Titanic tourist sub goes missing in Atlantic Ocean, June 2023 #3

[Trebor5591]

I don't disagree with the families point of view as stated in the below story:​

​

‘Like Disneyland’: Titanic Families Blast ‘Disgusting’ Tours of Wreckage​

‘Like Disneyland’: Titanic Families Blast ‘Disgusting’ Tours of Wreckage

Families with relatives who died in or survived the 1912 Titanic disaster say the wreckage site is a “graveyard” that should be treated with respect—not as a travel destination.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[ArianeEmory]

The bottom half fits INSIDE the 'Titanic wreck site' dot on the top half... that's my reading of it, anyway.

That makes sense. It’s just … set up and cropped weirdly, and I think all the ship icons being the same size threw me. It’s also been a long 24 hrs. :/

 

[iamshadow21]

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry wrote on Twitter that it appreciates "the multinational efforts over the last several days in search of the vessel." The Dawood family also thanked all involved in the search.

"Their untiring efforts were a source of strength for us during this time," the family said in a statement. "We are also indebted to our friends, family, colleagues and well-wishers from all over the world who stood by us during our need."

With the fate of Titanic-bound submersible clear, focus turns to cause of the fatal implosion

The search for a missing Titanic-bound submersible has become an investigation and salvage mission that will take an indefinite amount of time, officials said, as tributes from around the world poured in for the five people killed.

abc7.com

*Anyone want to give a description of this photo? C’mon, give it a shot

My genuine opinion?

Well, it's an Oceangate photo. It's not a photo of the Titan debris, it's the Titantic debris field, taken at an earlier time. I see a wine bottle, a large mug or maybe a chamberpot in the background. I see bits of wrought iron, steel cabling, large chunks of flat things that I'm assuming aren't steel because they're not rusty, but may be something like flooring material of some kind. Other small items I can't identify, but presumably are contemporaneous with the rest of the debris field.

It's not the Titan. It's the Titanic, and everything there has been there for over a hundred years, in my opinion.

We have heard that the Titan imploded half a kilometre away (horizontally) from the bow, far away from the original debris. Subs deliberately land in that zone because they know they're not going to crash into the wreckage, or get caught up on random scattered things.

I guess they wanted to show people what a debris field looks like, for want of an actual picture of the Titan debris.


MOO

EDIT: just worked out how to make it much bigger, and seen another wine bottle (green glass) and what's maybe a brandy or other spirit bottle (green glass) too. I'm sure I'll see more in the next few minutes. TITANIC, NOT TITAN.

 

[ilovewings]

Waivers may not shield OceanGate from lawsuits - legal experts​

Liability waivers signed by the five men on board the Titan may not shield OceanGate from potential lawsuits by their families, US legal experts tell Reuters news agency.

"If there were aspects of the design or construction of this vessel that were kept from the passengers or it was knowingly operated despite information that it was not suitable for this dive, that would absolutely go against the validity of the waiver," personal injury lawyer and maritime law expert Matthew Shaffer says.

Joseph Low, a personal injury lawyer from California, says: "There are so many different examples of what families might still have claims for despite the waivers, but until we know the cause we can't determine whether the waivers apply."

David Pogue, a reporter from CBS News, the BBC's partner in the US, made the trip with OceanGate last year and reported that the waiver he signed mentioned the possibility of death three times on the first page.

OceanGate could argue it was not grossly negligent and that the waivers apply because they fully described the inherent dangers of the dive, Reuters reports.

The degree of any potential negligence and how that might impact the applicability of the waivers will depend on the causes of the disaster, which are still under investigation.

Neither the BBC nor Reuters has seen the legal waivers the passengers were asked to agree.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464

I think the level of betrayal would depend on the customer group.

In this case, with the exception of the 19 year old, the customer group had very good knowledge of the inherent risks- and even cursory research would have revealed that the submerssible was not exactly uhmm.... built by Boeing.

In short, I dont think there was a betrayal. Rather, there was a high degree of risk that is also associated with cave diving, and extreme mountaineering.

Though I personally would never attempt those activities, I don't think that I would be betrayed if I responded to an advertisement offering guided scuba under water cave exploration to unique caverns.

