NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

[Johnoly]

.... It's aimed at educating their inspectors ..

Good to see some 'advice' in advance of hard rules from the CG. The final rules are usually extremely detailed and take months to finalize (ie fire bucket rules) but it will be interesting to see how they 'define" the wording "Should be" in the statement below:

Lithium-powered devices and batteries should be removed from the charger once they are fully charged.

That could mean 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days. Or in other words,/ Active 100% monitoring / Scheduled interval monitoring / pre-arranged charging times. Which probably brings us full circle back to roving watch.

Thank you for posting my friend Tom !!

 

[Rooster59]

I would feel safer on Wookie's boat than on another random boat that had passed Coast Guard inspections. That is the root of my previous comment.

 

[Wookie]

It probably would be useful but I kind of doubt it would displace the Coast Guard annual inspections. It might of course supplement them, informally.

Usually the best way to group up in situations like this is to have an Industry group or association, that "speaks with one voice" to the regulators. I know there's the Passenger Vessel Association, but don't know if they're supported by and giving support to, the small boat operators such as dive boats and charter fishing boats. As opposed to just the large passenger vessels like ferries and cruise ships/boats.

Maybe someone in the industry (Wookie?) could shed some light on whether there's a helpful group as opposed to each boat owner having to go it alone.

PVA personally went to bat for me on a number of issues. They seem to represent their members well. I can’t say that they enhance safety overall, but they have the ear of the Coast Guard as well as the House Transportation committee.

 

[Wookie]

This may be of interest, from the Coast Guard re lithium-ion battery practices on passenger vessels, from an industry pub I get. It's aimed at educating their inspectors but published so the boat operators will be on the same page. Pretty self-explanatory, here you go:

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/Policy Letters/2020/CVC PL 20-03_CARRIAGE OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES ON SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS.pdf

The navy went much farther. Every battery must be approved for each application. So if you have a d cell non rechargeable lithium battery in a crane anti-two block system, that battery must be approved by the nice lady in Norfolk that approves such batteries. That doesn’t allow the same battery in another system, nor does it allow the same battery in the same system on another boat.

Vape pens are flatly prohibited.

 

[dmaziuk]

This is exactly how it is supposed to work. You could have 1000 15A receptacles on a 15A circuit and you are still fine. The problem happens when: the electrical system is mis-designed from the start, today not really an issue; poor workmanship when building a properly designed system, buy from quality producers; a system modified by someone who doesn't have any business modifying the electrical system because they don't understand electricity, THIS is the big problem. There is zero excuse for ever putting in a larger circuit protection device than belongs there. Anyone who doesn't understand this is just the sort of person who has no business touching the electrical system.

Exactly: the customer developed an unanticipated need for which the system was not designed. For systems built decades ago to "household" standards, that's likely Situation Normal(tm) now. What percentage of owners who must address these new customer needs to stay afloat, have no business touching the electrical system, is anybody's guess.

 

[KevinNM]

Final Marine Accident Report released
Fire Aboard Small Passenger Vessel Conception Platts Harbor, Channel Islands National Park, Santa Cruz Island, 21.5 miles South-Southwest of Santa Barbara, California September 2, 2019

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Final Marine Accident Report released
Fire Aboard Small Passenger Vessel Conception Platts Harbor, Channel Islands National Park, Santa Cruz Island, 21.5 miles South-Southwest of Santa Barbara, California September 2, 2019

Skimmed through this Sunday night and there were a few details I hadn't seen before. In particular, the evidence that some of the passengers made it to the foot of the forward stairs seems to definitively answer the question of whether at least some of them woke up before being overcome by smoke.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

. . . the evidence that some of the passengers made it to the foot of the forward stairs seems to definitively answer the question of whether at least some of them woke up before being overcome by smoke.

Just to be clear, that's speculation, not hard evidence. Given that the boat flipped and sank 60 feet to the bottom, and the passengers were also possibly relocated during the fall, there's no way to definitely know who was where or what they were doing at any given point in time during the fire and aftermath.

 

[KevinNM]

Just to be clear, that's speculation, not hard evidence. Given that the boat flipped and sank 60 feet to the bottom, and the passengers were also possibly relocated during the fall, there's no way to definitely know who was where or what they were doing at any given point in time during the fire and aftermath.

P31
"Upon examination of the wreckage, investigators found silhouette evidence markings resembling the outline of persons or objects of non-uniform shape (e.g., duffel bags) in the bunkroom at the bottom of the main stairs leading to the salon, on the port side forward lower double bunk, and adjacent vertical and horizontal bunk frames at bunks 17L and 19L (figure 22). 22 The air conditioning intake louver at the bottom of the main stairs had an observable silhouette and traces of human tissue on it."

 

[Marie13]

Weren’t some of the bodies also found with footwear on?