Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you remember if there was a smoke detector in the berthing compartment?
it passed inspection, there would have been. It would have to been remote alarmed. Think basic home style
 
It took me several hours to read these 987 posts. I have concluded that if everyone had read the posts before posting like seagulls this thread would have a LOT less posts.
Yes. Thank you.

FWIW, this is a horrific tragedy. Such an event stimulates a lot of emotions. And, many people feel the need to DO something. Anything. I am certain there is a feeling of helplessness shared by many who can only read about the events and confront their own emotions. Posting in the thread may represent the only way they feel they can DO anything. Unfortunately, that motivation also fosters a tendency to approach the situation from the perspective of their own 'pet peeves', be it safety procedures, space, crew competence, vessel age, charter costs, whatever, rather than the facts as we know them at this point.

As the emotions dissipate, and more details emerge, there should be more clarity of thought, and awareness of information.

ADDENDUM: A thoughtful perspective on this issue can be found in another, related thread, in the California forum: A personal perspective on California Live-aboards.
 
it passed inspection, there would have been. It would have to been remote alarmed. Think basic home style
Not quite, almost.


§ 181.405 Spaces required to have fire detection systems.
(a) The following spaces must be equipped with a fire detection and alarm system of an approved type installed in accordance with 46 CFR part 76, except when a fixed-gas fire extinguishing system that is capable of automatic discharge upon heat detection is installed or when the space is manned:

(1) A space containing propulsion machinery.

(2) A space containing an internal combustion engine of more than 50 hp.

(3) A space containing an oil-fired boiler.

(4) A space containing machinery powered by gasoline or any other fuels having a flash point of 43.3 °C (110 °F) or lower.

(5) A space containing a fuel tank for gasoline or any other fuel having a flash point of 43.3 °C (110 °F) or lower.

(b) All griddles, broilers, and deep fat fryers must be fitted with a grease extraction hood in compliance with § 181.425.

(c) Each overnight accommodation space on a vessel with overnight accommodations for passengers must be fitted with an independent modular smoke detection and alarm unit in compliance with § 181.450.

(d) An enclosed vehicle space must be fitted with an automatic sprinkler system that meets the requirements of 46 CFR part 76 and a fire detection and alarm system of an approved type that is installed in accordance with 46 CFR part 76.

(e) A partially enclosed vehicle space must be fitted with a manual sprinkler system that meets the requirements of 46 CFR part 76.

§ 181.450 Independent modular smoke detecting units.
(a) An independent modular smoke detecting unit must:

(1) Meet UL 217 (incorporated by reference, see 46 CFR 175.600) and be listed as a “Single Station Smoke detector - Also suitable for use in Recreational Vehicles,” or other standard specified by the Commandant;

(2) Contain an independent power source; and

(3) Alarm on low power.

So it doesn't need to be supervised, or alarm remotely.
 
Under perfect conditions, starting in their bunks, I don't think that all ~33 people could get out through this escape hatch in under 3-4 minutes, . Add to the situation, some might have been overweight and out of shape and others might not have the strength to pull themselves out by themselves and you get some would not get out period, without assistance.

I keep coming back to the exit out of the cabinet and what appears to me to be a 2X2 hatch - most adults would have to haul themselves out to an initial prone position as they couldn't exit standing. That costs time.
 
As for a criminal investigation, with this many fatalities, how could there not be a criminal investigation?

Quick question, and I honestly don't mean this in a snarky way, but why does the death toll indicate to you (and others ho have said similar) that there should be a criminal investigation? If there is a plane or bus crash with mass casualties, people don't immediately jump "something criminal may have happened, so we need to investigate criminally". Just curious as to why this is different?

And again, not trying to be confrontational or sarcastic, I'm just curious about that dynamic that has played out over the last few days.
 
Quick question, and I honestly don't mean this in a snarky way, but why does the death toll indicate to you (and others ho have said similar) that there should be a criminal investigation? If there is a plane or bus crash with mass casualties, people don't immediately jump "something criminal may have happened, so we need to investigate criminally". Just curious as to why this is different?

And again, not trying to be confrontational or sarcastic, I'm just curious about that dynamic that has played out over the last few days.
You always should collect all the evidence as if there is going to be a murder trial. Because you won't know what happened for a while and trying to collect evidence months later doesn't work well.
 
Quick question, and I honestly don't mean this in a snarky way, but why does the death toll indicate to you (and others ho have said similar) that there should be a criminal investigation? If there is a plane or bus crash with mass casualties, people don't immediately jump "something criminal may have happened, so we need to investigate criminally". Just curious as to why this is different?

And again, not trying to be confrontational or sarcastic, I'm just curious about that dynamic that has played out over the last few days.

I assume that for investigative bureaucracies looking at a mass death event, they initiate their work with every possibility on the table and need to have police muscle to assure that records and testimony are delivered in an honest fashion.

Note that the FBI has a specialty dive unit which is investigating this now.
 
Is ASTM F1166 a consideration on this size of vessel?

ASTM F1166: Standard Practice for Human Engineering Design for Marine Systems, Equipment, and Facilities

I ask because I have never worked on a vessel this small. ASTM are not like CFR’s (Codes of Federal Regulations). I assume the ASTM would have to be invoked by a CFR (to be a USCG requirement). Or invoked by ABS (American Bureau of Shipping)standards, if this was an ABS certified vessel. It is probably not an ABS vessel.


When I see the picture below of the alternate escape route, I cringe. To me this violates section 18.9.3 of ASTM F1166 (and several other sections describing minimum requirements for a proper escape route).


18.9.3 Dual Escape Routes—At least two separate escape

routes shall be provided from any space in which ten or more

persons occupy at any one time. The routes should be located

in opposite corners and sides of the space. Stairs should be

used for escape routes but one of the escape routes may be via

a vertical ladder in any one space if all stair emergency escape

routes are not feasible.


I notice a lot of talk about the escape hatch, but the entire escape route has to be treated as a system.

My concerns were probably not critical in this situation since both escape routes ended in the same space.

Note: I normally work on Navy vessels were Mil-Std-1472 (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DESIGN CRITERIA STANDARD, HUMAN ENGINEERING), but I have worked on a few vessels were the ASTM F1166 is the guiding document for human engineering. I have also worked some in the area of Damage Control (DC) and when I have asked on LOB vessel what did they have for fire suppression plan or progressive flooding mitigation plan it always bothered me the blank stares I got from some of the crew.

I am just asking since I don’t know much about regulations on this types of vessels.




s%3A%2F%2Fewscripps.brightspotcdn.com%2Fc9%2Fb2%2F95aac2494e0d875df93f5bdb235a%2F20190903-104457.jpg
[/quote]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom