Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[KevinNM]

Three links where he talks about the "taxi driver" mentality.

IIRC, basically he said that the boat captain has a duty to ensure safe operation, passenger accountability, and an obligation to arrange that divers in the water on the surface in trouble can be promptly rescued. And if you don't want to do that the USCG will pull your masters license.

 

[Louisville Diver]

it is a myth, no licensed dive charter is simply a taxi and has no responsibility for anything but getting them there and back.

My take is that once you start referring to them and treating them as water taxis, they monetize the cheapness.

For example, triple tiering a revenue bunk right underneath an unmarked, unlit 2X2 emergency hatch that exits into a 3 foot tall cabinet/countertop that is an integral part of the center console.

 

[Wookie]

Shouldn’t a mayday from a commercial vessel automatically also transmit the vessel name and gps coord to the coast guard?

The system is called rescue 21, and the panic button from either VHF radio or Single Sideband goes to that system.

If it was properly programmed. There is no regulation for that vessel requiring it to be so.

 

[Aggie Diver]

seeing the picture of the secondary hatch is pretty alarming.

1. Looks to be the typical three foot gap between bunk and ceiling you see on liveaboards. Would be tough for someone to get up to and get out the hatch in the darkness and craziness of a fire (likely with smoke in their area too). I can't fathom the idea of all 30 people being expected to climb up the bunk and through the hatch in a fire situation like this.

2. Did the charter allow individuals to use that bunk for sleeping? If so, you could have had an incapacitated / unconscious person blocking the only way out.

3. More likely they didn't allow someone to sleep there, but it was used for baggage storage or camera equipment storage / setup / charging batteries. So the escape route could have still been blocked by gear.

 

[Louisville Diver]

seeing the picture of the secondary hatch is pretty alarming.

1. Looks to be the typical three foot gap between bunk and ceiling you see on liveaboards. Would be tough for someone to get up to and get out the hatch in the darkness and craziness of a fire (likely with smoke in their area too). I can't fathom the idea of all 30 people being expected to climb up the bunk and through the hatch in a fire situation like this.

2. Did the charter allow individuals to use that bunk for sleeping? If so, you could have had an incapacitated / unconscious person blocking the only way out.

3. More likely they didn't allow someone to sleep there, but it was used for baggage storage or camera equipment storage / setup / charging batteries. So the escape route could have still been blocked by gear.

Don't forget the part about "it exits into a 2X2X3 cabinet".

 

[Wookie]

I think that you are making a good point, and an even better historical analogy is the Coconaut Grove fire, in terms of longstanding impact on regulations. 492 dead. Read about it.

A lot of the building codes we have today come in some way from that, like egress doors and exit markings. Not to mention big advances in the medical and surgical management of burn injuries...

"Other avenues of escape were similarly useless; side doors had been bolted shut to prevent people from leaving without paying. A plate glass window, which could have been smashed for escape, was boarded up and unusable as an emergency exit. Other unlocked doors, like the ones in the Broadway Lounge, opened inwards, rendering them useless against the crush of people trying to escape. Fire officials would later testify that had the doors swung outwards, at least 300 lives could have been spared."

I know that we tend to get defensive in the wake of a tragedy like this, especially if we have had good experiences with the dive op before. I'm not ready to place blame yet, and we obviously don't have all of the information. But I would certainly be interested in hearing what more experienced mariners have to say about that bunk room layout. Just like dive accident analysis, this is how we learn, this is how we do better.

You've been on a boat just like it, Mike. Spree was patterned (by the original owner) after the California liveaboards. I felt that a crew of 5 couldn't properly service 34 divers, and cut back to 24. But except for the sleeping on the floor, same same.

 

[HKGuns]

If this terrible catastrophe does not change the way these boats are being operated / cramped-up with guests to the the last inch, then I dont know what else needs to happen...

But then again, two 737-MAX had to fall from the sky before anyone bothered to act....

Change what exactly? Your post wreaks of assumption of some sort of guilt without knowing any facts.

Life isn't 100 percent safe and there is nothing anyone can do to make it 100% safe. Anyone who undertakes going to sea should understand there are inherent risks.

I could go on an on about safety at sea, fighting fires at sea, I was trained well in that subject. However, this isn't the military and what works in the military doesn't necessarily translate to a boat full of vacationing guests, or the crew of such a vessel.

 

[Wookie]

seeing the picture of the secondary hatch is pretty alarming.

1. Looks to be the typical three foot gap between bunk and ceiling you see on liveaboards. Would be tough for someone to get up to and get out the hatch in the darkness and craziness of a fire (likely with smoke in their area too). I can't fathom the idea of all 30 people being expected to climb up the bunk and through the hatch in a fire situation like this.

2. Did the charter allow individuals to use that bunk for sleeping? If so, you could have had an incapacitated / unconscious person blocking the only way out.

3. More likely they didn't allow someone to sleep there, but it was used for baggage storage or camera equipment storage / setup / charging batteries. So the escape route could have still been blocked by gear.

Spree and Fling have people sleeping under that hatch in the forward berthing area.

Not in the aft.

I believe you have been on them.

 

[Louisville Diver]

This is what the emergency hatch exits to.

So easy to climb out of....

 

[KevinNM]

You've been on a boat just like it, Mike. Spree was patterned (by the original owner) after the California liveaboards. I felt that a crew of 5 couldn't properly service 34 divers, and cut back to 24. But except for the sleeping on the floor, same same.

Your emergency exit hatch was in the middle of the passageway. I can't remember if it also went into the salon, I'm thinking so.