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

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by JosephT, Sep 4, 2019.

  1. TANSL
    Joined: Sep 2011
    Posts: 6,471
    Likes: 385, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 300
    Location: Spain

    TANSL Senior Member

    That's up to you.
    As always in this life, what is impossible cannot be achieved and there is always the possibility of requesting an exception to the rule from the competent authorities.
     
  2. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,938
    Likes: 470, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    I agree with TANSL here.
    fallguy, your comments seem to display a rather pedestrian understanding of the issues of safety design and damage control for larger vessels. Yes, for houses and small open boats with limited capability, the main requirement is to exit in the event of a fire and wait for the fire department to arrive. Most civilians think this way, but for larger vessel that is incorrect and can lead to mass casualties (see the MOORO CASTLE or GENERAL SLOCUM), because an external "fire department" is never going to get there in time. There are many NTSB reports of fires on vessels of this size. These reports generally point to the efficacy of immediate firefighting as the only viable course to prevent the loss of the vessel, and once the vessel is lost, danger to personnel is greatly increased. As I said earlier in this thread, you have about a minute to fight a compartment fire before smoke and heat will drive you out of the compartment. After that, it's going to take a fully suited two hose team to make any headway against the fire. Even with interconnected alarms and multiple exits, the passengers would have been rapidly driven from the vessel like the crew. Once in the cold water at night, even if they were good swimmers, without survival suits or flotation, the outlook is not good. Once the fire started, only immediate firefighting by the watch would have resulted in any significantly different outcome. Furthermore, the watch may have smelled the fire long before the sensors detected it because of the conditions it takes to set off a marine fire detector.
    When designing and evaluating safety systems, it is important to remove as many failure scenarios as possible. Every opening and exit path in a compartment or hull is also a fire, smoke, and water ingress path and a conscience compromise must be reached. Automatic system's have their own issues from personnel asphyxiation, causing electrical fires, incapacitation of necessary systems, to loss of stability. There are hundreds of requirements in the IMO, CFR, and Class rules, the two exit rule just being one. Some counter-indicate each other, and it is left up to the designer to balance the safety of the vessel against the safety of the personnel, because ultimately the safety of the personnel depends on the safety of the vessel.
     
  3. fallguy
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 4,255
    Likes: 730, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: usa

    fallguy Senior Member

    call me pedestrian if you will, I stand by my assertion that sleeping areas need adequate egress....and that the case in point was not
     
  4. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,938
    Likes: 470, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    Tell me what would be better, the watch putting out the fire, or all the victims in the cold water in the dark without lifejackets. YOU tell everyone how you would have preferred them to die, because the watch and crew fighting the fire was the only way to keep them all alive. Until you have to write and edit damage control booklets for warships, it is all to easy to think you could have come up with a better way.
     
  5. fallguy
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 4,255
    Likes: 730, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: usa

    fallguy Senior Member

    When you post a question and act like it is binary; it is a fallacious argument.

    The watchman putting out the fire is idealism gone awry.

    The best methods for insuring safety are redundant and overlapping. In a car, we don't eliminate the seat belts because we have air bags. My great grandmother died falling out of a car. She wasn't the only one. From that, safety latches were ordained.

    I am not an industry insider; so I see things more independently.
     
  6. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 6,821
    Likes: 786, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    That's correct.
    Larger vessels, the vessel itself is the "lifeboat" and must be able to fight its own fires, as all ocean going vessels are designed in such a way..

    But, the MV Conception is not a large ocean going boat with no one expected to come to their rescue, therefore does not fall into this designation.
    This is an inland/coastal vessel.

    Ergo different levels of safety mitigation is required as any means of equivalence in philosophy.
     
  7. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,938
    Likes: 470, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    Santa Cruz Island is more than 40 NM offshore with negligible population. I think that it is not "inland" nor "costal" but is realistically "offshore" by taking more than an hour to respond to an emergency.
    Nope, every decision leads to more than one outcome, that is why it is a decision. The watch either fought the fire, or didn't...which is what happened. The fallacious argument is that additional exits would have lead to a much, much better outcome.
    Again, you show your unreasoning bias. He did not need to put it out, just announce it and fight it until more people could be brought to bare. Even using your reasoning (i.e. he couldn't put it out) doesn't that mean that the vessel was doomed anyway, regardless of whether the passengers got out of the cabin? While I have had to consider both options, you have not.
    Yes, but how? Extra exits, roving watch, alarms...which is the best to choose in all circumstances...
    I'm sorry if this happened top your grandmother, because I was a driver when similar things occurred in the US. And here is the issue which everyone needs to address, then as now. Is it better to allow a person to always exit a burning car, than to allow them to accidentally open a door while moving? Should a child always be able to open a door at any speed if at all? Should the doors be locked to seat belt connectivity? If so, how do you determine failures? What should the criteria be? How do you assure that the mechanical system will work when it needs to? Can a child operate the backup system...and at what speed or condition...are child locks inside the door jamb just consigning them to burn to death or drown like several recent cases?
    Good, I am not an insider. and I see things independently from those who have no experience and those who wish to subvert the actual requirements. I have had a much higher calling. Getting people home through weapons damage has given me a much different look at civilian safety issues than those that are only interested in the profit margin or selling their opinions.

    This was a horrible tragedy, brought about by both requirements and personal actions (similar to the SEWOL), lets make sure we draw the correct conclusions, and not just kill other people in a different way in the future.
     
  8. fallguy
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 4,255
    Likes: 730, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: usa

    fallguy Senior Member

    The only way out of a sleeping area for 34 is via the galley and I am unreasonable suggesting multiple exits for sleeping quarters?

    okay; then I will forever remain unreasonable
     
  9. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 6,821
    Likes: 786, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    That's just around 20nm from safe refuge then...hardly "offshore".
    Granted one wouldn't want to swim to to it...but isn't in the middle of the ocean either!

    But I still fail to see how this vessel:
    [​IMG]

    Is the same in levels of safety philosophy and mitigation as the this vessel:

    [​IMG]

    As you're eluding to...not withstanding the near hundred years apart of the 2 vessels design and build
     
  10. SBdiverdon
    Joined: Dec 2020
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 0, Points: 0
    Location: Santa Barbara

    SBdiverdon New Member

    I am ex Coast Guard. I am trying to find our more information about the ventilation - air, heat , AC system aboard the MV Conception. Where could I find diagrams or even sketches.
     

  11. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,938
    Likes: 470, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    Try to get a preview of the NTSB report...usually they have everything...
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.