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

[Snail-Overlord]

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.

IMO, OceanGate purposefully misled the public into thinking their vessels are safer than they actually are. That’s the biggest problem I have with it

 

[Snail-Overlord]

The submersible needs to be pressurized. If it was depressurized, the pressure inside the sub would match the external pressure under water - resulting in death for all aboard.

My bad! I am obviously not well versed in physics lol

 

[fred&edna]

Of course I believe that everyone has to do their personal due diligence. But one can only do so much diligence and at some point you have to trust that you're not being led astray.

In hindsight it's easy to say that the passengers should have been alarmed that the sub was built from carbon fiber and it wasn't certified. Or maybe they should have checked around the deep sub community to see what kind of reputation Rush had. But on the other hand, the voyages to the Titanic were being written up in the NY Times and Smithsonian Magazine. The OceanGate board of directors included retired admirals and astronauts. There was a legendary Titanic diver associated with the project. The CEO was telling people that this was as safe as crossing the street. Is it really surprising if the passengers felt reassured and didn't dig further?

Case in point: Not that long ago, I took a rafting trip with an outfitter. I checked their reviews on Yelp and TripAdvisor and they were fairly positive. Was that sufficient? Should I have asked them questions about the conditions of their rafts and what materials they were made of? Should I have investigated if they were ever sued? Should I have confirmed that their state license was in good order? Should I have called the local chamber of commerce and asked about their reputation? How much due diligence is enough?

Traveling 12000 ft below sea level in an experimental vessel seems to suggest further research/due diligence would be required... again, it's not like an amusement park ride, zip-lining nor anything similar. jmo

 

[ch_13]

Traveling 12000 ft below sea level in an experimental vessel seems to suggest further research/due diligence... again, it's not like an amusement park ride nor anything similar. jmo

Looks like I was editing my comment at the same time you were posting, so let me paste in my edit here...

---

Edit - Let me add that my perspective on this has shifted somewhat since seeing those Jay Bloom texts. Stockton Rush was definitely underplaying the risks to his potential customers. He made this voyage to the bottom of the ocean in a largely untested 'exploratory' vehicle seem like a jaunt in the park. Maybe the passengers should have seen through him, but I bet he was a charismatic and convincing salesman.

 

[10ofRods]

Can't one use personal due diligence to weigh the risks of the "possible" charismatic schmoozer? The adventure seekers had plenty of time to decide whether to believe Rushton (or not).

Sure, although a huge percentage of people have personalities or conditions that make them more susceptible. Not a fan of individual humans deciding, for example, who is a good neurosurgeon. Not interested at all in whether other people find a particular person to be expert; I want experts and data. I think I may be unusual.

Among the many conditions who are susceptible to those who are charismatic grifters there are personality disorders, neurological issues (particularly autism), mood conditions (particularly depression).

That's why we have laws. We do not allow charismatic grifters to practice medicine without a license (if they are caught they are punished; if a person suspects someone is unlicensed, they have ample legal recourse). We do not allow people to pretend to be high school teachers just because they are charismatic (it's tried, a lot, and people even forge documents). Instead, we have approved systems of acquiring test scores, licensing information and educational documentation that is received in ways that make it hard to forge (this is true where I live - not at all true everywhere in the world).

Personal due diligence, unless it includes the ability to read expert literature, is not going to help a person decide whether a seagoing vessel is seaworthy. I wouldn't have the first clue about how to assess a possible cruise ship, or its captain and crew, much less a submarine. OceanGate apparently lied on its website (according to the letter posted here from the submersible/submarine licensing agency). It never sought licensing or approval, it never had licensing or approval.

This is similar to your doctor (who has privately studied medicine and knows quite a bit) having printed out their diplomas (forgeries) and put them up on the wall.

How would you know that until some kind of malpractice occurred? There's no easy way to check if those diplomas are real. We trust in others (some of us trust too much, some of us are fairly paranoid - WSers tend to be concerned and wanting more facts, but very few of us could tell whether a doctor is who they say they are - even getting records about disciplinary action from the state level is something that isn't immediately intuitive. Trusting on-line doctor ranking systems is even more futile (shady doctors write their own responses)

Would you be okay with having to do due diligence about every teacher, doctor, etc.? Product liability law fortunately

There are other elements as well. With airline pilots, there is random drug and alcohol testing. I like that. I like knowing my pilot is likely sober. With airline pilots, there's a co-pilot who is also tested. The two are supposed to observe and report each other. I like that too.

But when I get on the plane, I could still be harmed by the negligence or lack of sobriety of a particular pilot - and that's not something my personal due diligence could never uncover. If I died because of pilot error, no waiver of liability would stop my heirs from successfully suing and settling a case with the airline. But my personal due diligence would not be able to stop that.

