Waivers and risk: the Titan submersible
Commenter “sailorcurt” makes a interesting point concerning the Titan submersible when he writes:
Freedom also comes with the responsibility to accept the consequences for those choices and actions.
“Did the waiver that had to be signed by the clients/tourists actually say, “OUR SUB IS NOT CERTIFIED”? And then—perhaps—go on to explain, in detail, the why it wasn’t certified and the risks involved?”
Have you watched the video uncovered where Mr. Rush said, very clearly and explicitly, exactly that? He was leafing through the waiver form reading parts of it and, yes…it explicitly said that his vessel was not certified by any agency or body, that it was experimental and that its use could result in death.
I don’t believe that any of them “deserved” to die for their folly. But with the possible exception of the 19 year old, I don’t feel “sorrow” over their deaths. They weren’t innocent, they chose to undertake those risks freely and willingly. The risks in an undertaking such as this are obvious and clear, there’s no amount of “but Rush insisted it was safe” that’s going to convince me they didn’t understand the dangers they were undertaking.
I have enormous empathy for their families and loved ones…especially the mother of the 19 year old. They are the innocent victims of this tragedy, not the people who willingly put their lives at risk for a thrill.
If the reports that the 19 year old only agreed to go on the voyage to please his father are true, then I do have some sympathy for him. He felt pressured and wasn’t mature enough to resist that pressure. While he was a legal adult and technically responsible for his decisions, he wasn’t willingly accepting the risks, he was pressured to do so and that is worthy of empathy.
I have also seen the relevant waiver language, and a description of the waiver itself:
The three-page document spells out the risks that passengers take when riding in the 23,000-pound Titan, including eye-popping wording such as how the craft “has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used on human occupied submersible.”
You may wonder how anyone could sign something like that. But I submit that millions of us sign something much like that every day, and to a certain extent people have become desensitized to such waivers, which are seen as TL;DR cover-your-ass legalese. The majority of such waivers lie in the medical field and involve procedures and surgery, and a related phenomenon is warning labels on drugs.
The Titan waiver was three pages long; were those pages fine print? Was most of the verbiage boilerplate blabity-blah? We see that quote highlighted and isolated; did they? And what does “may be constructed of…” mean? Was it or wasn’t it? We know that it was not; did they?
Those of us who would not even consider voluntarily going down in a submersible of any sort – and I am one of those people who would not – would also not sign such a waiver, but we wouldn’t be in that situation in the first place. Nevertheless I have signed many medical waivers equally frightening and quite long. The possibility of death is listed there, even for my cataract surgery, plus plenty of other dire possibilities. Sure, I know that most people don’t die of eye surgery, but you know what? As far as I know, the people who have gone down in submersibles to see the Titanic – even this particular submersible – have not died until now. Granted, the n is tiny, but it still would give a false sense of security and might make such a waiver seem to exaggerate the risks as waivers do.
I am not saying that people don’t bear responsibility for what they do. But the main responsibility in this case is with the people who developed the submersible – one of whom unfortunately died in this accident. I say “unfortunately” because to my way of thinking, empathy is a separate thing from blame. Someone can be at fault and still not “deserve” to die – as “sailorcurt” acknowledges in that quote. However, “sailorcurt” also denies feeling “sorrow” over their deaths and adds that they weren’t innocent. With this, I strongly disagree. I do feel sorrow over their deaths and find all but the CEO to be quite innocent. Perhaps they were ignorant of the magnitude of the risks, but they are also innocent in my opinion despite this ignorance. And yes, we need to do our best to have due diligence about discovering the safety of the activities we undertake, but we really cannot know such things for sure and have learned to rely on the expertise of others, the prior safety record of the endeavor, and the fact that waivers state worst case scenarios that usually are only distant possibilities.
