[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

For all the comparisons and regulations discussion about Titanic or military submarines, isn't this particular one more like a recreational/experimental sub that is neither military nor commercial.

It is not a submarine. It is a submersible. So it never actually sails in or out of a port. It doesn’t qualify under any international shipping regulation. Submersible, at best can be registered and must comply with the country they are registered. But on international waters local rules do not apply

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

There is such a thing as an EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon). It is released from a boat in case of sinking, or carried in a lifeboat/liferaft. Could Titan not have had one, externally, that would be released in case of emergency/disaster?

This is my thinking as a possible why-not:- Being a sealed box containing a radio transmitter, it could not withstand the pressures and would implode on decent or explode on ascent. Is there an engineering way around that? could it be filled with oil or some other fluid/solid less dense than water?

As far as I know, but far from being an expert, there are no EPIRBS as such for submarines. Submarines do have communication buoys they can launch, attached with a wire in some cases. Not sure if anything like that is commercially available of the shelve. I am not sure from what sort of depth they can be used.

But then again, bear in mind most (naval) submarine don’t go much below 400-500 meters depth. The Titan was at almost 4000 meters depth. Everything must be custom designed and tested for those sort of depths.

Jeroen

[SNA411]

https://twitter.com/thepakwolf/statu...56820208877578

Atleast it was fast, rather than watching the oxygen run out, like a ticking clock

[NiInJa]

I still don’t understand the point of going at the bottom of the ocean just to see a wreck, that has disintegrated badly. It’s not like you can touch and feel or smell anything, or take a stroll down the vast huge lobby. There are some ultra high definition recordings of the wreckage that one can watch for free on youtube.
Off topic:

Had a chance to visit the Titanic museum in Belfast, which also has one of the smaller ships which used to carry passengers to the Titanic, it all hit me real hard and I couldn’t focus for a few hours. I thought I had seen enough already and the last section (which plays sounds and creates the effect of panic and eventuality) had a very sad vibe to it. A great museum though.

[GKR9900]

Came across the following video in Youtube. The guy here was supposed to go on a previous mission aboard the Titan a few days prior to the tragedy, but the dive was cancelled due to bad weather and technical issues. Talk about dodging a bullet! The video showcases his experience with Oceangate, their CEO and other staff. All said and done, they come across as an incredibly passionate bunch of individuals and it's really sad that it had to end this way. Really well-made video, do give it a watch:

https://youtu.be/O-8U08yJlb8

[AirbusCapt]

My two cents:

Carbon fibre by its nature is a blended composite structure. Its stress points and points of failure cannot be measured unlike metals like steel or titanium. The standard checks (ultrasound) to measure cracks or cavities in metals doesnt work well on carbon fibre. Also metals have a predictable failure path, however carbon fibre can shatter suddenly and immediately. Thats why turbine blades are still titanium and never carbon fibre.
A pressure vessel is always made with titanium or steel blended alloys, this was probably the first vessal made using carbon composites. Also after multiple dives, they made no attempts to test the structure.
In my opinion the owners must be tried for murder.

[silverado]

As investigation continues to find the reason, one important question has arised in media, who should pay for the search and rescue for such missions?

I would be interested to know if they had any insurance for such a mission, i highly doubt since this was not a classified/certified vessel.

In such a scenario general public money is being spent to rescue adventure seekers which raises a question , whether its acceptable on human grounds or the person seeking adventure should be liable to pay for his/her rescue?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

Also after multiple dives, they made no attempts to test the structure.

Could they have been of the opinion that every dive was such a test, whereas every drive was actually stressing the vessel? I'm not even an engineer, but I think I might have reasoned better that that!

Originally Posted by silverado

As investigation continues to find the reason, one important question has arised in media, who should pay for the search and rescue for such missions?

It is a bit of a grey area. I have always admired that, even the lone yachtsman in trouble might have expensive resources given to them.

On the other hand, for commercial operations, it becomes a mix of humanitarian action given free, and the commercial world of salvage.

I would be interested to know if they had any insurance for such a mission, i highly doubt since this was not a classified/certified vessel.

I can't imagine that any sane underwriter would cover this very high risk!

In such a scenario general public money is being spent to rescue adventure seekers which raises a question , whether its acceptable on human grounds or the person seeking adventure should be liable to pay for his/her rescue?

Headline writers who think to the contrary love to produce large numbers for the cost. Some of that does not take into account the fixed costs of resources.

Also, my opinion is that, where military operations are involved, this should not be seen as a cost issue because the best training is getting out there doing real stuff.

[ashis89]

Originally Posted by silverado

As investigation continues to find the reason, one important question has arised in media, who should pay for the search and rescue for such missions?

I would be interested to know if they had any insurance for such a mission, i highly doubt since this was not a classified/certified vessel.

In such a scenario general public money is being spent to rescue adventure seekers which raises a question , whether its acceptable on human grounds or the person seeking adventure should be liable to pay for his/her rescue?

If we talk of fishermen stuck in sea during inclement weather and the Navy rescues them using copters, will it be considered fair? What if the fishermen were informed of the weather and yet, ignored the warnings and ventured out? What about multi day rescue operations carried out by Forces to rescue the baby stuck in the open borewell? Will the borewell owner be able to pay for an operation of such scale? IMO, there's no right or wrong answer here and humanitarian instincts prevails.

Edit: where it doesn't prevail, tragedy like that in Greece, occurs.

[Turbanator]

Good read about the owner of Titan

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66014565

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Could they have been of the opinion that every dive was such a test, whereas every drive was actually stressing the vessel? I'm not even an engineer, but I think I might have reasoned better that that!


It is a bit of a grey area. I have always admired that, even the lone yachtsman in trouble might have expensive resources given to them.

