Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Titanic tourist sub missing

Cloo said:
Even if they were to find it I don't see any mention of a way to get oxygen into the craft on the deep ocean floor or that anyone has a sub-grabbing claw on a several km-long chain to haul it up.
Click to expand...

Actually they have two.

Atlantic Merlin - Canadian offshore supply vessel with 4,000m winch system. Carries ROVs but it's unknown how deep they can operate

The Flyaway Deep Ocean Salvage System (Fadoss) is a lift system designed to provide reliable deep ocean lifting capacity of up to 27,200kg. It has been deployed in the hope it could be used to hoist the Titan up to the service.

Fadoss can be used to recover “large, bulky, and heavy sunken objects such as aircraft or small vessels” and has in the past operated at a depth of almost 6,000 metres.

For the recovery operation.
 
Wilf said:
I agree with you about this as a public policy issues, yes, it would be very difficult to say who gets help/who doesn't, who gets the bill etc. But in terms of how the story should be framed and discussed, my mind goes to tales of pissed/drugged up blokes who have to be rescued from mountainsides and the shellacking they get in the media... and to stretch the analogy, a company that might organise such pissed up, dangerous 'adventures', maybe with an added libertarian twist that 'nobody can tell us what to do'. Even though it's sad that these people have died - fucking awful for their families - it feels like the media narrative should be something similar. Pedantically, not an exact match, but still a case of tragic misadventure, a shockingly lax company and a few punters who, tbh, probably should have known better.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s hard. Where there’s hope of life there should be every effort*. This is about liability for responsibility after that point. I don’t think the passengers estates should be sued, because they’re just people who made a bad choice. That’s different from operating a business based on a cascade of bad choices.

*The Greek sinking last week is a crude comparison for this reason. When it sank, everyone locked below decks was reasonably presumed dead in seconds. As great a tragedy as that is, there is nothing practical can be done about that after it happens. Over 100 who made it off were rescued, and thank god for that…

I hope the survivors benefit from every effort that can be directed at them - medically, legally, financially, emotionally.
 
Tanya1982 said:
Of course yes. There has to be a legal process. I wasn’t suggesting there shouldn’t be.

I don’t think the migrants are responsible for the same reason the passengers here shouldn’t be blamed - they were just the passengers, and in both cases what various people on land think of their decisions and why they think it isn’t actually relevant. Those who operated the vessels/took profit/incurred costs/cut corners resulting in loss of life should certainly be liable in both cases.
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem with your assertion that all business should have to pay the costs. The subjectivity (you don't believe that migrants/passengers are to blame but many others will), the process that in many cases will take years and some firms will have deeper pockets for legal representation than others. Again, I agree that it should happen somehow but the extension is that negligent individuals should also be held accountable and what do you do when they can't be? Stop providing services to the likes of mountain climbers, pot-holers, scuba divers etc?
 
kebabking said:
As ever, ones own, or secret Santa, or homogenised?
Click to expand...
Ones own. Obviously if you have access to other people's urine it could help for more than two days. I suppose if they forced the ceo to do a big wee before killing him it might give them an extra few hours but generally dead people don't pee after the initial relaxing of muscles at death. I suppose if they just killed him without collecting the wee first they could suck it out of his clothing.
 
Spymaster said:
Well that's the problem with your assertion that all business should have to pay the costs. The subjectivity (you don't believe that migrants/passengers are to blame but many others will), the process that in many cases will take years and some firms will have deeper pockets for legal representation than others. Again, I agree that it should happen somehow but the extension is that negligent individuals should also be held accountable and what do you do when they can't be? Stop providing services to the likes of mountain climbers, pot-holers, scuba divers etc?
Click to expand...
No, never that. Every effort and consequence should be explored, apart from that. That’s my clear ethical line.
 
Breaking news!

A state of the art undersea vessel from France means that they have gone from no hope to no hope.

It their case it wasn't the hope that killed them.

RIP 😕
 
In terms of liability, there's going to be an issue over Canada...

The support ship, from which this contraption is launched, is both Canadian flagged, and this particular sortie sailed from St Johns, Newfoundland - that makes its seaworthiness a matter for the Canadian government.

The submersible is uncertificated, and the people on board signed waivers (I mean there's a fucking massive red flag to start with), but the Canadian maritime authorities knew about this vessel, and knew there was a reason it was uncertificated - there's going to be a hell of a court fight over whether Canada was negligent in not impounding a vessel, used for commercial purposes, that it knew/suspected was unsafe. It happens to fishing boats all the time, so why not this?

I'd be stunned if theres not a significant amount of chat about this vessel within the Canadian coastguard/maritime authorities email server - and it's going to go wild when the lawyers for a couple of billionaires estates get involved.
 
Spymaster said:
Begone, halfwit!

It's been quoted twice now and discussed with the person who made the assertion. As ever, you are not required ;)
Click to expand...
Oh dear. One of your many problems is that you can't tell the difference between 'some' and 'all'. They're not the same thing. Only you used the word 'all'. Tanya gave an example of where it could be applied (ie, in this really fucking obvious case). So, you are either a fucking idiot (which I think everyone can agree with) or just a bad liar (entirely plausible). Either way, not a great look even for you.
 
kebabking said:
In terms of liability, there's going to be an issue over Canada...

The support ship, from which this contraption is launched, is both Canadian flagged, and this particular sortie sailed from St Johns, Newfoundland - that makes its seaworthiness a matter for the Canadian government.

The submersible is uncertificated, and the people on board signed waivers (I mean there's a fucking massive red flag to start with), but the Canadian maritime authorities knew about this vessel, and knew there was a reason it was uncertificated - there's going to be a hell of a court fight over whether Canada was negligent in not impounding a vessel, used for commercial purposes, that it knew/suspected was unsafe. It happens to fishing boats all the time, so why not this?

