Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
My theory - probably wrong - is that some are so upset by the idea that that batteries may have started the fire because perhaps it puts the “blame” for the fire on passengers, in that way of thinking. The passengers brought the batteries on board the boat, plugged them in, maybe they unknowingly bought unsafe batteries or chargers.

I am NOT staying the passengers are to blame for the fire. Just saying someone MIGHT consider the idea that batteries started the fire in that light.
 
The will of the people, and even the regulatory bodies often will collide with political will and lobbies.

If any substantial changes that cost money come out of this as regards dive charters or even more so from overnight charters in general, expect more cash thrown at lobbying than would take to fix from industry. Yes, that is cynical.

1st I totally expect changes in regs as a result of this incident. Some of them will actually be needed and beneficial.

That said anyone wanna bet that some of the folks pushing more regs/restrictions will be the 1st to complain about cost increases for their boat trips?
 
I’m appreciative of all the information on this thread, especially from those who’ve dove this boat before. I have plenty of coworkers and friends who aren’t divers who had a lot of wrong ideas.
 
I believe that there are multiple actions that I would take before a similar boat takes out customers again. A few may require more work and would be considered longer term solutions but many can be done quickly. These are divided into five categories:

1) Fire prevention
2) Fire detection and alerting
3) Fire suppression
4) Emergency egress
5) Miscellaneous

1) Fire prevention: The cause is currently unknown but some believe that it could be due to battery charging. That will be assumed to be a viable cause along with two other areas for discussion. There could be several others that the boat operator would determine need to be addressed.

a. Battery charging: End all battery charging at some time prior to “lights out.” Evaluate the use of charging bags/containers to mitigate the risk of a battery failure. Evaluate limits on number of charging devices at one time. Consider removing any electrical outlets in the bunk area.

Since daytime battery charging would be expected, mitigation solutions need to consider that as well. Determine if storage of charged batteries in suitable fire proof containers is needed.

b. Sources of fire in the galley: Make the checking of heat producing appliances a two person check-off.

c. Electrical system: Have the entire system checked for integrity. Check circuit breakers for corrosion and functionality. Check all end device connections. Evaluate if replacing normal outlets/switches is prudent.

2. Fire detection and alerting: Far more detection devices may be needed throughout the boat. Consider interconnected systems as well as secondary stand alone battery operated devices. Using different sensing technologies such as photoelectric, ionization, etc and using different brands may reduce single system failures. CCTV or similar video may be useful. Systems that provide significant light output may help with alerting and egress.

3. Fire suppression: Additional fire extinguishers may be needed in places less likely to be impacted by some fires initially. Multiple units in the bunk area should be considered if not already placed there.

4. Emergency egress: The emergency hatch access seems almost worthless. Determine if something similar to stairs or a ladder would significantly reduce the exit time using the current configuration.

Given that both egress points may be unusable due to fire or other reasons, develop an option that bypasses both of those points. This may be the side of the boat or towards the bow or other pathway. Boat construction is unknown so specifics are not offered but besides the chainsaw idea I floated earlier, there are small battery operated circular saw devices that would be usable by more people with little training. The boat is expendable.

The mini circular saw like device is something like this. I saw one that would cut 2" dimensional lumber (1.5" thick)

makita-circular-saws-sh02z-64_1000.jpg


5. Miscellaneous: Smoke hoods, battery operated lights, cyalumes, personal flotation device, etc should be at each bunk. If some rechargeable batteries produce toxic gases, see if there is a respirator that protects against those gases and have those available at appropriate spots to aid in firefighting. Evaluate the reduction of easily combustible/toxic gas producing materials.

Here is an example of a smoke hood. I can't say that this is the best solution but it is a starting point. Current cost on sale is $40 USD.

Go Time Gear Fire Escape Mask

I
 
This is not meant to be a joke but who wants to sleep in close quarters with strangers who have accces to a battery powered circular saw. Going out on a boat is always going to present certain dangers, some of which are unavoidable. Some accidents or situations are going to be fatal- not so different than diving.

Any changes need to be practical. I don’t know crap about electricity, but protected charging boxes and possibly even redundant and easily accessible breaker system sounds reasonable to me.

I’m actually surprised about the stand alone alarm system.
 
Yes the stand alone alarm minimum requirement for a vessel of this size and stated purpose surprised me as well. I would think that interconnected alarms with battery backup and emergency lighting, with the alarms wired to a central panel in the wheelhouse, with visual and audible alarms would be a welcome improvement.

However, keep in mind, the NTSB can only make recommendations. The regulatory agencies of which the USCG would be governing in this case I assume, would need to adopt those recommendations and give them the force of law.
 
A saw, in expert nautical fire fighter hands, is viscerally appealing. In panicked novice hands I worry about flooding the whole compartment or breaching to an engulfed engine room. Cutting to the shower room could be a plan. Cutting a 2*3’ escape hatch may take more juice than that little saw.
 
Yes the stand alone alarm minimum requirement for a vessel of this size and stated purpose surprised me as well. I would think that interconnected alarms with battery backup and emergency lighting, with the alarms wired to a central panel in the wheelhouse, with visual and audible alarms would be a welcome improvement.

However, keep in mind, the NTSB can only make recommendations. The regulatory agencies of which the USCG would be governing in this case I assume, would need to adopt those recommendations and give them the force of law.

By "stand alone" I mean not interconnected. You can have a robust interconnected system but add in additional units of a different manufacturer, sensor system etc to reduce the chance of a single point of failure taking out the interconnected system...or somehow making it ineffective.

If my memory is correct, various reports have stated that no alarm was heard. Why is that?

Call it a redundant system if that makes more sense....because it is.

You don't have to wait on a report, a recommendation or an actual regulation change to reduce risks.
 
By "stand alone" I mean not interconnected. You can have a robust interconnected system but add in additional units of a different manufacturer, sensor system etc to reduce the chance of a single point of failure taking out the interconnected system...or somehow making it ineffective.

Call it a redundant system if that makes more sense....because it is.

You don't have to wait on a report, a recommendation or an actual regulation change to reduce risks.

Yes I understood you correctly. I should've been more clear. I also meant interconnected. I also should've added powered off of boat power with battery back up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom