Updated: submarine exploring Titanic wreckage disappears in Atlantic Ocean: Coast Guard

[GtHawk]

@mountaineer

ESPECIALLY not since they were so wealthy they didn't even have the excuse of being ignorant. They HAD to know there were serious risks involved,and decided to take those risks,anyhow.

Wealth does not guarantee intelligence, never has, there are plenty of wealthy people dumb as rocks, as to the serious risks involved I wonder how good a huckster the builder was, seems like anytime I read where someone brought up safety questions about the design or material he just blew them off. And remember we as human beings have the ability to do seriously stupid things that seem just fine to us but those observing the results can't understand why someone would have been so dumb. Unfortunately in a situation like this I doubt the people that died even had time to be sorry.

[240B]

I will stipulate to ALL of that being true @240B now tell me how that negates the fact that EVERYONE onboard voluntarily signed an agreement to assume ALL the risks of taking the trip.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,503257.msg2855253.html#msg2855253

@Bigun

I do not stipulate to all those things being true. I don't know if they are true or not. Never met the guy or worked with him in any way. I was just distilling what I have gleaned from the dozens of YouTube videos on the subject as well as articles written on the entire history of the project. Whether these things were produced by his associates or his enemies, I have no way of knowing this.

As far as the waiver, it is impossible to discuss without being able to read it. Also, we can never know what they were told face to face or in recruiting/sales meetings. Be that as it may, it is factually correct that any waiver can be abrogated if the person signing it was acting on intentionally misleading misinformation. Additionally, if the responsible party was grossly negligent causing injury, and knew or should have known that the dangers involved in the agreement were significant greater than was revealed to the passenger, naturally the waiver can be called into question.

Many people believe that waivers are inviolable. Waivers are as susceptible to judicial review and adjudication as any other contract. Regardless of any remission which may have been agreed to at the outset, the responsible party is still required to act with due common care in the discharge of the arrangement.

If it can be shown that the responsible party did not disclose full scope of the situation in which they would embark, or that the responsible party acted in a dangerous or reckless manner which may have contributed to injury or harm, the waiver can be voided. (e.g. if the Capitan dove the submarine deeper than the specifications of the weakest element of the craft could withstand, which is information he is responsible to know.)

[GtHawk]

I will stipulate to ALL of that being true @240B now tell me how that negates the fact that EVERYONE onboard voluntarily signed an agreement to assume ALL the risks of taking the trip.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,503257.msg2855253.html#msg2855253

How many people ever read a EULA before agreeing to it? I wonder when the agreement was presented to those making the trip, how long did they have to look it over, was it given to them and the operator telling them it was just typical standard boilerplate and no big deal since he had safely made several trips? I agree that one has personal responsibility but also that there could be circumstances that may have a profound affect on decision making.

Personally you couldn't make me take a risk like a ride in a little sub that far down, no matter how wealthy and bored I might be or the need to be that special person talked about at parties (if that was the reason they made the trip they succeeded!)

[mystery-ak]

Mangled debris from doomed Titan sub is brought ashore in Canada ten days after it suffered 'catastrophic implosion' 12,500ft below Atlantic near the Titanic wreck, killing all five on board

    Large chunks of the Titan submersible have been pulled from the Atlantic ocean
    The vessel suffered a 'catastrophic implosion' with five people on board during a journey to the site of the Titanic's wreckage
    The U.S. Coast Guard has led a mission to recover what remains of Titan and investigate the cause of the disaster

By Lewis Pennock For Dailymail.Com

Published: 10:38 EDT, 28 June 2023 | Updated: 11:41 EDT, 28 June 2023

Debris from the Titan submersible that imploded on the bottom of the Atlantic as it tried to reach the wreckage of the Titanic has been hauled ashore.

The huge chunks of metal were unloaded from the Horizon Arctic ship at the Canadian Coast Guard pier in St John's, Newfoundland, Canada, this morning.

They were quickly covered in large tarpaulins before being lifted by cranes on to trucks that took them away for assessment. The pieces included a large, white section of curved metal. Another object was full of cables and other mechanical parts.

The development comes exactly ten days after the doomed Titan submersible vanished during a tourist trip run by OceanGate Expeditions.

After a huge search and rescue mission, debris was discovered on the seabed last Thursday and it was revealed that the sub had suffered a 'catastrophic implosion', killing all five on board.


The huge chunks of metal were unloaded from the Horizon Arctic ship at the Canadian Coast Guard pier in St John's, Newfoundland, Canada, this morning



more
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12243189/Mangled-debris-Titan-sub-hauled-ashore-Canada.html

[Bigun]

@Bigun

I do not stipulate to all those things being true. I don't know if they are true or not. Never met the guy or worked with him in any way. I was just distilling what I have gleaned from the dozens of YouTube videos on the subject as well as articles written on the entire history of the project. Whether these things were produced by his associates or his enemies, I have no way of knowing this.

As far as the waiver, it is impossible to discuss without being able to read it. Also, we can never know what they were told face to face or in recruiting/sales meetings. Be that as it may, it is factually correct that any waiver can be abrogated if the person signing it was acting on intentionally misleading misinformation. Additionally, if the responsible party was grossly negligent causing injury, and knew or should have known that the dangers involved in the agreement were significant greater than was revealed to the passenger, naturally the waiver can be called into question.

Many people believe that waivers are inviolable. Waivers are as susceptible to judicial review and adjudication as any other contract. Regardless of any remission which may have been agreed to at the outset, the responsible party is still required to act with due common care in the discharge of the arrangement.

