The loss of M/V Conception

[GordMay]

Greetings and belated welcome aboard the CF, lwiniarski.

[hpeer]

LA Times article

Authorities said Friday they believe smoke inhalation caused the deaths of 34 people aboard the Conception dive boat, raising new questions about exactly where the fire started and how it spread.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...es%3f_amp=true

That’s the question I was raising in post 53.

Sure they had smoke detectors.
Did they have CO detectors?
Would they have done any good?

[Don C L]

The designer of the boat is quoted here.
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...the-conception

The location and use of the 110 outlets for charging and what others have said here about dangerous batteries and chargers that look identical to safe ones are the things that have caught my eye. The report is not expected for 12 to 18 months. For now I am keeping anything with a lithium battery in an ammo can, and no charging inside the boat.

[john61ct]

A detailed discussion of legal issues

https://www.metafilter.com/182982/Raising-the-Titanic

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Don C L

The designer of the boat is quoted here.
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...the-conception

The location and use of the 110 outlets for charging and what others have said here about dangerous batteries and chargers that look identical to safe ones are the things that have caught my eye. The report is not expected for 12 to 18 months. For now I am keeping anything with a lithium battery in an ammo can, and no charging inside the boat.

When battery recharging was first raised here as a possible cause it rang bells with me and from now on recharging on my boat will be far more rigorously monitored.

[Cpt Pat]

Here is a "B-roll" (no audio) of the NTSB walk-through of Vision, Conception's sister ship.

https://tinyurl.com/y65hkefo

In it, you will get a good look at the escape hatch. The inadequacy of that hatch to quickly evacuate 34 persons in a smoke-filled cabin should be obvious.

Safety and Optimism are often polar opposites. Here, it appears the regulators were delusionally optimistic about the effectiveness of that hatch.

The emergency evacuation standard for passenger aircraft is: "The operator must show that the aircraft, emergency equipment, and emergency procedures allow the evacuation of the aircraft at full seating capacity, including crewmembers, in 90 seconds or less."

[B23iL23]

That escape hatch is a joke. Assuming power was out so no lights, thick smoke and a lot of panic. Even without all that it's difficult to get out through it.

[Cpt Pat]

A common lithium battery used in battery powered appliances (camera, lights, hand tools) is the model 18650. Here are two related videos.

University of Michigan briefing on lithium battery failure modes - so many things to go wrong:
https://tinyurl.com/y2l4t8s9

"Cooking off" demo of an 18650 battery: https://tinyurl.com/y59khncf. When one battery in a pack fails - the explosion cascades to the rest of the pack.

Here some brave Russians failure test 18650 batteries (with no safety protocols): https://tinyurl.com/yxvkjt9p

[Don C L]

In the aircraft, 90 seconds for evacuation assumes all exits are not blocked, correct? The main entrance to the bunk area is not small. I agree the escape hatch is small but if both exits were unblocked, and there was no smoke or toxic fumes, nor panic in the dark, I believe, in my humble opinion, the bunk area could have been evacuated in 90 seconds.
This is a very unusual situation. Let's remember the boat has been operating safely for nearly 40 years. The escape hatch or its size, while it could have been bigger, does not look like the issue, or one that could have helped, just yet. What those of us who know the boat can't fathom is how not even one person could have escaped. The fire or smoke must have been so incapacitating so quickly that it was the result of a scenario we can't imagine yet.
In any event there will be time to go over the report. It just seems to add to the misery to fault some thing or some one just yet.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Don C L

In the aircraft, 90 seconds for evacuation assumes all exits are not blocked, correct? The main entrance to the bunk area is not small. I agree the escape hatch is small but if both exits were unblocked, and there was no smoke or toxic fumes, nor panic in the dark, I believe, in my humble opinion, the bunk area could have been evacuated in 90 seconds.
This is a very unusual situation. Let's remember the boat has been operating safely for nearly 40 years. The escape hatch or its size, while it could have been bigger, does not look like the issue, or one that could have helped, just yet. What those of us who know the boat can't fathom is how not even one person could have escaped. The fire or smoke must have been so incapacitating so quickly that it was the result of a scenario we can't imagine yet.
In any event there will be time to go over the report. It just seems to add to the misery to fault some thing or some one just yet.

