| Oceangate sub 07:49 - Jun 23 with 4780 views | ArnieM |
Sorry if this ends up on the football forum. I’m in the general forum when writing / posting this. Do hope it stays where I think I am.
Just been listening to the reports coming out re this “ accident” which has killed 5 people. Seems increasing evident that OG could be in line for a corporate manslaughter charge, once the dust has settled a little. They’ve clearly ignored communications from submariner expertise that their vessel Titan was unsafe, using unproven materials (carbon hull), incorrect shape to withstand pressure (to facilitate getting more paying customers in!!), and basic H&S checks ignored.
My thoughts are with the families of those who died so needlessly, but I hope they have the strength to take litigation and get the book thrown at this Company. As an expert in the field stated, if you’re paying to take a ride in a sub (or any vehicle), you are expecting that vessel to be fit for purpose and meeting industry regulations and be safe. As a “customer” it’s not your role to ensure that vehicles safety credentials.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Oceangate sub on 09:41 - Jun 23 with 1574 views | homer_123 |
| Oceangate sub on 09:34 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
Tho there has to be some leeway, otherwise no progress is ever made. For example, all spacecraft (including those carrying humans) are to some extent "experimental", frequently one-offs (e.g. the ISS).
What can be done, however, is developers having a degree of responsibility, backed up by a regulatory regime which doesn't allow them a base to operate from if they continue to flout that, plus major sanctions if something goes wrong. Companies like SpaceX and Virgin Orbital have (or had, in the latter case) to jump through all sorts of strict regulatory hoops before getting permission to launch. |
Of course.
On the face of initial evidence though, this 'looks' like they were taking paying passengers even though there was a very strong body of evidence that it was not fit for purpose.
To use your analogy and space travel - you are spot on....it looks like this isn't the case here. |  |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 09:45 - Jun 23 with 1560 views | WeWereZombies |
| Oceangate sub on 09:38 - Jun 23 by StokieBlue |
You're missing the point though, tourists or not, they shouldn't even have had the option to be an "adventurer" in such a craft because it wasn't fit for purpose as had been highlighted to the courts.
I think it's also rather unfair to expect the passengers to have a full grasp of the physics behind the craft, they are relying on the company and the regulations to make those initial judgments before they then make a personal risk calculation. The first part of that process was flawed and side-stepped and they might not have fully understood this.
SB |
Watch the film 'Free Solo' and see what Alex Honnold carried out as preparation for the ascent of El Capitan. You could regard his body as his craft, together with a few items of clothing and some chalk in a sack hanging off his belt. He didn't know at the start whether he would encounter an injury or failure of some body part that resulted in a fall to his death. The rigour of examination of his craft was upon him to perform and I regard the same demand should be applied to the passengers of this submersible. |  |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 09:48 - Jun 23 with 1552 views | StokieBlue |
| Oceangate sub on 09:45 - Jun 23 by WeWereZombies |
Watch the film 'Free Solo' and see what Alex Honnold carried out as preparation for the ascent of El Capitan. You could regard his body as his craft, together with a few items of clothing and some chalk in a sack hanging off his belt. He didn't know at the start whether he would encounter an injury or failure of some body part that resulted in a fall to his death. The rigour of examination of his craft was upon him to perform and I regard the same demand should be applied to the passengers of this submersible. |
I've seen it and it's nothing like the same.
You seem to be just trying to push a quite weird framework with some obscure false equivalences so I'll bid you a good day.
SB
Edit: For the record, in this false equivalence you're comparing an expert in the field who has total knowledge of his body and it's limits to laymen passengers in a submersible who have no detailed knowledge of the physics involved in creating a ship and thus rely on the regulations which the company side-stepped. [Post edited 23 Jun 2023 9:59]
|  | | |
| Oceangate sub on 09:50 - Jun 23 with 1542 views | WeWereZombies |
| Oceangate sub on 09:48 - Jun 23 by StokieBlue |
I've seen it and it's nothing like the same.
You seem to be just trying to push a quite weird framework with some obscure false equivalences so I'll bid you a good day.
SB
Edit: For the record, in this false equivalence you're comparing an expert in the field who has total knowledge of his body and it's limits to laymen passengers in a submersible who have no detailed knowledge of the physics involved in creating a ship and thus rely on the regulations which the company side-stepped. [Post edited 23 Jun 2023 9:59]
|
Charming... | |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 09:53 - Jun 23 with 1542 views | Guthrum |
| Oceangate sub on 09:41 - Jun 23 by homer_123 |
Of course.
On the face of initial evidence though, this 'looks' like they were taking paying passengers even though there was a very strong body of evidence that it was not fit for purpose.
To use your analogy and space travel - you are spot on....it looks like this isn't the case here. |
Tho that is partly because the commercial space environment has developed a strong regulatory environment (partly because rockets mostly have to be launched from a base on some country's territory), whereas that of deep-sea exploration, carried out in international waters, is still outside such bounds. Current events may change that, however.
