Technical Fire Discussion

[iowaoly]

I have been wondering what the investigation found and hadn't had any notices of postings on this board lately. Thanks for sharing.

[Goldryder]

Anyone with any doubts about how fast a fire will spread on a ship balcony should read the full report/bulletin. Especially make sure they look at fig 4. A photo of a test fire on an identical balcony. Its downright scary and should make everyone think twice about what they take with them and what they use on the balcony.

 

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Star%20Princess%20%2D%20Safety%20Bulletin%2Epdf

 

These balconies are not as safe as they thought and the fig 4 photo proves that fact. I hope the design and materials are changed before anyone else dies.

[spongerob]

It's interesting in the safety recommendations that all the bases we've discussed are covered, save the intentional/accidental setting of a fire. I guess that would be addressed by fire watch and detection systems.

[Host CJSKIDS]

It's interesting to read, thank you for posting it.

 

I now know that it started on our deck and it makes sense why our balcony doors shattered. I can say that the teak wood furniture on our balcony was newly varnished and it was very thick and somewhat sticky still. That is highly flammable. I guess what we heard banging in the hallways was people that knew their cabin and others were on fire and were alerting us.

[sunshine426]

Thanks for posting this bulletin. NOw if I can just figure out how to print one post and not all 23 pages of this thread...

[alibail]

Thanks for posting this bulletin. NOw if I can just figure out how to print one post and not all 23 pages of this thread...

 

Print the bulletin from the PDF file referenced on the MAIB website (although its still 11 pages).

[captlou]

May not be the best way, but you can click and hold the left button to highlight the post you want to print. Then click copy, paste it onto a Word document, and print away.

[rjg41]

It certainly goes back to many original comments about where they use plastics, the failure to use self extinguishing/flame retardant materials on balconies. Maybe it is 20/20 hindsight but it is beyond me why such materials were not used in the first place. They have been available for over 40 years. My guess, in the end we are going to see a switch to such materials on balconies including retrofit of existing ships. It is another such fire waiting to happen until they do. The measures outlined in the safety bulletin are merely stop gap actions to keep such a fire from growing so large.

[Host CJSKIDS]

Wow, I read the offical report and it was scary to see the pictures. Picture 4 shows exactly what Steve and I saw on our balcony. No wonder I got so ill from the smoke inhalation, that black smoke is nasty. Not to be gross, but I was "ill" and expelling pieces of black soot for days I guess I know why now.

 

The report also lists the gentleman who died as passing away from smoke inhalation, not a heart attack.

[zackiedawg]

Your welcome, DonLou. It's interesting to me that the report seems to really condemn the dividers and one or several of our "experts" on this thread had their suspicions about those.

 

The report was very interesting and revealing. And as one of the "expert" internet investigators, it's vindicating and satisfying to see 'official' reports in synch with my novice theories!

 

It does look like the balcony dividers, something I was suspecting as a significant spreader of the fires from my first post, were indeed pretty good fire conductors and spreaders.

 

Also, the Caribe deck theory seems to be fairly solid, as well as those of us who backed the balcony-started theory. And the fact that though fire resistant, many of the other deck materials were cited as contributory to the fire once their resistance level had been exceeded, was something a few of us were theorizing.

 

The heat breakage of balcony doors allowing fire to intrude on cabins, and the fire suppression system for the most part containing and controlling the fire once intruded, was another theory backed by the report. And the plastics/composites fire, with its thick, black, toxic smoke was also mentioned.

 

Now I am looking forward to hearing the further investigation's theory on the ignition source and exact cabin location. I'll stand by my initial theory that this could have been a cigarette ignition, combining with cloth/clothing material which ignited and spread the fire to the plastics/composites. And I'll stand by Caribe 310 as a possible start point.

 

Thank you for posting the report...I might not have seen it for another few days as I wasn't paying attention to the releases. This thread has been fun, and a great mental challenge for novice detectives like myself...and also a great source of information for everyone!

[Host CJSKIDS]

The report was very interesting and revealing. And as one of the "expert" internet investigators, it's vindicating and satisfying to see 'official' reports in synch with my novice theories!

 

It does look like the balcony dividers, something I was suspecting as a significant spreader of the fires from my first post, were indeed pretty good fire conductors and spreaders.

