Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[KevinNM]

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.

That may be where they will have to go. In retrospect, yeah, some of the common practices of even the best operators are looking a bit questionable.

 

[Scared Silly]

That may be where they will have to go. In retrospect, yeah, some of the common practices of even the best operators are looking a bit questionable.

With hindsight ... which as has been said how we learn. And even then it can take multiple incidents before changes are made.

 

[Mr. Manfrenjensenden]

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.

At this point there isn't much we can state for certain about what happened here, but since this event has now happened, one thing we can state for certain that if nothing at all is changed, there is a non-zero probability of it happening again. Would changing the configuration of the escape hatch have altered the outcome here? Seems unlikely, but we don't know. At a minimum, it seems like this discussion should be on the table.

 

[rjack321]

At this point there isn't much we can state for certain about what happened here, but since this event has now happened, one thing we can state for certain that if nothing at all is changed, there is a non-zero probability of it happening again. Would changing the configuration of the escape hatch have altered the outcome here? Seems unlikely, but we don't know. At a minimum, it seems like this discussion should be on the table.

There will ALWAYS be a risk of catastrophic fire aboard a vessel. This is like saying boats should never sink.

 

[KevinNM]

With hindsight ... which as has been said how we learn. And even then it can take multiple incidents before changes are made.

Most Marine and Air safety regulations are written in blood. Starting largely with the Titanic disaster, which resulted in the SOLAS convention

 

[DelrayDM]

I see so many comments about batteries being charged.

Lithium batteries very often begin burning/smoldering when NOT being charged.

Read this link below and note that on June 2, 2019 a 1,200 Whr battery "caught fire and re-ignited several times" (That is a HUGE battery) but my point on that date is not permitted to ship lithium-ion batteries by US Postal mail and the shipper decided to lie about the contents.

https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/media/Battery_incident_chart.pdf

 

[shoredivr]

The MV Discovery operating on Lake Superior has 4 single bunks forwards with a hatch in the middle of them (no ladder), main access is through the salon
2 temporary bunks set up in the salon when its full (6 passengers)
2 crew bunks in the wheelhouse
https://isleroyalecharters.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/6EB62DD1-D3AC-48B6-B636-583B5068307C.jpeg

In addition to the hatch above the single bunks there are 5 or 6 spiral stairs leading from the salon to the wheelhouse. 2 doors port and starboard exiting the wheelhouse. A door exiting the salon aft. There's a lot of exits which = a lot of ways for water to get in as well. None of those doors nor the hatch are watertight and it would be pretty impractical to make them watertight.

I was just out with Ryan in July. He runs a fabulous ship.

Waves on Lake Superior (like any of the Great Lakes) can get pretty big, and storms are frequent enough. The hatches/layout for the Discovery work just fine for the sea conditions.

 

[scubadada]

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?

I'm also surprised this has not come up before. Many divers with limitations in mobility or strength might not be able to negotiate this emergency hatch. Heck, many people probably could not climb the ladder and exit the hatch on the Nautilus Explorer that I have referenced earlier. How do these boats deal with divers with any disability?

 

[Mr. Manfrenjensenden]

There will ALWAYS be a risk of catastrophic fire aboard a vessel. This is like saying boats should never sink.

No, not at all what I'm saying. Previous disasters have led to the implementation of safety protocols that have saved lives. My point is that the idea that a safety hatch should serve the passengers who are actually there and need to use it may be a good thing to think about.

 

[USdiver1]

Scuba diving, and how those who participate in it, has changed much since the days of using a double hose regulator, single 72 cu.ft. steel cylinder with k-valve attached via a cotton harness, rubber mask, fins, wet suit, dive watch and depth gauge encompassed the pinnacle of the sport.
As diving equipment changed with the addition of much safety related additional gear [BCD, single hose regulator with Octo., SPG, LP hose inflation of the BCD, computer, silicone and graphite based masks, fins and snorkels, etc.] we have evolved our training and diving practices to accept and require most of these changes, which we regard as advances. Perhaps we are now a bit too dependent upon our electronic devises, with divers video recording every dive, and uploading those dives to the internet within minutes of having completed them.
Our present "selfie" society has changed markedly since the launching of the Conception nearly 40 years ago. We may need to re-evaluate how we dive, and just as importantly, how we operate immediately post-dive, once we have returned to the boat. I do not know it restricting use of electronics while at sea or requiring upgrades to vessels used for LOB services is the solution. Probably a bit of both in the end will result in a safer solution for all involved in our sport.