Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-21-2020, 11:05 AM   #1
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,362
NTSB Report on Dive Boat

This was an incident that should have never happened. This incident is also responsible for insurance companies going ape shit, costing recreational.


https://gcaptain.com/conception-dive...eid=5b70bcca05
__________________
Advertisement

Alaskan Sea-Duction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 11:14 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Capt. Jon's Avatar
 
City: Alabama
Vessel Name: Waypoint
Vessel Model: Californian 48' CPMY
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 453
No overnight fire watch?
__________________

__________________
Jon
------------------------------------------------
Waypoint's are abstract, often having no obvious relationship to any distinctive features of the real world.
Capt. Jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 11:29 AM   #3
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Ft Pierce
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22,683
I would like to hear from Pau Hana whether commercial accidents affect and how much recreational vessels.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2020, 01:05 PM   #4
Guru
 
Comodave's Avatar
 
City: Au Gres, MI
Vessel Name: Never Say Never
Vessel Model: President 41 DC
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 10,495
This incident is why I donít go on overnight trips on boats that are not in my control. The secondary exit was a joke. It was on top of a 3 high bunk. You would have had to get into the bunk and lay on your back and climb up out. And it was a very small exit at that. The regulations absolutely need to be changed and if the boats canít comply then they need to be removed from service. Not having someone on watch is inexcusable. Also there needs to be regulations on charging portable equipment since this is most likely the cause of the fire. Very sad situation.
__________________
Boat Nut:
If you are one there is no explanation necessary.
If you arenít one, there is no explanation possible.
Comodave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 07:40 AM   #5
Guru
 
City: Port Canaveral
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,927
Hope these A-holes go down hard!

ďCaptain in California dive boat fire indicted on 34 counts of manslaughter
Prosecutors alleged the captain failed to set a roving patrol, failed to conduct fire drills and failed to sufficiently train his crew.Ē

Read in Los Angeles Times: https://apple.news/AODrpy1XTSICJ5uskVUqz0w
Mako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 09:39 AM   #6
Guru
 
Comodave's Avatar
 
City: Au Gres, MI
Vessel Name: Never Say Never
Vessel Model: President 41 DC
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 10,495
Well, that is a start. They really need to update the laws and regulations concerning these type of charters. Too bad about all the lost people. Heartbreaking.
__________________
Boat Nut:
If you are one there is no explanation necessary.
If you arenít one, there is no explanation possible.
Comodave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 09:53 AM   #7
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Ft Pierce
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22,683
Copied from post #5.....


"Prosecutors alleged the captain failed to set a roving patrol, failed to conduct fire drills and failed to sufficiently train his crew.”


Maybe following existing rules is adequate.....more laws aren't always the answer.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 10:14 AM   #8
Guru
 
OldDan1943's Avatar
 
City: Aventura FL
Vessel Name: Kinja
Vessel Model: American Tug 34 #116
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 6,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Copied from post #5.....
"Prosecutors alleged the captain failed to set a roving patrol, failed to conduct fire drills and failed to sufficiently train his crew.Ē

Maybe following existing rules is adequate.....more laws aren't always the answer.
I find it totally unbelievable the captain did not have at least one roving watch both during the night and also the day.
AND no fire drills or life boat drills as currently required on cruise ships and US Navy ships.

Like a lot of laws and rules, they need to be enforced rather than writing more.
__________________
The meek will inherit the earth but, the brave will inherit the seas.
OldDan1943 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 10:30 AM   #9
Guru
 
Portage_Bay's Avatar
 
City: Coupeville Wa.
Vessel Name: Pelorus
Vessel Model: Californian 42 LRC
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Copied from post #5.....


"Prosecutors alleged the captain failed to set a roving patrol, failed to conduct fire drills and failed to sufficiently train his crew.Ē


Maybe following existing rules is adequate.....more laws aren't always the answer.
Agree, more laws regarding watches, training and drills won't cure negligence and incompetence which the captain is guilty of and will pay the price for.

However there were glaring problems with the boat as well. An escape route that lead to the same area as the main access. Escape via a small hatch over an upper bunk. Why the boat was built that way and deemed fit for it's intended service by all parties, owner, insurance and USCG inspectors is beyond me. The captain also bears responsibility in that. It's part of the captain's job to ensure the boat is safe and to bring deficiencies to the attention of the above parties. But the buck shouldn't stop with the captain. All parties need to be held accountable.

