Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Akimbo]

This is actually something that's been bothering me as well. The only thing I've seen are some statements that there had been a night dive. There has been no definitive statement I'm aware of, that it was the crew making that night dive after the passengers had retired for the night. Yet many posts have made that assumption with negative connotations. Whereas my assumption is that the statement refers to the passengers having made a night dive that evening....no time for the dive has ever been given.

I can’t go back and find it, too many posts. But my recollection is that I twice read quotes saying the customers had done a night dive, and only later the idea of the crew doing a night dive crept in as “I thought I heard” rather than an actual knowledgeable assertion. Nothing to say both couldn’t have occurred.

Pretty standard procedure. These boats do a LOT of night dives during lobster season*.

* California recreational lobster season runs from the Saturday preceding the first Wednesday in October through the first Wednesday after the 15th of March.

 

[Tesibria]

I've been following the news and this thread from the beginning, and I think the mods have done an excellent job managing this thread. The recaps have been particularly useful.

It seems to me that we have reached the point of diminishing returns from further speculation until more information is learned.

We know for certain that a fire on the boat prevented the escape of all 34 people who were in the passenger berth below. We can infer with good confidence that the inability of even a single person from below to escape suggests that their escape was made impossible by some circumstance. With similar confidence, we can say that this must have been due to one of three circumstances or a combination of them:

• toxic gases or a lack of oxygen that quickly incapacitated those below, possibly even before they awoke,
• rapid growth of the fire to such an extent that both possible exits were impassible at the earliest moment of detection by those below, or
• an explosion (established as unlikely based on the lack of explosive materials in the relevant portions of the boat).

In the current absence of forensic information about where the fire began and how it burned, we are unable to determine which scenario is accurate, though analysis of possible causes has been informative to this question. There seems to be consensus that the most likely cause of the fire was electrical in nature, either battery failure, defective/degraded wiring, or both. But again, in the current absence of forensic information we are unable to determine which scenario is accurate.

IMHO, we are now left to wait for additional information from the NTSB. Without it, I think further speculation is unlikely to be useful, though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I submit that bullet two contains speculation on two issues that may be material and about which we do not yet have sufficient evidence to draw such conclusion:

(1) We do NOT know how quickly the fire burned from its inception. We have information only on how quickly it burned from moment of crew detection - i.e., from moment of the "bump" reportedly heard by the crewmember.

And that is -- potentially -- a major major issue.

The bump heard by the crewmember could have been the fire starting. That bump ALSO could have been the fire (or heat from smoldering fire) reaching a battery or something else that exploded. That bump COULD have been something else. We do not yet know.

(2) We do NOT know whether there was any actual "moment of detection" by any of those below -- and since we don't know how the fire started (or how quickly it burned prior to the bump/moment of crew detection), we certainly can't know when the earliest possible moment of detection for those below was.

The speculation may turn out to be accurate. But ... it's speculation.

 

[DanBMW]

I hope divers take some of these lessons home since we all live in infernos that are just waiting to happen.

• There's still knob & tube wiring out there
• People smoke in bed
• Charge huge lithium batteries in their attached garage... right next to a tank of gasoline, cans of paint thinner, and a propane bottle for the BBQ
• Don't have fire extinguishers in their kitchens
• Don't have code compliant smoke detectors in their grandfathered residences
• Arrange headboards that partially block emergency egress windows
• Apply for variances so they don't have to install fire sprinklers
• Never consider fire resistance of home furnishings
• Have never inspected their dryer vents
• Have no idea that oily rags and paper towels can spontaneously combust
• Still use extension cords that their puppies chewed on
• Cut the ground prong off power plugs
• Stack firewood against their house

All true, but in reality land based fire departments only spend about 5% of their time putting out fires. The other 95% of the time is EMS related.

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

I submit that bullet two contains speculation on two issues that may be material and about which we do not yet have sufficient evidence to draw such conclusion:

(1) We do NOT know how quickly the fire burned from its inception. We have information only on how quickly it burned from moment of crew detection - i.e., from moment of the "bump" reportedly heard by the crewmember.

And that is -- potentially -- a major major issue.

The bump heard by the crewmember could have been the fire starting. That bump ALSO could have been the fire (or heat from smoldering fire) reaching a battery or something else that exploded. That bump COULD have been something else. We do not yet know.

(2) We do NOT know whether there was any actual "moment of detection" by any of those below -- and since we don't know how the fire started (or how quickly it burned prior to the bump/moment of crew detection), we certainly can't know when the earliest possible moment of detection for those below was.

The speculation may turn out to be accurate. But ... it's speculation.

I don't disagree. All three of the bullet points are speculation--it's possible (likely even) that one or more is not accurate--but it seems from what we know that one or more of them must be correct. Regarding the moment of detection, I meant only that if the first bullet point is not accurate (i.e., the passengers were not incapacitated), then one would have to assume that they at some point detected the fire.