 

Also, the Caribe deck theory seems to be fairly solid, as well as those of us who backed the balcony-started theory. And the fact that though fire resistant, many of the other deck materials were cited as contributory to the fire once their resistance level had been exceeded, was something a few of us were theorizing.

 

The heat breakage of balcony doors allowing fire to intrude on cabins, and the fire suppression system for the most part containing and controlling the fire once intruded, was another theory backed by the report. And the plastics/composites fire, with its thick, black, toxic smoke was also mentioned.

 

Now I am looking forward to hearing the further investigation's theory on the ignition source and exact cabin location. I'll stand by my initial theory that this could have been a cigarette ignition, combining with cloth/clothing material which ignited and spread the fire to the plastics/composites. And I'll stand by Caribe 310 as a possible start point.

 

Thank you for posting the report...I might not have seen it for another few days as I wasn't paying attention to the releases. This thread has been fun, and a great mental challenge for novice detectives like myself...and also a great source of information for everyone!

 

It's interesting that you bring up the smoke being toxic. I wonder if there can be any long term damage from having inhaled that.

[zackiedawg]

It is certainly possible, if inhaled in large quantities or for a long period of time. Any smoke is technically toxic...but plastic smoke burns off resins, resulting in higher carbon and other chemical residue, making it more toxic.

 

The main damage you might get from basic smoke inhalation would be temporary...if you weren't breathing in the direct smoke pouring off the burning compounds, then you probably inhaled a 'lighter' smoke...the stuff that can more easily rise and move around through cracks and seams. Much of the carbon and chemical residue can be filtered by something as simple as a t-shirt over your mouth and nose. You are still breathing in the smoke, but the heavier residue and ash deposits are filtered out.

 

If you were closer to the main smoke from the plastics, you likely would have lung damage in the form of the little hairs inside your lung being burned or scorched. And those who got a heavy dose of the smoke would possibly have a higher amount of residue in their lungs. You mentioned coughing up black residue...this would be fairly common after smoke inhalation as your lungs attempt to call up the carbon in the mucus or sputum. It can last for several weeks.

 

It may be worth a follow up visit to a doctor to test yourself for toxins - not that you would likely have any deadly levels of them (to put it bluntly, you probably would have died already if you had that high a level of toxins!). But you may have enough that it can cause infection or ulcerate lung tissue. Notify the doctor that the smoke you inhaled and were exposed to was a high concentration of plastic and resin.

[Host CJSKIDS]

It is certainly possible, if inhaled in large quantities or for a long period of time. Any smoke is technically toxic...but plastic smoke burns off resins, resulting in higher carbon and other chemical residue, making it more toxic.

 

The main damage you might get from basic smoke inhalation would be temporary...if you weren't breathing in the direct smoke pouring off the burning compounds, then you probably inhaled a 'lighter' smoke...the stuff that can more easily rise and move around through cracks and seams. Much of the carbon and chemical residue can be filtered by something as simple as a t-shirt over your mouth and nose. You are still breathing in the smoke, but the heavier residue and ash deposits are filtered out.

 

If you were closer to the main smoke from the plastics, you likely would have lung damage in the form of the little hairs inside your lung being burned or scorched. And those who got a heavy dose of the smoke would possibly have a higher amount of residue in their lungs. You mentioned coughing up black residue...this would be fairly common after smoke inhalation as your lungs attempt to call up the carbon in the mucus or sputum. It can last for several weeks.

 

It may be worth a follow up visit to a doctor to test yourself for toxins - not that you would likely have any deadly levels of them (to put it bluntly, you probably would have died already if you had that high a level of toxins!). But you may have enough that it can cause infection or ulcerate lung tissue. Notify the doctor that the smoke you inhaled and were exposed to was a high concentration of plastic and resin.

 

thank you for the info, I will be sure to go back once again. We were in one of the suites on deck 10 and were in the cabin while the balcony was ablaze and the doors shattered. I didn't realize how bad the smoke was and didn't even cover my mouth. I knew it was hard to see but I guess it just never dawned me. We had never been near a fire before and I guess I just wasn't thinking about it. To make matter worse, we were there after the fire with an employee seeing the cabin and if there was anything left to save.

