California Dive Boat Fire to Put Spotlight on Titanic's Legal Defense – gCaptain

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I think the best thing to do - is wait for the full facts to be known. It's a horrific thing that occurred. Being burned alive is not the way anyone expects to die, or, their families ever expect. Hopefully, some preventable cause can be found. If that's the case, it may help prevent it from happening again. It may not have been a preventable cause. If that's the case, the tragedy is the same.

The causes are always preventable. The question is are we ready as society to either pay for the prevention financially and/or by limiting/ending the activity which led to/created the causes.

We lose 40,000 people per year to road accidents. But because auto transport in such a large country is the bloodline of its economy the price to effectively deal with these deaths is perhaps too high so we allow the deaths to continue.

On the other hand is diving such an indispensible activity in the larger scheme of things as to allow XX number of deaths per year? We make these decisions as soceity everyday - from medicine to sports to employment conditions.

[Dsanduril]

While there is no cause yet (it will be a long investigation) in response to the fire the USCG has issued a safety bulletin that includes, in part:

Reduce potential fire hazards and consider limiting the unsupervised charging of lithium-ion batteries and extensive use of power strips and extension cords.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

While there is no cause yet (it will be a long investigation) in response to the fire the USCG has issued a safety bulletin that includes, in part:

I think someone posted before, these battery issues are really something that needs to be taken seriously. Whether it was the dive company, or an individual passenger, who owned it. Is there generally now any sort of designated charging area? Seems like it would need to be a fireproof or maybe open steel deck charging area. Hopefully, there's some way to get things moving that way - in light of how many chargeable batteries are being used now. Of all the accidents possible, that's about the worst to contemplate.

[transmitterdan]

Each boat is different. But generally the boats i have been on don’t restrict where batteries can be charged. There are usually bedside outlets in each cabin and most divers recharge phones, computers and probably camera lights in the cabins.

Most boats provide a dedicated camera charging station. This is where you usually find lots of outlet strips. Often these are outside in the salty air but under some canopy. Salt air tends to corrode the outlet strips.

In light of this fire, it is easy to Monday quarterback. I reckon most all dive boats need to rethink their battery charging setups. It may be that charging has to be done in a single place outfitted with fire walls, auto fire suppression and sensors to alert crew to a fire. Mains outlets in cabins may have to be a thing of the past.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

While there is no cause yet (it will be a long investigation) in response to the fire the USCG has issued a safety bulletin that includes, in part:

"Reduce potential fire hazards and consider limiting the unsupervised charging of lithium-ion batteries and extensive use of power strips and extension cords. "

On land, I'd be surprised to find a fire marshal who wouldn't consider power strip octopi to be a fire hazard. I'd be curious to know if the electrical system was upgraded to support such loads.

[Hardhead]

Transmitterdan - it seems like it might be that way. I'm no fan of regulations at all - but this is pretty serious. I have chargers everywhere, and everyone I know does. There's also been a lot of stories about these battery fires recently - and it's only going to get to be more common, you would think. Fires popping up overnight is a big problem anywhere. A fiberglass boat - from the videos I've seen - is one of the dirtiest and fastest burning fires I've ever seen. I imagine it would be hard to get anywhere through that smoke.

Hopefully, some good awareness will come from this terrible tragedy. Nothing else could.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

The causes are always preventable. The question is are we ready as society to either pay for the prevention financially and/or by limiting/ending the activity which led to/created the causes.

We lose 40,000 people per year to road accidents. But because auto transport in such a large country is the bloodline of its economy the price to effectively deal with these deaths is perhaps too high so we allow the deaths to continue.

On the other hand is diving such an indispensible activity in the larger scheme of things as to allow XX number of deaths per year? We make these decisions as soceity everyday - from medicine to sports to employment conditions.

I call this "Platitudes & Attitudes"

We should all try and learn from those fateful accumulations of worst case scenarios that cause a tragedy.
BUT
My belief is that Prevention is more about Awareness than Legislative Changes.

Yes, we can live in a nanny state where promises to prevent bad things from reoccurring is blamed on the provider.... and prohibition is the easy answer.

But in real life, it is all about Risk and Reward!

Diving with sharks can be fatal ,.... but should it be prohibited?

Sharing a 75‘ liveaboard dive boat with 34 others is cramped and constrained, .... but should we limit the number and dramatically increase the design and operator costs to make sure we have a fire retardant boat interior with automatic sprinkler systems, state of the art alarms, 24 hr constant fire watch and 2 direct exits from every cabin? ....

IF YES....Where is the cutoff number for safety? What about a private yacht that sleeps 6 or 8?
Do you want that type of mandatory legislation on your boat?

My point is that we all have a right to make choices and accept the consequences!

Sure, if willful gross Negligence is the cause, be it from operator or drunk passengers, punish them legally, but don't bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

We all constantly make risk assessments in daily life.....
Accept that some are better at it than others, ....uaually those who choose and are involved in adventure sports.

Take personal responsibility for your own safety!

[Hardhead]

I agree, but those people were likely not expecting that to happen. I don't think they really consented to anything, or were even remotely aware of the severe risks. I see nothing wrong with some sort of "charging station" regulation/requirement on a commercial, for-hire, vessel. Actual lives can apparently be saved - if that was the actual cause.

