Forum menu
There’s a difference between taking a substantial risk of death today versus dying a little bit earlier some years down the line. It’s not like there is a third option to not die at all, still less not die and live in good health indefinitely.
Sort of ... you could (using smoking as an example) also equate any single puff with being the one causes/triggers a mutation.
Obviously if we say for example the probable risk of this dive (or Harding's other adventures) was 5-25% of death then incrementally the probability increases much more quickly...
I think it's safe to say that Harding understood this and just accepted it.
think it’s safe to say that Harding understood this and just accepted it.
That's a massive and unfounded assumption.
That’s a massive and unfounded assumption.
It's hardly unfounded it was his job.
What about the billionaire and his son ? You think they got on that sub thinking there was a 1 in 20 chance they would die?
Or do you think they thought the chance of death was minuscule because the ceo apparently told them it was safer than scuba diving…
What about the billionaire and his son ? You think they got on that sub thinking there was a 1 in 20 chance they would die?
Or do you think they thought the chance of death was minuscule because the ceo apparently told them it was safer than scuba diving…
They either chose not to have an independent risk assessment or not.
Then they chose whether to believe it or not.
This is due diligence 101... do you think he invested without risk assessments?
He may have chosen not to or he may have said sod it...
There are far worse things than dying quickly... one of which to some of us is letting other people tell you what you can and can't do because its dangerous and spending decades in a living death of blandness.
There are far worse things than dying quickly… one of which to some of us is letting other people tell you what you can and can’t do because its dangerous and spending decades in a living death of blandness
spoken like a man who is alive and kicking this morning
i wonder if the Kid’s mum feels the same..
spoken like a man who is alive and kicking this morning
i wonder if the Kid’s mum feels the same..
He was 19 so non of her business any more than it is yours.
It’s hardly unfounded it was his job.
Nope.
The idea that oceansgate were pioneers, on the cutting edge of deep sea research is utter bullshit.
The use of composites was to try and cut the cost. The lack of certification was to avoid scrutiny. They were told multiple times and continued regardless. If the CEO hadn’t been onboard too, he’d be going to jail.
Agreed jambo
He was 19 so non of her business any more than it is yours.
So when she questions why her son needlessly died, despite being assured it was perfectly safe, in reality it’s none of her business
ok then..🤔
He was 19 so non of her business any more than it is yours
None of his mums business? None of her business what her husband and son do? I must've misunderstood you because that is beyond daft.
There's more stuff coming out everyday.
Apparently they had some issues and de-rated the sub to 3000m, then after "repairs and inspections" it was re-rated to 5000m. None of this had any 3rd party input.
None of his mums business? None of her business what her husband and son do? I must’ve misunderstood you because that is beyond daft.
They were both old enough to vote... do you think he should have permission from his mother on voting?
What underlies my comment is people who think they have some right to tell other adults what they can and can't do because they have decided it's too dangerous
What measures are you willing to take or allow to prevent people doing dangerous pursuits?
Is it OK to imprison them?
Physically restrain them?
Who determines this?
Should someone actively encourage them to do risky stuff, charge them £200k to do it, then cut corners on the safety, be creative on the truth of how safe it is, so they can make a profit?
And no one be allowed to step in and say, you should probably have a harder think about this?
They either chose not to have an independent risk assessment or not.
Then they chose whether to believe it or not.This is due diligence 101… do you think he invested without risk assessments?
He may have chosen not to or he may have said sod it…
Who does an independent risk assessment when they've paid a provider to do some activity? You hand the money over assuming that they've done that.
The thing you're failing to understand in all this is the difference between an individual choosing to take a personal risk and an organisation taking risks with their clients. The former mostly can't be regulated, the latter needs to be.
They either chose not to have an independent risk assessment or not.<!--more-->
Bonkers. They were paying for a commercial service and had a reasonable expectation that it would be safe. Do you carry out an independent assessment before taking a flight? Did you have singletrack world cyber assessed before logging on this morning?
What underlies my comment is people who think they have some right to tell other adults what they can and can’t do because they have decided it’s too dangerous
Furnished with the full facts, if someone still chooses to get in a carbon tube with 20% chance of instant death then, as long as they don’t expect others to spent time and risk lives to save them, you are right, they should be allowed to go ahead and do that
But that’s not what happened here is it.
Put it this way ..would you go skydiving ? Quite possibly as you’d assume that the parachute worked 999/1000 and there is a backup incase it failed
would you still go if you were told that the parachute had been packed by a blind man who didn’t know what they were doing ,and only had a 80% chance of opening?
im all for freedom of choice, as long as it’s informed choice
im all for freedom of choice, as long as it’s informed choice
I'd argue that it's probably impossible to make a properly informed choice about such a complex activity as diving to the Titanic. Regulation of an industry helps customers to make an informed choice by attempting to ensure companies meet certain standards.
