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

[justtrish]

I keep thinking about Everest.
There are many potential routes besides the two most frequently climbed.
Most of the alternative routes have had more deaths than successes with many routes never successfully climbed.
K2 is another similar case. One's odds just aren't that good.

And yet, people still attempt to climb those routes - mostly experienced mountaineers.
And die.

Should they be prevented from doing so? Should expedition support companies be sued? IMO, no to both.
Could they get to the top of either using a more conventional approach with less risk? Yes.

I'll remain an armchair explorer. I don't like personal risk.
But I support people taking informed risks, even if the odds aren't good.

So were all the Titan explorers taking an informed risk? I think they probably were but that is MOO.

I understand that those climbing Everest or K2 are informed. I think the deaths from those attempting are very known and over the years people hear about them and when researching a climb, they can clearly make an informed decision on safety and on risks.

In the case of this submersible, did they really know there was increased risk because this vessel wasn't safe and there were known issues with it's safety?

 

[PrairieWind]

In the interview with Suleman Dawood's mother, she said that Suleman had long wanted to go on a submersible dive to see the Titanic, but that OceanGate did not allow passengers under 18 years of age. And when Suleman first became eligible, it was when Covid hit and Titan's trips were postponed.

So it is interesting that MIR took a 13 year old on a submersible dive to the Titanic in 2005.



edited for clarity

I doubt Russia has the same laws as the west in regards to liability and responsibility.

 

[Sundog]

I doubt Russia has the same laws as the west in regards to liability and responsibility.

Agree, of course, but I wonder where MIR submersibles were operating from. They would have launched in the U.S. or Canada, I assume. So U.S. or Canadian law may still be applicable in some manner. Even though they were heading out to international waters from a U.S. or Canadian launch site.

 

[Warwick1991]

OceanGate CEO Bragged About Using Expired Carbon Fiber [from Boeing Aircraft] to Build Doomed Submarine​

"Arnie Weissman, editor-in-chief of Travel Weekly, initially agreed to join the June expedition, the Washington Post reports, but backed out at the last minute due to a scheduling conflict. A May dive he was supposed to go on also was canceled due to bad weather.

A conversation he had with OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush the night before the expedition, however, still haunts him to this day.

According to Weissman, Rush had bought the carbon fiber used to make the Titan "at a big discount from Boeing," because "it was past its shelf life for use in airplanes.""

MSN

In the same Washington Post article linked within the MSN article, Boeing denies selling OceanGate any carbon fiber material. It is possible that the carbon fiber was purchased from a broker or scrap facility, but that is an unknown. I think Rush mentioned Boeing to exaggerate the grade or qualitative characteristics of the carbon fiber. As I think about Boeing, I find it hard to believe that they would dispose of any expired material in this way. Also, I'm skeptical that Boeing even used the same type of carbon fiber. It seems that Rush was not truthful about many things.

 

[PrairieWind]

Agree, of course, but I wonder where MIR submersibles were operating from. They would have launched in the U.S. or Canada, I assume. So U.S. or Canadian law may still be applicable in some manner. Even though they were heading out to international waters from a U.S. or Canadian launch site.

Even assuming they visited a US or Canadian port first, I 'm not sure that puts them under those nation's laws for liability purposes. certainly anyone can make that claim and even keep it in court, but does it really do you any good? Not really. Did the MIR operate off a Canadian ship like the Titan did? That could rope in the owners of the support ship perhaps.

 

[JDG]

US Navy rules out using heavy-duty salvage tool to retrieve the Titan

The submersible which discovered the Titan vessel's wreckage has completed four more search dives at the site - but the Navy has ruled out using its most advanced deep sea recovery tool.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Kingsley]

I understand that those climbing Everest or K2 are informed. I think the deaths from those attempting are very known and over the years people hear about them and when researching a climb, they can clearly make an informed decision on safety and on risks.

In the case of this submersible, did they really know there was increased risk because this vessel wasn't safe and there were known issues with it's safety?

Yeah, that is the the first question. Was the waiver sufficient to say that they were informed? Was their experience sufficient to say that they were informed.

MOO, is that the owner was truthful -- and, as much as I hate the phrase -- wrt "his truth". I don't think that he lied. JMO. I also don't think he was a cautious person.

It also appears that the vessel was redesigned at least once and that the trips were regularly cancelled due to mechanical failure or weather. So I reject the claim by many (outside of this forum) that the owner completely ignored safety considerations. I think he chose risk over cost more than most, though.

I know that there were known issues wrt processes (certification, retesting, etc.) and the use of carbon fiber materials. The waiver says:
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.

Additionally, I think most people in most professions (software, medicine, manufacturing, etc) understand the idea of professional best practice and what deviating from this means.

