Well, the investigation so far is raising interesting questions.
It's one thing for the watchman to be lounging in the wheelhouse awake. Quite another for everybody to be fast asleep. Depending on the results of this part of the investigation, I can see Truth Aquatics going under in civil suits ( I expect someone to find a loophole in Maritime Law to allow suits).
Why smoke alarms didn't activate (or weren't properly placed) will be another question. In earlier testimony, a crewman said he was awakened by a loud pop, so a smoke alarm certainly should have awakened everyone.
No fire in the engine room, and the USCG emphasizing lithium battery safety. That could be telling.
I was just coming here to post something on this, because I saw a blurb on the news while eating dinner.
Not standing an Anchor Watch is a pretty big deal.
The international Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping, Chapter VIII lays out the reasons to have an anchor watch. It does say the Master can, in a sheltered anchorage, forgo a Navigational Watch, but that's very risky, and I don't know anyone that would.
When a ship is at anchor in an open roadstead or any other virtually "at sea" condition, the
engineer officer in charge of the engineering watch shall ensure that:
.1 an efficient engineering watch is kept;
.2 periodic inspection is made of all operating and stand-by machinery;
.3 main and auxiliary machinery is maintained in a state of readiness in accordance with
orders from the bridge;
.4 measures are taken to protect the environment from pollution by the ship, and that
applicable pollution prevention regulations are complied with; and
.5 all damage control and fire-fighting systems are in readiness.
Additionally, for US vessels 33 CFR is quite clear:
Requirements for vessels at anchor.
The master or person in charge of each vessel that is anchored shall ensure that:
(a) A proper anchor watch is maintained;
(b) Procedures are followed to detect a dragging anchor; and
(c) Whenever weather, tide, or current conditions are likely to cause the vessel's anchor to drag, action is taken to ensure the safety of the vessel, structures, and other vessels, such as being ready to veer chain, let go a second anchor, or get underway using the vessel's own propulsion or tug assistance.
Since they had generator's running they probably should have had a generator watch too (one person could do both). Not to mention the requirement to maintain a radio watch on the bridge. I suspect that as the court cases develop phrases like "Gross Negligence" and "clear violation of Laws and Standards" are going to be thrown around pretty convincingly.
On the smoke alarms: some older fire detection systems only ring the alarms in the bridge and engineering spaces, because
there's supposed to be someone there at all times. So it may have been that kind of system. I'm not super versed on the specifics for passenger vessels.
This is just another reason that I get real twitchy when on a vessel I am not a watchstander on. They are engineered pretty well
but people get lazy and stupid.