Nobody said that new ships are 100% safer - there is nothing which is 100 % safe!
Just because a modern ships burns (I am a bit surprised to see so many people being surprised about that) is no contradiction to the fact that modern ships are safer.

Of course it is difficult to compare the "safety" of a ship - modern ships have features old ships did not have and the other way around. Also, a different technical solutions might be an advantage in many situations - but could still be a disadvantage in some situations.

But still: Modern ships are generally much safer. Actually it seems as the Star Princess did not behave too bad (only a careful analysis will show whether this is true - I do not have any informations) - I am also concerned about the fact that the fire spread via the balconies - but finally it has been contained and there was 'only' one fatality.

Compare that to the Achille Lauro or the Galileo Galilei (different scenarios, of course) - both actually sank due to a fire! (...and this was more recently BTW...)

[ 04-06-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
Sprinklers DO NOT compensate for reducing the fireload - not to talk about the hazards cuased by smoke.
Also, sprinklers are not suitable for every room.

---

Wood seems to burn slower... as one is usually only aware once something is alight then I think I would rather have the real wood burning.. crumbs it is sometimes hard enough to light the BBQ!!

Ernst mentions the ventilation.. surely this could be catered for on the older vessels? ... but I would think the sealing off and oxygen starvation of areas would be better?

Obviously I know nothing about the actual real facts of which is better/worse as a layman, but I am still not convinced of modern day fire retardent materials being the better option. I would rather see a slower burning fire, that may be easier to set alight, that doesn't give off poisonous fumes, than have to run from an obnoxious/deadly already alight plastic based fire?

I have read that the P Star fire was fed by the flammable exterior paint... is this plausible?

Again: Sprinkler do not compensate for having more combustible material (maybe some regulations allow that) and of course it is better to have both -sprinkler and less combustible material.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
I am also It is obviously easier for a fire to start with the real wood of yesteryear... but when alight, it burns slower than today's 'fire retardent' materials [which seem to go woof, once they do catch alight], and the fumes are not poisonous as in most of today's materials.. so which is better?

Wood seems to burn slower... as one is usually only aware once something is alight then I think I would rather have the real wood burning.. crumbs it is sometimes hard enough to light the BBQ!!

Ernst mentions the ventilation.. surely this could be catered for on the older vessels? ... but I would think the sealing off and oxygen starvation of areas would be better?

Obviously I know nothing about the actual real facts of which is better/worse as a layman, but I am still not convinced of modern day fire retardent materials being the better option. I would rather see a slower burning fire, that may be easier to set alight, that doesn't give off poisonous fumes, than have to run from an obnoxious/deadly already alight plastic based fire?

I have read that the P Star fire was fed by the flammable exterior paint... is this plausible?

Pam

---

Wood is not bad - actually it behaves very nice in case of a fire! The fumes are less toxic (difficult to generalize- they are still toxic - CO!) and other than e.g. metal it does not loss it`s strength that quickly (the burnt outer layer can protect e.g. a beam from buring furhter) - but it is a different story in a 'confined space' like a ship and the nice feature of wood to keep it`s strength (under certain circumstances) is not really relevant on a ship made of metal......
Beside that: IT IS NOT ONLY THE WOOD WHICH IS A PROBLEM ON MANY OLDER SHIPS!

ad ventilation: The prime strategy to extinguish a fire on a ship is to isolate it - no oxygen no fire. BUT you have to get people out first - and they need air to breath! This is why it is crucial to remove the smoke - smoke is toxic - also, it is hot and might ignite other things (not only by 'touching' them - the infrared emission can be enough!) - and it can contain a lot of not completely burnt gases which can 'explode' when coming into contact with oxygen. (this often happens when the fire has not enough oxygen - there is no 'complete combustion' and when people open a door or a window the smoke starts to burn or 'explodes' - this are not the proper technical terms!)

ad paint: If this is true someone made a big mistake -

I am not happy about anything I see aboard ships - but I am not an expert on ship related fire safety - I 'only' have some background concerning fire safety in connection with my job.

Nevertheless, I guess it was the smoke which - at least initally - brought the fire to the balconies on Star Princess.

[ 04-06-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S.S.Normandie:
as Star Princess proved, new ships are not always safe.

---

On the contrary, Star Princess has proved just how safe new ships truly are.

A fire this size, with no deaths from smoke inhalation or the effects of fire, shows the value of good design and good safety training and procedures.

It is extremely sad that anyone lost their life, but a with a weak heart, a cardiac related death can be a matter of time, and stress from a delayed flight, running for a connection, exertions on a shore excursion or even too much dancing are all things that could, in other circumstances, trigger a heart attack.

My sympathy is with the family of the deceased, but I also have to congratulate the crew, in carrying out their emergency drills professionally, and the ships' designers in taking safety precautions.

I have a concern that the overlapping balconies, peculiar to this class of ship, could form a "wind tunnel" effect, and increase the amount of airflow fanning a balcony fire.

I can also see this incident holding lessons that will be taken into account on future designs. Perhaps balcony doors that cannot be left open, and certainly balcony sprinklers are two, but I can also imagine a return to the "hole in the wall" type of balcony design (like on Princess@ 77,000 ton vessels), which would be a shame on aesthetic grounds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andyc:

I can also imagine a return to the "hole in the wall" type of balcony design (like on Princess@ 77,000 ton vessels), which would be a shame on aesthetic grounds.

---

"Inflammable" and "flammable" mean the same thing. The correct term is "nonflammable." This used to cause a lot of confusion, so the term "inflammable" is considered pretty much obsolete, and not allowed in most official papers.

Dictionary

[ 04-07-2006: Message edited by: mrblanche ]

According to Princess' web site

"The ship will be back in service for its first Europe cruise, which will depart from Copenhagen on May 15."

Of course in cases where major damage must be repaired, the timeline can change.
I am sure Princess will post updates.