Posted By Robert K Lewis Alan Whilst your conclusion may be close to the point I think your line of reasoning may be in error. The problem, from the survivor acounts, appears to be one of a belief by the crew that they could contain a serious fire on board without notifying the port authorities until it was too late. We face our constant enemy - Human minds and their incredible ability to respond in the most inappropriate manner at the worst possible times. Find the answer and earn a fortune! The real reason for health and safety is to try every day that bit harder to find the solutions to problems that never go away. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Go to the BBC website and search there - There was apparently a fire which the crew believed they could control!

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Alan There are great many issues raised by this latest [and avoidable] disater involving a ship. It is unlikely that there will be any meaningful inquiry into the event - certainly most unlikely to be a public one. Even much of the 1st hand evidence of training, procedures, emergency instructions etc that the owners should have been able to produce on demand could now be considered to be irredeemably lost in the sacking and burning of the Head Office contents [damn convenient that!], at least the building itself was apparently spared [unusual departure from standard MO for Middle East riot crowds]. However, this forum is not the place to 2nd guess any insubstantial, uncorroborated information that may arise - we must be cautious and await the outcomes of any enquiry that does take place, sift the reliable and consistant from the rubbish, and revisit what is incontrovertably known about the vessel. Alongside that we can legitimately raise conjecture on the known effects of a fire on a vehicle deck on this type of vesel [very scary, I can assure you]; coupled with the application of unmeasured yet potentially considerable quantities of water applied by a crew with dubious experience and competence in fighting fires at sea [even scarier than the fire itself for me] which will have the potential to create major vessel instability in even the calmest of seas. I could go on, but won't. I have just unearthed and dusted off my training notes and presentations that I used when I was based at Tilbury [in Essex] and had to provide input on these very scenarios. Only the names of the vessels have changed!! Frank Hallett

Posted By steven bentham Moving the sister ship out to the med was of course a deliberate move allowed by the Marine Administration Regulators. When ships had sunk in the North Sea and Baltic Sea it was decided to upgrade the safety standards. Ship owners also had the choice to send the ships they did not want to upgrade to calmer waters and safer waters!! In these waters there would be less chance of accidents and no need for the upgrades. The precautions thereby match the level of risk!! An example of risk management at work on a global scale; profit before safety, no its within the framework set by Marine Regulators.

Posted By Alan Hoskins Thanks for all your comments - and to Frank for another insight into one of his many lives! It appears to be common practice then for vessels to be 're-deployed' in this way. Problem is, no one seems to have anticipated there might (just possibly) be a fire on a car deck [assumed] with vehicles containing fuel and that it would need to be extinguished using the most available means, in this case water. So no water through the bow doors then, but gallons of the stuff purposely pumped in this time. Same result though with no bulkheads to stop it collecting to one side. Alan