 

I will call them today and see about have another follow-up visit and bring this info with me. Thanks again.

 

Carolyn

[Goldryder]

Wow, I read the offical report and it was scary to see the pictures. Picture 4 shows exactly what Steve and I saw on our balcony. No wonder I got so ill from the smoke inhalation, that black smoke is nasty. Not to be gross, but I was "ill" and expelling pieces of black soot for days I guess I know why now.

 

The report also lists the gentleman who died as passing away from smoke inhalation, not a heart attack.

 

The initial diagnoses of 'heart attack' as being the primary reason for this fatality was an easy assumption to make. It looks more likely now, however, that the heart attack was secondary to smoke inhalation. The gentleman may have had a breathing or heart related problem before the fire, the smoke would have irritated that enough to bring on a heart attack.

 

The bottom line is that now we know there are suspicions about the materials used in the construction of balconies and the seat cushions etc, the family of the deceased can, if they so wish, pursue a civil litigation for compensation etc. Until now, the primary cause was heart attack, which could have happened to anyone in the situation as terrifying as what was suffered that night. The photo fig 4 on the report confirms that there is a design/materials/construction fault(s) that contributed greatly to this man's death.

 

There are no ifs or buts now, the smoke killed him and Princess were exceptionally lucky not to have lost more people from the smoke and its effects.

 

One question that does come to mind though.

 

Why do the cruise lines use soft furnishings etc that are so easy to set alight?

 

Its as if they are complacently thinking that being outside in the open air, they are less likely to be a fire risk than the bedding/soft furnishings inside the cabins and public areas which have to conform with the reglations in respect to fire retardancy.

 

Things are going to be changing fast as the prelim recommendations are mandatory, so those of you who have balcony cabins booked this summer should find your balcony furnishings changed and possibly the balconies themselves redesigned.

[Host CJSKIDS]

The initial diagnoses of 'heart attack' as being the primary reason for this fatality was an easy assumption to make. It looks more likely now, however, that the heart attack was secondary to smoke inhalation. The gentleman may have had a breathing or heart related problem before the fire, the smoke would have irritated that enough to bring on a heart attack.

 

The bottom line is that now we know there are suspicions about the materials used in the construction of balconies and the seat cushions etc, the family of the deceased can, if they so wish, pursue a civil litigation for compensation etc. Until now, the primary cause was heart attack, which could have happened to anyone in the situation as terrifying as what was suffered that night. The photo fig 4 on the report confirms that there is a design/materials/construction fault(s) that contributed greatly to this man's death.

 

There are no ifs or buts now, the smoke killed him and Princess were exceptionally lucky not to have lost more people from the smoke and its effects.

 

One question that does come to mind though.

 

Why do the cruise lines use soft furnishings etc that are so easy to set alight?

 

Its as if they are complacently thinking that being outside in the open air, they are less likely to be a fire risk than the bedding/soft furnishings inside the cabins and public areas which have to conform with the reglations in respect to fire retardancy.

 

Things are going to be changing fast as the prelim recommendations are mandatory, so those of you who have balcony cabins booked this summer should find your balcony furnishings changed and possibly the balconies themselves redesigned.

 

The woman who lost her husband is going to have a rough road ahead of her pursing Princess legally. Maritime law is tricky and having the crew go home so quickly to their own countries makes it hard to depose them. The attorney would have to fly to the crew member to do the depositions, not a cheap or easy pursuit.

 

It will interesting to see what Princess and other cruise lines do with the balcony situation. We have a suite booked on the Crown Princess for November which I'm hoping I can mentally go on and I wonder if the teak wood furniture on the balcony will be there or something else.

[Hondu]

Princess can make all those changes but the match that started the fire is still be a potential problem. They are tip toeing around the cigarette butt because of the revenue.

[bhopal21]

The report also lists the gentleman who died as passing away from smoke inhalation, not a heart attack.

 

Just curious, does anyone know if the MAIB examined the remains of the deceased?

 

I would think the responsibility for determining cause of death would lie with the Medical Examiner/Pathologist.

 

Mike:confused:

[spongerob]

Why do the cruise lines use soft furnishings etc that are so easy to set alight?

