Oceangate Sub Missing

Odd that Hardings mate decided it was too shonky. You’d have thought he may have discussed it with him

Odd that Hardings mate decided it was too shonky. You’d have thought he may have discussed it with him

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’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.

However I do agree that smoking seems like a poor choice to make.

It’s also a bit crap for the 19yo who by all accounts only went to please his dad.

That is why it is so important that this sort of thing remain unregulated so people have the choice.

That’s the point other people don’t have the moral right to decide what is and isn’t too risky for someone else.

Yet the unregulated commercial tourist subs still get / expect all that rescue resource when things go wrong, despite not having done the work to show the vessel is safe. And from time to time rescuers die doing what they do.

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.

The idea that oceansgate were pioneers, on the cutting edge of deep sea research is utter bullshit.

Even calling it a commercial operation would be a bit rich, a grift would be closer to the mark.

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?

As an individual. Knock yourself out, build the shonkiest, ‘cutting edge’ vehicle you can. Push that bleeding edge of technology and risk.

Commercially? Yeah, nah. Rules etc.

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 5×5 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.

@spin

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.

Bad taste maybe but utterly profound.

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.