• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

    Benefits of registering include

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

Discussion in 'Accidents & Incidents' started by Ken Kurtis, Oct 19, 2020.

  1. HalcyonDaze

    HalcyonDaze Contributor

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: Miami
    1,033
    1,025
    Those descriptions remind me more of what is seen with drowning victims in cave diving - people do damnably odd things in a panic, like rip their gear off or try to jam themselves into tiny spaces. I'm blind as a mole without contact lenses or glasses, but I'm sure as hell not going to stop and pop lenses in my eyes in the dark and smoke with a fire cutting off my escape route. For that matter, if I can't fumble around and find my glasses in a few seconds I'm not bothering. Ditto for shoes - that's not going to help much if you're going in the water. Everything described sounds like what would happen in the case of grabbing/donning items in a panic without being able to evaluate the situation; as far as time taken I've known quite a few folks in the fishing industry up in the Aleutians who drill to throw on a full-scale Gumby suit in the dark and I wouldn't be surprised if they could manage it in under a minute. Snagging a jacket, shoes, or a cell phone/flashlight would take seconds.

    At the end, the take-home lesson is that the fire casualty cut off the escape routes before an alarm was sounded. Had the vessel been constructed with an escape route directly to the deck, that could have been avoided. Had the vessel's electrical and/or charging systems been different, that could have been avoided. If a fire alarm had sounded earlier, that could have been avoided. If a roving watch had spotted the fire and sounded an alarm, that could have been avoided. In the subsequent RSA-I incident two months later, only the alternate escape route - which was actually blocked by a sleeping crewman - and the passengers smelling smoke in time prevented identical results. These are issues that will have to be addressed so this never happens again.
     
    apenland01 likes this.
  2. Bob DBF

    Bob DBF Solo Diver

    # of Dives: I just don't log dives
    Location: NorCal
    10,309
    15,798
    "Requires boats like the Conception to have no less than two means of escape to different parts of the vessel."

    This provision will probably take most of those type of vessels out of passenger service, as it will take considerable investment to design and change the configuration of each vessel, if it can be done at all.
     
    drrich2 likes this.
  3. StefinSB

    StefinSB ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Santa Barbara, CA
    920
    684
    It’s not. These are just the same people that put they shoes up on general use airport benches.
     
    Michael3826 likes this.

Share This Page