Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Dive boat disaster in California... 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
A related marine incident that happened here a couple of years ago. I noted some comments in regards to the coroner's report about different issues and escape routes, and from what I can gather, the watertight bulkheads and so on did their job but ended up preventing egress due to the vessel being capsized.

Like someone mentioned about multiple openings being fine for buildings but a source of water ingress in less than ideal conditions.

This vessel doesn't inspire confidence in being able to get out at all.
 
"After this disaster it would seem to me that you simply cannot have vertical fire exits"

Any hatch opening that is potentially at or below the water line will almost certainly present a greater risk of sinking due to leakage past seals etc than its benefit in terms of fire egress. Any hatch opening that is below the water line, if EVER opened, would not allow egress because opening it would allow water to RUSH in forcefully enough that no one would ever be able to get out through it ... until the vessel sinks, which it will in short order.

The fire exits have to be up and out above the water line. It just has to be that way.

But ... there ought to be two of them at opposite ends of any closed area above some minimum (small) size threshold, and not blocked by obstructions (a bunk bed built below a hatch opening defeats the purpose of the hatch opening), and provided with permanent means of access (stairs, ladders permanently installed), and provided with waterproof and fire-resistant and battery-backed-up lighting ...

The other thing that strikes me is that looking at the pre-fire interior of the luxury yacht linked to above, and the interior of (evidently) this vessel, is that EVERYTHING in the interior is combustible. Lots of wood, varnish, fabric, foam, etc. And it sure doesn't look like there is much in the way of fire protection. No sprinklers, no readily apparent fire extinguishers, nothing.
 
I live over 300 miles from Humboldt Saskatchewan. I met several people who were related to victims of the hockey bus crash.
I imagine that you may have similar sad encounters Keith.
My sympathies are with you.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
This article points out that the aforementioned limitation of liability act is a basic part of US maritime law, and was used as a defense for both the Titanic and Deep Water Horizon disaster.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Brief related hijack: You can take the ferry to Alaska and sleep on deck. You throw a blanket down to mark your spot. Deck hands will tell you if you're in the way. Bring out your jug of wine and start talking with your neighbors. It's cold and down sleeping bags and parkas are required. The deck in the cold, with that anti-skid coating feels identical to perma frost. They played "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald" every hour on the muzak system. For the tourists I guess.
 
Thanks Bill.


BrianPetersen; I never said the lower escape hatch should be below the waterline..
If there were two vertical fire exits out of that rat warren and a fire starts in the births I want you to tell me why the smoke wouldn't clog BOTH those vertical exits.

There is no reason you couldn't put side hatch(es) on that boat's hull above the water line that would never leak, almost trivially, certainly easier than building a stairway.


BUGGAR; I took that ferry system with my better half and we camped on the fantail the entire trip. We took the Columbia. It was great! The deck was covered with clear plastic and underslung heat rods that kept it very comfortable.

resized_alaska-ferry-48_1072x7121_n6fvby.jpg


Keith Cress
kcress -
 
Wasn't this the same law used by the dukw boat sinking a couple of years ago?



Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 

Seems like the duck boat exclusion ruling hasn't been made. Horrifically, had the captain grabbed passengers and thrown them out they would have survived, baby probably excluded. Instead they were trapped in an essentially open boat and drowned when it took them down with it.
 
Kind of unclear what's happening in the duck boat case. They apparently settled some cases, but never filed a preemptive motion for the limitation of liability.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
We will have to wait and see what new regs the california authorities apply as a result of the investigation. The technology available today is far superior to that of 50+ yrs ago when the original regulations were drafted and negotiated with the boat builders.

IR scanners that scan the entire deck ( espescially above storage of fuel and near the galley) may give a better advance warning, and crews may need to prove all detectors are working prior to leaving the dock and not simply once a year.As with airliners, the boat may need to prove that all passengers can exit via one exit within ( 2 minutes).

There are fire resistant coatings that may need to be used in lieu of pretty gel coats, espescially in the vicinity of escape routes. Such fire proof panels can be fabricated of geopolymers , now used in planes and some EU buildings, for fire protection .



"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick
 
Video screenshot captures showing a charging station and a smoke alarm.

2019-09-09_6_idynne.png
2019-09-09_4_mx6mc5.png
URL]
 
The problem is classic human. Someone in the government decides "two exits are required".

Two are put in. (one completely useless) (one semi useless)

A government inspector shuffles in and counts "one...two" and checks the box off.

No one ever points out that the provided exits are completely inadequate to the task they were required for.

An exit that would take 30+ people fifteen minutes to negotiate and another so called exit that actually isn't an exit but only stairs to another enclosed space are ridiculous.

If I was the inspector I'd have forced changes on them. Using the basis of, "Would I feel safe about having my family stay in that area?"

Keith Cress
kcress -
 
Is there also disappointment that passenger jets don't have individual zero-zero ejection seats that would have saved everyone in most every modern crash?

Divers are typically healthy and aware people; at that hatch the first one or two out would be hauling people out in 1 to 3 seconds each, and the more that were in that galley the faster they rest would be moved. Get on the bunk, put your arms up, and you are hauled out of there. If it took as long as two minutes to clear the bunch via the hatch I'd be surprised. Same with the stairs.

OTOH, die in your sleep from toxic smoke and an infinite number of exits wouldn't help. Recall too that the crew on deck, with unlimited access to the ocean, was forced to jump or be incinerated. Escaping to the deck was not an option. Having the galley below is also a bad idea as that means that a fuel leak of any kind will not easily dissipate and can result in a catastrophic explosion.

The rarity of similar events seems to suggest that the basic concept is optimal and that it is new elements that need to be dealt with rather than scrapping all boats. Even the USS McCain has sleeping quarters below the waterline.

I expect the main rule change will to have a sealed metal box to charge and store electronics inside of and the box have both heat and smoke detectors and a way to flood it.

There is still the question of who was standing watch; gCaptain comments indicate that the sea floor drops off rapidly near the island forcing anchorage to be near the shore. An anchor watch is absolutely required so if the wind shifts the boat isn't beaten up on the island and if the anchor drags the boat doesn't drift loose. The same watch should hear smoke detector alarms and potentially smell smoke.
 
Do you know if a fire watch requirement exists? You're right too that an anchor watch should've been in effect. I guess GPS anchor watches seem to work pretty well these days.

Keith Cress
kcress -
 
I suspect that the hatch over the bunk may have been built over and was no longer usable.
I had some exposure to fire codes working on fire alarm systems.
As I remember, an exit from a public area through a kitchen or galley was prohibited.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3DDave
  • Locked
  • Question
Dive boat disaster in California... finally 1
Replies
10
Views
463
zeusfaber
zeusfaber
Oops409
  • Locked
  • Question
Net Zero Disaster 11
2
Replies
29
Views
951
Oops409
Oops409
thebard3
  • Locked
  • Question
thread815-457402 Dive boat fire h 2
Replies
1
Views
155
drwebb
drwebb
LittleInch
  • Locked
  • Question
Disaster averted
Replies
3
Views
306
LittleInch
LittleInch
JoshPlumSE
  • Locked
  • Question
Baldwin Hills Dam Disaster - 1963 3
Replies
2
Views
360
JLNJ
JLNJ

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom