've forgotten about, all charging lithium batteries. And I'm not terribly worried that my house will burn down while I'm at work.


Hope one of those "forgotten things" at your house is not a hoverboard. LOL


----------



## Minnewaska

Electrical is the primary cause of all boat fires. I think it’s actually more than half of all boat fires. Related, I recently read that 25% of all boat fires are started by another boat!

While there have been some notable exceptions, such as the Samsung phones a few years back, I think the problem is generally with cheap accessories, chargers and adapters. The average consumer just buy any adapter that works, with no regard for safety. Quality chargers and adapters are multiple higher cost.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/ntsb-report-conception-dive-boat-overnight-watch/index.html

Preliminary report from NTSB. No watchman.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

link to the actual report from NTSB

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/DCA19MM047-preliminary-report.pdf


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

You can't take a Hoverboard on a plane. Why?

You can take a Hoverboard charger on. 

That phone that burned in the sun while being charged is a good example... It needed the e tea heat from the dun. So if you have your 72 phones and camera batteries charging in a mush-mash of quadruple usb plugs in power boards that's where you could get the extra heat?


Mark


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/ntsb-report-conception-dive-boat-overnight-watch/index.html
> 
> Preliminary report from NTSB. No watchman.





cherylchecheryl said:


> link to the actual report from NTSB
> 
> https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/DCA19MM047-preliminary-report.pdf


Thanks for posting these. Looks pretty bad. I read them both and was taken back by this reporting in the CNN ariticle......



> The Conception dive boat, which sunk on Labor Day killing 34 people off the coast of California, did not have a crewmember on roving overnight watch as required by its certificate, according to the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report and NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt.


I saw reference, in the NTSB report, to all the crew being asleep, which is a significant fact. I saw no mention of her certificate requiring a "roving overnight watch" in the referenced NTSB report. I'm not arguing they didn't require one, only that the CNN article says that was in the NTSB report and I don't think it is. Did I miss it?


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Minnewaska said:


> I saw no mention of her certificate requiring a "roving overnight watch" in the referenced NTSB report. I'm not arguing they didn't require one, only that the CNN article says that was in the NTSB report and I don't think it is. Did I miss it?


You are correct, there is no mention in the NTSB report that a watchman was required under their certificate of inspection. The report only makes clear that all were asleep.

I have tried to find a copy of Conception's (saw one for the duck boat in Missouri that sank). There is one dated 11/19/2014, but I don't know where to find it.


----------



## Minnewaska

I found the documented vessel database, but not a database of the actual COIs. It showed many amendments over the years. This would be interesting to read.


----------



## Minnesail

> a crewmember on roving overnight watch as required by its certificate, according to the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report *and NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt*


Maybe the bit about the overnight watch came from an interview or release from the Chairman?


----------



## hpeer

Wiki has a pretty good page on the disaster. It seems very up to date and comprehensive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Conception

And also here at Wikiwand, whatever that is. Seems to be only slightly different from Wiki.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sinking_of_MV_Conception


----------



## drew1711

cherylchecheryl said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/ntsb-report-conception-dive-boat-overnight-watch/index.html
> 
> Preliminary report from NTSB. * No watchman*.


It's not clear to me from what I've read that a watchman was required, by regulation. We only have anonymous sources from the Sheriff's Department saying so to the media.

All will come out in the wash, so to speak.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

CNN just making it up.

:|


----------



## TakeFive

MarkofSeaLife said:


> CNN just making it up.
> 
> :|


This one set off my BS detector. Please provide evidence that CNN intentionally made something up. If you can't provide that, then it's just more partisan rhetoric masquerading as humor - by a moderator.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> This one set off my BS detector. Please provide evidence that CNN intentionally made something up. If you can't provide that, then it's just more partisan rhetoric masquerading as humor - by a moderator.


Man TF, you've been easily triggered lately. Chill, dude.

Mark seems to me to be making the same point you are, with the emoji. He's not saying CNN made it up, he's sarcastically suggesting that's what the other poster must be saying.

That out of the way, I don't think CNN made up anything they reported. While there is still confusion over where a requirement for a night watchman comes from and the regulations are very inconsistent, it seems likely one was required. All CNN is doing is reporting that _someone said one was required._ That doesn't mean they made it up, but doesn't always mean it's accurate either. Our media has proven themselves to be far more interested in speed than accuracy, whether this proves to be the case here or not.


----------



## Minnewaska

There's an article showing the partially raised hull of Conception. I can only imagine the horror of the victims family to essentially see the condition of the hull where their relatives perished.

I'm afraid there will be no way for them to truly determine the cause of the fire, if 3/4 of the hull doesn't exist anymore. That could be a real shame, both for improving safety and providing some closure.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...urned-remains-of-conception-after-many-delays

The article still continues to make this point.......



> A preliminary report issued by the National Transportation Safety Board indicated the vessel lacked a night watchman assigned to remain awake to alert passengers of fire or other danger.


This time it's worded accurately and does not misrepresent what the NTSB report said. If everyone was asleep, there was indeed no nightwatchman. I wonder if it's intentional that they are no longer reporting that one was required.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

drew1711 said:


> It's not clear to me from what I've read that a watchman was required, by regulation. We only have anonymous sources from the Sheriff's Department saying so to the media.
> 
> All will come out in the wash, so to speak.


The legal requirement for a watchman comes from the Federal Code of Regulations, which are regulations that are promulgated by various government agencies to regulate certain things, in this case, the United States Coast Guard is the relevant agency under the Department of Homeland Security.

Based on Conception's tonnage and passenger size, the vessel is regulated under Subchapter T of Coast Guard regulations. 
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title46/46CIsubchapT.tpl

Within Subchapter T, there is a regulation (46 CFR 185.410) that requires a watchman for vessels such as the Conception. This is where folks are saying that Conception needed to have a watchman.

Government regulations frequently have exceptions and certain things may be grandfathered. This is why some folks on this website are saying that we really need to see the Conception's Certificate of Inspection to see "what" requirements the Conception was specially required to abide by.

I just found the Conception's Certicate of Inspection, and it does require a roving patrol at all times when the passenger bunks are occupied.

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/...5f54/conception-certificate-of-inspection.pdf


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

cherylchecheryl said:


> The legal requirement for a watchman comes from the Federal Code of Regulations, which are regulations that are promulgated by various government agencies to regulate certain things, in this case, the United States Coast Guard is the relevant agency under the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> Based on Conception's tonnage and passenger size, the vessel is regulated under Subchapter T of Coast Guard regulations.
> https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title46/46CIsubchapT.tpl
> 
> Within Subchapter T, there is a regulation (46 CFR 185.410) that requires a watchman for vessels such as the Conception. This is where folks are saying that Conception needed to have a watchman.
> 
> Government regulations frequently have exceptions and certain things may be grandfathered. This is why some folks on this website are saying that we really need to see the Conception's Certificate of Inspection to see "what" requirements the Conception was specially required to abide by.
> 
> I just found the Conception's Certicate of Inspection, and it does require a roving patrol at all times when the passenger bunks are occupied.
> 
> https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/...5f54/conception-certificate-of-inspection.pdf


Great find!

"A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL'S CREW SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE MASTER AS A ROVING PATROL AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER OR
NOT THE VESSEL IS UNDERWAY, WHEN THE PASSENGER'S BUNKS ARE OCCUPIED."

Seemed to me like common sense from the very beginning.


----------



## drew1711

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Great find!
> 
> "A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL'S CREW SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE MASTER AS A ROVING PATROL AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER OR
> NOT THE VESSEL IS UNDERWAY, WHEN THE PASSENGER'S BUNKS ARE OCCUPIED."
> 
> *Seemed to me like common sense from the very beginning*.


Oh, I agree with you on common sense. I just hadn't seen definitive evidence of what the applicable regulation or rule was.
@cheryl has put it to bed.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Well done Cheryl!


The owners and the Captain are in deep do-do. 



:crying


----------



## Minnewaska

Nice job, Cheryl. Great google-fu. 

The captain and owners clearly have a major problem on their hands and the media reporting was accurate. 

It’s so simply and clear on a very short list of requirements on the COI, that it’s impossible to understand why one did not exist. Perhaps the owner or captain was that irresponsible. It doesn’t seem to be their reported reputation, however.

Perhaps there was a designated watch and they fell asleep accidentally. I bet it wouldn't be the first time. Someone was reportedly up 30 mins prior. It wouldn’t change the point, but it may impact the degree of the outcome, if some low wage crew-member just didn’t do what they were told to do. Imagine if it was the one that’s deceased.


----------



## Minnesail

I think if I were the crew member that was supposed to be awake but wasn't, I'd want to be the one that's deceased.


----------



## Minnewaska

Minnesail said:


> I think if I were the crew member that was supposed to be awake but wasn't, I'd want to be the one that's deceased.


Exactly. There are more lives that will be destroyed here that may feel the same way, if someone was supposed to be awake. Now imagine if one of the survivors was supposed to be awake. Ugly.

All speculation, let's see what the investigation says.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

I have good friends that were on the Leviathan II, which was the whale watching boat that capsized in Canada in late October, with six lives lost. https://www.macleans.ca/sinking-of-leviathan-ii/

My two friends also had two family members with them. None had an easy experience, but two of the four had a particularly rough time. One literally had several heart attacks while clinging to seaweed in frigid, diesel-ladened water waiting a long time(!) for rescue. The other was sucked down into the cabin of the capsized boat, even though she was riding on the top deck at the time of capsize. She broke her leg (bad break) in the process. Initially, she and a few others (including a pregnant woman) were trapped in the upside-down cabin but were able to escape when the vessel shifted.

My friends have nothing to say but wonderful things concerning the kindness of the local citizens who rescued them and the small community that reached out to help in the wake of such an awful event. Two of the four folks, in particular, carry some big mental scars from that day, although they all understand it could have been much worse. I can't attached a copy of the final investigative report that I have because it is a pdf. Because it is Canada, it will be different than what the final Conception report will be like anyway, so perhaps not that interesting to folks on this blog.

Like the Conception tragedy, no one intended harm. The whale watching boat should probably have never gone out that day, as at least one other boat declined to go. And the broad-side exposure to the wave that capsized the boat was because the captain wanted the tourists aboard to have one good last view of the seals on the rocks on what might have otherwise been a lackluster tour. Was it a move that an experienced pilot knew was not a good idea at slow speed? Of course, but I imagine the captain wanted to give a good boat tour.

I don't have a naval service background or background as a commercial captain, so I don't have a frame of reference of how egregious or not Conception's safety violations are. Based on some of the comments here, it seems that a watchman on duty is a basic 101 type thing--kind of like not refilling a generator with gasoline while it is running for lack of a better example. But unless Conception has one heck of a PR apparatus, it also sounds like many people think well of them and don't view them as the type to cut corners and endanger others.

