CONCEPTION FIRE - NTSB REPORT & NEW USCG RULES

[davehicks]

Good point but two other points worth remembering:
1. Those hatches and sizes were mandated by USCG, built to those specs, and examined/approved each year during annual inspection.
2. The hatches are still wider than the typical airline seat (which is 18").

Another good point to remember is that everyone who tried to use these hatches died. Regardless of the spec, a fire was allowed to rage out of control before anyone raised an alarm. Making apologies for the captain and crews' failure does not help anyone. The previous regs were bad, many not enforced despite clear violations, and hopefully this incident raises the bar and prevents a repeat.

 

[Wookie]

I think those might be sub-chapter H. (Wookie can probably comment better on this than I can.) I think the reality is that 99% of the dive boats will be sub-chapter T boats so will fall under these new regs.

I'm sorry I'm late to the show. I had 2 crewmembers on Conception, and one researcher that I'd had on Spree many times, so I don't much participate in the Conception threads anymore unless someone calls me. Indeed, Ken is correct, if you go over 100 tons, you fall out of Subchapter T and into Subchapter H (of 46 CFR). The rules, especially regarding fire protection are far more onerous for an H vessel than a T vessel.

Wookie once explained to me on his boat that gross tonage is highly manipulatable. And it isn’t a bug, it is a feature of how the whole gross tonnage system works. IIIRC, he had an entire bulkhead to the dining area that was technically removable that somehow meant that a bunch of the boat didn’t count for gross tonnage.

Your memory is excellent. The opening is called a "Tonnage Opening" or "Tonnage Door". Since Conception was purpose built, it likely did not have a tonnage door, although IIRC it had double opening salon doors instead of watertight doors opening from the back, so it would have had a tonnage opening in either case.

32" is a common minimum width requirement in the ADA standards for things like doors (404.2.3) and passages (403.5.1). I would be surprised if those standards are directly applicable here, but if you were looking for a standard that was larger than the old it would make sense to borrow one that's already in general use and has been vetted for limited mobility situations.

You might find it interesting to note that one of the things that falling under Subchapter T gains you is a complete exemption from any rules of ADA, which larger (More tonnage) vessels are required to follow.

 

[Wookie]

The previous regs were bad, many not enforced despite clear violations, and hopefully this incident raises the bar and prevents a repeat.

It's a common saying among ship captains and those who sail that Coast Guard and IMO safety regulations are written in blood. In fact, the SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) came about because of the Titanic, and her shortage of lifeboats.

 

[boulderjohn]

Some people are talking about the 32" opening as if it is like walking through a 32" door. I have not reread all the details to refresh my memory, but IIRC, that escape hatch was located a couple feet above a third bunk. Someone wanting to escape from it would have to crawl up over the edge of that bunk and then twist the body to get through it. It was by no means a straight shot.

When I read the description of that escape hatch, my immediate thought was that there was no way in Hell people would be able to get through that to escape a fire.

My sense is that the company knew damn well that the hatch was useless in an escape and they are saying, "OK, if they need to get out there, everyone will die, but hey! It meets USCG requirements, so we're cool!"

 

[drrich2]

Some people are talking about the 32" opening as if it is like walking through a 32" door. I have not reread all the details to refresh my memory, but IIRC, that escape hatch was located a couple feet above a third bunk. Someone wanting to escape from it would have to crawl up over the edge of that bunk and then twist the body to get through it. It was by no means a straight shot.

If the measurements and setup are known, it seems it wouldn't be terribly difficult for a group to recreate a facsimile of this situation; 2 (or 3?) bunk beds, not a lot of head room over them IIRC, with a hatch in the ceiling above the top bunk, a 32" opening. We might not have the original opening door/hatch 'design' (wonder how hard it was to open?), but even if it were just a hole, take a dozen randomly chosen people (which I figure would include some of us hefty folks), and ask them to climb up there, get on that top bunk, and get up through that escape hatch.

Seems like that'd be a very interesting recreation video to make, should this all end up in a courtroom (as appears likely).

Remind me...where did the 2nd exit hatch from the bunk room open to? Was it just a different part of the salon? Wonder how many feet away from the main stairway exit?

P.S.: I ran a 32 inch length out of a tape measure and compared it to my 'dimensions' - I should be able to get through such a portal. But BoulderJohn made a great point - how much space there was between the bunk top and the hatch is a big deal.

 

[drrich2]

Note: I had a trip on the Vision, never the Conception, back in August 2016. I have a few shots from the Vision's bunk room. IIRC from prior discussions and what I've read, these 2 boats were very similar; the Vision was slightly larger and had a water maker. I'm sharing these in case it might help get some idea of the spacing of these bunks. Apologies if the Conception situation was different; I don't want to misrepresent anything.

@Ken Kurtis do you think these photos are very similar to the Conception bunk room?

 

[Bigbella]

Another good point to remember is that everyone who tried to use these hatches died. Regardless of the spec, a fire was allowed to rage out of control before anyone raised an alarm. Making apologies for the captain and crews' failure does not help anyone. The previous regs were bad, many not enforced despite clear violations, and hopefully this incident raises the bar and prevents a repeat.

That's a bit academic, since that bunk hatch, opened into the "salon" and galley, which, apparently, had been the source of the fire, whether through NiCad batteries -- or what have you.

I am of average height and weight, as I was then; but it was a colossal pain in the ass to get through that hatch, which we did on a few occasions, during maintenance, clean-up, etc; and there were a couple of crew members, at the time, and certainly divers, who were entirely incapable of fitting through, even if their lives depended upon it . . .

 

[Ken Kurtis]

That airline seat figure is awfully cute, though such a spurious argument, since its size can easily vary by lifting a single arm armrest, with one's little finger.

USCG? Fair enough; but as an aside, I know of more than a few "coasties" who wouldn't have a chance of getting their prodigious asses through that hatch . . .

Not disputing your underlying premise of large people. Simply pointing out that it's very easy to cast the horrible accident simply as a failure of the operator while totally overlooking the lack and failure of the regulatory oversight that's supposed to help keep us safe.

As a simple example, had the USCG said during one of their inspections, "You have to enlarge the hatch size to meet currents specs, " do you for one second think the reply would have been, "No, we're not doing that."

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Ken Kurtis, do you think these photos are very similar to the Conception bunk room?

I think the bunkrooms were identical, certainly with the general bunk layout as depicted in your photos.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Another good point to remember is that everyone who tried to use these hatches died.

I'm not trying to nitpick but not exactly. We don't know if ANYONE tried to use the hatches. If the hatches were blocked by fire -in other words, you opened the hatch and were met by a wall of flames - the size was irrelevant. What IS fact is that everyone down below died. But there's no evidence one way or the other to illustrate what role the escape hatch did or did not play.