 

[lexvil]

I submit that bullet two contains speculation on two issues that may be material and about which we do not yet have sufficient evidence to draw such conclusion:

(1) We do NOT know how quickly the fire burned from its inception. We have information only on how quickly it burned from moment of crew detection - i.e., from moment of the "bump" reportedly heard by the crewmember.

And that is -- potentially -- a major major issue.

The bump heard by the crewmember could have been the fire starting. That bump ALSO could have been the fire (or heat from smoldering fire) reaching a battery or something else that exploded. That bump COULD have been something else. We do not yet know.

(2) We do NOT know whether there was any actual "moment of detection" by any of those below -- and since we don't know how the fire started (or how quickly it burned prior to the bump/moment of crew detection), we certainly can't know when the earliest possible moment of detection for those below was.

The speculation may turn out to be accurate. But ... it's speculation.

Someone else mentioned something similar but just a point about fire and it’s flashing over. I burn oak as my primary heat source, when the house is warm and it’s bed time I bank down the fire by shutting off the air supply vent in the airtight stove, as the fire dies down the heat flow out of the stack stops or slows way down, if there is a good bank of coals air will come back down the stack (15ft) and allow the gasses to reignite, the sound is very distinctive. From another room it could be described as a bump or thump, sometimes I just cut in a little air to stop this process to let the fire burn down on its own.

This only relates to this thread in that a smoldering fire will make a distinctive sound once it gets the O2 it needs. I only relate this because some of us have little to no experience with with fire in an enclosed space, it may serve to offer an explanation for the bump described and it may (probably) have nothing to do with it.

 

[Storker]

Given that both egress points may be unusable due to fire or other reasons, develop an option that bypasses both of those points.

Uh, like cutting a hole in the hull below the waterline?

 

[johndiver999]

This is actually something that's been bothering me as well. The only thing I've seen are some statements that there had been a night dive. There has been no definitive statement I'm aware of, that it was the crew making that night dive after the passengers had retired for the night. Yet many posts have made that assumption with negative connotations. Whereas my assumption is that the statement refers to the passengers having made a night dive that evening....no time for the dive has ever been given.

If the crew made a night dive after passengers were asleep
doesn’t bother me at all. Perhaps it was sop and as
long as sufficient crew remain on board, I see no problem.’ I just think, if true, it could be useful information- maybe? it would help to verify that there was no fire or smoke at the time of their return. Could help to verify timelines etc.

 

[scubadada]

I read somewhere else that the Conception crew was doing a night dive right before the fire. Has that been brought up on this thread? Hard to tell with so many pages and so many posts.

Night dives are usually over hours before the time of the fire.

I’ve known crews to make a midnight night dive after the pax are in bed. By the time the dive is over, rinsed off, tanks filled, it could easily be 2:30.

I don’t night dive, so I always stayed on the boat.

Someone mentioned here that some member(s) of the crew did a very late night dive, has that been verified at all? If true, I wonder if the crew would have typically begun charging their lights as well right after the dive.

Not sure if that is relevant, but it seems like we have only questions and few answers and every little bit of
information might be useful to the right people.

This is actually something that's been bothering me as well. The only thing I've seen are some statements that there had been a night dive. There has been no definitive statement I'm aware of, that it was the crew making that night dive after the passengers had retired for the night. Yet many posts have made that assumption with negative connotations. Whereas my assumption is that the statement refers to the passengers having made a night dive that evening....no time for the dive has ever been given.

I can’t go back and find it, too many posts. But my recollection is that I twice read quotes saying the customers had done a night dive, and only later the idea of the crew doing a night dive crept in as “I thought I heard” rather than an actual knowledgeable assertion. Nothing to say both couldn’t have occurred.

I believe this is the relevant string of posts. Appears to all go back to the post by @Slate, #1491, perhaps they can tell us where this came from. Hardly credible information at this point. Maybe it will come out in the preliminary report by the NTSB, which may be out within a week.

Helpful hint: the search function is your friend, use it

 

[Akimbo]

All true, but in reality land based fire departments only spend about 5% of their time putting out fires. The other 95% of the time is EMS related.

Also true. I'm sure the percentage is even lower for the Coast Guard, but we are all very concerned over this fire -- as we should be.

 

[Dirty Mac]

If the crew made a night dive after passengers were asleep
doesn’t bother me at all. Perhaps it was sop and as
long as sufficient crew remain on board, I see no problem.’ I just think, if true, it could be useful information- maybe? it would help to verify that there was no fire or smoke at the time of their return. Could help to verify timelines etc.

I'm sorry....I didn't mean to imply that the crew doing a night dive in and of itself bothers me (assuming sufficient crew would be left aboard, if crew night dives are SOP). I was bothered by the assumption that it was the crew, since the only statements I've seen say that "a night dive occurred" with no mention as to by whom.