34 people feared dead after boat catches fire off California's Santa Cruz Island: officials

You wouldn't have needed pure oxygen. Compressed air has been known to spontaneously combust when it comes into contact with certain petroleum products.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Only thing my wife and I could come up with is oxygen...all those scuba tanks? Could they of exploded? I know its just compressed air, but could it play a part?

Scuba tanks don't explode.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Scuba tanks don't explode.

Nope. They just take off like unguided rockets and punch holes in things. The UDT school in Coronado used to have a section of a cinder block wall on display that a dive tank punched clean through.

a reply to: JIMC5499

That I've seen; a dropped tank that had it's nozzle break off and go through the side of the boat. It happens so quick you don't have time to react.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Why was there no fire alarm then?

All commercial boats are required to have fire alarms. Especially in sleeping quarters.

Why did only the crew escape?

Were they trying to not alarm the passengers and put the fire out without them knowing?

I'm not suggesting there was foul play here (other than possibly criminal negligence), but something is definitely fishy here.

ETA - Why is there not more information out there about the incident? Within an hour of the Walmart shootings the public knew every detail, including the underwear size of the perpetrator, why not in this situation?

The crew escaped because they were above deck vs the deceased who were essentially trapped below.

Taken from the transcript of the mayday call explains why they werent trying to fight the fire, "Roger, you don't have any firefighting gear at all? No fire extinguishers or anything?"

What is different about the two scenarios you listed? One is in a stationary Walmart with hundreds of witness in the day time while the other is on a boat at Sea at night with less than 40 people total .

Sometimes horrible scenarios play out and substantially more often then not it happens without something being fishy. My guess though is the charter of the boat is going to go into spin mode because of possibly liability and well the general destruction caused.

All around a horrible scenario.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

All commercial boats are required to have fire alarms. Especially in sleeping quarters.

Why was there no fire alarm then?

Maybe there were no working fire detectors. Just because the boat is supposed to have them, that doesn't necessarily mean this operator did proper upkeep.

There are tragic stories all the time of club owners or factory owners not having proper fire alarms and exiting and fire tragedies occur. Or negligent landlords with apartment complexes.

Why did only the crew escape? Were they trying to not alarm the passengers and put the fire out without them knowing?

It's likely the crew slept in a different place that the paying customers. The customers were almost all (all?) in one room of stacked sleeping berths. That one room had one exit.

The crew might have raised the alarm, but it's likely that almost all of them were asleep as well when the fire started, and even if one was awake (maybe one was on night watch?), they might not have noticed the fire until it already was large enough to block the only exit from the customer sleeping berth area.

Back to the "only one exit from the sleeping berth room" issue. I'm not sure what the code is for boats, but I wouldn't be surprised if a berthing quarters that could hold 30+ people is required to have a second means of exit.

I heard people mention that there was no escape hatch (as a second means of exiting) from these quarters. I'm wondering if that issue was mentioned because it is normally required for so many occupants. I'm not sure about boats, but commercial buildings require a second exit -- two doors out, or two stairways from upper floors, etc.

I'm not suggesting there was foul play here (other than possibly criminal negligence), but something is definitely fishy here.

Oh, I think there was (in my opinion/my speculation) negligence here. Maybe no working smoke detectors. We know that there was no second means of egress/exit from the victims' sleeping quarters. Maybe no night watch, or at least an insufficient night watch.

I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that one guy intentionally set the fire, but I don't see that as the most likely scenario. I think a likely scenario is that the fire was accidental, but the boat was ill-equipped to handle such a fire

ETA - Why is there not more information out there about the incident? Within an hour of the Walmart shootings the public knew every detail, including the underwear size of the perpetrator, why not in this situation?

First of all, I'm guessing the boat operator's lawyers have them only saying the minimum to investigators for now. Secondly, the boat was almost totally destroyed by the fire. It may take time to piece together what happened.

Although we do know the general story: 30+ people sleeping in one room that had one exit. before the sleeping people realized, the fire started or spread in such a way as to block that one exit, trapping the victims inside.

The owner just did an interview on TV and mentioned an escape hatch. Didn't explain but seem to imply for the sleep area.

He also said the CG dispatch was odd as there was no locking for doors and there was fire fighting equipment, extinguishers and hoses.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Coast Guard records show inspections of the Conception conducted last February and in August 2018 found no deficiencies. Earlier inspections found some safety violations related to fire safety.

A 2016 inspection resulted in owners replacing the heat detector in the galley and one in 2014 cited a leaky fire hose.

Records show all safety violations from the last five years were quickly addressed by the boat’s owners.

Source

So there were detectors onboard, and there was fire fighting equipment. And the boat had passed USCG safety inspections, as all commercial boats are required to do.

Again, the point here is...it certainly appears like the crew knew about the fire in advance of the passengers. They got their backsides off the boat first (anyone remember the Titanic?).

a reply to: roadgravel

From some former guests aboard the same boat...

Both said the sleeping area is comfortable but tight, however, with bunk beds stacked next to one another on the lowest deck. Coming to the top deck to get off requires navigating a narrow stairway with only one exit. If the fire was fast-moving, Reid said, it’s very likely divers couldn’t escape and the crew couldn’t get to them.

Source

I included the last sentence so as not to be akin to the MSM who selectively quote things.

Still begs the question of where were the fire alarms, and why did only the crew escape?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

One would think the fire blocked the exit passage.

More about the "escape hatch" would be good.

why did only the crew escape?

