Technical Fire Discussion

[abdelkadr]

a little bit C4 or other new compounds they didn't find with the bomb sniffing Dogs maybe. My thought, it was just a question of time when they targeting Cruise Ships.Everybody is concentrating on Aircrafts and Trains.

 

what a better way for a suicide bomber to enjoy a few Days cruising on a Princess Ship and then blew himself (or herself)up.

 

abdel

[spongerob]

All in all, it looks like they did an amazing job, to stop the ship, turn away from the breezes, lower boats to avoid damage, evacuate all passengers with extremely low casualties, containing the fire to the port side, outside cabins only, probably fighting the fire both from within the ship and from pump-equipped lifeboats, and bringing the ship safely to port.

 

Thanks Zackiedawg for a great post.

[gr81]

Its going to be interesting if/what will be released to the general public. Not only the source but what fueled it.

 

I work in the wonderful field of Aluminum. Everything that has been said about aluminum is pretty much right on track. It burns, burns hot, and takes less than half the energy of steel (give or take) to do so. But it takes a pretty decent fuel source as well. We have to go thru a lot of training, and our own little "muster" drills at work up to 4 times a year because of the risks involved.

 

Just to add another item to what can burn, dust can perpetuate a fire. The small particles of just about anything, when in the right enviroment are not only flamable but combustable. Being where I work, I have learned just how dangerous aluminum dust can be.

 

On our last cruise just a couple of weeks ago, we had an aft balcony that was across the hall from one of the fire stations. They had a drill one day while in port and we happened to be on board and headed back to our room. They seemed very efficient in getting dressed and off to where-ever their drill was taking them.

[Dolphins]

As a retired fire officer, I seriously doubt there is enough combustible material on any ship's balcony to create a fire of this intensity. I do not believe SOLAS permits matting or carpeting on balcony decks that would be combustible. As to the speed of the ship fanning the flames and spreading the fire, I would assume that once the fire alarm sounded and the location determined, the bridge would automatically reduce speed to prevent spreading the fire.

As to the criticism of the crew in extinguishing the fire, I was amazed they were able to get it under control as quick as they did. Anyone who has served in the fire service knows how many hand lines would be required to control a fire of this magnitude on three decks. I suspect the fire was mainly controlled by the sprinkler system to which additional water and pressure was probably supplied by the engineering staff.

I maintain the major problem that must be addressed is why the sprinkler system did not confine the fire to the cabin of origin. I am confident that a Coast Guard investigation will provide an answer to that question and initiate procedures that will prevent a reoccurance in the future. Until that investigation is concluded, everything we say here remains speculative.

[CruiseAholic]

From the reports I've read, including an interview with a passenger, the crew handled the situation in an excellent manner.

 

As for this purposely being set and if it was terrorism. Do all terrorists take credit? Many times yes, but not always, especially if testing the waters so to speak.

[SSeaman]

OK let’s talk in technical terms, what does it take to start a fire:

 

The very first thing learned in Firefighting School.

1. Combustible material

2. Oxygen

3. Source of ignition

 

There are many speculations on the boards right now that a cigarette caused this (very premature in my book). First off, if the fire started inside a cabin, I think there would have been more injuries and possible death and entrapment. Sprinkler system should have also contained the fires. I do know many materials used in building these ships must be fire retardant. Yes all three of these required items may have been present, but lets look at your basic balcony and its materials. Hard plastic resin chairs, plastic balcony dividers, hardwoods and possibly synthetic woods, glass or Plexiglas, aluminum. I just can't fathom a cigarette could cause any of these types of material to ignite. Whether there was foul play involved or not, we'll have to wait and see. My gut feeling is an accelerant was involved, just speculation, lets just wait and see before we jump conclusions.

[zackiedawg]

Thank you for the compliment, Saga Ruby. But just want to make sure I clarify one thing so there is no confusion - I am certainly NOT an expert! I don't want anyone to think my post is factual - it is just a theory of how this MIGHT have happened...one of dozens of possible causes. None is more or less valid than another - be it electrical shorts, arson, cigarettes, candles, kids with matches, etc.

 

I think more important is that everyone keep their minds open to the many possibilities before jumping to any conclusion or dismission.

 

Other threads have descended into anti-smoking campaigns, terrorist theories, arson possibilities - and too many of these threads are being mistaken for fact. I hope, like others here, that a thread like this allows for some rational discussion on a purely technical basis of the various ways a fire like this could have started.

