Conception incident and exit / egress USCG regs discussion

PlayDate said:
Reported in the WSJ:

No one was on Watch. Allegedly all 5 crew were asleep at the back of the Helm Station. One woke up, saw the flames and woke the other 4 up....including the Captain. The Galley fire was raging at that point which required them to jump from the upper deck to the weather deck. One of the crew broke their leg in the jump.

There is some suspicion that people charging their phones and cameras might have started the fire.

I am just dumbfounded that the crew did not have someone standing watch. Allegedly the crew did not hear any smoke or fire alarms.
Click to expand...

No. because WSJ.

I dove from that boat on multiple trips. Her crew was top-notch. There was certainly a watch posted, on the trips that I took. The idea that there was no-one on watch is absurd on the face of it.
 
Again, I do believe much discussion and outcomes will prevail from this terrible ordeal. No, I have not seen a total fire suppression system on a yacht, such as sprinkler system or such, but I do imagine as a result of this incident, there may be changes, especially out of California.
I can invision a complete system which could be plumed off he fresh water tank, but fuel and electric do not respond to water that well. The Halon, or bilge extinguishing approach seems feasible but when that system is deployed, you will find a lack of oxygen happens instantly, which is also a no-go. Maybe an exhaust system which pulls the heat and flames out of the boat through vents, like an engine exhaust. By extracting smoke, we may have created an environment that offers more time to breath and see, which it seems was cause related in this tragedy.
So all you ingenuity guys or inventors, this is obviously an area of boating that has not been conquered. We go to boat shows and see rows and rows of vendor inventions having to do with enhancing our boating experience, but seldom do we see products that involve total vessel fire suppression......but I bet you soon will.
There is more than enough brain power on this site to be the ones who come up with the idea....and what a positive position it would be, possibly profitable as well.
But back to reality, and that is to educate yourself, then you mates and passengers on abanding ship procedures, TODAY! Have all the required fire-bottles onboard and a few extra. Make sure those bottle locations are easy to see and placed in locations that will work, not under cabinets way in the back behind cleaning supplies.
Just when you think everything has been invented and then to realize we may have skipped over the important stuff in our quest to invent the perfect blender or some none sense like that. This site is a cornucopia of boat smarts so feel free to offer ideas, you never know, CSR maybe a good name for the newest life-saving device. I would be tempted to call it the Conception Suppression System because it is needed in the marine world now, and I do not want to forget those who lost their lives just because no one had thought ahead time.

Capt. R
 
bobeast said:
No. because WSJ.

I dove from that boat on multiple trips. Her crew was top-notch. There was certainly a watch posted, on the trips that I took. The idea that there was no-one on watch is absurd on the face of it.
Click to expand...

Bob....feel free to take your exception up with the NTSB. That's the source for the article and the recent press reports that cited that five crew members (including the Captain) were asleep on the upper deck. Once crew member was asleep in the lower deck and perished with the customers.
 
Thank you Captain.

Now to look into the layouts of some of the mid to larger boats. Then put this idea to paper
 
All great ideas, but I think the focus should be on avoidance and egress, as stopping a fire once it's going is very difficult. If you catch it in time, I would think a fire blanket to smother it would be one of the best solutions. Capt. Rusty has mentioned some of the pitfalls or water and depleting o2 in a confined space.. Further, even while exhausting sounds like a good idea, you're introducing air by doing so and giving the fire fuel. So, smothering would be best. Though, I'm in the camp of get everyone off and safe and then fight the fire on your terms, not trying to fight your way out.

It's a bit of a double edge sword to discuss large hatches on vessels as we all know water intrusion is typically the concern.
 
One of the great things about boating is accountability. While the boat's design is clearly questionable (and in my opinion a death trap) the layout has worked for 40 years.

In this case the Captain was responsible for the crew and passengers. It was up to him to set a Watch which allegedly he did not do. Perhaps he was comfortable at being at anchor so close to shore. That decision alone, if true, cost 34 lives.

While I am all for a technology solution for fire suppression...sometimes a person on Watch is the best solution until something else comes along.
 
PlayDate said:
Bob....feel free to take your exception up with the NTSB. That's the source for the article and the recent press reports that cited that five crew members (including the Captain) were asleep on the upper deck. Once crew member was asleep in the lower deck and perished with the customers.
Click to expand...

Until the actual NTSB report comes out, I will continue to view any and all such media reports with a healthy dose of skepticism.

It's not difficult to imagine a discussion of sleeping arrangements; "The 5 crew members slept on the upper deck" morphing into the reports we are seeing "The 5 crew members were asleep on the upper deck".
 