One of the things also on that waiver was apparently “that the signer would ‘assume full responsibility for the risk of bodily injury, disability, death and property damage due to the negligence of [OceanGate] while involved in the operation’.” This is unsurprising; waivers often include such statements. In fact, even when my son was little, I had to sign a waiver for every organized sport in which he participated. Little League, soccer, learning to skate, learning to swim – you name it. They all had such waivers about assuming the risk. Having been to law school, I knew such waivers were not usually enforceable, and were placed there to make the ignorant signer think they had signed away such rights – or, of course, in hopes that the harried and rushed signer hadn’t even read them. What I did was add a sentence and initial it, and the sentence said something like: “except in cases of negligence or fault, in which case I retain the right to sue and I invalidate this unenforceable clause” or some such language. Fortunately – very very fortunately – I never had to activate any of this (although my son did sustain some minor injuries, they were nobody’s fault).
And indeed, regarding the strong likelihood of lawsuits over the Titan, there’s this wording:
…and on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, personal representative, estate, and for all members of my family, including minor children, I hereby release, waive, and forever discharge OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd. …”
But it’s still possible to sue, depending on the circumstances:
Waivers are not always ironclad, and it is not uncommon for judges to reject them if there is evidence of gross negligence or hazards that were not fully disclosed.
“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,” said personal injury attorney and maritime law expert Matthew D. Shaffer, who is based in Texas….
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.
“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,” said personal injury lawyer Joseph Low of California…
OceanGate is a small company based in Everett, Washington, and it is unclear whether it has the assets to pay significant damages, were any to be awarded, but families could collect from the company’s insurance policy if it has one.
Caveat emptor indeed, but I have long thought that, as waivers get longer, more complex, and more frightening, many or even most of us become more and more desensitized to their dire contents. It can all get lumped together – a very distant possibility of harm and a much more likely and catastrophic possibility of harm. You might say, “But in the case of a submersible to go miles down to see the Titanic wreck, surely anyone ought to know there’s a high possibility of harm.” Well, yes and no. As I said, I certainly wouldn’t be going down there. But until now, those who did had a good safety record, although I have had difficulty finding the exact number of people who have done so. This article makes it clear that there have been many expeditions over the decades, but provides no numbers. This article from September of 2022 is somewhat more specific in saying that the number is “fewer than 250,” which suggests to me that it’s close to 250. As far as I know, the Titan was the first accident that involved such dives causing casualties, which could breed a false sense of security despite the language in the waiver.
RIP.
Yeah that 19 year old kid had a wealthy, successful father who I’m sure on some level he felt obligated to not disappoint regardless of what he may have said out loud.
This from Glenn Reynolds’ substack touches on many of these issues and pretty much sums up my thoughts on this as well.
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/run-silent-run-very-very-deep?sd=pf
Griffin:
Glenn’s take is very similar to mine, I see.
One thing, though: I’m a woman, but I assumed it was most likely that they had died quickly and early, due to the early loss of communication from them.
neo,
I did notice that the women in my life were way more interested in this than me. I talked to my sister the other night for the first time in a couple of weeks and the first thing she brought up was this sub. Not so much were they still alive but why do something so risky. Things like this tend to illustrate the differences in attitudes to risk taking between men and women.
Did Joan Rivers’ heirs get a settlement when she died during plastic surgery?
rbj1:
Yes. See this.
Many are now commenting on social media about the corporate policy of OceanGate (see the piece in the Washington Free Beacon) as being hostile to the hiring of white men (DEI in action!), but, of course, all must be encouraged to chant, over and over, that “Diversity is our strength”.
j e:
But in the full quote, which I’ve read, he talks much more about older age as an impediment rather than whiteness.
Probably older hires would have been more safety conscious and less innovative than younger ones.
Thanks for responding so thoroughly.
Maybe I’m just a sociopath. I don’t feel “sorrow” for the deaths of people who died as a result of their own actions or choices any more than I feel “joy” over the successes of people who make good decisions. Neither had anything to do with me.
I feel saddened by the death (or even injury) of innocents: Victims of crimes, victims of the negligent acts of others, victims of natural or manmade disasters. They didn’t ask to be placed in harm’s way and I’m all for an all out effort to help them.
But I’m not sad for people who, knowing the risks, died or were injured doing something they wanted and chose to do. If they were willing to accept the risks and pay the price, who am I to deny them that?
I think there are a significant number of people who just don’t Grok the whole concept that life has a 100% mortality rate. Sure, everyone acknowledges it on an intellectual level, but to really grasp the concept that we.are.all.going.to.die…not so much.
