Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[vlxjim]

It does state in the COI:

"A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL'S CREW SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE MASTER AS A ROVING PATROL AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER OR NOT THE VESSEL IS UNDERWAY, WHEN THE PASSENGER'S BUNKS ARE OCCUPIED."

No grey area there.

 

[lexvil]

It does state in the COI:

"A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL'S CREW SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE MASTER AS A ROVING PATROL AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER OR NOT THE VESSEL IS UNDERWAY, WHEN THE PASSENGER'S BUNKS ARE OCCUPIED."

No grey area there.

That is very clear.

 

[martincohn]

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.

2 not interviewed yet at behest of USCG....Capt and Mate maybe?

 

[Ken Kurtis]

2 not interviewed yet at behest of USCG....Capt and Mate maybe?

And just to be clear on this, I believe the "not interviewed at the behest of the USCG" was something I heard on KNX Radio and I cannot find another hard-copy source to verify that. So don't take that part of it to the bank. Yes, the interviewed 3 of 5. But there may be other reasons the other 2 weren't interviewed. (And we don't know who wasn't interviewed by NTSB.)

 

[cerich]

The COI points to a conversation between the boat and the inspector is my take.

They had concerns about berthing, and operations. I would bet a fair amount that the alongside manning with people in berths in COI was a compromise for passengers coming aboard the night before and racking without a safety briefing (as widely recounted by folks that have done trips with TA) and inspector initially wanted full manning.

That and specifically saying something that was in the regs for a watch at sea (roving watch) and alongside with passengers, is a pretty strong picture of discussion about berthing and safety. The inspector was doing all he could to make it sink in with the operator and master that while the laws were met, he had concerns and thus the specific and based on conversation with others, highly unusual COI) Obviously it hadn't.

 

[Ravenware]

This looks much worse for the crew than I think most of us hoped [edited to add: though we should all keep in mind that this is preliminary information and could change], but we now have an important data point regarding how the fire was able to grow to the point it did before being noticed.

One question I don't believe I've seen an answer to (and I apologize if it's been addressed): the report notes "[t]here were two, locally-sounding smoke detectors in the overhead of the bunkroom," but it doesn't address smoke detectors in the salon/galley. We don't know yet where the fire started, but if it started in the salon/galley, one wouldn't expect the bunkroom smoke detectors to go off for a while. Does anyone know the smoke detector situation in the salon/galley?

There was something in this thread a few days back about galley smoke alarms are not allowed; hence the heat detection alarm instead.

 

[cerich]

There was something in this thread a few days back about galley smoke alarms are not allowed; hence the heat detection alarm instead.

Not required, allowed sure.but not required as they would be going off all the time from cooking

 

[Dirty Mac]

The COI points to a conversation between the boat and the inspector is my take.

They had concerns about berthing, and operations. I would bet a fair amount that the alongside manning with people in berths in COI was a compromise for passengers coming aboard the night before and racking without a safety briefing (as widely recounted by folks that have done trips with TA) and inspector initially wanted full manning.

That and specifically saying something that was in the regs for a watch at sea (roving watch) and alongside with passengers, is a pretty strong picture of discussion about berthing and safety. The inspector was doing all he could to make it sink in with the operator and master that while the laws were met, he had concerns and thus the specific and based on conversation with others, highly unusual COI) Obviously it hadn't.

I have to admit I didn't get all this from the COI I read that has been linked in prior posts here. But I'll gladly defer to those with greater experience here, since all of my boats have been of the uninspected class.

 

[JackD342]

The COI points to a conversation between the boat and the inspector is my take.

They had concerns about berthing, and operations. I would bet a fair amount that the alongside manning with people in berths in COI was a compromise for passengers coming aboard the night before and racking without a safety briefing (as widely recounted by folks that have done trips with TA) and inspector initially wanted full manning.

That and specifically saying something that was in the regs for a watch at sea (roving watch) and alongside with passengers, is a pretty strong picture of discussion about berthing and safety. The inspector was doing all he could to make it sink in with the operator and master that while the laws were met, he had concerns and thus the specific and based on conversation with others, highly unusual COI) Obviously it hadn't.

Am I then correct in inferring that a watch is usually not required when not at sea? So they were specifically covering the “docked with occupied berths” scenario?

 

[cerich]

Am I then correct in inferring that a watch is usually not required when not at sea? So they were specifically covering the “docked with occupied berths” scenario?

On boats that size, a required watch alongside is rare