Cruise ships worst nightmare - fire

[gerryuk]

Media reporting that MSC cruise ship Lirica is on fire in the island of Corfu. 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/03/12/cruise-ship-the-msc-lirica-catches-fire-off-greek-coast/

 

 

 

 

[gerryuk]

 

Hope all those on board are safe.

[mom says]

It appears the fire started in one of the starboard lifeboats and is now out. No injuries reported, but what a mess left in the area around that lifeboat.

 

And typical tabloid hyperbole: USA Today's online headline read "MSC Lirica cruise ship goes up in flames...." 🙄

Edited March 12, 2021 by mom says

[Essiesmom]

Every ships worst nightmare, not just passenger vessels.  E M

[Aplmac]

https://www.cruisecheap.com/deckplans/msc-cruises-msc-lirica-deckplans-puccini-deck.html

 

Which decks have been affected??

 

[Aplmac]

1 hour ago, mom says said:

It appears the fire started in one of the starboard lifeboats

and is now out. No injuries reported,

but what a mess left in the area around that lifeboat!

 

If it started on the lifefeboat deck

then it started on Scarlatti Deck 7

 

https://www.cruisecheap.com/deckplans/msc-cruises-msc-lirica-deckplans-scarlatti-deck.html

[navybankerteacher]

What do you bet a cigarette butt flicked over the side is a likely cause?

[rkacruiser]

1 minute ago, navybankerteacher said:

What do you bet a cigarette butt flicked over the side is a likely cause?

 

If the fire started in a lifeboat, no, I won't take that bet.

 

A battery issue (it's been posted that they use Lithium batteries and that type of battery has been responsible for other fires) or as also has been posted that the lifeboats engines were being tested and the fire could be due to an issue related to that.

 

The views of the damage reminds me of what we witnessed with the Star Princess fire, only not as extensive.  

[Heidi13]

Sounds like the ship had no pax and minimal crew, so either a cigarette or L/Boat maintenance

[cruisemom42]

Here in this thread is the guess of our chengkp75 on the origin:

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

Here in this thread is the guess of our chengkp75 on the origin:

 

 

If the cause were a test running of a lifeboat engine, I would think there would have been qualified personnel on scene capable of putting it out before it spread as much as it seems to have. 

[clo]

53 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

If the cause were a test running of a lifeboat engine, I would think there would have been qualified personnel on scene capable of putting it out before it spread as much as it seems to have. 

Good point, NBT

[Aquahound]

If it's true there were only 51 crew aboard and no passengers, I find it unlikely this was caused by a tossed cigarette.  Possible, of course, but just not highly likely.  The testing of a lifeboat is more plausible.  Time will tell, though, hopefully.  While the Star Princess incident was believed to have been a tossed cigarette, it was never proven.  

[MBP&O2/O]

I used to work on oil tankers where “naked flames” were under very strict control. The worst offenders ... for breaching safety laws ... were shoreside staff who all knew far better than we did 😏

[chengkp75]

11 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

If the fire started in a lifeboat, no, I won't take that bet.

 

A battery issue (it's been posted that they use Lithium batteries and that type of battery has been responsible for other fires) or as also has been posted that the lifeboats engines were being tested and the fire could be due to an issue related to that.

 

The views of the damage reminds me of what we witnessed with the Star Princess fire, only not as extensive.  

While lithium batteries have been known to cause fires in cell phones and other electronics, that is due to the small size of the battery and the need to get as much power into that small size, resulting in thin membranes between the plates of the battery.  When you get to "car battery" size, there is far less chance of these fires.  Also, most boats don't have batteries, they rely on hydraulics to start the engines.

 

As to fire response, with that small a crew, spread out over the entire ship, it takes some minutes to get them from where they are working to the fire team locker, geared up with SCBA's, and then to the scene.  A fire doubles in size every 30 seconds.  Add to that, the black, toxic smoke emitted by burning fiberglass, and you have teams that must be on SCBA's, and that likely cannot see where the seat of the fire is due to the smoke, the possibility of oil in the boat's bilge, and you have something that takes way more than the two hoses that the fire teams can bring to bear.  Lots of the remaining crew would be assigned to boundary areas, checking for spread of the fire across bulkheads and decks.

 

From the photos, that looks like it was a tender/lifeboat, so more enclosed than the lifeboats, which could have given the fire longer to establish without notice than a more open boat.

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, Aquahound said:

If it's true there were only 51 crew aboard and no passengers, I find it unlikely this was caused by a tossed cigarette.  Possible, of course, but just not highly likely.  The testing of a lifeboat is more plausible.  Time will tell, though, hopefully.  While the Star Princess incident was believed to have been a tossed cigarette, it was never proven.  

Am I correct that a tossed cigarette has been determined as the probable cause of the Star Princess fire, and soon after smoking on balconies was prohibited by Princess?

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Am I correct that a tossed cigarette has been determined as the probable cause of the Star Princess fire, and soon after smoking on balconies was prohibited by Princess?

The actual report stated that "since no other cause was determined", it was decided that the fire was probably caused by a cigarette.  Not really definitive.  Mostly based on anecdotal reports of other cigarette butts landing on balconies in previous days.  Even under laboratory conditions, the investigators were not able to ignite a Princess towel with a cigarette.