On the other hand, for commercial operations, it becomes a mix of humanitarian action given free, and the commercial world of salvage.

I can't imagine that any sane underwriter would cover this very high risk!

Headline writers who think to the contrary love to produce large numbers for the cost. Some of that does not take into account the fixed costs of resources.

Also, my opinion is that, where military operations are involved, this should not be seen as a cost issue because the best training is getting out there doing real stuff.

Sir, a test conducted with paying passengers on board? Calls for both a civil and a criminal suit.

[thanixravindran]

As fas as I know, Sovereign Governments are expected to take care and support their citizens in distress irrespective of their status and/or their actions. It is just based on the value of human life (in case they are alive) or dignified last rites (in case of inevitable death). The only exception I can think of is wilful engagement in Terrorism.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by AirbusCapt

Sir, a test conducted with paying passengers on board? Calls for both a civil and a criminal suit.

I didn't mean it quite like that. Not in the sense, "OK, so let's test it with people on board." I meant in the experience sense; every successful dive being further confirmation of its safety.

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

As fas as I know, Sovereign Governments are expected to take care and support their citizens in distress irrespective of their status and/or their actions. It is just based on the value of human life (in case they are alive) or dignified last rites (in case of inevitable death). The only exception I can think of is wilful engagement in Terrorism.

The International Maritime Organization has long since formulated maritime laws that most (if not all) countries have ratified and taken as applicable to themselves when their ships ply in international waters. There are specific laws that mandate seafarers to help fellow seafarers in distress. There are even laws that release the masters (captains) of vessels from their mission in order to immediately proceed to help stricken vessels/seafarers.

I admit, I know next to nothing about these maritime laws. But I do know that's it's not about nations and their governments out there in international waters.

[sandeepmdas]

Originally Posted by thanixravindran

As fas as I know, Sovereign Governments are expected to take care and support their citizens in distress irrespective of their status and/or their actions.

In fact, this commitment had led to a loss of almost 1Cr of taxpayer money last year when the Cost guard and Navy searched endlessly for a girl who presumably went missing from a beach.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/stor...284-2022-07-29

OT

[mohansrides]

Typically I don’t comment on topics that I can’t offer an experiential perspective on. But this time I felt the need to say something. Especially since I have waited a while and the feeling of sadness hasn't entirely diminished. Not so much for the 4 other passengers on the vessel; those guys were stupid and I have zero empathy for them. More on them later.

But that 19 year old kid who had his whole life ahead of him!! Man, that dude was just plain unlucky to have had a thoroughly idiot father.

First, I want to address the comments here and elsewhere in the internet as to how all acitivities are risky. The Oceangate CEO himself has remarked that if you want to avoid risk, "don't get out of bed". Some others have also mentioned other disasters; for example a boat with a bunch of migrant refugees sinking and killing everyone onboard.

Let us be very clear here. The amount of risk and the circumstances surrounding this accident have little to no comparison to other activities that carry risk.

Disadvantaged people who undertake heavily risky journeys do so out of compulsion, not choice. For them, it's either a dangerous journey with a modicum of hope or certain death under a tyranical regime.

As to other activities carrying risk; really, I can't think of a parallel to this one. It can't be motorcycling or kayaking or jungle safaris or even rock climbing. Almost all of those activities are tried and tested. Many of them are heavily regulated by governments; and many of them have safety fail-overs built in.

This submersible though; this was certain death. If you survived it, that is what would be remarkable as it would be against the odds. The risk profile in the Titan case was completely off the charts. It was utterly insane.

This is a craft that had very little capability on its own. It was sinking to insane depths merely on a prayer. No rules or regulations or oversight. No rescue vessel to accompany it. No tethering to an anchor vessel. Literally nothing to come to its aid in the unforgiving landscape of our ocean depths. Someone remarked that even if the vessel had been found with say 4 hrs of oxygen left, it would have still been too late as it takes longer than that to surface.

Really, how is this comparable to most other recreational activities like trekking or motorcycling or jungle safaris?

Just for reference a small batch of kids got lost in the thick Amazon jungle for 40 days and emerged alive. Let’s think about that for one second. That search too captivated the world and those kids were on everyone’s thoughts, including mine. When they emerged alive, we all heaved a collective sigh of relief.

People will point out that the kids in question are indigenous people who have had training in survival techniques in the jungle. Sure. Agreed. But, at the end of the day, they are only kids. One of them was an infant (11 months old) when the plane went down. The oldest is 13. How much time would they have had to train fully in survival?

The point I am making is that even in one of the harshest landscapes filled with predators and bereft of guidance and food, it was possible for a bunch of kids to survive. For 40 days, no less.

By contrast, these guys couldn't hack it even to two hours apparently. So, how is the risk profile in such an expedition comparable to that in most recreational activities?

Still, I am quite ok with people deciding for themselves. But this businessman who dragged his son along. I can't think of enough abuses to hurl his way.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/shah...r-aunt-4145661

This dude reminds me of the mom who asked her son to hand by a bedsheet some 8 floors above the ground (in Noida if I recollect correctly) to fetch something from a balcony below!! There really should be some sort of entry barrier before people are allowed to have kids. As a parent you have but ONE job!!

Now coming to the ink online equating these guys to explorers and whatnot!! Really, what a load of utter garbage!! Explorers are pioneers who venture into the unknown to expand the cause of all mankind. Blowing a bunch of money to go and see a shipwreck (that has been studied a million times already) hardly qualifies as pioneering. Really, these 5 dudes aren't equal to Vasco da Gama or Christopher Columbus or any such person. These were rich and bored folk who made a reckless decision without understanding the value of life.