Engine room fire extinguishing requirements

[CaptBud]

I previously posted a thread about selling surveys but there was another part to that post that has not been picked up or discussed. I'm would like clarification from knowledgeable forum members about the requirements concerning fire protection, specifically in a trawler engine room. I received some comments from sailors saying many sailboat engine rooms are not protected. My first boat was a Tartan 27 with Atomic 4 gas engine with no permanently installed extinguishing agent. Since then I have owned a few trawlers and they all had Halon extinguishers both automatic and manually actuated (that is another thread for discussion altogether). The question is about regulations covering the extinguisher system itself, i.e. are they a legal requirement or just a common sense item to install ?

To compound the issue we all know that if fire does break out in the engine room the last thing one wants to do is OPEN the hatch and allow oxygen to enter and discharge a hand held extinguisher...the fire would flare up in your face.........please be nice and sincere with your comments...Thanks

 

[Lepke]

In the US: Yachts over 65 feet need 1 B-II extinguisher in the engineroom for each 1000 hp. Carrying paying passengers is different.
My current boat was a tour boat in Canada and has automatic and manual CO2, auto Halon, with fuel shut offs and vents that can be closed from the outside.
I think the most likely fire on a yacht is from electrical problems.

 

[Greg S]

How long of a pleasure boat? For 12 meters to 24 meters Canadian regs require a 10BC extinguisher OUTSIDE the entry to the engine space. A 10BC is also required at each access to any space that contains a fuel burning cooking, heating or refrigerating appliance, and at the entrance to any accommodation space.
Nothing about inside the engine space.

Industry construction standards are probably more demanding. I know sailboats are required to have a way to discharge an extinguisher without opening the space. They often have a flap hole to stick a extinguisher nozzle through.

 

[psneeld]

There is no requirement for smaller, recreational diesel boats in US that I know of unless as Lepke pointed out.

Unless your insurance company insists.

No sure about gasoline boats.

Insurance form asked about one, I said it would be too difficult and expensive to retrofit properly...they agreed and dismissed the requirement.

Firefighting is always tricky, one even such as opening a large hatch can be a bad idea. A small port for discharging an extinguisher may be a better idea than nothing.

 

[mvweebles]

Decent article from Steve D on fire suppression systems. In it he states, as does Fireboy in their advertising, that an automatic engine shut down system is required for diesel engines in order to be ABYC compliant. It does not state one way or the other than a fire suppression system is required.

https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/fixed-fire-suppression-systems/

Fireboy/xintrix sizes systems by the volume of the engine room in cubic feet.

An example of a 700 CF model here

https://www.defender.com/product.jsp?id=2660460

Peter

 

[psneeld]

Its the auto shutdown system that makes the auto extinguisher effective. Thats the real component that is expensive/hard to reto install, not so much the extinguisher.

 

[O C Diver]

The Fireboy auto shutdown for my boat was a little over $200. All wiring on my boat was in the pilothouse house. It disconnects the engine ignition, generator relay, and engine room ventilation blower. I already had the circuit coming up from the extinguisher that triggers the relay box. If you don't already have the automatic fire extinguisher, that's the expensive component.

Ted

 

[psneeld]

For me it would be engineering and constructing vent shutters for the engine room.

On my boat, fitting shutters would be very difficult as they open to and penetrate a false overhead. That would lead to sealing up all the air leaks or fitting shutters in a very confined space.

If gutting the engineroom for a major refit...not so bad maybe.

 

[mvweebles]

While shutters would be great, I would think disabling the blowers would be the classic 80% of benefit with 20% effort

 

[rslifkin]

I agree with others, extinguishing system is a good idea, but generally not required on recreational boats.



If you can't seal the space up perfectly, I've wondered about a system like aircraft cargo bays use. Have a 2 bottle system, one fast release, one slow. If the system is triggered, the first bottle dumps. Once the first bottle is sensed empty, start discharge of the slow bottle that takes something like 15 - 20 minutes to discharge fully. That way the second bottle helps maintain extinguishing agent concentration for longer, giving time for materials to cool and people to prep for next steps, minimizing the chance of a reflash (assuming the system is able to extinguish the fire).