So, superficially, I think that yes, they were informed. BUT, I still think that Stockton was way overconfident. His confidence was contagious. It is this that I have a problem with.

The second question is whether such experimentation should be banned. If people want to do deep sea dives, climb alt routes on Everest, kiss a grizzly, I personally feel that they shouldn't be prevented. If people don't feel that they can't be more successful than those before us, we don't advance. I guess I just am pushing back on disallowing people to do risky things.

Sorry for the ramble. I admit to mixed feelings overall, mostly because of the sad outcome.

 

[10ofRods]

I do not see a good guy/bad guy situation either. I see a somewhat cavalier and charismatic entrepreneur who reminds me of other people I've known who do what I call "running solo."

They do not surround themselves with top notch (and mutually self-checking experts). A good team has many different points of view and yes, that complicates things. I see this sometimes in solo practitioners in law or medicine. It's just a personal bias of mine. I apply it to many things (including journalism - articles that are previewed and commented upon by competent journalists are better than ones written in haste by a stringer with only a headline editor and no fact checking).

Fact checking and analysis of physical materials is crucial in new science, IMO. And not just reading about carbon fiber, or putting in an order to make something out of carbon fiber. They needed to actually have at least one true carbon fiber expert on the team (not just someone who reads papers, but also experiments, goes to conventions, visits the manufacturing process in various places and keeps up on all new ways of testing). I'd also want another person who had the physics or mechanical engineering chops to head up an intermediate sized materials lab (yes, I would insist on NDT and plan my underwater vehicle accordingly).

I think inviting other humans onto my experimental submersible/car/kite/whatever would be highly irresponsible. I think Rush was told this by more than one person. He did not listen. Instead, he kept recruiting and taking money from passengers. He wanted what he wanted (for himself). His own sense of risk management was not highly developed and he clearly made the major decisions for this expedition, on his own.

IMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

Yeah, that is the the first question. Was the waiver sufficient to say that they were informed? Was their experience sufficient to say that they were informed.

MOO, is that the owner was truthful -- and, as much as I hate the phrase -- wrt "his truth". I don't think that he lied. JMO. I also don't think he was a cautious person.

It also appears that the vessel was redesigned at least once and that the trips were regularly cancelled due to mechanical failure or weather. So I reject the claim by many (outside of this forum) that the owner completely ignored safety considerations. I think he chose risk over cost more than most, though.

I know that there were known issues wrt processes (certification, retesting, etc.) and the use of carbon fiber materials. The waiver says:
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.

Additionally, I think most people in most professions (software, medicine, manufacturing, etc) understand the idea of professional best practice and what deviating from this means.

So, superficially, I think that yes, they were informed. BUT, I still think that Stockton was way overconfident. His confidence was contagious. It is this that I have a problem with.

The second question is whether such experimentation should be banned. If people want to do deep sea dives, climb alt routes on Everest, kiss a grizzly, I personally feel that they shouldn't be prevented. If people don't feel that they can't be more successful than those before us, we don't advance. I guess I just am pushing back on disallowing people to do risky things.

Sorry for the ramble. I admit to mixed feelings overall, mostly because of the sad outcome.

Quote:
"The second question is whether such experimentation should be banned. "

Actually what OceanGate did is banned.
Well in many Countries including the USA.

To take on tourists the vessel must meet certain official certifications and Titan did not meet these.
To get around this, Titan launched off Canada because Canada doesn't have the tourist requirements that we in the USA have.

There were other ways OceanGate got around the regulations, such as the company being registered in the Bahamas.

I'm going off of memory here so anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

2 Cents

 

[ArianeEmory]

Randomly: 17 people died trying to summit Everest this year. Worst year on record. Obviously it doesn’t capture the public attention the same way. But there are also no multinational rescue attempts.

(Just bringing it up because people keep mentioning Everest.)

 

[Warwick1991]

I do not see a good guy/bad guy situation either. I see a somewhat cavalier and charismatic entrepreneur who reminds me of other people I've known who do what I call "running solo."

They do not surround themselves with top notch (and mutually self-checking experts). A good team has many different points of view and yes, that complicates things. I see this sometimes in solo practitioners in law or medicine. It's just a personal bias of mine. I apply it to many things (including journalism - articles that are previewed and commented upon by competent journalists are better than ones written in haste by a stringer with only a headline editor and no fact checking).

Fact checking and analysis of physical materials is crucial in new science, IMO. And not just reading about carbon fiber, or putting in an order to make something out of carbon fiber. They needed to actually have at least one true carbon fiber expert on the team (not just someone who reads papers, but also experiments, goes to conventions, visits the manufacturing process in various places and keeps up on all new ways of testing). I'd also want another person who had the physics or mechanical engineering chops to head up an intermediate sized materials lab (yes, I would insist on NDT and plan my underwater vehicle accordingly).