Getting some laws in place might help stop the plundering of old wreck sites, such as sunken WWII warships (which are also war graves), for the valuable metals, too. |  |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 09:56 - Jun 23 with 1531 views | StokieBlue |
One could say the same about your responses.
Totally dismissive whilst constructing false equivalences to push a viewpoint that diminishes the responsibility on a company that actively used a loophole to get a substandard design into the water.
I'll definitely leave it there, enjoy your day.
SB | | | |
| Oceangate sub on 10:03 - Jun 23 with 1510 views | homer_123 |
| Oceangate sub on 09:53 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
Tho that is partly because the commercial space environment has developed a strong regulatory environment (partly because rockets mostly have to be launched from a base on some country's territory), whereas that of deep-sea exploration, carried out in international waters, is still outside such bounds. Current events may change that, however.
Getting some laws in place might help stop the plundering of old wreck sites, such as sunken WWII warships (which are also war graves), for the valuable metals, too. |
Yes, although I believe most sea going vehicles do look to ensure that are approved and signed off...though clearly not as strong as the space industry - maritime isn't without its regulations and bodies.
Agree on your last point! | |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 10:03 - Jun 23 with 1505 views | ArnieM |
| Oceangate sub on 08:09 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
The company rather side-stepped the issue by classing the Titan as an "experimental" design, plus having crew members sign extensive waivers before boarding. That is an area which may get tightened up after this incident, however it is in international waters and there are countries who don't want too much regulation there.
p.s. When starting a new thread, there is an option at the bottom to click which dictates whether it goes into "football" or "general". Edit: It defaults to "football", but you can go into edit to move it, if the original poster. [Post edited 23 Jun 2023 8:39]
|
Ah, thanks for that last bit…. That’s why I hit it wrong then . Don’t often post in “ general” bit . Bug hopefully won’t get it wrong next time 👠| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Oceangate sub on 10:05 - Jun 23 with 1505 views | Bluesky |
| Oceangate sub on 08:11 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
The controller was not anything to do with what went wrong and GPS doen't work deep underwater. Being able to open the door wouldn't have helped at that depth, either. |
No, but doesn't it give an insight to the mindset of the people running this outfit? Cheap, gimmicky and improperly tested have no place in an environment less explored than space but with equal risk of certain, sudden death through the smallest of faults? The teenager was nervous before going down but went for his dad - being fathers' day. I feel especially sad for that young man. |  | | |
| Oceangate sub on 10:13 - Jun 23 with 1478 views | Guthrum |
| Oceangate sub on 10:05 - Jun 23 by Bluesky |
No, but doesn't it give an insight to the mindset of the people running this outfit? Cheap, gimmicky and improperly tested have no place in an environment less explored than space but with equal risk of certain, sudden death through the smallest of faults? The teenager was nervous before going down but went for his dad - being fathers' day. I feel especially sad for that young man. |
Not on that specific point. As mentioned elsewhere, the controller was one of the more tried-and-tested bits of kit on that submersible.
A bigger issue was the fact the pressure hull was made of an unsitable material, not adequately tested or monitored. Apparenly, it just had a device which listened for creaking or popping noises to detect weak spots, rather than being scanned for flaws with x-rays/ultrasound or pressure tested. At most might give a few seconds warning of catastrophic failure. I doubt it was cheap, nor was it particularly gimmicky, just plain misguided. | |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 10:13 - Jun 23 with 1480 views | WeWereZombies |
| Oceangate sub on 10:03 - Jun 23 by homer_123 |
Yes, although I believe most sea going vehicles do look to ensure that are approved and signed off...though clearly not as strong as the space industry - maritime isn't without its regulations and bodies.
Agree on your last point! |
See Newcy's very well informed post at 08:35 this morning on davblue's thread about this accident, a lot of legislation that I was completely unaware of. | |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 11:43 - Jun 23 with 1422 views | davblue |
| Oceangate sub on 09:11 - Jun 23 by homer_123 |
I would like to think that they knew the risks etc.
However, I do not believe that such 'trips' should be undertaken in vehicles not fit for purpose, regardless of the how it's positioned by the company (built by experts from NASA etc.) - that doesn't cut it. |
Making Titanic a tourist attraction isn't particularly nice either. It's a massive disaster that happened in 1912 and people shouldn't be profiting from taking people down there. |  | | |
| Oceangate sub on 12:20 - Jun 23 with 1382 views | NewcyBlue |
| Oceangate sub on 10:03 - Jun 23 by homer_123 |
Yes, although I believe most sea going vehicles do look to ensure that are approved and signed off...though clearly not as strong as the space industry - maritime isn't without its regulations and bodies.
Agree on your last point! |
The building of commercial vessels is heavily regulated. Classification societies are there to ensure vessels are built to specific laws and regulations. Everything from accommodation to cargo carrying spaces.
The camber of the deck is also regulated.
We have Loadlines, which has all sorts regulations for the building of vessels, from bow height to the height of vents on decks.
SOLAS with all sorts in it from fire protection, to life saving appliances, construction to maintenance.
Ships are heavily heavily regulated from design and build to maintenance.
