Leopard 50 burns and sinks

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by Sailor647

I wonder why we don't see more nail salon fires?

I agree. There are a lot of hot women in there.

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

This thread was recommended to us by a friend.

My take on this is that we don't now, and may not know in the future, what caused the fires.

Obviously, when a fire is well established, the dock lines may fire and melt and then the wind blows the fiery boat where it may. Would it help to have a cable attached, as well?

Without discussing personalities, I wand to corroborate what the doc says: it does take time, time of an emotional roller coaster, to come to grips with a personal catastrophe. They thought tyhe were finished processing; and he may not admit to needing more processing time, but these kinds of events take longer than 2 wks. to process. Think possible PTSS if you were aboard.

So, I think we should cut them a lot of slack; trust them to do the best they can. Don't subscribe or "like" if you don't feel like it. They're successful folks, they'll get through this, and they were insured.

I think the most important thing we can eventually find out is what the two witnesses actually experienced. Was the explosion reported, initial, or did it happen after the fire was well established? This info may be able to be winkled out by the Coast Guard--I hope so.

The principles are rich enough folks, and they're going to be okay, and they will go out and do "pro bono" health type work elsewhere, if they want to. Medecins Sans Frontieres has been out there for a long, long time. There are venues already in place.

To me, for "middle income cruisers," whatever that turns out to be, is that we need to carry the insurances, where possible. And, possibly more important, we need to think seriously about stopping fires on our boats before they get big and we have to abandon.

Invite a firefighter to your boat for brunch, and ask them for input.

Ann

"To me, for "middle income cruisers," whatever that turns out to be, is that we need to carry the insurances, where possible. And, possibly more important, we need to think seriously about stopping fires on our boats before they get big and we have to abandon."

You wouldn't agree that every cruiser, especially those without enough cash on hand, should at the minimum carry liability insurance in an amount sufficient to pay for environmental damage and damage to or loss of an innocent parties vessel?

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by pkirkll

I watched all i could of the first video and had to quit--- I kept waiting for them to apologize to the other boat their craft burnt.

They seemed a little out of touch with reality to me.

Sorry they had the fire, but very lucky it wasnt worse -- even with my old 1943 80 foot seiner/liveaboard I maintain hull insurance and liability --plus the part that will take care of clean-up and salvage. 600/month

They didn't even know the name of that boat or the owners name. That first video was the next day after hardly any sleep and being actually half way across the planet. They did connect up with them in subsequent videos.
And the main reason we don't see more nail salon fires is the acetone is in itty bitty bottles and used just an itty bit at a time.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by ixnax

"To me, for "middle income cruisers," whatever that turns out to be, is that we need to carry the insurances, where possible. And, possibly more important, we need to think seriously about stopping fires on our boats before they get big and we have to abandon."

You wouldn't agree that every cruiser, especially those without enough cash on hand, should at the minimum carry liability insurance in an amount sufficient to pay for environmental damage and damage to or loss of an innocent parties vessel?

The problem with "environmental damage" is who are you paying? Not the environment or wildlife that is actually punished by this. Not even the people nearby who inevitably breathed the black smoke.

The fact is, the environmental damage is done insurance or not, and paying someone money doesn't "undo" the damage done. Furthermore the "environmental cost" in dollars is an arbitrary figure that is made up as they go along. If this happened in a different country, the environmental cost would be the same but the dollar figure completely different.

So in reality, the larger the boat is, the more toxic the material the more hazardous chemicals onboard, the less responsible the owner is in the face of the environment, and insurance makes no difference in terms of responsibility. Even if the boat doesn't burn down, larger boats cost the environment more to build, especially built new when there are already too many older boats that need to be fixed for minimal environmental impact by comparison. Then large boats like this tend to cost the environment more as they consume more fuels compared to smaller vessels, a 50ft boat for 2 people is in excess.