I think inviting other humans onto my experimental submersible/car/kite/whatever would be highly irresponsible. I think Rush was told this by more than one person. He did not listen. Instead, he kept recruiting and taking money from passengers. He wanted what he wanted (for himself). His own sense of risk management was not highly developed and he clearly made the major decisions for this expedition, on his own.

IMO.

It is rather critical that Rush was an aeronautical engineer, and not a naval architect. At least from what I've seen, there was no naval architect involved in the design. Submersibles are a specialty, and Rush did not have any specialists working with him. That's equivalent to building a bridge without a structural engineer.

A naval architect experienced in submersibles would have modeled the hull design on a computer, simulating the loads. It would have been immediately apparent that carbon fiber was not suitable for hull operating at such depths. The lack of suitability of carbon fiber should have ruled out this material.

 

[Cool Cats]

Randomly: 17 people died trying to summit Everest this year. Worst year on record. Obviously it doesn’t capture the public attention the same way. But there are also no multinational rescue attempts.

(Just bringing it up because people keep mentioning Everest.)

Worst year?

No kidding? WOW

UnFing believable.

I used to follow the worst disasters on Everest and just saw a photo of the massive overcrowding going up Everest this year.

We need a thread for this kind of thing. For these high risk "sports."

Anyone?

 

[BUF]

A company that certifies marine vessels told CNN on Friday it declined a request from OceanGate to certify Titan four years ago.

Lloyd’s Register, a marine certification company, did not say why it declined to work with OceanGate on what is typically a lengthy, expensive process to certify a vessel.

The two companies came together in 2019 for Titan’s first depth dive. At the time, OceanGate put out a news release saying the dive “was validated by a representative from Lloyd’s Register.” While it invoked the name of the certification agency, OceanGate did not say the submersible had been certified, just that the dive itself had been verified.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/us/submersible-titanic-implosion-deaths-friday/index.html

 

[PrairieWind]

It is rather critical that Rush was an aeronautical engineer, and not a naval architect. At least from what I've seen, there was no naval architect involved in the design. Submersibles are a specialty, and Rush did not have any specialists working with him. That's equivalent to building a bridge without a structural engineer.

A naval architect experienced in submersibles would have modeled the hull design on a computer, simulating the loads. It would have been immediately apparent that carbon fiber was not suitable for hull operating at such depths. The lack of suitability of carbon fiber should have ruled out this material.

I'm not sure who designed and actually build the Titan. Have we seen that? Rush was an engineer, so he should have known what he didnt know. The sub worked and got down to the Titanic how many times? Tow dozen times or so? I suspect once it went down once and survived, it totally bolstered Rush. But it only worked until it didn't.

 

[PrairieWind]

Are their other entities offering trips down to Titanic? If so, who, what do they charge, and what are their submersibles like?

 

[Sundog]

dbm

 

[Sundog]

According to Wikipedia, in 2005 the Mir submersible launched a private expedition to the Titanic from St. John's, Newfoundland and Mir launched off of a Russian research ship named Keldysh. This must have been the submersible that the 12-year old was on and who won place in the Guiness Book of Records for youngest person to visit the Titanic remains aboard a submersible.

It looks like the Russian research ship Keldysh had a partnership/agreement signed in 1998 to do deep ocean research with Canada. But the 2005 sub dive with the 12 year old was a private expedition, seven years after the research ship signed an agreement/partnership with Canada.

Canada, Russia to probe deep oceans in joint venture - UPI Archives

A Canadian marine research company Thursday signed a 10-year, $200 million joint venture agreement with a Russian science institute for deep-ocean research.

www.upi.com

edited to add link

 

[Sundog]

Are their other entities offering trips down to Titanic? If so, who, what do they charge and what are their submersibles like?

Yes, last week one of the owners of a Titanic submersive company was interviewed by MSM and he made it clear that he uses only certified and tested equipment, etc. I didn't catch the name of his company. I am guessing there are other companies out there that offer the same services, but hopefully are above board regarding certification, testing and retesting, etc.

 

[LinasK]

Quote:
"The second question is whether such experimentation should be banned. "

Actually what OceanGate did is banned.
Well in many Countries including the USA.

To take on tourists the vessel must meet certain official certifications and Titan did not meet these.
To get around this, Titan launched off Canada because Canada doesn't have the tourist requirements that we in the USA have.

There were other ways OceanGate got around the regulations, such as the company being registered in the Bahamas.

I'm going off of memory here so anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

2 Cents

You are correct about the part as to why they launched from Canada rather than the US. I posted an article about it.

 

[Cool Cats]

You are correctd about the part as to why they launched from Canada rather than the US. I posted an article about it.

Thanks! I remember learning it from this thread so it must be from your post.