Here’s my philosophy: I’m both a motorcyclist and an outdoorsman. I love testing the limits of my capabilities. Now that I’m approaching 60, those capabilities are fading, but I still enjoy pushing myself. I have said this to my wife repeatedly and I mean it sincerely: If I die because I took a curve too fast on my motorcycle, or fell off a cliff on a mountainside, or had a tree fall on me while clearing the remote land we bought a few years ago, or got eaten by a bear while camping in the outback, don’t feel sorry for me – have a party. Rejoice in the fact that I died doing something that I love doing, because I’d rather go out that way than warehoused in a nursing home or wasting away from cancer.
As one of my old buddies in the Navy used to say just before we went off to do something…um…less than wise: “You only live once, might as well get it over with.”
So, those people on that sub (again, with the possible exception of the 19 year old) knew what they were getting into…even if the document they signed didn’t spell out every possible weakness in the sub design or potential pitfall of their adventure, basic common sense says “hey, this might be a bit hazardous” and they chose to do it anyway. They went out on their own terms; what’s to feel sorry for?
People die every day. Heck, in Chicago alone, 14 people were murdered last weekend. Where’s the sorrow and “pull out all the stops” effort to end that slow motion train wreck? Why are these 5 people so special that I’m supposed to light a candle for them? Because they were rich?
But I digress: Their families and friends will feel their loss. Those are the victims in this, not the people who chose to put their lives at risk to do something they wanted to do.
Of course, that’s just my opinion, so that and (what’s it up to now?) $6.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
Speaking as a veteran submariner, who has spent at least one year of my life underwater in a sub, though I am saddened that individuals died in the Titan, one does not need to have been a submariner to understand the fact that pressures exerted while underwater can be intense. Crushingly intense. It’s been well reported over the years. I’m certain that each individual on that submersible, it is not a submarine, were aware of this fact. In fact, I’d wager that almost every individual who has ever dove into a swimming pool, and gone done a mere 10 feet in depth, is well aware of the intensity of the weight of water upon their body, thus the individuals on the Titan were in all probability well aware that the submersible they were going to board was going to be under intense pressure.
I’ve been deeper than 1,000 feet under the water on a 688 class submarine, to what is referred to as “test depth.” Let me tell you, that the sounds a 688 class submarine makes when it goes down to test depth are, shall we say, can be creakily eerie.
In regards to individuals who did or do sign the waivers, whether that waiver is signed to be shot into space for a two minute ride, or to go down to the depths to see the Titanic, I think that they ignore(d) the risk warnings for the simple fact that they would be able to brag about what they had done, unless death got them first.
“Probably older hires would have been more safety conscious and less innovative than younger ones.”
I work in risk and compliance. Anecdotally, I find that many Millennials and GenZrs think they are being innovative when they are in fact being flippant and unserious. There are tried and true reasons that certain processes and procedures are followed (not to say that they can’t be improved), but the answer isn’t “okay boomer”.
rbj1:
And by the way, Joan Rivers did not die during plastic surgery. It was during a laryngoscopy on her vocal cords.
Steph:
Agreed.
Like I implied yesterday, I’m with Sailorcurt here. If you are signing up for a voyage to 13,000ft depth at a pressure of 6000lbs/sq in, you had better make sure what you are going in meets the appropriate engineering in deep diving technology. That technology is fairly mature…look at Cameron’s sub going to twice that depth. And given the circumstances, reading, thinking about, and understanding, the entire waiver would be imperative. 13000ft of water above your head isn’t cataract surgery which are performed probably 1000s a day.
Carbon fiber pressure vessel?? When I heard that I couldn’t believe it. That design was ridiculous. I was just surprised they didn’t implode on the first dive. Multiple cycles of pressure/relaxation cause micro fissures in much stronger material than carbon fiber. What was their inspection/maintenance schedule after each dive?? All those questions would have to be answered before any rational person would sign on to the dive.
The poor 19 year old kid, and the distress of his mother….very sad. The rest were, as I said, fools.
What’s even more despicable is that the Navy and the Administration knew 2 hours into the dive that the sub had imploded, yet they allowed the whole charade of the “rescue” to continue for days. Talk about a lack of empathy! Putting the families through days of false hope is truly evil.