 

[Bacchus]

While shutters would be great, I would think disabling the blowers would be the classic 80% of benefit with 20% effort

My Mainship has no louvers. Control shuts down blower (if on), engine ( largest air intake), alternator excite. Air intake at opposite end of ER from extinguisher

 

[psneeld]

What blowers? the ones that would add O2 and blow the extinguishing agent away from the engine?


Plus I rarely run the blowers...almost never underway.


Most boat fires being electrical and only how many start in the engine room...compared to most of the time actually underway opposed to engine off time. While a few rack up underway hours...I don't. At my peak it was only about 500 hrs/yr.



I have thought out a lot of possibilities without any winners....

 

[rslifkin]

Most boat fires being electrical and only how many start in the engine room...compared to most of the time actually underway opposed to engine off time. While a few rack up underway hours...I don't. At my peak it was only about 500 hrs/yr.

I agree that an engine room fire underway is far from the biggest fire risk on a boat. However, because there's the possibility of a pressurized fuel leak, it's one of the fire sources that has the potential to start off rather quickly, so an extinguishing system that may go off before you ever know something is wrong could make a big difference.



That said, it doesn't replace the need for well placed smoke detectors, etc. to catch something smoldering long before it's hot enough to trip the extinguishing system.

 

[Portage_Bay]

Auto shut down is very important. Fire extinguishing agents will not stop a diesel which will act as a very large and efficient air pump removing extinguishing agent, bringing in fresh air, reducing the extinguishing agent below effective levels very quickly.

Older energize to stop diesels will require some engineering to modify them so the auto shut down can work. Older energize to run, newer electronically controlled diesels and gasoline engines are easy to wire into the auto shut down.

One clunky way to deal with engine room ventilation closure is to size the automatic bottle to 2 X what is required. This both makes it more effective and buys you time to block the vents with towels, cushions, anything handy.

Another approach could be two bottles. One auto, one manual. After the auto bottle goes off then block the vents then fire the manual bottle.

Statistics I've read agree with Lepke. Most recreational boat fires are electrical. Most are in the DC system. This argues for your main battery disconnects to be outside the engine room. Either the switches themselves or controls for remote switches. These could also be tied into the auto shut down.

Boat fires - Seaworthy Magazine - Boat US
Blue Sea Systems remote battery switches (Not a plug for Blue Sea Systems, just examples of what can be installed.)

 

[CaptBud]

Thanks for all the comments. One idea I had would be to install a color TV camera in the engine room so while underway you could continuously monitor the engine room. If fire flames are seen (reason for color camera) you could shut down engine and blower if on and rig a manual bottle discharge using a cable with a tee handle located at the helm. This would give you a chance to evacuate or run aground if necessary.............one reason to tow the dinghy when cruising

 

[Portage_Bay]

Thanks for all the comments. One idea I had would be to install a color TV camera in the engine room so while underway you could continuously monitor the engine room. If fire flames are seen (reason for color camera) you could shut down engine and blower if on and rig a manual bottle discharge using a cable with a tee handle located at the helm. This would give you a chance to evacuate or run aground if necessary.............one reason to tow the dinghy when cruising

That's an OK plan as far as shutting down machinery, tripping the bottle and preparing to abandon ship. I see the weak points as

1. You must constantly monitor the camera. You are not protected if you're asleep, sitting on the deck at anchor with your adult beverage, or any other non-underway activity which for many is the great majority of the time we are aboard.
2. You will only see the fire after it has gotten large, possibly too large to extinguish.

In my opinion the way to depend upon manual release is to have alarms. Sensitive enough to catch the fire in it's initial phases.

 

[obthomas]

Decent article from Steve D on fire suppression systems. In it he states, as does Fireboy in their advertising, that an automatic engine shut down system is required for diesel engines in order to be ABYC compliant. It does not state one way or the other than a fire suppression system is required.

Peter

Careful with interpretations. Neither the Coast Guard or ABYC require automatic engine room fire extinguishing systems or engine shut down in uninspected Diesel Trawlers under 65 feet. I believe you are required to have fire extinguisher ports so the engine room does not need to be opened during a fire. However, if an automatic clean agent fire extinguishing system is installed it will not meet system approvals unless it also has automatic shut down of engines and ventilation to prevent the fire extinguishing agent from simply being evacuated from the engine room before it can extinguish the fire A clean agent concentration of 7 to 10% must be maintained for about 10 minutes to extinguish a fire. This allows the agent to work and also for the fire to cool down and not re-ignite.

O.B. Thomas

 

[Fleming]

Careful with interpretations. Neither the Coast Guard or ABYC require automatic engine room fire extinguishing systems or engine shut down in uninspected Diesel Trawlers under 65 feet.

O.B. Thomas

I came across this older thread while researching this issue and want to correct this misinformation.

ABYC A-4 Table 1: Fixed fire suppression system is required for diesel engines with an Engine compartment net volume of > 123.6 ft3 (3.5 m3) or >161 hp (120 kW) compliant with all the requirements of A-4.8

So basically if you have a diesel over 160 HP you need a fixed fire suppression system.

 

[tiltrider1]

ABYC is not the law. It is a recommendation. So yes, you need the suppression system to be ABYC compliant but you don’t need it to be legal. Insurance requirements may vary.

 

[Fleming]

ABYC is not the law. It is a recommendation. So yes, you need the suppression system to be ABYC compliant but you don’t need it to be legal. Insurance requirements may vary.

Yea, yea, yea. It's well known that many on the forum don't like ABYC and don't care about their standards. But they matter. That's the standard that Marine Surveyors use and survey to. That's where I saw this, on a survey for a boat that I was interested in buying. Written up as a critical 'A' finding and something most insurance companies would require to be fixed before insuring.

When you are filing an insurance claim for a fire in your engine room and it gets denied because your boat wasn't up to the ABYC standards good luck with your legal argument "It's just a recommendation".

There's a case that went to the supreme court last year, don't know if it's been decided, about a collision/grounding claim that was denied because the fixed fire suppression system didn't have it's annual inspection. If they can deny a claim for not having an annual inspection, don't you think they can deny it for not even having the system installed in the first place? https://www.boatblurb.com/post/a-case-study-for-avoiding-a-maritime-legal-battle

Note to readers: The 'Guru' under people's name comes from voicing their opinion frequently, not from expertise.

 

[Marco Flamingo]

If they can deny a claim for not having an annual inspection, don't you think they can deny it for not even having the system installed in the first place?

And that is a big IF. Great Lakes insurance company had a contract clause that stated Florida law applied, to the extent that federal maritime law did not, although the boat and owner are in PA. The insurance company "planned to argue" that under Florida law the out-of-date fire extinguishers invalidated the entire insurance contract.

The insurance company lost the jurisdiction issue on preliminary motion at the trial level and at the appeals court, that's why Great Lakes petitioned to the US Supreme Court. They will likely lose there and have to return to the trial court and argue their "invalid insurance contract" theory for the first time. They will probably settle, as even though Florida consumer protection law might be less consumer friendly, it isn't likely to support the "fire extinguisher inspection" argument. And the owner's counterclaims under PA consumer law could make Great Lake's stunt very expensive, as it allows the recover of costs, attorney fees, and treble damages.

It's much too early to think the case has changed existing law.

 

[Fleming]

Yea, of course that case defied common sense. I don't think it defies common sense to say that an insurance company has a legitimate reason to deny a fire claim if the 'proper' fire fighting equipment is not in place. 'Proper' being the standards that are used by the marine industry.

But hey, that's just my opinion. You guys can ignore the standards all you want. Plenty of boat builders ignore them too and seem to get away with it.

