11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Exactly. Should the CEO of these companies go to jail because one of his/her bicycles failed? One would assume the bicycle industry is regulated yet these things still happen. Even a proponent of safety over innovation like yourself still rides these carbon fibre bikes knowing they can, in certain circumstances collapse. These people did the same, knowing they could die. And die they did. It can happen when you take huge risks like deep sea exploration in one off, experimental vehicles. That's why they had to sign a waiver that mentioned death 3 times on the first page. And sign it they did, hence they knew the risks (unless they didn't read it which again is their responsibility).

 

They are not his victims. 4 of the 5 are grown adults who chose to take a very risky mission to the bottom of the ocean in an experimental vehicle after signing a waiver. If they didn't know that carbon fibre was a poor choice for the vehicle that is their responsibility to find out and then make an informed decision. Not unlike when I take a ride in a Jeepney in Philippines I know that they are not made from the ideal materials under strict QC and design laws, but I still hop on and hope for the best knowing I could die in the event of a crash. I'm not a victim of the Jeepney designer if I die in a Jeepney, I simply took an unnecessary risk and got unlucky.

 

Nobody forced them onto the vehicle at gunpoint, quite the opposite they paid 250k USD each. The only one you could argue was a victim was the teenager, but if he IS a victim then he is a victim of his father's poor judgement and pressure to go, not a victim of Rush.

corporate manslaughter is a thing and people do go to jail for gross negligence.

I’ve already given links correcting your misunderstandings around signing waivers in the other thread discussing this.

 

I see you missed out my comments on  NDT Testing.

 

False equivalence alarm: Jeepny v sub operating kms below surface of a freezing ocean.

 

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

corporate manslaughter is a thing and people do go to jail for gross negligence.

I’ve already given links correcting your misunderstandings around signing waivers in the other thread discussing this.

 

I see you missed out my comments on  NDT Testing.

 

False equivalence alarm: Jeepny v sub operating kms below surface of a freezing ocean.

 

I saw your comments on NDT testing. You are proving my point. Even highly regulated industries like cycling have catastrophic failures with carbon fibre. 

 

The fact that you have already charged, tried and convicted a dead man so soon after his death speaks volumes. The sub could have hit metal that fell or was thrown from one of the many ships that still use that busy shipping lane. You have no idea what really happened. There has been no investigation. No conclusion. No charges against the remaining people involved in the business. 

 

Judge jury and executioner of a recently deceased man who cannot defend himself. Think about that for a moment. 

 

Why? I think we both know....

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I saw your comments on NDT testing. You are proving my point. Even highly regulated industries like cycling have catastrophic failures with carbon fibre. 

 

The fact that you have already charged, tried and convicted a dead man so soon after his death speaks volumes. The sub could have hit metal that fell or was thrown from one of the many ships that still use that busy shipping lane. You have no idea what really happened. There has been no investigation. No conclusion. No charges against the remaining people involved in the business. 

 

Judge jury and executioner of a recently deceased man who cannot defend himself. Think about that for a moment. 

 

Why? I think we both know....

Odd you mention judges, juries and executioners.

 

Stockton Rush’s reckless disregard for safety is a matter of court record, and it did eventually result in deaths, sadly not only his own.

 

On 6/27/2023 at 9:17 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

What innovation?

 

Mini-subs already exist, the technology to build mini subs already exists.

 

I very much doubt the passengers knew the risks, though we do know from court records that Stockton Rush was informed of the risk, chose to ignore the risks and fired the guy who was warning him of the risks.

 

RIP his victims.

 

A passenger on a previous trip was interviewed on TV. Can't remember which channel.

 

He explained the disclaimer that has to be signed prior to boarding tge sub. The word " death" is mentioned 3 times on the first page alone. As previously mentioned by another poster.

 

The victims knew exactly how risky their trip was.

 

Interesting development.

 

"Human remains have been found in the wreckage of the Titan submersible on Wednesday, the Coast Guard announced.

Several identifiable parts of the ship were lifted ashore on Wednesday afternoon, including the sub's nose and a large panel which appears to be from its tail end."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12244711/Presumed-human-remains-discovered-wreckage-Titan-sub-officials-say.html

 

Also interesting to see on the photo where they are hoisting the titanium front end of the sub that the plexiglass porthole(which we are told was not rated for Titanic's depth) is missing or possibly been removed.

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

A passenger on a previous trip was interviewed on TV. Can't remember which channel.

 

He explained the disclaimer that has to be signed prior to boarding tge sub. The word " death" is mentioned 3 times on the first page alone. As previously mentioned by another poster.

 

The victims knew exactly how risky their trip was.

 

Not so.

 

They were informed three times that death was possible (it always is), they had no information on the probability of death, and the probability of death is the risk.

We’re any aware of the fact the sub had been constructed with out of date materials, without the application of the correct manufacturing methods, in appropriate methods of gluing an inspection window into place that was itself not rated for the service.

 

The employee who informed Rush of these shortfalls was fired for doing so, a matter of court record.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not so.

 

They were informed three times that death was possible (it always is), they had no information on the probability of death, and the probability of death is the risk.

We’re any aware of the fact the sub had been constructed with out of date materials, without the application of the correct manufacturing methods, in appropriate methods of gluing an inspection window into place that was itself not rated for the service.

 

The employee who informed Rush of these shortfalls was fired for doing so, a matter of court record.

 

Please provide a link to the full accident report.

 

If you can't you are making assumptions. Last time I looked, people cannot be accused or charged with corporate manslaughter on the grounds of assumptions.

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Please provide a link to the full accident report.

 

If you can't you are making assumptions. Last time I looked, people cannot be accused or charged with corporate manslaughter on the grounds of assumptions.

Dead people can’t be charged with any crime, Rush is dead.

Report on the fact that Rush was informed of safety concerns and reference to this going to court:

 

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12218229/amp/Ex-OceanGate-employee-repeatedly-warned-experimental-mini-sub-needed-testing.html

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Dead people can’t be charged with any crime, Rush is dead.

It was you that suggested corporate manslaughter. A link to the evidence is still required. Thanks.

 

For balance in reporting, you could have read more than the report you like. There are many reports showing evidence favour as well as interviews by ex staff. Let's take a report on BBC as an example. Yes, it does quote the ex employee and his concerns. It also says a court case for wrongful dismissal was brought against the company, the results of which are unknown. Here are a couple of sections of the report that you should be interested in before hurling "corporate manslaughter" accusations.

 

"A December 2018 statement from OceanGate said the Titan had completed a 4,000 meter dive which "completely validates OceanGate's innovative engineering and the construction of Titan's carbon fiber and titanium hull"."

 

"In a May 2021 court filing, the company said Titan had undergone more than 50 test dives, including to the equivalent depth of the Titanic, in deep waters off the Bahamas and in a pressure chamber."

 

Also, with regards to the waiver signed by the passengers. Here is a section of that;

 

"A CBS reporter who went on the Titan in 2022 quoted a waiver people signed before boarding as stating it was "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body which could result in physical injury, emotional trauma or death.""

 

They knew what they were getting into.

 

It seems there are a lot of things that need investigating. From interviews with ex employees, evidence of prior testing plus other information that will be discovered when test on the remains of the sub have been completed. A report can then be written and published. Much better than assumptions by unknowledgeable onlookers.  

 

 

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It was you that suggested corporate manslaughter. A link to the evidence is still required. Thanks.

 

For balance in reporting, you could have read more than the report you like. There are many reports showing evidence favour as well as interviews by ex staff. Let's take a report on BBC as an example. Yes, it does quote the ex employee and his concerns. It also says a court case for wrongful dismissal was brought against the company, the results of which are unknown. Here are a couple of sections of the report that you should be interested in before hurling "corporate manslaughter" accusations.

 

"A December 2018 statement from OceanGate said the Titan had completed a 4,000 meter dive which "completely validates OceanGate's innovative engineering and the construction of Titan's carbon fiber and titanium hull"."

 

"In a May 2021 court filing, the company said Titan had undergone more than 50 test dives, including to the equivalent depth of the Titanic, in deep waters off the Bahamas and in a pressure chamber."

 

Also, with regards to the waiver signed by the passengers. Here is a section of that;

 

"A CBS reporter who went on the Titan in 2022 quoted a waiver people signed before boarding as stating it was "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body which could result in physical injury, emotional trauma or death.""

 

They knew what they were getting into.

 

It seems there are a lot of things that need investigating. From interviews with ex employees, evidence of prior testing plus other information that will be discovered when test on the remains of the sub have been completed. A report can then be written and published. Much better than assumptions by unknowledgeable onlookers.  

 

 

You are aware that pressure testing of vessels is a process in which the vessel is subjected to a pressure that exceeds the service pressure?

 

You are aware why it is that the engineering of pressure vessels requires design pressure to exceed service pressure.

 

How could the victims possibly know what the risks were if they were not aware of the failure of the company to apply design codes, regulations and testing, where they aware the vessel was constructed of out of date materials, were they aware the viewing window was not rated for the service?

 

Signing a waiver does not demonstrate any knowledge of the actual risk, nor does it indemnify the operator against the consequences of negligence and disregard for safety. 
 

 

https://www.penneylawyers.com/serious-injuries/do-liability-waivers-hold-up-in-court/

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are aware that pressure testing of vessels is a process in which the vessel is subjected to a pressure that exceeds the service pressure?

 

You are aware why it is that the engineering of pressure vessels requires design pressure to exceed service pressure.

