Legal considerations for the Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[ChrisM]

The emergency hatch was leading to the same room as the stairs. Somebody posted some regulation in the main thread which stated - if I remember well - that the emergency exit should lead so other space than the main one and those two should be far away. Wouldn't be the structure of this ship in direct contradiction with regs then? If so there would be a lawsuit with the government certifying the boat every year? Just thoughts of a person NOT in the know in this area.

the photo in the other thread -- assuming it's the Conception, I only dove the other two and don't recall-- shows the escape hatch daylighting essentially at the back of the salon, right in front of the exit door, and essentially forcing one out of the salon onto the dive deck.

At any rate, 46 CFR Section 116.500(b) states:

"(b) The two required means of escape must be widely separated and, if possible, at opposite ends or sides of the space to minimize the possibility of one incident blocking both escapes."

The reg talks about the location of the egress, not where it leads. Here was one egress at each end of the bunk room (and it couldn't have been any further aft without going into the engine room)

 

[bigDave]

Interesting, so each boat would have been its own independent corporate entity? I wasn't aware that is how a fleet would be set up.

You should read up on the Richmond Diving Club and Peter Hughes Diving. Here’s one.

The Suit Against Peter Hughes Settled: Undercurrent 10/2002

 

[ChrisM]

Well I suppose I knew dive boats operated in other countries are individually operated, sometimes by local corps in that country,and sometimes franchised. That makes sense as they want to , as PH did, avoid excess liability in the US. I was thinking of a small fleet moored next to eachother. I would have assume those were under a single corporate umbrella

As a lawyer I have no beef with the corporate veil

 

[roman50]

The law says 'two means of escape'. If both means of escape lead to the same compartment which safety may be compromised (flood, fire) then the spirit of the law is not being fulfilled because there is no escape.

See the definition of 'Means of escape' below.

I sense a lawsuit against the Truth for operating this dangerously designed boat and against to authority who certified this boat against the spirit of the law. The Truth may be an excellent operator, but they operate boats with an idiotic safety design.

46 CFR §177.500
§ 177.500 Means of escape.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, each space accessible to passengers or used by the crew on a regular basis, must have at least two means of escape, one of which must not be a watertight door.

(b) The two required means of escape must be widely separated and, if possible, at opposite ends or sides of the space to minimize the possibility of one incident blocking both escapes.

Means of escape
Means of escape means a continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a vessel to an embarkation station. A means of escape can be both vertical and horizontal, and include doorways, passageways, stairtowers, stairways, and public spaces. Cargo spaces, machinery spaces, rest rooms, hazardous areas determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge Marine Inspection, escalators, and elevators must not be any part of the means of escape.

 

[rjack321]

The law says 'two means of escape'. If both means of escape lead to the same compartment which safety may be compromised (flood, fire) then the spirit of the law is not being fulfilled because there is no escape.

See the definition of 'Means of escape' below.

I sense a lawsuit against the Truth for operating this dangerously designed boat and against to authority who certified this boat against the spirit of the law. The Truth may be an excellent operator, but they operate boats with an idiotic safety design.

46 CFR §177.500
§ 177.500 Means of escape.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, each space accessible to passengers or used by the crew on a regular basis, must have at least two means of escape, one of which must not be a watertight door.

(b) The two required means of escape must be widely separated and, if possible, at opposite ends or sides of the space to minimize the possibility of one incident blocking both escapes.

Means of escape
Means of escape means a continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a vessel to an embarkation station. A means of escape can be both vertical and horizontal, and include doorways, passageways, stairtowers, stairways, and public spaces. Cargo spaces, machinery spaces, rest rooms, hazardous areas determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge Marine Inspection, escalators, and elevators must not be any part of the means of escape.

So did you join SB all the way from Prague just to comment on this tragedy?

 

[roman50]

Believe or not I am in my second home in Granite Bay, California. And - also - as a diver who spent some time on various liveaboards I feel kinda touched by this tragedy. And since now I know there may be boats with flawed safety design I have more information which operator to skip. Are you satisfied?

 

[bigDave]

Believe or not I am in my second home in Granite Bay, California. And - also - as a diver who spent some time on various liveaboards I feel kinda touched by this tragedy. And since now I know there may be boats with flawed safety design I have more information which operator to skip. Are you satisfied?

Probably - BTW what model of Volvo do you drive?

 

[runsongas]

@roman50 the staircase and escape hatch follow the letter of the CFR as two means of escape

 

[Wookie]

Interesting, so each boat would have been its own independent corporate entity? I wasn't aware that is how a fleet would be set up.

Absolutely. For this reason.

 

[Wookie]

The emergency hatch was leading to the same room as the stairs. Somebody posted some regulation in the main thread which stated - if I remember well - that the emergency exit should lead so other space than the main one and those two should be far away. Wouldn't be the structure of this ship in direct contradiction with regs then? If so there would be a lawsuit with the government certifying the boat every year? Just thoughts of a person NOT in the know in this area.

You interpreted it incorrectly. It said that the 2 means of escape had to be at opposite ends of the berthing space, as much as practicable. It does not make any statement about where they must go. My new boat escapes to the weather deck, but the hatch is lockable. These hatches both exited to the salon, and had free and open access.