Who does an independent risk assessment when they’ve paid a provider to do some activity? You hand the money over assuming that they’ve done that.
The thing you’re failing to understand in all this is the difference between an individual choosing to take a personal risk and an organisation taking risks with their clients. The former mostly can’t be regulated, the latter needs to be.
Bonkers. They were paying for a commercial service and had a reasonable expectation that it would be safe. Do you carry out an independent assessment before taking a flight?
It's not the 07:31 leaving platform 4 though is it.... it's not even in the same ballpark.
Whichever way you look at this it's in the category of "if you keep doing that you're going to die, if not this time soon".
Even calling it a commercial operation would be a bit rich, a grift would be closer to the mark.
I liken this to a commercial offer for some private investment just higher stakes.
You're going to get a load of CEO's and equivalents telling you how its a totally safe bet and you'll make hundreds of percent profit in no time at all... vs some people trafficker telling a family to give their life's savings and/or slavery for some trip to Greece.
Everyone on there had all the resources or prior knowledge to check, by all accounts one page of the disclaimer mentions death multiple times .. it has to set off from national waters with no passengers... and you are going to trust the deceased CEO who is on record as saying he doesn't think safety is important.
Furnished with the full facts, if someone still chooses to get in a carbon tube with 20% chance of instant death then, as long as they don’t expect others to spent time and risk lives to save them, you are right, they should be allowed to go ahead and do that
But that’s not what happened here is it.
Put it this way ..would you go skydiving ? Quite possibly as you’d assume that the parachute worked 999/1000 and there is a backup incase it failed
would you still go if you were told that the parachute had been packed by a blind man who didn’t know what they were doing ,and only had a 80% chance of opening?
More accurately would you do if you got told the parachute was a new experimental design that had forgone testing and you couldn't board the plane in any airport as it was not tested to standards but instead it would be taking off from international waters... all the clues are there!!!
it was not tested to standards but instead it would be taking off from international waters… all the clues are there!!!
I thought you were against regulation but here you are talking about how the fact that the sub didn’t conform to standards was a red flag. You're against regulation but you want people to use regulations regulations as part of their decision making? I don't think you've really thought this through.
Do shall we scrap then, in no particular order, as you should be able at 18 years old to decide.
Pilots license
Hgv license
Race car license
Crane operator licence
Mot tests.
Buildings control
Motorbike helmets.
Its ok son, you do your 5x5 risk assessment. What you are about to do is a little bit dangerous. There's a possibility that you may die, or pose a risk to others lives. But, as long as your happy with it, you crack on.
Skydiving for example. Its similar in when it goes wrong there's a probability you will die. But there are stats. I didn't sew the parachute for example,so its likely to not tear apart.
But still people die. Should ee stop them? No, should it be more regulated, probably.
Getting in a coke can for whatever reason, and diving that deep, with no chance of rescue if anything goes wrong is Darwinism at its most brutal. So its boring having so much money but there are hundreds of other things you can do that still get you bragging rights amongst billionaires and wont kill you instantly
Whichever way you look at this it’s in the category of “if you keep doing that you’re going to die, if not this time soon”.
As I understand it the submersible industry as a whole has an excellent safety record.
Maybe the CEO got lied to in his physics class at school and this is what happens… 😉
The Del-Boys' of deep sea diving.
The Trotters' Titanic Tousism Company.
Who determines this?
Ultimately we do, through our democratic processes.
I take it you have never ever asked for a refund for anything you paid for.
I liken this to a commercial offer for some private investment just higher stakes.
Oh, you're also opposed to any protection to prevent old grannies getting ripped off by scams.
I don’t think you’ve really thought this through.
I take it you've not had the pleasure of a debate with Steve before? He is the Trump of self-acclaimed polymath bullshitters. You may as well walk away now because regardless of facts, sense or just general self-awareness he won't be wrong.
all the clues are there!
The biggest ‘clue’ would surely be the fact that they sacked the chief safety engineer because they called it out as a death trap. And a letter from industry experts warning them of the same
do you think this was disclosed to the kid and his dad?
Apparently on one dive, when they got to the bottom, they discovered that 1 of the thrusters was operating in reverse. They fixed by re-mapping the game controller.
This would seem to indicate that their pre-dive checks weren't up to much.
The rest of the industry builds their subs based around a sphere, but you can't get 4 paying guests in.
That’s the point other people don’t have the moral right to decide what is and isn’t too risky for someone else.
That is why it is so important that this sort of thing remain unregulated so people have the choice.
There is a difference between choice and 'informed choice'. In this case, the passengers are not experts in the performance of carbon-fibre under extreme pressure, or any of the other innovative systems being used, so they can't judge for themselves whether the company involved has done the necessary testing. That's where some form of accreditation is useful, because it at least gives the poor punters some insight as to whether someone independent has glanced at what the company is up to.
