Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[doctormike]

There have been a number of posts implying that the bunkroom arrangement on the Conception was dangerous and unprecedented. The vast majority of vessels under 30M/100' around the world have the same basic layout -- bunks and staterooms forward, the sole primary/normal exit through the galley/solon area, and engineering spaces aft. The USCG and most marine certification agencies around the world require at least one small emergency hatch. In practice they are primarily used for ventilation in port. This is true for dive and fishing charter boats, sail boats, commercial fishing boats, crew boats, and leisure boats.

It is understandable that people who are unfamiliar with the marine industry might assume that large watertight egress hatches should be standard, until you weigh the very real possibility of hatch failure in heavy seas and suddenly there is a giant hole on the main deck with green water washing over it. Inevitably, every "safety system" can introduce potentially dangerous failure modes, especially in salt water environments.

Ill-informed knee-jerk solutions by committee is never a good idea. It is probably a good thing that the investigation will take a couple of years so mandated changes are well considered rather than in response to political pressure to "do something" (no matter how stupid).

Good points, but since advances in safety codes often come from tragedy analysis, let me ask you this.

If the bunks under the hatch had been removed and replaced with a simple ladder, flanked by emergency internally powered illumination and/or luminous paint (like on aircraft), wouldn't that (1) significantly improve egress, and (2) not involve any significant construction costs, redesign or new flooding risks? The only downside of that that I can see would be the loss of revenue for those three bunks.

I'm not saying that the operator didn't run a great boat, with full adherence to existing safety standards. I'm not blaming the crew or the naval architect or the inspector or anyone else. Sounds like everything was in full compliance. And of course, it is impossible to mitigate every conceivable risk.

But doing that seems like a pretty straightforward and simple upgrade. As Frank said, he reduced the carriage rate on the Spree to make it safer, so I can't believe that the charter business wouldn't work without those three bunks. So maybe that could be one change in regulations that would help without a lot of downside.

Again, I know very little about this stuff, just trying to read and learn. PS I charge my can light battery on the stove at home.

 

[Akimbo]

Even though the general layout is the same, is the density of passengers comparable given a particular square feet/meters in the sleeping quarters?

I have seen a number of recreational fishing charter boats with very similar layouts and bunk densities. I would venture a guess that virtually all purpose-built multi day charter boats for diving use a design originally created for recreational fishing charters. The few multi day boats that exist tend to repurpose existing designs that are proven in the marketplace and to save engineering and certifications costs.

 

[roakey]

...I can't believe that the charter business wouldn't work without those three bunks.

Since you're asking for a cost/benefit analysis, the correct number would be six bunks, not three. 10U, 11M, 12L, 27U, 28M and 29L.

Roak

 

[Louisville Diver]

Good points, but since advances in safety codes often come from tragedy analysis, let me ask you this.

If the bunks under the hatch had been removed and replaced with a simple ladder, flanked by emergency internally powered illumination and/or luminous paint (like on aircraft), wouldn't that (1) significantly improve egress, and (2) not involve any significant construction costs, redesign or new flooding risks? The only downside of that that I can see would be the loss of revenue for those three bunks.

I'm not saying that the operator didn't run a great boat, with full adherence to existing safety standards. I'm not blaming the crew or the naval architect or the inspector or anyone else. Sounds like everything was in full compliance. And of course, it is impossible to mitigate every conceivable risk.

But doing that seems like a pretty straightforward and simple upgrade. As Frank said, he reduced the carriage rate on the Spree to make it safer, so I can't believe that the charter business wouldn't work without those three bunks. So maybe that could be one change in regulations that would help without a lot of downside.

Again, I know very little about this stuff, just trying to read and learn. PS I charge my can light battery on the stove at home.

The math is easy - you lose 6 fares of $550 on an average weekend, $650 on a holiday - so between $3300 and $3900 per trip. At the same time, you are now down six divers which actually alleviates crowding at meals, on the dive deck and at the platform. It actually turns into a better experience for the divers, and you get a significant safety bump in a lot of areas. You mitigate it along with your retrofitting expense by charging another $120 to $150 per diver, and the trip is STILL a bargain compared to most LOBs.

