Post-Conception Disaster: what you learned & will change

[Bob DBF]

Cameras can be used to keep people honest. Suppose they ran 24/7 and were only uploaded in port. Now we’d know much more about the typical behaviour of the crew. The approving authorities could choose to randomly review actual behaviour and decide if it complies.

Interesting thought, they will be careful in front of the cameras.

basically though, the problem seems to be people being cheap and really low safety compliance, particularly ignoring the spirit of regulation and gaming them...

Perhaps if the inspectors didn't pass the boats for safety compliance, perhaps the owners would know there was a problem. Following regulations isn't gaming them, of course having all the crew asleep was not following regulations.

...for example by using grandfathered boats.

Grandfathering is a double edged sword, on one hand stopping the practice will make everything safer, however if you own a home you may not be able to keep it.

 

[SlugLife]

Cameras can be used to keep people honest. Suppose they ran 24/7 and were only uploaded in port. Now we’d know much more about the typical behaviour of the crew. The approving authorities could choose to randomly review actual behaviour and decide if it complies.

basically though, the problem seems to be people being cheap and really low safety compliance, particularly ignoring the spirit of regulation and gaming them, for example by using grandfathered boats.

If this is the reason people in this thread want cameras, I'm just going to call the idea absurd.

• Real-Time cameras are of little use, unless someone's monitoring them, and monitoring them would be a full-time job.
• There are many privacy concerns for passengers with cameras.
• I personally would refuse to work for a company, which had monitored cameras everywhere. Both for privacy, and for micro-managing concerns.
• A camera-system that can upload to shore in real time are really expensive, unreliable, and prone to fail during a fire.
• Cameras would have done little to nothing for the victims in this incident. It wouldn't have prevented the fire. It wouldn't have alerted anyone about the fire in a timely manner. It wouldn't have awoken any of the passengers, or helped anyone escape the boat.

The reason the camera-discussion annoys me so much (other than a close-friend's close-friend dying on the boat) is because it's an impractical and expensive way to completely NOT address a problem. It's a distraction from far more pragmatic solutions to the problem (fire detection/alarm system, additional escape routes, fire-suppression systems, etc). If we get all of that out of the way, these boats would have fire-standards comparable to a modern home in much of the US.

As a software-engineer, this is a problem I run into on a semi-regular basis, where lots of resources are dedicated towards something of little use, leaving few resources to address far more important issues. These kinds of distractions can be just as big of a problem as doing nothing at all. "Hey, we got our super-expensive real-time camera system up and running 70% of the time!" "What happens if there's a fire?" "I don't know, I guess we'll have some clips to upload on youtube."

 

[KevinNM]

The hierarchy of hazard controls is:
Elimination
Substitution
Engineering controls
Admin controls (procedures and rules)
PPE (least desirable)

So the best option to reduce the chance of fire is to remove fuel and ignition sources (Since the other leg of the triangle is pretty hard to ban). So no easily ignited flammables (like seat cushion foam and plastic trash cans), ban known ignition sources (like LI battery charging and bad wiring) and reduce fuel load (like frp hulls).

If you decide some of these are impractical you do what is practical and look for other less desirable controls.