I just find it all very sad. I have the luxury of not having any friends or family on board the Conception to color my perspective and can be charitable rather than condemning. From a "how do we stop this from happening again?" standpoint, I imagine that "we" have to have rather steep consequences for things like this. Not from a perspective of punishing those involved, but from a perspective of deterring others. If people know there is a heavy consequence for violating a safety regulation, then they will be more inclined to not violate it or have the backbone to stand up to others that want them to violate the rule.


----------



## TakeFive

It’s been awhile since I’ve done this trick, but IIRC I think you can rename the file file.pdf.jpg and be able to upload it. Then we can rename it back before opening. Looks like they’ve upped the size limitation to 9.5 MB, which hopefully is enough.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

TakeFive said:


> It's been awhile since I've done this trick, but IIRC I think you can rename the file file.pdf.jpg and be able to upload it. Then we can rename it back before opening. Looks like they've upped the size limitation to 9.5 MB, which hopefully is enough.


Here's the link to the web page instead. The report is displayed there, and a button is also there to view the report as a pdf, if anyone has an interest.

Marine Investigation Report M15P0347 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> ......From a "how do we stop this from happening again?" standpoint, I imagine that "we" have to have rather steep consequences for things like this. Not from a perspective of punishing those involved, but from a perspective of deterring others. If people know there is a heavy consequence for violating a safety regulation, then they will be more inclined to not violate it or have the backbone to stand up to others that want them to violate the rule.


I believe punishment should fit the crime and the guilty should pay a price in time, fortune or both. No doubt, someone will pay something in this case. However, that extracts justice or vengeance for the families of victims, it won't effectively deter future crime or rules violations.

There has been serious study of whether heavy punishment deters others from committing the same crime, with no evidence that it does. What does work is increasing the perceived likelihood that you'll be caught, not the size of the punishment.

Here's a perfect example. I believe the fine for discharging a holding tank in an NDZ is $10,000. That's a significant punishment for skipping 10 minutes at a pump out dock. Nevertheless, I bet everyone knows folks who still do it, if not in the harbor, certainly well within the 3nm limit. Why do people still violate the law? Because they have very little concern they'll be caught. Knowing another boater was heavily fined isn't enough, if you don't expect to be caught yourself.

The punishment can't be too small either, or no one cares, but it's only our innate sense of vengeance that makes the concept of heavy consequences seem logical. Like the lynch mob.

Below a link to a summary, the referenced essay is a headier read. It also addresses the impact of incarceration on recidivism, but it hits the bigger point I'm making right on. Even the death penalty has no evidence that it deters crime. You can kill the perp, if you think they deserve it, but that's just makes you feel better, not stop crime.

I think this is a very relevant point to what's done to punish this accident and how we intend to actually prevent the next one.

If you want to be sure the next guy assigns a nightwatch and they stay awake, they better be worried about being caught. Worrying about the consequences doesn't work, especially since 99.99% of boat trips will not catch fire. Perhaps that will even speak to why there wasn't one in this case.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence


----------



## Minnewaska

I got to thinking, is the night watchman the modern equivalent of curing disease with leaches or using complicated deck lighting, before the advent of AIS? Is the proper outcome to insure others have nightwatchmen or should it be to modernize the rules, so everyone believes they work.

Here's a possible parellel to the night watchman and the same NDZ violator. In neither case may the Captain believe it makes much difference and the rule won't prevent anything, as intended. Perhaps they both don't think they'll be caught, but also don't think the law helps anything. 

Being 2 miles offshore is not logically going to affect the environment with your 15 gallon holding tank. You're not going to get caught and the rule seems stupid.

A night watchmen in the wheelhouse isn't going to do much, if anything, about a fire that breaks out two decks away. Not to mention, who's watching the night watchmen to be sure they don't accidentally fall asleep. Roving means they aren't everywhere at all times. Even stationed inside the passenger cabin, doesn't help detect a fire blocking egress. 

The solution may not be to insure the next guy has roving night watches, rather that we have fully integrated smoke detection and alarms that notify the entire ship simultaneously. I think this is a requirement for new builds, but I don't think its a required retrofit, just independent cabin alarms. I set my fire alarm off a couple of weeks ago, when frying potatoes, with no visible smoke. Technology is the more likely and reliable solution here. Painfully, nothing works 100% of the time. Hopefully, we aren't insisting on a human watching, just so we can have a human to blame. Humans don't play chess better, don't do math better and don't detect fires better than technology. 

A true story for some comic relief. I know a guy who was an executive at a major international company and partly responsible for security. They literally had thousands of guards. He receives a call one day that the guard at the front desk of one building fell asleep in the middle of the night. His answer was "good, he has keys to the whole building and now we know he wasn't stealing anything". Humans are not the answer.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

You bring up lots of great points Minnewaska with your two posts. Your comic humor is also good and makes a memorable point.

Technology is only as good as the programmer and detection capabilities of the device. There was a Tesla car driver who may have been watching a Harry Potter movie with the car on autopilot that died because the technology did not detect a white truck on a bright sunny day.

I've spent years programming things for users. I'm a cynic by nature, but experience too has convinced me that a program user is always eventually going to do something way off the tracks and dumb with your program no matter how much you time you spend putting in error checking and trying to stop them from having the ability to screw something up. 

So, I agree smoke detectors that are actually heard all over the vessel are the way to go, but aroving watchman is still good idea as a backup on a commercial vessel with lots of folks for those "white truck" moments or those "people doing unexpected and dumb things" moments (i.e., unplugging the device, turning off circuit breaker).


----------



## Minnewaska

I'm sure that technology, even with it's imperfections, is still far more reliable and accurate than humans. The problem is our perception. If the nightwatchman was doing their job, but failed to recognize a fire on the other side of the boat, while roving, we understand. They can't do it all. If a piece of machinery makes the same failure, everyone is outraged. 

If a car comes around a mountain road corner and finds a stroller in the road, they have only one of two choices. Hit and kill the baby, or swerve off the road, down the cliff and kill everyone in the car. We understand the human driver is in a no-win situation, regardless of who dies. The driverless machine has to be programmed to make that choice and we'll be outraged, when either scenario ends in a death. 

It's another matter of technology advancing ahead of societies ability to deal with it. 

I'm certain there will be driverless cars and we will not eternally feel the need to have a human there too. No doubt, both is marginally better. However, the machine already makes fewer mistakes than the human and the cost and effort of the human addition will be far in excess of it's slight impact. Let alone the cost of the system we need to be sure the operators perceive they'll be caught if they don't comply with the human addition. 

The technology can be checked at any time. It can be made fail safe. Isn't it interesting that your examples of tech failure (unplug, breaker) were actually human failure. Human compliance is significantly harder to insure.


----------



## hpeer

On the Watchman issue, setting legalities aside for the moment...and IMHO...

Watchmen are in most cases a carry over from last times before we had “electronic watchment” in the form of Smoke and CO detectors. 

It is extremely difficult to stand a quiet night watch with nothing to do to keep you awake. It’s the nature of the situation that the watchman has probably worked a long day, mostly outside, catering to folks, lifting and hauling. Now he is require to stay awake prowling a small boat, not much place to walk to stay awake. And the guests likely don’t want to be disturbed by his comings and goings either. Not to mention his job description, what is he looking for? Is it for other vessels, intruders, mechanical failures where he is monitoring the generator alarms, watching radar and AIS, besides roaming around periodically checking on spaces? If he is the wheel house with radar, AIS, and engine alarms that will alert him he is keeping at least a partial watch.

So while the Watchman thing is a real legal liability there are good reasons why we should not rely upon them solely.

We now have electronic Watchmen in the form of smoke and CO detectors and this is what baffles me. Why did these detectors not sound adequate alarm not only in the sleeping spaces but in the galley and wheelhouse? Were they required? Were there multiple stand alone units or were they configured for a single point of failure? Did they alarm in the wheel or other spaces? What “zones” were covered? Guest sleeping quarters, crew sleeping quarters, galley, dining, shower, mechanical spaces? 

In hind sight would it be good to have a “open mic” monitoring system in these spaces? How about requiring CCTV surveillance? That these ideas open privacy and abuse concerns is obvious. On the other hand the installation and maintenance cost of advanced fire and gas detection systems is trivial to the cost of structural modifications, not that they should not be under taken when necessary.


----------



## SanderO

hpeer said:


> On the Watchman issue, setting legalities aside for the moment...and IMHO...
> 
> Watchmen are in most cases a carry over from last times before we had "electronic watchment" in the form of Smoke and CO detectors.
> 
> It is extremely difficult to stand a quiet night watch with nothing to do to keep you awake. It's the nature of the situation that the watchman has probably worked a long day, mostly outside, catering to folks, lifting and hauling. Now he is require to stay awake prowling a small boat, not much place to walk to stay awake. And the guests likely don't want to be disturbed by his comings and goings either. Not to mention his job description, what is he looking for? Is it for other vessels, intruders, mechanical failures where he is monitoring the generator alarms, watching radar and AIS, besides roaming around periodically checking on spaces? If he is the wheel house with radar, AIS, and engine alarms that will alert him he is keeping at least a partial watch.
> 
> So while the Watchman thing is a real legal liability there are good reasons why we should not rely upon them solely.
> 
> We now have electronic Watchmen in the form of smoke and CO detectors and this is what baffles me. Why did these detectors not sound adequate alarm not only in the sleeping spaces but in the galley and wheelhouse? Were they required? Were there multiple stand alone units or were they configured for a single point of failure? Did they alarm in the wheel or other spaces? What "zones" were covered? Guest sleeping quarters, crew sleeping quarters, galley, dining, shower, mechanical spaces?
> 
> In hind sight would it be good to have a "open mic" monitoring system in these spaces? How about requiring CCTV surveillance? That these ideas open privacy and abuse concerns is obvious. On the other hand the installation and maintenance cost of advanced fire and gas detection systems is trivial to the cost of structural modifications, not that they should not be under taken when necessary.


Very good thinking here. We have come to accept along with increased security comes loss of "privacy". I think environmental sensors (surveillance???) looking for things like fires, water in the bilge, fumes and so forth is not only accepted by the public... but expected. And robust and reliable as well.

In addition we accept and expect some automatic fire suppression/fighting systems... in many buildings it's a sprinkler system for fire. Boats have automatic bilge pumps and some engine room fore extinguishers in some cases.

Night watch under the circumstances of the dive boat may be boring and the crew may be too tired to stand watch. But they shouldn't be because this MAY be no different from their other duties in importance.

