Titanic tourist sub goes missing

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

14 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I get the families will be livid and looking for someone to blame; I'm certain I would be exactly the same.

However, the reality is these people only have themselves to blame and I have little respect for their decision to get on board that sub, fueled by a perverse, macabre fascination with desperately sorry chapter in history.

These guys have families, did they enter their head at all when they read through and signed that waiver? When they heard the door being bolted shut from the outside?

It's the same reason I lost the diminishing respect I had for Webber when he announced his intention to climb Everest. He's got a very young son; it requires a level of narcissism I can't comprehend to embark on a individual bucket list goal that could ultimately lead to me leaving my kids without a Dad.

Submersibles and submarines are operated responsibly and safely by many commercial, scientific, salvage, and military operations around the world. Sadly, Oceangate clearly isn't one of them. Oceangate sacked a guy for raising safety concerns, so there's no question in my mind that Oceangate won't have been honest in explaining the elevated risks to their customers of their own operation compared to other more responsibly operated submersibles.

One of the guys on board was a legitimate recognised expert on the Titanic disaster and former French navy diver, not simply someone scratching a curiosity itch. But regardless, they put their trust in the business selling the service to know what they were doing and take steps to maximise their safety. The customers weren't experts on submersibles and submarines, nor should they be expected to be. The negligence on OceanGate's part amounts to a breach of their trust, just like passengers on a downed aircraft that crashes from shoddy maintenance.

Edited June 22, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

18 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I get the families will be livid and looking for someone to blame; I'm certain I would be exactly the same.

However, the reality is these people only have themselves to blame and I have little respect for their decision to get on board that sub, fueled by a perverse, macabre fascination with desperately sorry chapter in history.

These guys have families, did they enter their head at all when they read through and signed that waiver? When they heard the door being bolted shut from the outside?

It's the same reason I lost the diminishing respect I had for Webber when he announced his intention to climb Everest. He's got a very young son; it requires a level of narcissism I can't comprehend to embark on a individual bucket list goal that could ultimately lead to me leaving my kids without a Dad.

Nope, can't agree with that in bold at all as that's a classic piece of victim blaming. The CEO's fair game for a poorly designed piece of kit, but by definition he takes the responsibility for the lives of those going with him. The remaining victims would, even with signing waivers, have reasonable expectation that the craft provided is reasonably fit for purpose.

Can't agree much with the rest either but none of us know if their families have had that discussion or put safeguards in place. I suspect if it's such a bucket list item that they'll have had that discussion and considered potential impacts if it failed.

[canarydan23 4,060]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Submersibles and submarines are operated responsibly and safely by many commercial, scientific, salvage, and military operations around the world. Sadly, Oceangate clearly isn't one of them. Oceangate sacked a guy for raising safety concerns, so there's no question in my mind that Oceangate won't have been honest in explaining the elevated risks to their customers of their own operation compared to other more responsibly operated submersibles.

One of the guys on board was a legitimate recognised expert on the Titanic disaster and former French navy diver, not simply someone scratching a curiosity itch. But regardless, they put their trust in the business selling the service to know what they were doing and take steps to maximise their safety. The customers weren't experts on submersibles and submarines, nor should they be expected to be. The negligence on OceanGate's part amounts to a breach of their trust, just like passengers on a downed aircraft that crashes from shoddy maintenance.

Did you not watch the video in the Twitter link earlier in the thread?

"An experimental, submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and could result in personal injury, physical disability, emotional trauma or death".

@TheGunnShow, covers my response to you as well. Read that. Sign that. Bad luck. I'd be looking to the estates of these guys to cover some of the rescue costs.

Edited June 22, 2023 by canarydan23

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

All accidents are for a reason that could have been avoided. The Titanic they were going to view was a pertinent case.

Of course someone has to be responsible. In many fatal accidents it is one of the deceased. But in many its the directors of a company.

Should this end up a tragedy, I have no doubt the winners will be the lawyers.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Did you not watch the video in the Twitter link earlier in the thread?

"An experimental, submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and could result in personal injury, physical disability, emotional trauma or death".

@TheGunnShow, covers my response to you as well. Read that. Sign that. Bad luck. I'd be looking to the estates of these guys to cover some of the rescue costs.

Saw that before you edited and named me in it. I disagree. This sits squarely on the CEO in my book, especially in the light of the issues raised by others who were previously within the company.

Essentially you're critical of his customers for potentially not doing their research and that information may not have been so readily available when they signed that waiver.

This is all on Rush for me. Could agree that his estate could go towards covering some of the rescue costs though.

[Yellow Fever 3,791]

I haven't a problem with those risking their own lives on a risky adventure be that a submersible, climbing Everest, a trip into space or indeed walking across Antarctica. That's the human spirit. I do question why some need to simply redo i.e. climb Everest or Antarctica when its been done any number of times by others. No longer a voyage of discovery but some dubious personal challenge.

