You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm really hoping they got no warning signs the sub was in trouble
Unfortunately not, from the article:
McCallum, who was leading an expedition in Papua New Guinea at the time, knew the outcome almost instantly. “The report that I got immediately after the event—long before they were overdue—was that the sub was approaching thirty-five hundred metres,” he told me, while the oxygen clock was still ticking. “It dropped weights”—meaning that the team had aborted the dive—“then it lost comms, and lost tracking, and an implosion was heard.”
would the world scramble all those resources for some asylum seekers in dinghys?
Unfortunately we know the answer to this.
Unfortunately we know the answer to this.
There are regular stories of migrants being saved by RNLI etc.
As I’m sure its been alluded to, there are so many lessons to be learnt here in totally different areas in life. When people are demanding to get rid of red tape for a start. Like it’s always an inherently good goal. Best to check why that tape was put they’re in the first place!
I find the ‘elf and safety gorn mad types’ don’t tend to frequent the places where this stuff is needed although are very vocal.
This had regulations but under the guise of ‘mission specialists’ and ‘experimental’ was circumnavigated as a passenger service.
You need both regulation and the ability to innovate and that was in place but was misused.
There are regular stories of migrants being saved by RNLI etc.
Yep not disagreeing with this but I’m thinking of the most recent
From air and by sea, using radar, telephone and radio, officials watched and listened for 13 hours as the migrant ship Adriana lost power, then drifted aimlessly off the coast of Greece in a slowly unfolding humanitarian disaster.
As terrified passengers telephoned for help, humanitarian workers assured them that a rescue team was coming. European border officials, watching aerial footage, prepared to witness what was certain to be a heroic operation.
Yet the Adriana capsized and sank in the presence of a single Greek Coast Guard ship last month, killing more than 600 migrants in a maritime tragedy that was shocking even for the world’s deadliest migrant route.
Winston
Yeah course he has, yeah totally played me – just Like Stockton played the Dawoods.
I’ve actually moved my position on this. Earlier on in the thread (much earlier on) I suggested that overall everybody could make their own decisions but that I was angry the kid had been dragged into it. Now the more people like stevextc ramble on about individual choice without having any skin in the game or literally any idea about anything it shows clearly to me that there should be even more protection, even for billionaires who should know better – .
Why? What is it gives someone else the right to determine what other people do for their leisure?
There is/was a whole load of testing and certification ... people on the Titan made their own mind up if they think its important to them or ignore it.
My objection is in legislation preventing them choosing to ignore the certification and disclimer in their leisure activity.
basically to shield them from the clearly ever increasing march of the self assured well funded idiot
but where does that stop ? It's all a slippery slope and those obsessed by controlling the safety of others don't stop at shonky subs.
I share the distaste for the 19yr old.... but he's old enough to vote and affect the lives of others
Superficial
1) Stockton Whatsisface is a narcissistic lunatic who pursued an unwise and deeply irresponsible programme of exploration against all advice, and persuaded / lured / tricked people into taking trips with him.
2) People should be free to do / explore what they want (in international waters) without being beholden to some hypothetical world police force.
It’s possible to hold those two views simultaneously, which I think is SteveXTC’s position. I’m not saying I agree with it – just that it’s a reasonable position to hold – depending on one’s position on the auth / lib spectrum. So no need for name-calling.
That is exactly my position put better than I did.
and persuaded / lured / tricked people into taking trips with him
Perhaps or obviously except these were people with the means to check.
I thought it odd that the expert/guide would put his name to this.
Then that article references his late wife & comments that “I’ve had a good life/ what a place to go out/ it’ll be quick”
it’s almost like he had a death wish, and Rush used his name/ experience to persuade the passengers, sorry “mission specialists”, it’s all ok.
Again 2 separate things... if he has a death wish it's noone else's business. If his name is being used without saying "but he doesn't really care about dying" that's another.
There is/was a whole load of testing and certification
have you told the authorities of this new information regarding the sub.
if he has a death wish it’s noone else’s business
Well it is actually, in the case of the Titan quite a few other people's business, and many millions of dollars.
There are less disruptive and costly ways of ending your own life. Plus society has a limited but recognised duty of care towards those who want to end their lives.
I doubt many people would want to live in a society that didn't.
If you have the time to spare this quite interesting.
There are regular stories of migrants being saved by RNLI etc.