Not in the same area of the ship.

a reply to: opethPA

The boat would have never passed their required USCG safety inspections without fire fighting equipment onboard. You can't even (legally) take a 16 foot power boat on the water without a fire extinguisher. Commercial vessels are held to much higher standards.

Look, I'm not trying to skew the facts here. The facts are; 34 people were trapped in a fire on a boat and appear to have perished as a result. That's what happened. No argument.

The questions are; why did it happen? And, why was there not more notice to the passengers, and why did only the crew escape?

Yes, obviously, the crew was were the fire wasn't (wherever that was, topside or whatever).

I question whether they did enough to save the passengers, or did they just save their own skins.

Notice what little news there has been about this tragedy has been quick to point out only one crew member suffered injuries and that was an injury to his leg (likely from jumping into the dingy they were found in). Notice there was no mention of all the members being badly burned from their rescue efforts??? Why? Because they weren't burned. In the AP story I quoted above, the members of the crew were all found in a dingy by the M/V Grape Escape. So they all had time to muster and get in a dingy...while the rest of the passengers burned alive.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The owner said there was fire fighting equipment. That doesn't mean the crew even tried to fight a fire. Should I assume the captain abandoned ship and left people behind.

There's all sorts of curious statements in the AP article I quoted above. Here's another one...

Rescuers initially recovered four bodies about 90 miles (145 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles just off Santa Cruz Island, and 16 others were pulled from the water later in the day. The Coast Guard says five others have been found but not recovered due to unsafe conditions under the boat, which sank about 20 yards (18 meters) from shore.

Authorities will search for the nine people still unaccounted for through the night.

“We should all be prepared to move into the worst outcome,” Coast Guard Capt. Monica Rochester said at a news conference.

The four bodies recovered initially had injuries consistent with drowning, Kroll said.

Same AP Source

So not everyone died in the fire. At least four got off the boat and drowned. But the boat was only anchored 20 yards off shore. That aside, how come they weren't in the dingy with the crew? Maybe because the crew abandoned ship and took the dingy, so there was no dingy to jump into? And, how does a licensed diver 'drown' only 20 yards from shore?

There's more to this story.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The owner said there was fire fighting equipment. That doesn't mean the crew even tried to fight a fire. Should I assume the captain abandoned ship and left people behind.

It's sure beginning to look like it, isn't it??!!!!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The most logical answer is that the four who escaped did so by running through flames; perhaps catching fire in the process and then jumping into the water to extinguish the flames. If that is in deed the case, then there is a good possibility that the shock of severe burns could have caused them to pass out in the water and drown. Also don't discount smoke inhalation. They may have never stood a chance to swim to shore...ore even find the survival raft.

Died in a fire on a boat?
What's next?
Somebody going to drown in a desert?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Yes, this is a possibility to be sure.

Just seems odd though.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

It was reported the crew was in a different part of the ship. They most likely did not experience what the people below did.

It would appear they saw a serious fire and left.

As the 79-foot Conception’s captain and four colleagues jumped overboard off Santa Cruz Island near Santa Barbara, one other crew member and 33 passengers were sleeping below and had no way to escape, authorities said.

“Is the vessel fully engulfed now?’’ a US Coast Guard worker asked the captain, Jerry Boylan, in a distress call over the area’s emergency radio channel at 3:14 a.m.

“Roger. And there’s no escape hatch for any of the people on board,’’ the captain replied.

Link

The owner mention hatch; must have been another location on ship.

And here's MSN/LA Times article about the Mayday call...

Here is a transcript of the call: Man, around 3:15 a.m.: “Mayday, mayday, mayday! … Conception … north side of Santa Cruz.” (He’s broken up by static.)

Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach dispatcher asks position and number of people on board.

Man: “I can’t breathe.” … (garbled)

Dispatcher: “You have 29 persons on board and you can’t breathe? What is your current GPS position?”

(Another man calls in who heard the distress call and is over by Anacapa Island.)

There’s some garbled space and back-and-forth for a few minutes as dispatchers try to reach anyone from the boat.

A frantic man can be heard:

“Vessel Conception! Vessel Conception! Vessel Conception!” …

Dispatch: “Your vessel is on fire? Is that correct? … Are you on board the Conception?”

Man: “Roger, there’s 33 people that’s on board the vessel that’s on fire. They can’t get off.”

Dispatch: “Roger, are they locked inside the boat? Roger, can you get back on board and unlock the boat, unlock the door so they can get off? Roger, you don’t have any firefighting gear, no fire extinguishers or anything?”

Dispatch: “Roger, is this the captain of the Conception?”

Man: “Roger”

Dispatch: “Was that all the crew that jumped off?”

Man: “Roger”

Dispatch: “Is the vessel fully engulfed now?”

Man: “Roger, and there’s no escape hatch for any of the people on board.”

MSN / LA Times

Doesn't sound like the captain was even on the boat at the time he made this distress call. Sounds like he made it from a different boat. Notice the way he refers to the boat as..."...the vessel that's on fire. They can't get off." They can't get off like he did already.

So the captain waited to make a distress call until he got to another boat????????? Really??? C'mon!!

Was the captain and crew even on the boat at all when the fire happened?? Or, did they maybe go to another boat for some drinking, and suddenly look over and see their boat on fire???

I'm tellin' ya, there seems to be a whole lot more to this story than what is currently being said!! I'm really beginning to wonder if the captain and crew were even on the boat at the time of the fire!!