 

I base my post on non-expert, but observational, possibilities and a basic knowledge of flammable materials and material construction. Many others here know much more than I do, and may be able to either confirm or refute some of my theories. I just hope it helps to open some people's minds to the complexity of a fire's ignition, and that something seemingly as small and simple as a cigarette could indeed become a conflagration like this. Firefighters and investigators can tell you dozens of stories of fires that began in the most inane or unlikely-sounding ways. And as mentioned in another post above, there is a great difference between firePROOF and fire RESISTANT. By no means are cruise ship balconies dangerously flammable or unsafely constructed - but given the right conditions, and alot of bad luck and coincidence...bad things can sometimes happen despite our best efforts. We are always so eager to assess blame for every bad occurrence in the world - but sometimes things just happen. A billion cigarettes have been left unattended, blown onto balconies, or started smaller fires on thousands of cruises over dozens of years, none of which resulted in a fire. If it was a cigarette this time, it was one unfortunate and unlucky alignment of the stars.

[CMVAC]

This may have been mentioned before somewhere but, the lowest level of damage is Caribe deck. The center of the damaged area on Caribe are the Penthouse Suites. Those suites have all teak wood on their decks. Two teak loungers and a round teak table with 4 teak chairs. There are 6 or some of them in a row and they are smack dab in the middle of where all the damage occured. I don't know how much it takes to make one of those tables burn but I have stayed in those rooms before and have also been guilty of leaving my drying towels out on the table overnight.

 

Also, what about a candle in the center of one, left burning. Could that ignite a fire like that? I'll leave it to the experts but I thought I'd mention that all the balcony furniture in the area of the fire was not plastic.

[abrauns783]

we where on the Grand a few years back. we also have a very small fire on board. the code for fire was broadcast over the pa system. the cabin attendent checked the room very carefully and found smoke in the cabin. the fire crew got a few seconds behind and put out a small fire on balcony. they took melted outdoor a chair and table away. i heard them say it start from cinder from a upper deck.

[wraithe]

As a retired fire officer, I seriously doubt there is enough combustible material on any ship's balcony to create a fire of this intensity. I do not believe SOLAS permits matting or carpeting on balcony decks that would be combustible. As to the speed of the ship fanning the flames and spreading the fire, I would assume that once the fire alarm sounded and the location determined, the bridge would automatically reduce speed to prevent spreading the fire.

As to the criticism of the crew in extinguishing the fire, I was amazed they were able to get it under control as quick as they did. Anyone who has served in the fire service knows how many hand lines would be required to control a fire of this magnitude on three decks. I suspect the fire was mainly controlled by the sprinkler system to which additional water and pressure was probably supplied by the engineering staff.

I maintain the major problem that must be addressed is why the sprinkler system did not confine the fire to the cabin of origin. I am confident that a Coast Guard investigation will provide an answer to that question and initiate procedures that will prevent a reoccurance in the future. Until that investigation is concluded, everything we say here remains speculative.

 

Hey Dolphins,

 

What do you think about flashback or backdraft in a closed cabin? I mentioned in a RCCI post about this, we had tons of training after the Bonefish fire. A fire in a closed space tends to just smolder and get hotter and hotter (near the top, but also throughout the space due to radiant heating) while oxygen is consumed, then when a source of oxygen presents itself, shattered window, opened door, or whatever, the fire ignites and burns through out the space, seeking more fuel as it goes. Since you're a fire fighter, thought you might be able to comment on this more than the rest of us. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the pics, after touring the Bonefish, I was amazed that glass gage faces were melted out of equipment in a space where there was no fire, just hot gas. The aluminum bed pans in the vicinity of where the fire started were consumed in the Bonefish fire, due to compressed air lines letting loose and "fanning the flames". Since an enclosed space fire can reach thousands of degrees, according to the training we received, it would stand to reason, once started, it would be very hard to contain. What do you think?

[bdjam]

Thanks for this very interesting thread – its good to see some objective opinions rather than the usual speculation. Perhaps someone can address these comments.

From the pictures of the ship, it seems the damage was pretty vertical – if the ship was at speed, I would think the fire would have spread aft instead of up (assuming that it started on a lower deck). In order to go up, it would seem to me that it would have to be stronger than the forward motion – and wind created – of the ship. That leads me to think of something extremely flammable. It would be easy to drop something on the open balconies from above…??