However, what I do expect them to do in any event is to take some sensible safety precautions / identified recovery options and ask the' what if' questions and not be totally reliant on the goodwill and highs cost to the public and others to save them if things go wrong - especially for the truly commercial unnecessary ventures!

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

12 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

This is all on Rush for me

A lot of it is on Rush. Some of it is on the people who got in.

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Essentially you're critical of his customers for potentially not doing their research and that information may not have been so readily available when they signed that waiver.

That CBS piece was done in 2022. If you read that waiver and aren't prompted to do some research and put your life in the hands of a stranger and his openly makeshift, unapproved, uncertified, experimental submersible, then you're being negligent. With your life.

[Google Bot 3,278]

9 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

This sits squarely on the CEO in my book, especially in the light of the issues raised by others who were previously within the company.

It is an experimental science project though.  My understanding is that those who travel do so together and are part of the mission rather than passengers on a cruise.  i.e. they're actively involved in piloting the vessel, and such elements.

The waiver makes it pretty clear on the risks, and as we don't know what went wrong I think it's very unfair to start pointing fingers at one person.  i.e. It's possible that someone had a medical incident, panic attack or fit on the way down and equipment was damaged as a result.

We've only been introduced to this project because it's headline news, there's many dangerous private research programs that go on to become mainstream success.  We need to stop over-reacting with a pointy finger to what's put in our eyeline without knowing absolute truths.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

38 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Did you not watch the video in the Twitter link earlier in the thread?

"An experimental, submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and could result in personal injury, physical disability, emotional trauma or death".

@TheGunnShow, covers my response to you as well. Read that. Sign that. Bad luck. I'd be looking to the estates of these guys to cover some of the rescue costs.

You can look at anything you like if there's a legal mechanism to do it. The sub, its operation, and its failure that has put them in this position isn't the responsibility of the paying customers though, rather the company who owns and runs it,  so you're on a hiding to nothing there. Oceangate, on the other hand, is doubtless finished.

Edited June 22, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

19 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

A lot of it is on Rush. Some of it is on the people who got in.

That CBS piece was done in 2022. If you read that waiver and aren't prompted to do some research and put your life in the hands of a stranger and his openly makeshift, unapproved, uncertified, experimental submersible, then you're being negligent. With your life.

And how readily available was that information at the time they signed the waiver?

The real issue here is that this is heading back to the days of caveat emptor.

[canarydan23 4,060]

40 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

And how readily available was that information at the time they signed the waiver?

The real issue here is that this is heading back to the days of caveat emptor.

I think when a disclaimer explicitly tells you that the product is experimental, uncertified and approved by no regulatory body, caveat emptor should well apply.

It still does for home purchases, and these chumps were paying sums that could easily have acquired a property.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I doubt there was a Trip Advisor/Customer Review page for this type of thing.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

19 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I think when a disclaimer explicitly tells you that the product is experimental, uncertified and approved by no regulatory body, caveat emptor should well apply.

It still does for home purchases, and these chumps were paying sums that could easily have acquired a property.

Yeah, we're really not going to agree. In fact, speaking of home purchases, if you've ever seen the New Home Quality Control pages on FB or Instagram and their regular exposes of shoddy (if indeed not downright dangerous) building in the new homes sector/relative lack of inspection going on, I'm strongly inclined to say the caveat emptor approach doesn't work well at all there either.

As KG rightly noted, I doubt there's much information widely available on such a niche, expensive jaunt so even if the CEO of the company has put up a waiver, I don't see it as unreasonable that he puts in a design with less cost-cutting in it than we have actually seen.

[canarydan23 4,060]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I don't see it as unreasonable that he puts in a design with less cost-cutting in it than we have actually seen.

Then it's a very good job you're not a billionaire with a Titanic fetish.

[Yellow Fever 3,791]

23 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yeah, we're really not going to agree. In fact, speaking of home purchases, if you've ever seen the New Home Quality Control pages on FB or Instagram and their regular exposes of shoddy (if indeed not downright dangerous) building in the new homes sector/relative lack of inspection going on, I'm strongly inclined to say the caveat emptor approach doesn't work well at all there either.

As KG rightly noted, I doubt there's much information widely available on such a niche, expensive jaunt so even if the CEO of the company has put up a waiver, I don't see it as unreasonable that he puts in a design with less cost-cutting in it than we have actually seen.

And that the CEO is on the trip himself.

I haven't a problem with the obvious dangers but there was it seems to me a few simple precautions that could of been done - an underwater emergency locator beacon and some secondary independent communication system if power failed.

It's almost as if the CEO thought if anything went wrong there'd be hope of doing anything so why bother!

[Yellowfuture 71]

On 20/06/2023 at 23:11, canarydan23 said:

Yeah, and this seems to be getting far more media attention.

We're an awful species, really, aren't we?

Yep

[Barry Brockes 147]

A 'debris field' has been found in the area where the search has been taking place. More information to follow.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

1 hour ago, Barry Brockes said:

A 'debris field' has been found in the area where the search has been taking place. More information to follow.