I'm not sure that they are "easy" to ignite. One of the many photos that have been linked here showed a balcony chair cushion that had obviously been exposed to burning material. Large holes had been melted through those cushions but had not caused the cushion to start burning. Every material, even so-called flame-resistant materials, will burn if exposed to a high enough temperature.

 

As I've said earlier, we might not find out exactly what caused the fire aboard Star Princess, but we might be able to infer the cause based on how Princess and other cruise lines modify policies and procedures in the aftermath. Is there a correlation between what happened and the report that children under 16 will be required to have a parent/guardian booked in their cabin? I'm not positive those dots connect yet. The timing of the policy change is interesting.

[Goldryder]

Just curious, does anyone know if the MAIB examined the remains of the deceased?

 

I would think the responsibility for determining cause of death would lie with the Medical Examiner/Pathologist.

 

Mike:confused:

 

As part of the investigation, the autopsy will have been conducted under MAIB conditions, similar to that done by the NTSB in the States when any revenue carrying ship/plane/vehicle/train involves deaths of passengers/crew. By the same token, the MAIB/AAIB have the same procedures.

 

The initial heart attack diagnoses was carried out shortly afterwards by a doctor and before autopsy, the actual primary cause of death will have been confirmed as smoke inhalation at autopsy, with fatal cardiac arrest as secondary caused by the inhalation of excessive quantities of noxious substances/smoke.

[zackiedawg]

The report listing the death as 'smoke inhalation' versus 'heart attack' may just come down to semantics. A person can die of a heart attack INDUCED BY smoke inhalation, so both reports of death may technically be accurate.

 

Think of someone with cancer or AIDS who dies...most people would say that they died from the disease, however many times the person dies from fever or other infections due to the destroyed immune system resulting from the cancer or AIDS. It sounds reasonable to believe that the older gentleman may have had less than optimal health, and heavy smoke inhalation may have prompted the heart attack.

 

As for the overall flammability or safety of balconies on ships, or more specifically, Princess' liability...it will be hard to find them at fault for the fire from a negligence or lack of safety angle.

 

Firstly, note that the report states "The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) is an internationally agreed

convention governing the construction and safety of vessels at sea. SOLAS regulations,

as included in Chapter II-2 Construction-Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction,

do not, currently, prescribe the combustibility of materials used on external balcony areas,

as these are not included within the vessel’s fire zones." Which means that Princess ships comply with SOLAS regulations. Though changes will and should occur in the future to reduce the combustability of balcony materials, a lawsuit against Princess would have to determine either a failure to meet safety requirements, negligence in enforcing safety standards or codes, or intentional and willful endangerment to passenger safety in choosing balcony materials. None of these seem likely to prove. Class action suits may be partially successful, only because they are usually a fear-tactic that forces a company to settle rather than risk lengthy, costly public trial.

 

Whether the family of the deceased should receive additional reimbursement, or whether they will, is up to what they decide to pursue and what the courts decide...I will stay away from that issue as it is personal and tragic. The other passengers who were injured by smoke inhalation may or may have received additional reimbursement from Princess - this I do not know. But individual lawsuits will be hard to win, and class actions even if settled or successful will likely provide very little windfall for the claimants themselves. The best option may be to negotiate with Princess to ensure any medical expenses stemming from the fire are handled, and possibly some form of offer from Princess in the form of credit-dollars towards other cruises.

 

Hopefully, those involved in any of those processes will keep us informed.

[Goldryder]

I'm not sure that they are "easy" to ignite. One of the many photos that have been linked here showed a balcony chair cushion that had obviously been exposed to burning material. Large holes had been melted through those cushions but had not caused the cushion to start burning. Every material, even so-called flame-resistant materials, will burn if exposed to a high enough temperature.

 

As I've said earlier, we might not find out exactly what caused the fire aboard Star Princess, but we might be able to infer the cause based on how Princess and other cruise lines modify policies and procedures in the aftermath. Is there a correlation between what happened and the report that children under 16 will be required to have a parent/guardian booked in their cabin? I'm not positive those dots connect yet. The timing of the policy change is interesting.

