Two weeks of testimony suggested the company responsible for an experimental deep-water submersible that imploded, killing five people, either recklessly ignored warning signs in the name of profits or represented the nation’s explorer spirit in taking calculated risks to push humankind’s boundaries.

Those contrasting viewpoints emerged as the Coast Guard panel tasked with determining why the carbon-fiber Titan was lost 12,500 feet (3,810 meters) deep wrapped up testimony Friday with new information that could have changed how rescuers responded and more discussion of the company co-founder’s cavalier attitude.

Capt. Jamie Frederick, commander of the Coast Guard sector based in Boston, appeared surprised to learn that the crew of Titan’s support vessel, in hindsight, felt there was a slight shudder around the time the submersible imploded on its way to the wreckage of the Titanic last year.

Frederick said it was “unconscionable that they wouldn’t share that” and it could have changed the rescue response. “It certainly would’ve changed the equation,” he testified.

Also Friday, an OceanGate employee testified that he resigned after a “tense” conversation in which co-founder Stockton Rush told him the vessel would be flagged in the Bahamas and launched from Canada to avoid U.S. scrutiny — and arrogantly brushed aside U.S. regulatory concerns if it went to a U.S. port.

  • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    I think that’s relevant info but essentially useless considering the recommended max-depth for carbon fiber subs.

    They never should have gone that deep. Full stop.

    I hope the judge/jury think a waiver was not sufficient to protect ocean gate from negligence.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’re being sued my 2 millionaire estates, a liability waiver is not enough, and I’m guessing Nargeolet (the explorer,) wasn’t exactly broke.

      Usually liability waivers only apply to “reasonable “ risks that are known to both parties. “We might implode because we cheated out and aren’t doing the inspections and were using materials basic material science says we shouldn’t,” likely isn’t covered- it’s reasonable to assume they’re operating a safe sub when it blatantly wasn’t.