Star Princess Fire Report Published

[Opinions]

 

It could have been any number of things, 3 months ago while cruising, at 2am i saw a group of young men lighting cloth napkins on fire and throwing them off the back of the ship.

 

there would also be no evidence of how the fire started had it caused one.

 

What was the response of Princess when you reported this incident?

[Cruisin' Chick]

the purpose of this and most all (recent) threads on the Star fire is for non-smokers to vent and bash smokers!!

 

That said, what prompts non-smokers to bash smokers is that smokers expose the rest of us to potentially fatal health and casualty risks that we REALLY want no part of...

 

If the smokers want no part of non-smokers 'hot air' on these boards they have the choice of not clicking the mouse to these threads... If only non-smokers had such a similar option as to their 'hot air'...

 

Of course, its only "probable" that a cigarette caused the Star fire. Like its only probable that cigarettes are a health risk and that they're addictive...

 

But if they are addictive then we've got to take what the smokers say with a grain of salt since addiction is essentially a low grade form of insanity.

 

But smokers are right about getting bashed (every time they inhale).

 

well stated

[spongerob]

The purpose of the report and this thread should be to reinforce the need for passengers to be responsible if they smoke. It should also be noted that most of the recommendations and procedures visible to passengers have already been implemented. Some were put in place very quickly, such as cabin stewards removing towels and such from balconies, and the very visible fire detection and suppression systems now in place.

[ssbeagle]

The major changes I have noticed on the Star is automatic sprinklers on the balconies. They have changed the furniture which is still comfortable to sit in. They use a different type of ashtray (for smokers) that will keep the butts and ashes from blowing away. Nothing is allowed to be left on the balcony and the steward will bring in anything that is.

 

There are fewer smoking areas mostly located in the lounges. The biggest ones are in the Wheelhouse and the Exploreres lounge which gets so bad at night I can't stay in there long. One side of Skywalker's is smoking. Of course you have the people who have to carry their lit cigarettes with them throughout the ship. Phew! Makes me cough.

 

We are in Halifax today on the Star and the crew had a drill this morning. They practice and practice.

[woodofpine]

Smoking aside...

 

One of the major regulatory errors identified by the report is the overall catagorization of balconys as "open deck" for fire safety purposes.

 

That catagorization caused balconys to fall into a loophole of fairly low structural and other scrutiny for fire safety purposes.

 

The abundance, configuration, and use of balconys doesn't really support their being considered "open deck" for fire safety purposes. One of the values of the report is to point this out so changes are made in how balcony areas are designed (fire suppression, etc.)

[spongerob]

Exactly, Woodofpine, exactly. You might recall that at one time, ships were not required to carry enough lifeboats for the total number of passengers and crew. A tragic accident occurred, and everyone learned from the experience. Unfortunately, our hindsight is often much better than our foresight.

 

I've had occasion to participate in accident investigations within our own organization. It is extremely rare that we don't learn something from every incident.

 

I agree with your statement in one sense; a similar fire took place aboard an RCI ship on open deck space, and no one connected the dots. Interestingly, the only major lines to my knowledge that have not agreed to adopt the recommendations for balcony fire suppresion and detection systems are Royal Caribbean and Celebrity. MAIB published a listing of cruise lines that agreed to adopt their recommendations.

[DonLou]

spongerob, woodofpine, that info on the SOLAS and balconies came glaring out at me, too.

 

SOLAS requires ships to be divided into distinct Main Fire Zones (both horizontally and vertically) that are isolated by fire rated boundaries and openings. This helps in limiting the spread of the fire. It is astonishing that in a significant part of the ship that these MFZs are crossed by what has turned out to be a highly flammable structure - the balconies. This effectively wipes out the concept of having fire zones that isolate and limit the spread of a fire. End humans.

 

It reminds me of a scene from one of the "Alien" movies. The humans think they are safely locked in a room and they are tracking the aliens with a radar device. The aliens keep coming but the humans can't see them. The radar device still shows them coming, even past the locked steel door, and still the humans can't see them. As it turns out, the aliens were in the open space above the ceiling panels. End humans.

[woodofpine]

OK let's not...

 

When you point out that RCI and Celebrity (or others) won't install fire supression sprinklers on balconeys when Princess has - I can understand why from an expense standpoint - but in the long run those that don't are opening themselves to liability.

 

Once one major line sets a "standard" (sprinklers) to deal with a reasonably foreseeable risk (balcony fire) then those that don't can be very easily found to have violated a "standard of care" to passengers in the event a fire hits that line and lack of sprinklers increases casualties or results in injury.

