what was the interior made of?
I can guess that all passengers dead from smoke as they slept?
Question # 1 Every thing combustible and goes up in flames under the right conditions.
Question # 2 - Yes that is what is being suggested, with the primarily findings.
smoke detectors save lives
I’m sure that’s what everyone would like to think. But I suspect that if someone blew choking irritant smoke in your sleeping face you’d tend to wake up, as dreadful as that thought is.
But maybe the sunken bodies were still tucked in, so to speak, and it’s not just wishful thinking.
Think of the boon to forensics if everyone were forced to wear Fitbits all the time… :-/
I agree some may have drowned?
The key is to make sure they are tested regularly. Throwing a battery in January and assuming it’s good for the whole year is a poor practice. I’ve seen too many worthless mates pencil whipping that one item on the monthly inspections because it’s “inconvenient” to get into people’s staterooms.
Different topic but it might be better to change the way that’s done. If monthly then change timing to at the end of a drill when everyone is up, change to quarterly intervals, or move detectors to passagesways etc. If there is a high rate of non-compliance with a procedure then maybe time to change the procedure.
yeas ago I spoke to a local fireman that was working at the offshore fire facility I was training at, he said 40 years of service on the local fire brigade (UK) I never rescued anyone.
If they are inside they are dead, if they have gotten themselves outside they are alive.
Not likely as the boat sank after it was fully involved. While some may have died in their sleep the chances are many died after they were awakened by the fire but were trapped below succumbing to smoke inhalation.
This is partly why the question arises as to the origin of the fire being an “emergent” hazard or not.
The boat had layers and redundant systems to defend against fire. The watchman and the smoke alarms are redundant. The escapes are another separate but related defense.
All three defenses evidently failed in this incident for different reasons. It’s possible that the boat’s defenses may have been adequate even with multiple failures had there not been an unidentified risk.
For example the Subchapter T regs call for smoke alarms in areas with specific fire hazards (deep fat fryers, boilers etc) but not in those without.
If the charging station was in fact a hazard some additional countermeasures would be called for.
This if from the report:
There were two locally-sounding smoke detectors in the overhead of the bunkroom
My understanding is that there were no smoke detectors in the galley/salon however detectors would have been required if certain hazards were present in that space, for example a deep-fat fryer. Charging stations are not on the list of hazards requiring detectors.
.
BB[quote=“Kennebec_Captain, post:70, topic:52687”]
for example a deep-fat fryer
[/quote]
Installing smoke detectors with deep-fat fryers and in general in galley areas has the disadvantage that the alarm, knowing how sensitive they are, will sound almost all the time, anyway too often. The result will be that in the end there will be a tendency to remove the battery to silence the detectors. With a rather small galley area as on this ship this will be a problem.
I have fitted smoke alarms at home and a Thermal alarm in the kitchen.
They have a 10 year life before replacement .
I don’t know very much about fire detectors on boats. The ones I have at home are all hard-wired into power, battery is only for back-up. They will alarm if the battery is low or missing.
On the ship (PCTC) there are over 700 detectors, all hard-wired, no batteries at all. A mix of ionization and heat types. There is one detector in the galley. It’s rare for it to go off. Most false alarms come from welding in the E/R machine shop.
Well put with good use of word power to explain many points of blame on more than one factor.
Hard-wired is in my opinion the best solution, batteries can give problems. However, in my situation battery operation is the only possibility. The house is built of stone with concrete floors and ceilings which are prohibitive for installing cabling without visible damage.
No fire axe on a wooden boat, of this size carrying passengers with this type of operation on a regular basis seems strange? Or maybe that just has not been mentioned? and it had one?
46 CFR § 132.360 - Fire axes
(a) Each vessel of less than 100 gross tons must carry one fire axe.
(b) Each vessel of 100 or more gross tons must carry two fire axes.
© Each fire axe must be so placed as to be readily available in an emergency.
(d) Each fire axe must be so placed in the open or behind glass that it is readily visible, except that, if the enclosure is marked in compliance with § 131.830 of this subchapter, the axe may be placed in an enclosure together with the fire hose.
Not applicable. Subchapter L 132.360 applies to offshore supply vessels. The Conception was a Subchapter T vessel - small passenger vessels.
Ok thx here is the Subchapter T code look at 181.600 down towards the bottom.
Subchapter T - 181.600 does specify a fire axe but for some reason, it is not listed along with the rest of the required firefighting equipment on the COI.
Possibly waived because of the route restrictions or grandfathered out as the Conception was built in the 80’s.
This is interesting and puzzling, and possibly someone can shed some light on this? It specifies an ‘oceans’ route but then cryptically contradicts itself by saying ‘no more than 100 miles from the mainland shore.’
No fire ax is required nor is a real inflatable liferaft or two. All they had were the ‘chum basket’ style lifefloats.
This boat would occasionally skirt that ‘100 mile’ limit, specifically when they would be on the cortes bank. 100 miles or not being at cortes bank or any of the outer channel islands, it doesn’t take much to be in a very remote and dangerous predicament due to how the weather can get. This ‘100 mile from the mainland’ thing must be some loophole. Kinda like techinically you aren’t required to have inmersion suits on board as long as you are below 35 N and above 35 S?