Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[ChrisM]

The COI has been floating around online:

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/...5f54/conception-certificate-of-inspection.pdf

Interesting that the boat owner is the family trust. TA is just the operator.

 

[Bad Scooter]

A night watchman is a backup, not a replacement for smoke detectors.

Five crewmen, all asleep, as the sole survivors, makes for big headlines. But for those of us who actually go on boats, we want working smoke detectors, and backups of smoke detectors.

I want both. If the Conception’s anchor had loosened or broken and there were no night watchman awake to notice, this boat could have ended up breaking apart on the rocks of the nearby shore; the consequences of that could have been just as catastrophic.

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

I want both. If the Conception’s anchor had loosened or broken and there were no night watchman awake to notice, this boat could have ended up breaking apart on the rocks of the nearby shore; the consequences of that could have been just as catastrophic.

Absolutely. I'm not sure I agree that a watchman is a backup in the case of fire, but even if we accept that as true, in the case of lots of other potential hazards, the watchman is the first (and often only) line of defense.

 

[CaptHobbes]

This scenario is pretty remote because each watch stander wakes the next one up to relieve them. It would be pretty hard to explain and there is no doubt such a job-ending decision will be discovered. It is unlikely that you would get canned by telling the captain or mate that you just can't stay awake, even in the military unless you made a habit of it.

Not that remote if you change it to "screw it, I'll go catch some z's and set the alarm to wake me up to wake up the next guy."

 

[Bob DBF]

I see four scenarios where this watchstander could have fallen asleep and each one IMHO carries a different moral & legal weight:...

I understand the differences involved, but the language used in the pliminary report "five crewmembers were asleep in berths behind the wheelhouse, and one crewmember was asleep in the bunkroom" when they could have just said they were asleep, without mentioning where, unless they were sure. It's a very inflamatory statement to be used in any report.

From my experience, a man sleeping on watch would normally be quite unlikely to climb into their bunk, near the captain, to go to sleep.

We don't know which of these four applies in this case. We should also remember that there's still testimony - this doesn't excuse the sleeping - of a crew member going through the galley around 2:35AM and all is well. At 3:14AM everything's on fire. 39 minutes.

I have said from the beginning of the thread that, depending on circumstances, a fire on a fiberglass boat can be out of control fast, boggles the mind fast, even with a good watch, and firefighting. Finding the cause of the fire is of the utmost importance for every boat of this type in service.

There is no way to tell whether the watch could have helped, or not, because the watch was asleep.

Interesting that the boat owner is the family trust. TA is just the operator.

My house, and assets, are in a family trust. It keeps them out of probate, and the associated costs and red tape in Ca, which can be considerable.


Bob

 

[Cowfish Aesthetic]

I see four scenarios where this watchstander could have fallen asleep and each one IMHO carries a different moral & legal weight:
A. Watchstander is doing duty but is exhausted (remember they usually work a day shift as well onb dive boats - maybe that's part of the problem), sit down to rest in the wheelhouse and dozes off unintentionally.
B. Watchstander has been ordered to stand watch by captain and after all others are asleep says screw this and deliberately abandons duty and goes to bed.
C. Captain assigns watchstander duty as paper trail only and watchstander goes to sleep with captain's full knowledge and approval.
D. Same scenario as C but Conception owner is well aware of this practice and does not object so it's SOP for the boat.

I think there are more possible scenarios. For example,

• watch assignments weren't properly communicated,
• watch schedule had changed and someone forgot,
• person on watch thought they'd sufficiently woke up the next person and were relieved but the next person wasn't all the way up, etc.

I'm not suggesting any of these are necessarily what happened, just that there are a lot of possibilities, and some of them are more stupid than sinister. Edited to add: before someone has to say it unnecessarily, yes, I agree that whatever the reason, it is unacceptable.

 

[ChrisM]

Yep, that part is completely understandable and in no way sinister. Some people put essentially every asset in trust for that reason.

My post was sinister?

Yes you put assets into trust to protect them and avoid probate. But I assume those who entrust their homes do not also operate a third party corporation to provide potentially high risk activities from the house.

I’m sure they’ve gotten estate planning advice from someone smarter than me, but a trust can be sued like any other legal entire and all of its assets are subject to judgment. Perhaps the only asset of the family trust is the boat, or there are separate trusts for each boat. Perhaps. At any rate whatever in the trust is going to be gone soon.

Had they incorporated the individual boat as described above the only assets subject to judgment (assuming all corporate formalities were met ) is the boat.

 

[Popgun Pete]

With half an hour between someone on their feet checking the galley and the fire breaking out is there any chance that the watchman could do anything? Turn your back for 15 minutes and bouncing cells spitting flames could light up the boat like a handful of tossed incendiaries. May have been even faster than that as fumes may have incapacitated anyone below who woke up just as it happened. With no sounds of pandemonium breaking out from down below the watchman up top between rounds of the boat would have heard nothing and without windows in the hull there would be no reflected glow from fire on the surrounding water. Smoke alarms of the radioactive ionizing type detect particulates in the air, but they do not respond to gases. Most use Americium 241 which has a half-life of about 140 years, only a very tiny amount is in each detector and is virtually miniscule. I worked with that stuff in my first hospital job as a technician.

 

[Akimbo]

I just got an E-mail from a friend who is aboard the Nautilus Gallant Lady in Cabo's harbor. The departure was delayed by the owner, Mike Lever, who decided to install a fire suppression and sprinkler system below deck. He also had a contractor make an additional escape hatch for the below deck state rooms. He also wrote "The Conception has really gotten the attention of dive boat operators".

I asked him to take pictures and get specs on the sprinkler system. He should be back in a week or so.

 

[Steelyeyes]

I just got an E-mail from a friend who is aboard the Nautilus Gallant Lady in Cabo Harbor. The departure was delayed the owner, Mike Lever, decided to install a fire suppression and sprinkler system below deck. He also had a contractor make an additional escape hatch for the below deck state rooms. He also wrote "The Conception has real gotten the attention of dive boat operators".

I asked him to take pictures and get specs on the sprinkler system. He should be back in a week or so.

It's good to see someone being proactive so soon.