SJM-L-DIVEBOAT-0907-90-01.jpg
 
I see now why the USCG had confusion over whether the "doors were locked". The double doors from the Galley to the deck were "closed and on fire".

That certainly gave the fire a chance to grow before it was noticed. Just a horrible way to go.

One other observation is that this was a 40 year old wooden boat. I have seen fiberglass and wood boats burn and they explode with fire in minutes.
 
I had a professor that was a BC for FDNY, his favorite thing to say was "remedies come from disaster" and "disaster brings change"
The normal method for a boat fire is surround and drown but thats to put the fire out once it has taken seat. Water won't work, to many different types of fuel plus the system would be to expensive for builders to install and would take much prized space. Suppression and egress would have to work together

I wasn't there, I've never seen or been on one of these boats. NTSB and the USCG will have the last words on what happened. I'm just a simple boater, never piloted anything bigger than a 40ec. Whatever happened and how it happened is their jobs.

All I have is a idea and as my dad always said to us "everything starts as a idea"
 
This is interesting....it would appear that a criminal investigation is underway:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/conception-boat-fire-investigation.html


Included in the article is this....which I had never heard of: Seaman's Manslaughter

18 U.S. Code § 1115.Misconduct or neglect of ship officer
Every captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on any steamboat or vessel, by whose misconduct, negligence, or inattention to his duties on such vessel the life of any person is destroyed, and every owner, charterer, inspector, or other public officer, through whose fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct, or violation of law the life of any person is destroyed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

When the owner or charterer of any steamboat or vessel is a corporation, any executive officer of such corporation, for the time being actually charged with the control and management of the operation, equipment, or navigation of such steamboat or vessel, who has knowingly and willfully caused or allowed such fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct, or violation of law, by which the life of any person is destroyed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 757; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
 
Well, I would almost guarantee this will change the industry as to the seriousness of a night watch and egress issues. I can't say I've learned enough in this case to consider it criminal. I await the finding of the NTSB report and what the FBI / ATF determine.

I can't help but think if a few simple things were different that night it would have been a different outcome...
 
Boat Guy said:
Well, I would almost guarantee this will change the industry as to the seriousness of a night watch and egress issues. I can't say I've learned enough in this case to consider it criminal. I await the finding of the NTSB report and what the FBI / ATF determine.

I can't help but think if a few simple things were different that night it would have been a different outcome...
Click to expand...


I'm sure there is a lot of gray area on this incident. One report showed a crew member cleaning up the Galley at 2:30am then going back up the ladder to the Helm Station/crew quarters. It is possible that he/she was assigned the night watch and just fell asleep since he/she was the first person to wake up when a sound was heard at 3:00am. By 3:10 the crew was abandoning ship. In that case.....it is just a terrible tragedy.

I can't imagine that someone could live with that on their conscious.


No watch set......is another matter altogether and easily could trigger a criminal charge for the Captain, owners and crew.

All it takes is a single, simple mistake to set a tragedy in motion.
 
I'm wondering how they know the crew member in the passenger cabin was sleeping? Maybe he or she was just making the rounds. I suppose we'll find out in due course exactly which crew member(s) were supposed to be on watch at that time.
 
I'll assume they interviewed the Captain and the surviving crew before they published that fact. They could have easily said: "the appointed person on Watch fell asleep" or "the appointed person on Watch was trapped below decks".

I believe the USCG regulations for all passenger vessels that carry less than 100 passengers for over 10 hours a day require a Watch stander whether the ship is underway, at anchor or at the dock. Such a simple protection and such a terrible tragedy....
 
bobeast said:
I'm wondering how they know the crew member in the passenger cabin was sleeping? Maybe he or she was just making the rounds. I suppose we'll find out in due course exactly which crew member(s) were supposed to be on watch at that time.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they don't know that the crew member was "sleeping" at the time. I think what they mean is he was sleeping below with the passengers that night. I understand his GF was a passenger and he was staying with her. I think it is the NTSB's way of saying he was not sleeping above decks with the crew.
 
Boat Guy said:
I'm pretty sure they don't know that the crew member was "sleeping" at the time. I think what they mean is he was sleeping below with the passengers that night. I understand his GF was a passenger and he was staying with her. I think it is the NTSB's way of saying he was not sleeping above decks with the crew.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I had not heard about his affiliation with one of the passengers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,219
Messages
1,428,832
Members
61,115
Latest member
Gardnersf
Back
Top