Fire on Board the Liberian Passenger Ship Ecstasy, Miami, Florida ...

Analysis 57 Marine Accident ReportThe condition of the ventilation duct systems also supports the contention that thefire did not spread from the mooring deck to the main laundry. Had such spreadingoccurred, fire damage would have been evident in both the dryer and the mangleventilation duct systems, since at their terminus on the mooring deck they come together;therefore, both vent systems would have been equally subject to any source of fire on themooring deck and equally susceptible to fire damage. This was not the case. Although themangle’s ventilation system exhibited extensive fire damage, the dryer’s ventilationsystem was virtually unscathed. Using fiber optic scope technology, the investigatorsdetected unburned lint inside of the dryer ventilation system and no evidence of fire orfire-related damage. The Safety Board concludes that although the Ecstasy’s mooring decksustained the heaviest fire damage, it was not the point of origin for the fire.Events occurring in the main laundry room further support the finding that the firedid not originate on the mooring deck but, instead, began in the laundry room. The secondfitter testified that he and the first fitter were setting up welding equipment to repair themangle in the laundry room when a welding rod that was dangling near the deck came incontact with either the grounding clamp or the mangle, causing a spark. The second fitteralso stated that, at the time the spark occurred, dryer lint covered the deck. Both fitterstestified that a “small” fire started on the deck and that a fire on the mangle and a fire inthe overhead duct subsequently occurred.A cabin steward who was retrieving towels from a nearby linen closet observedsmoke in the main laundry. He said that when he went to investigate, he saw the two fittersworking on the inboard side of the mangle and observed flames on the outboard side of themangle, near the exhaust vents. He said that he retrieved a fire extinguisher to fight thefire; however, when one of the fitters dumped a jug of water on the side of the manglewhere they were working, flames “appeared to jump up” to the overhead vent. The smokeand flames became too great for him to fight with an extinguisher, so he activated the localfire alarm at the laundry room door. The first officer confirmed that the first fire alarm,which sounded on the fire control panel at 1710, indicated the main laundry. Alarmprintouts show, however, that the first fire alarm was automatically activated.The Safety Board found that the fire and smoke damage supported all or portionsof the witnesses’ testimonies. The evidence of fire in the main laundry was limited to thearea of the mangle. Metallurgical analysis showed that the welding deposits on thegrounding clamp were similar to the material in the electrode’s welding rod, whichconfirmed that the welding rod had struck the ground clamp. Examination of otherelectrical appliances in the laundry revealed no evidence of arcing. Moreover,investigators found no evidence of discarded smoking materials or accelerants that mighthave served as an ignition source in the laundry. The Safety Board concludes that the fireon board the Ecstasy started in the main laundry and was ignited by an arc from a weldingmachine.<strong>Fire</strong> damage to the mangle power cables and soot deposits on the loading end ofthe mangle showed that the fire spread across the floor up onto the mangle. Damage to theaft roller and melted wax from the mangle strings showed that the fire spread onto theroller. The fitters had turned off the mangle to work on it. As a result, the rollers were in a