Sub lost contact over Titanic

wrt waivers: I thought you couldn't sign away the right of your estate to sue. But IANAL.
 
Bob Noel said:
wrt waivers: I thought you couldn't sign away the right of your estate to sue. But IANAL.
Click to expand...

My take:
If the families can allege negligence--and that probably won't be difficult I'm guessing--then the waivers are worthless.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I ain't using that acronym.:)
 
I figured from the beginning that the Navy would have been able to hear it. Why they waited so long to reveal it is a mystery.
 
TCABM said:
U.S. Navy Detected Titan Sub Implosion Days Ago

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-days-ago-6844cb12
Click to expand...

Something I am sure we are all aware of...

Ex-USN sonar guy on another forum I frequent said there was a 99.999999999% chance they knew when it happened, where it happened, and when it happened; what they don't know is the how and why.

Years ago, after reading the Hunt for Red October, I had asked an S-3 Viking sonar guy about their capabilities, and looking at me with this "cat that just ate the canary grin", he said, "We can hear a dolphin with gas pains from 100 miles away."

I can't imagine what they have today with all the technology improvements.
 
Dana said:
I figured from the beginning that the Navy would have been able to hear it. Why they waited so long to reveal it is a mystery.
Click to expand...

I actually read that somewhere (can't remember where though) several days ago. But I figured, as you had noted in a previous post, that they wouldn't admit to having some of the abilities that they possess and the story seemed to have disappeared until I found that a moment ago ...
 
Dana said:
I figured from the beginning that the Navy would have been able to hear it. Why they waited so long to reveal it is a mystery.
Click to expand...

Guess they didn't want to spill the beans on their capabilities and maybe backchanneled info to the Coasties - something like, "Check the area around 41.490987646464 N 49.57684746253 W, but no hurry, and you're welcome for the training exercise.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Something I am sure we are all aware of...

Ex-USN sonar guy on another forum I frequent said there was a 99.999999999% chance they knew when it happened, where it happened, and when it happened; what they don't know is the how and why.

Years ago, after reading the Hunt for Red October, I had asked an S-3 Viking sonar guy about their capabilities, and looking at me with this "cat that just ate the canary grin", he said, "We can hear a dolphin with gas pains from 100 miles away."

I can't imagine what they have today with all the technology improvements.
Click to expand...

When the Scorpion was lost in 1968, the Navy triangulated the position from the noise received via SOSUS.
 
I feel bad for the people aboard, and their families, except I'm not sure if I do about the CEO. A guy that was a cartoonist or voice actor or something, who was a previous passenger, told his story on one of the NY papers. He was supposed to go with his wife, but she tested positive for covid on the day of the launch, so he went alone. He really didn't have an interest, the trip was apparently for his wife who was a huge Titanic fan. What I'm getting at is that just because the trip was expensive and potentially dangerous doesn't mean that the motives of those traveling along were anything but good.

The CEO? Maybe taken out of context, but his quotes seem a bit of nonsense.
 
Dana said:
I figured from the beginning that the Navy would have been able to hear it. Why they waited so long to reveal it is a mystery.
Click to expand...
Waited so long to reveal it publicly. I'm sure the products from SOSUS are fairly well classified.

Probably had a bunch of security hoops to jump through. Probably had a back-channel into the Coasties, though, assuming they've got people cleared to it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ventucky Red said:
Guess they didn't want to spill the beans on their capabilities and maybe backchanneled info to the Coasties - something like, "Check the area around 41.490987646464 N 49.57684746253 W, but no hurry, and you're welcome for the training exercise.
Click to expand...
According to BBC:

"The US Navy detected sounds "consistent with an implosion" shortly after OceanGate's Titan submersible lost contact, a navy official has said...

The official told CBS News their information about the "acoustic anomaly" had been used by the US Coast Guard to narrow the search area.

According to CNN, it was deemed to be "not definitive" and therefore the search and rescue mission continued."​

I suppose if what they heard had turned out to not be the sub, they might not have wanted it known that they heard whatever it was.
 
Dana said:
According to BBC:

"The US Navy detected sounds "consistent with an implosion" shortly after OceanGate's Titan submersible lost contact, a navy official has said...

