Other News & General Chat

[OrangeKhrush]

36 minutes ago, nudge said:

You mean this boring white guy with 30-40 years experience?

he fired a few who questioned things.  what really needs to be answered is who certified this hardware store capsule for a deep dive.  it is not like you can just go forth  under the sea, it requires red tape and some didn't do their job.

[nudge]

1 minute ago, OrangeKhrush said:

he fired a few who questioned things.  what really needs to be answered is who certified this hardware store capsule for a deep dive.  it is not like you can just go forth  under the sea, it requires red tape and some didn't do their job.

It might sound completely mad, but it is actually untrue. In deep-sea tourism, since the sub is carried on the big boat as cargo and only operates in international waters, it is not properly regulated at all. There is literally no government, agency, or maritime organisation that regulates it. The company also ran their Titanic operations through their branch in Bahamas (OceanGate Expeditions), meaning they could also circumvent US laws. So basically what they needed was just for the passengers to sign waivers, which they did. I am pretty sure this now will lead to introduction of more regulations though. 

[OrangeKhrush]

8 minutes ago, nudge said:

It might sound completely mad, but it is actually untrue. In deep-sea tourism, since the sub is carried on the big boat as cargo and only operates in international waters, it is not properly regulated at all. There is literally no government, agency, or maritime organisation that regulates it. The company also ran their Titanic operations through their branch in Bahamas (OceanGate Expeditions), meaning they could also circumvent US laws. So basically what they needed was just for the passengers to sign waivers, which they did. I am pretty sure this now will lead to introduction of more regulations though. 

all vessels are registered somewhere.  Since it is also a tourist vessel it has to pass safety requirements.   it was registered in the US.   International waters don't mean the ship/vessel has no nationality or place of registration.

[nudge]

Just now, OrangeKhrush said:

all vessels are registered somewhere.  Since it is also a tourist vessel it has to pass safety requirements.   it was registered in the US.   International waters don't mean the ship/vessel has no nationality or place of registration.

Sigh, wrong on all claims. When it comes to new experimental submersibles, it's a legal grey area with endless loopholes and no regulation. There's an endless list of sources that explain that, you just have to actually read it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/after-titanic-sub-disaster-industry-faces-scrutiny-2023-06-23/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/06/23/oceangate-titan-regulation-submersible-laws/

https://www.insider.com/why-was-titan-allowed-to-visit-titanic-legal-question-answer-2023-6

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-submarine-titanic-implosion-oceangate-rules-tourism/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/oceangate-titanic-submarine-not-been-30276536

 

[6666]

Fuck Israel. Their government and their military will never stop being scum.

[Azeem]

https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1676646256758902784

[OrangeKhrush]

a good video, not the only one covering the full history of ocean gate and it's now doomed to disaster reputation.

lots of red flags and again I ask how regulations were bypassed

[Rucksackfranzose]

2 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

a good video, not the only one covering the full history of ocean gate and it's now doomed to disaster reputation.

lots of red flags and again I ask how regulations were bypassed

So you didn't have time to read the sources provided by @nudge. Otherwise you'd know there were no regulations to be bypassed.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

So you didn't have time to read the sources provided by @nudge. Otherwise you'd know there were no regulations to be bypassed.

yes there were, the submersible failed it's pressure test at 3000m give or take, to get around the regulations they argued the "pushing the boundaries" arguement or "voyage for science" rhetoric.

the sub is a us registered vehicle and needs to comply with safety requirements in accordance with maritime laws and passenger laws.

I have a PPL and CPL with a turbojet type rating, the red tape to even take a family member on a joy ride is rigorous, I doubt maritime is different as a friend owns a catermaran passager vessel rated for sea tours and the inspections are done every month, fines for any structural fault.  passengers also have to sign indemnity which is attached to a passenger manifest. 

 

the more info is coming out the more dubious it gets

[Spike]

Fuck it must be great to be that stupid. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

yes there were, the submersible failed it's pressure test at 3000m give or take, to get around the regulations they argued the "pushing the boundaries" arguement or "voyage for science" rhetoric.

the sub is a us registered vehicle and needs to comply with safety requirements in accordance with maritime laws and passenger laws.

I have a PPL and CPL with a turbojet type rating, the red tape to even take a family member on a joy ride is rigorous, I doubt maritime is different as a friend owns a catermaran passager vessel rated for sea tours and the inspections are done every month, fines for any structural fault.  passengers also have to sign indemnity which is attached to a passenger manifest. 

 

the more info is coming out the more dubious it gets

lol mate - seriously read some of those links that were posted though. But it wasn't registered in the US & it had no maritime industry classification.

Your boat or your friend's catamaran passenger vehicle are different to a submersible that will never sail in and out of ports. Most regulations regarding submersibles are based on local rules. This was a submersible carried out to international waters from a Canadian vessel.

They weren't in any violation of any regulation, they were just in a weird grey area. The links above that @nudge posted explain it better than I can, so to satisfy your curiosity and get some answers to your questions I think you should check them out.

[MUFC]

https://news.yahoo.com/france-passes-bill-allowing-police-145500498.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFTJuA7UZW4YRBWCuRNybjQRp5Ca3FlZHv71A5Yq-QafcbEUSKVp5kLQqaoKN3S_uLhcsGY4dGjCUclNkX21uiU3nCFqTjblC-WPP1n3ciyfj2Cc-KyZBt2ip91iWCedVnGYlvwFgH9vwC9WA6xAlfM6F9HSSwWGAu6bepZhUEIP

[Spike]

16 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

lol mate - seriously read some of those links that were posted though. But it wasn't registered in the US & it had no maritime industry classification.

