Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Scuba-74]

Yeah, nowhere near as crowded. Plus, it is actually cheaper than a SoCal boat on a per diem basis, albeit with a longer trip.

Not if you include airfare, unfortunately...

 

[Dizzi Lizzi]

PS I charge my can light battery on the stove at home.

My husband and I had this conversation a couple of days ago after watching the videos of batteries on fire. We charge them on the ceramic counter. No more plugging it in and going to work for us. I might just put them in the oven.

 

[doctormike]

To answer your question about this boat in particular as well as jog your memory of the Spree, if the escape hatch were placed between 10U and 27U, and the pictures I've seen those bunks had ladders to get in the bunks, you could have had a big hatch that spanned the entire passagway so that the ladders used to get in the bunks could be used as escape ladders.

Frank, I'm not stupid enough to argue with you about boat design. But I will tell you that I personally find it hard to enter ANY top bunk (including those that were on the Spree) just to go to sleep when the room is fully lit, filled with breathable air and not on fire. There is a huge difference in ease of egress (especially for those of us with a lot of bioprene) between a ladder with handrails leading directly to an overhead hatch, and a ladder on the outside of a three tiered bunk bed where you have to get into the top bunk and then turn around to pass through the hatch (possibly wearing a PFD).

So again, not saying anything about redesigning the hatch itself. I'm just saying that it would be a lot easier to access if there wasn't a bunk bed directly below it.

There are obviously a lot of places to break the accident chain. Not every disaster is the same. Maybe everyone was dead in their bunks from smoke inhalation and never awoke. Maybe they were awake but the emergency exit was just as blocked by fire as the main exit. But just because we can think of scenarios where better emergency hatch access wouldn't have helped, that doesn't mean that it's not an important consideration, to at least think about it in doing our post-tragedy analysis.

As I mentioned, it either is or isn't important to have good access to an emergency escape hatch. Ad if it is, sticking bunk beds underneath it doesn't seem to be moving in the right direction.

 

[rjack321]

Here’s the website: Diving Info - Isle Royale Charters

If it’s going between MN and Isle Royale, wouldn’t it have to be US flagged?

The MV Discovery is a US based (flagged) vessel overseen by US licensed crew (2 crew: master and a mate)
It is a 6 pack and exempt from USCG inspections
It operates in Michigan waters however and is state inspected as a charter vessel under Michigan regs
It was constructed in Canada and has a Jones Act waiver
Steel hull, diesel engine, propane cooking, gasoline generator, gasoline compressor
It is not engaged in International Voyages between US and Canadian ports

 

[Wookie]

Large island in Lake Superior that is a US National Park.

Yes, US flagged then. Must operate as a six passenger uninspected passenger vessel.

 

[Marie13]

Yes, US flagged then. Must operate as a six passenger uninspected passenger vessel.

I’ve been told by someone who was on it the last year or two that it takes 8 passengers.

 

[Wookie]

Frank, I'm not stupid enough to argue with you about boat design. But I will tell you that I personally find it hard to enter ANY top bunk (including those that were on the Spree) just to go to sleep when the room is fully lit, filled with breathable air and not on fire. There is a huge difference in ease of egress (especially for those of us with a lot of bioprene) between a ladder with handrails leading directly to an overhead hatch, and a ladder on the outside of a three tiered bunk bed where you have to get into the top bunk and then turn around to pass through the hatch (possibly wearing a PFD).

So again, not saying anything about redesigning the hatch itself. I'm just saying that it would be a lot easier to access if there wasn't a bunk bed directly below it.

There are obviously a lot of places to break the accident chain. Not every disaster is the same. Maybe everyone was dead in their bunks from smoke inhalation and never awoke. Maybe they were awake but the emergency exit was just as blocked by fire as the main exit. But just because we can think of scenarios where better emergency hatch access wouldn't have helped, that doesn't mean that it's not an important consideration, to at least think about it in doing our post-tragedy analysis.

As I mentioned, it either is or isn't important to have good access to an emergency escape hatch. Ad if it is, sticking bunk beds underneath it doesn't seem to be moving in the right direction.

That's my point Mike, and you can't offend me. If the escape hatch were moved from over the bunk to between the bunks that would be a better situation. And for Roaky, a broken leg from falling in a hole is a better outcome than the one we see here.....

 

[rjack321]

I’ve been told by someone who was on it the last year or two that it takes 8 passengers.

It does NOT
6 paying passenger
2 crew
= 8 aboard

 

[roakey]

And for Roaky, a broken leg from falling in a hole is a better outcome than the one we see here.....

From your description, sounds like you want the exit to to span from one bunk corridor to the other. This would put a hole across basically the ENTIRE exit path from the solon. We're not talking broken legs, we're talking about everyone that comes up the staircase falling back down into the bunk area in low visibilty.

I would humbly suggest that those that do not have first hand experience with the Conception or Vision refrain from suggesting design changes based on pictures and incomplete knowlegde of the layout of the boat. I do not mean this as an insult! It's just if you don't have a good 3D image of how everything fits together, you're likely to miss key points, like putting a gaping hole in the middle of an exit route.

Roak

 

[Scared Silly]

Since you're asking for a cost/benefit analysis, the correct number would be six bunks, not three. 10U, 11M, 12L, 27U, 28M and 29L.

I think while six bunks would initially be need to removed that are inline with the keel. Three could be replaced perpendicular with the remaining space used for a double wide egress. See my quick and dirty drawing. Some engineering would be needed but as I have previously posted and now others have picked up on the bunk/hatch while meeting the current regs is not the most ergonomic - there many of the these who are not agile enough even in the best of conditions.

That said, while such a hatch improvement could be made. In cases it still may not be enough.

The thing I keep coming back to is that absolutely no one from below escaped.

It was reported that four souls were found in the water. However, there does seem to be some discrepancies of when they were found - before or after the ship sunk. It was also reported their death was consistent with drowning (no autopsy confirmation) . As such, at this point one can not definitely say no one from below escaped. One can say with definitely, that no one from below survived.