The official told CBS News their information about the "acoustic anomaly" had been used by the US Coast Guard to narrow the search area.

According to CNN, it was deemed to be "not definitive" and therefore the search and rescue mission continued."​

I suppose if what they heard had turned out to not be the sub, they might not have wanted it known that they heard whatever it was.
Click to expand...

Or, again, the media simply wanted to drag it out as long as possible.
 
Daleandee said:
I actually read that somewhere (can't remember where though) several days ago. But I figured, as you had noted in a previous post, that they wouldn't admit to having some of the abilities that they possess and the story seemed to have disappeared until I found that a moment ago ...
Click to expand...

That the Navy has underwater detection devices is not new information, and their detection of the Argentinian sub implosion a few years ago was released then, too. It takes time to go through proper channels to release that type of information.
 
wanttaja said:
Waited so long to reveal it publicly. I'm sure the products from SOSUS are fairly well classified.

Probably had a bunch of security hoops to jump through. Probably had a back-channel into the Coasties, though, assuming they've got people cleared to it.
Click to expand...

It's not really a secret. They had this capability in 1968 when the Scorpion was lost and there's evidence they started looking for it 3 days before it was overdue.

The Navy told the Incident Commander pretty much right away. A noise of an implosion at the time they lost comms is pretty solid but not 100% conclusive. Wish they had been more forthcoming on the Public Affairs front, it would have headed off a lot of speculation as to the timing of the release.
 
Charlie Golf said:
My take:
If the families can allege negligence--and that probably won't be difficult I'm guessing--then the waivers are worthless.

:)
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. The whole point of the waiver is to waive claims for negligence.
 
PPC1052 said:
That makes no sense. The whole point of the waiver is to waive claims for negligence.
Click to expand...
You can't waive the rights of another person. They won't stop a relative from suing. If I sign the waiver, I would have a tough, but not impossible, ability to sue. My children could easily sue and the waiver wouldn't mean jack.
 
Hang 4 said:
You can't waive the rights of another person. They won't stop a relative from suing. If I sign the waiver, I would have a tough, but not impossible, ability to sue. My children could easily sue and the waiver wouldn't mean jack.
Click to expand...

A) that is different that is a different point than I was responding to, and
B) what you say is going to depend on the jurisdiction.
C) the decedent's assumption of the risk can absolutely be a defense against the estate's claim in some jurisdictions, even if the estate's claim is not contractually barred by the waiver, and the waiver can be evidence of the decedent's assumption of the risk. Waiver of the claim and assumption of the risk are separate defenses.
 
PPC1052 said:
The release was pretty clear. Were I a jury member, absent some evidence of fraud, I would find that they passengers knew and assumed the risk. The stuff people are posting shows they were pretty straightforward regarding their engineering and construction techniques.
Click to expand...
Were ia jury member, I'd listen to all the evidence before making that decision. Did the CEO tell them, "This is perfectly safe; if it wasn't, I wouldn't be going with you. But here, sign this stupid form my lawyers made up."? When I went skydiving for the first time, I had to watch a video that was basically a "lawyer" saying in a bunch of different ways that, yes, there's a very good chance that you're about to die. It was the best waiver process I've ever seen. Unequivocal. If you don't want to die, you really shouldn't do this. Most aren't like that.
 
PPC1052 said:
A) that is different that is a different point than I was responding to, and
B) what you say is going to depend on the jurisdiction.
C) the decedent's assumption of the risk can absolutely be a defense against the estate's claim in some jurisdictions, even if the estate's claim is not contractually barred by the waiver, and the waiver can be evidence of the decedent's assumption of the risk. Waiver of the claim and assumption of the risk are separate defenses.
Click to expand...
The estate's claim in not the same as a third-party's claim. Although the estate might have an obligation to hold harmless. That might actually be significant here. But there's still the gross negligence/ recklessness problem.
 
Lindberg said:
The estate's claim in not the same as a third-party's claim.
Click to expand...
Again, that's jurisdiction dependent. In my state, we have a statutory wrongful death claim that is the sole remedy. It only permits the personal representative to bring the claim. There is no personal cause of action for the spouse or the dependents, and the spouse and/or the dependents cannot maintain the action in their personal capacity. The personal rep brings the action and recovers the damages on behalf estate, which then distributes any recovery to the spouse and dependents. It may be that the spouse is appointed as the personal representative, but in that case, the suit is brought in the capacity of the personal rep on behalf of the estate.