If the fire was on the balconies and was intruding into the staterooms, how the heck did they fight it? From above would be too hot, I guess they could have gotten to it from adjacent cabins. I believe it standard procedure in a muster situation to lower the survival craft to the embarkation level – and I can see how doing so would also protect them from the fire, but could they also have been used to fight the fire? If so, I think that’s pretty ingenious!

 

And reading about an "enclosed space" fire above, is it possible that this fire started in a cabin and heat and pressure blew out the balcony doors? With the addition of oxygen, it could almost be an explosion, right?

I don’t know where I’m going with all that – but thanks for letting me join in this enlightened discussion.

[davy jones]

Some adhesives are extremely flammable. Perhaps the adhesives used to attach the carpeting to the balconies ignited, spreading the fire from balcony to balcony. Isn't it actually one continuous balcony with dividers?

[zackiedawg]

What do you think about flashback or backdraft in a closed cabin?

 

It will be interesting to find out if the fire began on a balcony or inside a cabin. Early speculation and rumor seem to point more to a balcony fire. If this was a cabin fire, certainly a backdraft situation could be feasable. If it was a balcony fire, it seems less likely so.

 

However, note too as I had mentioned there is a tremendous suction when you have the balcony doors open and then open a cabin door...due to the backpressure that builds between the outside air pressure and ship's motion versus the climate-controlled and closed-in inner hallways. So a fire starting on a balcony could, once it breaks the glass of the cabin, cause the fire to suction into the cabin if the cabin door to the hall were open. Firefighting efforts would be make much more complex with this factor...as it seems unlikely they could open cabin doors in the fire area to get to the burning balconies without threatening spread of the fire into the common areas.

 

Now we just have to let the investigators determine where it started and what the ignition source was.

[Saga Ruby]

I admire so much the information being post on this thread from firefighters, those with metals training, and, I suspect, engineering information. Please keep these cards and letters coming and, in the interim, the facts will become clear after the investigation onboard at Miami. By taking your time to inform us, we can understand the final report much more clearly.

 

Also thanks in a broader sense to all you professionals who keep me safe from fire and stand ready to help me if need arises whether on land or on the deep blue sea. I know many of you put your lives on the line for all of us and, believe me, it is appreciated.

[zackiedawg]

From the pictures of the ship, it seems the damage was pretty vertical – if the ship was at speed, I would think the fire would have spread aft instead of up (assuming that it started on a lower deck). In order to go up, it would seem to me that it would have to be stronger than the forward motion – and wind created – of the ship. That leads me to think of something extremely flammable. It would be easy to drop something on the open balconies from above…??

Many of the plastic/rubber materials that may have burned would certainly burn with that kind of intensity...so if those were indeed involved in the fire, that would explain the overwhelming heat. The forward motion of the ship would aid the rearward spread of the fire initially, but it wouldn't be enough to prevent the fire's natural rise to affect higher decks as well. Likely the ship stopped within the first few hours, and this fire probably burned for much longer, give the 7 hour muster. So any rearward spread initially would be followed by the fire rising when the ship stilled, and also burning debris, embers, and molten materials cascading to lower decks possibly igniting those as well.

Also, when a resin or petrolium plastic, fiberglass, rubber, or similar material burns, it tends to burn 'out', flash style, initially as it combusts and burns off the most volatile flammable compounds, then reduces to a less intense rising fire as the flammable accelerants within burn off. Think of lighting a match...on initial strike, it flares up and out in all directions, and then recedes to a standard rising flame. When plastic, rubber, polyester, and other synthetic materials burn, they tend to have that same flaring effect. I'm sure you've heard about fires at old tire dumps...those fires burn so hot and intense, and flare out in all directions, that they usually just stand back and let it burn out the petroliums and flammable compounds, then attack the fire when it has calmed to a standard burn. Possibly, this is why the fire was able to burn fairly quickly in all directions, finally stopping as it reached the uppermost deck overhang, which may have been predominantly steel and glass. Just a theory.

 

If the fire was on the balconies and was intruding into the staterooms, how the heck did they fight it? From above would be too hot, I guess they could have gotten to it from adjacent cabins. I believe it standard procedure in a muster situation to lower the survival craft to the embarkation level – and I can see how doing so would also protect them from the fire, but could they also have been used to fight the fire? If so, I think that’s pretty ingenious!

