FIREPROOF SHIPS

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 111, 12 May 1934, Page 11

FIREPROOF SHIPS

THE NEEDFUL FACTORS

Wavnings against "pariie leglsla* lation" following fires in ships were made at a session of the annual meeting in London of the Eoyal Institution of Naval Architects, says the "DailyTelegraph." :

Mr. E. I\ Spanner, formerly a mem-, ber of the Eoyal Corps of Naval Constructors, in a paper on fire-fighting arrangements in vessels, pointed out Hhat it was -well to be aware of the limitations of existing fire-fighting methods. Total immunity from, risk of outbreak of fire at sea was impossible of achievement. Primarily, therefore, he argued, the objective aimed at must be that of ensuring that no fire on a ship at sea or in port should ever become uncontrollable. If that standard were reached they could reasonably claim to have produced a "fireproof" ship. He suggested improvements in ' the water-sprinkler system for passenger parts of the ship. Uncontrolled and often unobserved oil ■escapes were the chief cause of engine-room and holu.fires today. Cleanliness in the engineroom -was one <>f the chief precautions against fire, as the Navy had" found out.

Mr. A. T. Wall, a naval architect and manager of a shipyard, said there was no need for prospective liner passengers to be alarmed.

Mr. "Wall expressed the opinion that because there had recently been a lot of fires there should be no' panic legislation as'after the Titanic disaster. 'A: lot of recent outbreaks of fire on ships were suspected to be criminal.

Mr. J. H. Narbeth, another naval architect,'said: "I agree that criminal intent is at, the bottom many ship fires. Every cabin should be constructed as a separate fire-resisting unit."

Mr. Thomas, another delegate, said he had served on a number of recent committees investigating, ship fires and the difficulty was to find enough, of such fires to inquire into. The incidence of them was not so great as people imagined. '' We don't want any; panic- based on recent fires," he added.