We have to stay within stability limits, ensuring stresses are within limits. We have wind and sea to contend with.
The maritime industry has much in common with the aeronautical and aerospace industries. |  |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 12:24 - Jun 23 with 1376 views | ElderGrizzly |
Lawyers yesterday were saying this will be a civil case not a criminal one because of where the craft was registered.
Plus there will be a lot of money spent on unpicking the waivers signed, which apparently were basically saying the company were not responsible for any accident etc. |  | | |
| Oceangate sub on 12:26 - Jun 23 with 1368 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Oceangate sub on 10:13 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
Not on that specific point. As mentioned elsewhere, the controller was one of the more tried-and-tested bits of kit on that submersible.
A bigger issue was the fact the pressure hull was made of an unsitable material, not adequately tested or monitored. Apparenly, it just had a device which listened for creaking or popping noises to detect weak spots, rather than being scanned for flaws with x-rays/ultrasound or pressure tested. At most might give a few seconds warning of catastrophic failure. I doubt it was cheap, nor was it particularly gimmicky, just plain misguided. |
The biggest issue appears to be the window was tested/certified to 1400m and the hull to 4000m.
The company made a decision, against the advice of the ex-employee who then left, not to 'upgrade' the window to an acceptable design. | | | |
| Oceangate sub on 12:27 - Jun 23 with 1367 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Oceangate sub on 11:43 - Jun 23 by davblue |
Making Titanic a tourist attraction isn't particularly nice either. It's a massive disaster that happened in 1912 and people shouldn't be profiting from taking people down there. |
An historian (albeit in USA) said you wouldn't go to Gettysburg with a shovel.
Quite a good analogy I thought. | | | |
| Oceangate sub on 12:44 - Jun 23 with 1350 views | homer_123 |
| Oceangate sub on 12:20 - Jun 23 by NewcyBlue |
The building of commercial vessels is heavily regulated. Classification societies are there to ensure vessels are built to specific laws and regulations. Everything from accommodation to cargo carrying spaces.
The camber of the deck is also regulated.
We have Loadlines, which has all sorts regulations for the building of vessels, from bow height to the height of vents on decks.
SOLAS with all sorts in it from fire protection, to life saving appliances, construction to maintenance.
Ships are heavily heavily regulated from design and build to maintenance.
We have to stay within stability limits, ensuring stresses are within limits. We have wind and sea to contend with.
The maritime industry has much in common with the aeronautical and aerospace industries. |
Indeed Newcy.
And it looks like, in this situ, they haven't followed any guidelines or sought registration and approval from any agency or governing body.
it also appears this is on the basis it is 'experimental' - which is no excuse at all. | |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 12:59 - Jun 23 with 1315 views | Ryorry |
| Oceangate sub on 10:13 - Jun 23 by Guthrum |
Not on that specific point. As mentioned elsewhere, the controller was one of the more tried-and-tested bits of kit on that submersible.
A bigger issue was the fact the pressure hull was made of an unsitable material, not adequately tested or monitored. Apparenly, it just had a device which listened for creaking or popping noises to detect weak spots, rather than being scanned for flaws with x-rays/ultrasound or pressure tested. At most might give a few seconds warning of catastrophic failure. I doubt it was cheap, nor was it particularly gimmicky, just plain misguided. |
I sometimes watch 'Forged in Fire' on 5 select (fv56), a US reality show in which 4 blacksmiths (bladesmiths) compete in making various edged weapons such as knives, historical swords etc.
A panel of 3 judges, all experts in their field, then look the knives/swords over with a naked eye. Any implement which has the tiniest flaw meaning it would be dangerous to even test is thrown out. They then undergo a further series of tests including one for strength.
Sounds like the F i F tests are a lot more rigorous than the ones for this submersible! |  |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 12:59 - Jun 23 with 1313 views | eireblue |
It was built on a roof in France apparently. |  | | |
| Oceangate sub on 14:23 - Jun 23 with 1245 views | WeWereZombies |
| Oceangate sub on 12:24 - Jun 23 by ElderGrizzly |
Lawyers yesterday were saying this will be a civil case not a criminal one because of where the craft was registered.
Plus there will be a lot of money spent on unpicking the waivers signed, which apparently were basically saying the company were not responsible for any accident etc. |
A lot of money will yet be expended, a lot of money has already been expended by the constructors of the submersible and by the occupants, and considerable time and effort by the US Coastguard in the search. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing and all that but imagine what could have been done with those resources if they had been redeployed in the Mediterranean and off the Canary Isles over previous months and years. | |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 17:30 - Jun 23 with 1194 views | bluelagos |
| Oceangate sub on 12:59 - Jun 23 by eireblue |
It was built on a roof in France apparently. |
Well played sir. |  |
| |
| Oceangate sub on 19:52 - Jun 23 with 1133 views | Nomore4 |
| Oceangate sub on 17:30 - Jun 23 by bluelagos |
Well played sir. |
If I was a billionaire and wanted to experience what was being offered…… I would have paid for my own craft to be constructed…..with no expense spared. Seems very odd to me. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
