Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[shoredivr]

So regarding the rear bunks and no space between them and the last double bunks with the escape hatch, in this photo which was used before, you can see the bunks against the rear wall at the far end of this passageway....

View attachment 539079

I had the pleasure of occupying the middle of these three bunks. As you can see, only a portion of those bunks are visible. The other 1/3 or so is behind the end double bunks with the escape hatch on top. It butts up against the end bunks at the end of the other passageway, closing up any gap that would be behind the doubles. Here is a photo of the inside of the end bunk. I called it the sweatbox....

View attachment 539081

So as stated in earlier posts, the end bunks would have to be removed as well in any retrofit or redesign to accommodate a more fitting escape route.

Ugh.

 

[Bob DBF]

The first few pictures were taken from the Grape Escape sometime after the crew was pulled aboard. The ones I can find prior to someone putting water on the boat show it very badly burned, with the superstructure collapsed and holes in the side. (see below) There are no timestamps on any of these, so I don't know it it was at 3:20 or 3:30am or even later.

I must have been hallucinating, went through what I thought I saw and I'm wrong. Had some bad dreams lately though.


Bob

 

[tehach]

The first few pictures were taken from the Grape Escape sometime after the crew was pulled aboard. The ones I can find prior to someone putting water on the boat show it very badly burned, with the superstructure collapsed and holes in the side. (see below) There are no timestamps on any of these, so I don't know it it was at 3:20 or 3:30am or even later.

View attachment 539103

In this later sunrise photo of the starboard hull, the burn through appears to be most severe at the approximate location of the stairs to the passenger bunk deck.

 

[george_austin]

I sort of doubt anyone will, as it probably burned up.

He or she will not make another report reconstructing her watch that morning? No deposition? Nothing?

I think the CG will demand it

 

[SapphireMind]

it passed inspection, there would have been. It would have to been remote alarmed. Think basic home style

Boats this age didn't need to have interconnected fire alarms. In hindsight it might be a fault to be fixed.

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.

There is always going to be a criminal investigation when there are so many deaths. As someone else said, you can't turn back time to collect evidence if the assumption is that there was no fault. But if you investigate like a crime and it turns out not to be, no harm done.

I've noted the cushions in my previous comment, but it's not enough. It could have killed the divers by generating toxic fumes (polyurethane produces HCN when it burns) but the sheer volume of it is not enough to make a catastrophic fire. The way you described it this boat was built as a disaster waiting to happen, like a floating fireworks storage--how come they survived for 40 years?

I would like to point out that fire from the cushions was implicated in my uncles death in the plane accident. For those who didn't read about it, he was in a large plane that landed on a smaller plane. The accident was caused by a ATC who lost track of the smaller plane, made more likely by a lack of using certain safety equipment, a lack of lights on the plane on the ground, additionally it was found that the pilot had phenobarbital in his system, which is sedative which could have dulled his response time if he visually saw the other plane. People unbuckled after the first impact, but there was another impact. The cushions in the crew quarters did not meet the same fire standards as the cushions in the passenger cabin. There was a person who froze and refused to move at the exit door. There was an altercation at the exit.

Even with all that, only 23 out of 89 people on the larger plane (where my uncle was) died. Most died of smoke inhalation. The accident investigators said they were shocked by the number of people who died who were out of their seats and died waiting to get out.

For those wondering about how they could tell fire vs smoke vs drowning, if they had some bodies, it wouldn't be that hard - the lungs are somewhat protected. If the lungs weren't burned on the inside, it's unlikely they were awake when the bodies burned. If the lungs filled with water while the people were alive, they would have reaction to the water.

 

[Scared Silly]

In this later sunrise photo of the starboard hull, the burn through appears to be most severe at the approximate location of the stairs to the passenger bunk deck.

One can see that part of the port side is also similarly burned through in the picture you posted but also see the same in the port side pictures while it was on fire.

As such, no one here posting can say anything definitively where the most severe location was located. Except to perhaps to note that the wheel house, galley, and salon are gone. Which is pretty severe.

 

[PDX Diver]

In this later sunrise photo of the starboard hull, the burn through appears to be most severe at the approximate location of the stairs to the passenger bunk deck.

View attachment 539110

Interesting observation, and causes me to think. If it started from above the fire would first burn down the staircase, and the other side of the bunk area would be less involved, yet it doesn't seem this way.

 

[Tuttlet]

One can see that part of the port side is also similarly burned through in the picture you posted but also see the same in the port side pictures while it was on fire.

As such, no one here posting can say anything definitively where the most severe location was located. Except to perhaps to note that the wheel house, galley, and salon are gone. Which is pretty severe.

The front of half of the boat had three floors of combustibles, which would have collapsed into the hull as the floors gave way. Wherever it started, by the time it burned out, there may just have been more to burn in that section of the boat.

The back of the boat had dive gear, tanks, the engine, and I suppose a tank of diesel. Might just have been a different heat of combustion in this zone.

The crew have implied that the far forward and rear half of the boat weren't as fully involved at the beginning. Simply because they could stand in those sections.

 

[tehach]

Here is the port side after firefighting pretty much ceased.

 

[JohnnyC]

To touch on the watchman thing..... I think the articles are poorly written, and it creates confusion, allowing the reader to assume that the designated watchman was the same who "woke up" upon hearing the noise, implying it was the watchman who was asleep. If the watchman, after checking the galley, went up to the bridge, the sleeping crewman who heard the noise and discovered the fire would be a whole deck height closer to the galley. It's entirely possible that the watchman on the bridge would be unable to hear what the crewman a full deck level below heard.

The point is, there's no evidence of a sleeping watchman, and it's entirely possible that the watchman in the bridge would be less likely to hear something in the galley than the crew sleeping right above. I don't think assuming that there was no watchman, or that he was asleep, is the correct assumption in this case.