Technical Fire Discussion

[Princess Chatterer]

"When it was reported the ship was 51 nautical miles northwest of Jamaica. The ship was travelling at approximately 20 knots. You had a head wind of 15 knots. And you put that together, you had over 35 knots of wind to propel that fire ... and the ship's crew proved that they were able to contain and put that fire out by themselves," said Fritz Pinnock, managing director of Lannaman and Morris Shipping Ltd, during an interview on 'Good Evening Jamaica', on Power 106."

 

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060326/lead/lead3.html

[kborth]

I was reading all these threads and remember someone mentioning a passenger on oxygen who smoked on this ship. My mother was on oxygen and no one could smoke anywhere near her. The whole house had to be no smoking. Oxygen is highly flammable and I cannot believe anyone who is having to use it to breathe would even consider smoking especially on a ship. Any rules governing it's use?Just a thought and a scary one to me.

[Larry502]

Carbon Dioxide systems cannot be used in sleeping areas because their activation would deprive the occupants of oxygen. Be assured that the cabin sprinkler systems on cruise ships provide water.

 

Carbon Dioxide systems are only in the electronic rooms and engine control rooms. All other rooms have standard wet system with 135 head that flow 21.5 GPM. This is the same as a land base system. I had dinner with he ship engineer on the westerdam and he gave me a tour of the engin room and showed me the fire control system. I was very impressed. Yes I was a Firefighter for a major city on the east coast. I am now a Engineer.

[Larry502]

Ruby...your Lt friend was correct. By code, sprinkler systems are required these days to be checked and flowed on a yearly basis. Even so, I have smelled sprinkler water that has smelled every bit as bad as sewer water!

 

Tater...I am sure that the engine rooms, mechanical rooms etc have CO2 systems. On your next cruise, check out the doors leading to areas protected with CO2 systems. I bet they have a warning on the door. I doubt that the fire protection system in the cabins are CO2. Here is why: As stated earlier by someone else, there needs to be 3 things come together for a fire to begin; heat, fuel and oxygen. Take any of the 3 things away and the fire goes out. Problem: the contents of the cabins are what we refer to as Class A materials, ie, paper, wood, textiles...ordinary stuff. CO2 is not recommended or even rated for that matter for extinguishing a Class A fire. CO2 extinguishes fires by suffocating them. The problem is as soon as the CO2 dissipates, if the other two components are still in place, the fire re-iginites. CO2 is designed for burning liquid (Class B) and electrical (Class C) fires only. Not only that, if for some reason you were in a room or hallway when a CO2 sytem went off....think about it, if the fire can't breathe, neither can you! The newest sprinkler heads on the market do not look anything like the old conventional styles. It could be that they are self-closing heads which really look different.

 

 

FYI

 

It takes a fire 19% O2 to burn. The bad news is you need 21% O2 to live.

[Larry502]

I am not an expert but I do know that carbon dioxide is an effective fire suppressant that will not add to the damage. You reminded me of something that I noted after the fire. The sprinklers did look unusual. Here is a photo for the experts to identify. The image is over-enlarged and pixilated but someone should recognize it.

 

 

This head i suse in Europe. The US industry does not use this type of head. I think cost is a major factor.

[Host Anne]

Just a quick note on the photo posted. The article that accompanied the photo said this balcony was two floors below the fire.

 

Great info everyone. As a member of ANSI and NFPA, I never thought I'd be reading about this stuff here on Cruise Critic.

[Tater1800]

Tater..In regards to your question concerning the unusual looking sprinkler head. I work tomorrow in the Fire Dept and one of my firefighters working my platoon was actually on the Star a couple of months ago. I'll ask him what type of system(s) they have onboard. I'll get back to you on Tues.

 

CW

 

Thanks CW. I underestand that people can't live in a CO2 atmosphere but the fire/smoke will kill you first. It is like the good ole days of Halon...choose your method of death. The OP reminded me of the odd sprinkler head. Notice in the picture that the head doesn't have anything to scatter the water. This is what I found odd.

[Host Anne]

Some additional photos (I don't believe I saw them posted here):

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/slideShow?section=local&id=4024982&slide=1

[Tater1800]

This head i suse in Europe. The US industry does not use this type of head. I think cost is a major factor.

 

Thanks Larry. I don't think those heads will cover an area like the ones we see in the US.

[Saga Ruby]

Since CruiseWacker has chosen to go to work on Monday instead of continuing our "fire" education [harumph], y'all have to take up the slack. Larry, you said you were invited to view the firefighting systems on the Westerdam - knowing what you were shown, are you surprised to see the extent of the damage on the Star?

 

Host Anne's link to ABC's clear set of slide pix showing the damaged Star and Wokie's article and photo from the Jamaica Gleamer prove to be quite interesting. Comments, anyone?

[brn2crz]

I don't have anything technical to add,but a question.