Rather, the "scuba" and "underwater cave" component should tell me that this is not a Disney Adventure ride in regards to inherent safety.

OceanGate Was Warned of Potential for ‘Catastrophic’ Problems With Titanic Mission (Published 2023)

Experts inside and outside the company warned of potential dangers and urged the company to undergo a certification process.

www.nytimes.com

Please read this article: there are inherent risks and then there are risks regarding safety issues that passengers would most likely not have been aware of. Mr. Rush was aware of these safety concerns- this submersible was not certified or classified -he used materials that were not considered the highest or even the reasonable standard for this submersible. Had those passengers been aware of these issues, there is a good chance they would not have boarded this ship- as others had refused to do so due to safety concerns.

 

[PrairieWind]

How could that have been immediate when there was no search until after 6:26 pm?

I think this is all just the result of bad reporting. The Navy SOSUS system would have heard the implosion real time. But it wouldn't have been until after Ocean Gate made an announcement of the missing sub and matters were underway that the Navy would have gone back to the tapes to find the implosion sound and location and passed that on to the Coast Guard. The Navy would have had to get authorization to pass on that information first and that would take some time.

 

[ArianeEmory]

At least in the US, you can (generally) sue anyone for anything (assuming you aren’t dealing with one of those nasty little binding arbitration situations), but will this company actually have any assets to hand over? I can’t imagine they were insurable?

Really asking, not a lawyer.

 

[ilovewings]

Expert Who Begged Off a Titanic Sub Mission Saw an Implosion Coming

“It wouldn’t take much of a failure to cause an implosion, and it would have been instantaneous,” Robert Mester told The Daily Beast.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[cuffem]

I don't disagree with the families point of view as stated in the below story:​

​

‘Like Disneyland’: Titanic Families Blast ‘Disgusting’ Tours of Wreckage​

‘Like Disneyland’: Titanic Families Blast ‘Disgusting’ Tours of Wreckage

Families with relatives who died in or survived the 1912 Titanic disaster say the wreckage site is a “graveyard” that should be treated with respect—not as a travel destination.

www.thedailybeast.com

Agreed!
I swear I read somewhere where the company of this tourism stated they had the families blessing.

 

[Trebor5591]

Cbsnews.com/oceangate-safety-warnings-lawsuits/

Interesting article about an employee of Ocean gate named David Lochridge who was fired and counter sued due to safety issues with the Titan.

link doesn't work

 

[wary]

Agreed!
I swear I read somewhere where the company of this tourism stated they had the families blessing.

My understanding is that the wife of the CEO is a direct decendant of a husband & wife who died on the Titanic. (Look up Isador Strauss—it’s a very touching story.)

So I’m quite confident that he had her blessing. And her opinion is as important as anyone else’s.

 

[iamshadow21]

Agreed!
I swear I read somewhere where the company of this tourism stated they had the families blessing.

The thing is, one of the people in the article critical of the tourism is ALSO a great great grandchild of Ida and Isidor Straus, as Wendy Rush is, the wife of Stockton Rush, who is also Director of Communications of OceanGate who was doing these tours. There will be THOUSANDS of descendants of people who were on the Titantic out there, and you're never going to get a uniform consensus, and I think what is important about the article is that many of the people who spoke to the reporters in it who had family members who survived or didn't survive talked about the direct trauma of the wreck. What it did to their family members, the PTSD, the nightmares, the wounds it left, and how that still impacts them whenever the Titanic is in the news. We think because it's been over a hundred years and the last survivor has died, it's not part of living memory any more, but it is for these families, just as much as things like WW2 are on a broader scale. I don't think we can have discourse about this event without taking their wishes into consideration, whether we agree with them or not.

MOO

 

[fred&edna]

Has the OG waiver been shared here?

https://dam.tmz.com/document/b1/o/2023/06/22/b106a285e72448c3a7aef771402ffff0.pdf

 

[fred&edna]

I think it's strange there were many letters of concern written to Rushton but they were never sent. They did have a meeting with him later but why didn't they also send the letters? ETA: I suppose the letter-writers found it redundant to do both.

