Legal considerations for the Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[KevinNM]

My post makes no sense (about none of the divers being found in the common areas?). The way I figure it, if the victims were awake and aware and surrounded by fire with no other way out, at least some of them would have forced their way through the flames in the salon to get out that large opening rather than just sitting there in the bunk area and giving up.

A few seconds in fire is infinitely better than doing nothing.

I suspect it would be very hard to actually do that once the fire got going. Based on the video, its not a straight shot out from the stairs. so you have to go up the stairs, turn 180 degrees, go forward some feet, turn left and then move out of the room. Ignoring the toxic smoke, a 1000 degree plus room is really going to be hard to get through. You'll get burns just from the fire's thermal radiation, much less the 1000 degree air. Everything you touch is white hot, like the floor. The superheated air will kill you if you inhale. I have no idea if you can open your eyes, or see if you can. Oh, and your clothes and hair catch fire.

 

[drrich2]

If one wants to point a finger, it is all the proffessionals in the marine industry that know there are safety issues, but do not get the regulations changed. Unfortunately, the marine industry, as well as others, have to see a body count before there is change.

I wonder how that would look in practice. How far do you go at theoretical risk mitigation, running up costs and design compromise for other functions in the regulatory process, before it's enough? There will always be safety issues...what's good enough?

Not easy questions in the wake of these deaths.

Apologies if I missed it; the number of posts in threads on the Conception incident grows fast. Is there presently a dive boat, or one with a similar function, that is very similar to the Conception in size and practical usage, yet has these theoretical advances that would 'make everyone happy,' so to speak?

Any thoughts on what it costs have have a boat like the Conception built, and how much extra cost this might add?

I keep thinking of a boat designer in a room with @Wookie , Coast Guard inspectors, some relevant material science/engineer types and so on, and the designer throws up a proposed schematic and asks 'What could go seriously wrong here?' Every time someone raises an issue, they 'fix' it with a design change.

Where do they stop? What does this boat look like? Can industry service providers afford this boat?

I ask because whatever changes we expect to see going forward have to be practically implementable.

Richard.

 

[KevinNM]

I ask because whatever changes we expect to see going forward have to be practically implementable.

Well, they don't actually have to be practically implementable. That's why you don't see many small passenger vessels that go far out to sea or travel internationally. Over 12 you are a SOLAS passenger vessel and that has a host of implications on the ship design, crew and equipment. The Large Yacht Code allows up to 36 passengers without the entirety of the SOLAS passenger requirements, but it still has a lot of additional requirements, and I'm not sure ABS/USCG allow that in US vessels.

 

[drrich2]

Well, they don't actually have to be practically implementable.

What I mean is, if we're going to have live-aboards, the boats have to be cost-effective from an operational (functional, economic, business, etc...) perspective to acquire, operate and maintain while offering the service for a price enough customers will pay.

I wonder whether some customers will start discriminating against boats with below-deck housing?

Richard.

 

[KevinNM]

What I mean is, if we're going to have live-aboards, the boats have to be cost-effective from an operational (functional, economic, business, etc...) perspective to acquire, operate and maintain while offering the service for a price enough customers will pay.

Yes, that is true. What I'm saying is that there is no guarantee that there will actually be any live-aboards (diving or fishing etc) that are economically viable after the accident analysis is complete and changes to the rules are made to reflect the findings.

There are essentially no 37 passenger ocean cruise vessels, and not very many 13 ocean passenger vessels, apparently because the requirements make them economically nonviable unless you have a LOT of passengers.

 

[BRT]

What I mean is, if we're going to have live-aboards, the boats have to be cost-effective from an operational (functional, economic, business, etc...) perspective to acquire, operate and maintain while offering the service for a price enough customers will pay.

I wonder whether some customers will start discriminating against boats with below-deck housing?

Richard.

All depends on risk vs benefit. All in all your risk of death on a live aboard is lower than your risk of diving from it.

 

[rjack321]

The NTSB doesn’t have the power to subpoena the crew as witnesses?

The NTSB has subpoena powers, the crew also has a right not to incriminate themselves.

Compelling their testimony is not the way to make boats safer

 

[Lorenzoid]

The NTSB has subpoena powers, the crew also has a right not to incriminate themselves.

If they’re going to invoke their right not to incriminate themselves, what is the difference between doing that in response to an NTSB subpoena as opposed to a subpoena for a deposition in a civil case? They can still be deposed in the civil cases, right? That was the thinking behind my question. I still don’t see how this is the reason NTSB findings aren’t admissible in a civil case. Call me obtuse. I’m here to learn.

 

[JackD342]

If they’re going to invoke their right not to incriminate themselves, what is the difference between doing that in response to an NTSB subpoena as opposed to a subpoena for a deposition in a civil case? They can still be deposed in the civil cases, right? That was the thinking behind my question. I still don’t see how this is the reason NTSB findings aren’t admissible in a civil case. Call me obtuse. I’m here to learn.

I am not in the least an expert in these matters, but maybe if I describe my understanding it will be helpful.
I am interpreting this as the difference between a FACT and a FINDING. I think that specific facts that are determined from the NTSB investigation may very well be useable in other legal proceedings, but not any findings of fault, guilt, innocence, conclusions of what should have been done, etc.

 

[chillyinCanada]

It's my understanding that the NTSB has already had many hours of interviews with the survivors.