Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Madacub]

If your car is 10 years old and does not meet all current new car certification standards, do you tell everyone that you give a ride to?

Hi cerich, since you are personalizing this, for myself, I will answer. If asked, I will say "It passed due to being grandfathered", or "It passes the annual inspection". I would not say "It meets current standards". But you knew what I would say because I was pretty clear about my expectations in my earlier posts. Now I am trying to find out how realistic my expectations are in practice.

 

[Madacub]

So maybe grandfathering is the wrong word, except the vessel has certain exemptions based on it's age, which is fairly old for a boat.

The common term among boat owners and inspectors is "grandfathered", as in, "this boat falls under Old T", however, it is important to note that many upgrades were done, it supposedly had CO2 in the engineroom, which falls under "New T".

Thanks Wookie. For my info, what is the "T" in old T?

Just to be clear, I am trying to understand what common understanding of the phrase "meets current standards" is, without reference to the Conception, which I understand was a well regarded operation.

 

[cerich]

Now I am trying to find out how realistic my expectations are in practice.

Maybe not. I guess most people, not knowing how the process works would assume as long as gov stamped, any in service inspected vessel would be at current standards for new fresh sheet construction. It really doesn't work like that. In fact airplanes are worse. You can get on a brand new aircraft that was built and certified under a certificate issued even multiple decades ago that wouldn't get certified today as it is as a fresh sheet design. 737 is a great example of that.

At least new construction cars and marine vessels are made to the current standards.

 

[Wookie]

Hi cerich, since you are personalizing this, for myself, I will answer. If asked, I will say "It passed due to being grandfathered", or "It passes the annual inspection". I would not say "It meets current standards". But you knew what I would say because I was pretty clear about my expectations in my earlier posts. Now I am trying to find out how realistic my expectations are in practice.

Quite honestly, once it has the sticker on the back door, I've never had a single person inquire further. It has a COI and evidence of an annual inspection by the regulatory agency. Which is more than you will find in most any country aside from Canada, the UK, and Australia. Most "liveaboard vessels" with national certifications have no evidence of any sort.

I couldn't even get my passengers to look at something as simple as Air Test results. No one on the entire planet gives 2 craps about the intricacies of what the safety inspection really consisted of. No one cares now, no one cares next week, and no one cared last week.

 

[JackD342]

Hi cerich, since you are personalizing this, for myself, I will answer. If asked, I will say "It passed due to being grandfathered", or "It passes the annual inspection". I would not say "It meets current standards". But you knew what I would say because I was pretty clear about my expectations in my earlier posts. Now I am trying to find out how realistic my expectations are in practice.

Regarding realistic expectations:

1. Do you actually see any such “meets current standards” statements in use when you shop for a charter boat, or is that purely a “what if” concern?
2. Based on what you now know, assume any older boat was built to older standards. Your next questions are “how have those standards changed over the years?” and “was there a more recent renovation that required the boat be brought up to code?”

The main question then is what has changed in 40 years? Might not be all that much.

 

[Wookie]

Thanks Wookie. For my info, what is the "T" in old T?

Just to be clear, I am trying to understand what common understanding of the phrase "meets current standards" is, without reference to the Conception, which I understand was a well regarded operation.

46 CFR Subchapter T is the governing document (with references to other documents) of the design and building and inspection of small (less than 150 passengers total, fewer than 49 overnight) passenger vessels.

 

[ChrisM]

I’m sorry but lost on all this “current” discussion was a question I could not tell that was answered. If this boat were built today, are there significant design differences that would have to be implemented (barring lessons from this accident)? Specifically relating to pax numbers, egress and alarms?

 

[BRT]

I don't think I'm mixing anything up. To me, it's a question of plain English.

In my opinion, if a ship passes only due to being grandfathered, it would not be appropriate to say "meets current USCG standards". It would be okay to say "passed USGC inspection". What's your opinion?

I'd be interested in answers from people in the boat industry: Do owners/operators advertise as "meets current USCG standards" when it passes the annual inspectipon only due to being grandfathered in one way or another? I would not have thought so, but maybe that is in fact what is comon practice. If so, that would be an eye opener to me.

If boats are like houses nothing over 3 years old meets current standards.

 

[Wookie]

I’m sorry but lost on all this “current” discussion was a question I could not tell that was answered. If this boat were built today, are there significant design differences that would have to be implemented (barring lessons from this accident)? Specifically relating to pax numbers, egress and alarms?

For the most part, fire protection and lifesaving apparatus. I posted them is post 1523.

 

[tarponchik]

It's a ridiculous conjecture. A sad battery will not instantly engulf a 65 ft vessel. Just stop and think about physics for even a single moment.

I was in opposition to the fixation on the batteries/chargers from the very beginning, and not only because there is no evidence supporting these theories so far. The interesting question here is not how the fire started. The interesting question here is why did the fire spread around quickly and had such catastrophic consequences. Unfortunately, in the most common current workplace environment (offices and cubicles) people are not trained to think of fire hazard creatively. The last companies I worked for had a strict policy of "set the alarm and get out ASAP" in case of fire or smoke. Even if I saw smoke coming out of the coffee machine I was not allowed to unplug it but had to follow the above mentioned routine. There usually was a fire extinguisher somewhere in the corridor but only some "specially trained person" was allowed to use it. Being a natural born troublemaker, I've always asked who this mysterious specially trained guy is, and never got the answer. Such kindergarten environment where everything is covered by the insurance and the only goal is to avoid liability cultivates ignorance in general public. The mariners who comment here are of different breed, of course, so I suggest, read their comments and ignore the rest.