Accreditation and independent verification is not foolproof, as it depends on how well the assessor understands the technology, and how open the company is being about it. But without it, the clients are vulnerable to professional bullshitters like the CEO in this case.
Should someone actively encourage them to do risky stuff, charge them £200k to do it, then cut corners on the safety, be creative on the truth of how safe it is, so they can make a profit?
And no one be allowed to step in and say, you should probably have a harder think about this?
Having watched the various spins on these events put about in the press this week, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that, but yeah there was certainly an element of engineering risk taking going on.
At the same time there are actually limits to what you can realistically regulate, especially when you're talking about heading 2 miles beneath international waters. I'm not saying you couldn't regulate Deep sea submersibles and their operation, but
I think the problem stems from the growing tech-bro-ification of almost every technology based field.
To my mind it's time to worry when society elevates those who live the mantra of "Move fast and break things". It's all well and good when those potential breakages are just people's private data or some imaginary Billions of USD. But when physical safety is comprised in the name of some ill defined "progress" if you're asking your customers to sign a waiver with regards to their lives, a stronger examination of methods and motives is warranted (IMO).
The rest of the industry builds their subs based around a sphere
Reminds me of a Blackadder quote. A crew? Nautical opinion is divided on the matter, all the other captains say you need one, I say you don't.
I thought you were against regulation but here you are talking about how the fact that the sub didn’t conform to standards was a red flag. You’re against regulation but you want people to use regulations regulations as part of their decision making? I don’t think you’ve really thought this through.
There is a world of difference between standards and regulation of what is and isn't allowed in terms of something that isn't a mass consumer thing/service or is part of employment etc.
That this service didn't is a red flag that it's not a mass commercial train/flight/ferry service.
Back to investments ... it's the same thing is it regulated by the FSA/LSE etc. ?
If it is then you rely on their certification (plus or minus).. vs some CEO coming with an offer for a 49% share for a gold mine in some far flung unregulated part of the planet.
There's a whole thread showing how shonky people on here think this was (most of 20 pages) ... ^^^ how difficult is it for a billionaire to have found that out?
Can your normal commuter seriously pay for a risk assessment for the train they catch? Absolutely not...
It's a different ball park, its not even a ball park in the same city.
I've done SCUBA diving in Libya for example... and whilst never risk free I had some confidence in the people I was doing it with.
I also used to either fly in a janky plane from Djerba to Malta or take the ferry from Libya neither of which were anything like safe nor did I con myself into believing they were. The plane I used to take went down with everyone a few weeks after the last time I'd flown on it, can't say I was surprised but it was convenient.
There’s a whole thread showing how shonky people on here think this was (most of 20 pages) … ^^^ how difficult is it for a billionaire to have found that out?
Nobody on this thread has also had the monster sales pitch from the CEO to influence them. It must be ok if he’s going in it too yeah?
There is a world of difference between standards and regulation of what is and isn’t allowed in terms of something that isn’t a mass consumer thing/service or is part of employment etc.
That this service didn’t is a red flag that it’s not a mass commercial train/flight/ferry service.
This doesn’t make much sense. Are you saying large scale services etc should be regulated but small scale ones shouldn't?
So do you think it’s appropriate or think it should be legal for a company to be able to withhold information they have received from experts that states their product is a potential death trap and fundamentally flawed?
Which imo is quite a step beyond ‘it’s not been certified as it’s an experimental craft’
or in your world should the onus be on the tourist to trawl through the internal e-mail system of the company before setting off?
Nobody on this thread has also had the monster sales pitch from the CEO to influence them. It must be ok if he’s going in it too yeah?
I have worked on a number of projects involving ROV's and know how tempremenatal they can be. Although to be fair, nowadays there is one manufacturer who builds some very reliable systems.
The stuff I was involved in was relatively shallow but there are always some issues.
Another team in my company did a job at around 4000m and they had loads of problems.
To me, the consumer standard internal electronics, not just the games controller but some of the other stuff, would of been an issue.
Also, there doesn't appear to be any atmosphere monitoring, which would be a worry.
However, the red flag would of been the lack of Classification Society involvement. It's a pain in the arse at times but without you are uninsurable. Why would you want to go there?
The issue with this vessel wasn't that people didn't know if it was safe due to not being rated but that some people clearly knew it was unsafe.
It wasn't experimental, that implies the outcome is unknown but it wasn't unknown to everyone. It wasn't if it would fail in their minds it was when. They were right. They weren't right because they made a lucky guess but because their knowledge told them so
Risk normalisation? We’ve done x dives, so the next dive will be safe.
Which is fine in a metal hull well within its design limits. Alvin has done over 5000 dives now.
I watched a clip of the end caps being installed earlier. Think press fit BB with some epoxy bonding… if I was looking for a leak path, that’s where I’d be looking.
Alvin has done over 5000 dives and been re-hulled twice?