Ah well if there's "regular stories" humanity must be doing a bang up job of protecting the most vulnerable and definitely not prioritising a handful of society's mega-wealthy leaches...
https://www.rescue.org/article/greek-shipwreck-everything-you-need-know
There’s an ocean of differences between the two cases. In the case of the Titan, almost all of the initial effort was to search for it. In the migrant case it was known where it was. In the case of the Titan, there was a very fixed timeline to find and rescue a vessel in an unknown location and without communication.In the migrant case, it was a vessel without power, adrift in the sea in a known position and in communication. In the case of the Titan, crew rescue could happen by almost any size of vessel, in the migrant case you needed capacity for several hundred souls. For the Titan there were no legal questions, but for the migrants, this is far more complex.
I fervently believe wealth and fame had nothing to do with it, people who live and work at sea don’t usually dick about with this stuff.
There is/was a whole load of testing and certification … people on the Titan made their own mind up if they think its important to them or ignore it.
but… there quite obviously wasn’t. Whatever you may feel about peoples rights to make there own choices in this instance Steve, there simply wasn’t informed consent, and that is a crucial point that is completely escaping you
There’s an ocean of differences between the two cases.
I agree and I think that those drawing parallels between them are mostly just indulging in lazy, predictable point scoring.
but where does that stop ? It’s all a slippery slope and those obsessed by controlling the safety of others don’t stop at shonky subs.
Steve, can you explain how this slippery slope is actually a thing?
maybe complete the sentence... "first they came for our experimental deep water subs, and we did nothing. then...."
There is/was a whole load of testing and certification …
The CEO was selling it as a plus point that there wasn’t. Innovation and all that.
As I’ve said before, no one is stopping folk from trying to get themselves to the bottom of the sea. What they are doing is trying to stop dreaming chancers from being wreckless (in more ways than one, lulz) with other peoples (customers) lives.
The CEO and Oceangate themselves mis sold their safety and capabilities. They continually stated that the craft was developed and tested using U Washington and Boeing Composites, but this wasn't the case. The work completed by both was for sub-scale demonstrators at very reduced mission requirements. Later packages of work which weren't paid for or completed were supposed to test and develop for Titan. OG didn't continue this research and instead pressed ahead seemingly assuming that the results of subscale testing were directly projectable to the full scale product/mission and told prospective customers, that their product had been developed using those partners, which, in a sense it had, but the Devil's in the detail and that detail is what was either lied about directly or was a lie of omission on the part of OG and its CEO.
have you told the authorities of this new information regarding the sub.
but… there quite obviously wasn’t. Whatever you may feel about peoples rights to make there own choices in this instance Steve, there simply wasn’t informed consent, and that is a crucial point that is completely escaping you
Perhaps I need to clarfy that: There is/was extensive certification available but Oceangate/CEO decided to ignore it (or say it doesn't apply) but those on the sub and others offered the chance had the opportunity and resources to find this out and make their own decision EITHER/OR because they have the financial resources or because they are part of what Cameron called "the community".
This isn't a scheduled ferry/plane/train etc. it's not even a private charter of the type "uninformed people" might do as a one off balloon trip/aerobatic flight or driving the Nuremberg ring etc. its 4000m/13100' which puts it in the same sort of exclusive risk as a flight in a SR71 or land/water speed record / space shuttle
As Spin (I think) said earlier it's the classic black adder "nautical opinion is divided" to put that in OceanGate .. "everyone else thinks its an uncertified death trap"...
I was going to answer this separately but it seems to illustrate the difference ...
Jonnyboi
Steve, can you explain how this slippery slope is actually a thing?
maybe complete the sentence… “first they came for our experimental deep water subs, and we did nothing. then….”
Waverley council recently stuck their uniformed noses into bulldozing a jump.... (Pure Darkness) on health and safety grounds. Anyone who knew it (whether they rode it or not) would have to honestly say you couldn't accidentally roll in... it wasn't round some blind bend and a 20' gap you couldn't see you had to stare right down the roll-in.
no-one ever rolled into it uniformed ...
Ernielynch
There are less disruptive and costly ways of ending your own life. Plus society has a limited but recognised duty of care towards those who want to end their lives.
I doubt many people would want to live in a society that didn’t.
Have you even read what you wrote and thought it through?
A majority get to make up the rules for a minority on the only thing in their entire life they should have complete control over and criminalise it .. and we even call this a progressive society.
Have you even considered it is for many this obsession of a larger society with control over what we can and can't do that makes not wanting to wake up for another day in it more attractive?