We need regulatory commissions. We (the US) have them. CEO Rush evaded them.

Having licensing does not stop people like Rush from going offshore. We probably need better messaging around offshore enterprises. I bet these billionaires would not have put their fortunes into a bank in a not-quite-a-nation offshore entity (like Bank of Metohija - most would not put a large sum there).

But I bet not even one of the passengers realized this was a flagless vessel (the Titan - it flew under the banner of a flagged vessel, the Polar Prince) operating in and around international waters (so very difficult to regulate).

They knew it was dangerous, but they didn't know there was no regulation or licensing or inspection or, even, ownership of the Titan (it was built from stuff purchased separately; there was no registration of it or specific ownership of it, except that OceanGate claimed that it (a non-profit) owned it.

I bet the universities and others who donated to get their logo on the homepage at OceanGate are feeling pretty awkward today. What is missing, of course, is any evidence of national registration or, more important, licensing of the vehicle (there are 12 other deep sea-going tubes that are registered; Titan is the only one that wasn't).

IMO.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I actually didn’t know much about the Titanic before this, never saw the movie, etc. So I’m doing a lot of catch-up today. I didn’t realize 1) just how many manned dives have taken place to the site (I knew about James Cameron and Ballard but that’s it), and 2) how many THOUSANDS of artifacts have been looted from the site over the years. I say “looted”, because while part of me thinks at least some of this stuff should be preserved for historical reasons, the items I’m referring to were merely snatched up and later auctioned off. I was looking at some ~2010 wreck footage and wondering why there wasn’t much in the way of these odds and ends like wine bottles and other items I see people mentioning, and I guess it’s because it all got looted.

So, now I’m also annoyed and am going to go eat some chocolate.

 

[crhedBngr]

Can someone explain how John Cameron and “the community” knew Titan had dropped the ascent weights and was trying to ascend?

My bolding:

Cameron told ABC News that he believes the Titan's hull began to crack under pressure, and that its inside censors gave the passengers a warning to that effect.

"We understand from inside the community that they had dropped their ascent weights and they were coming up, trying to manage an emergency," he said.

James Cameron says the Titan passengers probably knew the submersible was in trouble

The <em>Titanic</em> director has made 33 dives to the shipwreck and visited ocean depths in a submersible he built himself. He compares OceanGate to the Titanic in that both ignored safety warnings.

www.wbur.org

RBBM

IIRC, Titan sent up a distress signal when she was 1 hour and 45 minutes into her descent; that's the only verified communication at this point.

We may never know if Titan dropped the ascent weights and was trying to ascend. Nor do we know if Titan's inside censors actually existed, and if the occupants actually received a warning from them.

JMVHO.

 

[fred&edna]

Looks like I was editing my comment at the same time you were posting, so let me paste in my edit here...

---

Edit - Let me add that my perspective on this has shifted somewhat since seeing those Jay Bloom texts. Stockton Rush was definitely underplaying the risks to his potential customers. He made this voyage to the bottom of the ocean in a largely untested 'exploratory' vehicle seem like a jaunt in the park. Maybe the passengers should have seen through him, but I bet he was a charismatic and convincing salesman.

Maybe he (Rushton) was the best of the best of fraudsters schmoozing the rich? Was he such an amazing fraudster he was willing to take his own life and the life of his friend with him to death... is that what fraudsters usually do??

It's extremely heartbreaking that such a well-respected, liked, educated, and world-traveled man like Dawood and his son lost their lives. I wonder if Dawood sought the advice of any board members and friends about the excursion?? I think a co-member of SETI, Inc mentioned in an article (I posted many pages back) that Dawood told him about this trip and how excited he was.

https://www.engrofoundation.com/our_team/shahzada-dawood

 

[fred&edna]

Some people are much more trusting of others. Some people are walking, talking fraudsters.

Life can be scary depending on the risks we take.

 

[10ofRods]

Hagle Lawsuit | PDF

via Orange County Clerk of Court

www.scribd.com

Hagles' Suit Against Rush | PDF | Damages | Virginia Circuit Court

Hagles' suit against Rush

www.scribd.com

Good find! Thanks to the guy who uploaded that - and thanks to you for finding it. I assume MSM is also aware. There needs to be a book written about this. And a podcast (will reach more people).

The young man who told his friend not to go (the other father/son duo) must have mad internet skills. So cool that they were discouraged from going and backed out. I sure hope that the deceased weren't looped into this by offers of discounts (as attempted in the lawsuit you posted - the very fact that the CEO went to their house and tried to wiggle out of the contract is deplorable).