Adding more insult to the environment is these people who leave their boat (less responsible than someone who stayed and was there to fight the fire) and fly back to Australia (more environmental damage in flying) to give "seminars" to miners (the people who damage the environment the most) Then post pictures of them catching a fish with blood dripping all over it. So insurance makes no difference to the actual environment, I would say their choices show basically how to be irresponsible toward the environment and get away with it without much punishment considering they will probably just get another boat although lets hope at least it is a smaller one this time.

[C420sailor]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

If the boat had smoke alarms and someone were onboard at the time could a fire like this be stopped? If so how, and how much time?

Was there someone on board? This is unclear. Also unclear if this person is responsible for the fire or knows more.

Could electrical wiring shorting out cause the fire to start? Could a rat chew through a power wire shorting it cause this? Would it most likely be fuel leaking and then igniting somehow being more likely in the hot weather? Could some volatiles have leaked a bit, and some kind of brushed motor ignited it?

Should a gas detector for volatiles be used to crowbar the main battery with an scr and blow a main fuse or be integrated to the bms to cut all power in the case of volatiles?

All the cases of boat burning like this I have seen in the past involved either propane or gasoline so this seems most likely but anything is possible.

You would be absolutely blown away by how much fire a 2.5 gallon pressurized water extinguisher can knock down. I’ve knocked a fully involved single room contents fire, multiple ripping kitchen fires, etc with a ‘water can’. Dry chem is equally impressive, although we tend to reserve them for flammable liquid fires—as such, they get used outdoors more often.

Having escape hoods and extinguishers strategically placed throughout the boat can spell the difference between life and death. Don’t underestimate the power of a good size extinguisher.

[taxwizz]

Interestingly, the fire increased their YouTube views by 50 fold. It may create a new income stream for them. They are certainly charming enough.

It may have been a blessing in disguise.

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

The problem with "environmental damage" is who are you paying? Not the environment or wildlife that is actually punished by this. Not even the people nearby who inevitably breathed the black smoke.

The fact is, the environmental damage is done insurance or not, and paying someone money doesn't "undo" the damage done. Furthermore the "environmental cost" in dollars is an arbitrary figure that is made up as they go along. If this happened in a different country, the environmental cost would be the same but the dollar figure completely different.

So in reality, the larger the boat is, the more toxic the material the more hazardous chemicals onboard, the less responsible the owner is in the face of the environment, and insurance makes no difference in terms of responsibility. Even if the boat doesn't burn down, larger boats cost the environment more to build, especially built new when there are already too many older boats that need to be fixed for minimal environmental impact by comparison. Then large boats like this tend to cost the environment more as they consume more fuels compared to smaller vessels, a 50ft boat for 2 people is in excess.

Adding more insult to the environment is these people who leave their boat (less responsible than someone who stayed and was there to fight the fire) and fly back to Australia (more environmental damage in flying) to give "seminars" to miners (the people who damage the environment the most) Then post pictures of them catching a fish with blood dripping all over it. So insurance makes no difference to the actual environment, I would say their choices show basically how to be irresponsible toward the environment and get away with it without much punishment considering they will probably just get another boat although lets hope at least it is a smaller one this time.

Arguably then, owning any boat or more than two pairs of underwear is an offense against the planet. Surely, if anyone wants to grab a walking stick and head for the hills to live off the land they wont get a complaint from me. But that life's desire is not what has us met here today. Here we are concerned with the after the fact effect of boat ownership. In this instance we, well at least me after seeing that Leopard 45 go poof from someones negligence, are concerned with who pays what when the SHTF. Consider a worst case scenario where the Leopard 45 owners had an insolvent insurer but were unaware. Or, as is the normal case these days were still scrambling to find coverage. Imagine anything where they were open to the shaft and someone without a million or two in cash to cover their loss or a decent liability policy torched their boat and opened them up to a big environmental clean up bill. Now, wouldn't that just suck?

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by C420sailor

You would be absolutely blown away by how much fire a 2.5 gallon pressurized water extinguisher can knock down. I’ve knocked a fully involved single room contents fire, multiple ripping kitchen fires, etc with a ‘water can’. Dry chem is equally impressive, although we tend to reserve them for flammable liquid fires—as such, they get used outdoors more often.