Nuremberg doesn't have a ring road as such but getting to the airport can be tricky at rush hour
Stockton Rush undoubtedly "encouraged" "mission specialists" to part with their money to take a trip on Titan. How much of his sales pitch was true, how much an exaggeration and how much much pure sales pitch isn't clear but however he couched it, it cost four people their lives.
Daffy
Full Member
There’s an ocean of differences between the two cases. In the case of the Titan, almost all of the initial effort was to search for it. In the migrant case it was known where it was. In the case of the Titan, there was a very fixed timeline to find and rescue a vessel in an unknown location and without communication. In the migrant case, it was a vessel without power, adrift in the sea in a known position and in communication. In the case of the Titan, crew rescue could happen by almost any size of vessel, in the migrant case you needed capacity for several hundred souls. For the Titan there were no legal questions, but for the migrants, this is far more complex.I fervently believe wealth and fame had nothing to do with it, people who live and work at sea don’t usually dick about with this stuff.
I suppose we'll just have to disagree then...
I fervently believe money and fame had everything to do with the scale of the Ocean Gate response.
I also believe the lack of resources being thrown at migrant boats has everything to do with the lack of visibility, wealth, influence and media presence wielded by those aboard. It only made a "good Story" after several hundred people had died, and even now press seem to be tip-toeing around attributing liability or motives to the authorities involved.
Unfortunately not, from the article:
McCallum, who was leading an expedition in Papua New Guinea at the time, knew the outcome almost instantly. “The report that I got immediately after the event—long before they were overdue—was that the sub was approaching thirty-five hundred metres,” he told me, while the oxygen clock was still ticking. “It dropped weights”—meaning that the team had aborted the dive—“then it lost comms, and lost tracking, and an implosion was heard.”
Fortunately, Rush had also assured them that there would be plenty of time to abort the dive if the auditory sensors went off, so hopefully they still had a false sense of security up until the final millisecond.
From the article in The New Yorker mentioned above:
Rush was furious; he called a meeting that afternoon, and recorded it on his phone. For the next two hours, the OceanGate leadership insisted that no hull testing was necessary—an acoustic monitoring system, to detect fraying fibres, would serve in its place. According to the company, the system would alert the pilot to the possibility of catastrophic failure “with enough time to arrest the descent and safely return to surface.” But, in a court filing, Lochridge’s lawyer wrote, “this type of acoustic analysis would only show when a component is about to fail—often milliseconds before an implosion—and would not detect any existing flaws prior to putting pressure onto the hull.” A former senior employee who was present at the meeting told me, “We didn’t even have a baseline. We didn’t know what it would sound like if something went wrong.”
I fervently believe money and fame had everything to do with the scale of the Ocean Gate response.
Probably mostly money - because the would be Titan rescuers would be getting paid to be out there, either privately or via insurance.
those on the sub and others offered the chance had the opportunity and resources to find this out and make their own decision
I suppose that's what you tell your granny when she's the victim of some scam or fraud.
Your arguments are straw-clutchingly weak. You've lost, give up.
I fervently believe money and fame had everything to do with the scale of the Ocean Gate response.
Suspect the rescue response and coverage would have been similar if it was a crew of deep-sea scientists or rig dive specialists etc. I'm sure the money / fame element adds an additional juicy detail to write about though.
Fortunately, Rush had also assured them that there would be plenty of time to abort the dive if the auditory sensors went off, so hopefully they still had a false sense of security up until the final millisecond.
That's my take too. Must have been scary but perhaps not completely terrifying. Either way I'm not sure it matters too much, it sounds like it was a few moments (a minute?) of fear before they were instantly crushed. That seems to me better than spending days contemplating your inevitable asphyxiation.
I suppose that’s what you tell your granny when she’s the victim of some scam or fraud.
Your arguments are straw-clutchingly weak. You’ve lost, give up.
FYI that's not a rebuttal.
Comparing this to a scam of vulnerable people is very different, for the very reason that elderly people may not have the wherewithal to make informed decisions. Do you have the same sympathy for people who fall for the daft get-rich-quick BitCoin scams on TikTok? Perhaps the government should take everyone's money and keep it safe so they can't fall prey to such scams?
cookea
I suppose we’ll just have to disagree then…
I fervently believe money and fame had everything to do with the scale of the Ocean Gate response.
However much you or anyone else separates them or not it highlights the difference not only of the response but the media attention and how the two are intertwined. Whatever you think about legislation against extreme sports I can't see how people can't see a difference between doing something dangerous through sheer desperation and for shits and giggles.
but where does that stop ? It’s all a slippery slope and those obsessed by controlling the safety of others don’t stop at shonky subs.