I don't know the requirements for this commercial operation. But I would have thought that for a boat of that construction and size and use... the owner should have had state of the art fire, smoke, fume, water level detection and automatic suppression and exhaust systems. This IS expensive. But it's really a cost of doing business... no different that hand rails or non skid decks.

I suspect after this disaster, owner/operators will revisit and upgrade all of these systems. And it may be something that they can use for marketing as well because people ARE safety conscious.


----------



## hpeer

If I were an investigator I would be looking at the ventilation system, howndonwe draw fresh air into the sleeping quarters?

Is there some failure scenario that could BOTH asphyxiate the guests AND start a fire? A leaking generator exhaust pipe? Something else?


----------



## Minnewaska

The NTSB report, posted earlier in the thread, gave evidence of their smoke detection in the passenger cabin.



> There were two, locally-sounding smoke detectors in the overhead of the bunkroom.


We also know the vessel passed it's most recent inspection in February, so was fully in compliance with smoke detection rules then.

It's been reported that the surviving crew did not hear alarms, but that was not identified in the preliminary NTSB report. Hard to say if it's true, if it's bad reporting, if it's impossible to hear from two decks away, adrenaline focused them on survival and not the alarm, or they may have even be lying to make their lack of rescue success more palatable. No idea.

I recall reading somewhere that current regulations require one detector to sound all the others, however, the older fleet were not required to make this upgrade, only have locally sounding. That may be a very good mandatory fleet-wide requirement.

Curious if folks here will make the same upgrades on their boats, for the same concern over passengers spending the night with them. I'm adding smoke detectors to every single room aboard. Today, I only have one in the salon. I'm not sure any are required by law on a recreational vessel.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> If a car comes around a mountain road corner and finds a stroller in the road, they have only one of two choices. Hit and kill the baby, or swerve off the road, down the cliff and kill everyone in the car.


I don't get your "these things just happen, i.e., are non-preventable" mentality. In the above scenario, how about not taking a blind curve at a speed which you can't stop if an obstruction is in the road. You're right that the above scenario is a no-win for the driver, but the driver shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with.

It's my view that almost all deaths occurring in so-called "accidents", be it on boats, in cars, using machinery, etc., are absolutely 100% preventable.


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> I don't get your "these things just happen, i.e., are non-preventable" mentality. In the above scenario, how about not taking a blind curve at a speed which you can't stop if an obstruction is in the road. You're right that the above scenario is a no-win for the driver, but the driver shouldn't have put himself in that situation to begin with.
> 
> It's my view that almost all deaths occurring in so-called "accidents", be it on boats, in cars, using machinery, etc., are absolutely 100% preventable.


Back to defining my mentality? I'm not going to be nice about it, if it becomes about me, and not the topic, one more time.

You're too hung up on the example. The driver in my example is driving the speed limit. Did nothing wrong. There were not supposed to be any pedestrians.

How about you have two kids drowning and can only save one. After the fact, everyone realizes, if you jumped in downstream, you may have saved them both. You have to be okay with a person choosing one and not figuring that out so quickly, but a machine?

The issue was than we hold machines to higher standards for error than we hold people. Not whether things are preventable .


----------



## tempest

It's pretty typical in General Building Construction that if an addition or renovation is over a certain percentage of the building's value or square footage, that it must be brought up to current code. This vessel according to the Wiki article underwent a 1 million dollar refit after being stolen and run aground in 2005. 
I wonder why any " Grandfathered" (if, in fact, they were) regulations would not or should not have had to be addressed at that time. I.E escape hatches, fire detection and suppression. Insurance Co. could have required it, if not the CG.


----------



## Minnewaska

Good point about the refit. I wonder what, if anything was modernized. Obviously, whatever was required by regs was, or they would not have earned their COI. 

If reporting is correct, one has to wonder why an integrated alarm system isn't a required upgrade. 

It seems much less likely that escape hatches can be reasonable increased in size, or relocated for that matter.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> Back to defining my mentality? I'm not going to be nice about it, if it becomes about me, and not the topic, one more time. Grow up.
> 
> You're too hung up on the example. The driver in my example is driving the speed limit. Did nothing wrong. There were not supposed to be any pedestrians.
> 
> How about you have two kids drowning and can only save one. After the fact, everyone realizes, if you jumped in downstream, you may have saved them both. You have to be okay with a person choosing one and not figuring that out so quickly, but a machine?
> 
> The issue was than we hold machines to higher standards for error than we hold people. Not whether things are preventable .


I am discussing the issue at hand -- a tragic incident with death resulting -- and your viewpoint from the beginning of this topic has been that sometimes these events just happen and are non-preventable. I'm calling BS on that.

2 kids drowning? Entirely preventable. 2 kids shouldn't be drowning in the first place and if they are, someone or something failed to prevent it.

I'm just pushing back on a theme you have been injecting into this discussion since the beginning, and with which I disagree. I'm sorry if that offends you. None is intended.


----------



## Minnewaska

Good for you, Caberg. I'm glad you feel better. I think it's entirely naive to think absolutely everything is preventable, in today's day and age. Most things may be theoretically preventable, but not practically. Maybe you're an academic. 

I edited out my grow up comment, as I'd prefer to stay on a higher road than you.


----------



## SanderO

Everything is preventable is a nonsense concept.

I think the issues are:

What technologists and practices are practical (affordable) to mitigate as much risk as possible... including detailed informed consent notices.

We all trust that commercial operators are in compliance for safety and their equipment and crew are qualified and everything is up to date/code etc. Codes may not represent the maximal level of caution/preparedness for averting injury and death.


----------



## Chris271828

Many interesting topics have been raised in this thread. I believe the report said the ship burned to the water line and sank. Looking at the picture of what they raised, it didn’t look like there was much left. I wonder if they will be able to actually determine what happened and what the cause was.


----------



## hasher

Minnewaska said:


> Back to defining my mentality? I'm not going to be nice about it, if it becomes about me, and not the topic, one more time.
> 
> You're too hung up on the example. The driver in my example is driving the speed limit. Did nothing wrong. There were not supposed to be any pedestrians.
> 
> How about you have two kids drowning and can only save one. After the fact, everyone realizes, if you jumped in downstream, you may have saved them both. You have to be okay with a person choosing one and not figuring that out so quickly, but a machine?
> 
> The issue was than we hold machines to higher standards for error than we hold people. Not whether things are preventable .


Decades ago I won my first jury trial. I was driving to a health club before going home. A man ran in the street and I hit him with my car. He refused medical attention. Other cars stopped to tell the police what happened. I was thankful. Accidents do happen.

Of course, I don't want to cause injury, accidental or not.


----------



## albrazzi

Minnesail said:


> Are there any stats on lithium battery fires?
> 
> I mean, right now at home I have two laptops, two iPads, a Roomba, a weather radio, and probably a couple things I've forgotten about, all charging lithium batteries. And I'm not terribly worried that my house will burn down while I'm at work.


Now have 36 of your best friends over all charging the same thing and see how you feel.


----------



## hpeer

Re:stats

Here is something from the FAA, probably not what you were seeking.

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


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Chris271828 said:


> Many interesting topics have been raised in this thread. I believe the report said the ship burned to the water line and sank. Looking at the picture of what they raised, it didn't look like there was much left. I wonder if they will be able to actually determine what happened and what the cause was.


It will be interesting to know what happened, but it will also be interesting to know "how" they know what happened as well, if that is ever really disclosed. I don't watch those CSI type of TV shows--I watch very very little programming at all. But I do enjoy learning how things work and how they figure out something based on an evidence trail.


----------



## TakeFive

My smoke detector is way overdue for replacement. As a result of this accident, I'm putting it on the top of my priority list. My research has been all over the place with no clear recommendations, kind of like researching an anchor type. I think I'll go with photoelectric, since the vast majority of boat fires seem to start as slow smoldering (electrical insulation, etc.). Also, it seems like most of the photoelectric types are spec'ed to operate up to 95% RH, while the ionization types are only up to 80% RH. I assume that above that, false alarms are more likely.

Dual sensor (photo+ion) look to be the WORST of both worlds for false alarms in a high humidity environment.

In 2016 BoatUS said there were no marine spec smoke detectors, and to just get one that meets UL 217 spec. It looks like the current Kidde battery powered smoke detectors all meet that spec. I like the little 4" diameter ones because they're easy to place in my small interior.

All of the ones I've seen are only spec'ed for up to 100F, which gives me concerns about putting one directly in the engine compartment. I'll probably just do one by the V-berth, and one in the aft berth. I'll need to keep both as far away as possible from the galley to avoid false alarms, although we almost never use the stove or oven (use grill instead).

Other comments?


----------



## Minnesail

Minnesail said:


> Are there any stats on lithium battery fires?
> 
> I mean, right now at home I have two laptops, two iPads, a Roomba, a weather radio, and probably a couple things I've forgotten about, all charging lithium batteries. And I'm not terribly worried that my house will burn down while I'm at work.





albrazzi said:


> Now have 36 of your best friends over all charging the same thing and see how you feel.


I would still be fine with that! Maybe I don't have a developed enough sense of danger&#8230;

I do a charity bike trip for MS and the night before the trip several hundred of us sleep in a gymnasium. There's a table with a hundred phones & garmins charging, as well as many more multiple outlet strips around the gym.

This summer my extended family stayed in three cabins at a resort. Eight kids, twelve adults, and I can't even imagine how many phones, iPads, laptops, etc, were plugged in.

That's why I was wondering about stats on consumer device lithium batteries. With the exception of those Samsung phones, if they were really bursting into flames that often every resort hotel in the country would have burned to the ground.

I don't know the stats, but like I said earlier I am be more worried about cheap outlet strips and crappy cigarette lighter plug adapters that I am about the devices themselves.


----------



## TakeFive

Minnesail said:


> I would still be fine with that! Maybe I don't have a developed enough sense of danger&#8230;
> 
> I do a charity bike trip for MS and the night before the trip several hundred of us sleep in a gymnasium. There's a table with a hundred phones & garmins charging, as well as many more multiple outlet strips around the gym.
> 
> This summer my extended family stayed in three cabins at a resort. Eight kids, twelve adults, and I can't even imagine how many phones, iPads, laptops, etc, were plugged in.
> 
> That's why I was wondering about stats on consumer device lithium batteries. With the exception of those Samsung phones, if they were really bursting into flames that often every resort hotel in the country would have burned to the ground.
> 
> I don't know the stats, but like I said earlier I am be more worried about cheap outlet strips and crappy cigarette lighter plug adapters that I am about the devices themselves.


I am no expert on lithium battery chemistry, but I am an engineer with knowledge about heat transfer and design. I know that lithium batteries store a whole lot of energy in a very small space, and they absorb energy and deliver energy very very fast (which is why everyone wants to use them). All those things add up to a whole bunch of heat transfer issues when you try to scale them up to a large device. When you pack that much thermal capacity into a large device, the surface to volume ratio drops enough that you can't transfer the heat out fast enough, and you get a runaway. These issues caused the famous Samsung Galaxy problem. Toyota planned to use Lithium batteries in a plug-in Prius model in 2010, and had to stick with NiMH chemistry until they figured out the problem in 2015 - a five year delay! The Boeing 787 Dreamliner suffered two fires, multiple smoke issues, and other problems during Jan-Feb 2013 related to its use of lithium batteries.

These batteries can be very dangerous if you try to scale up a large device by packing too many batteries together. By the same token, if you stack a bunch of tablets, phones, and computers on top of each other and attempt to charge or discharge them, you may get a runaway that leads to a fire, because there is nowhere for the heat to go except into the adjacent device (which is also generating heat). So, to speculate on a potential cause, if you have 30+ divers crammed into very small quarters, and they've all stacked their phones, tablets, computers, and camera batteries on a small table (like at a nav station), all charging at the same time, you have a situation that exceeds the design specification of the device manufacturers, and unexpected things can happen.

The examples that you cite are irrelevant, because a gymnasium or several cabins have orders of magnitude more space to spread out the devices while they charge. However, average users who do not know the dangers could, in theory, pack their devices too closely together and get the same result.

It will be interesting to see how lithium battery chemistry works in house banks for boats. I'm not sure I would be willing to have them on my boat. Do the manufacturers make any warnings about venting or other cooling requirements to safely use them in a house bank arrangement?


----------



## Minnewaska

Minnesail said:


> ....I do a charity bike trip for MS and the night before the trip several hundred of us sleep in a gymnasium. There's a table with a hundred phones & garmins charging, as well as many more multiple outlet strips around the gym.


A significant difference would be the grade of commercial wiring in a gymnasium, which would be superior to your home, let alone any small boat's wiring.

On our boat, we have household sized wiring for the 110v outlets. However, we most often charge our devices from adapter plugged into 12v DC cig lighter receptacles, for which the wiring is substantially lighter. Although, I think the real villain is the poor connection at the receptacle and the loose fit of the adapter. At some point, I can see these being banned and I'm thinking I should make a project to fully replace these with hard wired USB receptacles.



> That's why I was wondering about stats on consumer device lithium batteries. With the exception of those Samsung phones, if they were really bursting into flames that often every resort hotel in the country would have burned to the ground.


I'm sure there have been hotel fires, just not very many of them. There haven't been very many boat fires caused by them either. The rules are not written to bring risk down to zero, as some might argue they should be. Nevertheless, events like this help us improve these odds more, even if they can't attain perfection.



> I don't know the stats, but like I said earlier I am be more worried about cheap outlet strips and crappy cigarette lighter plug adapters that I am about the devices themselves.


Totally agree.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> ....It will be interesting to see how lithium battery chemistry works in house banks for boats. I'm not sure I would be willing to have them on my boat. Do the manufacturers make any warnings about venting or other cooling requirements to safely use them in a house bank arrangement?


The LiFEPo chemistry that is now being used in marine house banks is very different from the L-ion used in small rechargeable consumer devices.

With faulty charging, you can ignite any form of battery or wiring, which is why the number one cause of boat fires is already caused by electrical sources, even without lithium.

This new lithium battery technology is installed with battery management systems that cut out the input or output from the house bank, if charging, state of charge or other parameters are exceeded. One might make the argument that they are safer than the random internal cell short that could occur on any lead acid battery chemistry we're more accustom to today.


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> .....I think I'll go with photoelectric, since the vast majority of boat fires seem to start as slow smoldering (electrical insulation, etc.). Also, it seems like most of the photoelectric types are spec'ed to operate up to 95% RH, while the ionization types are only up to 80% RH.......


This is a perfect example of the problem. I believe I'm more informed than average, only because I'm more immersed than the average boater. I'm not smarter or more professional, I just don't think most boaters spend the kind of time that I (or perhaps most that would be engaged in a forum at all) do on marine topics.

I put smoke detectors in my boat and had no idea of this difference. Paid no attention and none was every brought to my attention.

Folks who are active in ABYC always seem offended by this next point. There should be a free published set of guidelines for boaters to follow. It can easily be funded by grants, for which I can name several ways to accomplish. They are the only broad safety focused organization, but are focused on the contractor, not the boater.

edit..... sure enough, the version I put in my Amazon cart (to add sensors to every cabin) were all ionization type and the photoelectric are more expensive. However, I'm now reading that ionization technology may detect a fire sooner. Head spins..... again.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Minnewaska said:


> edit..... sure enough, the version I put in my Amazon cart (to add sensors to every cabin) were all ionization type and the photoelectric are more expensive. However, I'm now reading that ionization technology may detect a fire sooner. Head spins..... again.


The U.S. Fire Administration recommends that you install 1.) both types of smoke detectors or 2.) dual detectors.

This recommendation relates to houses rather than boats, though.

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/about/smoke_alarms_position.html


----------



## Minnewaska

Of course. Dual type. Head slap.

Even more expensive, but I'll try to find a battery powered version. This would be an excellent example of where most of the public would just choose the cheapest, having no idea.

Expiration dates should be on the outside too, not on a label underneath. I may just add them with clear tape label maker. No way I'd remember. 

There are only a few things that worry me on a boat. Fire, water on the inside and falling off. The worst of everything else is just uncomfortable.


----------



## hpeer

So how could everyone on the boat have slept through smoke detectors going off? 34 were below deck but 5 were above. 

There should have been multiple detectors. Someone’s head would have been within a couple of feet a detector. 

Maybe it’s bad or incomplete reporting, far too common, but no one mentions hearing a detector. The Watchman reports been waken by a “thud” or some such noise only to find the galley/saloon in flames. No detectors in galley? He could not hear them? Incredulous. 

I once had reasons to look into it, an alarm needs to be so many dB above ambient noise. So even a noisy generator should have not masked the sound. But that’s not likely mandated, but should be. Although I doubt that’s relevant here.

Something here is very wrong.


----------



## SanderO

A few lessons here.

Hard wired USB is a great idea. We have several on board. I don't believe the devices draw much when recharged this way. Cig plug outlets are old technology they need to be abandoned!

Fire sprinklers in commercial vessels in any location which has flammables such as propane or fuel.

Fume and smoke detectors need to have VERY loud signals audible from anywhere in the ship. They might consider having them send a USCG distress call as well. Residential alarms can call the fire department.

Wiring needs to be inspected and renewed as necessary. Old wiring and corroded connections are a recipe for disaster. Oversized wire gauge is a good idea!

No smoking except in designated open areas down wind side if vessel.


----------



## Minnewaska

hpeer said:


> So how could everyone on the boat have slept through smoke detectors going off? 34 were below deck but 5 were above.
> 
> There should have been multiple detectors. Someone's head would have been within a couple of feet a detector.
> 
> Maybe it's bad or incomplete reporting, far too common, but no one mentions hearing a detector. The Watchman reports been waken by a "thud" or some such noise only to find the galley/saloon in flames. No detectors in galley? He could not hear them? Incredulous.
> 
> I once had reasons to look into it, an alarm needs to be so many dB above ambient noise. So even a noisy generator should have not masked the sound. But that's not likely mandated, but should be. Although I doubt that's relevant here.
> 
> Something here is very wrong.


Something definitely doesn't add up. The NTSB report says there were two in the passenger quarters. No idea if there were any in the galley, but you'd think there would be one nearby. Perhaps a direct detector near a stove is not spec'd if it would just false alarm all the time. Dunno.

The NTSB report says the crew member was awakened by a sound and does not clarify it further. News reports have embellished the description more. They reported this before the report came out.

Perhaps an explosion disabled the detector. The fire sounds as if it was violent enough that a detector would have been consumed itself, but should have sounded first. The smoke obviously made it to the passenger quarters, as that's the cause of death. Is it possible, among all the adrenaline, the survivors just didn't hear them? Maybe a human pilfered the batteries in both detectors we know existed.

What are the requirements for smoke detector on small passenger vessels, other than the sleeping quarters.


----------



## albrazzi

SanderO said:


> A few lessons here.
> 
> Hard wired USB is a great idea. We have several on board. I don't believe the devices draw much when recharged this way. Cig plug outlets are old technology they need to be abandoned!
> 
> Fire sprinklers in commercial vessels in any location which has flammables such as propane or fuel.
> 
> Fume and smoke detectors need to have VERY loud signals audible from anywhere in the ship. They might consider having them send a USCG distress call as well. Residential alarms can call the fire department.
> 
> Wiring needs to be inspected and renewed as necessary. Old wiring and corroded connections are a recipe for disaster. Oversized wire gauge is a good idea!
> 
> No smoking except in designated open areas down wind side if vessel.


I ask because I really don't know, chargers are different by device, my new phone would use a different transformer for instance for charge rate. How does the USB handle the different charge rates that the different adapters provide.


----------



## SanderO

albrazzi said:


> I ask because I really don't know, chargers are different by device, my new phone would use a different transformer for instance for charge rate. How does the USB handle the different charge rates that the different adapters provide.


I am by no means an expert. Electrical devices which work from line voltage will "step down" the voltage and turn AC into DC. The bricks for laptops are these transformers and the output is typically 19v. Monitors typically use 19v DC. The little block you use for a smart device will have the output voltage and current on it. I am guessing but they output close to 12v... and so you can use a cig outlet or a installed USB outlet... or some charging station with multiple USBs which is now the standard will have higher capacity transformers than one for a single device.

Over heating... may not result in fire.... it can


----------



## Capt Len

My understanding of li is that it's the battery that can get hot while charging. I imagine counter space at a premium and a pile of phones neatly stacked ,unable to dump heat . Then maybe a pillow or shirt is tossed over. Nothing amiss until it all goes whump at once. Years ago I noticed some smoke coming from the boat alongside .Owners had minutes before tied up and walked up to the store. I jumped aboard ,opened the wheelhouse door just as the entire vessel was ablaze .Just an overheated gearbox but the very air burned. Another time ,coiled up extension cord on a bunk. Owner tossed his dry suit on top .Melted thru both foam mattress and suit but noticed the smell before it ignited. . Today many hard wired alarms require sine wave 110. They go puff running off the older inverter.