Having escape hoods and extinguishers strategically placed throughout the boat can spell the difference between life and death. Don’t underestimate the power of a good size extinguisher.

You have me thinking and looking at escape hoods. I'm thinking about the iEvac but would take a suggestion. Help me understand the scenarios. In our Cat egress from either hull were the salon or cockpit fully involved is easy. So I'm trying to sort out when I would first grab a hood and put it on instead of the extinguisher first or just get gone. Also, in addition to the usual suspects around the boat we have a large CO2 extinguisher in the cockpit and a couple of halon extinguishers not yet mounted. Are you keen on gas extinguishers?

[taxwizz]

Were there not 2 guys on the boat when the fire erupted? They apparently did not grab extinguishers and put down the fire. Either they could not find them, or they didn't work. But most likely they just ran away and ignored the fire as it grew too quickly to fight.

[ausnp84]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Adding more insult to the environment is these people who leave their boat (less responsible than someone who stayed and was there to fight the fire) and fly back to Australia (more environmental damage in flying) to give "seminars" to miners (the people who damage the environment the most) Then post pictures of them catching a fish with blood dripping all over it. So insurance makes no difference to the actual environment, I would say their choices show basically how to be irresponsible toward the environment and get away with it without much punishment considering they will probably just get another boat although lets hope at least it is a smaller one this time.

You’ve never left your vessel anywhere and driven home / to a friend’s / to the supermarket?

They’re medical professionals who give lectures to all sorts of professions - what does it matter who received their health advice?

By the reading of your post, no-one should ever leave their boat, or travel overseas by any form other than wind & sea, and never speak to anyone that works in any form of industry, and never, ever catch fish. Talk about self-righteous rubbish....

N

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by ausnp84

You’ve never left your vessel anywhere and driven home / to a friend’s / to the supermarket?

They’re medical professionals who give lectures to all sorts of professions - what does it matter who received their health advice?

By the reading of your post, no-one should ever leave their boat, or travel overseas by any form other than wind & sea, and never speak to anyone that works in any form of industry, and never, ever catch fish. Talk about self-righteous rubbish....

N

Well said.
Excellent Troll poison.

[Russian007]

Originally Posted by C420sailor

You would be absolutely blown away by how much fire a 2.5 gallon pressurized water extinguisher can knock down. I’ve knocked a fully involved single room contents fire, multiple ripping kitchen fires, etc with a ‘water can’. Dry chem is equally impressive, although we tend to reserve them for flammable liquid fires—as such, they get used outdoors more often.

Having escape hoods and extinguishers strategically placed throughout the boat can spell the difference between life and death. Don’t underestimate the power of a good size extinguisher.

I worked for a large metro FD for years. I can corroborate this. Though I never used a one on a legit one roomer-- I've used them in a lot of other situations. Off hand not sure I ever had to fully discharge one. Water with a little soap is far more versatile firefighting tool than dry chem-- though dry chem certainly has its place. Still, the bulk and weight of a 2.5 gallon water gun would be problematic for me on a boat. I'm not 25 any more. Never been able to find a decent 1 gallon watergun so with the low freeboard on my trawler, I'm comfortable with those pooltoy watergun tubes scattered in different parts of the boat to go with my dry chems. They're cheap, compact, manueverable and create a 40' stream of the wet stuff.

[Sand crab]

Yeah but are those pooltoy water guns coast guard approved?

[Russian007]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

Yeah but are those pooltoy water guns coast guard approved?

It's funny but the legendary firemen I worked with were the greatest improvisers, it seemed sometimes they were allergic to using equipment off the rigs. They'd find stuff at the incidents to use and create these amazing solutions. "One such guy hotwired a fork lift and completed a physical rescue while we were screwing around setting up the Hurst Tool (jaws of life)
We were absolutely trained NOT to do stuff like that, but some rare guys were just so damn competent and creative...

[Russian007]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I hope this doesn’t spook you too much, but most fires on boats are electrical in nature. Not explosives or accelerants.

Kinda hard to have a boat with no electrical though eh?