There's no slippery slope here, look at climbing and mountaineering for example. The professional guiding/instruction side of it is regulated in a number of ways but there are no moves to stop individuals engaging in risky behavior themselves.
I suppose that’s what you tell your granny when she’s the victim of some scam or fraud.
My granny, were she alive didn't have a whole security staff whose job it was to inform her of risks.
Your arguments are straw-clutchingly weak. You’ve lost, give up.
What is the other argument? I haven't seen any other argument than some self appointed people wish to impose their rules on others.
Steve, am I reading it right that you think regulating the safety requirements for paying passengers on deep sea submarines is the sort of slippery slope that means a landowner may decide to remove mountain bike trails?
Spin
There’s no slippery slope here, look at climbing and mountaineering for example. The professional guiding/instruction side of it is regulated in a number of ways but there are no moves to stop individuals engaging in risky behavior themselves.
Yes and no ... which is saying directly and indirectly.
https://www.climbers-club.co.uk/sport-climbing-banned-in-france/
Whereas the legislation in France as in the UK is some backwards liability of landowners for what people choose to do on their land it is the same arguments.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/clifton-suspension-bridge-warning-base-7103879
https://www.hcn.org/issues/47.12/deaths-renew-calls-for-national-parks-to-rescind-base-jumping-bans
The irony being that making extreme sports illegal not only makes them more popular amongst some but increases the danger.
Sympathy isn't the issue. Whether such scams should be illegal is. Not all grannies (or other scam victims, such as those who get ripped off on eBay, as seen regularly enough here) are vulnerable. And it's not about banning the victims from spending their money, but banning the scam artists from ripping them off.
Poly
Steve, am I reading it right that you think regulating the safety requirements for paying passengers on deep sea submarines is the sort of slippery slope that means a landowner may decide to remove mountain bike trails?
I'm saying classing these as "fare paying passengers" in the same was as those on the 07:34 from Piccadilly is an extreme stretch. If I turn up at Ambleside for the ferry that's different to turning up at Coniston to have a go in Bluebird whether I pay or not.
One I have an expectation it's safe, the other a reasonable expectation I'm going to die.
that means a landowner may decide to remove mountain bike trails?
Not only the landowner, as far as I know Pure Darkness was not on council owned land but Waverley council involved itself for example because people who are not riding it complained .
the other a reasonable expectation I’m going to die
Rush lied to his passengers and told them it was all super dooper wooper safe because they could just toodle on up to the surface if owt went wrong.
He was a narcissistic scumbag who killed his passengers with unchecked arrogance and ego.
theCaptain
Sympathy isn’t the issue. Whether such scams should be illegal is. Not all grannies (or other scam victims, such as those who get ripped off on eBay, as seen regularly enough here) are vulnerable. And it’s not about banning the victims from spending their money, but banning the scam artists from ripping them off.
Surely the scam aspect is already illegal?
If not then I'm 100% behind that... what I'm against is legislation preventing people perfectly capable of performing due diligence deciding they are going to ignore it.
Everyone on that sub (possibly with the regrettable exception of the 19yr old) had bells, sirens and flashing lights and chose to hit the buttons that need to be pressed in a specific order to silence them.
what I’m against is legislation preventing people perfectly capable of performing due diligence deciding they are going to ignore it.
How exactly? Ok so the people who happened to be on this dive could have afforded to pay for a investigator who probably would have dug up this dirt seeing how quickly the papers did (although that said considering oceangate were apparently a bit sue happy thats possibly not the case) but thats not always going to be true.
Do you want an equivalent of the financial industries certified investors where if you have enough case you are assumed to be able to look after yourself?
dissonance
How exactly? Ok so the people who happened to be on this dive could have afforded to pay for a investigator who probably would have dug up this dirt seeing how quickly the papers did (although that said considering oceangate were apparently a bit sue happy thats possibly not the case) but thats not always going to be true.
Insofar as this is "they were fare paying passengers/pilot" ... a couple of whom were part of "the community" and a couple were at the point of ...
Do you want an equivalent of the financial industries certified investors where if you have enough case you are assumed to be able to look after yourself?
assuming you mean cash....