IMO.

James Cameron has been liaising with the deep sea diving community ... perhaps there is some overlap with this community and the rescuers. So he has heard about the position of the debris.

Eg:
"Cameron connected with people he knows in the deep-sea diving community and was told the submersible had lost communication and tracking simultaneously"
"Cameron, who directed the hit 1997 film “Titanic” and has made 33 dives to the Titanic wreckage, said he then talked with other people and “got confirmation that there was some kind of loud noise that was consistent with an implosion event.” "

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/23/us/james-cameron-titan-submersible-ac360-interview/index.html

Thank you so much. I hadn't realized he was involving himself real time (good for him). Of course, the tracking pings and "communication" were, to my knowledge, the same thing. That's another big question I have. AFAIK, the pings hit the Polar Prince every 15 minutes, assuring those above that all was well below. There was no voice communication otherwise. Maybe the second word means "the messages sent by the Polar Prince were not being received" (like when a text message fails to go through). That alone should have clued the people on the PPrince that something catastrophic happened (if true).

IMO.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The truth is that very few manned submersibles go down to the Titanic anymore. It was common from the 80s through to the early 2000s, but from about 2005 until about 2019 (my dates might be slightly off) there wasn't a single known manned visit to the wreck. Everything was done with Remotely Operated Vehicles aka ROVs.

For people who desperately want to visit the wreck, options are limited--the Titan was pretty much the only sub that still went down there. That means no matter how high the risk, there are some who would have chosen to take it.

 

[Cryptic]

IMO, OceanGate purposefully misled the public into thinking their vessels are safer than they actually are. That’s the biggest problem I have with it

I can agree to that in the general sense.

To his credit, however, the designer did not make any claims of having received safety certificates etc. Rather, he was pretty open about his beliefs that he found some regulations to be uhmm.... "cumbersome". Nor did he claim that the vessel was built or designed with oversight from say, a major cooperation.

The very nature of the proposed trip and the extensive waiver the passengers were required to sign should have alerted anyone that the thrill activity had far more in common with cave diving than it did with Six Flags.

In short, at some point people are responsible for their own choices regarding risky activity. With one possible exception, the passengers were all very astute people.

 

[Ursamajr]

WFLA still has live coverage and has experts answering questions.
Debrief: OceanGate Titan Submersible Tragedy | Unanswered sub questions with #HeyJB, special guests

 

[Gardenista]

OceanGate Patent

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/72/05/0c/3999841d9ccaf9/US11119071.pdf

 

[ilovewings]

Sure, although a huge percentage of people have personalities or conditions that make them more susceptible. Not a fan of individual humans deciding, for example, who is a good neurosurgeon. Not interested at all in whether other people find a particular person to be expert; I want experts and data. I think I may be unusual.

Among the many conditions who are susceptible to those who are charismatic grifters there are personality disorders, neurological issues (particularly autism), mood conditions (particularly depression).

That's why we have laws. We do not allow charismatic grifters to practice medicine without a license (if they are caught they are punished; if a person suspects someone is unlicensed, they have ample legal recourse). We do not allow people to pretend to be high school teachers just because they are charismatic (it's tried, a lot, and people even forge documents). Instead, we have approved systems of acquiring test scores, licensing information and educational documentation that is received in ways that make it hard to forge (this is true where I live - not at all true everywhere in the world).

Personal due diligence, unless it includes the ability to read expert literature, is not going to help a person decide whether a seagoing vessel is seaworthy. I wouldn't have the first clue about how to assess a possible cruise ship, or its captain and crew, much less a submarine. OceanGate apparently lied on its website (according to the letter posted here from the submersible/submarine licensing agency). It never sought licensing or approval, it never had licensing or approval.

This is similar to your doctor (who has privately studied medicine and knows quite a bit) having printed out their diplomas (forgeries) and put them up on the wall.

How would you know that until some kind of malpractice occurred? There's no easy way to check if those diplomas are real. We trust in others (some of us trust too much, some of us are fairly paranoid - WSers tend to be concerned and wanting more facts, but very few of us could tell whether a doctor is who they say they are - even getting records about disciplinary action from the state level is something that isn't immediately intuitive. Trusting on-line doctor ranking systems is even more futile (shady doctors write their own responses)

Would you be okay with having to do due diligence about every teacher, doctor, etc.? Product liability law fortunately

There are other elements as well. With airline pilots, there is random drug and alcohol testing. I like that. I like knowing my pilot is likely sober. With airline pilots, there's a co-pilot who is also tested. The two are supposed to observe and report each other. I like that too.