I know the facts are not out,but after seeing the video of the fire burning,and seeing the damage is contain to the cabin areas...I read a very interesting comment on another board.I hesitate to link it here,afraid it might get this thread pulled...

 

But it is from a reliable travel source.Who says..Officals say it started on a suite balcony,probably from a tossed cig...Goes on to say,due to the late hour,was not detected for quite a while...

I am having difficulty understanding how someone could have that kind of fire going on around them and be unaware of it?? Especially going on for "quite a while"

Not familiar with the set up of suites on Princess,but assume most master rooms have the balconies...

Obviously,they could have not been in the room,or passed out from heavy drinking....Still find it weird that someone did not notice it sooner.

 

We stayed in a corner aft,on Mariner last Oct.This particular deck on Voyager class ships have an expansive unused deck,past pax balconies.I noticed 2 or 3 cameras pointed to this deck.One would think that ships would have other cameras of all the ships exteriors,as well as someone constantly monitoring "Flying Bridge" or "wing" areas...

I realize we have no way yet of knowing how long the fire burned before it was found,but at this point it seems that there was a gap of some sort.

[Firefighterhoop]

Tater..In regards to your question concerning the unusual looking sprinkler head. I work tomorrow in the Fire Dept and one of my firefighters working my platoon was actually on the Star a couple of months ago. I'll ask him what type of system(s) they have onboard. I'll get back to you on Tues.

 

CW

 

Hi, I was on the star in December. the type of extinguishing agent used is water, however, it is a high pressured mist that comes out, (Thus the odd design of the head) as a fog ready to be easily converted to steam, and that is what slows down the fire. Remember most building guidelines only state that A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS DESIGNED ONLY TO SLOW DOWN THE SPREAD OF FIRE SO EVERYONE CAN ESCAPE, AND TO CONTAIN THE FIRE UNTIL FIREFIGHTERS ARRIVE. Basically if it puts it out, its a bonus! Royal Caribbean gave a really neat tour to us when they found out they had a group of us (Firefighters/cops) on board. We went all over the ship and looked at safety equipment - looks the same on princess.

 

Several people have said to put the sprinkler system on the balcony, that wouldn't work or be effective. A sprinker is only effective in an area where the flames are in a controlled environment. Since a lot of the balconies stick out from each other, by the time the head blows, the fire may already be above the level of the head.

 

For the people talking about cold weather sprinkler heads, and "circulating" water, that isn't nessecary, as they have what is called a dry system, which is that the line is filled with compressed air. This air is holding a water valve shut. When a sprinker system blows, the air immediately escapes through the open head, releasing the valve, and water comes within a second or two - this system is used a lot in garages, or areas in the US that are prone to freezing temps, or even in your grocery store freezer, but again, how effective would it be on the balconies that stick out from other balconies - where would the head be mounted so you have accurate water flow???

 

I am still sticking to my guns here that the sprinker system worked, and that the fire spread from Balcony to balcony and then balcony to room, and not room to room as a lot believe....

[CruiseWacker23]

FFHoop..I agree and disagree. The sprinklers in the cabins most definately did their jobs. Held the fire in place and prevented extension. I disagree that sprinklers on the verandahs would not be beneficial. Since it has to be a different system and riser anyway (dry pipe), put quick response residential style heads deflecting toward the door, chairs and floor. If you have a fire auto-exposing like this one did along the side, it has to impede the fire's progress. Slow down the momentum and the extension probably will be less.

Tater...I looked at that photo...location is everthing! If this deck was 2 floors below Caribe like stated, most of the heat wasn't getting down to it. Again, good example why we tell people to crawl low in smoke and heat. The lower you go, the less heat and smoke there is.

Ruby..Sorry but I really do have to report to work...Larry and FFHoop can continue with class. I think today's lessons should be Incident Command and Principles of Hydraulics. :D

 

Off to work...cya CW

[spongerob]

Some additional photos (I don't believe I saw them posted here):

Thanks Anne. The interior photos are interesting. In spite of the smoke and water damage, the cabin looks fairly secure. I'm curious where this cabin was located.

[Host Anne]

When I get home from work tonight, let me see if I can find where I found the link to the ABC photos. I can't recall if it mentioned cabin location in the info. And I searched a bunch of sites last night looking for photos so I can't easily recall where I even found the link to the photos at the moment. But I'll look again tonight.

[garycarla]

To the poster wondering why the fire was not noticed. Seems easy. It was the middle of the night. Many people pull their curtains tight to shut out the morning sunlight, which would also shut out the fire buring outside, and of course they were asleep and might not even notice a burning fire outside, assuming the air inside was still reasonably fresh.

 

As to sprinklers outside. Sounds good and as some "experts" have indicated it is possible. At the same time, it may not be feasible. After all, this would be an exposed area, exposed to constant salt water and the elements and upkeep could be major. One would have to weigh the cost to the benefit. Sure, some folks will say if it stops just one fire, then it would be worth it. Sounds good, but there has to be a balance.