I'd be stunned if theres not a significant amount of chat about this vessel within the Canadian coastguard/maritime authorities email server - and it's going to go wild when the lawyers for a couple of billionaires estates get involved.
Click to expand...
You can pretty much go to sea in an uncertified bath tub if you wish, and it's not clear that a flag or coastal state can interfere.
The Canadian mother ship has to meet IMO requirements, including things like SOLAS (the safety at life at sea treaty) and MARPOL (the marine pollution treaty).
The submarine is not required to comply with any legislatory requirements when it's outside territorial waters, due to its size, and the fact it is not undertaking international voyages under its own power, and it's carrying fewer than 12 passengers.
For manned submersibles, it is possible to get them classed by an international classification society, like Lloyd's Register. They have, or certainly used to have, rules for the construction of manned submersibles. These rules cover the pressure hull, critical electrical systems, stability and the like.
For things like the pressure hull, it is possible to have it certified under a pressure vessel code, such as those published by ASME. That would determine the safety factors for the design and test pressures required for the main hull, but would exclude everything else. From the press reports, the plexiglass dome sounds like it was certified for a lesser depth than the operating depth of the submersible.
As you say, millionaires tend to be very litigious cargo. I am sure there will be a lot of lawyers looking at this, and there may be insurers involved, but I would imagine the public liability side of things will be, can we say...watertight.
 
WouldBe said:
Laxatives work better than a spoon. :)
Click to expand...
laxatives can work better than a spoon, but not necessarily. i have a pal who routinely inserts a digit up his own anus, wiggles it about for a while , until dump is produced. He says it is not an unpleasurable operation, just a bit inconvenient. He is in his mid 80s, but shitting doesn't stop in middle age does it. 😐
 
pseudonarcissus said:
You can pretty much go to sea in an uncertified bath tub if you wish, and it's not clear that a flag or coastal state can interfere.
The Canadian mother ship has to meet IMO requirements, including things like SOLAS (the safety at life at sea treaty) and MARPOL (the marine pollution treaty).
The submarine is not required to comply with any legislatory requirements when it's outside territorial waters, due to its size, and the fact it is not undertaking international voyages under its own power, and it's carrying fewer than 12 passengers.
For manned submersibles, it is possible to get them classed by an international classification society, like Lloyd's Register. They have, or certainly used to have, rules for the construction of manned submersibles. These rules cover the pressure hull, critical electrical systems, stability and the like.
For things like the pressure hull, it is possible to have it certified under a pressure vessel code, such as those published by ASME. That would determine the safety factors for the design and test pressures required for the main hull, but would exclude everything else. From the press reports, the plexiglass dome sounds like it was certified for a lesser depth than the operating depth of the submersible.
As you say, millionaires tend to be very litigious cargo. I am sure there will be a lot of lawyers looking at this, and there may be insurers involved, but I would imagine the public liability side of things will be, can we say...watertight.
Click to expand...

The mother ship is owned by the Miawpukek First Nation, a Mi'kmaq band in Newfoundland, not sure if that will add yet another layer of legal complexity
 
Cloo said:
Even if they were to find it I don't see any mention of a way to get oxygen into the craft on the deep ocean floor or that anyone has a sub-grabbing claw on a several km-long chain to haul it up.
Click to expand...
There's this one apparently already on the scene
metro.co.uk

Meet France's underwater robot Victor 6000, the last chance for Titan five

It is the only vehicle at the site capable of diving deep enough.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk
plus another similar one sat on the runway at Jersey airport waiting to be flown to Canada and then sailed out to the sight so it won't arrive for at least a couple of days.

You wonder what goes throughs the head of the people owning the 2nd robot. "Can we borrow your super duper robot to save these jokers stranded in this sub" Even if the owners are thinking "For fuck's sake if they're not dead now they will before our robot gets there so why bother?"
But they can't come out and say that without getting a load of grief about it.
 
Incidentally Spymaster probably has a point with regards to maritime rescue, and the absolute duty of ships to act on distress signals. There would be an enormous amount of complexity around liability for being rescued, and would probably result in various forms of injustice. Maritime law is... notoriously complex though... so maybe there are some caveats to that. It may just be built into standard shipping insurance contracts; insuring against risk of diverting or something. But yeah, making the rescuee liable would be complex and difficult to apply consistently. e.g is a surfer picked up by a yacht liable for the operating costs of that yacht, but not liable for anything if picked up by coastguard? Should they refuse rescue?

e2a: yes I think law of the sea applies to coastal waters? But again, maritime law, not studied it, not going to.
 
MickiQ said:
You wonder what goes throughs the head of the people owning the 2nd robot. "Can we borrow your super duper robot to save these jokers stranded in this sub" Even if the owners are thinking "For fuck's sake if they're not dead now they will before our robot gets there so why bother?"
But they can't come out and say that without getting a load of grief about it.
Click to expand...

At some point this operation is just going to become a trade show for makers of deep-sea equipment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dom Traynor
Irish fascists and the case of the missing gold
Replies
16
Views
761
flypanam
flypanam
krtek a houby
Reports of up to 6000 dead, 10,000 missing in Libya flooding
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
likesfish
likesfish
Aladdin
North Korean Missile
Replies
2
Views
312
Aladdin
Aladdin
Nylock
  • Poll
Poll: US to get its own subforum...?
Replies
15
Views
799
DaveCinzano
DaveCinzano
A380
Indonesian submarine with 53 people on board is missing
Replies
28
Views
1K
kebabking
kebabking
Back
Top Bottom