Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Larryjd1]

I am someone that actually slept in the emergency access bunk 10U on my first trip on the Vision (same layout.)

I actually exited out of the emergency opening the first morning and it was not graceful or quick by myself with daylight coming through the hatch.

I wrote about it way earlier in this thread if you want to read more about it Fire on dive boat Conception in CA (I am repeating this since people seem to be jumping in at the end.)

I will also add these following comments:

1) While the drawings make it look like there is room between the middle and back wall bunks, there is not. They are up against each other at a right angle. But you could achieve that access from both sides, and provide the ladder by removing those 6 middle bunks.

2) On my trips they were also private charter and never more than 32ish people on more, just to give everyone more overall room. I didn't arrange the charter, but assume that it was still profitable for the boat and we were only paying like $600. (As a private charter there was no markup to the divers.)

3) There was not a "ladder" type thing to make climbing up or down easy. I had to use the edges of the bunk below to get up or down. Not easy even in calm, well lit conditions. A direct ladder, even if just a single since that is the width of the current exit hatch, would be preferable.)

4) People were encouraged to bring sleeping bags to put on top of the provided mattress, blanket and pillow. I also brought my own pillow plus the bunks were long enough that could use the end to store clothes, etc. So if someone was charging in their bunk and maybe it overheated under a blanket or whatever, there was plenty of items to fuel it.

I should have added to my last post that my same group was scheduled to be on the Vision this weekend. And at some point on Monday one of the participants said they had contacted Truth Aquatics and the trip was still on. I was surprised by that, and whether that was actually true at the time, as we all know they have suspended all operations for at least a number of weeks.

But it did certainly raise in my mind whether or not I would go.

Having been in those bunks you can't help but imagine what those people went through and what might you have done in various scenarios. It's obvious now that there are some improvements that could and should be made to the emergency exit and to battery charging rules and restrictions - even if they weren't the actual cause in this particular case.

I am old enough that my mother brought me home from the hospital while she held me in her arms. No car seat. Not even her or my father wearing seat belts. Things change and improve, but today that would be considered criminal. And that's the way I look at what is happening now.

Before it was officially canceled, I had decided in my mind that I would not have gone. Not because I didn't have complete faith and confidence in Truth Aquatics and the crew. In fact, even going out in its current configuration I would imagine it would have been the safest trip with all of the awareness, but more because with all that had happened things would be too fresh to make it the fun trip it always was.

I bring this up because I see articles pondering criminal acts and even the NTSB person saying that the emergency exit wasn't adequate. I think we all agree on that. But the people who created the regulations thought that was fine, as did the ones who inspected it and also the thousands who went through the safety briefings they were adamant about (even waiting for all to be present when some would be late to the appointed start.)

Times and procedures change and improve, so let's not blame people for doing what is considered correct and prudent at that time.

 

[Scuba-74]

I didn't read the thread, but has anyone thought that a battery/charger might have started this fire?

Absolutely no one! 1046 posts have gone buy, and you are the 1st one to suggest it!

 

[Ravenware]

I didn't read the thread, but has anyone thought that a battery/charger might have started this fire?

Yes, there are many of us who suspect that. Imagine a table in the dining room loaded with charging dive computers, camera batteries, phones, tablets, etc. All rechargeable lith, there is a reason planes ask that question. They can explode, and IMHO it would only take one exploding to catch all the others on fire.

 

[Mr. Manfrenjensenden]

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.

In all the discussion about the (in)adequacy of the escape hatch, I'm surprised this is the first time passenger fitness has come up. Multiple people have said this configuration was within the relevant regulations/law, but our sport tends to skew older for a variety of reasons, including that it's a great activity to do when various body parts can no longer handle the stresses of other sports or activities. It's also a recreational sport that I've seen younger people who were in lousy physical shape participate in perfectly easily. When those relevant regulations/laws were written, was the modern day diver demographic considered? The answer surely must be no. My point is that a design the Coast Guard will certify annually and may be perfectly fine for certain groups of boat passengers is much less likely to be the case for a dive boat in 2019. I've been on liveaboards with divers whom I can 100% guarantee wouldn't be able to exit through that hatch even in the most optimal of situations. Going forward, perhaps a relevant question is: Is it unreasonable that a boat that welcomes as customers the less mobile and physically able make some safety concessions to ensure the safety of all its passengers?