If the captain had done what he was supposed to do maybe the fire would have been put out before it became a disaster. Maybe not. And once it got going those in the bunk room didn't stand a chance. The laws that govern that kind of construction do need to change.
__________________
CRS. Can't remember sh!t. My dad uses to say that. As I stare 70 in the face... Oh, what were we talking about?
Portage_Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 11:47 AM   #10
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Portage_Bay View Post
However there were glaring problems with the boat as well. An escape route that lead to the same area as the main access. Escape via a small hatch over an upper bunk. Why the boat was built that way and deemed fit for it's intended service by all parties, owner, insurance and USCG inspectors is beyond me.



I agree that this is an area where the USCG regs need to be enhanced. This doesn't relieve the captain from any of his obligations, or reduce the severity of his neglect, but I do think that if a boat requires two points of egress, which this one did, those need to lead to different spaces. It seems the biggest defect in the boat design is that both exit paths led to the same burning salon.


Also, I believe the charges claim there was inadequate fire alarming, and the fact that the fire was raging before anyone noticed certainly supports that. It seems completely reasonable to require comprehensive fire alarms on a boat.


So I think some regulation enhancement is called for, in addition to enforcement of existing regs.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 03:43 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
pacopico's Avatar
 
City: Gig Harbor
Vessel Name: REEL INN
Vessel Model: Chris Craft Commander 36 Tournament Fisherman
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 57
In a past life I worked for the company that sold and serviced the main engines for their vessels, and I recall an event where one of their vessels, when coming in for a landing at their dock they crashed the dock, and immediately the blame was made on the machinery "no response from the engine/transmission controls".

We sent techs, and after several trials no trouble found, however we did find that the actuator for the gear was rated only slightly above the manufacturers spec/requirement for shift actuation torque requirement.

The customer (Truth Aquatics) insisted our technician told them verbally that "it would be fine", and that any faults, damages, or courses of repair were entirely ours as a vendor, and proceeded to threaten a lawsuit.

At that time since I was a lowly manager I just handed it to Sr. Management and walked away from the problem. I don't recall the outcome but it was a rather ugly situation overall, and we were instructed to never do business for them again.

Prior to the falling out I remember that they were rather hard to deal with (being charitable), and I was relieved to be done with them when the time came!

To me it seems they had a chronic problem with "holier than thou" attitudes, that now appears to have come to rest on their heads.

My deepest sympathy goes out to the people and families that have suffered loss in this tragedy.
pacopico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 04:03 PM   #12
Guru
 
City: Boston
Vessel Name: Adelante
Vessel Model: IG 30
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mako View Post
Hope these A-holes go down hard!

“Captain in California dive boat fire indicted on 34 counts of manslaughter
Prosecutors alleged the captain failed to set a roving patrol, failed to conduct fire drills and failed to sufficiently train his crew.”
Let's crucify the Captain for no fire suppression system on the boat, no fire fighting equipment on the boat, no smoke detectors in the berthing compartment, no escape access from the berthing compartment..
Yep. 20 years in prison will fix all the problems.

NTSB has completed ignored the probable reason fore the wire claiming there was no evidence because the boat burned to the waterline. Most technical people have agreed that charging everyone's laptops, cell phones, dive computers, etc from 1 outlet was the likely source of ignition. Everything followed from that. NTSB should have addressed it.

Captain was certainly negligent, but the designer/builder of the boat was off the charts negligent.
SoWhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 04:27 PM   #13
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoWhat View Post
Let's crucify the Captain for no fire suppression system on the boat, no fire fighting equipment on the boat, no smoke detectors in the berthing compartment, no escape access from the berthing compartment..
Yep. 20 years in prison will fix all the problems.

Well, it's good thing then that he's NOT being charged with any of that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoWhat View Post
NTSB has completed ignored the probable reason fore the wire claiming there was no evidence because the boat burned to the waterline. Most technical people have agreed that charging everyone's laptops, cell phones, dive computers, etc from 1 outlet was the likely source of ignition. Everything followed from that. NTSB should have addressed it.

What actual evidence is there that that was the cause? Everything I've head is just arm-chair speculation. "I heard about it on the 787, so it must be what happened here". "Maybe it was lithium batteries", and turns into "it was lithium batteries"


Quote:
Originally Posted by SoWhat View Post
Captain was certainly negligent, but the designer/builder of the boat was off the charts negligent.

And the captain is being charged for his specific points of negligence, as seems appropriate.


