Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Texas Torpedo]

I know that my knowledge of them is limited.
It sounds to me like charging these in a home could be equally dangerous. Are Li-Po what was used in many of the hover boards that reportedly went up in flame? Were these cheap foreign made batteries of questional quality?

Yes, I believe most were cheap LiPo batteries in the hover-boards that flamed. There is a difference in the build / chemistry quality of LiPo batteries, but sometimes it is hard to determine which brand is coming off which line in China (etc) due to re-branding. You can learn a lot via Google, R/C forums, blogs and magazines, if anyone wants to do the research. Some are very hardy and resistant to failure, such as "Thunder Power", but they're more expensive. I've also had a lot of luck with cheaper batteries direct from China, yet they usually "puff" and lose capacity sooner.

I've slept next to a significant number of large LiPos without a care in the world. But, NEVER charging. LiPo batteries are very stable unless 'upset'. (Over-charged, shorted, or pierced)

As for a house.. If you must, put it in the oven. This might come up in a search as well, but what enlightened me on this type of battery was one of Houston's premier neurologists years ago, who my brother flew r/c with. He had a beautiful house. He left a lipo on charge after he cut himself building a model airplane. He went to a fellow Dr's house nearby to get stitched up. Came home to his beautiful home half burned to the ground. If it could happen to someone as methodical as he, well...

Again, I'm NOT saying this is what happened here. I definitely don't want to scare people.. I'm just explaining my experience re: lithium batteries. It's all GTS'able...

 

[johndiver999]

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-05/california-boat-fire-victims-crew-members-passengers?_amp=true

This article suggests there was no watchmen.

They reported the weather to be foggy that night. They were reported to be anchored close to an island and the video of the fire fighting shows very calm conditions. It appears to have been a very calm night. Watching the anchor on a dead calm night would be pretty boring - I bet.

We have heard a watch is required by law, but we have yet to hear members (who have been on the boat several times) indicate if they were aware of the boat policy toward presence of a 24-hr watch?

It should be emphasized that being unaware of something doesn't preclude it from actually taking place.

Two critical questions seem to be:

• how did it start and
• why did the fire progress to the point of being completely unmanageable before the crew was aware.

The emphasis on the escape hatch would seem more relevant to this incident if some people were able to exit via the normal stairs and others were delayed in exiting due to logistics, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Edit: was writing this post when the post above was made about a crew member being awake and actually doing chores. It seems like an important piece of the puzzle,

 

[lionfish-eater]

Condonances to all
This video is about some of the divers.
Tears in Heaven.
Forever diving.


Ignore the inaccurate reporting in the article, watch video

California Dive Boat Crew Reports Multiple Attempts To Save 34 Passengers | HuffPost

 

[Kelp Boy]

New member. I think I have read all of the posts through page 114.

I have nearly 2000 dives, all but one of them in SoCal. I have enjoyed trips on all of the Truth Aquatics boats, but mostly the Truth. I also have mine safety instruction (MSHA), including surviving a fire in confined spaces.

At least two posts mention the ventilation system for the sleeping area. You can see a panel on the cabin wall in various posts. The rounded center suggests a fan behind it. One post mentions vents at individual bunks. It appears that the Conception pulled air from somewhere (does anyone know where?) into be sleeping area. This is very different from putting the fan on the inlet side to push air into the sleeping area. Imagine that over time the vent duct has been damaged and has been holed. If the ventilation system was pulling air into the sleeping area, the air would come from both the inlet and the hole. On the other hand, if the ventilation system was pushing air into the sleeping space from somewhere on deck, it would all be fresh air, even if some air was lost OUT the hole. In the pulling scenario, the hole would remain undetected so long air surrounding the hole was unpolluted. What I am suggesting is that the ventilation system might have drawn noxious air from around the hole and pumped it into the faces of the sleeping divers. The divers might has succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning early on, perhaps without waking, thus explaining no escape. An underground fire at the Sunshine Mine (northern Idaho) in 1972 killed 91 people. One of them died before he could expel a bite of sandwich he was chewing on. Carbon monoxide is that undetectable! Was there a carbon monoxide detector in the sleeping area?

Look also at the bench seats in the salon. As I recall, the seat folded up and life preservers and other stuff was stored underneath. Could a hot battery penetrate the seat and smolder among the contents? Were the contents flammable? What I am suggesting is that a fire inside the bench seats might spread the length of the salon with little chance of detection.

 

[ChrisM]

Or, with a big battery/charging station for said chainsaw, we could be investigating that as a possible source for the fire.

Seriously, stick to something that isn't another likely source of death/injury. I could agree with alterations like removing the bunks under the emergency escape and/or direct access into the shower area and putting a second escape hatch onto the forward deck there. Do I think it would have made a difference in this case? Maybe the second option might have, but likely not much of a one.

I saw the updated account, which slightly changes my understanding of how events unfolded (I had previously thought the bridge crew jumped directly into the water and reboarded from the rear; now it appears they jumped down to the forward deck first and tried to get in through the front windows but were blocked by fire). I expect I will have to revise other assumptions as more information comes in. From the report that the flames prevented the crew from getting down the rear stairway but the bridge and foredeck were habitable at the time, it would seem the fire was present throughout the galley at the time but worst at the rear.