On waivers. Many years ago I was involved with a local Olympic sport club that was somewhat dangerous. I asked a member who was a lawyer to write a waiver for the club. He said “Sure, but it won’t matter in court.” He further explained that in court it would depend on who had the better lawyers. This has informed my opinion of waivers ever since.
I have also seen those alarming contingencies on even routine medical procedures. There’s a lot of data on how rarely those contingencies occur. That wasn’t the case here; but the passengers had to know that this was riskier than minor surgery. They wanted the experience; they lost their bets. RIP.
Like Neo, I may not be a typical woman. I thought they were gone when I first read about their loss of contact. In fact, I hoped they were, because the “sitting on the sea floor gasping for air” sounded far worse.
Kate:
It was theoretically much riskier. But in fact it had previously been 100% safe. That’s the paradox that I believe lulled them into a false sense of relative security.
Physicsguy, I don’t think the delay in the Navy’s announcement was due to a lack of empathy, but just the time it took to get to someone who could decide to release the information.
Did Joan Rivers’ heirs get a settlement when she died during plastic surgery?
==
She didn’t die during plastic surgery. She died when her air passage seized up while her vocal cords were being examined with an endoscope. They didn’t have a ‘crash cart’ on hand and the physician on the premises who knew how to do the procedure to re-open the air passage (Rivers’ own ENT specialist) could not be located in time and Rivers suffered oxygen deprivation which ruined her neurologically. I cannot recall if the procedure was exploratory or they intended to do something. Evidently, she had growths on her vocal cords which were making her voice hoarse. An elective procedure, but not (more) plastic surgery.
==
Evidently there were some standard precautions the clinic she was at failed to follow and her estate not only received a settlement but the clinic was forced to close down.
==
Note, she was still lucid, ambulatory, and working. She could easily have lived another ten years.
What’s even more despicable is that the Navy and the Administration knew 2 hours into the dive that the sub had imploded, yet they allowed the whole charade of the “rescue” to continue for days.
==
Did they actually know or did they have some data which indicated it which they hadn’t yet interpreted?
Neo, it was never 100% safe. First of all nothing is 100% safe (that damn 2nd Law of Thermo again). I’m sure there are engineers who could give the real safety percentage of that design vs depth. The previous dives were lucky, but far from safe.
Art Deco, from what I’ve read, experienced sonar operators know fairly exactly what an imploding vessel sounds like. And the SONUS system has those people listening 24/7 which could also triangulate the location.
Thanks for the replies. My point was that waivers don’t mean that much. And now I read there was an employee who wrote a report that the vessel wasn’t safe. He got fired for that.
physicsguy:
I think you misunderstood me. I absolutely was NOT saying that it really was safe. Of course it was not. I was saying that its track record prior to this accident was of 100% safety in that many people had gone down there with a 100% safety record up to this point, which may have lulled them into a false sense of security.
Sailorcurt: “Maybe I’m just a sociopath.”
If so, then I’m one too. I don’t feel sorry for those whose pockets are deeper than their experience or seem to lack “common” sense when their pushing the limits goes bad. It was their choice.
I do, however, feel that the rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for it.
JFK jr choose to fly a plane in conditions that his experiences would have told most people he should not be doing. The kid who was drugged (or whatever happened to him) in North Korea and died after they shipped him back to the US put himself in harms way by going on an “exotic” excursion to North Korea. I feel the same about those who are going to Russia to earn extra money and stupidly bring illegal substances into Russia and get arrested. The list of such people can make for a long, long, list.
And while there is something to be said for the risk takers who do expand human endeavors that benefit us all (and for that we should all be grateful); there just seem to be too many times some risk takers are doing something so foolish it just doesn’t make sense. And the reward isn’t all that great except for their own benefit. We, the taxpayer, shouldn’t pay for it when it goes bad.