[Heidi13]

11 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

If the cause were a test running of a lifeboat engine, I would think there would have been qualified personnel on scene capable of putting it out before it spread as much as it seems to have. 

 

I have never called for, or seen a fire party standing-by while conducting lifeboat maintenance, including test running the engine(s). None of our risk analysis, which are integral to the SMS, required fire parties standing-by for routine lifeboat maintenance. When the ship reviewed the risk analysis, I have no doubt, the low probability would result in minimal risk mitigation strategies being immediately required.

 

You also have to consider that the ship reportedly only had a compliment of 51, many of whom would be watchkeepers, with 2/3 of them off-watch. Once the fire started, the fire teams will have awakened, formed and by all reports extinguished it fairly quickly.

 

It's been 10 years since I completed ship risk analysis, so from memory, the only activity I can recall that we required a fire-party standing-by was helo operations. Perhaps the Chief, who has more recent experience can add some more.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, Heidi13 said:

It's been 10 years since I completed ship risk analysis, so from memory, the only activity I can recall that we required a fire-party standing-by was helo operations. Perhaps the Chief, who has more recent experience can add some more.

Thanks, Andy.  Didn't catch that it was mentioned that the personnel would be "on scene" (but maybe he just meant just "on the ship").  Even on oil tankers, the only time a fire team would be "standing by" would be helo operations, not even hotwork (though there would be a firewatch or two, not kitted out in full fire gear, but with an extinguisher and radio).  The typical response time on cruise ships I've worked would be 3-5 minutes for a "fast response" team of deck/engine specialists (electricians, HVAC engineers), and about 5-7 minutes for the first fire team to report on scene.  That's why fire prevention is more important than fire fighting.

[Heidi13]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Thanks, Andy.  Didn't catch that it was mentioned that the personnel would be "on scene" (but maybe he just meant just "on the ship").  Even on oil tankers, the only time a fire team would be "standing by" would be helo operations, not even hotwork (though there would be a firewatch or two, not kitted out in full fire gear, but with an extinguisher and radio).  The typical response time on cruise ships I've worked would be 3-5 minutes for a "fast response" team of deck/engine specialists (electricians, HVAC engineers), and about 5-7 minutes for the first fire team to report on scene.  That's why fire prevention is more important than fire fighting.

 

We were the same with "hotwork" as we would have a fire watch standing by with an extinguisher. Our response times were also similar for the initial quick response team, then the fully dressed fire parties.

 

I recall one exercise I did on one of our ships, when proving to Flag that we could operate with 1 less crew member after modifications. i completed the crew size exercise, which was submitted to Flag for approval, subject to proving an exercise to the satisfaction of the attending Inspector. The crew were obviously against the reduction, so may not have performed to their best. Took the fire party 12 mins to dress and report to staging. During the debrief, the Flag Inspection laid into them with lack of professionalism.

 

Similar to the changes driven by the Star Princess, it will be interesting to see what additional Fire Prevention standards will be driven by this incident.

[chengkp75]

38 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Similar to the changes driven by the Star Princess, it will be interesting to see what additional Fire Prevention standards will be driven by this incident.

USCG has a Safety Notice about combustion in flexible exhaust pipes in lifeboats, came out a few years ago, we have modified some boats to minimize the risk without endangering the crew in the boats from burn hazards.

[ontheweb]

39 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

 

Similar to the changes driven by the Star Princess, it will be interesting to see what additional Fire Prevention standards will be driven by this incident.

What specific changes occurred after the Star Princess fire other than a ban on smoking on balconies? Was there a change in the furniture on balconies making it more fire resistant? Anything else?

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

What specific changes occurred after the Star Princess fire other than a ban on smoking on balconies? Was there a change in the furniture on balconies making it more fire resistant? Anything else?

The fire boundaries were extended outboard to include the balconies, which meant redesign of the partitions.  The fire crews could not get from one balcony to the next, so this is why the balcony partitions are made to open (not for passenger comfort, contrary to CC wisdom).  The partitions and furniture must be fire resistant, or there must be a fixed sprinkler on the balcony.  I think that's it. Could be more on the general fire response systems and procedures, it's been a while since I reviewed the report.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, Heidi13 said:

...

 

It's been 10 years since I completed ship risk analysis, so from memory, the only activity I can recall that we required a fire-party standing-by was helo operations. Perhaps the Chief, who has more recent experience can add some more.

I wouldn't think there would have been a fire party standing by - but I also wouldn't think there would be a process where lifeboat engines were started and left to run by themselves.  

 

I assume there will be follow-up reviews of procedure - possibly determining precise cause.

[chengkp75]

21 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

I wouldn't think there would have been a fire party standing by - but I also wouldn't think there would be a process where lifeboat engines were started and left to run by themselves.  

 

I assume there will be follow-up reviews of procedure - possibly determining precise cause.

Of course there will be an investigation, that is what the entire ISM culture is about, and not assigning blame, but finding ways to prevent it from happening again.

 

While I would not have recommended this practice, just from my experience, it would not be unheard of, marine engines are run all the time with no one about.  Most ships, other than cruise ships, operate with unmanned engine rooms for 16 hours each day.