 

As much as the public (or at least its insurers) dislike injury lawyers the foregoing is EXACTLY the sort of liability threat that tort lawyers assert that forces eventual improvement in the standard of care. Hence, padded dashboards in cars... etc.

[spongerob]

SOLAS requires ships to be divided into distinct Main Fire Zones (both horizontally and vertically) that are isolated by fire rated boundaries and openings. This helps in limiting the spread of the fire. It is astonishing that in a significant part of the ship that these MFZs are crossed by what has turned out to be a highly flammable structure - the balconies.

 

There was a good line that came out of the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three astronauts during an exercise - the failure wasn't necessarily design, or procedure, but in imagination. And that's the problem, no one can foresee the many and varied ways that hazards will present themselves. The Murphy's Law equivalent is, "Nothing is foolproof, for fools are too ingenious."

 

No one imagined that a fire on a balcony would spread so quickly and do such serious damage. In previous instances cited, nothing nearly as severe took place. On Star Princess, a strange and unusual set of circumstances came together and created a very hazardous situation.

 

A second point in the report was that the most serious danger to passengers came when balcony doors shattered and allowed smoke and flame to enter some cabins, and in a couple of cases, people opening their balcony doors to see what was going on and allowing smoke to enter. That almost cost one man his life, according the report. Those who opened balcony doors unwittingly put everyone at great risk. Within a few minutes that became a moot point as other glass doors broke. Had the doors not failed when subjected to the heat of the fire, the seriousness of the consequences would have been greatly diminished.

 

Fortunately, in-cabin fire suppression systems actually worked far in excess of their design capacity, in spite of some equipment failures related to installation and maintenance. The mitigating steps that have been taken - removal of much of the flammable material, and installation of fire detection and suppression equipment outside, makes a repeat of this scenario a more remote possibility.

[ccrain]

As time goes on I'm sure future accidents will point out more holes in SOLAS. Holes, as spongerob points out, Murphy loves to drive trucks through.

 

The report will change the way we cruise. I for one will now think twice about leaving my balcony door open at night - I'm still debating over that one now based on the report's discussion of the smoke infiltration issue. And I will no longer use the balcony to store clothes or laundry anymore.

 

But balconies will remain a huge issue on ships. Balconies definitely contributed to the water damage and panic on the NCL ship hit by the large wave off the East Coast. Balconies, with their low and easily climbed railings, will continue to be a fall hazard. I predict it would only take one major tragedy, say 2-3 children climbing over a railing and falling, to force all balcony railings to be raised and made solid and unclimbable - that or netting to be placed as in the children's fun center decks on all balconies with children under 12.

 

We'll just have to see what the future brings...but you gotta admit, cruising today is far better than it was 100 years ago. Cheaper too.

[DonLou]

...The mitigating steps that have been taken - removal of much of the flammable material, and installation of fire detection and suppression equipment outside, makes a repeat of this scenario a more remote possibility.

 

I am happy that Princess is so diligently changing all their ships to comply with this new configuration. But to shut off any legal loopholes, it's important that these more stringent requirements for balconies be formally incorporated into the SOLAS regulations. When Maritime Safety Committee 82 meets in December 2006, I hope they ratify these rules.

[sunshine426]

Wow, Never let a few weeks go by without checking out cruise critic. Star Princess back on the radar! As another passenger of the ill fated Star Princess, I am glad to read the reports and to put some closure to the incident. I was pretty convinced that it was a flaming bottle of liquor thrown overboard that caused it. Carolyn, have a great cruise on the Crown, BDJAM and SpongeRob, glad you two are still so level headed, I always am glad to read your responses. That time line that was posted was very close to my own recall of the events. What I learned from this was to pay attention to your surroundings, be prepared for emergencies, but enjoy life. Still haven't cruised again, but it is not our of fear, but finances and timing. Darn those kids in college!!!!!

[bdjam]

I was pretty convinced that it was a flaming bottle of liquor thrown overboard that caused it. Carolyn, have a great cruise on the Crown, BDJAM and SpongeRob, glad you two are still so level headed, I always am glad to read your responses.

Thanks for the complement – and as for the flaming liquor, you weren’t the only one convinced of that – I was told the same by a crew member.

[Silvery Seas Cruiser]

An article I read on this report of the probabale cause of the Star Princess fire stated that "international safety regulations will be tightened." Just a question for those here who are experts in such law, how long will it take to "tighten" regulations and when they are tightened, will Royal Caribbean and NCL have to fall in line or are these regulations optional or are they strictly enforced on all commercial shipping?

