Titanic submersible confirmed destroyed with loss of all five souls onboard.

jpaul said:
already posted, there were electronics outside the hull, protected somehow, so not inconceivable SSD's survive with data,
( new cars are now collecting the last 250ms of user input )
Click to expand...
I meant not a chance they would have something as sophisticated as a black box sorry, maybe some data can be retrieved if the stuff outside survived though
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Let me stop you right there. Go back a month ago before this event, scrub everyone’s mind and show them a picture of the sub. most of the peasants on OCUK and the vast majority world would not be able to identify the issues because they do not have the knowledge or understanding to actually identify the flaws in the submarines design.

So let’s not go around knocking those billionaires who got on the sub for not spotting design flaws that only became obvious when people with actual knowledge on this subject started pointing it out to the masses.
Click to expand...

If I was going to do something as life threatening as this (Going up into space in a Soyuz is safer than deep sea dives). I would do my due diligence. Grant Mitchell and his TV crew managed this quite easily.

It is the single most stupid thing I have witnessed in a long time that I simply cannot get out of my mind. How can you waste your life so easily it is just sad.
 
Last edited:
KiNgPiN83 said:
You’re right in that no one is an expert in everything but this also means if you aren’t a sausage you’ll get an expert to take a look at it for you. Like Grant Mitchell and his film crew that turned this voyage down after realising it was an accident waiting to happen..
Click to expand...

200sols said:
You would think these billionaires would do some due dilligence though, even Ross Kemps team did that.

www.theguardian.com

Ross Kemp turned down trip on Titanic submersible over safety fears

UK documentary maker was last year advised against filming on Titan, which fatally imploded this week
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Fair point though I reckon this was done as requirement for insurance purposes for the filming of the documentary.

How common do you think it is to bring a third party to inspect some machinery before getting in it for personal enjoyment?

If you were to go to one of those sports car track days, how many of you would hire a third party mechanic to inspect the car before getting in?

What about those flying experience days? We have a thread here on these forums where someone asks which flight experience to go on and from memory not a single person in that thread spoke about bringing a third party mechanic to check the plane.

Now that you have seen this incident, you now know you can get a third party to do inspections because of Ross kemps experience. you might do one in future before getting in some sort of machinery you are uncertain about. That’s the benefit of hindsight.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Fair point though I reckon this was done as requirement for insurance purposes for the filming of the documentary.

How common do you think it is to bring a third party to inspect some machinery before getting in it for personal enjoyment?

If you were to go to one of those sports car track days, how many of you would hire a third party mechanic to inspect the car before getting in?

What about those flying experience days? We have a thread here on these forums where someone asks which flight experience to go on and from memory not a single person in that thread spoke about bringing a third party mechanic to check the plane.

Now that you have seen this incident, you now know you can get a third party to do inspections because of Ross kemps experience. you might do one in future before getting in some sort of machinery you are uncertain about. That’s the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...

These are not even comparable and all things you mentioned are highly regulated and insured. You go on them because of this. Yes there are risks involved and if something were to happen then that is the risk you take. The main thing here is that they all have risk assessments through insurance, maintenance schedules etc to reduce the risk to the lowest it can be.

More people have gone into Space than seen the wreckage of the titanic first hand. Surely that alone would make sure you did your due diligence. They even signed a waiver for their lives. As a father myself not matter how rich you are seeing that then thinking it is okay to take your child onboard with you is just nuts.
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
I still cannot understand how Grant Mitchell, a load of peasants from OCUK and the vast majority of the world can see how poor this was yet a load of billionaires one of which who took his bloody son and a supposed French Navy vet diving specialist thought this was an okay move.

If that Stockton Rush wasn't onboard he would be look at prison time for Manslaughter surely.
Click to expand...

James Cameron said he wished he had spoken out but he did not.

This is all hindsight talk.

Nobody knew anything, plenty of reasons to reject going on a sub to see the titanic without understanding anything about the specific design of the sub.
 
adam cool dude said:
These are not even comparable and all things you mentioned are highly regulated and insured.
Click to expand...
Hold up. Isn’t one of the issues that they didn’t get the sub classified. This means that this is a regulated industry. So that argument kind of contradicts your previous argument about doing due diligence.

adam cool dude said:
They even signed a waiver for their lives.
Click to expand...
I had originally thought that this would have been the strongest argument for them doing their due diligence. However.

