[PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site

Sat Jun 24 12:52:50 EDT 2023

Excellent discussions all around here.

I think it’s a reasonable assumption that most people participating in this endeavor receive some degree of skepticism or shock at the notion of taking this on oneself: Bear in mind there’s a difference between PR and opinion, and while there is some risk of knee-jerk reaction in the wake of these events, two things that I believe keep us insulated

1) The incredibly short memory of the general media-consuming public.  Willing to bet a cold beverage of one’s choosing that in another week or so, deep sea design criteria will not be on anyone’s radar.  There’s already some craziness in Russia, give that another day or two and tack on a vocal and reactionary personal attack from opposing political perspectives on a topic of your choice, and the interest will fade.  

2) The lack of potential impact.  Generally one’s errors have impacts on others, and that’s what generally drives greater outrage, and stamina for that outrage.  Any threats to general aviation (As a risky, technically demanding parallel) generally occur when "public safety” is invoked.  However, see topic #1 and consider the last time there has been a restriction based on that safety demand. (By now the biggest threat gen av faces is in the form of environmentally based arguments.)  The impacts in submersible operations are remarkably insular.  (Any public outrage will also be tempered in the Titan instance by the belief that wealthy people deserve anything they have coming.)  Yes the SAR bill is a large one, and I believe that will become the overriding sentiment in discussions on the matter.

The two points lead me to believe that this event poses little threat to the majority of PSubs membership.  But it’s certainly worth being prepared in the event transport regulation does turn a large eye towards the group.  

Has there been any similar turn in the past?  Do folks here believe holding up ABS (or similar) criteria will be sufficient?  

John

> On Jun 24, 2023, at 9:08 AM, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
> 
> Sean raises a good point.  There is however a big difference.  Karl’s sub is built mostly to ABS rules and at least to standard engineering guidelines.  My issue is not with being classed.  Classing a sub does not make it safer, it just proves it is safe.  The boiler plate waiver would apply and be sufficient in Karl’s case. 
> Hank
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jun 24, 2023, at 9:03 AM, via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hank,
>> Your assumption that somebody-should-have-done-more is flawed. People will do what people will do. The idea that some nameless professional entity could have imposed its will on the free will of free citizens is just hide-your-head-in-the-sand bullshit. I get that you want someone or something to blame. Sadly, such a person does not exist. Not now, and not in the minute before Stockton and his crew were killed. Those people went adventuring. They did it with foreknowledge, because the adventure excited them, and the experience compelled them. And I for one wonder how it is that someone like you, who does EXACTLY the same thing from your home workshop, would think otherwise. Which is pretty much all I have to say on the matter from this point forward. I argued with Stockton, and that changed his mind exactly not one iota. Lesson learned. Does that sound familiar? It should. We are all thick skulled knuckle heads about our passions. Has anyone changed your opinion lately? I'm thinking not. Same here. 'Nuff said.,
>> Vance
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>> To: Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org>
>> Sent: Sat, Jun 24, 2023 10:09 am
>> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] Titan submersible missing at Titanic site
>> 
>> Jon,
>> Although I do agree with you that they were intelligent people, the waiver is not unlike what you would sign to go white water rafting.
>> There was a false sense of security being the 12th dive or however many.  I am simply not satisfied that the powers that regulate this industry did enough.  I don't believe for a second the passengers understood what was going on with the hull.  The American Bureau Of Shipping is no small entity, and surely could have intervened and certainly found out the passenger list.  They are all running around saying "I told you so".  when they should be saying " I wish we did more".   
>> Hank
>> 
>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023, 07:49:56 AM MDT, Jon Wallace via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hank, how do you find the passengers to warn them?  The waiver passengers signed identified the submarine as "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma, or death."  (see link below)  That's a pretty honest and open summary by Ocean Gate itself of what you're up against as a passenger.  If that didn't give the passengers pause what else could an "expert" have told them?  These were highly intelligent successful businessmen who could understand what "experimental" and "certified" meant relative to a submarine.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7RwftWrAeo
>> 
>> When trying to understand people's behavior we have to look at things as they were in the moment, not in the now with the benefit of retrospect.  For example, the MTS letter was penned in 2018.  In the subsequent five years time Ocean Gate had raised $18 million for Titan development and performed multiple dives on the Titanic successfully.  Up until June 18, 2023 anyone could have looked at MTS vs Ocean Gate and walked away believing the warnings were unwarranted.
>> 
>> I think the history and events leading up to the Titan loss is very complex and includes everything from investors, finances, performance, and deadlines; to egos.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 05:22:16 AM EDT, hank pronk via Personal_Submersibles <personal_submersibles at psubs.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Marc, I do agree completely that if you want to get in a barrel and go over Niagara Falls, you should be allowed.  This is different because the paying passengers were Likely not told about the concerns and warnings from industry experts.  That is where my beef with experts lies, they could have done more to insure the passengers knew.  A strongly worded letter to the builder is a let down.  
>> Hank 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org <mailto:Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org>
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>> _______________________________________________
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org <mailto:Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org>
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
>> _______________________________________________
>> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
>> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
>> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles
> _______________________________________________
> Personal_Submersibles mailing list
> Personal_Submersibles at psubs.org
> http://www.psubs.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/personal_submersibles

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.whoweb.com/pipermail/personal_submersibles/attachments/20230624/974c30de/attachment.html>