But when I get on the plane, I could still be harmed by the negligence or lack of sobriety of a particular pilot - and that's not something my personal due diligence could never uncover. If I died because of pilot error, no waiver of liability would stop my heirs from successfully suing and settling a case with the airline. But my personal due diligence would not be able to stop that.

We need regulatory commissions. We (the US) have them. CEO Rush evaded them.

Having licensing does not stop people like Rush from going offshore. We probably need better messaging around offshore enterprises. I bet these billionaires would not have put their fortunes into a bank in a not-quite-a-nation offshore entity (like Bank of Metohija - most would not put a large sum there).

But I bet not even one of the passengers realized this was a flagless vessel (the Titan - it flew under the banner of a flagged vessel, the Polar Prince) operating in and around international waters (so very difficult to regulate).

They knew it was dangerous, but they didn't know there was no regulation or licensing or inspection or, even, ownership of the Titan (it was built from stuff purchased separately; there was no registration of it or specific ownership of it, except that OceanGate claimed that it (a non-profit) owned it.

I bet the universities and others who donated to get their logo on the homepage at OceanGate are feeling pretty awkward today. What is missing, of course, is any evidence of national registration or, more important, licensing of the vehicle (there are 12 other deep sea-going tubes that are registered; Titan is the only one that wasn't).

IMO.

Once again you got to the essence of the situation! It isnt pretty

 

[MsMarple]

RBBM

IIRC, Titan sent up a distress signal when she was 1 hour and 45 minutes into her descent; that's the only verified communication at this point.

We may never know if Titan dropped the ascent weights and was trying to ascend. Nor do we know if Titan's inside censors actually existed, and if the occupants actually received a warning from them.

JMVHO.

Ah, okay, thanks! I wasn’t aware that the distress signal had been verified. I thought the support ship simply lost contact, which is why they delayed reporting to the Coast Guard for so long. Apparently they had lost contact in the past.

 

[iamshadow21]

The Titan sub mystery unfolded in unimaginable horror. For those on board, it was over in a moment

As investigators try to understand what went wrong, many are questioning why the vessel, known as the Titan, was there in the first place.

The company behind the "experimental" sub had reportedly been warned about safety concerns but still took passengers to the depths of the North Atlantic.

More than a century ago, the sinking of the Titanic served as a wake-up call for the maritime sector.

The question now is whether lessons will be learned in the wake of another tragedy.

 

[crhedBngr]

OceanGate Patent

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/72/05/0c/3999841d9ccaf9/US11119071.pdf

Thank you.

JMVHO.

 

[Snail-Overlord]

Traveling 12000 ft below sea level in an experimental vessel seems to suggest further research/due diligence would be required... again, it's not like an amusement park ride, zip-lining nor anything similar. jmo

It’s hard to put myself in their places because I am too much of a chicken to do something as extreme as going in a submarine, yet I have been zip-lining and rode rollercoasters; there definitely is a big difference in the level of fearlessness required. But I can easily see how something like this might get by them when the are dealing with a large corporation that is continually reassuring them that the trip will be safe. They aren’t behind the scenes literally working on things, so everything they hear about OceanGate is going to be secondhand. And they more than likely spent quite a lot of time talking to OceanGate planning this trip, with OceanGate calming any fears they may have had.

The problem, IMO, isn’t the inherent danger of going on an underwater excursion. It’s the fact that OceanGate didn’t have the proper equipment to safely complete such an excursion, yet reassured the public that it was perfectly safe. They didn’t outwardly acknowledge that there were potential safety problems, instead framing their lack of willingness to undergo a safety inspection as “innovative” and not related to the actual safety of the ship.

This wasn’t just some random guy with a submarine. OceanGate presented themselves as a legitimate and reputable company to the public.

I obviously don’t know at this point but I I suspect we’ll be hearing some more stuff pretty soon that may not make OceanGate look that great.

MOO

 

[Cryptic]

I didn’t realize 1) just how many manned dives have taken place to the site (I knew about James Cameron and Ballard but that’s it), and 2) how many THOUSANDS of artifacts have been looted from the site over the years.

Then factor in that Titanic is a grave site for over 1,000 people.

As a side note, the German government makes official complaints to countries that permit diving on war graves when divers are known to be exploring sunken German ships (usually U boats).

The deadliest passenger loss in history was the Wilhelm Gustloff (9,000 or more Germans, mostly civilians, lost their lives while attempting to flee the very unforgiving Soviets in the closing months of WWII).

The wreck / grave is close to shore and is monitored by the Polish coast guard. Not only is diving on the wreck illegal, but so is even sending robots down for photos etc.