Re: escape hatch. If I were one of those unfortunate people, I would hope to have been asphyxiated in my sleep. Possibly, that is the reason not one got out.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Don C L

... if both exits were unblocked, and there was no smoke or toxic fumes, nor panic in the dark, I believe, in my humble opinion, the bunk area could have been evacuated in 90 seconds...

I strongly disagree after seeing the NTSB walkthrough of the sister ship.
But, never mind all that. The fact remains: BOTH bunk room "exits" led to the galley, which in turn had only ONE true exit to the outside. That one exit was engulfed in flames when the crew got there. The whole safety concept of two exits from the bunk room is negated if they both lead to one room with one exit. (which happened to be on fire) If the crew couldn't get through the galley windows from the outside, we should not assume anyone could get out from the inside. (among smoke and flames)

On an aircraft, the 90 second test does not involve scrambling to get out of one chamber, and then scrambling to get out of a second chamber.

I would be very surprised if we don't eventually see new regulations on such boats requiring these bunk rooms to have an emergency exit to the EXTERIOR of the boat. Yeah, it might be very expensive to make something like that seaworthy...
BUT what building in the free world would be legally certified to sleep 34 people in windowless tight quarters where the only two "exits" actually went to ONE MORE little room with only ONE exit of its own??. (IMO we are taking liberties with the word "exit" here)

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by cyan

The whole safety concept of two exits from the bunk room is negated if they both lead to one room with one exit. (which happened to be on fire) If the crew couldn't get through the galley windows from the outside, we should not assume anyone could get out from the inside. (among smoke and flames)

Point well taken. The galley needed much better exits and/or windows that could be removed, from either side.

This is the last NTSB press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYpRiDhpxxc

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by cyan

(IMO we are taking liberties with the word "exit" here)

I agree. Speaking generally about the design, not specifically about the accident: If the main exit was blocked, and everyone was forced to use the emergency hatch (I'm intentionally not using the word "exit"), how long do you estimate it would take each occupant to wiggle through that opening? My estimate is 5 seconds per person: assuming good organization, ideal visibility, and prior practice. No shoving, no pushing, so bunching up at the hatch.

So 34 persons... that's over 2.5 minutes.

I don't care if we've been "doing that" design for a thousand years. It's just wrong, and pointing out that a catastrophe of this magnitude hasn't happened before is a case of "using luck as a strategy." (Or more technically: "normalization of deviance.") And while I'm not trying to solve THIS mystery - I can look at that hatch and say: "That's just wrong."

Regarding fires in general in confined spaces -- one can't count on people behaving rationally. In a real fire, it's complete chaos. The moment people start feeling heat and smelling smoke, all semblance of order vanishes. Here is an example: https://tinyurl.com/y5c676mb. That video was shot at what has become know as "The Station Nightclub Fire." 100 people died. WARNING: The video is VERY disturbing. It's a little less likely to give you nightmares if you turn off the audio. That video was used in my EMT class to illustrate how, in a crisis, people act only on instinct and memory. There were other exists available to that crowd, but few people used them. Most just headed out the same way they'd come in - even after it became clear the exit was blocked.

We may never know what happened on the Conception. But I feel it's unlikely anyone tried to use that hatch.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by cyan

BUT what building in the free world would be legally certified to sleep 34 people in windowless tight quarters where the only two "exits" actually went to ONE MORE little room with only ONE exit of its own??. (IMO we are taking liberties with the word "exit" here)

I wanted to add I agree here too. My point being that as far as I know the boat complied with all regulations, and I'd agree those need revision now.

[JPA Cate]

Would it "work" to have enough charging outlets so that all night divers lights, cameras, and phones could be charged while someone is awake keeping an eye on it?

Would it "work" to have a hatch with a ladder out in the bow?

The boats in service were 40 yrs. old. Not of steel construction. Maybe charging should take place in a metal vault that could be closed on a fire, and starved for oxygen? How much would it cost? How much would it add to the costs of commercial dives? Remember, it is mostly pretty safe. Kinda makes you wonder what the legislators will make of it......

Ann