CONCEPTION FIRE - NTSB REPORT & NEW USCG RULES

[Ken Kurtis]

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?

Rear of the salon, maybe 10 feet from the step-down and out to the back deck.

 

[boulderjohn]

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.

While we can indeed fault the Coast Guard, we at the same time have to recognize that the owner and crew knew that the hatch would not be an effective exit in an emergency. That means they made a decision on their own not to do anything about it.

BTW, they did not have to enlarge it. All they had to do was take out the bunks--maybe just the top bunk--and provide a ladder instead. It might have cost them a little money on the occasions when there was a full load of passengers. Is that they reason they did not take such an obvious step?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

While we can indeed fault the Coast Guard, we at the same time have to recognize that the owner and crew knew that the hatch would not be an effective exit in an emergency. That means they made a decision on their own not to do anything about it.

I think that's neither a correct nor fair statement. I've known Glen Fritzler for y ears and while that may make me prejudiced, it also may give me a perspective others don't have. I don't believe for a second that is attitude was "We know it won't work but we don't care."

BTW, they did not have to enlarge it.

That's also not correct. One of the first things NTSB (now chair) Jennifer Homendy commented on was the size of the escape hatch and it did not meet current standards, even though it met the standards in effect when the boat was built. You're technically right that no rule required them to enlarge it to meet current standards, but that's how that issue was judged.

All they had to do was take out the bunks--maybe just the top bunk--and provide a ladder instead. It might have cost them a little money on the occasions when there was a full load of passengers. Is that they reason they did not take such an obvious step?

Obvious in hindsight, which is always 20/20, but not so at the time. The real question here is - as is required of airplanes to be certified to fly - should boats be required to do evacuation time tests from a bunkroom and even the rest of the vessel prior to certification to carry passengers?

Essentially, hatch size was a safety regulation put in that never was tested in real-world scenarios to see if it actually works or not. One good thing to come out of this tragedy is the requirement now to have bunkroom escape hatches open to a different area (usually the weather deck) than the main stairs (usually opening to the salon). That's something we as an industry never thought about before. In hindsight, it's 20/20. But certainly something that wasn't obvious at the time the regulation was crated.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think that's neither a correct nor fair statement. I've known Glen Fritzler for y ears and while that may make me prejudiced, it also may give me a perspective others don't have. I don't believe for a second that is attitude was "We know it won't work but we don't care."

I'm glad you said it about your friendship possibly prejudicing you--I have been biting my proverbial lip for some time.

Here are two simple points:

• It should have been patently obvious that the escape hatch was not adequate, whatever the Coast Guard rules may have been. A few posts ago we had first hand testimony from a former employee that the crew knew then that the hatch was inadequate.
• He chose not to do anything about it.

 

[JohnN]

While we can indeed fault the Coast Guard, we at the same time have to recognize that the owner and crew knew that the hatch would not be an effective exit in an emergency. That means they made a decision on their own not to do anything about it.

BTW, they did not have to enlarge it. All they had to do was take out the bunks--maybe just the top bunk--and provide a ladder instead. It might have cost them a little money on the occasions when there was a full load of passengers. Is that they reason they did not take such an obvious step?

I was on a dive trip on the Conception about 3 weeks prior to the fire, and coincidentally was in the berth (starboard side, aft, inner row, top) where the exit hatch was located.

I only noticed the existence of the hatch on the very last day. It was not part of any briefing

 

[boulderjohn]

I was on a dive trip on the Conception about 3 weeks prior to the fire, and coincidentally was in the berth (starboard side, aft, inner row, top) where the exit hatch was located.

I only noticed the existence of the hatch on the very last day. It was not part of any briefing

I guess the dimensions and accessibility of the hatch, or if it opened to a safe exit area, don't matter much if you don't know it's there.

 

[KevinNM]

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."

They could have asked “Where is the legally required second exit from the bridge deck?” And they didn’t ask that either.

 

[Ayisha]

Victims in deadly Conception fire were awake, tried to escape burning boat, report says

Video recovered from one of the victim's cellphones shows the divers were awake and trying to get off the burning boat, according to a report.

abc7.com

...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.

I guess it depends what the video showed of passengers "trying" to escape the bunkroom.

If none of them apparently knew where to find or how to open or get through the escape hatch, that alludes to an inadequate safety briefing, which has been a theme throughout the Conception threads.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

If none of them apparently knew where to find or how to open or get through the escape hatch, that alludes to an inadequate safety briefing, which has been a theme throughout the Conception threads.

That's all speculation. The crew testimony was that the video was playing and everyone was supposed to watch it. (I'm not suggesting this was optimal, just restating the evidence presented.) There is no evidence one way or the other as to whether any or all of the people watched the video, knew where the escape hatch was, or tried to use it. The speculation is that, if they did try to use it, it was blocked bu fire because if anyone did try to use it and it wasn't blocked, they would have made it out to the back deck. Whether they didn't use it because it was blocked or they never tried because they didn't know about it is impossible to determine either way based on the facts known from the investigation.

 

[Hatul]

I think it says a lot when we need regulations to keep us safe. You'd think people could use some logic and common sense.