NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

[tursiops]

Apparently the only smoke alarms were in the berthing area, two decks down from crew. So it had to go up the stairs, through the salon, out the door, up to the top deck, across the sundeck and through the back of the top deck. It’s like hearing the smoke alarm from your neighbors basement.

Yeah, the smoke alarms were for the passengers, not the crew.

 

[chris kippax]

So no smoke alarms in the Galley?
None near the clothes dryer?

 

[Ayisha]

...you're required to have a roving patrol ANYTIME passengers are on board, not just at night. So this applies to daytime as well.

Isn't the requirement for a roving watch anytime someone is sleeping "below deck" rather than merely "on board"?

That's not to say that doesn't happen often during the day...

 

[KevinNM]

They appear to have installed everything the regs required, and absolutely nothing that the regs didn't require. Remember they had passed inspection after inspection for almost forty years, with only some fairly minor issues in all that time.

So while better fire detection certainly couldn't have hurt, what they had installed was exactly what the Coast Guard regulations said they should have installed and what the inspectors were looking for. If they had operated the boat as the conditions in the boat CoI had required we likely wouldn't be where we are.

And if you wonder if the inspections are sufficient you could consider that in that almost forty years nobody noticed they didn't have the required second means of egress off the second level, which isn't exactly something that requires an experienced expert to detect.

 

[John Bantin]

Sadly, this is an example of "Down to a price" rather than "Up to a standard". No mention was made that the vessel was constructed of fiberglass-over-ply, a very fast burning material*, because one assumes it is common in leisure boat construction, but should it be used for commercial vessels that have overnight accommodation?

However, fires will always happen at some time. What happens next is what's important.

* I set fire to the chimney in my house where I put a small amount of plywood on an open fire. Plywood is comprised of layers of veneer sandwiched together with glue.

 

[John Bantin]

Yeah, the smoke alarms were for the passengers, not the crew.

Smoke rises. By the time the smoke detectors in the bunkroom below were activated, the blaze would have been well underway.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Isn't the requirement for a roving watch anytime someone is sleeping "below deck" rather than merely "on board"?

Here's the exact wording from the Conception COI: "A member of the vessel's crew shall be designated by the master as a roving patrol at all times, whether or not the vessel is underway, when the passenger's bunks are occupied." The way I interpret that is that it's not time-dependent, it in-the-bunk-dependent. The way it's interpreted on a practical level is that if a passenger COULD occupy a bunk, you should designate a roving patrol because you never know when they might hop in the bunk (sleeping or not). So you're sort of correct but it's basically if they're on board and they could go down to a bunk, you need to have a roving patrol person.

 

[chillyinCanada]

Smoke rises. By the time the smoke detectors in the bunkroom below were activated, the blaze would have been well underway.

Fire heat sensors.

I've thought about this quite a bit myself. My house is mid-century, could be mcm, if I did it up right, but I digress.

It has often occurred to me how a heat sensor here and there could be more valuable than the smoke sensor. Of course, smoke is often the first clue but is it really the first clue for that kind of electric fire?

 

[shoredivr]

I keep thinking the only reason these requirements have been created is because there were no smoke detectors outside of those in the passenger berths, no roving watch, no accessible escape hatch, no safer charging station. And this went on for years. They could have corrected these things easily and without much expense and these lives would likely not have been lost. Instead, here we are.

 

[boulderjohn]

With all this information spread out over 2 threads, I am more than a little confused about a couple of things, and something I think I remember reading somewhere comes to mind, but I can't find it.

I thought I read crews on the truth Aquatics boats were under the impression that if they had a crew member sleeping in the same bunk area as the passengers, that met the requirement of a roving watch. I don't see how anyone could think that, but I am pretty sure I read it somewhere.