Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many times have you dived from a socal liveaboard that you are passing judgement and calling them death traps?

I've dived enough Socal boats with bunk rooms that I decided long ago that I'd never do a Socal liveaboard. Fire safety never crossed my mind at the time, but the uncomfortably cramped quarters were a huge turn off.
 
Wondering about whichever idiot signed off on the inspection and annual certificates. Lots of winks and handshakes on that one.

Seriously? Have you ever worked with the USCG at all? They are a branch of the US military. EVERYTHING they do is exactly to the letter of the law. Licensing, inspection, citations...

CG inspectors have a serious job to do, they can also be pains in the butt. They found a cracked hose on a fire extinguisher aboard this vessel a few years ago, that is the level of detail they examine the vessel. I have no doubt that this vessel was legal to sail at the time of departure based on the deficiencies they found in the past which highlight their thoroughness. You have no evidence to support your aspersions cast on the CG inspector.
 
Try another
Seriously? Have you ever worked with the USCG at all? They are a branch of the US military. EVERYTHING they do is exactly to the letter of the law. Licensing, inspection, citations...

CG inspectors have a serious job to do, they can also be pains in the butt. They found a cracked hose on a fire extinguisher aboard this vessel a few years ago, that is the level of detail they examine the vessel. I have no doubt that this vessel was legal to sail at the time of departure based on the deficiencies they found in the past which highlight their thoroughness. You have no evidence to support your aspersions cast on the CG inspector.

You have a much more forgiving opinion of the professional competency of the bureaucratic arms of the military than I do, particularly those who work in close proximity to the industry participants they've just certified.
 

The FAA does not agree. The UN did some recent testing in the last year or two and I'm sure if you google it it will come up quickly. They found that even in 5% halon which is what the airplanes will spit out if they detect a fire, the thermal runaway will still occur. The 5% is supposed to stop any fires.
 
I don't know why you keep saying this. There is no indication that the boat was bot following regulations, and I would know, as I had a similar boat doing similar things for 20 years. I can quote chapter and verse of the applicable regulations, and there is no reason to think that there was a wink and a nod to any of them.

As a rating officer, would you, could you in good conscience sign off on that escape hatch layout?

I couldn't.
 
As a rating officer, would you, could you in good conscience sign off on that escape hatch layout?

I couldn't.
I did for 20 years. As a boat owner. As do almost every boat in the liveaboard fleet, considering a good many are former GOM crewboats. This one was not, but accepted practice is accepted practice, and the hatch exactly followed regulations.
 
I wasn’t referring to boat layout, but the comment the boat wasn’t well maintained.
The boat was in compliance, well maintained and did have any recent findings. I just want to point out, these charters are usually weekend trips, this was a three day because of Labor Day. They anchor off the various islands at fabulous dive sites, and their record has been impeccable. I have been on this boat, it felt chummy in the bunk area, but not as bad as others I have been on. But, there is one stairway that goes into the galley, no door, and an escape hatch that also feeds into the galley. I wonder how many passengers even woke up. If the galley was engulfed, they may have all succumbed to smoke inhalation while sleeping.
 
Seriously? Have you ever worked with the USCG at all? They are a branch of the US military. EVERYTHING they do is exactly to the letter of the law. Licensing, inspection, citations...

If they do such a thorough job as to be able to find a crack in an extinguisher hose, I would love to see documentation on specific tests they conducted in order to ensure that the above-mentioned hatch complied with the following requirements:

(d) The number and dimensions of the means of escape from each space must be sufficient for rapid evacuation in an emergency for the number of persons served.
(e) The dimensions of a means of escape must be such as to allow easy movement of persons when wearing life jackets.
(m) Footholds, handholds, ladders, and similar means provided to aid escape, must be suitable for use in emergency conditions.

EDIT: that bunk room holds roughly 40 passengers, give or take (45 maximum I believe looking at the plan). How many test runs of 40 passengers in life jackets through that hatch have been conducted, and what is the average completion time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CZS
someone from another forum pointed out the escape hatch is actually seen here:
Capture.JPG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom