Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[george_austin]

QUOTED POST HAS BEEN DELETED BY MODERATOR

(Partial edit of post by moderator) I’ve charted Conception once and Vision I was a passenger on and I thought the fleet to be the best in the west. I saw no problems whatsoever and in a dive career spanning almost 5 decades, I’ve never heard anyone rag on Truth Aquatics fleet.

I’ve been a first responder in two fires at sea on a US Navy warship and preparedness and training is key - in every instance. A watch-stander is never assumed to be a less than vital resource whether it’s a main deck lookout while underway or a Boilerman of the Watch down in the fireroom.

 

[Luis H]

I’d guess fuel? My wife says they aren’t big enough.

I was thinking water tanks since they are not consumed. I would think that even metal tanks full of fuel (diesel), the fuel would have ignited at this temperatures and destroy the tanks. But I am just speculating.

So are those the main engines?

Thanks

 

[Luis H]

It's entirely possible I'm misinterpreting what I see, but it looks to me from those close ups like the passenger bunkroom is about the least burned part of that boat. In fact there are still distinguishable features to it. That would certainly lend credence to the idea that the fire did not start down below.

Edit: on further reflection, the area I'm looking at may be the shower room, not the bunkroom.

I do see some of the lower bunks structure. I also see the shower stall structure and the counter in the head for the sinks.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

This is going to hurt. From 46 CFR 185.410 § 185.410 Watchmen.
The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation.

This is not meant to sound like a wise-ass question Frank:
Can 0 be a "suitable number" if there are thought to be sufficient alarms &/or even fire supression systems on-board?

My point is simply that, like in many things, this seems to be written on a vague basis to avoid anyone pointing to these regs and saying, "I did exactly what I was asked." It leaves it up to the owner/master/captain of the vessel. Could they reasonably decide that no one is required to be on watch due to other systems in place, and still be in compliance with this provision?

- Ken

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Which links up with the USCG line about reading your COI in the recent notice they published.

I'd love to see the actual COI (which I cannot find on-line). Right now all we have is a USCG statement saying it's covered in the COI without seeing exactly how that's worded.

- Ken (not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, just want to see all the info/facts)

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

I do see some of the lower bunks structure. I also see the shower stall structure and the counter in the head for the sinks.

I believe that is correct. My current understanding is that what I've marked red in the picture is the engine room, orange is the bunkroom, and green is the head. (apologies for the crude markup, it should be taken as a sign only of my limited abilities, not a lack of seriousness). The only thing I feel confident saying based on this understanding is that the fire didn't start in the head

 

[Ken Kurtis]

" At the time of the fire, five crewmembers were asleep in berths behind the wheelhouse, and one crewmember was asleep in the bunkroom."

BLANKET COMMENT FOR ALL THE CREW-WAS-SLEEPING POSTS

Couple of important (IMHO) things to note:
1. NTSB report clearly says it's prelim and may contain errors.
2. Truth's lawyer has already challenged (KNX Radio) the accuracy of that statement and says he can disprove it.
3. NTSB didn't interview all 5 surviving crew, only 3.
4. Other 2 crew not interviewed at behest of USCG, which seems weird to me since NTSB is lead agency.

Not necessarily drawing conclusions here, just stating some facts. We've got a long way to go here and none of this addresses the two key issues:
• How did the fire start?
• How/why did it spread?

- Ken

 

[Wookie]

This is not meant to sound like a wise-ass question Frank:
Can 0 be a "suitable number" if there are thought to be sufficient alarms &/or even fire supression systems on-board?

My point is simply that, like in many things, this seems to be written on a vague basis to avoid anyone pointing to these regs and saying, "I did exactly what I was asked." It leaves it up to the owner/master/captain of the vessel. Could they reasonably decide that no one is required to be on watch due to other systems in place, and still be in compliance with this provision?

- Ken

Like anything, Ken, if you can successfully defend it, and get the OCMI to buy it, you can do it.

But I don’t know a single inspector or OCMI that would accept 0. I’m speaking to a number of investigators and inspectors, and they are disheartened at the lack of what they consider proper watchkeeping. Remember, they see a snapshot once a year of a vessel and any accidents. They don’t see the day to day drudgery.

 

[CaptHobbes]

Is it an illusion or does it seem that the charring appears more intense in the kitchen-stove area? Looking at the recovered remains, I see the darkest area to be the area where normally the stove would be. Of course the bunk area is totally charred but should be expected since there was only "fuel" down below: wood, plastic, etc. It is obvious that the engine area and the rear of the boat was not involved in the primary fire.

There is no kitchen-stove area in the photo. You are seeing the inside of the hull below the main deck. The galley with the stove was at the main deck level, and it's completely gone. The dark structure in the middle of the bow area you see are the shower cabins. I'm guessing the backsplashes were made of something less combustible, perhaps enameled metal--I never really paid attention--that's why they are still standing. The open space aft adjacent to them is the shower anteroom, which had a counter on the port side with two sinks. The galley stove was somewhere above this area.

There seems to be some confusion about "the engine room", possibly because of the LA Times diagrams showing the entire area aft of the bunk room as the engine room. There were actually two compartments aft of the bunk room, separated by a bulkhead you can see in the picture aligned with the leftmost cargo sling. The forward compartment is the actual engine room. I'm assuming that the two smaller structures inside, the port one with a hose draped over it, are the diesels. The rear compartment was a drying room, with a rack the port side to hang drysuits and wetsuits overnight. There was also a regular dryer, and in more recent years a Nuvair nitrox compressor.

 

[shoredivr]

Am I seeing this right? The engines, generators and compressors are gone. You would of thought those would still be there.
View attachment 539768

Remember the boat was upside down on the bottom for some time with winds and waves making recovery impossible.