Propane, the kiss of death

[donradcliffe]

Then there were the guys who set off 6 roach bombs and closed the boat up....

[AlanT]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not indeed -- the Lord Trenchard case is an example, which should be warning to us all, that you can blow yourself up with propane even when you have better maintenance and better procedures than any of us have: https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/expl...people-injured


I bet there are some people in this very thread who don't have a gas alarm, and/or who have never tested their gas lockers for leaks.


Someone is killed or maimed almost every year in the UK in a propane/butane explosion on a boat:

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post2508932

and in the U.S. it happens from time to time:

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post2508932

Thanks for the links and I read the entire Lord Trenchard report. The conclusion of which is that there were two significant failures on the part of crew &/or vessel maintenance: (a) the high pressure hand connection to one propane tank was loose and (b) there were multiple penetrations into the supposedly gas tight propane locker. As stated "there were several gas leak paths from the ready use locker to the hold space".

If the connection to the tank had been properly cinched down by hand OR the owners had not permitted various breaches of the integrity of the day use tank this accident would not have happened. The leak from tank connection would have escaped overboard if the locker was intact.

As is usually the case it takes more than one failure to result in a catastrophe.

I'll go back to my prior comment. The tens of thousands of charter boats, many in inexperienced hands, do not blow up. The accidents that do occur have logical causes and, as in the case of the Lord Trenchard, would have been prevented by either (1) tightening the connection, or (2) preventing holes being drilled in a 'gas-tight' locker.

So my message is that nothing is inherently safe or foolproof. Propane is widely used without incident. It should be respected and there are good examples on this thread of poor practices and what can happen when these are allowed.

~A

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by AlanT

….

I'll go back to my prior comment. The tens of thousands of charter boats, many in inexperienced hands, do not blow up. ….A

The charter fleet is not a good example. They have professionals ‘occasionally’ checking the systems for problems.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Adelie

........ Gas is a bit less safe than diesel but that doesn’t make it dangerous, just a bit less safe.

Methinks you had a bowl of Semantics for breakfast....

[Adelie]

No, I’m an engineer, I do this for a living.

Cost benefit analysis.

[AlanT]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The charter fleet is not a good example. You professionals ‘occasionally’ checking the systems for problems.

I respectfully disagree. I was addressing this comment "the Lord Trenchard case is an example, which should be warning to us all, that you can blow yourself up with propane even when you have better maintenance and better procedures than any of us have."

There is a certain amount of fear-mongering when it comes to propane, with suggestions that it is unsafe EVEN IF the correct procedures/maintenance and installation instructions are followed.

However IMO the Lord Trenchard case basically proves the opposite, since there were multiple failures in maintenance and operation.

Conversely my example of the professionally maintained charter fleets which tend not to blow up also make the case for correct installation/maintenance and operation. (its usually a badly conceived owner installation or failure to maintain that causes the problem).

That is why this thread is extremely valuable to clarify that mistakes in operation (not tightening the valve), installation (the sniffer was too high in the hold), maintenance (there should not have been holes drilled in the locker) all led to the Lord Trenchard explosion, and that following correct procedures on any one of those three items would have prevented the explosion.

In this respect some folks should rightfully be put off from considering the purchase/use of propane on a boat because they are unable or unwilling to understand and maintain such a system, while others that take the time to understand the system, its installation and maintenance requirements, have a user-friendly fuel source with many advantages over the alternatives which has proven itself over nearly 50 years (my 1977 Cal 34 had propane) to be safe and efficient when treated properly.

FWIW my current boat has only electric appliances in the galley, but I wish I had propane.

~A

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Better would be finer grained/more specific insurance company data than was provided earlier in this thread. I don’t think we are going to get it.

https://www.boatus.com/expert-advice...rd-fire-claims

https://www.boatus.com/expert-advice...fires-on-boats

https://uscgboating.org/library/acci...stics-2020.pdf

and a very important summary ... read this one first.
https://www.shefflaw.com/how-common-...ne-explosions/

[Bill Seal]

Then there were the 34 divers who died because too many lithium camera batteries were being charged below deck.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by AlanT

I respectfully disagree. I was addressing this comment "the Lord Trenchard case is an example, which should be warning to us all, that you can blow yourself up with propane even when you have better maintenance and better procedures than any of us have."



There is a certain amount of fear-mongering when it comes to propane, with suggestions that it is unsafe EVEN IF the correct procedures/maintenance and installation instructions are followed.



However IMO the Lord Trenchard case basically proves the opposite, since there were multiple failures in maintenance and operation.



Conversely my example of the professionally maintained charter fleets which tend not to blow up also make the case for correct installation/maintenance and operation. (its usually a badly conceived owner installation or failure to maintain that causes the problem).



That is why this thread is extremely valuable to clarify that mistakes in operation (not tightening the valve), installation (the sniffer was too high in the hold), maintenance (there should not have been holes drilled in the locker) all led to the Lord Trenchard explosion, and that following correct procedures on any one of those three items would have prevented the explosion.



In this respect some folks should rightfully be put off from considering the purchase/use of propane on a boat because they are unable or unwilling to understand and maintain such a system, while others that take the time to understand the system, its installation and maintenance requirements, have a user-friendly fuel source with many advantages over the alternatives which has proven itself over nearly 50 years (my 1977 Cal 34 had propane) to be safe and efficient when treated properly.



FWIW my current boat has only electric appliances in the galley, but I wish I had propane.



~A

My point about the charter fleet is that it is not a good source of data to extrapolate to the group of boats maintained by their owners.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Adelie

They are not facts, they are his observations and opinions in a career dealing with the issues we are discussing. I think his experience lends his observations and opinions greater weight than most people here.

Better would be finer grained/more specific insurance company data than was provided earlier in this thread. I don’t think we are going to get it.

I think the safety aspects of propane vs electric cooking are a lot like gas vs diesel auxiliary engines on sailboats. Gas is a bit less safe than diesel but that doesn’t make it dangerous, just a bit less safe.

We’ve already been through this thread ad nauseum over the years here.

The facts are indeed just as Boat Poker describes.

The vast majority of losses to boats are from electrical fires, not propane mishaps. This is from insurance data I’ve read over and over and over in this forum on this same topic.

But I don’t disagree with you, otherwise.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sure, so is an electrical fire a concern...unless you are willing to stop eating cooked food, you will have to balance risks.

Well, there's still always alcohol and kerosene!

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Well, there's still always alcohol and kerosene!

And wood and coal! Ha ha

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The charter fleet is not a good example. They have professionals ‘occasionally’ checking the systems for problems.

Nope, they don’t. , they have some guy working on commission usually fixing flotilla boats.

[Thumbs Up]

I already said the solution, you just need to find some old mother earth news magazines and make a methane digester
https://www.motherearthnews.com/diy/...ter-zmaz75zwar
https://www.motherearthnews.com/rene...r-zm0z14aszrob
https://www.motherearthnews.com/rene...r-zmaz81mjzraw
"It's a renewable energy source"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Adelie

No, I’m an engineer, I do this for a living.

Cost benefit analysis.

I was actually just joking but the problem with this type of discussion is that it often leads to circular references to somehow define a singularly different event.

If we were to simply compare a worst case failure from a Propane Explosion with the same for an electrical fire
.....it would be hard to argue that the Propane Explosion is not "More Dangerous"

That actually has nothing to do with personal choice as we all know, complacency with anything on a boat can be the Kiss of Death