As to private vessels, I would say the owner is able to consent to his/her own standards, and proceed however they wish, and at their risk. Guests of the privately owned, not-for-hire vessel would have to consent to the owner's standards, however that may be - unless it be gross negligence, to the point of careless disregard to life, by virtue of a reasonable person standard - determined by the jury. I have no idea what the actual maritime law is, at all.

[Pelagic]

I found this excellent article on Safety "Concerns with Li-ion", that puts into perspective how rare it is, but just like Steam Boiler or Gas explosions in their early days.....it does and will happen as they try to make them cheaper and more efficient

"Cells with ultra-thin separators of 24µm or less (24-thousandth of an mm) are more susceptible to impurities than the older designs with lower Ah ratings. Whereas the 1,350mAh cell in the 18650 package could tolerate a nail penetration test, the high-density 3,400mAh can ignite when performing the same test.*"

We only charge our Li-ion devices during daytime when I can monitor for abnormal heat. Always unplugged at night. Not because I expect it to catch fire, but like a propane tank, you turn it off when unattended

Again, this is all about personal awareness rather than legislation on the inherent risks of a power source

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/...ns_with_li_ion

[Hardhead]

I've had a couple of chargers completely burn up, unattended. Melted the plastic, smoke, no open flame though. They had been charging, unmolested, and when I walked into the room - I smelled burning plastic. Still active heat, and I quickly unplugged them as soon as I noticed. If I hadn't of caught it, I'm not sure what might have happened really. It did send a message to me.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

The causes are always preventable. The question is are we ready as society to either pay for the prevention financially and/or by limiting/ending the activity which led to/created the causes.

We lose 40,000 people per year to road accidents. But because auto transport in such a large country is the bloodline of its economy the price to effectively deal with these deaths is perhaps too high so we allow the deaths to continue.

On the other hand is diving such an indispensible activity in the larger scheme of things as to allow XX number of deaths per year? We make these decisions as soceity everyday - from medicine to sports to employment conditions.

Actually, probably the majority of vehicle trips are dispensable (going out to the movies for example, or commuting solo rather than using transit or ride sharing)...so should they be held to a different standard where no accidents are allowable no matter what the cost as opposed to a trucker delivering to a grocery store can have lots of crashes because it's critical to feeding the population?

Your logic gets real messy when you try to apply it.

Also, I'm sure for the owner and the crew, it's not dispensable. Kind of hard to buy those groceries if they are run out of business. Where do you draw the line?

There is no such thing as a ZERO risk activity, so starting from the assumption that no risk is acceptable is a fools errand.

[transmitterdan]

I think we all agree there is a risk calculation we can all make. As long as risks are known and understood then people should be allowed to make their own judgement.

In this case, I feel sure if you had asked anyone on board (crew or passengers) about fire risk they would have believed there wasn’t a significant risk. And based on historical data they would be right. But we are going to quickly get more data which will no doubt change the risk/reward equation for most of us.

Note the coast guard is highlighting unsupervised charging. Meaning charging at a place and time not dedicated for that purpose. I think this is a small price to pay. No one is saying to stop dive trips. Merely charge in a designated location at a time when there is likely to be a close eye and nose at hand. Don’t charge batteries under your bed at night.

And all of us could learn another lesson from this tragedy. Don’t leave a wall-wart charger plugged into mains unless you are present and actually charging. I also worry about these new-fangled mains outlets with in-built USB ports. In my view they are a fire risk not worth taking.

[transmitterdan]

Fire retardant fiberglass resin is a topic near to my mind given the brand of boat we have. This was tried in the 1970’s and the manufacturer went bankrupt as a result.

[Pelagic]

Fire on a boat can happen from so many hidden causes that it takes a constant effort and vigilance from all on board to prevent it.

I remember in the 1980's when the live aboard dive boat SS Thorfinn was still doing sport salmon fishing in Northern BC , before heading to Micronesia for winter Dive programs.

Selling 3 & 4 night packages to fly in guests looking to catch a Trophy King Salmon in remote BC locations.

28 guest going almost around the clock fishing from 14 ft skiffs. They would eat, drink and fish till they slept from exhaustion

We flew our bedding laundry in and out in those days and I asked the laundry to always seperate the bedding and pillow cases with cigarette burns thru them.

Each season I would accumulate 100's and show the guests at the safety briefing, one of my biggest safety concerns.

Despite my warnings, tired and tipsy smokers still continued to put us all at risk

We try and get better with each generation and that was one part of "No Smoking" legislation, I fully supported..... But I relied on fear beforehand to try and control bad practices.

That will be the legacy of what we learn from this tragedy .

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Fire retardant fiberglass resin is a topic near to my mind given the brand of boat we have. This was tried in the 1970’s and the manufacturer went bankrupt as a result.

It of course exists, we were required as aircraft manufacturers to use fire retardant, or maybe fire resistant or something resin in aircraft parts.
Most live in wood framed houses, which of course burn profusely, concrete doesn’t, but I’ve never met anyone that built in concrete because they were afraid of fires.

Fire risk greatly concerns me on a boat, a house all you have to do is be able to get out, a boat of course floating in the water may not be the salvation of escaping a house is.
However flammability of the hull doesn’t concern me, by the time the hull starts to burn, its over, unless a very large vessel you had better be out before then.

Steel ships burn and kill everyone that can’t escape