 

[KevinNM]

That back deck is also where the second hatch is located?

No. That would apparently require going through the watertight bulkhead into the engine room and that isn't allowed by regulations. It opens into the same room as the stairs.

However having a hatch opening up onto the main deck isn't trivial thing. In bad weather you can get significant water on the main deck, and putting several feet of seawater into the passenger bething would not just be uncomfortable, it could sink or capsize the boat.

 

[Lorenzoid]

In all the discussion about the (in)adequacy of the escape hatch, I'm surprised this is the first time passenger fitness has come up. Multiple people have said this configuration was within the relevant regulations/law, but our sport tends to skew older for a variety of reasons, including that it's a great activity to do when various body parts can no longer handle the stresses of other sports or activities. It's also a recreational sport that I've seen younger people who were in lousy physical shape participate in perfectly easily. When those relevant regulations/laws were written, was the modern day diver demographic considered? The answer surely must be no. My point is that a design the Coast Guard will certify annually and may be perfectly fine for certain groups of boat passengers is much likely to be the case for a dive boat in 2019. I've been on liveaboards with divers whom I can 100% guarantee wouldn't be able to exit through that hatch even in the most optimal of situations. Going forward, perhaps a relevant question is: Is it unreasonable that a boat that welcomes as customers the less mobile and physically able make some safety concessions to ensure the safety of all its passengers?

Do we want liveaboards to be treated more like mini cruise ships? Maybe we do. You're right that the applicable regulations, as I have been reading them here as posted by others, don't seem to have in mind what we know as a "liveaboard" (or an overnight fishing charter). The regulations are based on the size of the boat, not who the passengers are and how they are accommodated.

 

[CT-Rich]

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.

As others pointed out, with no known facts, investigators would want to maintain a clear evidentiary chain. Was there criminal negligence that resulted in death? I hope not, but this is also a part of the investigation. There will almost certainly be lawsuits and families and their lawyers and lawyers for company and crew will be combing through the documents looking for evidence to support their side. Years from now, new regulations will be based on lessons learned here and those too will be challenged in court.

This thing isn’t really going to end with a bound report in an archive. This is going to live on in regulations for the charter industry, boat builders and the dive industry.

 

[Scared Silly]

Since it appears nobody got out the hatch, the ease of getting out the hatch probably was not the problem. If part of the people got out but some couldn't, then the hatch accessibility would more likely be an issue.

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.

 

[KevinNM]

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 report their death was consistent with drowning. As such, at this point one can not defiantly say no one from below escaped. One can say with definitely, that no one from below survived.

Given that the drowning bit was almost certainly prior to autopsy and long before toxicology reports could have come back I'd treat that report highly skeptically.

 

[rjack321]

I understand from the investigative standpoint why you keep that possibility in mind. What I am talking about is the tendency of peope to keep saying that something criminal or grossly negligent must have happened in this case when they don't make that assumption about a bus crash for instance. It's just odd to me that people have gone right to that - particularly in regards to the crew. As if it is impossible that it could just be a horrific and catastrophic event.

People often assume the bus driver was drunk.
And sometimes there were criminal acts even when they weren't initially obvious. At least a half dozen aircraft have crashed via "suicide by pilot" for instance

Its important to keep an open mind, especially very very early in an investigation. I am assuming good faith on the part of the crew, owners, and passengers here because I don't know anything otherwise. And honestly "that someone" who's that much of a cynic to think this was a criminal act or conspiracy already without evidence is also not going to be swayed by evidence anyway.

I would hope the FBI divers recovering the pieces they can - along with the NTSB would be more critical - and less emotional.