NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

Amendment to finding 2:

"the use of alcohol or other tested-for drugs by the Conception deck crew was not a factor in the accident."

 

Dang, so they never definitively identified the cause. And apparently "most" were awake. I hope not for very long, but it sounds like that will never be known either, given the overall uncertainty in timing. Unfortunate that even after a thorough investigation there are still so many unanswered questions about fundamental facts.

To a certain extent it seems that many actions could have "broken the chain" here. If there had been a roving watch, the fire would have been detected earlier, possibly in time to fight it. If the devices had been confined to a fireproof charging station, it might never have occurred in the first place. If the smoke detectors had alerted the crew on the upper deck... A cascade of regrettable consequences. I hope that changes come out of this that will prevent it from happening again.

 

Amendment to finding 16:

"Truth Aquatics provided ineffective safety oversight of its vessels operations, which jeopardized the safety of the crew members and passengers"

 

Investigators find no definitive cause of deadly California dive boat fire that killed 34 people last year

 

(formatting not mine - cut and paste from the CC box at the bottom)

Probable Cause (after amendment):

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident on board the small passenger vessel is Conception was the failure of Truth Aquatics Inc to provide effective oversight of its vessel and crew member operations, including requirements to insure that a roving patrol was maintained."Which allowed a fire of unknown cause to grow, undetected in the vicinity of the aft salon on the main deck. Contributing to the undetected growth of the fire was the lack of a united states Coast Guard regulatory requirement for smoke detection in all accommodations spaces, contributing to the high loss of life, were the inadequate emergency escape arrangements from the bunk room, as both exited into an compartment engulfed by fire. There by preventing escape."

 

Well, they didn't pull any punches there...

 

Can anyone summarize what happened?

 

There were two threads. More info here.

NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

 

The phrase I'm using is: Harsh but fair. Very critical of Truth Aquatics - and there's no way that 34 people die and the official findings end up being that there was nothing that could have been done differently - but I thought overall fair, and also, as they alluded to, sending a message to the small passenger vessel industry. As Homendy said, "While that may be how the industry operates, that's not right."

However, they 100% punted on what I think is still a key issue: Combustibility of construction materials not of the boat itself, but in the galley and other inside areas.

Fires can happen. Obviously, early detection increases your chances of fighting it and/or getting people out of harm's way. But once a fire starts, and let's assume it's from a battery exploding, the combustibility of the materials near the fire origin play a huge role. If the galley takes 20 minutes to be engulfed because things are flame-resistant or if it takes 3 minutes to become engulfed, that's a HUUUUGE factor in survivability. Don't know why they didn't address that at all.

I was also glad they added the "likely" amendment at the end vis a vis the roving watchman. That a roving watchman "likely" would have spotted the first. Chairman Sumwalt explained it nicely saying that your could have the roving watchman and he's in the engine room when the first breaks out and when he comes up a few minutes later, the fire is already advanced enough that exits are blocked and the outcome is the same.