I recently started bouldering (indoor climbing) and I had to sign a waiver. that waiver also talks about death.
I had a look and I found a waiver for a trampoline park that talked about death as well.
I reckon that waivers that talk about death might be a lot more common than we realise.
 
Last edited:
Chuk_Chuk said:
Hold up. Isn’t one of the issues that they didn’t get the sub classified. This means that this is a regulated industry. So that argument kind of contradicts your previous argument about doing due diligence.


I had originally thought that this would have been the strongest argument for them doing their due diligence. However.

I recently started bouldering (indoor climbing) and I had to sign a waiver. that waiver also talks about death.
I had a look and I found a waiver for a trampoline park that talked about death as well.
I reckon that waivers that talk about death might be a lot more common than we realise.
Click to expand...
I’ve got to sign a waiver for my ski season pass that has clauses about death, it’s pretty common.

If you do any sort of risky activity the onus is the individual to know what they are getting themselves into.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Fair point though I reckon this was done as requirement for insurance purposes for the filming of the documentary.

How common do you think it is to bring a third party to inspect some machinery before getting in it for personal enjoyment?

If you were to go to one of those sports car track days, how many of you would hire a third party mechanic to inspect the car before getting in?

What about those flying experience days? We have a thread here on these forums where someone asks which flight experience to go on and from memory not a single person in that thread spoke about bringing a third party mechanic to check the plane.

Now that you have seen this incident, you now know you can get a third party to do inspections because of Ross kemps experience. you might do one in future before getting in some sort of machinery you are uncertain about. That’s the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying with some of those examples but this wasn’t a sub ride at Lego land or one of those pleasure subs in the Mediterranean. This is one of the most extreme dives you can make! You only have to look at some of the other deep sea subs like Alvin and Limiting Factor to visually see something is off.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I recently started bouldering (indoor climbing) and I had to sign a waiver. that waiver also talks about death.
I had a look and I found a waiver for a trampoline park that talked about death as well.
I reckon that waivers that talk about death might be a lot more common than we realise.
Click to expand...
Majority of waivers are if you do something stupid and get yourself injured or dead

Waivers don't cover the company if the things they are supplying for your safety or their product fail and hurt you
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Fair point though I reckon this was done as requirement for insurance purposes for the filming of the documentary.

How common do you think it is to bring a third party to inspect some machinery before getting in it for personal enjoyment?

If you were to go to one of those sports car track days, how many of you would hire a third party mechanic to inspect the car before getting in?

What about those flying experience days? We have a thread here on these forums where someone asks which flight experience to go on and from memory not a single person in that thread spoke about bringing a third party mechanic to check the plane.

Now that you have seen this incident, you now know you can get a third party to do inspections because of Ross kemps experience. you might do one in future before getting in some sort of machinery you are uncertain about. That’s the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...
Very much depends on the level of perceived risk. When you go to your local chippy, you probably don't ask to see their food safety certificates, or send in an inspection team before you place your order for cod 'n' chips.

If you were going skydiving with a company you've never heard of, you'd probably do do some basic checks, no? Or maybe you wouldn't?

I think at a bare minimum you'd seek to reassure yourself that such companies could not legally operate without complying with rigorous safety regulations. Even if you couldn't really verify their compliance. But if you subsequently found that they were deliberately operating in a legal grey area, which meant they didn't need to comply with any country's safety standards, you might have second thoughts about stepping on that plane, no?

Perhaps you're a lot less risk averse than I am!
 
A waiver is normally there just to tell someone in writing, that they’re doing something risky and they could be harmed because of it.

However signing a a waiver doesn’t absolve a company from being negligent.

I could go rock climbing with a company - sign all the waivers in the world, however if the ropes and equipment they gave me were frayed, damaged and I fell and was seriously injured, the waiver wouldn’t mean squat.

Because it would be a case of negligence, the company would be in breach of duty.

This OceanGate company looks like they were being negligent AF.
 