If it can be shown that the responsible party did not disclose full scope of the situation in which they would embark, or that the responsible party acted in a dangerous or reckless manner which may have contributed to injury or harm, the waiver can be voided. (e.g. if the Capitan dove the submarine deeper than the specifications of the weakest element of the craft could withstand, which is information he is responsible to know.)

There is a link to the full agreement included in my first post to you. @240B

[DB]

There is a link to the full agreement included in my first post to you. @240B

Yes, it was posted here a while ago. And yes, it was explicitly stated that you could die and didn't beat around the bush about it. Everyone who signed it did it of their own free will.

[240B]

There is a link to the full agreement included in my first post to you. @240B

@Bigun
@DB

Look guys ... I love you all, I do. But I have no interest in reviewing a waiver which does not concern me, my family, or anyone I know right now. But yes, you are correct in pointing out that I missed the link.

Even if I reviewed it and posted comments on it, they would all be meaningless. This case will go well past the four corners, especially in this convoluted scenario. There are so many points, facts, and issues, that we simply do not know yet.

Did Rush break U.S. Maritime Law by opening a commercial business in an unlicensed, uncertified, homemade craft? If the entire operation is illegal, then the waivers are meaningless, no matter what is written on them.

If you go to an amusement park and sign a waiver to ride the "Parachute Drop!" ride and get injured, only to find out through discovery that the entire operation of the park is unlicensed, uncertified, unregulated, and illegal, those waivers will have as much weight in court as a Kamala Harris speech.

This is my last post on this topic. I have lost interest until we have more information. I want to move on. Of course as always, my very best regards. This has been fun.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Bigun
@DB

Look guys ... I love you all, I do. But I have no interest in reviewing a waiver which does not concern me, my family, or anyone I know right now. But yes, you are correct in pointing out that I missed the link.

Even if I reviewed it and posted comments on it, they would all be meaningless. This case will go well past the four corners, especially in this convoluted scenario. There are so many points, facts, and issues, that we simply do not know yet.

Did Rush break U.S. Maritime Law by opening a commercial business in an unlicensed, uncertified, homemade craft? If the entire operation is illegal, then the waivers are meaningless, no matter what is written on them.

If you go to an amusement park and sign a waiver to ride the "Parachute Drop!" ride and get injured, only to find out through discovery that the entire operation of the park is unlicensed, uncertified, unregulated, and illegal, those waivers will have as much weight in court as a Kamala Harris speech.

This is my last post on this topic. I have lost interest until we have more information. I want to move on. Of course as always, my very best regards. This has been fun.

Needless to say, we enjoy arguing... :D

[Cyber Liberty]

Needless to say, we enjoy arguing... :D

Yes!  And the fact that this thread is this long is proof!

[sneakypete]

It appears they signed away their right (or their heirs', etc.) to file a product liability suit. I'm sure a bunch of lawyers will duke it out anyway, though.

@mountaineer

You can be certain the man/corporation that owned the dive unit has lawyers working 24/7 right  now,trying  to  hide any and all of his assets they can find.

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

[sneakypete]

Wealth does not guarantee intelligence, never has, there are plenty of wealthy people dumb as rocks, as to the serious risks involved I wonder how good a huckster the builder was, seems like anytime I read where someone brought up safety questions about the design or material he just blew them off. And remember we as human beings have the ability to do seriously stupid things that seem just fine to us but those observing the results can't understand why someone would have been so dumb. Unfortunately in a situation like this I doubt the people that died even had time to be sorry.

@GtHawk

True,but you can bet your bippy there isn't one single multi-millionaire anywhere in this country that doesn't have a team of lawyers scrutinizing everything he or she looks at and signs.

They might leave home and forget to dress,but they won't forget to  leave home with  their phone and their lawyers phone numbers.

It's just "self-defense 101" for the uber wealthy.

[sneakypete]

Needless to say, we enjoy arguing... :D

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

Not ME!

I HATE arguing.

Yew tring ta start sumpthin,bubba?

[Lando Lincoln]

Needless to say, we enjoy arguing... :D

No we don’t. 

[sneakypete]

No we don’t. 

@Lando Lincoln

Yes,we do. 

[DB]

Who, me?

Argue?

[Smokin Joe]

For me @Smokin Joe the big question is will we continue to be allowed to do pioneering things or not? I see nanny state being advocated all over.

Precisely. How many failed (and paid the price) to fly balloons? Heavier than air craft? Space programs? (Baikonur, Soyuz, Apollo, Challenger, Columbia?  People still get on airplanes and ride to the edges of outer space. People still die even in other tried and true platforms under water, and then you have powered land surface vehicles, undergoing another wave of innovation, but essentially lacking the statistics to determine they are safe (which none are, in some hands).

But being human, we keep trying new stuff, or even old stuff in new or refined ways.

Squelch innovation and humanity will wither on the vine.

Once again, this had worked on a slew of dives before. This time, it didn't.
The Space shuttles worked on a slew of missions, but twice they did not.

It's sad, but that's the way the belly buttons.

[sneakypete]

Precisely. How many failed (and paid the price) to fly balloons? Heavier than air craft? Space programs? (Baikonur, Soyuz, Apollo, Challenger, Columbia?  People still get on airplanes and ride to the edges of outer space. People still die even in other tried and true platforms under water, and then you have powered land surface vehicles, undergoing another wave of innovation, but essentially lacking the statistics to determine they are safe (which none are, in some hands).

But being human, we keep trying new stuff, or even old stuff in new or refined ways.

Squelch innovation and humanity will wither on the vine.

Once again, this had worked on a slew of dives before. This time, it didn't.
The Space shuttles worked on a slew of missions, but twice they did not.

It's sad, but that's the way the belly buttons.

@Smokin Joe

WELL STATED,SIR!