 

How could the victims possibly know what the risks were if they were not aware of the failure of the company to apply design codes, regulations and testing, where they aware the vessel was constructed of out of date materials, were they aware the viewing window was not rated for the service?

 

Signing a waiver does not demonstrate any knowledge of the actual risk, nor does it indemnify the operator against the consequences of negligence and disregard for safety. 
 

 

https://www.penneylawyers.com/serious-injuries/do-liability-waivers-hold-up-in-court/

 

How do you know they didn't? I guess you have a link to their search history on the internet? You have a link to all conversations they had with experts about sub explorations and testing? You tapped their phones? You were in attendance at the pre event meetings between all parties? You must also have been present at all the training sessions.

 

You also seem to know a lot about the construction of the sub in question. More so than many experts. How incredible.

 

Not much evidence though. Until you do have evidence, i suggest you wait for the official reports.

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

How do you know they didn't? I guess you have a link to their search history on the internet? You have a link to all conversations they had with experts about sub explorations and testing? You tapped their phones? You were in attendance at the pre event meetings between all parties? You must also have been present at all the training sessions.

 

You also seem to know a lot about the construction of the sub in question. More so than many experts. How incredible.

 

Not much evidence though. Until you do have evidence, i suggest you wait for the official reports.

Refer news article referencing court case and safety concerns raised by guy fired for raising safety concerns.

 

I do know a bit about the engineering and design of safety critical systems and pressure systems. Its a required area of knowledge for Professional Engineers such as myself in the particular field I work in.

 

Evidence, refer news article posted and wreckage recovered .

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Refer news article referencing court case and safety concerns raised by guy fired for raising safety concerns.

 

I do know a bit about the engineering and design of safety critical systems and pressure systems. Its a required area of knowledge for Professional Engineers such as myself in the particular field I work in.

 

Evidence, refer news article posted and wreckage recovered .

 

 

 

News articles are evidence? 

 

Every legal and civil law process in the world would disagree with that.

 

Links to reports by professionals showing real evidence would be great. I believe personal anecdotes don't count. At least that is what you like to tell people.

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

News articles are evidence? 

 

Every legal and civil law process in the world would disagree with that.

 

Links to reports would be great. I believe personal anecdotes don't count. At least that is what you like to tell people.

I’m looking forward to the formal report.

 

I’m quite certain it’s going to reference Rush’s well publicized disregard for safety and regulations.

 

Perhaps if investigation finds no evidence of a reckless disregard for safety and regulations Rush can file suit ..  oh but wait.. he can’t.

 

https://www.insider.com/titan-submarine-ceo-complained-about-obscenely-safe-regulations-2023-6?amp

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m looking forward to the formal report.

 

I’m quite certain it’s going to reference Rush’s well publicized disregard for safety and regulations.

 

Perhaps if investigation finds no evidence of a reckless disregard for safety and regulations Rush can file suit ..  oh but wait.. he can’t.

 

https://www.insider.com/titan-submarine-ceo-complained-about-obscenely-safe-regulations-2023-6?amp

So you don't have evidence to back your claim of corporate manslaughter. As expected.

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So you don't have evidence to back your claim of corporate manslaughter. As expected.

And 

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Here are a couple of sections of the report that you should be interested in before hurling "corporate manslaughter" accusations. 

 

 

Since you are keen on evidence.

 

Please provide evidence of me making a claim of corporate manslaughter or indeed, as you assert, me ‘hurling accusations of corporate manslaughter’.

 

A linked quote to my actual words will suffice.

 

On 6/28/2023 at 9:14 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

corporate manslaughter

 

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And 

Since you are keen on evidence.

 

Please provide evidence of me making a claim of corporate manslaughter or indeed, as you assert, me ‘hurling accusations of corporate manslaughter’.

 

A linked quote to my actual words will suffice.

 

Your suggestion of me hurling accusations is wide of the mark. As is you making a claim. You did mention it in the topic so I questioned why.

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Your suggestion of me hurling accusations is wide of the mark. As is you making a claim. You did mention it in the topic so I questioned why.

There you go editing my statement into a single phrase to remove context.

 

I haven’t suggested you ‘hurling accusations, I directly quoted your stating I was hurling accusations.

 

You can’t back up your accusations and you can’t bring yourself to apologize.

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There you go editing my statement into a single phrase to remove context.

 

I haven’t suggested you ‘hurling accusations, I directly quoted your stating I was hurling accusations.

 

You can’t back up your accusations and you can’t bring yourself to apologize.

No apology needed until you provide a link to the evidence you claims you have regarding the build quality and the cause of the accident. Also that the passengers had no knowledge of the levels of risk. 

 

Strange that you post whataboutary and unsubstantiated evidence. Two of your pet hates.