----------



## TakeFive

hpeer said:


> So how could everyone on the boat have slept through smoke detectors going off? 34 were below deck but 5 were above.
> 
> There should have been multiple detectors. Someone's head would have been within a couple of feet a detector.
> 
> Maybe it's bad or incomplete reporting, far too common, but no one mentions hearing a detector. The Watchman reports been waken by a "thud" or some such noise only to find the galley/saloon in flames. No detectors in galley? He could not hear them? Incredulous.
> 
> I once had reasons to look into it, an alarm needs to be so many dB above ambient noise. So even a noisy generator should have not masked the sound. But that's not likely mandated, but should be. Although I doubt that's relevant here.
> 
> Something here is very wrong.


Maybe the detector went off too late, or didn't go off at all.

This link is the opinion of one home inspector, but it is food for thought, especially since the ionization detectors have virtually taken over the market. I think I'm going to put photoelectric detectors in my boat:

Photoelectric vs Ionization Smoke Alarms - Deadly Differences



> ...In tests, ionization alarms will typically respond about 30 to 90 seconds faster to "fast-flame" fires than photoelectric smoke alarms. However, in smoldering fires ionization alarms respond an average of *15 to 50 minutes slower * than photoelectric alarms. Several studies indicate that they will outright fail to activate up to 20-25% of the time. The vast majority of residential fire fatalities are due to smoke inhalation, not from the actual flames and almost two-thirds of fire fatalities occur at night while we sleep.
> 
> In 1995, researchers at Texas A&M University published the results is a 2 1/2 year study on residential fire detection devices. The research showed that ionization alarms failed to provide adequate egress time in smoldering fire scenarios over 55% of the time versus a 4% failure rate with photoelectric alarms. In fast-flame fire scenarios, the study found that ionization alarms failed to provide adequate egress time about 20% of the time versus 4% with photoelectric alarms. The research demonstrates that when all factors are taken into account, i.e.; how often each alarm gets disabled due to nuisance tripping, how they respond across the full spectrum of fires, etc., photoelectric alarms have a clear advantage.
> 
> In 2007, UL published the "Smoke Characterization Study". This study tested both types of smoke alarms using current UL testing standards and materials; they also tested the alarms using UL test criteria integrating a variety of synthetic materials and current tests such as smoldering toast. The results are frightening. Ionization alarms failed the UL 217 test 20% of the time using the current standard test materials. This is the test that the alarms must pass 100% of the time to be offered for sale and installed in US homes. When tested using synthetic materials, ionization alarms DID NOT TRIGGER (DNT) in 7 out of 8 synthetic test scenarios. In the one test where the ionization alarm did trigger, it activated at a level exceeding maximum allowed under the UL standard and nearly 43 minutes after the photoelectric alarm in the same test.
> 
> In the same tests, photoelectric alarms activated 100% of the time using the UL 217 test and materials. When tested using the standard test integrated synthetic materials, photoelectric alarms responded properly in 100% of the tests. Overall, the ionization alarm outperformed the photoelectric in only one scenario, the "burnt toast" test, where it responded 22% faster. There were 3 test scenarios where neither alarm activated. The UL researchers determined that the sample size used was too small to generate sufficient smoke. Those materials were re-tested using larger samples. The results of those tests are shown in the above test scenarios.
> 
> Ionization alarms are also notorious for nuisance tripping, i.e.; going off when you cook, burn toast, shower, etc. When alarms nuisance trip, people become frustrated and intentionally disable the alarms. This leaves the family completely unprotected. According to several studies, ionization alarms are 8 times more likely to be intentionally disabled. Ionization alarms account for the vast majority of disabled alarms. Several CPSC and NFPA studies indicate that ionization alarms account for 97% of all nuisance alarm activations. An Alaskan Public Housing Study shows that about 20% of ionization alarms will be disabled within the first year of installation; other studies indicate that this percentage may be higher...


This guy also makes a strong case against use of dual sensor alarms:



> *What about Combination Alarms?*
> 
> There are combination photoelectric/ionization smoke alarms available. In fact, many fire officials mistakenly recommend them. There is no industry or UL standard for dual/multi sensor alarms. As long as they respond to the UL 217 and 268 tests, the manufacturers are free to alter the way the sensors respond and interact with each other. These units have the same issues as ionization only detectors. In some cases - they may be worse. A CPSC study shows that they may be even more prone to nuisance tripping than ionization alarms when in close proximity to cooking sources.
> 
> In the simplest terms, if you take a device that works and pair it with a device that has serious shortcomings - how can that possibly improve performance? Both the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and CREIA specifically recommend against installing combination alarms. NIST is on record stating, "Since an individual sensor can be set to meet all current sensitivity standards, it is not obvious what overall benefit is achieved from a dual alarm..."
> 
> Combination alarms use technology termed "Gated Logic". In one type, either sensor tripping will sound the alarm. In these units, the photo portion will pick up the smoldering fires so the ionization sensor does not become a factor. However, the ion portion is still susceptible to nuisance tripping. The manufacturers do not want the customer to disable the alarm. So to combat nuisance tripping, they often reduce (desensitize) the smoke sensitivity/response of ionization portion of these units. In effect, this type of combination alarm performs similarly to a photoelectric only alarm.
> 
> With the other type of unit, BOTH sensors must trigger to sound the alarm. In these units, the photoelectric portion will pick up the smoldering fires first, but will not sound until the ionization sensor triggers. Since a smoldering fire usually pose the greatest danger, this is a problem. The family is often fast asleep while the alarm waits for the ionization sensor that may never respond or responds too slow. This type alarm needs both sensors to detect the danger or it won't alert. Conversely, while this unit will be less susceptible to nuisance tripping because the photoelectric sensor must also respond to nuisance sources such as burnt toast; you risk losing your life if the ionization doesn't respond in a dangerous smoldering fire situation.


----------



## chef2sail

So now that many have gone down the rabbit hole convinced it was a blob of lithium batteries which caused this has anyone really looked into other possible causes. 

Has anyone ESTABLISHED this was the cause of the ignition? 

Understand I am not saying this was not the cause, but a “rush to judgement “ often blinds people to overlook other pertinent facts

This was so tragic. No escape routes. My hearts out to the victims and families.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

TakeFive said:


> Maybe the detector went off too late, or didn't go off at all.
> 
> This link is the opinion of one home inspector, but it is food for thought, especially since the ionization detectors have virtually taken over the market due to the fact that they are cheap. I think I'm going to put photoelectric detectors in my boat:
> 
> Photoelectric vs Ionization Smoke Alarms - Deadly Differences
> 
> This guy also makes a strong case against use of dual sensor alarms:


Then put 2 separate alarms if you don't like dual.

I haven't spent a lot of time researching, but the research that is quoted is from 2007 and 1995, and I believe the article was from 2012. Things change. Nuisance alarms are fine with me.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

chef2sail said:


> So now that many have gone down the rabbit hole convinced it was a blob of lithium batteries which caused this has anyone really looked into other possible causes.
> 
> Has anyone ESTABLISHED this was the cause of the ignition?
> 
> Understand I am not saying this was not the cause, but a "rush to judgement " often blinds people to overlook other pertinent facts
> 
> This was so tragic. No escape routes. My hearts out to the victims and families.


You are absolutely correct about not rushing to judgement. But I think relative to us commenting here, we are just trying to get take aways that we can apply to make ourselves safer.


----------



## Minnewaska

I think the relevant learning here is that our recreational vessels simply have too little fire detection. It doesn’t matter one bit, if that was the problem with Conception. 

While it stirs up some emotion, I think because no recreational vessel seems to stand night watch, it only makes sense to provide technology. I still don’t fully follow why we think passengers on a commercial vessel are more important than those on a recreational one, to warrant someone staying up all night. I’m beginning to think the night watch just isn’t a very effective tool in the first place. It would be, if it happened to be on exact location of a smoldering fire, but I think good tech is far more likely to work than a randomly roving human on any ship with three decks or multiple rooms.


----------



## TakeFive

cherylchecheryl said:


> Then put 2 separate alarms if you don't like dual.
> 
> I haven't spent a lot of time researching, but the research that is quoted is from 2007 and 1995, and I believe the article was from 2012. Things change. Nuisance alarms are fine with me.


The link I posted explained why two alarms can actually be worse for false alarms. And with the dual detector you don't really know what you're getting because of the different kinds of gate logic that can be used.

Have you ever suffered a nuisance alarm in the middle of the night? It can be quite dangerous. Whole family/crew has to evacuate without being dressed (perhaps without PFDs), potential permanent hearing loss when you're forced to get an arm's length away from a detector, inability to diagnose which detector is bad if they're interconnected (generally in a home), possible electrocution if you accidentally pull the 120v harness apart while disconnecting it without first shutting off the circuit breaker, falling off the ladder when accessing it on a high ceiling, especially if you get shocked. For boats, add to that the danger of tripping or falling overboard when evacuating when you're half asleep.

Look at some Amazon reviews to get an idea how dangerous false alarms can be. It's eye-opening.

I realize that things can change. If anyone has more current information, let us know. I'm not sure that smoke detectors are changing all that fast. Certainly the Amazon reviews show that there's a lot of room for improvement, especially with false alarms. After reading a bit, I'm not confident that there is a technology suitable for the marine environment that won't generate severe false alarms due to thermal cycling and moisture. Purely speculative here, but maybe that's why there is still no requirement for uninspected recreational vessels to have smoke detectors.

FYI, I just found a mountain of complaints over false alarms for the photoelectric alarm that I was about to purchase. So the search continues...

EDIT: For those of you who have smoke detectors on your boats, what brand/model do you have, and what experience do you have with false alarms?


----------



## mstern

Minnewaska said:


> I still don't fully follow why we think passengers on a commercial vessel are more important than those on a recreational one, to warrant someone staying up all night. I'm beginning to think the night watch just isn't a very effective tool in the first place. It would be, if it happened to be on exact location of a smoldering fire, but I think good tech is far more likely to work than a randomly roving human on any ship with three decks or multiple rooms.


I don't think it follows that commercial passenger lives are more important than recreational passenger lives just because the regulations impacting the classes are different. We routinely impose greater restrictions and more responsibility on those who take fees to take charge of lives. Commercial buildings require sprinkler systems, private homes do not; CDL requirements are more stringent than regular driver's licenses; Captains who take guests for pay must undergo rigorous training and have documented experiences before getting their licenses, us regular joes have comparatively easy testing.

But I agree completely with you that the night watch isn't a very effective tool. As a practical matter, the watchman is probably going to sit in one place most of the time. Chances are, whatever caused that fire would be more quickly discovered by a device that is always there and always on.

And even that is no guarantee of safety. Just look at what happened at Notre-Dame in Paris. Confusion on the part of a watchman and his supervisor, and a failure of the technology to overcome human frailty lead to that disaster.


----------



## tempest

I have 3 means of egress on my little 34. The Companionway, and two hatches. One in Salon and one in the V-Berth. 