Assuming they didn't already know what happens to a tin can (or carbon fibre/titanium) one of it implodes at 4000m that's not an expert type question for a subject matter expert - anyone with a science or engineering background can work that out. They would also have a professional security detail... who again may not be experts in subs but again we aren't talking about "is it a bit risky" here or "general public"... and in any case would know someone to call as a first step.
Just to give an example for what I'd personally expect...
Lets say I book a ballooning trip (already many many times safer) in the UK fromt he UK with a UK company I pretty much expect their are some certificates and such and probably assume so... HOWEVER should I name the company on here and you and everyone else warns me "they are uncertified cowboys" I'm going to do a due diligence.
If I booked a Thomas Cook vacation to Egypt and I then ask them to book me a ballooning trip over the pyramids... and they say "sure" I think I'd still expect them to choose something safe but I'd check up all the same. If they told me "sorry, there are no safe balloon flights in Egypt according to our criteria and by the way your travel insurance will be invalid" and I say "sod it i'll just book one anyway" I'm ignoring the bells, sirens and flashing lights.
To put this in scam language it's more Nigerian Prince needs your account details and copies of your passport and birth cert so they can transfer some money they are going to split with you vs "I'll send a courier with cash"
edit:
Just rushing out but didn't answer the "not always the case"
I think this is just SO FAR off "the general public" or even an "adventure holiday with moderate risk"... and I did draw the parallel pages ago with financial investments.
I fervently believe money and fame had everything to do with the scale of the Ocean Gate response.I also believe the lack of resources being thrown at migrant boats has everything to do with the lack of visibility, wealth, influence and media presence wielded by those aboard. It only made a “good Story” after several hundred people had died, and even now press seem to be tip-toeing around attributing liability or motives to the authorities involved.
Do you truly believe that it was because they were wealthy nobodies (had anyone really even heard of them or could relate to them?) that "the world" rushed to save them? FYI - a total of 8 assets were involved in the search for the titan. 2 aircraft, 6 vessels including its own support ship. Of those, 1 was a deep sea pipe layer that happened to be in the area, 1 was a French deep sea exploration vessel diverted specifically for its capabilities, 3 were Canadian navy vessels again, in the area.
Most of these ships are like fire engines, they have a single specialist job, when that job is required, they go to where the fire is.
I think the lack of resources being thrown at the migrant boats has more to do with legality and responsibility than it does with money.
Compare US policy WRT to Cuba. The US intercepts and transports migrants back to Cuba, but if they reach US shores or need medical attention which can't be provided on-ship, they become refugees. They have a vested interest in patrolling the waters. In Europe there is almost no policy, no responsibility. In both cases, there are few ethics, but at least in the US case, there are rules.
Surely the scam aspect is already illegal?
But isn't it your position that it shouldn't be? The customer can do their due diligence. Who are we to tell them not to spend their money on helping out a Nigerian prince in a tight spot. Or buying tickets for their Russian girlfriend to fly over and meet them.
Steve, can you explain how this slippery slope is actually a thing?
maybe complete the sentence… “first they came for our experimental deep water subs, and we did nothing. then….”
Waverley council recently stuck their uniformed noses into bulldozing a jump…. (Pure Darkness) on health and safety grounds. Anyone who knew it (whether they rode it or not) would have to honestly say you couldn’t accidentally roll in… it wasn’t round some blind bend and a 20′ gap you couldn’t see you had to stare right down the roll-in.
no-one ever rolled into it uniformed …
Fair play, I genuinely LOL'd at that analogy.
those on the sub and others offered the chance had the opportunity and resources to find this out and make their own decision EITHER/OR because they have the financial resources or because they are part of what Cameron called “the community”.
Oh **** off! You could say the same for any scam victim, that's why they call it a ****ing scam!
This is victim blaming pure and simple, just because they have money doesn't make them immune to human error.
Obviously there are so many red flags around the science of the sub and the money (and ego) of the rich paying passengers led them to a position of risk which was way beyond their comprehension. Should they have made further enquiries...? probably; I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips. Looking at the video and background it's very apparent that the central objective was about making money rather than scientific endeavour. But i would stop short of calling it a scam - CEOs of fledgling companies have a tendency to be highly promotional and scammers are usually able to count the proceeds of the crime whilst in this case the CEO perished too.
TBH the money making side could be to facilitate the CEO’s desire to peruse his er hobby.
Didn’t Enzo Ferrari flog the road cars so he could carry on the racing.
I agree and I think that those drawing parallels between them are mostly just indulging in lazy, predictable point scoring.