.....and it's from the sub. 

[Canary73 160]

The media coverage of this story speaks volumes compared to the scant regard given to those in peril on the boat in Greece. It gives the impression that some lives are more important than others which frankly is an abhorrent way to treat humans that are in jeopardy.

[KiwiScot 1,446]

24 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

.....and it's from the sub. 

RIP.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

16 minutes ago, Canary73 said:

The media coverage of this story speaks volumes compared to the scant regard given to those in peril on the boat in Greece. It gives the impression that some lives are more important than others which frankly is an abhorrent way to treat humans that are in jeopardy.

Not just the media coverage, but also the amount of resources, in terms of both money and effort, that have seemingly gone into it. I obviously have no idea what sums of money are involved in either, but it seems from the outside looking in that more has gone into rescuing these five billionaires, who chose to go 4km underwater on a homemade submarine steered by a $30 joystick designed for computer games, than the hundreds of migrants who get shipwrecked in the Mediterranean.

I wonder why?

[canarydan23 4,060]

Well, at least it sounds like it was a pretty instant end.

[ricardo 7,395]

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Well, at least it sounds like it was a pretty instant end.

Indeed. 

The thought of being locked in a tube waiting for the air to run out is beyond hellish.

R.I.P.

[Bort 34]

11 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Siemens did not have their own repair yard in Simons Town until the early 2000s. That happened because South African ships were having to go to Germany more and more frequently because there was no longer the skill in South African navy to do it. That happened for exactly the reason I stated. Granted, some maintenance will always be outsourced. The reason that base opened is because the scope of maintenance they were undertakinig grew and grew as the South African navy lost the skills to do those things themselves.

You don't believe me on that, that's fine. Believe all of the other stuff relating to power generation and water supplies that speaks of the growing incompetence and corruption in South Africa that has developed on the back of the ANC's positive discrimination policies. Skin colour there has become more important than skills. That's why South Africa is falling to bits.

Edit: The bit in bold there really reinforces my point: The black population in South Africa simply wasn't educated enough to take over the skills just like that, but they were shoved in anyway while the white people who did have the skills were encouraged to leave. With very generous redundancy, but nevereless South Africa lost those skills.

Anyway, this is way off topic now, so best leave it there.

What's going on with the banging sounds? I can't see any reports of whether they're still hearing them.

Just to provide some context to this assertion that South Africa is "falling to bits", as I can't help myself - their average life expectancy, literacy rate, HDI score, access to electricity and GDP per capita are all higher than any point pre-2010. The poverty rate is 10% lower than it was 30 years ago, and the homicide rate has halved over the same period.

There's an argument that some metrics have stagnated in the last 10 years or so (and unemployment is an issue), but "falling to bits" is a little hyperbolic.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

5 minutes ago, Bort said:

Just to provide some context to this assertion that South Africa is "falling to bits", as I can't help myself - their average life expectancy, literacy rate, HDI score, access to electricity and GDP per capita are all higher than any point pre-2010. The poverty rate is 10% lower than it was 30 years ago, and the homicide rate has halved over the same period.

There's an argument that some metrics have stagnated in the last 10 years or so (and unemployment is an issue), but "falling to bits" is a little hyperbolic.

if I lived in a country where I couldn't turn on a light or boil an electric kettle for half the day on an almost daily basis, I'd say it was falling to bits, wouldn't you?

Edited June 22, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

if I lived in a country where I couldn't turn on a light or boil an electric kettle for half the day on a regular basis, I'd say it was falling to bits, wouldn't you?

In 1996, only 57% of the South African population had any access to electricity at all. That figure is now 84%.

So given the historical context, no I wouldn't say it's falling to bits, even accounting for the rolling blackouts (in recent months, power demand tends to outstrip supply by around 10%).

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 hours ago, Bort said:

In 1996, only 57% of the South African population had any access to electricity at all. That figure is now 84%.

So given the historical context, no I wouldn't say it's falling to bits, even accounting for the rolling blackouts (in recent months, power demand tends to outstrip supply by around 10%).

@littleyellowbirdie never lets facts get in the way of his opinions.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

25 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

@littleyellowbirdie never lets facts get in the way of his opinions.

Taking proportion of the day that people have it working now into account, that's less than 50% now.

So if the UK has had always on electricity in 2007, and had steadily increased daily power cuts to the current day to the extent electricity was off for as much as 12 hours a day, you'd think that was all fine and dandy then?

Don't ever complain about anything ever again.

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,060]

32 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Don't ever complain about anything ever again.

You'll definitely need to stop consistently posting such ill-informed, ignorant drivel for that to happen.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

You'll definitely need to stop consistently posting such ill-informed, ignorant drivel for that to happen.

It's not drivel. Your pretense that all is well in South Africa is on a par with climate change denial in its sheer absurdity. You're taking arguing for the sake of it to a stupid extent, even by your standards.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/05/22/business-leaders-fear-that-south-africa-risks-becoming-a-failed-state

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65683674.amp

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie