I had to go look at my photos from that trip when I got home tonight. It appears I was on her sister vessel, Vision.
Only if a litigant could identify a specific battery (and its mfr) as the cause of the fire. I suspect that would be just about impossible, since the fire ultimately burned the boat down the waterline.
Even if a battery did supply sparks that started the fire, it seems to already be an established fact that the boat did not have anyone on watch during the night per legal requirements. That puts the lion’s share of the blame on the boat operator.
The article that PastTense linked to seems to be suggesting the probably was not specifically a battery, but rather it may have been the fact that divers were charging dozens of batteries on just a few electrical outlets, and may have overloaded the boat’s old and salt-addled wiring. If true, then this would put the rest of the blame on the boat operator.
Between the fire and the seawater, is there going to be enough left to determine the cause?
I guess that’d be for the investigators to decide. Assuming there are any remains to the batteries at all, perhaps they have a way of determining if a battery exploded outward prior to being exposed to an external heat source? IDK, I’m not a fire or arson investigator, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that they could finger a specific battery as the source, if indeed it was the source. If watching too many episodes of Forensic Files has taught me anything, it’s that even as a fire destroys some evidence, it can create new evidence that can be just as telling.
See, now I can absolutely buy aged, overloaded, and/or otherwise shoddy wiring, especially if the wiring and the outlets were added as part of a post-construction modification to allow for greater use of personal electronics. I’m not saying it couldn’t possibly have been a lithium battery exploding, but, I mean… yeah, it just seems kind of convenient for the boat’s designers to go that way with their speculation. And I think I have a little more faith in the cell phone manufacturers (a certain well-known Samsung debacle not withstanding) than I do in whoever added in a bunch of extra wiring post-construction (and maybe without reference to industry standards).
Anyway, if that proves to be the case, I wouldn’t blame the rise in portable electronics and lithium batteries, I’d blame a lack of appreciation for electrical safety on the part of whoever commissioned or made the modification (if there was one).
This kind of scenario seems to square better with the first person account from Bob Hansen on the Great Escape, upthread, who was woken up by people banging on his boat. He said he heard pops from presumably air tanks decompressing, so he was close enough to hear that. But what woke him was people banging on his boat, not the sound of a massive explosion.
And it’s pretty easy to see how a rumor of an explosion could take root. Many assumptions made about fuels used aboard the ship plus reports of people hearing “explosions,” which could be other things like decompressing tanks, (or an exploding O2 tank cased by the fire) and the less-clear timeline of those reports.
I’m not assuming that the more recent reports must be the whole story either. But it does merit emphasizing that relying on some isolated reports of “what happened” without waiting for investigation to back it up is unwise. (As is having heated arguments where one insists they know “what happened” based on early reports.)
Not that there’s a ton of information, but here’s an NTSB preliminary report/executive summary. Offering more as a place to monitor for more info, or to check the basic facts:
https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/DCA19MM047-preliminary-report.aspx
Also, the Wikipedia article looks pretty thorough and well-documented with citations, but of course it can only be as good as the info in the papers. Still, better than just relying on speculation.
According to the Wikipedia article, it isn’t that the Conception is grandfathered, it’s that vessels of her size/capacity are subject to regulations that haven’t been updated since 1978. Larger vessels are subject to much more stringent fire-related regs.
Also, a crew member is suing, alleging lack of training and sufficient fire control equipment.
The NTSB isn’t going to publish results of its investigation for well over a year. By then most of us will have switched interest to more current catastrophes.
I’m not saying wait for the NTSB report. I’m saying that having heated arguments based on rumors one has heard, or what one has seen on social media immediately afterwards, without waiting for more official or reliable information is unwise.
Outside Magazine featured an online update on the tragedy. It looks like there was no nighttime watch, and many of the deaths were from carbon monoxide poisoning. It sounds like there were no fire extinguishers on the top level where the crew were sleeping
https://www.outsideonline.com/2409347/channel-islands-dive-boat-fire
It contains a beautiful picture of Kristy Finstad for those who knew her.
She is terribly missed in my community. Including by my wife and I, she was such a lovely person. 
FYI, the captain of the dive boat was indicted today on 34 counts of manslaughter.
Thanks for the update.
Here’s CNN’s coverage:
Updates:
Note that:
a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, said prosecutors would seek authorization from the Department of Justice to appeal Wu’s ruling.
The NTSB report is out:
Negligence vs. gross negligence. Is the judge correct in his ruling that it has to be gross negligence? That’s a lot of time passed and have the prosecutor not file the correct charge. Rather than appeal, can they just refile with the gross negligence charge swapped in? Seems that would be a lot quicker.
Good.
Agreed. Here’s CNN’s coverage:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/07/us/california-dive-boat-captain-fire-guilty-verdict/index.html
I just saw that article this AM. Our neighbor’s daughter died in that fire. I hope this brings her some peace.