"We also hold that the wrongful death statute provides the only remedy against a person causing the death of a spouse and there is no independent claim against this person for loss of consortium." Durham ex rel. Est. of Wade v. U-Haul Int'l, 745 N.E.2d 755, 757 (Ind. 2001)
 
Lindberg said:
Were ia jury member, I'd listen to all the evidence before making that decision. Did the CEO tell them, "This is perfectly safe; if it wasn't, I wouldn't be going with you. But here, sign this stupid form my lawyers made up."? When I went skydiving for the first time, I had to watch a video that was basically a "lawyer" saying in a bunch of different ways that, yes, there's a very good chance that you're about to die. It was the best waiver process I've ever seen. Unequivocal. If you don't want to die, you really shouldn't do this. Most aren't like that.
Click to expand...

That was my argument, sometimes you don't know what you don't know. If you aren't a trained engineer or submarine expert, would any of this have appeared as dangerous as it was? Hindsight is 20/20. Plus the pressure to go once you are there. It would be a big decision once you've spent $250k+ to show up, then change your mind. You'd probably try to explain it away, that if it was that dangerous the CEO wouldn't go, right? Surely this thing had to be certified by someone, right?
 
One would think this guy would be capable of determine the crafts safety

Paul-Henri Nargeolet
22 years in the French navy, where he was eventually ranked commander. He retired from the navy in 1986 and oversaw two deep sea submersibles at the French Institute for Research and Exploitation of the Sea. While there, he led the first recovery dive to the Titanic wreckage in 1987, according to his biography.

He was the director of underwater research for RMS Titanic Inc., a company dedicated to preserving the history of the Titanic, and the E/M Group, a company that provides exhibitions and other entertainment.

He completed 37 dives in a submersible to the Titanic shipwreck over the course of his career, and supervised the retrieval of 5,000 of its artifacts, including a 20-ton section of the hull.
Click to expand...
 
Clip4 said:
I suspect an implosion.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are correct. It’s rumored that, the US NAVY picked up an explosion on Sunday. I would think it was shared with the USCG. What played out after that is theater, IMO. So sad, may they RIP
 
Salty said:
One would think this guy would be capable of determine the crafts safety

Paul-Henri Nargeolet
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah he should have been suspect. He probably knew more about deep sea diving than the owner.
 
Read somewhere an interview by CEO that this trip was so special that people would take mortgage out on house to fund this trip. Bs on that??
 
benyflyguy said:
Read somewhere an interview by CEO that this trip was so special that people would take mortgage out on house to fund this trip. Bs on that??
Click to expand...
Well, in retrospect it seems like a pretty savvy financial move to get approved for a large loan just before imminent death...
 
Look he is surfing POA...
titan.jpeg
 
benyflyguy said:
Read somewhere an interview by CEO that this trip was so special that people would take mortgage out on house to fund this trip. Bs on that??
Click to expand...
Here's the quote:


Stockton Rush is CEO of OceanGate, a company that offers dives to the Titanic in a one-of-a-kind, carbon-fiber submersible, for $250,000 per person. "It's a very unusual business," he said. "It's its own category. It's a new type of travel."

Correspondent David Pogue asked, "Who are the typical clientele for these missions?"

"We have clients that are Titanic enthusiasts, which we refer to as Titaniacs," Rush replied. "We've had people who have mortgaged their home to come and do the trip. And we have people who don't think twice about a trip of this cost. We had one gentleman who had won the lottery."​


https://archive.is/qitRs#selection-2419.0-2449.281

And another from the same interview:


The Titan is the only five-person sub in the world that can reach Titanic's depth, 2.4 miles below the sea. It's also the only one with a toilet (sort of).

And yet, I couldn't help noticing how many pieces of this sub seemed improvised, with off-the-shelf components. Piloting the craft is run with a video game controller.

Pogue said, "It seems like this submersible has some elements of MacGyver jerry-riggedness. I mean, you're putting construction pipes as ballast."

