BOAT FIRE INVESTIGATION
by: Gregory T. Davis, NAFI-CFEI

"FIRE!! FIRE ABOARD!!" Words that send shivers down the spine of mariners the world over. The brave boat owners in photograph 1 are manning 3/4" harbor fire hoses while others are moving boats from leeward of this burning vessel. The owner of the burning vessel escaped through the bow deck hatch moments after this photograph was taken.

Fires onboard vessels present unusual circumstances in that the people aboard are forced from the vessel, often into surly sea conditions that present grave danger, possibly greater than the fire itself. Maybe this is where the saying "From the frying pan, into the fire" originated? When the fire occurs on a vessel that is moored, very often other property is placed into grave danger from the effects of the fire onboard, as was the case in photograph 1.

When the smoke clears, the cause of the fire becomes of interest to the fire department and to the injured parties or their insurers. The initial allegations, by the interested or dis-interested parties, may implicate the boat manufacturer in the cause of the fire.

The effects from fires onboard vessels are devastating. The composite vessel burns furiously. The resin, usually burning completely, leaves limp woven roving or chopped strand mat. The temperatures that develop commonly cause any aluminum items to melt and copper to bead. The U.S. Coastguardsmen we interviewed, after extinguishment of a blaze, report "the vessel remains burning beneath the surface as she sinks". Fireman interviewed report they intentionally sinking a vessel to extinguish the blaze, as their hand lines seemed to have no effect in quenching the fire. In many of the boat fire cases investigated, the composite vessel has burned to the water line, sunk and then been recovered.

It is at this point that we begin the process to determine what caused the fire. We do listen to those initial allegations, as mentioned earlier, but we listen closest to what the burned remains tell us. The following examples demonstrate this.

In our first example, the boat owner reported a fire aboard his boat. He had been aboard earlier, made some coffee and then had left. He reported that the fire was due to a malfunctioning electrical device. The fire department did not respond, as the fire was never reported nor discovered until after self-extinguishment.

In this instance, the fire was stopped in mid-development due to two factors: 1. Boats are relatively airtight and this boat was closed up when the fire ignited. 2. The plastic kerosene fuel canister melted and spilled fuel over the carpeted sole, thus extinguishing the fire (photograph 2). The stopping of this fire, at this point in its development, preserved evidence essential to determining the cause of the fire. The lack of response from the fire department also assisted in determining the cause of this fire by eliminating potential hose stream damage to the evidence. In photograph 3, we have pointed out the charred remains of a book of matches and paper toweling lying adjacent to the heater. Here, the burned remains are telling us a story of an intentional fire, not one of an electrical malfunction, as originally reported.

In our second example, the boat owner and a friend were out for the first ride of the season. After riding around for awhile, they stopped for lunch. The boat owner reported hearing a noise from the stern area, as if the fresh water wash-down pump was continuously running, and also that this area was warm to the touch. He opened the engine box cover and fire burst forth. He discharged the hand held fire extinguisher, to no avail, and then abandoned the vessel.

This boat did not sink due to fire department extinguishment efforts. The remains were towed to a marina and she was removed from the water. The remains were examined from bow to stern utilizing a systematic process of elimination, photograph 4. First, all potential sources of ignition were inspected. Then, all sources of fuel were inspected. Finally, the engine room area was closely inspected finding twisted paper toweling jammed into the space between the engine block and the exhaust manifold to starboard. The same side as the fresh water wash-down pump (photograph 5). No evidence of paper toweling was found anywhere else in the boat. An exemplar vessel was inspected to determine how the pump was installed. The system was found to be installed in accordance with ABYC E-9 and the pump motor was found to be thermally protected. The burned remains of this vessel suggest that an intentional act was the cause of this fire, rather than an overheated pump motor as originally reported.

In our third example, the boat owner reported being aboard three days prior to the occurrence. This boat exploded mid-day with no one aboard. She sank almost immediately afterward. Three marina employees were working nearby at the time. Luckily, they were not injured. They reported a loud bang, with a large cloud of dust, but no fire. The vessel remains were removed from the water and placed upon a trailer (photograph 6). The larger remains were removed with the use of yard heavy equipment and the interior of the vessel systematically inspected. Fuel gas sources were eliminated when all appliances aboard were found to be electrically operated. The fuel tanks and engine room space were found intact. There was minimal to non-existent fire damage found anywhere. However, the plywood flooring was found in small pieces, about the size of quarters, along with shredded carpeting in a large mound in the center of the galley area. Carpet and interior fabric samples were taken and analyzed in the laboratory, with no by-products of combustion found. By process of elimination, on site and in the lab, this explosion was determined to be caused by the use of a high explosive device.

The determination of cause in a fire or explosion is rarely a simple matter. Although the example cases cited implicate a manufacturer, the facts did not support this implication.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Mr. Davis is a Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator by the National Association of Fire Investigators. He specializes in marine fire cause and origin and marine accident reconstruction. He is a principal in Davis Consulting Group, and is president of the consulting group's holding company, Davis and Company Ltd., a marine survey firm. He is listed in Who's Who in the Midwest, and has been published in "Proceeding's- 4th International Marine Applications of Composite Materials", "The NAMS NEWS", and "The Technical Information Exchange for Marine Professionals". Mr. Davis has been a practicing marine surveyor for 22 years.