While not the best example, and certainly not terribly life-threatening (at least here in NJ anyway), I do a lot of hiking and so often run into people who are just not prepared. They bring no maps, no compass, not enough water etc. But, the one thing that gets me is their lack of planning; by which I mean they have no idea what time they started their hike, have no idea how long it will take or even how far it is to their destination. So often we have run into folks just starting their hike when we are finishing up. “um, it is now 7:00 PM and you are just starting your hike to the pond that is 6 miles away? And you think you will hike up there and back before dark?” I have said or said something similar. I have often wanted to add: “Where are your brain cells? Did you forget to pack those too?”
If they want to go get lost in the dark – it is their business. But, why should the taxpayer funded park rangers then have to do a search and rescue because of their lack of planning? Why should the taxpayer have funded the search and recovery for JFK jr’s plane and remains? Why should the US government have spent time and resources in aiding people who go abroad and do stupid things to get into legal trouble with a foreign government? And in this case why spend tax dollars searching for these people who wanted to so gruesomely (and dangerously) look at a famous shipwreck?
I believe that some places (such as hiking up Denali) ask people to buy insurance (often in the form of paying for a “permit”) to help cover the cost of bailing them out. I’m okay with that. But, not with just bailing people out because some people (or their families) expect us to.
Lastly, for that 19-year old, I’m willing to bet that he had no problem with going on so many other expensive trips with his father. But, now that this trip ended in death we are most likely going to hear endless stories from his family members that he only did this to please his father. Some might even get overly dramatic and accuse his father of killing him!
And while I might feel a bit of “oh that’s too bad” for a few minutes I am NOT going to lose sleep over their choices ending badly.
I thought because he had been down to the mariannas (in a smaller better designed craft) there might have been better prospects,
When I went for a tandem ski-dive, the waiver had the words that it was still considered experimental. People do die, but I didn’t think it likely that I would die. I think we tend to blow off the risks in doing things.
But others backed out of the Titan trip, so perhaps people who were quite educated in the area recognized that the risk was substantial. But I think in general people decide they want to do things, and it takes a lot to stop them. Several years back, I worked with a woman who had just found out a close friend had died on a whitewater rafting trip. Evidently she had gone overboard, and was pinned to a rock/boulder by the rushing water. I believe she ended up drowning. Up until that point, I had wanted to try whitewater rafting. But after hearing that, my desire vanished. But would reading a waiver have dissuaded me? Doubtful.
My heart goes out to the mom and sister of the 19 year old.
Alvin, the Woods Hole Institute’s deep sea submersible, is taken apart every few years, carefully examined and then reassembled. I doubt OceanGate did that to Titan. Billionaire customers are fine, but universities, foundations, and the government have even deeper pockets and can be more demanding.
Rich people being careless and stupid? Sure, but I’ve signed enough things without reading them and downloaded enough apps without going through all the boiler plate. If a quarter million counted as little to me as a 5 or 10 dollar bill, who knows what I might sign up for? We know people die on Everest every year because it makes the news. If nothing’s happened so far, people are more trusting and more reckless.
I’m reminded of the “missing” in wars. You may believe with reasonable certainty that they aren’t coming back, but do you really want to jump the gun and take hope away from the families, knowing that you aren’t entirely sure? Is it less cruel to give them time to process the tragedy and surrender their hopes or to cut them off immediately, when you still might be mistaken (however unlikely that is)?
Not about waivers but an analysis of the failure of the Titan by an engineer form the offshore underwater domain:
Oceangate Titan: analysis of an insultingly predictable failure – just Alex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaOVYkWgpcM
Chapters (timestamps)
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
02:40 Communicating Risk
05:10 ‘The Hull Is Solid’
11:05 ‘Not Safety Critical’
17:40 Other Factors
Includes sources and citations as well as a link to The Titan Tragedy – Sub Brief https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac&t=0s
I referred and linked to The Titan Tragedy in a comment earlier this week.
charles has never left the house without his bubble wrap suit and certainly expects passerby’s not to perform CPR or first aid on him if he ever has an unexpected excursion into into one of life’s interesting situations. But maybe not.
We know people die on Everest every year because it makes the news.
Abraxas:
That’s exactly the comparison I kept thinking of. Jon Krakauer’s “Into Thin Air” account of the 1996 Mt. Everest disaster was riveting.
Everest packages are still a thing:
____________________________
The average cost for a place on a commercial Everest team, from either Tibet or Nepal, is $44,500.
