The loss of M/V Conception

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Is the fixed system for the engine room only or is it throughout the boat? If the system was in the engine room only and not where the fire started it may not have been activated in time to do any good.

Fixed CO2 systems should not be in the accommodation, it's only for engine rooms, generator rooms, paint lockers etc, basically spaces containing flammables that can be sealed, usually these will have a manual override....

Some ships galleys have them but these need to have fire doors and are usually manually activated only......you need to be able to get people out before activating CO2....

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. Yes, engine room only. Automatic/fixed CO2 fire suppression isn't used in living spaces.
2. Indeed.

Gordy you are right! CO2 would probably kill as fast as fumes in a living space. It displaces the O2.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Gordy you are right! CO2 would probably kill as fast as fumes in a living space. It displaces the O2.

CO2 will kill you stone dead and do so pretty quickly.
However a Halon system will not, it may be that if there was a Halon system they would still be alive.
You’ll never convince me that removal of Halon systems was a good idea.

[sdowney717]

Someone on youttube suggested the fire was caused by the diesel generator exhaust as in a hose burned through. Would there not be an over heat shutdown then?
would the gen engine compartment have a power vented air exhaust?

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

CO2 will kill you stone dead and do so pretty quickly.
However a Halon system will not, it may be that if there was a Halon system they would still be alive.
You’ll never convince me that removal of Halon systems was a good idea.

You and I agree. Why they did away with Halon is a mystery. Probably EPA related but how many are ever discharged?

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Cadence

You and I agree. Why they did away with Halon is a mystery. Probably EPA related but how many are ever discharged?

Halon was banned in ‘94 due its destructive effect on the ozone layer. But there are replacements for halon. I can’t link it now but google “halon replacements.”

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Cadence

You and I agree. Why they did away with Halon is a mystery. Probably EPA related but how many are ever discharged?

As I recall, the issue was not discharge in anger, but the discharge in annual or semi-annual tests of very large systems, such as those used in big computer centers. They would dump the whole system because there was no means of checking functionality otherwise... and the fluorocarbons in Halon were deemed to be ozone killers in the upper atmosphere.

A sad case of killing a great technique of fire suppression because of a system design flaw.

Jim

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

As I recall, the issue was not discharge in anger, but the discharge in annual or semi-annual tests of very large systems, such as those used in big computer centers. They would dump the whole system because there was no means of checking functionality otherwise... and the fluorocarbons in Halon were deemed to be ozone killers in the upper atmosphere.

A sad case of killing a great technique of fire suppression because of a system design flaw.

Jim

Thanks Jim!
I vaguely remember it was a fluorocarbon issue. That was years ago. I don't think it was available to long to us little guys. Someplace there is an ex boat of mine with one probably never discharged.
Roger

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Lepke

It sounds like the crew sleeps topside and the divers below. And no anchor watch? 5 people are plenty for anchor watch shifts. I've done it with 2. The only time I don't have an anchor watch is solo. With someone on watch the fire couldn't get uncontrollable without an alarm being sounded in time for more people to escape.

New rules are going to come out of this.

It sounds like now the FBI is involved and the question of an anchor watch requirement has indeed been raised. I've read that the USGC interprets COLREGS Rule 5 as requiring an anchor watch with $6500 fines for violations. It seems obvious to me that commercial vessels with 34 pax would be subject to much stricter standards than a single-hander in a recreational boat, but I don't see the distinction in the rules. Maybe I missed something?

[Cpt Pat]

Here's more on the lithium battery suspicion.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...re-090619.html

https://www.maritime-executive.com/a...dive-boat-fire

[hpeer]

Is there a REQUIREMENT for CO detectors and did the vessel have them, requirement or no?

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by cyan

It sounds like now the FBI is involved and the question of an anchor watch requirement has indeed been raised. I've read that the USGC interprets COLREGS Rule 5 as requiring an anchor watch with $6500 fines for violations. It seems obvious to me that commercial vessels with 34 pax would be subject to much stricter standards than a single-hander in a recreational boat, but I don't see the distinction in the rules. Maybe I missed something?

There is another concurrent thread called "Re:Boat Fire 34 + Missing that had this interesting note:
Originally Posted by LAGOM
There has been a lot of discussion on various forums about the need (or lack thereof) for a roving watch onboard. After the crew interviews an NTSB or USCG representative stated that there was no such watch at the time of the tragedy but now I can't find the reference. I think it was on the SCUBAboard that the relevant requirement was posted:

in context of chapter T.

LII
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
Title 46. Shipping
Chapter I. COAST GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Subchapter T. SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS (UNDER 100 GROSS TONS)
Part 185. OPERATIONS
Subpart D. Crew Requirements
Section 185.410. Watchmen.

§ 185.410 Watchmen.
The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997]

This was my comment about the above:
This is interesting. Although I haven't read the entire section, I wonder how this applies to a charter boat that is chartered with a captain but no crew. I am thinking of a boat with two, three or four cabins in the forty to fifty foot range that hires just a skipper.

The information quoted above seems at first glance to suggest that there is no way a captain (I meant a captain alone) can realistically keep a watch AND captain the boat during the day.

Again, I haven't read the entire section so I don't know if there is a lower limit on size that this applies to, or if it applies to all vessels of 100 tons or less. Perhaps it is akin to the solo sailor keeping a watch at all times discussion.

[Cpt Pat]

Here is a fire safety test performed by the FAA on various Lithium chemistries and battery form factors.

I found Figure 14 to be especially interesting: in a pack of five type 18650 batteries (one of the most commonly used), fire propagated through all five batteries; whereas in the LiFePO4 chemistry, only the single overheated cell ignited.

https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-16-17.pdf

In the conclusions:

"In general, of all of the lithium-ion cells that were tested, LiFePO4 would be considered the safest cathode material because of the relatively low temperature rise and the resulting low likelihood for thermal runaway to propagate. LiCoO2 and LiMnNi would be considered the most hazardous because of the relatively large temperature rise and high probability for propagation of thermal runaway to adjacent battery cells."

The skipper of Grape Escape, which rescued the surviving crew, reported hearing explosions (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...559207001.html). I suspect what he heard were larger lithium batteries, used in dive lights, etc., cooking off.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

The skipper of Grape Escape, which rescued the surviving crew, reported hearing explosions (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...559207001.html). I suspect what he heard were larger lithium batteries, used in dive lights, etc., cooking off.

Good info, thanks for posting.

I just wanted to elaborate; the captain of Grape Escape heard explosions AFTER he'd already been awakened, according to the article, by his wife, who heard "banging."

It wasn't clear to me whether that was the Conception crew banging on the hull, or the initial "banging" from the fire.

At any rate, the whole question of whether or not the fire started with an "explosion" is not settled, from what I've read. Maybe someone knows and isn't saying, or the reporters are getting it wrong (like usual.) And, of course, there are all different kinds of "explosions."

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

CO2 will kill you stone dead and do so pretty quickly.
However a Halon system will not, it may be that if there was a Halon system they would still be alive.
You’ll never convince me that removal of Halon systems was a good idea.

Halon systems were NOT "removed".
A64 is correct, in that Halon, unlike CO2, does NOT remove (displace) oxygen from the air.
Because Halon is a CFC*, production of new Halon ceased in 1994. While the production of Halon ceased on January 1, 1994, under the Clean Air Act, it is still legal to purchase and use recycled Halon and Halon fire extinguishers. In fact, the FAA continues to recommend Halon fire extinguishers for aircraft.

*Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) ➥ https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/p...kins/cfcs.html