I still think the galley is the most likely start location for the fire. Unless a fire in the bunkroom brewed up fast enough to incapacitate everyone in short order, I would think it would have been detected by someone in time for at least one emergency exit to be used.

Yeah I also thought they jumped into the water but couldn’t figure out the broken leg. I think though that they jumped onto the dive deck since the first thing they did was try to get thru the galley doors facing the stern, couldn’t and went up the side to the front. Maybe. I’m sure this will change too

 

[ckubrick2]

The emphasis on the escape hatch would seem more relevant to this incident if some people were able to exit via the normal stairs and others were delayed in exiting due to logistics, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Not sure, like someone said before, both the exit hatch and the square feet per person to get TO the exit hatch have to be a system and not separate elements. Once the main stairs are compromised, only the fire escape system will save you. What good is to have an escape hatch but people can not get to it. This is with the benefit of hindsight of course but also with common sense. People in this case did not reach the galley, that could be due to several factors:

1. Both exits led to the same room, the galley, that was already on fire, people were trapped. This creates its own problems as to fire exit design.

2. People were overcome by toxic gas and died in their sleep.

3. People woke up to the fire, some tried to rush the stairs to the galley only to turn back inside. the others meanwhile rushed the bunk that contained the fire escape, where there were two other people already perhaps trying to get out. Let's not forget, visibility could be zero at this time, heat is all encompassing, you could be getting burned so you just push whoever is in front of you, this creates a crush effect up front on the stairs to the bunk bed everyone is desperately trying to get into. NO ONE can move now. This could be very hard on the people on the lower bunks as they would not be able to get out.



From this thread i believe that there were two issues here, a fire, which we are all tryin to figure out the all important cause, and the failure of an escape system, not just the fire escape hatch anymore…a system designed many many years ago that served well until it didn’t anymore…

 

[KevinNM]

1. Both exits led to the same room, the galley, that was already on fire, people were trapped. This creates its own problems as to fire exit design.

This appears to be inherent to how the US Coast Guard regulates boats, as they don't allow exits that pass through watertight bulkheads.

 

[Maverick17]

Seems if the watch can't see certain areas of the boat, visual monitoring, i.e. cameras with a monitor near the captain's chair, should be put in place as well as audible monitoring, i.e. more or better smoke/gas/etc detectors. Idk if the whole bunk area is a changing room, but you could at least have one camera at the stairs and one or two in the galley and salon or in strategic areas, and fairly cheaply added perhaps.

I believe that a large group of panicked people would be quite loud. Earbuds or earplugs aside, the watch and crew not being awoken by their shouts might give more weight to the idea nobody woke up. But I've not been on a lob. I've been around large unruly groups is all I'm thinking of.

 

[ijdod]

I think this report has a bit of "new" information.

"[NTSB Investigator Jennifer Homendy] said one crew member reported waking up to a noise and leaving his bunk and seeing flames from the galley. Homendy noted that he said he did not hear a smoke alarm.

He tried to get down the ladder but flames had engulfed it, Homendy said. The crew members from the bridge jumped down to the main deck and one broke a leg, Homendy said

Crew members from the bridge went to the double doors of the galley to get to the stairs and escape hatch that led to the passengers in the bunk room below deck, but that area was engulfed in flames, Homendy said. The crew members tried to get to the windows in the front, but flames kept them out, Homendy said.

I'm having some issues picturing this. The stairway from the top deck is at the rear, as is the main entrance to the salon ("double door"). If that stairway and the salon entrance is already engulfed in flames, how would you be able to jump down? Especially given that the middle of the dive deck isn't clear (engineroom cover, etc), and wind blowing front-to-back at anchor. I'm wondering if some things were 'lost in translation' in this report, as it were. The earlier reports of the crew jumping overboard, swimming to the back make more sense.

It sounds to me like charging these in a home could be equally dangerous. Are Li-Po what was used in many of the hover boards that reportedly went up in flame? Were these cheap foreign made batteries of questional quality?

Yes. One of the main problems is that you typically do not really know how and when a cell was made. A of of cells are rebranded, even by reputable vendors, and popular (and/or reputedly trustworthy) cell brands are commonly forged. Basically, think all the worst rumours of Chinese manufactoring, unfortunately.

 

[KevinNM]

I'm having some issues picturing this. The stairway from the top deck is at the rear, as is the main entrance to the salon ("double door"). If that stairway and the salon entrance is already engulfed in flames, how would you be able to jump down? Especially given that the middle of the dive deck isn't clear (engineroom cover, etc), and wind blowing front-to-back at anchor. I'm wondering if some things were 'lost in translation' in this report, as it were. The earlier reports of the crew jumping overboard, swimming to the back make more sense.

There appears to be a pathway from the dive deck to the bow on the port side. But no ladder to the upper deck or an entrance to the salon, so I can imagine they jumped to that deck to try to gain access to the salon.