–The Summarizer, “everest expedition cost”
____________________________
Include me out.
So if the submersible made 13 non-catastrophic trips before, does that now make 14 the new unlucky number?
Thought experiment/hypothetical: tying to get my head around 5000+ psi environment; so for discussion purposes assume you are in a suitably protective suit at that depth and you want to swim upwards. Normal depths and we can move our hands/feet through the water with minimal resistance, and in fact we use the resistance we do feel to propel us along. But at that depth, with side and up/down pressures so high, could you even raise/push your hand/arm up to begin a stroke, let alone push sideways and downward to begin an upward movement?
I am with Physicsguy and those who suggest it was wrong for the Navy/officialdom to have high confidence data that the vessel had imploded very early on, and then they still when through significant motions, efforts, and media statusing. A ‘this is not a drill” training exercise? But I defer to the source Physicsguy is referencing that such signals are relatively well recognized, if not “easily” known. This may also explain why they waved off the offer of using the Brit/French robotic cable laying vessel. One video I saw suggested perhaps the Navy was trying to use some secret technology or military capability they did not want to be observed or more widely exposed than necessary. It sounds like that was not the case.
And thankyou to whomever mentioned the prospect that they died very quickly in 2000 degree compressing air rather than being flattened into protoplasmic remains. I find the former result less disturbing than the latter one.
But wait there’s more:
Journal of Physics: Conference Series
PAPER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ISOPEN ACCESS
Analysis of the possibility of a submarine implosion using finite element method – R Kici?ski1, B Szturomski1 and K ?wi?tek1
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2130/1/012006
Something similar happened in 1961 to the USS Thresher, a submarine thought to have imploded.
The catastrophic event would have pulled the metal vessel apart “like taffy,” according to the Naval History Magazine. “Complete destruction would occur in 1/20th of a second, too fast to be cognitively recognized by the men within the submarine.”
https://www.insider.com/what-happens-when-submersible-submarine-implodes-2023-6
IIRC the hull of a submarine may also “telescope” lengthwise, as with the USS Scorpion. Not survivable.
The part of the story that struck me was that a couple of these people were not just “rich” but super rich, a billionaire and a centi-millionaire.
Those people have staff looking out after them, reviewing things, minding their affairs. Did no one of their staff raise a red flag? “Hey, boss, this thing seems like a backyard project and not something you should get into”.
My wife counters they said, “Hey boss, before you go, sign your will update leaving me a tidy sum.”
Just because a ship design has been certified doesn’t mean it is safe. The submarines Thresher and Scorpion both sank and were crushed in 1968 and they were certified. Sailors didn’t sign any waivers. the Titanic was certified and sank on its first voyage. Certification is not a guarantee for success.
Robert Shotzberger–
From all that I have read, from the design features/flaws of this vessel, and the paucity of anything remotely like” safety features,” it seems like OceanGate people were almost daring the ocean to “do something.”
Certification may not be a guarantee of success, but at least it should mean that any vessel has been looked over by someone who is objective, and who can call a halt to the whole “expedition” if the vessel is a very obvious death trap, see to it that such a vessel has a reasonable chance of survival, and a bare bones minimum of safety equipment installed.
That didn’t happen here.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12227079/OceanGate-took-nearly-450-000-PPP-loans-pandemic.html
Snow on Pine:
Your conception of what “certification” means and the power of certification organizations is fanciful, or at least optimistic, or possibly tyrannical.
Thing is, if this submersible had been so incredibly over designed that it could have safely been taken to the deepest part of the oceans and still had a safety margin of 10,000:1 for its 1001st round trip, the waiver agreement would probably have been exactly the same. So the agreement couldn’t in any way provide a clue to the size of the risks to the passengers.
Empathy confirmed.
I remember going tandem skydiving a long time ago, signing waivers that did warn that death could happen. I also knew where I was doing it had a good safety record — I looked into a lot of things before going and in picking the place to do it. I’d never in a million years base jump (I watched people doing that at the Snake River) or HALO jump. Too risky without sufficient ROI outside of adrenaline rush. Regular skydiving is an experience that is hard to replicate, on beyond any adrenaline rush. (The most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen was what I saw when I went on that tandem jump. Forty years on, it’s still an amazingly beautiful memory.)
