quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
So, the CEO is dead. I wonder if others in management can be prosecuted?

I’m not even sure what country would have jurisdiction. I am way out of my league with maritime law, but would it be the country where it was manufactured or launched, or the country in whose waters it went down?

Or the country where the trips were sold.

When do we get to see the web site, with all of those promises of safety?

https://youtube.com/shorts/4tYssVTdJ1A?feature=share

Proverbs 16:18 King James Version--

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

quote:

Originally posted by dolmansaxlil:

Here’s my #1 issue with this. How much money was spent (by both Canada and the US) to try to find these wealthy people when those same governments are constantly penny pinching programs that could help their most vulnerable citizens? Also, when you contrast the media coverage that this received with that received by ships full of refugees sinking, it’s hard for me to not be disgusted with humanity.

Edit: by “this” I didn’t mean the quoted post. I just mean this whole situation in general.

Yes to all of this. I also wonder how many lives were risked to save those five. I didn't keep up with the rescue activities on a minute-by-minute basis, but if people went down in submersibles or submarines to any depth, or even if surface ships went out when they wouldn't have, there was the risk of other people suffering or dying because the people in the submersible made a bad decision.

The fact that as many as three (not counting the minor) of the people were doing so based on what seems like criminal behavior on the part of the man who owned Oceangate doesn't outweigh the risk to the military personnel and employees who tried to rescue them, especially since they generally weren't as free to make their own decisions about risk. If they refused to go, they could have been disciplined or they might have lost their livelinhoods.

quote:

doesn't outweigh the risk to the military personnel and employees who tried to rescue them, especially since they generally weren't as free to make their own decisions about risk.

+1

If this had been a fishing trawler from Boston or Halifax that went out in bad weather, would the Coast Guards not have launched a search and rescue mission? We may be overplaying the "rich people" stuff. When an avalanche happens, we mount a search and rescue mission probing for life, without asking about the bank balances of the skiers or probing their motives for doing something risky like skiing. When a hiker breaks their leg at the bottom of a canyon, we send expensive helicopter rescue to get them out.

Yes, it's easy to go after the character of rich people doing unnecessary stuff. Rather unproductive though.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
If this had been a fishing trawler from Boston or Halifax that went out in bad weather, would the Coast Guards not have launched a search and rescue mission? We may be overplaying the "rich people" stuff. When an avalanche happens, we mount a search and rescue mission probing for life, without asking about the bank balances of the skiers or probing their motives for doing something risky like skiing. When a hiker breaks their leg at the bottom of a canyon, we send expensive helicopter rescue to get them out.

Yes, it's easy to go after the character of rich people doing unnecessary stuff. Rather unproductive though.

They are the cohort who can afford to take almost unimaginable risk while not considering the possible cost to society.

I disagree with you. I think the relative affluence of the participants is an internal part of the story.

For me, the difference is not that the victims were rich per se, it's that they required rescue from a high risk, optional situation.

To me there's a distinction between accidents that occur while pursuing a non-optional activity and accidents that occur was pursuing a high-risk hobby, or making a decision to ignore safety concerns (such as driving around barricades during a flood and getting stuck, or possibly your trawler in bad weather example). I think that if more people knew they would have to pay in some manner (including a fine) then they might think twice before making some rash decisions. Ideally the payment or fine would be somehow proportional to the amount of effort involved in a rescue and the person's ability to pay.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikhailoh:

quote:

Originally posted by RealPlayer:
Would it be naive of me to ask why the submersible was not physically tethered to the mother ship?

OK, I’ll slink away now.

Same question I asked. I can't imagine why anyone would get on one otherwise.

Apparently it would not be such a gruesome way to die, but instantaneous if it imploded. It's like 5,200 PSI at that depth. If any leak at all occurred, it would crumple like tinfoil.

https://youtube.com/shorts/P5loetLWGT0?feature=share3

https://youtu.be/LEBCc-Qpilw

You called it.

The CEO's wife's great great grandmother survived the Titanic.

Creepy.

I really don't understand the fascination with the Titanic. It's just another ship that sank and covered with ocean gunk. We've all seen it over and over. You could see similar things all over the Great Lakes without nearly the depths and pressures.

I can understand the fascination. It's such a great human interest story. It has everything a writer could have imagined, and more. I just can't understand the desire to go there in an improvised device with an unproven safety record. Just reading about the craft should give normal people the proverbial willies.

The human interest side I get. I guess I should have been clearer - I don't understand the drive to see it in person at huge risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
For me, the difference is not that the victims were rich per se, it's that they required rescue from a high risk, optional situation.

To me there's a distinction between accidents that occur while pursuing a non-optional activity and accidents that occur was pursuing a high-risk hobby, or making a decision to ignore safety concerns (such as driving around barricades during a flood and getting stuck, or possibly your trawler in bad weather example). I think that if more people knew they would have to pay in some manner (including a fine) then they might think twice before making some rash decisions. Ideally the payment or fine would be somehow proportional to the amount of effort involved in a rescue and the person's ability to pay.

+1

Some discussion about this from NPR.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/w...e-wealthy-risktakers

quote:

Originally posted by Mikhailoh:
The human interest side I get. I guess I should have been clearer - I don't understand the drive to see it in person at huge risk.

+1