TBH I raised it as it sits uneasy with me, I don’t think the resources to go for the sub were mobilised due to it being a load of rich people but just find it unsettling that very little seems to have been done to stop 500-600 immigrants drowning.
I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.
Or you may have observed how safety conscious they obviously were. You can like to think whatever you choose but until you've been in their position it's nothing but speculation.
I work in an industry with a history of horrifying accidents (Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima) where every armchair expert likes to comment on how preventable each was and how obvious the failings were.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it sure as hell doesn't make things obvious before the fact. The CEO can rot in hell for all I care but the so-called "mission specialists" were nothing but gullible victims in all of this.
I thought this was an excellent insight into both the mindset of "toxic wealth" that can drive risky behaviour when people get wealthy quickly, and the predatory way these people can be "sold" to. Jason Calacanis has a couple of different podcasts, and I always think he's got a great ability to see the bigger picture. Really interesting to hear his insights and self awareness as a tech billionaire (not just on this issue but in general):
I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.
But equally people might take that as comfort in that they know when to back off.
Its tricky since obviously a ton of information has come up which makes it fairly clear it was playing Russian roulette but how much of that was easily available until the shit hit the fan is unclear. Especially since in some of the cases legal threats seem to have keep people quiet.
I really don't think it has anything to do with wealth. People die doing ambitious things all the time, it's just usually in mountains or falling out of planes rather than under water. These people were rich because the ticket price was high.
There is/was a whole load of testing and certification … people on the Titan made their own mind up if they think its important to them or ignore it.
No. There was not. That is clear from the article I posted, which you’ve clearly not read properly, just skimmed through just to find a few titbits to back up your existing assumptions.
andyrm
Free Memberrisky behaviour
You mean like hurtling down a rocky hillside with scant protection on one of the most dangerous vehicles made for such a thing ?.
I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.
anyone who’s been bought one of those ‘experience days’ tickets for a hot air balloon trip would be familiar with numerous aborted trips’ because conditions aren’t right on a particular day. I spent 18 months repeatedly preparing to go on a hot air balloon tomorrow then calling a number at 7pm to listen to a message telling me it’s cancelled.
(anyone with a lawnmower would be familiar with that frankly.)
i think for the passengers being part of that bigger operation- being out in that part of the ocean, being amongst a bigger technical operation around the sub and those preparations to dive and waiting for the window of opportunity is all part of the trip.
the operation and its leader being a con isn’t something the victims of the con can be blamed for. There’s nothing stupid or reckless (or deserving) about the passengers. They hadn’t had the benefit of hindsight or had the worlds media serve them up a daily diet of every terse email from a disgruntled employee or the options of James Cameron telling us what he’d always knew had happened the moment it became clear to everyone what had happened , or factoids about carbon fibre. We all seem very sure about the choices we’d have made in the same situation but the situation would never be presented to us- we weren’t even aware it could be. Until news broke of the sub going missing….. non of us knew it had even existed. The facts and risks and regulations ( or lack of) being tossed about on this tread were not plastered over the media and internet.
thecaptain
But isn’t it your position that it shouldn’t be? The customer can do their due diligence.
Nope, a scam part should be illegal IMHO (insofar as that can be enforced). That is claiming false certification etc. though how you do that once the whole thing gets moved to a country like Liberia because of legislation in say Canada is another matter.
Who are we to tell them not to spend their money on helping out a Nigerian prince in a tight spot. Or buying tickets for their Russian girlfriend to fly over and meet them.
If that's your mate or relative etc. you can "tell" them (warn them) as much as you like. I certainly would... what you can't do is after telling them its a scam actually prevent them.
(You can also point out that if the Nigerian Prince by some miraculous freak did turn out to be for real they are asking you to launder money that is illegal as an aside).
To put this back in the investment sphere... lets say you got offered an investment opportunity for a new diamond mine in Yemen.. and lets say you know little or nothing of diamond mines but some organisation is claiming they found kimberlites.
As a private investor you can either do some due diligence or not. It seems improbable but there is pre-cambian basement and some Archean down there somewhere.
However you'd be prudent to do some due diligence and get some certified geochem/dating and check with an expert before committing life changing amounts of money. As a first step you might want to check some radiometric dating, ask to see some photo's of thin sections etc. or ask an expert to do that on your behalf and check for a REE signature that they didn't just take some Kimberlite from South Africa
So in essence you should be able to trust an analysis by a recognised lab. If they claimed it was analysed by UCL then it should have been analysed by UCL etc. switching samples should be illegal but you'd do well to check they didn't.