I feel for the mother of the 19 year old, and the family of the rest. I think it was folly on their part to do it — the only thing they could really get out of it was bragging rights; they’d never have been able to see more than we see with the remote cameras.
It would be interesting to know the numbers, ie., N of failures/accidents vs N total trips. And then compare this percentage to other risky ventures where if things don’t go just right, death is a very real possibility – sky diving, hot air balloon, climbing, scuba, hang gliding, etc. Odds matter.
I totally agree with Sailorcurt on this.
https://notthebee.com/article/oceangate-fired-an-engineer-in-2018-who-warned-the-carbon-fiber-hull-of-its-submarine-was-not-safe
This video should inform many questioning the Ocean Quest Titan disaster:
What’s Next for Titan | Classification | Search | SOSUS Detection | US & Canada Investigations – What’s Up With Shipping
Sal Mercogliano, the speaker, is a frequent guest on Midrats (cdrsalamanderblogspot.com); he is a credible analyst IMO.
TSupport What’s Going on With Shipping via:
Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/wgowshipping
Twitter: @mercoglianos
Facebook: @wgowshipping
Timestamps:
Email: mercoglianosal@gmail.com
00:00 Introduction
00:58 1. Classification
03:46 2. SOS & Search and Rescue
05:54 3. US Navy SOSUS Detection
08:41 4. Investigation
14:48 5. Thank You
But, why should the taxpayer funded park rangers then have to do a search and rescue because of their lack of planning? Why should the taxpayer have funded the search and recovery for JFK jr’s plane and remains? Why should the US government have spent time and resources in aiding people who go abroad and do stupid things to get into legal trouble with a foreign government? And in this case why spend tax dollars searching for these people who wanted to so gruesomely (and dangerously) look at a famous shipwreck?
==
To irritate you. That makes it worth it.
A subtext here is that our society has become so legalistic and litigious that we’ve ended up with “TL;DR” waivers for everything from kindergarten T-ball on up, thus making them less effective in the cases where they are really needed.
Art Deco’s snark aside, they (the searchers) want to do it and it is good training.
When people wanted to join my stunt show (live steel, risky) they had to endure one year of training then only participated in low-level, choreographed displays the first year. This weeded out many who saw it as play time. I taught weapons – I was an asshole. Dennis taught stunts – he was an asshole. The reason we were was to make those who didn’t take it seriously enough quit. Worked.
We had a few minor accidents but they were mitigated by everyone being alert and not straying from script. I myself caught a stave to the face, removing a front tooth and yes, I consider that minor.
To give an example of how different people will view things differently; the jousters thought we were crazy and we thought the jousters were crazy but no one from either camp left the field on a stretcher.
Counter that; SCA, which used ratan swords and armor had Raven carried out with a wrenched back and the Renegades, who just swung a bunch of shit at each other, had one gal taken out because she caught an axe to the forehead (not lethal).
It seems to me that the sub venture was closer to the latter groups.
Oh, forgot.
We had a one page waver and for every applicant under 21, I spoke directly with their parents – every year.
Sailorcurt: “Maybe I’m just a sociopath. I don’t feel “sorrow” for the deaths of people who died as a result of their own actions or choices”
+++
Maybe you are a bit of a sociopath. I can be hard when necessary and have been said to be heartless, but I instantly felt sad for those folks. So they were privileged? So they took risks? It is sad that they were killed. I don’t understand why someone can’t see that. It’s disturbing that one can even be proud of being that callous.
This whole matter of responsibility and waivers seems to me to raise another issue, at least in this case, vis-a-vis the German adventurer who survived a previous trip and claimed it was a miracle he didn’t die (Reposted):
“It was a suicide mission back then!”….
https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/former-titanic-sub-passenger-dubs-dive-a-suicide-mission/
It seems he decided to disclose this information only AFTER the submersible’s disappearance.
The question is: Did this person have a responsibility to go public with his warnings BEFORE the catastrophe…in an effort to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring?
Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » THE TITAN, WAIVERS, AND RISK: You may wonder how anyone could sign something like that. But I sub