I did pose that possibility above. I have personally seen lifeboats on some ships equipped with pumps and fire cannons. On Celebrity's Summit several years ago, I saw the two front-most covered lifeboats (which also serve as occasional tenders) using their water cannons during a lifeboat drill in St. Kitts. Certainly it would be easier to fight that fire from the sea, with an unlimited water source, concentrating the streams of water up and into the balconies and cabins.

And reading about an "enclosed space" fire above, is it possible that this fire started in a cabin and heat and pressure blew out the balcony doors? With the addition of oxygen, it could almost be an explosion, right?

 

It could be possible...but it does look more like a fire that started outside. It is hard to see in the tiny pictures available so far, but it looks like many of the cabin doors and door frames in the affected area are still in tact. Some cabins in the burn area appear to not have been burned on the inside, and those that were don't appear to have any significant outward deformation indicating an explosion. It looks like most of the heat from the fire was concentrating on the balcony areas, and residual fire damage spread to the cabins. Again...just a theory!

[Dolphins]

Hey Dolphins,

 

What do you think about flashback or backdraft in a closed cabin? I mentioned in a RCCI post about this, we had tons of training after the Bonefish fire. A fire in a closed space tends to just smolder and get hotter and hotter (near the top, but also throughout the space due to radiant heating) while oxygen is consumed, then when a source of oxygen presents itself, shattered window, opened door, or whatever, the fire ignites and burns through out the space, seeking more fuel as it goes. Since you're a fire fighter, thought you might be able to comment on this more than the rest of us. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the pics, after touring the Bonefish, I was amazed that glass gage faces were melted out of equipment in a space where there was no fire, just hot gas. The aluminum bed pans in the vicinity of where the fire started were consumed in the Bonefish fire, due to compressed air lines letting loose and "fanning the flames". Since an enclosed space fire can reach thousands of degrees, according to the training we received, it would stand to reason, once started, it would be very hard to contain. What do you think?

 

I do not believe these conditions are possible in an enclosed modern ship cabin because the smoke detectors and sprinklers would activiate long before the temperatures necessary for a backdraft are reached.

[emerald777]

Don't think I've seen a picture of a typical balcony posted yet. This is on the CB and on Caribe deck. I took this last year and it shows what all is on the balcony. No carpet, but a rubber type mat...

 

[pd933]

I think that when all is said and done it will be shown that the fire control systems worked. There is no doubt FIRE SPRINKERS SAVE LIVES and in this case a cruise ship.

[zackiedawg]

Thanks Emerald...that makes it easier than describing it! Pretty much everything on that balcony is flammable.

 

It is all probably very fire resistant, and in no way dangerous. But some ignition source, creating enough fire to light one of the plastics in the chair or table (a towel or robe would be a great firestarter), could easily gain enough heat to light the matting materials, the plexiglass kick plates, the wood in the rail, the dividers between the balconies, etc.

 

Once that stuff started burning, it would get tremendously hot and spread quickly.

 

I don't envy the investigators who have to figure out the source...especially given the fact that the balcony where the fire started may have completely melted away - with all of the evidence! They should be able to determine where it started, but the initial ignition may be tough.

[meemeec]

I thank everyone here for this calm, reasonable and informed discussion.

Thank you for lending your expertise without wild speculation. I, for one, am learning so much.

[rjg41]

Any seaman will tell you the worst four letter word to hear on a ship is "fire".

 

Regardless if it started inside the cabin or on the balcony why wouldn't the requirement be for self extinguishing materials in most areas of a ship. Linens, drapes, carpet, "rubber" mats, plastic chairs, etc. are all available in self extinguishing materials. While these materials will burn they go out when the fire source is removed. If those materials were used then there is no way that this fire could have started with a cigarette and been sustained. Just like starting a camp fire there needs to be "kindling". Something was highly flamable. I have to believe that a major portion of the investigation and corrective action will center on the "fuel" for this fire.

 

By the way, consider another fuel source. While it would take considerable heat, the many layers of paint on the ship also provide significant fuel. Again it still does not explain how this thing got started and got hot enough to involve additional materials.

[zackiedawg]

Regardless if it started inside the cabin or on the balcony why wouldn't the requirement be for self extinguishing materials in most areas of a ship. Linens, drapes, carpet, "rubber" mats, plastic chairs, etc. are all available in self extinguishing materials. While these materials will burn they go out when the fire source is removed. If those materials were used then there is no way that this fire could have started with a cigarette and been sustained. Just like starting a camp fire there needs to be "kindling". Something was highly flamable. I have to believe that a major portion of the investigation and corrective action will center on the "fuel" for this fire.