If on the other hand they claim "it's not applicable we are looking at an "experimental" new type of kimberlight" and all the experts know nothing, just send us the money etc. then its very likely a scam regardless of the BS they put on a corporate website.
I would like to think my personal risk tolerance would have baulked at the number of aborted trips.
and
But equally people might take that as comfort in that they know when to back off.
Just highlights that it shouldn't be left to untrained individuals to have to find out for themselves that what they want to do is safe or not. These responses are both reasonably good interpretations of the same piece of information that any Joe Public could conclude. Unless it comes with expert analysis, neither of the folks who make these assumptions knows who is right to be cautious, and who is wrong to be hesitant. or vice versa
Lay people cannot be the sole arbiters of their own safety for some things, and so far as operating perhaps the single most risky thing a Joe Public can reasonably pay to do (short of being blasted into space) there should be a commensurate level of openness and transparency from the operator, that in this case was either sadly lacking, or hidden on purpose.
I agree with @stevextc that folks should be free to do largely what they want, but with these sorts of extremes, all the info should be present to enable them to make a reasonable choice. They didn't get that opportunity here.
There is no current legal controls on submersibles as such, anywhere in the World.
What there is, are engineering standards, set by Classification Societies. They set standards for ships and marine operations, O&G, Offshore wind etc. There are 11 of them, of which, 3 have standards for submersibles. (I think).
These are commercial operations, they are there to make money and some have better reputations than others.
There is no legal requirement to have ship or offshore structure "classed". However, it is almost impossible to operate without it. The main reason being that you can't get insurance without it.
Oceangate operated from a ship that was classed and was under the Canadian flag, it would of been fully compliant and insured.
The sub wasn't classed or insured. It wasn't illegal and I can't see how it could be made to be so when in International waters.
As a casual thought, I wonder if people are picking over the maritime insurance policy for the launch ship? Given that the paying passengers were classed as crew...
One thing that has struck me... There were 3 fee paying passengers onboard. Surprised that they could cover the costs of the whole expedition for $750,000. Crew, fuel, hire of the support ship, airfares to the UK to assure them that it was safe etc. This was also the only Titanic dive scheduled for this year, so they weren't pulling $750k every 2 weeks.
One thing that has struck me… There were 3 fee paying passengers onboard.
On the sub yup. However on all the other trips that have been reported there were several sets of passengers. I would guess 6-9 allowing for three dives over the length of the trip.
Its reported though it was still loss making at this stage with it being unclear where the cash was coming from.
Its reported though it was still loss making at this stage with it being unclear where the cash was coming from.
Wasn't it coming from Stockton Rush himself? I understood that the end point was to flog the sub to the military and spy agencies and the trips to the Titanic were a bit of a loss leader to prove the tech.
The sub wasn’t classed or insured. It wasn’t illegal and I can’t see how it could be made to be so when in International waters.
Same way the US and other countries control the cruise liner industry. You want to dock in their ports you play by their rules.
OK whilst not actually illegal the US and Canada would be able to make it extremely difficult not to play by their rules.
Wasn’t it coming from Stockton Rush himself?
Its unclear just how wealthy he is, maybe some other backers as well?
I understood that the end point was to flog the sub to the military and spy agencies....
The story I saw was for oil companies and possibly others interested in ocean floor resources.
@dissonance, yeah, heard both of those as well. Theory seems to be that he's wealthy enough to fund it himself for the time being, but not wealthy enough for it to go on endless without another source of funding.
I also heard that he wanted a fleet of them for high roller types with vessels in the deeper spots all around the world.
Same way the US and other countries control the cruise liner industry. You want to dock in their ports you play by their rules.
OK whilst not actually illegal the US and Canada would be able to make it extremely difficult not to play by their rules.
They did play by the rules. In Canada they had a Canadian flagged vessel, once outside 12 miles all bets are off.
nickc
I agree with @stevextc that folks should be free to do largely what they want, but with these sorts of extremes, all the info should be present to enable them to make a reasonable choice. They didn’t get that opportunity here.
What I have been trying to say is that for that set of passengersand previous ones the lack of that information should be all the info they needed to make a reasonable choice.
Lay people cannot be the sole arbiters of their own safety for some things, and so far as operating perhaps the single most risky thing a Joe Public can reasonably pay to do (short of being blasted into space) there should be a commensurate level of openness and transparency from the operator, that in this case was either sadly lacking, or hidden on purpose.