 

[rslifkin]

For something like requiring fire suppression because ABYC specifies it, what do we do with older boats? Should everyone be forced to retrofit even if it wasn't required at the time of build?

Plus, ABYC is a voluntary standard (and typically a good idea to follow it). The legal requirements for fire extinguishing and certain other things are specified by the USCG.

Based on that, I'd think a surveyor has every right to recommend an upgrade to meet the AYBC standards. But an insurance company should be clear on what standards they expect the boat to meet (legal requirements, ABYC, etc. and as of what point in time). They shouldn't just blindly see anything noted on a survey and say "yeah, you've gotta fix that" regardless of whether any standard would have driven it when the boat was built. And they certainly shouldn't hold you to current standards at the time of a claim.

 

[Fleming]

And that is a big IF. Great Lakes insurance company had a contract clause that stated Florida law applied, to the extent that federal maritime law did not, although the boat and owner are in PA. The insurance company "planned to argue" that under Florida law the out-of-date fire extinguishers invalidated the entire insurance contract.

The insurance company lost the jurisdiction issue on preliminary motion at the trial level and at the appeals court, that's why Great Lakes petitioned to the US Supreme Court. They will likely lose there and have to return to the trial court and argue their "invalid insurance contract" theory for the first time. They will probably settle, as even though Florida consumer protection law might be less consumer friendly, it isn't likely to support the "fire extinguisher inspection" argument. And the owner's counterclaims under PA consumer law could make Great Lake's stunt very expensive, as it allows the recover of costs, attorney fees, and treble damages.

It's much too early to think the case has changed existing law.

The verdict is in, and the Supreme Court has decided in favor of Great Lakes. So YES, they can deny your collision or allision claim because of deficiencies with your fire protection if that is in your policy.

"However, the Supreme Court held that choice-of-forum provisions have long been honored under maritime law and enable insurers to better assess risk. “Choice-of-law provisions therefore can lower the price and expand the availability of marine insurance. In those ways, choice-of-law provisions advance a fundamental purpose of federal maritime law: ‘protection of maritime commerce’,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority."
https://loosecannon.substack.com/p/...GcGk01aZbx7siD1eKfqjFKuOUY&triedRedirect=true

9-0 decision, not even close apparently.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-500_7k47.pdf

 

[psneeld]

Sure if you are not compliant with their requirements...but if you satisfy their require survey recommendations and they do not require either an annual inspection or even have a fixed extinguishing system installed (not hard to do as I did it with 3 different insurance companies that referenced ABYC and I showed them how total compliance was silly on my boat due to engineering issues and age.

There are also parts of the law that may not have been addressed that are precedence that say if a requirement had absolutely nothing to do with the cause of the incident, that it is NOT a reason to deny a claim. So without a full legal review of the case before the supreme court...I am suspect of exactly how they sided with the insurance company.....

The point that the policy was void when the boat was underway because of the owner failing to satisfy the insurance company by not ensuring compliance with the policy requirements. Had he challenged that section of the policy and receive an OK from the insurance company like I did to be able to use the boat without that requirement, the insurance company would not have had the option of denial.

So don't ignore insurance company punch lists after a purchase/insurance survey... just explain why it would be reasonable to not fulfill them fully or better yet, partially.

 

[Fleming]

It's certainly a sticky issue because insurance companies could almost always find some safety requirement that's not being met. Fixed fire suppression systems are supposed to be inspected annually, to the tune of $400-500 each year and I would guess that 90% of all the boats in the U.S. are out of compliance with that one.

 

[psneeld]

It's certainly a sticky issue because insurance companies could almost always find some safety requirement that's not being met. Fixed fire suppression systems are supposed to be inspected annually, to the tune of $400-500 each year and I would guess that 90% of all the boats in the U.S. are out of compliance with that one.

OK, my older trawler didn't meet a lot of ABYC "suggestions" that the insurance company would have like to see corrected, I just used my experience and a little common sense to explain why some things are just impractical on older boats that weren't built that way from the beginning. Now newer boats that have them already installed is a different story. One could argue the annual check by a certified person is overkill though. If it isn't taking the place of other required fire extinguishers (as if no fixed system was installed), then see if they waive the annual inspection requirement.

