Re: Tourist submarine missing!
Posted: June 22nd, 2023, 11:52 pm
Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/
MrFoolish wrote:Tedx wrote:
If it was the Michael Portillo documentary, it was nitrogen hypoxia.
Yes, I think it was. Best they don't let me buy in the gases then!
stevensfo wrote:Our bodies are very sensitive to oxygen and carbon dioxide levels and I imagine that high Co2 would be rather unpleasant - a lot of gasping and struggling for breath.
XFool wrote:Gone off air: https://www.oceangate.com/
SSL handshake failed Error code 525
Visit cloudflare.com for more information.
2023-06-23 16:41:53 UTC
\AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
Warnings over the safety of OceanGate's Titan submersible were repeatedly dismissed by the CEO of the company, email exchanges with a leading deep sea exploration specialist show.
In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
I think we'll be hearing a lot more about Stockton Rush as the lawyers gather.
AiY(D)
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I think we'll be hearing a lot more about Stockton Rush as the lawyers gather.
88V8 wrote:AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I think we'll be hearing a lot more about Stockton Rush as the lawyers gather.
I imagine the lawyers will be weighing the cost of fetching up more of the debris against the possibility of proving culpable negligence. Not cheap, killing billionaires.
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
Warnings over the safety of OceanGate's Titan submersible were repeatedly dismissed by the CEO of the company, email exchanges with a leading deep sea exploration specialist show.
In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
I think we'll be hearing a lot more about Stockton Rush as the lawyers gather.
AiY(D)
Lootman wrote:It would be an interesting case, especially since it would no doubt be held in the US, where civil cases are heard before juries, substantial awards are common, as are punitive damages awards.
The passengers knew the risks, or should have done. They signed a waiver of liability. They knew that no insurance applied. And that going to any extreme place (bottom of the ocean, top of a high mountain, into space) is inherently risky.
mc2fool wrote:Lootman wrote:It would be an interesting case, especially since it would no doubt be held in the US, where civil cases are heard before juries, substantial awards are common, as are punitive damages awards.
The passengers knew the risks, or should have done. They signed a waiver of liability. They knew that no insurance applied. And that going to any extreme place (bottom of the ocean, top of a high mountain, into space) is inherently risky.
Yeah but waivers etc don't remove the requirement for a duty of at least reasonable care, especially when you're a paying customer (rather than a joint explorer/adventurer). The question will be whether the equipment (and staff) provided were inherently up to the job or not.
To take an analogy, if you go for a bungee jump or zip wire run and the providers use ropes or tackle etc that's not designed for at least your weight (or is but is frayed from over use) then it won't matter what waivers they've had you sign, if the ropes etc break it'll be their fault -- and predictably so.
Interesting interview on Ch4 News tonight with the chair of a peer-review committee on manned submersibles who was one of the signatories of a 2018 letter to OceanGate raising concerns about the Titan. "OceanGate ‘didn’t cut corners, they drove past the whole block’"
Lootman wrote:mc2fool wrote:Yeah but waivers etc don't remove the requirement for a duty of at least reasonable care, especially when you're a paying customer (rather than a joint explorer/adventurer). The question will be whether the equipment (and staff) provided were inherently up to the job or not.
To take an analogy, if you go for a bungee jump or zip wire run and the providers use ropes or tackle etc that's not designed for at least your weight (or is but is frayed from over use) then it won't matter what waivers they've had you sign, if the ropes etc break it'll be their fault -- and predictably so.
Interesting interview on Ch4 News tonight with the chair of a peer-review committee on manned submersibles who was one of the signatories of a 2018 letter to OceanGate raising concerns about the Titan. "OceanGate ‘didn’t cut corners, they drove past the whole block’"
Sure, it can be endlessly argued, and probably will be. But this is not like getting on a bus, train or plane, with a reasonable expectation of arriving safely. This was an extreme venture to a very dangerous place undertaken by informed people.
Lootman wrote:mc2fool wrote:Yeah but waivers etc don't remove the requirement for a duty of at least reasonable care, especially when you're a paying customer (rather than a joint explorer/adventurer). The question will be whether the equipment (and staff) provided were inherently up to the job or not.
To take an analogy, if you go for a bungee jump or zip wire run and the providers use ropes or tackle etc that's not designed for at least your weight (or is but is frayed from over use) then it won't matter what waivers they've had you sign, if the ropes etc break it'll be their fault -- and predictably so.
Interesting interview on Ch4 News tonight with the chair of a peer-review committee on manned submersibles who was one of the signatories of a 2018 letter to OceanGate raising concerns about the Titan. "OceanGate ‘didn’t cut corners, they drove past the whole block’"
Sure, it can be endlessly argued, and probably will be. But this is not like getting on a bus, train or plane, with a reasonable expectation of arriving safely. This was an extreme venture to a very dangerous place undertaken by informed people.
mc2fool wrote:Lootman wrote:Sure, it can be endlessly argued, and probably will be. But this is not like getting on a bus, train or plane, with a reasonable expectation of arriving safely. This was an extreme venture to a very dangerous place undertaken by informed people.
Informed people? The guy & his son were structural engineers?
A dangerous place is one thing but by all the accounts appearing on the news it sounds like the truly dangerous thing was the attitude of the CEO and, consequently the equipment he built. And it's not after-the-fact know-it-alls, it's experts in the field that were raising warnings well beforehand. This is sounding less and less like misadventure and more and more like a slapdash cowboy operation.
mc2fool wrote:Lootman wrote:Sure, it can be endlessly argued, and probably will be. But this is not like getting on a bus, train or plane, with a reasonable expectation of arriving safely. This was an extreme venture to a very dangerous place undertaken by informed people.
Informed people? The guy & his son were structural engineers?
A dangerous place is one thing but by all the accounts appearing on the news it sounds like the truly dangerous thing was the attitude of the CEO and, consequently the equipment he built. And it's not after-the-fact know-it-alls, it's experts in the field that were raising warnings well beforehand. This is sounding less and less like misadventure and more and more like a slapdash cowboy operation.
Mike4 wrote:mc2fool wrote:Informed people? The guy & his son were structural engineers?
A dangerous place is one thing but by all the accounts appearing on the news it sounds like the truly dangerous thing was the attitude of the CEO and, consequently the equipment he built. And it's not after-the-fact know-it-alls, it's experts in the field that were raising warnings well beforehand. This is sounding less and less like misadventure and more and more like a slapdash cowboy operation.
On the other hand, one would imagine that people smart enough to have become billionaires would have also been smart enough to recognise a "slapdash cowboy operation" and dipped out of the venture. Unless they were willing to knowingly take the risk.
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
Mike4 wrote:Lootman wrote:Sure, it can be endlessly argued, and probably will be. But this is not like getting on a bus, train or plane, with a reasonable expectation of arriving safely. This was an extreme venture to a very dangerous place undertaken by informed people.
Totally agree. I also wonder how much OceanGate is worth today, to make it worth suing them. Peanuts I suspect so not worth the effort. They can only be a busted flush, surely?