 

If you look at the mock-up photo of the test balcony setup, and the amount of smoke is amazing, the fire gets a very tight hold of the furnishings and the plasticote covered dividers and floormats...its scary and the MAIB have instructed full compliance of alterations of every ship afloat. That alone says alot. The designers of these ships will also be getting a portion of the blame, this fire is going to have incredible knock-on effects in the industry.

[spongerob]

I agree, Goldryder, the picture is quite shocking. I don't think it was easy to start the test fire - if that were not the case, ships would be blazing away on a weekly basis. I'd really like to know the details of the experiment for curiosity's sake. Once started, though, the results are obviously dramatic and indicate why the damage on the ship was so extensive. Perhaps it is simply a case that these fire-resistant materials, pushed past the point of resistance, also resist extinguishing.

[DonLou]

If you look at the mock-up photo of the test balcony setup, and the amount of smoke is amazing, the fire gets a very tight hold of the furnishings and the plasticote covered dividers and floormats...its scary and the MAIB have instructed full compliance of alterations of every ship afloat. That alone says alot. The designers of these ships will also be getting a portion of the blame, this fire is going to have incredible knock-on effects in the industry.

 

It is interesting to note that these modular balconies are a recent addition in the cruise industry. Very popular, relatively cheap to install and lucrative for the cruise lines. The Star Princess fire may be the eye opener of the unforeseen fire hazards that this type of balcony may pose.

[bhopal21]

As part of the investigation, the autopsy will have been conducted under MAIB conditions

 

Just my opinion, and through past personal experience, the autopsy was probably conducted before the MAIB even began their investigation.

 

Mike

[zackiedawg]

I agree, Goldryder, the picture is quite shocking. I don't think it was easy to start the test fire - if that were not the case, ships would be blazing away on a weekly basis. I'd really like to know the details of the experiment for curiosity's sake. Once started, though, the results are obviously dramatic and indicate why the damage on the ship was so extensive. Perhaps it is simply a case that these fire-resistant materials, pushed past the point of resistance, also resist extinguishing.

 

Exactly...the issue of how hot the fire is burning in the test, and how flammable the materials are, is not disputable.

 

But how the fire starts is where the overall issue of ship safety comes into play. If this material was able to self-start from nothing more than a smoldering source like a cigarette, it would be considered HIGHLY flammable, and downright unsafe. If the material caught fire from an open flame, such as a match, it would still be pretty flammable, and a considerably bad choice. However, if the material can resist smolder and low-heat open flame without burning, it can be considered fire-resistant. And if it is moderately fire resistant, it should rule out any negligence by the cruise lines...it would simply mean that though fire resistant, the materials are still susceptible to burning quite hot and spreading very quickly once pushed past its fire resistance.

 

I strongly suspect that this test involved an open flame with a fairly high flame temperature...either a liquid-fueled ignition source, or a combustible foreign material introduced to the balcony materials (such as a towel or clothing).

 

You'd be just as shocked when confronted with pictures of other items burning which would be considered reasonably safe from fire. For instance, noone considers their vehicle to be 'dangerously flammable' or 'negligently constructed'...yet I could get a fire going inside your car from nothing but a cigarette that could burn so hot it would melt down to nothing but a light frame and even melt the asphalt of the road on which it sits.

 

Obviously ship balconies, though deemed dangerous IN THE EVENT of a fire breaking out, are reasonably fire resistant. The safety alert and attempts to improve the safety of ship balconies are the result of what was previously unconsidered (often we don't consider a particular risk until an incident occurs) - what happens if and when these fire resistances are exceeded? The issue at hand is how certain materials burn - the type of smoke produced, the heat of the resultant fire, and the difficulty in fighting and extinguishing the fire.

 

If balconies were known to be such dangerous, flammable, death traps BEFORE this fire, don't you think there would have been dozens of reports filed, experts begging for change, observations on websites and message boards about the hidden dangers, etc? Until this fire occurred, no such observations were made. Instead, the investigation has yielded valuable and interesting information about how to improve ship safety in a previously unconsidered area. The ship was already reasonably safe, and the risk of a balcony-spread fire infantesimal. This can be considered an evolutionary change in safety - improvements have been made in so many areas under SOLAS regulations that further safety enhancements are often only considered when something extraordinarily rare happens and shines the light on an area of potential improvement.