 

Further, how might they be tightened? Would it likely be in using more fireproof or fire resistant materials on the ship and balconies or would it include such things as not allowing smoking on balconies and hanging of towels and clothing on balconies?

 

I have read, but don't know for a fact, that Oceania does not allow smoking on balconies or even in staterooms. Would such controls likely to become part of the new "tightened" regualtions or would the changes be more likely engineering, construction and materials rules?

[Host CJSKIDS]

Wow, Never let a few weeks go by without checking out cruise critic. Star Princess back on the radar! As another passenger of the ill fated Star Princess, I am glad to read the reports and to put some closure to the incident. I was pretty convinced that it was a flaming bottle of liquor thrown overboard that caused it. Carolyn, have a great cruise on the Crown, BDJAM and SpongeRob, glad you two are still so level headed, I always am glad to read your responses. That time line that was posted was very close to my own recall of the events. What I learned from this was to pay attention to your surroundings, be prepared for emergencies, but enjoy life. Still haven't cruised again, but it is not our of fear, but finances and timing. Darn those kids in college!!!!!

 

 

Thanks, I'm sure we will have a wonderful time. Thanks for thinking of me and hope you're doing well.

I too was convinced it was something else besides a cigarette. It's scary to think that within 6 minutes it had spread so quickly.

 

Hope you're cruising again soon!

[sunshine426]

Thanks for the complement – and as for the flaming liquor, you weren’t the only one convinced of that – I was told the same by a crew member.

 

We were told this while we were still on the ship by crew members as well as some of the investigators, but kept quiet until the offical verdict. My husband and daugters and I are blessed that we have vivid, yet wonderful memories about our trip on the "Charred" Princess.

[Tater1800]

We were told this while we were still on the ship by crew members as well as some of the investigators, but kept quiet until the offical verdict. My husband and daugters and I are blessed that we have vivid, yet wonderful memories about our trip on the "Charred" Princess.

 

As to the liquor, do you remember the "in room" movie that played the night before the fire? It was the Bruce Willis film, Hostage, that ended with the huge house fire started with I think, liquor. I never will believe the cigarette theory.

[Host CJSKIDS]

As to the liquor, do you remember the "in room" movie that played the night before the fire? It was the Bruce Willis film, Hostage, that ended with the huge house fire started with I think, liquor. I never will believe the cigarette theory.

 

I don't remember that playing, boy that is strange. And I for one agree with you.

[MauiLvrs]

It's scary to think that within 6 minutes it had spread so quickly.

It was about 10 minutes from the time that smoke was reported till there were pax that said that say saw flames and about 20 minutes until the first alarm.

 

Was wondering why there was about 10 minutes from the time pax said that they saw flames until the first alarm was pulled:confused:

[ccrain]

It was about 10 minutes from the time that smoke was reported till there were pax that said that say saw flames and about 20 minutes until the first alarm.

 

Was wondering why there was about 10 minutes from the time pax said that they saw flames until the first alarm was pulled:confused:

 

It was 11 minutes to the General Emergency Signal. The captain was on the bridge within less time and the crew fire alert was just a little after that.(There was a report of a "burning odor" about prior to the first alarm as well. But that was not acted upon shipwide.)

 

The GES alerts the entire ship and summons the passengers to the emergency muster stations. 11 minutes before you wake up the entire ship and send everyone off in different directions is not a lot of time to assess the situation and determine a course of action. This is different from land based hotels or office buildings. In those, one pull of one station or one detector that goes off sounds the alarm in the entire building.

 

On ships, apparently and understandably, they want to assess the situation before panicing everyone and they definitely want to get the crew to the muster stations and stairways before they sound the GES.

 

Also, there is apparently no way to alert just a block of cabins to a danger. Its all or nothing. That was done manually by people pounding on doors prior to the GES.

 

That may also be a change in the upcoming SOLAS. The ability to alert and evacuate a section of cabins rather than the entire ship.

[Host CJSKIDS]

It was about 10 minutes from the time that smoke was reported till there were pax that said that say saw flames and about 20 minutes until the first alarm.

 

Was wondering why there was about 10 minutes from the time pax said that they saw flames until the first alarm was pulled:confused:

 

I don't know why that was. We woke up at 3 and could clearly see fire. The only reason I got up out of bed and opened the curtains was because the stench was overpowering. I didn't know what the smell was as it didn't smell just like fire, but boy was it gross. By the time the general alarm sounded the glass door on our balcony had shattered and the whole balcony was engulfed in flames. You can see in the report that the general alarm was sounded at 3:20 am and at 3:20 our heat detector went off in our room, not the smoke detector but the heat detector. That's because the fire was about to enter.

I will never understand why the alarm wasn't sounded sooner as you could clearly see a large fire from bridge. Hell, they could have called me and I would have very happy to have told them!

 

Hopefully everyone, Princess included learned lessons by having gone through this experience.

[Roses2]

I wonder how many of the nay-sayers, non-believers, and theorists have read carefully all 58 pages of the well prepared and researched British Maritime report (with help and cooperation from the US Coast Guard and US NTSB) on the Star fire.

 

Of course expertise is always outweighed by opinion.

[flutepilot]

I wonder how many of the nay-sayers, non-believers, and theorists have read carefully all 58 pages of the well prepared and researched British Maritime report (with help and cooperation from the US Coast Guard and US NTSB) on the Star fire.

 

Of course expertise is always outweighed by opinion.

 

Bravo!

 

Dan

[Host CJSKIDS]

I wonder how many of the nay-sayers, non-believers, and theorists have read carefully all 58 pages of the well prepared and researched British Maritime report (with help and cooperation from the US Coast Guard and US NTSB) on the Star fire.

 

Of course expertise is always outweighed by opinion.

 

Read it cover to cover, more than once. I have a copy printed out and read it slowly and thoroughly. I have read everything I can get my hands on since we were smack dab in the middle of it.

 

The few posters on here who are slightly questioning the "probable" cause are those who were actually on the ship at the time of the fire. I'm not a theorist or nay-sayer, just have a hard time swallowing the "probable" answer. Since they were unable to find anything else they have come to the conclusion that the probable cause was a cigarette. Unless someone ever comes forward with a different answer since they are the ones who caused it then this is the answer that we will all have to deal with.

 

One thing is for sure, what was on that balcony was so highly combustible that it the fire grew very large within a 6 minute period and that's too bad that it didn't get contained like the cruise lines had thought it would in the fire zones. Thank God the "misting" systems worked in the cabins (with the exception of C510) and the firefighters were amazing that the fire didn't spread further. When you read the report and the timetable you realize that a guardian angel was sitting over the ship that night.

[Roses2]

While I believe that opinions are helpful and worthwhile, I find the findings of the expert British Maritime Board and its US contributors compelling.

 

Having had formal training as an aircraft accident investigator, I have a bit of knowledge of how investigation boards couch the language of their findings and the use of the word questioned by so many here --"Probable".

 

When we investigated an aircraft accident and found the fuel tanks dry, the fuel indicators at empty, and that the flight time from take-off to crash would have used up all of the fuel on board, we generally wrote that fuel starvation was the or a probable cause of the accident.

 

Although the cause of the aircraft coming to earth was evident, we could not specify that it was the sole cause of the accident because there certainly were, or could have been other contributing causes such as a headwind that reduced the range of the aircraft.

 

As I posted earlier:

 

It is obvious that those taking issue with the use of the phrase. "Probable Cause" have never been involved with conducting or writing accident investingations.

 

As a previous infomed poster has written that in almost every case, that is as far as an accident investigation will go in its determinations.

 

From a careful reading of the report it is obvious that the board concluded that the proximate cause of the fire was a smoldering cigarette. The board could not conclude the origin of the cigarette but in making their time line they doubted that the fire resulted from a cigarette smoked by the occupants of the cabin where the fire began.

 

Therefore the board surmised that the cigarette blew or was tossed from another balcony and smoldered, finally igniting a towel or other material on the balcony then the fire whipped by wind spread to other flamable materials.

 

Smoldering cigarette + flamable material + wind = fire

 

The flamable material and the wind were obvious contributing causes to the fire and its rapid spread.

 

Certainly if a another proximate cause could have been found such as might be evidenced by finding a broken liquor bottle, a burned fusing material etc., that would have been included in the report.

 

 

However, the board of experts and contributors found no such evidence, nor did they find any residue of an accelerant.

 

 

Since an acceleramt is any substance or mixture that "accelerates" the development of fire. Alcohol is an accelerant.

 

 

I fully realize that not everyone will agree with the findings of the board---they never do.

 

However, those with specific expertise in investigating maritime accidents/fires have reached their findings with no axe to grind. That is the reason to have unbiased boards conduct the investigations and openly publish their findings and recommendations.