 

I don't know about the availability of these types of products, but assuming they can indeed make each of the ship's parts on those balconies with this type of material, it probably costs more money to develop, build, and install.

 

The fact that this is a very rare incident, given the number of ships and frequency of cruises they take, there probably has not been any impetus to research these types of materials. Had there been several incidents of similar fires, most cruise lines would probably make efforts to improve the safety of the construction materials. Who knows whether this one incident will be enough to prompt a change, or if it even should. The fact that this incident is so unique and shocking speaks to the fact that ships are already safe by all reasonable standards...otherwise alot more ships would have had similar fire incidents.

 

I agree, the investigation should quickly arrive at the ignition point for the fire, but will have a harder time tracing the whats and whys of the spread.

[wraithe]

I do not believe these conditions are possible in an enclosed modern ship cabin because the smoke detectors and sprinklers would activiate long before the temperatures necessary for a backdraft are reached.

 

That's seems like a completely reasonable conclusion, thanks for weighing in.

[fxcarden]

I originally posted this on the Carnival page since that is my normal stomping ground, but was encouraged to post over here as well.....

 

I would like to have a technical discussion about the fire on the Star Princess. Not the cause (so no smoking discussions), but rather about what happened for this to get so big.

 

This fire was BIG, and very hot. From the limited photos available, you can see the steel balconies were burnt/melted away.

 

#1 - assume the fire started on the balcony. What is possibly on the balcony that can provide enough fuel for a fire of this magnitude? The teak decking wouldn't get enough air, and even if it did, it wouldn't burn hot enough. I saw some threads that said that there was astro-turf type carpet on the Princess balcony decks. Anyone know?

 

#2 - If the fire was in a cabin, why didn't the fire suppresion system handle it? Have there been any reports on the system not working?

 

#3 - Are the balconies and skin made from aluminum instead of steel? I know a lot of Navy cruisers have an aluminum superstrtucture to avoid some of the top-heaviness if made from steel. Do they do the same with cruise liners? Aluminum will burn (remember the Falklands??) and will burn extremely hot. But, aluminum is also extremely difficult to put out, and if it was an aluminum fire, how on earth did the crew get it out before the entire thing went up? Steel on the other hand is very very very difficult to get to burn.

 

From articles I've read, it is almost impossible to ignite aluminum with a normal fire.

 

Aluminum melts at 1218 degrees F, while steel melts at 2500+ degrees F. Steel is more commonly used in shipbuilding.

 

I would appreciate any sane, logical, non-emotional, non-root-cause based (i.e. no cigarettes) discussion.

 

Thanks :cool:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am almost positive the balconies are NOT made of steel. It doesn't make sense. These large ships need to reduce weight up top to maximize stability. I don't know for sure, but I would bet that it is aluminum, including the cabin module itself. I bet the real heavy steel is only used for structural purposes. Of course, having ANY flammable material in an area where people are likely to smoke, is a monumental screwup by the either the builder or the cruise line, especially an area that is subject to high winds while the ship in underway. That is probably what caused the fire to spread on the outside.

[zackiedawg]

Of course, having ANY flammable material in an area where people are likely to smoke, is a monumental screwup by the either the builder or the cruise line, especially an area that is subject to high winds while the ship in underway.

 

Just about any material is flammable...they just have different levels of fire resistance and different levels of heat they can be exposed to before they begin to burn. I would feel safe in theorizing that everything on the balconies of these ships is fire resistant. And a cigarette alone may not have been enough to trigger any of these construction materials or furnishings to burn. But a cigarette left in an ashtray next to a tissue or paper towel, which can blow onto a towel, robe, or shirt, which can create large open flame which can light the chair, which can then melt down and light the mat, which lights the plexiglass and fiberglass dividers, etc etc etc. It may have been a series of escalating fire and heat levels, one thing lighting the next, to bridge the gap between the smoldering of a cigarette and the massive heat required to melt aluminum.

 

Note that a lit cigarette tossed into a puddle of gasoline will not light the gasoline. Crazy? It's actually the gas fumes which ignite gasoline from a smoldering source. Toss an open flame into the gasoline though, and it will have no problem igniting. So if a cigarette was the culprit, it probably needed some assistance to really get going. And even a very flame resistant balcony, with proper materials used, when pushed to the limit can still break into a fire - and when it does, it would probably be very hard to put out.