You say there was no firefighting equipment on the boat? Are you sure about that? It's CG regulation even for recreational vessels, and I believe they had been recently inspected and were fully compliant. I haven't heard of any required equipment that failed or was missing. Has anyone else? So it's hard to fault a builder and operator for running a compliant inspected boat. Now a good operator would perhaps go above and beyond. But I think this really brings us back to the areas where the regulations are weak and should improved. It's not a question of enforcement, it's a question of what's required.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 04:47 PM   #14
Guru
 
Comodave's Avatar
 
City: Au Gres, MI
Vessel Name: Never Say Never
Vessel Model: President 41 DC
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 10,495
Well the captain is responsible for everything that happens on a cruise. Even if he wasnít aware of the problem, because he should have been aware of the problem. He absolutely was responsible for the lack of a roving patrol and the lack of training. Yes the design of the boat sucks and part of that problem is on the shoulders of the CG and the designer of the boat, or someone that maybe modified the boat. The regulations and applicable laws need to be changed. The photos of the second escape hatch show an unfortunately bad design that wouldnít function in an emergency. The boat builders and buyers have to design a boat that has readily accessible and usable escape routes. But unfortunately that will not be done until it is mandated by either laws or regulations. I sincerely hope that this tragedy helps spur those changes.
__________________
Boat Nut:
If you are one there is no explanation necessary.
If you arenít one, there is no explanation possible.
Comodave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 04:47 PM   #15
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Ft Pierce
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 22,683
Plus...was the boat designed and built for what it was being used for?

Many commercial vessels are retreads as far as use goes....if it met the minimums required by the USCG....might be hard to assign blame back to the designer and builder, even the captain...yet he can be blamed if required equipment was not working properly.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 04:55 PM   #16
Guru
 
OldDan1943's Avatar
 
City: Aventura FL
Vessel Name: Kinja
Vessel Model: American Tug 34 #116
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 6,715
Does she have a sister ship?
I suspect the USCG, NTSB and the insurance companies would like to inspect it too.

Were the upper berth approved in the original plans?

The buck stops at the Captain. He could have demanded things change or leave the boat.
__________________
The meek will inherit the earth but, the brave will inherit the seas.
OldDan1943 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 05:21 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
City: NW Nevada
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 326
Here's a link to its final COI: https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/64000-64...213/638774.pdf

It was equipped with a fire pump and two 1.5 inch hose boxes, along with the usual dry chemical extinguishers and the engine room fire system.

Interesting that the COI specifically calls out the requirement for a roving watch all hours while the bunk areas are occupied. Admittedly, I haven't personally read a lot of COIs for passenger vessels, just some, but I've never seen that language. This should be a T boat and that requirement is already in the subchapter. I wonder if this language was mitigation for some concern about the egress, or something else.
Alaskaflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 05:32 PM   #18
Guru
 
Comodave's Avatar
 
City: Au Gres, MI
Vessel Name: Never Say Never
Vessel Model: President 41 DC
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 10,495
If the captain wasnít fully satisfied with the boat as it was equipped and maintained then he had the choice to refuse to captain it. That is the choice that the CG and the CG Aux drill into every coxswain and it also applies to every captain, recreational or paid.
__________________
Boat Nut:
If you are one there is no explanation necessary.
If you arenít one, there is no explanation possible.
Comodave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 05:47 PM   #19
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comodave View Post
If the captain wasnít fully satisfied with the boat as it was equipped and maintained then he had the choice to refuse to captain it. That is the choice that the CG and the CG Aux drill into every coxswain and it also applies to every captain, recreational or paid.

That's true on paper, but in practice it means walking away from your livelihood, so unlikely to happen. It places a captain in a very difficult position.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2020, 06:05 PM   #20
Guru
 
Portage_Bay's Avatar
 
City: Coupeville Wa.
Vessel Name: Pelorus
Vessel Model: Californian 42 LRC
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
That's true on paper, but in practice it means walking away from your livelihood, so unlikely to happen. It places a captain in a very difficult position.
That's why I said accountability shouldn't stop with the captain. I'm not cutting him any slack on training and drills. Roving watch? I'm not sure about that. It depends in part on the work load the business, created by the owner and or manager, puts on the crew. Who's gonna stay up all night if everyone has worked all day?
__________________

__________________
CRS. Can't remember sh!t. My dad uses to say that. As I stare 70 in the face... Oh, what were we talking about?
Portage_Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012
×