Fixed Fire extinguisher system as an example in my case. I explained why shutters were hard to install and as a pro captain I refused to have an auto shutdown without an easy override as long as I had engine room fire alarms to tell me I have a problem (an override pretty much negates the auto shutdown to begin with). They bit off on that and other requirements like the boat only being worked on and annually checked by certified mechanics/technicians. I explained my background and zero boating claims either recreationally or commercially for many years and they threw that one out too. Not everyone might have the same luck but try it next time, as long as they waive their own punch list, you should be good to go unless it is spelled out elsewhere in the policy.

 

[Marco Flamingo]

The verdict is in, and the Supreme Court has decided in favor of Great Lakes. So YES, they can deny your collision or allision claim because of deficiencies with your fire protection if that is in your policy.

9-0 decision, not even close apparently.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-500_7k47.pdf

This interlocutory appeal was only about a choice of law issue in an insurance contract for a case that has yet to go to trial. Great Lakes wants FL law. The plaintiff wants PA law. The plaintiff's argument was that public policy can and should override contractual choice of law (i.e., that Great Lakes' denial of the claim is so super-sleazy that they should not get to use FL law). The SC said that Great Lakes' conduct wasn't super-sleazy (regular sleazy being expected for insurance companies?) and GL can now defend in front of a FL jury on a claim that an insurance company can deny your collision claim because of an out-of-date fire extinguisher. Not even close to GL having "won the case."

I don't know if TF has a polling feature, but it would be interesting to see how many on TF think all insurance claims should be denied because of something like an improper PFD aboard, or lacking a USCG "no discharge" placard, or an out-of-date fire extinguisher, or not monitoring channel 16 when underway, or some other completely unrelated technical violation. I would guess less than 1 in 100. So it will be interesting if GL can find 6 jurors who agree with their argument.

 

[SteveK]

..................... I explained my background and zero boating claims either recreationally or commercially for many years and they threw that one out too. ...................

I have never had a claim either. I have not had any issue getting insurance. I have also been allowed lattitude.
How do we know if either one of us would be denied a claim for some silly issue. The court case mentioned the claim was denied and the premium returned. So if we continue to give the insurer money that they get to keep if we make no claim, how will we ever know if we were insured or just handing over annual premiums.
This makes me chuckle as the marinas demand to see a current policy that may not payout anyway.

 

[psneeld]

I have never had a claim either. I have not had any issue getting insurance. I have also been allowed lattitude.
How do we know if either one of us would be denied a claim for some silly issue. The court case mentioned the claim was denied and the premium returned. So if we continue to give the insurer money that they get to keep if we make no claim, how will we ever know if we were insured or just handing over annual premiums.
This makes me chuckle as the marinas demand to see a current policy that may not payout anyway.

You are correct that many things in life are a gamble.

But because they so easily put in writing that their "rules" can be waived, just rubber stamping every "safety" requirement discrepancy reported in surveys isn't in their best interest.

BUT, they stick to their written policies closely. Break their rules and they CAN and WILL often deny claims. So if you are going to ignore their policy wording, best to get permission to or take your chances.

My other reason for thinking my claims will generally be paid is the few I have had for home and auto were never questioned one tiny moment. Also hundreds of others I have either heard from friends/family or read about. It's almost always a reason the insurance policy had a reason to deny a claim or cancel the policy because some part of the policy that is clearly in writing.

Of note also.... is many times I have heard of policies being cancelled or claims denied is because the policy holder clearly didn't understand their policy (meaning what was most likely to bite them in the butt they were clearly ignoring). For me that is so apparent as a former assistance tower, many boaters had no clue of what their membership agreement really covered, even after years and years of having it.

But ultimately, sure , correctly interpreting pages and pages of legal speak might catch anyone sooner or later. Especially the larger the payout amount or dealing with "discount" insurance companies.