 

Not sure how many times a fire has taken place on the "balcony area" after how many millions of sea miles, but I would guess it is pretty low. And, based on this experience, bad as it was, loss of life was minimal, if at all. (the one loss was cardiac arrest, which may or may not have been caused by the fire - who knows)

[Katelab]

Firefighterhoop is exactly right. The fire protection system (sprinklers) did their job. So far, from what we have heard the fire started somehow on the verandah area. It spread vertically and horizonally and as it did, some of the verandah doors failed and the products (smoke, heat and flames) entered some of rooms that way. Each time the fire entered a room, the sprinklers stopped it before it consumed the room and extended to the hallway. Had the sprinkler system not operated as well as it did, this ship would have been toast! One person dead from a heart attack and several others with smoke inhalation.....amazing. I am sure the cruise industry and their insurance carriers will address the issue with the flame spread across the verandahs.

 

Yes, the sprinklers were effective in the rooms. But if it was a less effective crew or some other complication occurred, things may not have turned out as well as they did.

 

But since we are in agreement that sprinkler systems are effective I think this community should support extending sprinkler systems to the balconies. If passengers demand that level of safety it will happen. Based on what we have seen so far it seems necessarry to me.

[wraithe]

FYI

 

It takes a fire 19% O2 to burn. The bad news is you need 21% O2 to live.

 

After the Bonefish fire, we routinely lowered oxygen levels to high 19/low 20% levels onboard ship. The smokers hated it, since they'd pretty much have to continuously drag on their cigarrettes to keep them lit. If they paused for a few seconds, the cigarrettes would go out. It caused headaches and muscle aches, but after you got used to it, we would work out just like normal, I ran 3-5 miles a day on the treadmill and such. Then when we ventilated the ship at the end of patrol, and levels rose to normal, eveyone was dizzy for a few minutes. It was quite funny, actually, after the fact. Lowering oxygen levels at normal atmospheric pressure is just like climbing a mountain, as the partial pressure of the oxygen lowers, it's like being at high altitude, less O2 crosses the lungs into the blood. The advantage to lowering O2 levels, the ignition temps of any material goes up significantly, and once it ignites, it smolders longer or burns slower and cooler which gives you more time to fight the fire and limit spread while it's in its infancy. Can't do this on a cruise ship of course, it's just trivia.

[patwell]

I posted to you on the Saga thread...my post is there but the thread didn't indicate an update from the previous poster...just wanted you to know. Sorry..this is OT I know.

 

Will have to skip "school" today....have to get something done around here! Cheers, Penny

[wraithe]

Someone mentioned that the strength of the steel used in the hull and fittings could have been reduced due to the "heat treatment" of the metal. Will just have to wait and see again if the fire was hot enough to change the structural values enough to affect the hull. I have little doubt that a fire hot enough to ignite aluminum would have significant effect on the strength characteristics of the metal. Especially if it was really hot and then sprayed with water, which could cause cracking and fractures due to thermal stress.

 

The problem with CO2 fire suppression systems outside of a sealed room like an electronics room, as mentioned before, is that it dissipates quickly and has almost no heat removal capability, like water does. In nearly all cases of electrical fire, if you shut off the power, it goes out, there may be a little bit of smoldering insulation, but usually no fire. CO2 can easily suppress this. Like another poster mentioned though, CO2 is all but useless against Class A fires (fires that leave an ash), due to the lack of heat removal. The fire might go out, but as soon as the CO2 dissipates, it reignites. As for other "dry" materials, PKP and soda (is that even used anymore) are both terribly corrosive to metal if used in a wet environment.

 

The fly boys on here can probably testify better than I about Class D fires (metal fires), they pretty much taught us in the submarine force that you either flood it with water until it quits burning, or push it over the side (if that option is available). Water won't put a metal fire like magnesium out, it will make the water dissociate, so now you have hydrogen and oxygen, to support the fire. Fun stuff, ehhh.

[Saga Ruby]

I'm starting to understand that firefighting is a difficult science because there are so many technical variables and we humans are so unpredictable. The good news is that, as you all say, considering the multi-millions of pax on the water, cruising basically is a safe way to go.

 

Is it a fair statement that those of you who were invited to view ship's systems in reference to firefighting were satisfied with what you saw? And that you felt at the time that the crew took the matter seriously in the sense of training?

 

Two comments: Wraithe, I have to ask - since you became used to low environmental oxygen in the submariner service and could treadmill 3-5 miles a day, did you retire and become a Sherpa? By the bye, an early Happy Birthday at sea!

 

Also, I've got my pen and pad and am reporting as Ready, Sir! for "Incident Command" and "Principles of Hydraulics."