Your boat or your friend's catamaran passenger vehicle are different to a submersible that will never sail in and out of ports. Most regulations regarding submersibles are based on local rules. This was a submersible carried out to international waters from a Canadian vessel.

They weren't in any violation of any regulation, they were just in a weird grey area. The links above that @nudge posted explain it better than I can, so to satisfy your curiosity and get some answers to your questions I think you should check them out.

My mate that uses a kangaroo to swim from Sydney harbour to Manley beaches says he has to hop over a lot of red tape to get into the water. 

[OrangeKhrush]

Canada is also looking into regulatory breaches and falsified information by oceangate.

I'm so glad this place is full of experts on everything.

maybe we can tell car manufacturers they don't have to meet regulatory standards because reasons.

we are at the point where cookies must crumble and culpability must be found.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Canada is also looking into regulatory breaches and falsified information by oceangate.

I'm so glad this place is full of experts on everything.

maybe we can tell car manufacturers they don't have to meet regulatory standards because reasons.

we are at the point where cookies must crumble and culpability must be found.

Here’s what Canada’s said so far:

“Such an investigation will proceed only if our examination of circumstances indicate criminal federal or provincial laws may possibly have been broken. There’s no suspicion of criminal activity per se, but the RCMP is taking initial steps to assess whether or not we will go down that road,” Osmond continued.
 

&

“Our mandate is to find out what happened and why and to find out what needs to change to reduce the chance or the risk of such occurrences in the future,” she said.

https://jalopnik.com/canada-looking-into-possible-criminal-charges-over-tita-1850576785

These YouTube “experts” get their info from looking around at shit on the internet by the way, so you can cut out the middle man and read stuff instead of having some rando give you their spin 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Culpability should be pretty easy to find, I imagine their liability waivers aren’t legitimate considering there’s plenty of evidence OceanGate was negligent. Seems like a civil matter, so survivors of the victims should sue OceanGate.

But the main guy responsible escaped liability by dying. And tbh I think everyone who died is pretty culpable for their own deaths for trusting a guy who said “safety just slows down innovation” and his makeshift vessel.

[Rucksackfranzose]

35 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Canada is also looking into regulatory breaches and falsified information by oceangate.

I'm so glad this place is full of experts on everything.

maybe we can tell car manufacturers they don't have to meet regulatory standards because reasons.

we are at the point where cookies must crumble and culpability must be found.

 

On 02/07/2023 at 18:54, nudge said:

Sigh, wrong on all claims. When it comes to new experimental submersibles, it's a legal grey area with endless loopholes and no regulation. There's an endless list of sources that explain that, you just have to actually read it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/after-titanic-sub-disaster-industry-faces-scrutiny-2023-06-23/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/06/23/oceangate-titan-regulation-submersible-laws/

https://www.insider.com/why-was-titan-allowed-to-visit-titanic-legal-question-answer-2023-6

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-submarine-titanic-implosion-oceangate-rules-tourism/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/oceangate-titanic-submarine-not-been-30276536

 

Read the links provided by nudge, and do yourself a favour. Pose yourself the question whether you're indeed are that convinced of your own papal infallibility, that you're rating your opinion based on anecdotes over the published knowledge of journalists based on actual research.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Rucksackfranzose

[nudge]

3 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

 

Read the links provided by nudge, and do yourself a favour. Pose yourself the question whether you're indeed are that convinced of your own papal infallibility, that you're rating yout opinion based on anecdotes over the published knowledge of journalists based on actual research.

LüGeNpReSsE

[Azeem]

Why can't we just get along ?

[Spike]

6 minutes ago, Beelzebub said:

Why can't we just get along ?

I’m an alcoholic

[Azeem]

24 minutes ago, Spike said:

I’m an assholeic

Agreed

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Beelzebub said:

Agreed

*Arsehole

 

…asshole.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

 

Read the links provided by nudge, and do yourself a favour. Pose yourself the question whether you're indeed are that convinced of your own papal infallibility, that you're rating your opinion based on anecdotes over the published knowledge of journalists based on actual research.

1) they are older articles

2) non are by engineers or attorneys

3) new information since then has come to light ie: the sub failed it's certification and did not have the paperwork necessary.

what people are struggling to get is that the vessel was built in America, it needed to pass regulatory standards in engineering in order to pass safety requirements.  jurisdiction on international waters is not absolute either, jurisdiction always resorts back to the country the vessel was registered on eg: if a ship registered as American strikes a reef and leaks oil, America has jurisdiction  in legal action against the shipping company.   if a murder is committed on same example, then America has jurisdiction to prosecute even if it was over international waters.   if the ship was in territorial waters of another country then there is dual jurisdiction.

news in yesterday is that Canada are looking into possible legal action for regulatory violations.

[MUFC]

 

[Spike]

https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/oceangate-ceo-stockton-rush-once-complained-of-industrys-obscenely-safe-regulations/amp/
 

he literally admitted to avoiding regulations, international industry literally criticised his practice of using loopholes and not following regulation and safety standards.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Spike