MV Conception - dive boat fire. Suggestions for improved diving boat standards

Actually, I understood perfectly...It said they F**KED up the stability totally.

 

We are getting near the end.
NTSB Calls for Major Safety Improvements to Small Passenger Vessels https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20201020.aspx
Captain indicted in deadly Conception boat fire that killed 34 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/captain-conception-dive-boat-indicted-34-manslaughter-counts-deadly-fire-n1249617

 

I hope the captain's attorneys read my post.

I am building a catamaran with three sleeping berths. Each berth has an entrance and a fire escape. Four sleeping locations; six exits. No sleeping location with less than two exits.

The boat has three sleeping areas and will have interconnected smoke alarms.

The idea the design of the vessel sleeping 34 did not have multiple exits and vessel interconnected smoke/co alarms and the entire matter would be largely held to an unenforced night watchman rule is a travesty.

The captain is a scapegoat for horrible vessel safety rules. Same bit in the duckboat fiasco.

Very interesting is the ntsb report holding the Coast Guard responsible for not enforcing the night watchman rule; among others. How in the heck is the captain going to be held criminally culpable when government agencies don't even enforce the rule?

And they never got into any details about the bodies. Burned beyond recognition; had to use dna. Just said they were trapped by fire; no escape path.

 

How is the Coast Guard supposed to enforce the requirement for a roving patrol at night on these small passenger vessels? The requirement already exists. The simple fact is the person who was supposed to be doing it was asleep. The only way the Coast Guard could enforce such a requirement would be to have a Coast Guard person or inspector onboard the boat. That is not possible. It could be done randomly, say on an semi-annual or annual basis, but not on a routine basis on every voyage. The NTSB is notorious for recommending requirements that are not enforceable. I had to deal with some of their investigations, and they routinely ignore input from the responsible agency as to what is doable and what isn't.

 

A log of the night watchman would be one way. Truckers are required to sleep for a certain portion of their route. And a log is required of truckers. If they get caught in a lie in the log; they are fined. If the log of the watchman is kept out for crew viewing; the entire crew knows that crewmember C is sleeping at 6pm, for example so they can take the morning watch at say 2 am. And crewmember B is allowed to sleep in for stayin on the 2am. Not keeping a log would also result in fines. The ultimate question is not how can it be done, but why was it not considered when 34 souls were lost. I read the passenger manifest and it appeared to me that a family of four was lost, and two separate father daughter teams also perished. The NTSB is right.

 

Agree on the night watch + log book. They are used routinely aboard ships. This is a case of negligence. Let justice take its course. Inspection of both maintenance AND fire watch log books by USCG should be a result. In my opinion at least 2 people should be on fire watch. People doze off all the time at night. Fresh eyes & ears needed to ensure all aboard are safe.

 

Logs are fine as far as they go. But logs can, and are faked. Known as gun decking. Checking them is fine, its done in fisheries, but even those a faked. The USCG and NMFS find faked logs routinely. The only guarantee is some sort of monitor. Are we going to make them punch a clock? That's really old school but works.

 

Forging vessel records is another topic all together. Let justice take its course there as well. Vessel owners & captains must be held responsible and/or shut down if they are committing fraud.

This case is a great example. The captain was charged and will be sent to jail. People died due to his gross negligence. That’s where he belongs.

 

I agree. He needs to go to jail. Its a deterrent.

 

I hope he walks.

Then the indictment is where it belongs instead of the shoulders of one man who would have probably been canned for demanding interconnected alarms and for requiring crewed nightwatches.

Industry and regulations are too lax.

I'd like to know his pay as well.

The idea a vessel in 2020 is not required interconnected smoke alarms to a sleeping berth with 34 souls is outrageous to me.

 

In recent times, the question is whether to place our faith in a electro-mechanical system that can fail, on in a human that can be held responsible. The watchstander is supposed to find and fight the fire, something even interconnected smoke detectors cannot do. You will still need the watchstander, and the Captain is still responsible for that watchstander and his own actions.
From a humanity perspective, the EL FARO and COSTA CONCORDIA were similar; and SEWOL much, much worse. All four of these losses are connected not by a failure of the regulations, but the failure of one or more persons to diligently execute the trust placed in them.

 

If noone enforces a watchman rule; then it isn't much a rule.

Maybe these tragedies have been too good at scapegoating.

I wouldn't build a boat without at least one exit per 5-8 persons. So for 34 pax; 4 exits minimum

 

ER are built with 2 exits for a very good reason.
Why do some authorities not consider this to be an important feature for the rest of the boat where personal can be in confined spaces....??

 

Experts on the subject have determined that 2 exits per space were necessary, each one at the ends as far as possible from the space to be evacuated. The ship is divided into zones, calculating the number of people in each one of them, a meeting place is marked for each of these groups and the escape routes for each of them are clearly defined. In addition, the minimum required surfaces for each escape route are perfectly defined to allow the evacuation of all personnel who must do so through them. So yes, indeed, the number of people is taken into account, how could it be otherwise.

 

Well, I would not put 34 pax into a box with two exits.

Aboard the Malahini of San Diego, I recall two exits to the sleeping berths; both astern. I went in to check on my child, but I wouldn't even daybed down there. Same story; two exits; same side of vessel.

I just would not allow my work to cause death. For that vessel; take out the two forward corner bunks and stairs out.

I prefer the answer, 'well, fire me then'.