 

[iamshadow21]

Has the OG waiver been shared here?

https://dam.tmz.com/document/b1/o/2023/06/22/b106a285e72448c3a7aef771402ffff0.pdf

Talks more about things like slips and falls than the fact that you're going in a completely unrated, untested vessel.

Almost an entire page about how much you love and trust and will defend OceanGate but don't expect anything in return. (Not quite, but not far off.)

Hope The Bahamas court system is ready for a workout! They're going to be getting some business.

MOO

 

[fred&edna]

OceanGate's Liability Waiver Could Block Lawsuits, But Not for Gross Negligence

The document the 4 passengers signed before getting in the ill-fated submersible could prevent their families from filing a wrongful death lawsuit, but there's one big exception.

www.tmz.com

 

[fred&edna]

Talks more about things like slips and falls than the fact that you're going in a completely unrated, untested vessel.

Almost an entire page about how much you love and trust and will defend OceanGate but don't expect anything in return. (Not quite, but not far off.)

Hope The Bahamas court system is ready for a workout! They're going to be getting some business.

MOO

Page 1 Numbers 2 and 3 look pretty important to me. Focusing on "experimental", "not approved nor certified" specifically... sure doesn't sound like slips and falls. imo And, it even mentions the materials used in construction have not been widely used.

2. A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles.

3. When diving below the ocean surface this vessel will be subject to extreme pressure, and any failure of the vessel while I am aboard could cause severe injury or death. I understand that I may decline to participate in any dive below the ocean surface or any activity of the operation at any time.

 

[ch_13]

Page 1 Numbers 2 and 3 look pretty important to me. Focusing on "experimental", "not approved nor certified" specifically... sure doesn't sound like slips and falls. imo

2. A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles.

3. When diving below the ocean surface this vessel will be subject to extreme pressure, and any failure of the vessel while I am aboard could cause severe injury or death. I understand that I may decline to participate in any dive below the ocean surface or any activity of the operation at any time.

The text of the waiver may be undercut if Stockton was telling passengers it was safer than scuba diving and flying in a helicopter, like he texted Jay Bloom. Supposedly he even claimed the trip was safer than crossing the street!

Not that I think that there'll be anything left of OceanGate to sue anyways, but I wonder if statements like the above may expose Stockton's personal estate to litigation.

 

[fred&edna]

The text of the waiver may be undercut if Stockton was telling passengers it was safer than scuba diving and flying in a helicopter, like he texted Jay Bloom. Supposedly he even claimed it was safer than crossing the street!

Not that I think that there'll be anything left of OceanGate to sue anyways, but I wonder if statements like the above may expose Stockton's personal estate to litigation.

The lawsuits are going to happen one way or another... personal or otherwise, I have no doubt about that.

My opinion is... we each have a personal due diligence regarding the risks we take (assuming we have no mental deficiencies nor access to additional information). I know others disagree.

 

[iamshadow21]

Page 1 Numbers 2 and 3 look pretty important to me. Focusing on "experimental", "not approved nor certified" specifically... sure doesn't sound like slips and falls. imo And, it even mentions the materials used in construction have not been widely used.

2. A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles.

3. When diving below the ocean surface this vessel will be subject to extreme pressure, and any failure of the vessel while I am aboard could cause severe injury or death. I understand that I may decline to participate in any dive below the ocean surface or any activity of the operation at any time.

The slips and falls bit I mean is the dot point four and the big paragraph at the beginning of page two. Huge amount more page space devoted to the dangers of walking round a ship that has actually had some safety standards or randomly falling ill, far far more wordcount than to the actual submersible which is a dangerous unknown. That's all I meant.

MOO

 

[fred&edna]

The slips and falls bit I mean is the dot point four and the big paragraph at the beginning of page two. Huge amount more page space devoted to the dangers of walking round a ship that has actually had some safety standards or randomly falling ill, far far more wordcount than to the actual submersible which is a dangerous unknown. That's all I meant.

MOO

I understand. But, it seems to me the greatest risks to life (death) are on page 1 and the fact the vessel was experimental and not approved are clear.