If, I'm not mistaken and I read all the information correctly, these 34 passengers had one means of egress from the sleeping quarters in the event the main exit was blocked. That, from above a bunk? Certainly, Detection is essential, but once detected so is a means of escape. I can't imagine 34 people trying to get through one hatch in a life threatening emergency. And, where would they have gone, if the fire was above them? Impossible situation.


----------



## Minnewaska

mstern said:


> ....We routinely impose greater restrictions and more responsibility on those who take fees to take charge of lives. .......


You're right, we routinely do. The issue is why we don't volunteer to provide the same level of life security to a half dozen guests aboard a recreational vessel, if it's so important or effective.

There might be a point in which the barrier to egress increases, such as getting 34 people up one set of stairs, or hundreds of people out of a tall building, that suggest these should have more than just detection technology. Are any commercial building required to have human assets on watch? However, as we've demonstrated above, it's very common for recreational sailboats to have at least one stateroom, with no alternate form of egress and those staterooms are arguably even riskier than the lower bunk room of Conception (my own included).


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> ......EDIT: For those of you who have smoke detectors on your boats, what brand/model do you have, and what experience do you have with false alarms?


I don't know the exact model, but it's a combined CO and smoke detector. Pretty sure it's a First Alert. It's the only one we have an it's installed outside our aft stateroom, essentially over the engine compartment. I can't say this for sure, but it seems to me that most (is it all?) smoke/CO alarms are photoelectric on the smoke side. Fact check that, I do not know which I have.

It's only alarmed once in the untold years we've had it aboard. I think I mentioned it above. I was frying breakfast potatoes and don't recall any visible smoke. It's on the opposite side of the salon, up high, so cooking fumes were rising.

While a brief panic, I was glad it was so sensitive. Especially, as I've noted multiple time, we only have a single way in/out of out stateroom and I want to know there is a salon fire ASAP.


----------



## chef2sail

cherylchecheryl said:


> You are absolutely correct about not rushing to judgement. But I think relative to us commenting here, we are just trying to get take aways that we can apply to make ourselves safer.


I dunno it doesn't sound like that to me.

It sounds like a bunch of people playing amateur CSI and prospective researching internet lawyers when there are very few facts in evidence but lots of speculation,

All that behind the guise of learning a lesson to make our recreational / sailboats safer.

If half the time spent on the speculation was truly spent mourning the senseless loss of life or put to a or any cause to improve safety specifically, well that might be a positive end.

This thread instead of being a memoreum for the victims has quickly turned into legalese about lithium batteries, particle / smoke detectors, and interpreting Admiralty law, all by armchair computer surfers.

It's a shame that the feelings about the victims were not kept in one thread and the speculative subjects in another. The victims got lost. Just MHO.


----------



## TakeFive

chef2sail said:


> I dunno it doesn't sound like that to me.
> 
> It sounds like a bunch of people playing amateur CSI and prospective researching internet lawyers when there are very few facts in evidence but lots of speculation,
> 
> All that behind the guise of learning a lesson to make our recreational / sailboats safer....


Nope, not having any of this. Not a "guise" in any way.

I can only speak for myself here, but for me this discussion (my comments and others') has been 100% about making out boats safer, not about playing TV detective in any way.

The USCG issued an emergency bulletin to reduce potential hazards from lithium batteries, power strips and extension cords. Whether this was a root cause or not, the fact that they initiated an emergency bulletin is worthy of discussion and action. It is only binding on inspected vessels, but certainly recreational boaters would be prudent to consider their own vessels too.

Same thing for smoke detectors as far as I'm concerned. I don't care whether Conception's detector was missing, malfunctioning, intentionally disabled, or working perfectly. It was nevertheless a reminder to upgrade my own vessel.

I do not find anything disrespectful in discussing these things. I think USCG wants mariners to discuss and take action in response to tragedies like this. Mourning is appropriate, but it's never too early to ponder what action should be taken.

The moderators are welcome to move these things to another thread if they think it's inappropriate. But I don't see the point.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

TakeFive said:


> Nope, not having any of this. Not a "guise" in any way.
> 
> I can only speak for myself here, but for me this discussion has been 100% about making my boat safer, not about playing TV detective in any way.
> 
> The USCG issued an emergency bulletin to reduce potential hazards from lithium batteries, power strips and extension cords. Whether this was a root cause or not, the fact that they initiated an emergency bulletin is worthy of discussion and action. It is only binding on inspected vessels, but certainly recreational boaters would be prudent to consider their own vessels too.
> 
> Same thing for smoke detectors as far as I'm concerned. I don't care whether Conception's detector was missing, malfunctioning, intentionally disabled, or working perfectly. It was nevertheless a reminder to upgrade my own vessel.
> 
> I do not find anything disrespectful in discussing these things. I think USCG wants mariners to discuss and take action in response to tragedies like this. Mourning is appropriate, but it's never too early to ponder what action should be taken. *
> 
> The moderators are welcome to move these things to another thread if they think it's inappropriate* . But I don't see the point.


Nope, I think your comments are spot on.

I commend the intelligent discussion.

Not only that, many of our members thoughts have been ratified by the USCG.

Well done SailNet members!

Mark


----------



## cherylchecheryl

chef2sail said:


> I dunno it doesn't sound like that to me.
> 
> It sounds like a bunch of people playing amateur CSI and prospective researching internet lawyers when there are very few facts in evidence but lots of speculation,
> 
> All that behind the guise of learning a lesson to make our recreational / sailboats safer.
> 
> If half the time spent on the speculation was truly spent mourning the senseless loss of life or put to a or any cause to improve safety specifically, well that might be a positive end.
> 
> This thread instead of being a memoreum for the victims has quickly turned into legalese about lithium batteries, particle / smoke detectors, and interpreting Admiralty law, all by armchair computer surfers.
> 
> It's a shame that the feelings about the victims were not kept in one thread and the speculative subjects in another. The victims got lost. Just MHO.


I think if you read through the thread, you will find that many have expressed sadness regarding the terrible event.

That said, I don't think this thread was designed to be a memorial/tribune for the victims. Facebook pages are probably a much better venue for that, particularly for those who actually know the people involved personally. There have also been memorials held in California.

One thing that has impressed me with this website is that there are a number of people on here that are sticklers for factual evidence. Read back to the watchman discussion concerning the need to see the certificate of inspection before saying a watchman was required, for example.

You may call that amateur or armchair, but that is precisely the type of proof that a court of law would require, and I was impressed that folks on this website wanted to see it. FYI--I am a lawyer.


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> I think if you read through the thread, you will find that many have expressed sadness regarding the terrible event.
> 
> That said, I don't think this thread was designed to be a memorial/tribune for the victims......


Well said. I don't think there are likely to be any exceptions to those that expressed sympathy and I don't think the examination and takeaways are anything less than useful.

What really gets me is when people criticize the individual posters themselves, either directly or for the content they choose to discuss, rather than simply state their own position on the event or issues raised.

You've done an outstanding job. Others, not so much.


----------



## albrazzi

chef2sail said:


> So now that many have gone down the rabbit hole convinced it was a blob of lithium batteries which caused this has anyone really looked into other possible causes.
> 
> Has anyone ESTABLISHED this was the cause of the ignition?
> 
> Understand I am not saying this was not the cause, but a "rush to judgement " often blinds people to overlook other pertinent facts
> 
> This was so tragic. No escape routes. My hearts out to the victims and families.


No of course not; we are all just guessing, still. I don't know how a blob of Lithium goes off, I have believed all along O2 was involved because it was so quick, but something needs to trigger it.


----------



## Scotty C-M

My wife and I were talking last night. She mentioned to me that she wants to look at our aft (sleeping) cabin and see how we could get out in case of a fire. We both want to check our smoke and CO detectors. We talked about our charging cell phone practices (not really a problem in my opinion). All this is related to our conversations over the topic of this thread.

Like the rest of us, my wife and I are so sad about this tragic loss. I hits close to home because a number of the victims were from our town of Santa Cruz. However, looking at the particulars of this event, and the various possible scenarios, allows us, as a community, to examine our practices. This not only processes our grief, but allows possible changes to be safer boaters.

Like I said, it got my wife and I talking about safety. That's a good thing.


----------



## chef2sail

I didn’t think what I posted was going to be popular, but that’s not how we should post. I felt and still feel that tragedies are like red meat where people need to find cause and speculate unwittingly . I try and look at this as what if the relatives came along and found the thread. How would they feel? Expressions of remorse and well wishes, or a speculative lessons learned for all the rest of us. We could have been two separate threads you know, so people can express their sorrow . In this thread you’ll see a scattering of sorrow, and a lot of so called “ learning and teaching”

Hopefully Rick and others since you needed a reminder to check for safety you are doing the same in your houses. If this was your reminder , then it was a good thing to discuss. Anything which makes it safer...I am for.
Our detector is sensitive enough to detect if we are too close downwind of a boat running a generator.

Hopefully we are practicing safety with all our rechargeable devices as SOP. 
Hopefully we don’t need a dive boat accident and the speculation it was caused by recharging cell phones, to make sure we have smoke and vapor detectors in all areas of our house.....and boat. 

So since we are on this safety kick we are conscious of now , how many of you recharge your lithium power tools battery and leave them in the garage to do that and leave them overnight charging when you go to sleep. Do you have a smoke detector in the garage. 
On your boat...how many of you run laptops with lithium batteries to recharge. Do you leave them charging when you go out to dinner? I’ve seen some catch fire before. 

Like I said before....No one has proved that batteries being recharged caused this. If including all that has raised consciousness for some then I guess whatever does that is a good thing. 😨

As long as we have batteries to be recharged wether our phones, our laptops, our tools, our boat lithium ones, we are going to sometimes have an issue with them. 

So what have you all done to give yourself a second egress from you cabins should all your new top of the line detectors you’ve bought go off and your egress through the companionway is not an option? Will you practice this? Will you make it part of your safety briefing with guests. 
How should commercial vessels deal with this? After all that’s the main issue in this tragedy. No way to escape. 

That’s what caused the deaths. Even had there been a watch present....there was no way out.


----------



## midwesterner

Minnewaska said:


> I'm beginning to think the night watch just isn't a very effective tool in the first place. It would be, if it happened to be on exact location of a smoldering fire, but I think good tech is far more likely to work than a randomly roving human on any ship with three decks or multiple rooms.


Yes, I agree. And, if they don't have some specific firefighting experience, they will be ineffective in squelching a fire and getting the passengers to safety.

Our local fire department provides a service in which they will come to any workplace with a big metal pan to start a fire. They pour some gasoline in it and light the fire. They have several fire extinguishers on hand, and allow people to try their hand at fighting the fire. After each attempt, they relight the fire and let the next person try. Every one of us got a turn.

The firemen told us that it is essential to aim the fire extinguisher at the base of the fire. The base of fire does not have any flame or color. It is a void, just above the pan of gasoline, where the oxygen feeds the fire. The visable bright orange and yellow flame is above that. Instinctively every single one of us aimed the fire extinguisher at the bright orange and yellow glow of the flame, which was completely ineffective. When we finally followed the firemens' directions, and aimed the stream of the fire extinguisher underneath the bright orange and yellow glow, at the apparently empty void, the fire would die out immediately.

What this taught me, is that most people's instincts, to aim the fire extinguisher at the very dramatic orange and yellow flame, would be completely ineffective, and one must aim the fire extinguisher at the apparent empty void, the base of the fire, for any firefighting effort to be effective.

A watchman who has not had proper firefighting training, may well be completely ineffective in any firefighting attempt, and would fail to stop or slow the fire and save passengers.

Sadly, although I have worked at several different work sites, only the one has taken advantage of this fire safety training provided by our local fire department.


----------



## midwesterner

chef2sail said:


> Hopefully Rick and others since you needed a reminder to check for safety you are doing the same in your houses.
> 
> So since we are on this safety kick we are conscious of now , how many of you recharge your lithium power tools battery and leave them in the garage to do that and leave them overnight charging when you go to sleep.


I have been thinking about how we charge our phones and other devices, at home. We often charge devices and set them on a section of carpet, or a wooden bedside table, at night. I'm thinking that it would, at least provide a little safety, to set the devices in a metal pan, something that would be fireproof.

My LG phone shuts off the charging when it gets hot. Today I left my phone in the car seat of my car. The sun shifted to where the phone was in the sun when I came out of the store. When I started the car, and activated the charger, my phone displayed a message on the screen, saying that the charging function had been turned off because the phone detected a high temperature.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> I'm beginning to think the night watch just isn't a very effective tool in the first place. It would be, if it happened to be on exact location of a smoldering fire, but I think good tech is far more likely to work than a randomly roving human on any ship with three decks or multiple rooms.





midwesterner said:


> Yes, I agree. And, if they don't have some specific firefighting experience, they will be ineffective in squelching a fire and getting the passengers to safety.


I think the word used in the Certificate that @cherylchecheryl found is very important: Roving.
Now, thats a specific word. When I was in the army there were two types of Picket (piquet) - sentrys to provide warning of the enemy or security... Fire Picket - Static and Roving. A static picket manned an Observation Post and a roving picket was on the move the whole time. For a roving picket to be sitting down in time of you you'd be in the Brig for a week, if not worse.

In modern superyachting they will have a crew member on "Anchor Watch"... which in effect is a tired decky in the wheelhouse... that is not roving. What I found on one superyacht I was parked next to in a marina was the youngest decky started his Anchor Watch at 4am and his duty was to start cleaning the windows! Not only wasnt he on the bridge but he wasn't roving either.

The number of passengers must be the tipping point. On our boats we overnight at anchor with 2 or 3 guests max and have a crew of you. Cant and dont need a roving human for that. But for 35 passengers and 5 crew? Yes, there needs to be someone awake and on the move the whole time.

On @midwesterner 's point... the crew on a commercial operation must have their STCW95 (or whatever its called this week)... and thats firefighting! So these crew are trained for it. and if they are not good enough they must be retrained.

I do agree with the points about technology being, probably, best at fire detection (given what was said re dectectors)... I have my Ace Hardware smoke dectector in the Forward cabin where I sleep. When I cook it goes off! Before the steak is crispy its yelling its butt off and I cant see any smoke at all. Its a pain in the neck to drop the pan and go click it off. So once or twice Ive stuck it under the pillow so I can cook in peace - then forgotten it for a few days.
Maybe if the fire detectors are in the galley and go off every time the stove goes on someone has shoved a pillow on it?

This thread has made me decide to get more detectors, higher quality and live with their over-sensitivity. 

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska

Scotty C-M said:


> ....She mentioned to me that she wants to look at our aft (sleeping) cabin and see how we could get out in case of a fire......


Please post any ideas, as this is a very common design issue.

The best I've got is a fire extinguisher in our aft stateroom (every room and two in the salon in fact) and a smoke/CO detector immediately outside the cabin door.

Other non-implemented ideas are to stow a fire blanket in the cabin, if needed during exit. We've also thought of stowing a cordless sawzall with an aggressive blade to cut right up into the cockpit. Although, I'm not sure there would be time or it would always be charged.

I've tried to consider whether any of the tiny hatches or ports could be enlarged, but it does not seem practical, if even possible.


----------



## Minnewaska

midwesterner said:


> ...The firemen told us that it is essential to aim the fire extinguisher at the base of the fire......


That, of course, is the right advise. There are a couple of other very important nuances, one of which is boat specific.

First, you need to consider what is burning. If it's grease/oil, a strong extinguisher stream or the wrong extinguisher will just spread it around. A stove top grease fire is best to try to smother first and the galley should always have something to do so.

Second, is the fact that down below, all boats are very small confined spaces. The moment you pull the extinguisher trigger on a powder extinguisher, it will go to zero visibilty. Instantly. There is a Youtube demonstration on this. You need to be far enough away and have your exit planned in zero viz. You'll be destroying visibility for every passenger attempting to exit too.


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> .....This thread has made me decide to get more detectors, higher quality and live with their over-sensitivity. ....


That's a pretty positive outcome from this tragedy and our discussion of it, regardless of what is determined to be the cause. It's killing me that there is so much confusion over what type of detector to buy. I'm just going to add one to each sleeping cabin and figure that out later.


----------



## Minnewaska

cherylchecheryl said:


> ....One thing that has impressed me with this website is that there are a number of people on here that are sticklers for factual evidence.......


Absolutely, as there has been ample spreading of rumor, old wives tales, bad answers, or even just disagreement. It's the internet, after all. I've learned to verify everything. I've always said that anything I post should be verified too.

However, I think the very nature of an immersed topic, such as a sailing forum, will always have keen interest in specific rules and practices. Seems to be the nature of many people who would spend time on such focused subject matter in the first place. This place is like meeting folks at the pub, but the rules at the door are that you can only discuss sailing. Think of the type of patron that would go to a pub like that.

Literally, the first thing said about this accident was that there was only one exit, from the bunkroom. That was quickly proven less than accurate. There were two, one was pretty small and both led to a place that required the same path be taken out. It set the tone for a more precise understanding of what the problem really was.


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ....The number of passengers must be the tipping point. On our boats we overnight at anchor with 2 or 3 guests max and have a crew of you. Cant and dont need a roving human for that. But for 35 passengers and 5 crew? Yes, there needs to be someone awake and on the move the whole time.....


This must be the distinction, but I'm still struggling with articulating why. Why does someone need to be awake to more quickly identify and fight the fire, when more people are aboard, but 2 people are on their own.

Ironically, on our small boats, a fire watch is much more likely to actually be near the smoldering fire, before it becomes a problem. On a mega yacht, they could be decks away, even if they are properly roving.

It still doesn't seem to have really good defined logic quite yet. But I agree, the number of people seems to be the tipping point.


----------



## SanderO

My sense is that there are several issues...

Alerting passengers and crew to an emergency... fire in this case...means loud alarms 

Alerting to them to what the emergency is and where it is another concern.

Having procedures for to escape danger may mean abandoning ship. Complicated for sure.

Mitigating the emergency for fire means fire suppression... mere alarms will not stop a runaway disaster.

Escape to where? Over the side? Into a life boat?

++++

The recreational boater needs to have fire suppression equipment... extinguishers for sure... and maybe a high volume sea water pump?? Automated emergency call to coast guard?

But if something go runaway... escape needs to be planned and routes provided. Drills and emergency lighting?

With so much flammable material in many boats... fire suppression systems apparently need to be more robust. Portable and automatic fixed extinguishers???


----------



## cherylchecheryl

MarkofSeaLife said:


> On @midwesterner 's point... the crew on a commercial operation must have their STCW95 (or whatever its called this week)... and thats firefighting! So these crew are trained for it. and if they are not good enough they must be retrained.
> 
> Mark


After looking at Truth Aquatics website (https://www.truthaquatics.com/about/), there may be a question whether the crew had their STCW95 (see excerpt below in italics). From reading various news articles, it appears that the crew member who perished in this tragedy previously worked in the movie industry and became a deckhand recently, for example. The preliminary report by the NTSB (it is preliminary, of course) is not helpful relative to this fact. I may also be confusing the STCW95 with "licensing". That is, is someone with a STCW95 still considered "unlicensed" because licensed refers to a master or mate's license?

Conception is regulated by Subchapter T of Coast Guard regulations. Reading through Subchapter T, 46 CFR 185.420 requires crew training. So even if a STCW95 was not required for a deckhand on Conception, the regulations do require fire training. However, per the reg, each crew member shall be instructed "upon first being employed and prior to getting underway for the first time on a particular vessel and at least once every three months." Whether that is adequate is a question.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrie...e&n=pt46.7.185&r=PART&ty=HTML#se46.7.185_1524

Regulations 185.510, 185.512, and 185.514 describe the emergency procedures to be covered by the training. These regulations require the assignment of duties in an emergency and an understanding of extinguishing fires, but it doesn't appear to me that these regs require that crew members actually practice putting out a real fire, which one of the earlier posters believed was very valuable to know. Whether that would have made any difference with Conception is another question. My point is that it doesn't appear that the fire training required to be a crew member is as much as a STCW95, which has a 2-day class.

The preliminary report also does not discuss the night dive and the crew member who checked that every thing was OK in the galley as of 2:35 am before going to sleep. Several folks on the this thread have questioned whether passengers heard a smoke alarm. Would passengers have been awake in the galley as late as 2:30? Does anyone have an idea when night dives generally end?

_Our main criterion is that you are friendly and courteous, the rest we feel you can learn. As a non-licensed crew you can accumulate sea time and eventually sit for your master or mate's license at the United States Coast Guard. Learning seamanship is something that every crew member has had the chance to do with Truth Aquatics and many have moved on to successful careers in the maritime industry._


----------



## TakeFive

A few comments...

My Catalina 34 MkII has a number of improvements that were made later in the production run. One of the best improvements (because it's virtually impossible to retrofit) is an escape hatch in the aft berth. It's a nice size, and installed in a place that's very easy to access. So in addition to the companionway, I have big enough hatches to escape from the V-berth (easy exit), aft berth (easy exit) and main salon (need to stand on the galley counter, but doable).