Last edited:
It’s clear the CEO was making personal appeals to people to get on the sub. He seemed like a charismatic and charming bloke - ie a typical grifter - and the wealthy are no different to the rest of us in being susceptible to this stuff. Having a hard cut off like the production company did is the best protection. You can’t talk safety certificates into existence.

As well as the victims I really feel for those who went down on previous trips. The survivor’s guilt must be rough.
 
Last edited:
Chuk_Chuk said:
Hold up. Isn’t one of the issues that they didn’t get the sub classified. This means that this is a regulated industry. So that argument kind of contradicts your previous argument about doing due diligence.


I had originally thought that this would have been the strongest argument for them doing their due diligence. However.

I recently started bouldering (indoor climbing) and I had to sign a waiver. that waiver also talks about death.
I had a look and I found a waiver for a trampoline park that talked about death as well.
I reckon that waivers that talk about death might be a lot more common than we realise.
Click to expand...

Yes and by doing your due diligence you would see the sub is not classified and signed off the various bodies. That would be enough for me.

The only reason it was allowed to operate was because it was in international waters. Anywhere with law wouldn't let it slide.

Seeing that on top of the waiver would have been a big no from me. You can also see all the previous warning signs across the web before this even happened.

This is not your average Joe kind of trip. It almost comes to the point it isn't even civilian. They had a small window of one trip a year. The people going on the trip had plenty of time to read up on it.

My previous job I was heavily involved in risk assessment of plant machinery so I guess that is why I see things differently and cannot understand how someone can be so haphazard with one's life.
 
Last edited:
Minusorange said:
Majority of waivers are if you do something stupid and get yourself injured or dead

Waivers don't cover the company if the things they are supplying for your safety or their product fail and hurt you
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that waiver absolves the company. My point is that they are really common and that most people don’t pause to do check that they can trust the company or the equipment being given to them before signing.

FoxEye said:
Very much depends on the level of perceived risk. When you go to your local chippy, you probably don't ask to see their food safety certificates, or send in an inspection team before you place your order for cod 'n' chips.

If you were going skydiving with a company you've never heard of, you'd probably do do some basic checks, no? Or maybe you wouldn't?

I think at a bare minimum you'd seek to reassure yourself that such companies could not legally operate without complying with rigorous safety regulations. Even if you couldn't really verify their compliance. But if you subsequently found that they were deliberately operating in a legal grey area, which meant they didn't need to comply with any country's safety standards, you might have second thoughts about stepping on that plane, no?

Perhaps you're a lot less risk averse than I am!
Click to expand...

People suggestions are not wrong, as a process I agree (a bit more broadly applied though). But they come from a place of hindsight (Just to be clear nothing wrong with that). The post I had originally responded to the point I made (paraphrasing) is that prior to all of this individuals will not be thinking about these due diligence processes.

It’s nice to have all these processes on what should be done when getting involved in activities that will kill you, But complacency will set in. It always sets in. It sets in for companies and money is involved. It’s going to set in for people especially when it makes access to pleasure easier.

It’s currently the end of June; August is coming up. Holidays will be abound people will be out enjoying the sun and partaking in activities. Be realistic, as a percentage how many people do you think will be doing due diligence before signing waivers? How many people are going to get to the front of a bungee jump queue (as an example) and then demand that they inspect the rope before being tied to it?
Most will not. This entire event will be forgotten and the lessons learnt on a personal level will be filed away in some dusty draw in our brains.
Human memory is a funny thing, now that I’ve said this most of you reading these discussions will remember my words come this August and you probably will do your checks. You will not remember it next year though. :D

I don’t disagree with the suggestions I just prefer to be realistic. complacency will set in. There is an exception though, that’s when it is personal. I will confidently say that every family members and personal friend of those onboard will not be complacent when it comes to doing their checks in future.
 
mrk said:
On top of that, here's a recollection from someone who went on the sub days before the disaster where Stockton said the controls were being weird...

www.insider.com

A YouTube star rode in the Titan sub days before it went missing. His footage shows OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush discussing control issues with the 'brains' of the sub.

Jake Koehler said the Titan submersible had to be repaired before his trip because a fishing net wrapped around it and "broke a bunch of stuff."
www.insider.com www.insider.com
Click to expand...

Main video... :( Seeing them clamp that door closed I was like uuhhh nope!

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom