GUILTY CA - Boat fire near Santa Cruz Island; 34 missing, Sept 2019 *captain charged*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
It makes sense to me that Truth Aquatics would provide the watchman since they have a larger staff and more intimate familiarity with the boat than Kristy. JMO

The crew was way more familiar with the boat, but there was only six peoples in the crew. A fully manned watch by coast guard standards would need three people on watch throughout the night. This means the crew would run up a safety concerning sleep deficit over say, a three day trip. Thus, they may ask the chartering company to help out.
I expect that providing a night watchman was spelled out in the contract between the two companies.
The arrangements could also be more casual: Maybe say: We will have somebody in the wheel house. Can one of your people that stays up later take a watch on a deck? Maybe a dive assistant that likes to get up early for equipment checks? Ok, they can relieve the other person. Our cook can be relatively on an early watch while she preps for breakfast. Sure, we”ll talk later….
 
Based on some of the news coverage, it seems that NTSB investigator Jennifer Homendy was "taken aback" by the escape hatch while touring one of the other Truth Aquatics vessels.

Here is a FoxNews interview where she discusses the escape hatch:
NTSB member Jennifer Homendy on investigation into deadly California dive boat fire

I am also linking the LA Times article where they actually quote Ms. Homenday as saying she was "taken aback", but you may not be able to read it without a subscription. (I read it yesterday, but have now used up my monthly allotment of free articles.)

IMO, I believe that there will be changes made to the regulations that may shake up the industry if none of the existing vessels are grandfathered in. Imagine the reaction of other NTSB officials, used to investigating airplane crashes, who examine the escape hatch as Ms. Homendy did. It is obvious that 33 people would not have been able to get out of that hatch in a timely manner if the other exit was blocked. I know that tragedies such as this are very rare, but I don't think I would take that risk after what happened to the Conception's occupants.
 
I can't imagine that the owners of the boat wont be held civilly liable for negligence in wrongful death suits.

Evidently maritime law states that if the owner's crew was generally competent and the boat was adequately maintained in the general sense, a plaintiff would need to show gross negligence to win a lawsuit.

This could well put a damper on any lawsuits- especially at the appellate court level where judges probably apply the legal definition of 'gross negligence' and not the emotional definition used by juries.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if this has already been clarified somewhere... did both exits from where the passengers slept lead into the exact same space?
 
Forgive me if this has already been clarified somewhere... did both exits from where the passengers slept lead into the exact same space?

Both exits opened up into the galley of the boat - but on different ends. According to eyewitnesses, the escape hatch opened to an area that faced an opening from the galley to the deck and one would take 3 or so steps to get out of the galley. However, according to the eyewitnesses, that area was also overcome by flames. (Please do not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong.)

Edited to add this: the main stairs were at the forward end of the sleeping area and led up to the forward end of the galley/salon; the emergency hatch was above the bunks in the after (back) end of the sleeping area and exited at the after end of the galley/salon, facing the afterdeck. Thus the exits were at opposite ends.
 
Last edited:
Though I definetly respect his views as a marine designer, I cant help but think of the human factors that seem to reduce the chances of the fire starting in the bunk space:

- Though nearly all would of had their privacy curtains closed, my guess is that several people would not have been asleep (thinking of the days dives, too excited- or too tired to sleep etc). Others would have been dozing lightly. Somebody would have either seen the fire, or smelled smoke and raised an alarm.

- The boat's cook slept with the divers. Evidently, the fire started at 3:30, too early for even her to be up. But, she would be getting up soon to prepare breakfast. Thus, a chance that she would be lightly sleeping. Being on the crew, she would investigate the source of even slight smoke.

- Recreational divers are likely to be physically fit individuals capable of thinking under pressure and capable of following directions with out panic. In even a fast moving fire starting in the bunk space, I think most would have escaped or, if possible, smothered the fire out with blankets etc.

In short, my guess is that had the fire started in the bunk space, the story would have read:

Severe fire- A tragedy occured on a dive boat as five people were fatally overcome by smoke in a fast moving fire. Some survivors suffered burns escaping from the space. The fire was extinguished and survivors taken off the boat by the USCGS.....

Less severe fire- Several divers suffered first or second degree burns extinguishing a fire in a bunk space. Other were treated for smoke inhalation and released from hospitals.... .
Without oxygen and diesel fuel on board this might be the scenario, but I think this is essentially magical thinking. A fire is intense and fast moving with accelerant. Sometimes being physically fit does not matter.
 
Just saw this in an article appearing online in the N.Y. Daily News:

"The victims appear to have died from smoke inhalation, not burns, authorities said Friday.

“The indicators are from the preliminary examination of the bodies that the victims died prior to being burned,” Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said. “The burn damage to the victims was post-mortem.”
 
“The indicators are from the preliminary examination of the bodies that the victims died prior to being burned,” Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said. “The burn damage to the victims was post-mortem.”

I hope to whatever deity exists that this is the case.

I hope my fiancee's friends fell asleep and just never woke up.
 
Issues/Problems w This Emergency Exit Hatch
This NTSB video shows the bunk escape hatch both top side and from bunk room.
Hard to maneuver to get up thru hatch
@Sleuth15 :) Thanks for your post & linked 2 1/2 min NTSB vid, which drives home the point about "emergency hatch." Four issues, imo.
One issue: (poss) lack of adequate signage directing passengers to hatch-exit. Any USCG reg?

From sleeping state in own bunk, first waking, recognizing fire/danger, a passenger who knew stairway exit was blocked would then have to figure out or remember where the hatch is. Those on-board 'safety briefings' cover many topics fast. Small-ish exit sign in the vid did not appear to be lighted or self-luminous, i.e., the kind in public bldgs showing exit locations, to direct passengers toward hatch. Cost to remedy this, to install lighted signs is quite modest.
Possibly, footage of lighted sign(s) was edited out, may not be an issue.

^^^IOW Passengers looking for hatch-exit may not find it.
Second issue: hatch placement. Any USCG reg?
After remembering/figuring out hatch location, passenger goes to bunk w the hatch above, then starts these actions:

1. Step on built-in rungs or step on mattress of lower bunk, then middle bunk.
2. Pull to get upper torso onto top bunk (mattress top was at tall-ish man's arm-pit level) w only ~18" - 28'' to maneuver in, between mattress and ceiling.
3. W upper torso on top bunk, swing legs onto top bunk.
4. Push wood piece straight up thru opening to free it, then push it out of way.
5. Reposition self to put head - and arms? - thru opening.
6. Manipulate rest of self thru the opening.
That's a lotta time-consuming finagling, imo.

Third issue: Hatch Size. Any USCG reg?
How big is the opening? 2 by 2 ft? 2 1/2 by Seems only children (~10-12 y/o?) or short, thin-ish adults could navigate this hatch easily, but. all passengers using emergency exits need get out quickly.
^^^IOW, hatch placement & size impede passenger egress thru emergency exit
Would a ladder be faster, easier & safer? Even passengers w no ladder-climbing experience have used stairs, so little/no learning curve. A disadvantage to boat owner would be (three?) fewer bunks, so lost revenue, but not nearly so much as adding a second stairway (more bunks and $ lost).


Fourth issue, 'landing' location when emerging on dining room deck.
7. As passenger goes thru opening, must reposition body to fit thru the topside, a piece of furniture closes in three sides, w a counter on top (looks like an Ikea white-melamine, press-wood cabinet, or a lectern).
^^^ IOW, must turn to face in right direction, so may take longer to get thru.


Like @Sleuth15 said: hard to maneuver. True even in non-emergency situations.

And NTSB vid showed boat w bunkroom lights on, w man who was not half asleep, w no passenger or bulky objects occupying the bunk, w a man who knew of hatch location, etc.
all jmo, could be wrong.
 
Hatch and Bunk Locations?
Thinking further (about all the detail in my post 454, just above), has me wondering --- was the boat was built per original spec's, w whatever reg. agency's approval (USCS?)? Is it possible that later boat was modified to accommodate more bunks than in the original/approved specs?
Okay, I'm not a marine/naval/USCG architect and can't see the elec. wiring, plumbing/waterlines, etc in the ceiling-floor gap, things the hatch must not interfere w.
On middle deck/dining room/salon, is there a structural impediment to locating hatch elsewhere or any compelling reason for placing hatch where it was?
The hatch placement seems incredibly awkward imo. How can a ceiling above top tier bunk be an approp. place for emergency exit? Esp when it leaves only ~ 18"-28" between mattress and ceiling for a person making emergency exit to maneuver around?
Maybe place hatch in bunkroom's hallway w a drop-down ladder, so it would be more easily accessible?
All jmo, could be wrong, thinking aloud..
 
Issues/Problems w This Emergency Exit Hatch

@Sleuth15 :) Thanks for your post & linked 2 1/2 min NTSB vid, which drives home the point about "emergency hatch." Four issues, imo.
One issue: (poss) lack of adequate signage directing passengers to hatch-exit. Any USCG reg?