"I don't know if I'd use that description of it," Rush said. "But, there are certain things that you want to be buttoned down. The pressure vessel is not MacGyver at all, because that's where we worked with Boeing and NASA and the University of Washington. Everything else can fail, your thrusters can go, your lights can go. You're still going to be safe."​
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Here's the quote:


Stockton Rush is CEO of OceanGate, a company that offers dives to the Titanic in a one-of-a-kind, carbon-fiber submersible, for $250,000 per person. "It's a very unusual business," he said. "It's its own category. It's a new type of travel."

Correspondent David Pogue asked, "Who are the typical clientele for these missions?"

"We have clients that are Titanic enthusiasts, which we refer to as Titaniacs," Rush replied. "We've had people who have mortgaged their home to come and do the trip. And we have people who don't think twice about a trip of this cost. We had one gentleman who had won the lottery."​


https://archive.is/qitRs#selection-2419.0-2449.281

And another from the same interview:


The Titan is the only five-person sub in the world that can reach Titanic's depth, 2.4 miles below the sea. It's also the only one with a toilet (sort of).

And yet, I couldn't help noticing how many pieces of this sub seemed improvised, with off-the-shelf components. Piloting the craft is run with a video game controller.

Pogue said, "It seems like this submersible has some elements of MacGyver jerry-riggedness. I mean, you're putting construction pipes as ballast."

"I don't know if I'd use that description of it," Rush said. "But, there are certain things that you want to be buttoned down. The pressure vessel is not MacGyver at all, because that's where we worked with Boeing and NASA and the University of Washington. Everything else can fail, your thrusters can go, your lights can go. You're still going to be safe."​
Click to expand...

I believe the "construction pipes" he is referring to are actually 500 gal propane tanks mounted upside down. And what are they used for?
 
Gary Ward said:
I believe the "construction pipes" he is referring to are actually 500 gal propane tanks mounted upside down. And what are they used for?
Click to expand...

I believe those propane tanks are the floats for the launch platform.

From an earlier post:


Interesting ballast release mechanism for the repurposed old pipes, if true:

pipes.png


"So here's the ballast. The journalist who went in it says you release it by getting everyone to sit on one side of the sub so it rolls enough for the pipes to fall off the shelf"

https://twitter.com/BirdTickler/status/1671002901064425472
 
PPC1052 said:
A) that is different that is a different point than I was responding to, and
B) what you say is going to depend on the jurisdiction.
C) the decedent's assumption of the risk can absolutely be a defense against the estate's claim in some jurisdictions, even if the estate's claim is not contractually barred by the waiver, and the waiver can be evidence of the decedent's assumption of the risk. Waiver of the claim and assumption of the risk are separate defenses.
Click to expand...
But all you gotta do is make the jury cry, because emotion trumps evidence. I've unfortunately witnessed this.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
I believe those propane tanks are the floats for the launch platform.

From an earlier post:


Interesting ballast release mechanism for the repurposed old pipes, if true:

pipes.png


"So here's the ballast. The journalist who went in it says you release it by getting everyone to sit on one side of the sub so it rolls enough for the pipes to fall off the shelf"

https://twitter.com/BirdTickler/status/1671002901064425472
Click to expand...
There appears to be information noting that the "topside" people knew the ballast was dropped shortly into the dive. Don't know why they then waited before calling for help.
 
bflynn said:
It's not really a secret. They had this capability in 1968 when the Scorpion was lost and there's evidence they started looking for it 3 days before it was overdue.
Click to expand...
The existence of the system is not a secret, but its performance capabilities may still be. Everyone knows it can detect the implosion of a submarine the size of a cruiser; its ability to detect events involving small submersibles may still be under security protection.

Similarly, the accuracy of its geolocation capability may well still be classified. Telling the Coasties that it heard something in the North Atlantic isn't much help. Telling them the sound was heard at N41°43′57′′and W49°56′49′′ isn't much of an aid either, as it was known to be diving on the Titanic. Telling them the sound happened at N41°43′57.34553′′ and W49°56′49.83888′′ is far more useful, but the Navy may not want to let on it can be that accurate.

It's like photoreconnaissance satellites. Everybody knows we've got them, but the actual resolution capabilities are closely held.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top