 

[Wookie]

That passage bothered me too, a lot. I’m assuming the person who said that wasn’t the one on watch... which leads to the question, why the article quotes him, and not the one who was on watch?

The press is desperate for a story, if their contacts with SB staff are any indication. They would interview a turnip if it had been on the boat and could speak.

 

[BackAfter30]

The math is easy - you lose 6 fares of $550 on an average weekend, $650 on a holiday - so between $3300 and $3900 per trip. At the same time, you are now down six divers which actually alleviates crowding at meals, on the dive deck and at the platform. It actually turns into a better experience for the divers, and you get a significant safety bump in a lot of areas. You mitigate it along with your retrofitting expense by charging another $120 to $150 per diver, and the trip is STILL a bargain compared to most LOBs.

And your math doesn’t apply at all times. They were not at capacity for that trip so that is an example of your numbers being a max possible cost. And, of course, less food, and whatever other per passenger op costs there are to be saved.

 

[Wookie]

The math is easy - you lose 6 fares of $550 on an average weekend, $650 on a holiday - so between $3300 and $3900 per trip. At the same time, you are now down six divers which actually alleviates crowding at meals, on the dive deck and at the platform. It actually turns into a better experience for the divers, and you get a significant safety bump in a lot of areas. You mitigate it along with your retrofitting expense by charging another $120 to $150 per diver, and the trip is STILL a bargain compared to most LOBs.

I would have an off-topic conversation with you where I experimented with exactly this scenario, back when I had 2 liveaboards. (with partners)

 

[doctormike]

Since you're asking for a cost/benefit analysis, the correct number would be six bunks, not three. 10U, 11M, 12L, 27U, 28M and 29L.

Roak

OK, not sure I understand. From the photo I saw, it looked like the hatch straddled two top bunks. But it can be accessed from either side, right? So why would you need to pull six bunks to free up one stretch of wall where you could bolt a ladder? Couldn't that just be placed in the space currently occupied by a stack of three bunks and provide the same access that there is now from either top bunk?

Look, it either is or isn't important to have better access to the escape hatch. Maybe it isn't - maybe is is so incredibly rare for the hatch obstruction by the bunk to be an issue that mitigating that would be equivalent to a tech diver planning for two major failures. I don't know. If that's the case, then sure, it might not be worth it. That's why I'm asking and hoping to learn and make things better. I'm not just looking to fling blame.

But it sure seems like it would be a lot easier to get out of that hatch from a crowded, dark, smoke filled room if there was a ladder there instead of a stack of bunk beds. And if that really IS a risk that we need to mitigate, then the cost-benefit analysis is moot. If it's not financially viable to run the business with a safe number of passengers, then just just add that into the cost for the trip. Even if it WAS six bunks, you could add $100 to the weekend rate if the margins were so small as to make that a deal breaker for the owner.

Frank, feel free to tell me to stick to ear wax.

 

[Lorenzoid]

After this incident, I can't imagine anyone will balk at these types of liveaboards becoming a little more expensive to compensate for additional safety features. How much competition is there anyway? This type of LOB is uncommon in the US outside of CA. Maybe a few wreck boats in the Northeast? At one time it was theorized that the cost of air bags in cars would dampen sales.

 

[roakey]

The thing I keep coming back to is that absolutely no one from below escaped. This [to me] means one of two things:

1. The entire bunk area was overcome by fumes incapacitating everyone.
2. The entire salon was filled with flames before anyone in the bunk area was aware of the problem. Given the open staircase from the bunks to the salon, I find this improbable [though not impossible].

Do I think that the regulations will be changing around emergency egress? Yes. But as I mentioned many pages ago, ballroom staircase-sized exits would not have helped given the fact that the folks below were not alerted soon enough.

IMHO The root-failure fix to this problem will be centered around fire/smoke/CO/noxious fume detectors. The folks below simply needed to be alerted earlier.

I’m also going to go out on a limb and wildly speculate, assuming the anchor watch was awake to begin with, that earbuds were involved.

Roak