Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Bob DBF]

I was referring to the pictures taking by the fire fighters and other responding ships, such as this one. There's a couple like that. There are of course many reasons why fog would or would not show, it's just that this does not strike me as particularly foggy; given that the question is if a crewman should have been able to see the fire in the fog.

No it doesn't, and considering the how close they anchored to land, I wouldn't expect them to do that on the weather side of the island unless the conditions, and mist (fog) was very mild.

The fact that the galley is behind the wheelhouse, under the upper deck, and enclosed would make it hard to impossible to see anything going on there from the wheelhouse.

That all said, for as many proper anchor watches out there, there are lots where the person worked all day and is half awake in the wheelhouse staying warm, doing something that has nothing to do with their job (book, phone, whatever).

From what I've observed on the SoCal dive boats, mainly Truth Aquatics and the Peace dive boat, the crews were quite professional, and that's from a sub sailor that spent time on surface craft as well. How well I sleep on a boat depends on what I see from the crew, and I slept well on those boats.

What a lot of people don't get is that every crewman, and it should be every man aboard, is a watchman. The crewman that checked the galley, and probably the rest of the boat, even if he wasn't the watch, in which case most likely checked in with the watch with the pertinent information on what he saw before hitting the rack. From the timeline it was fully engulfed in less than an hour from when the crewman left the galley, an hour is the usual time frame for rounds for a lot of maritime watches.

Out of habit, on-board, when I get up at night for a head call, I do a walk around the boat looking for anything unusual, before I can go back to sleep. That's when I have seen them on their rounds or exchanged waves from the fore deck to the wheelhouse. I made friends with a number of crew on the dive boats because I did take a professional attitude towards the boat as they did. May be this tragedy could get divers to become better seamen as well, not that it would have helped in this case, but avoiding an accident at sea is everyone's job. Or as an old bo's'n told me out in the middle of the Atlantic "you can't be too careful when the closest land is straight down".



Bob

 

[cerich]

From what I've observed on the SoCal dive boats, mainly Truth Aquatics and the Peace dive boat, the crews were quite professional, and that's from a sub sailor that spent time on surface craft as well. How well I sleep on a boat depends on what I see from the crew, and I slept well on those boats.

What a lot of people don't get is that every crewman, and it should be every man aboard, is a watchman. The crewman that checked the galley, and probably the rest of the boat, even if he wasn't the watch, in which case most likely checked in with the watch with the pertinent information on what he saw before hitting the rack. From the timeline it was fully engulfed in less than an hour from when the crewman left the galley, an hour is the usual time frame for rounds for a lot of maritime watches.

Out of habit, on-board, when I get up at night for a head call, I do a walk around the boat looking for anything unusual, before I can go back to sleep. That's when I have seen them on their rounds or exchanged waves from the fore deck to the wheelhouse. I made friends with a number of crew on the dive boats because I did take a professional attitude towards the boat as they did. May be this tragedy could get divers to become better seamen as well, not that it would have helped in this case, but avoiding an accident at sea is everyone's job. Or as an old bo's'n told me out in the middle of the Atlantic "you can't be too careful when the closest land is straight down".



Bob

absolutely and I was talking generalities, not in any manner speculating on how professional the crew in Conception were.

 

[KevinNM]

I deal with a couple of shipbuilders and the most common reply to why they don’t want to fix something is: “this is the way we have always done it”.

Which also means this is what the ABS and the USCG expect to see and are used to approving. Once you exit that practical safeharbor it can be very expensive to do the engineering studies and tests to show that your idea is just as good.

 

[Luis H]

You pretty much answered your own initial question - which may have been your intent. One or two people die = no national news coverage, things often get swept under the rug.. 30+ divers / people die in their (hopefully) sleep, "authorities" are going to be forced to revisit standards / rules / laws - regardless of history.

I sure hope so. Specially since published minimum standards have been around for a while.

 

[Rollin Bonz]

I deal with a couple of shipbuilders and the most common reply to why they don’t want to fix something is: “this is the way we have always done it”.

Exactly...
and
"It's never been a problem before" - and it won't be a problem... until it is

 

[bigDave]

That all said, for as many proper anchor watches out there, there are lots where the person worked all day and is half awake in the wheelhouse staying warm, doing something that has nothing to do with their job (book, phone, whatever).

So my suggestion is that the boats should have a dedicated main deck watch who walks the main deck at night and is in the salon when not walking around. We now know (at a sadly high price) that the salon must be clear for any evacuation from the sleeping quarters. This is in addition to any night/anchor watch since that is primarily done from the bridge deck. Maybe the main deck watch will periodically check the bunk area.

Even if the main deck watch dozes off, at least he/she is in the salon and likely to be awakened by anything that happens in that area.

If that means adding another crewmember and raising the per day price accordingly, I think it's a good investment in safety.

 

[Luis H]

Which also means this is what the ABS and the USCG expect to see and are used to approving. Once you exit that practical safeharbor it can be very expensive to do the engineering studies and tests to show that your idea is just as good.

My statement was just in general terms for other types of deficiencies. The vessels I normally work on have to comply with extensive ship specification and Mil standards.

Even with all the detail specifications and standards, there is always some room for interpretations and requires engineering judgement. I am not going to be out of work anytime soon.

I have worked on a few vessels under ABS rules. I was not that impressed, but they are better than...

 

[tursiops]

I deal with a couple of shipbuilders and the most common reply to why they don’t want to fix something is: “this is the way we have always done it”.

People give that same answer about any change...nothing special about shipbuilding.

 

[EricTheDood]

What can we do, TODAY, to make our diving safer, or at least less stressful?

First: How about we treat the emergency exit bunks much like airlines treat the emergency exit rows? Perhaps dive organizers can recruit volunteers willing to sleep in these bunks knowing ahead of time that this individual is mature, unlikely to panic, capable of opening the exit, and likely to assist in an evacuation where appropriate. I doubt boat operators are going to permit half a dozen divers from each trip to test the emergency escape hatch. They were not designed for that amount of use. But boat operators might be willing to provide additional instruction to a small number of individuals.

Second: A smoke and carbon monoxide warning system that is not owned, inspected, or maintained by the boat operator. How about dive organizers purchase a quality smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector; test them before each charter; bring them on all charters; demonstrate them for your customers; and install them in the sleeping area the first evening? I would feel a lot better knowing that the detection system (or at least part of it) is being maintained by someone who got more than 4 hours sleep last night. Maybe you save lives. Maybe you just make me feel better. Please obtain the boat operator’s permission. And please ask a lawyer if this might increase your legal exposure.

After this much discussion, I am sure there are other inexpensive ideas, acceptable to both operator and organizer, that can be implemented on short notice. Let’s take the lead in making this sport even safer, without waiting 12 to 18 months for the NTSB report!

My opinion is that bunk rooms are ill suited for recreational LOBs where everyone's on the same sleeping schedule, so for me it's a nonstarter.

Obviously fire is the number one thing on everyone's mind right now, but flooding/capsizing should be of equal concern. Bunk rooms remind me of lobster traps. No thanks.

 

[pauldw]

Oh, now I see. It is the system--so it must be right and just!

Or, as I put it after 2+ decades in court, It's not a justice system, it's just a system (not originally my aphoroism). It's never a surprise that people hate lawyers and insurance companies. So much here fails the smell test, that it's astounding people keep saying "well, that's how it's done." No, that's how some people do things. I'm trying hard to find a single good thing in this entire mess, and so far I guess all there is would be the Grape Escape couple stepping up. Edit: Well, and the divers who have to recover the bodies.