From sleeping state in own bunk, first waking, recognizing fire/danger, a passenger who knew stairway exit was blocked would then have to figure out or remember where the hatch is. Those on-board 'safety briefings' cover many topics fast. Small-ish exit sign in the vid did not appear to be lighted or self-luminous, i.e., the kind in public bldgs showing exit locations, to direct passengers toward hatch. Cost to remedy this, to install lighted signs is quite modest.
Possibly, footage of lighted sign(s) was edited out, may not be an issue.

^^^IOW Passengers looking for hatch-exit may not find it.
Second issue: hatch placement. Any USCG reg?
After remembering/figuring out hatch location, passenger goes to bunk w the hatch above, then starts these actions:

1. Step on built-in rungs or step on mattress of lower bunk, then middle bunk.
2. Pull to get upper torso onto top bunk (mattress top was at tall-ish man's arm-pit level) w only ~18" - 28'' to maneuver in, between mattress and ceiling.
3. W upper torso on top bunk, swing legs onto top bunk.
4. Push wood piece straight up thru opening to free it, then push it out of way.
5. Reposition self to put head - and arms? - thru opening.
6. Manipulate rest of self thru the opening.
That's a lotta time-consuming finagling, imo.

Third issue: Hatch Size. Any USCG reg?
How big is the opening? 2 by 2 ft? 2 1/2 by Seems only children (~10-12 y/o?) or short, thin-ish adults could navigate this hatch easily, but. all passengers using emergency exits need get out quickly.
^^^IOW, hatch placement & size impede passenger egress thru emergency exit
Would a ladder be faster, easier & safer? Even passengers w no ladder-climbing experience have used stairs, so little/no learning curve. A disadvantage to boat owner would be (three?) fewer bunks, so lost revenue, but not nearly so much as adding a second stairway (more bunks and $ lost).


Fourth issue, 'landing' location when emerging on dining room deck.
7. As passenger goes thru opening, must reposition body to fit thru the topside, a piece of furniture closes in three sides, w a counter on top (looks like an Ikea white-melamine, press-wood cabinet, or a lectern).
^^^ IOW, must turn to face in right direction, so may take longer to get thru.


Like @Sleuth15 said: hard to maneuver. True even in non-emergency situations.

And NTSB vid showed boat w bunkroom lights on, w man who was not half asleep, w no passenger or bulky objects occupying the bunk, w a man who knew of hatch location, etc.
all jmo, could be wrong.
I think there could have been a dozen or more functioning hatches and it still wouldn't have saved the passengers. By the time the fire was discovered it was too late for anyone below deck. IMO
 
Basis of Boat Owner's Lawsuit Just Filed
From our friends at wikipedia:
"Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 (46 U.S.C. app. § 183 (1984)), historically [1] or (46 U.S.C. §§ 30501 - 30512) since Feb. 1, 2010 [2], states that the owner of a vessel may limit damage claims to the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage plus "pending freight", as long as the owner can prove it lacked knowledge of the problem beforehand. This Act was the subject of a 2001 United States Supreme Court case in Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.
Historically, the statute has been invoked to limit the liability of certain parties in the sinking of the RMS Titanic and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[1][2][3]
^ Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 - Wikipedia

and
"One of the unique aspects of maritime law is the ability of a shipowner to limit its liability to the value of a ship after a major accident. An example of the use of the Limitation Act is the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912. .... the owners can limit their liability to the value of the ship after it sinks.
"The Limitation Act does not apply just to large ships. It can be used to insulate a motorboat owner from liability when he loans his boat to another who then has an accident. Even
jet ski owners have been able to successfully invoke the Limitation Act to insulate themselves from liability...."
^ United States admiralty law - Wikipedia
 
If one of the crew actually left their bunk on the lower level during the emergency and survived, who was the crew person who perished? Was that person also in one of the bunks on the lower level? Is the unaccounted for body that crew person? That seems like an odd coincidence.
 
I think there could have been a dozen or more functioning hatches and it still wouldn't have saved the passengers. By the time the fire was discovered it was too late for anyone below deck. IMO
You may very well be right. I wish the NTSB report was finalized and released right now.
jmo.
 
If one of the crew actually left their bunk on the lower level during the emergency and survived, who was the crew person who perished? Was that person also in one of the bunks on the lower level? Is the unaccounted for body that crew person? That seems like an odd coincidence.
Nobody escaped from the bunk, according to confirmed reports. It is not known whose body hasn't been found yet, because DNA identification has not been completed on all 33 bodies found.

Allie Kurtz, who grew up in Cincinnati, was the only crew member who died, because she slept in the bunk.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
87
Guests online
659
Total visitors
746

Forum statistics

Threads
598,346
Messages
18,079,808
Members
230,614
Latest member
JSlice
Back
Top