I am very concerned about smoke detector selection. A couple of years ago I replaced all the smoke detectors in my home. I didn't want to re-wire all the electrical harnesses, so I just went for the closest current model to what I already had with no thought to what type they were. I now know that they are all ionization type, and am now hearing bad things about poor response to the most common smoldering fires. But the similar photoelectric detector (uses the same harnesses) has HORRIBLE reviews for false alarms. Comments seem to indicate false alarms are worse in places with temperature and humidity extremes, which does not bode well for marine environments. More research to do.

Regarding false alarms, there are different types with different danger levels. The type a couple of you mentioned, where it goes off while you are cooking, is merely a nuisance. You're awake, your boat is lit so you can see, and you're 99% certain that it's just the food that's cooking. The much more dangerous type, which I have experienced, is the one that happens in the middle of the night. You're awakened from sleep, the house/boat is dark, and if the detectors are interconnected than they're all going off so you don't even know where to start. I experienced that happening in my house, and it scares the crap out of you. What's worse, it happened a few days/nights in a row on a couple of different occasions. One time it was in my garage in the middle of a muggy late summer night (a few nights in a row), diagnosed as caused by humidity. The second time it was in my attic during a heat wave, diagnosed as excessive heat. The solution in both cases was to remove the smoke detector and replace it with a heat detector.

The issue here is that smoke detectors tend to generate false alarms in environments with large temperature or humidity swings (i.e., boats). Couple that with the fact that many of us leave our boats in a slip for many days at a time, and this becomes a real issue that could quickly wear out our welcome with our dock neighbors and marina personnel (unless you leave your A/C on all the time when at the dock, which creates other problems).

I'm not going to let this paralyze me from doing something for my boat, but whatever I install, I will probably pull out the battery when I leave the boat until I've built up a lot of confidence that it will not have false alarms.

I'm still not sure what to do with my house. I'd rather have photoelectric detectors, but since I travel ~10 nights a month leaving my family alone, I don't want to get a model that is prone to false alarms.

More research needed.


----------



## Minnesail

midwesterner said:


> The firemen told us that it is essential to aim the fire extinguisher at the base of the fire. The base of fire does not have any flame or color. It is a void, just above the pan of gasoline, where the oxygen feeds the fire.





Minnewaska said:


> Second, is the fact that down below, all boats are very small confined spaces. The moment you pull the extinguisher trigger on a powder extinguisher, it will go to zero visibilty. Instantly. There is a Youtube demonstration on this. You need to be far enough away and have your exit planned in zero viz. You'll be destroying visibility for every passenger attempting to exit too.


That video was really eye opening (haha, sorry). But really, it was. You get *one* shot with the fire extinguisher because after that visibility is zero.

After I saw that clip I bought some fire blankets. For my boat, for my kitchen, and for my bag 'o boat crap that I bring when chartering. It would be a lot safer and cleaner to put out a kitchen fire with one of these than with a powder extinguisher:
Tonyko Fiberglass Fire Blanket for Emergency Surival, Flame Retardant Protection and Heat Insulation


----------



## drew1711

Well, based on this thread, I replaced the smoke and CO detectors on a new to me boat Saturday morning. Heck, I even paid the West Marine price. No reason to mess with this, just do it.

FWIW, I had a Kidde ion smoke detector on my last boat for 15 years and never, not once, did I ever have a false/nuisance alarm. But then again I never made toast on that boat...


----------



## cherylchecheryl

Great idea with fire blanket.

The U.S Fire Administration has a position paper on smoke detectors and links to further research. The USFA is an agency under FEMA.

www.usfa.fema.gov.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

LOL Today I bought 3 new detectors... smoke, CO and heat.

And Ive worked out my emergency egress from the aft cabin. Theres a screw in pannel leading into the stern lazarette. I took the screws out.
Not a whole lot of room but if theres fire I think I would grow skinny real quick to get out that way 

Oh, yeah, I had my Fire Blanket anyway, from about 1 second after I bought the boat.

When I was a kid we had an alcohol stove on my parents boat. Mums cooking and it goes up... flames cabin top high... Dad and me jump into action to Save the Day and we each grab a chemical fire extinguisher. Dads first... he fires it and theres this little dribble comes out the spout. I laugh, push him aside to Save The Day and hit the trigger... also a miserable dribble of white puss.
Mum steps forward with a tea-towel and drops it on the fire completely smothering it in zero seconds.

Yep, fire blankets are the GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Mark


----------



## pdqaltair

Two thoughts on fire blankets:
* Wool is actually better for escape. Insulation.
* Pull the blanket out and refold. It needs to be folded like a map, so you can pull it right open. Often the factory fold is impractical.


----------



## hpeer

Just read to catch up on the last few days. I have some random comments.

We had a fire in our oven. It was a small fire with limited but fuel so I watched it hoping it would burn out before having to do something. I nearly made it but ended up using the fire extinguisher in it. It made a mess but that’s about it. It did not inhibit my vision.

Our big boat is a 1987 steel center cockpit, it has a vee berth and an aft cabin and a small cabin. The vee berth and the aft cockpit both have hatches big enough to get through easily, the vee berth has handholds that double as a ladder. For the aft cabin you stand on the bed and hoist your bum through. I am do it easy enough but the Wife would be hard pressed. Can’t think of how to mount a step easily. 

I know you are supposed to have a roving watch, but how is that defined? Does that mean they never sit down? Or that they make a transit once every 15?, 30? 60? Minutes? Maybe the routine was to do a walk through every hour, takes 5 minutes, and spend the rest of the time on the bridge. If that’s the case does that meet the requirement for a roving watch? Would it have made a difference?

When I had to stand guard duty they gave us a Detex Watch or Clock. You had to lug it around to various points where there were keys which you inserted to show you made the circuit. Without something like that a “watch” is bound to fail. You might as well legislate guardian angles riding unicorns, it won’t happen, human nature will intervene. If you want true safety then you want it mechanized and accomplished by something that doesn’t get bored and play video games or sleep or chat up their girl friend. 

IMHO the Watchman is there so you can assign guilt and blame. It won’t stop these kind of accidents. Fire and smoke and gas detection systems exist to stop tragedies. They have far better chance of effectively intervening. Why that did not happen here is the really important question. 

I still think it’s possible something else happened, something none of us are considering. I had the idea that genny exhaust might have failed in such a manner that it dumped CO into the sleeping quarters (look at ventilation system) and then managed to start a fire. But that seems equally unlikely because presumably the genny was in the engine room which had its own fire SUPPRESSION system. So I’m stymied, I’ve got nothing.


----------



## SanderO

https://www.newsday.com/long-island...mMh9KVZrFOjRXgJpb3TJVtLgzwU_OeqkmBTnjPuTIXvGI


----------



## Minnewaska

Interesting that the article claims early NTSB reports suggest a night watch was assigned, but they fell asleep in the wheelhouse. Although, I do not recall the preliminary report saying this. 

I wonder what responsibility the Captain or owner have to insure the watch stays awake. Also interesting is the amount of chatter that assumed one wasn't assigned at all, along with calls to metaphorically lynch the owner for not doing so. 

Another speculation in this report is the lithium battery fire may have started in the sleeping quarters. Not sure why they say this either.


----------



## drew1711

"_LOS ANGELES - Investigators completed a two-week examination of the charred wreckage of a scuba diving boat and could not determine what ignited the fire that killed 34 people off the Southern California coast, a law enforcement official said Friday."_

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2019/09/30/293339.htm

Disappointing...


----------



## Minnesail

drew1711 said:


> "_LOS ANGELES - Investigators completed a two-week examination of the charred wreckage of a scuba diving boat and could not determine what ignited the fire that killed 34 people off the Southern California coast, a law enforcement official said Friday."_
> 
> https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2019/09/30/293339.htm
> 
> Disappointing...


Seaman's manslaughter. Huh.



> Any criminal charges would likely involve an obscure federal law known as the seaman's manslaughter statute. It only requires showing negligence or that the captain or crew committed misconduct or neglected their duties. That means an inability to determine the fire's exact cause may not affect the criminal case.
> 
> But an undetermined cause could play a role in lawsuits and the owner's liability. Failing to determine what sparked the blaze could make it difficult to prove if a boat owner was negligent.


----------



## Minnewaska

Minnesail said:


> Seaman's manslaughter. Huh.


According to one (unverified) media report, a crew member that fell asleep in the wheelhouse was the assigned night watch. That media report referenced the NTSB, although, I've not seen anything from the NTSB that suggested as much.

Nevertheless, assuming there was a night watch assigned and they fell asleep on duty, I wonder if this statute applies beyond that crew member. It would seem the others (Captain, Owner) did as they were supposed to, if that report is accurate.


----------



## chef2sail

drew1711 said:


> "_LOS ANGELES - Investigators completed a two-week examination of the charred wreckage of a scuba diving boat and could not determine what ignited the fire that killed 34 people off the Southern California coast, a law enforcement official said Friday."_
> 
> https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2019/09/30/293339.htm
> 
> Disappointing...


They forgot to interview the amateur sleuths from Sailnet obviously. I mean all they would have had to do is read the posts here, sic. ????


----------



## mstern

We had a robust discussion about the seaman's manslaughter statute in the thread about the captain who didnt stop and search for a crewman who had a psychotic episode, attacked the skipper then jumped overboard. That captain had the charges dismissed by the judge who ruled the law didnt apply because that particular voyage was private and not a commercial enterprise. 

Certainly not the case here where this was a charter. But the problems with the statute still apply here. Without going too deep, that law may still be on the books, but it is so outdated and out of synch with modern criminal justice that applying it in any instance would be -- in my humble yet correct opinion-- a grave miscarriage.


----------



## outbound

Another current thread is about the CGs ability to board without demonstrating cause. I would suggest these statues were formulated for a reason. Given they haven’t been reversed that original intent remains sufficiently strong to not legislate them out of existence. Perhaps this will change. Perhaps not.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

I found an interesting series of articles about how to deal with various boat disasters, including fires. The link is attached below. Scroll down on the page quite a ways, and you will see the list of articles. Includes capsizing, running around, gas explosions, galley fires, engine fires, dismasting, sinking.

Hope everyone here never has a need to know these things!

https://www.admiralyacht.com/admiral-news/crash-test-boat/create-jury-rig/


----------



## Minnesail

Those Yachting Monthly crash test videos are the best, everyone should watch them. Like Mythbusters, but with a boat. And just like Mythbusters, they gotta make it blow up 

Crash Test Boat - Fire


----------



## Minnewaska

One more vote for the crash boat series. We've shared them on this forum many times in the past.


----------



## cherylchecheryl

https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...lations-coast-guard-conception-labor-day-fire

Not sure why the LA Times had this article. I don't think this is surprising or new. But maybe they are like CNN (?) that kept reporting on the airline tragedy.


----------



## Minnewaska

Weird recap of well reported information.


----------