[judyzoo]

Some time ago I saw during a safety and environmental tour of an RCI ship that their fire system provides an alert on the bridge, showing the location, whenever fire is detected. Wouldn’t Princess have the same type of system and if so, how could it spread so far before being detected by anyone?

[TinAngel]

The fly boys on here can probably testify better than I about Class D fires (metal fires)

 

Chief; NCO to NCO, truly in two plus years in Vietnam I saw many aircraft burn on the flightline and in the jungle. It was not an "in flight" issue much as there was little one could do except get down fast. By the time the frame ignites the crew and passengers are either clear or gone. In those days not many worried about losing what was left of a downed AC. If foam was available I recall it cut the glow of the burning frames. Slowed the fuel from igniting.

 

Seen armored track vehicles (even tanks) just melt. Think that "halon"?? stuff came in after Vietnam and what? also took all the oxygen out of the armored vehicle, but guess the tank would not be so damaged? :confused:

 

A UH-1 did make a good fire suppression platform. Witnessed several instances where flight crews were able to exit due to directed rotor wash. Amazing what "wind" can do to a fire. ? Do airports still (even military) have choppers for fire duties? The wind and "salt spray" likely drove that fire inward for better or worse.

 

As to the "cardiac arrest" remains a direct correlation to fire situations. If one has any level of heart disease the physical and physiological demands upon the body due to a fire will trigger a heart attack. If not for the fire the man may have lived for many years. Like Gene Hackman in that Submarine film:

it was that CPO's 300 pounds not the galley fire. Heart Attacks are still killers in today's military during any stressful or dangerous activities. I know from personal experience: a lot of cruisers have heart disease. One has to weigh the risks. Trusting that you youngsters will pick up my wheelchair and get me

out of harm's way.

 

Doc

[CruiseWacker23]

Some time ago I saw during a safety and environmental tour of an RCI ship that their fire system provides an alert on the bridge, showing the location, whenever fire is detected. Wouldn’t Princess have the same type of system and if so, how could it spread so far before being detected by anyone?

 

Judy

On my last cruise on the HAL Volendam, the DW and I were lucky enough to be invited to a private bridge tour. The Volendam (and I assume all HAL ships) have the same type of indicator panel in the bridge connected to the ship's fire detection systems. The problem in this case, if it DID indeed start on a balcony, there are no detectors out there. Concealed dry pipe sprinklers could be of benefit out there but I seriously doubt if an early warning detection system could be made to work out there with the wind, salt, etc.

[wraithe]

Is it a fair statement that those of you who were invited to view ship's systems in reference to firefighting were satisfied with what you saw? And that you felt at the time that the crew took the matter seriously in the sense of training?

 

I can say that from what I've seen onboard and in the shows I've watched on TV that they have good training scenarios, and excellent equipment. In the Navy, we relied on OBA's (oxygen breathing apparatus), which could be considered hazardous in their own right, since they relied on a chemical reaction to produce oxygen, were uncomfortable, and bulky. The videos that I've seen show Draegar air packs, similar to Scott Air Packs that I'm familiar with, fire fighting ensembles (FFE's) and advanced thermal imaging video systems designed to see through smoke and find the source of a fire, and incidentally, casualties (persons overcome by smoke), nozzles specialized for fighting shipboard fires (blast the source of the fire, break it up, and extinguish it without huge amounts of water that could adversely affect ship's trim). The particular video that I saw was for RCL, but the Safety Officer said they trained weekly with the entire crew, and DAILY with specialized teams. They used a similar approach to what I'm familiar with as well, initial response teams approach the fire with minimal gear, but rapid action to extinguish the source quickly, and if beaten back or necessary, are relieved by specialized TEAMS with the breathing and video gear. I was quite happy with what I saw.

 

Two comments: Wraithe, I have to ask - since you became used to low environmental oxygen in the submariner service and could treadmill 3-5 miles a day, did you retire and become a Sherpa? By the bye, an early Happy Birthday at sea!

 

Nope, unfortunately, I retired and got fat for a while. I've recently lost weight back down to the maximum Navy standard for my height, of 192 pounds, I've still got some more to go, but I'm working on it. I am back up to 3 mile runs at almost 6 mph, but have to improve the speed before I could get back to an outstanding on a Physical Readiness Test (PRT). Sorry, this is a little off topic. When the USS Stark was struck by an Exocet missile, one of the worst problems was that some members of the crew were so out of shape that they wound up having to be rescued due to exhaustion while fighting the fire and casualty. (My hat's off to the professional fire fighters that wear FFE's in burning buildings for minutes or hours at a time.) That lead to many discharges of Naval personnel due to being over weight or unable to complete the PRT, we got a lot of bad press over that, but hopefully some of you will understand it better now. Thanks for the birthday wishes, won't be my first birthday (holiday) out to sea, but fully expect it to be my best!