There is a long list of the invited and Joe Public doesn't really come close to describing them.
In 2004, Kemp filmed Ross Kemp on Gangs.[13] He followed this up with the documentaries Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, Ross Kemp in Search of Pirates, Ross Kemp: Battle for the Amazon and Ross Kemp: Extreme World.
wikipedia
In 2022 Kemp, who had previously taken part in deep sea dives for the television channel Sky History, had planned to mark the 110th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic by recording a documentary in which he would undertake a dive to the wreckage using the submersible Titan. The project was shelved after production company Atlantic Productions deemed the submersible to be unsafe and not "fit for purpose"
It's just one example... but his production company seem to have found either the info or more likely lack of and quickly got to the sensible decision.
It’s just one example… but his production company seem to have found either the info or more likely lack of and quickly got to the sensible decision.
More likely tried to arrange insurance and when they were refused, pulled the plug. The other documentaries, while needing specialist insurance, would of been insurable.
There is a long list of the invited and Joe Public doesn’t really come close to describing them
Nit picking. They're not professionals, so they're public, wealthy fo'shure; but still just Joe Public. That they get called "mission specialists" in the literature is just ego-massaging for v wealthy people
for that set of passengers
Their wealth or level of resourcefulness is irrelevant People should be free to do what they want, if that's go to the ocean floor, then cool, if that's go to the ocean floor with an operator, then they should be able to suppose (or assume) that it's not going to be on board a totally experimental one-of-a-kind craft that all the other experts in the field think is totally un-safe and the Operations Director has recently been taken to court for whistle-bowing. This should be so obvious as to be not worth disagreeing about.
That they get called “mission specialists” in the literature is just ego-massaging for v wealthy people
From the article posted previously, calling the punters "mission specialists" was a bit of legal loopholery as calling them "passengers", "customers", "clients", "travellers" or whatever would have meant operating under a more stringent regulatory framework.
That it massaged their egos was a side benefit.
They did play by the rules. In Canada they had a Canadian flagged vessel, once outside 12 miles all bets are off.
And the reason they used the Canadian flagged vessel is they had to in order to use the port. If Canada now changes the rules to require any subs to be insured then they would have to do that as well.
Or sail a rather long way.
And the reason they used the Canadian flagged vessel is they had to in order to use the port. If Canada now changes the rules to require any subs to be insured then they would have to do that as well.
Or sail a rather long way.
I posted earlier that I'm pretty certain that they will change the rules to stop the likes of Oceangate operating out of Canada and the USA.
However, it's a bit of a moot point as there are only 4 or 5 manned subs capable of going to 4000m and they are all built to class requirements. I doubt anyone is going to building anything like Titan in the foreseeable future.
I don't think this has come up before (sorry if it has, I almost can't believe it's not been mentioned) but there's an episode on The Travel Show 'Take Me To The Titanic' that follows an OceanGate expedition in 2022.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0fpz9zw/the-travel-show-take-me-to-titanic
If you search iPlayer there's also a part 1 without part 2 but this seems to be both parts in one episode (43mins).
I understood that the end point was to flog the sub to the military and spy agencies and the trips to the Titanic were a bit of a loss leader to prove the tech.
The story I saw was for oil companies and possibly others interested in ocean floor resources.
Seems unlikely. All major development efforts in that sphere are in uncrewed platforms. .
Anyone watch the first part of the documentary on the Titan tragedy last night?
Think it was on channel 5.
I bet that went down well.
started watching but it wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know so I got bored and switched over.
I binged out on every story I could get on it at the time though.
Was there any new information?
started watching but it wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know so I got bored and switched over.
I rather assumed it would be submarine bro uses untried tech he's been advised not to and gets loads of people killed, which I've heard/read multiple times already.
I bet that went down well.
Oh dear, making jokes on a tragic accident. Some people really plumb the depths.
Hope I never sink that low.
Can't be bothered watching an entire documentary. Is there a heavily condensed version of the story?
Can’t be bothered watching an entire documentary. Is there a heavily condensed version of the story?
Pretty much what ratherbeintobego said 2 posts above
Only watched ~10mins and feels like they are really dragging this story out. I thought they decided that Titan imploded very early on after the descent, the crew and passengers never got close to using available air.
I rather assumed it would be submarine bro uses untried tech he’s been advised not to and gets loads of people killed, which I’ve heard/read multiple times already.
Yeah, so much this. I guess it’s the collected volume for anyone who wasn’t paying attention the first time.