Hard time feeling sorry for Titanic looky loos..

GrapeApe
Posts
8787
Joined
6/7/2010
Location
Mc Kinney, TX US
6/23/2023 5:05am Edited Date/Time 6/23/2023 9:09am
GrapeApe wrote:
So you've moved on from mergers and acquisitions to contractual indemnification provisions in construction contracts? Where to next? lol Perhaps I was mistaken by thinking we...

So you've moved on from mergers and acquisitions to contractual indemnification provisions in construction contracts? Where to next? lol

Perhaps I was mistaken by thinking we were talking about whether a signed waiver of liability (including liability for claims of negligence) is valid and enforceable in the context of an owner/operator of a passenger submersible vessel. In Texas the answer is yes, if you properly follow the law in drafting the liability waiver. Source: the actual law.

 

TXDirt wrote:
Negligence cannot be waived. It does not matter what you sign. You are the one who brought up the express negligence doctrine, which has zero application...

Negligence cannot be waived. It does not matter what you sign.

You are the one who brought up the express negligence doctrine, which has zero application here. So yes I had to waste a bunch of time explaining the definition and application of the doctrine to you that you brought up and clearly have misapplied here with regards to the submersible because the express negligence doctrine applies primarily in mergers and acquisitions, and is used in the construction industry between general contractors being indemnified against negligence performed by the duty of a sub contractor.

That doesn’t apply here.

The discussion was originally about a waiver the participants signed. No matter the language of that waiver, you cannot sign away your rights to sue someone over the operators own negligence. It’s not an enforceable action no matter what the OceanGate company had the participants sign.

Hazardous and dangerous activity, even activity that could result in death, has absolutely no bearing on injury or death arising out of negligence in said activity.

Why do you think the term, “a waiver isn’t even worth the paper it’s written on”, came to be?

Because operators were trying to get others to waive away their rights to sue even in cases of operator negligence, and the courts have said no, you cannot do that.

You cannot get people to waive their rights against someone else’s negligence.

You obviously do not understand this. Which is probably why you brought up the express negligence doctrine which has no application here and doesn’t seem like you understand that either.

SEEMEFIRST wrote:
We had an expensive, well written waiver at the track I worked for 15 years, and we got sued for something almost every year.  Wanna be...

We had an expensive, well written waiver at the track I worked for 15 years, and we got sued for something almost every year. 

Wanna be a track owner? Before you stick a plow in the ground, put a good attorney on retainer, and get a LARGE insurance policy. 

Anyone can sue anyone for anything, the question is how did the waiver hold up in litigation? VC had a tough run of injuries and deaths for a period, I'm sure its waiver was put to the test.

3
ns503
Posts
4567
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NS Toolies CA
6/23/2023 5:28am

My take. I feel very sorry for 4 of them. Not for the 5th. It's one thing to decide to do something like this while knowing risks. I don't think the 4 knew all the added risks from the negligence of the 5th around the construction and operation of that thing. One might think that it having made trips down there before was proof of concept and validation of integrity. But that was a setup for failure due to the construction methods and materials which were weakened with each trip down there. 5000psi is a lot of pressure on a vessel. Especially an irregularly shaped one like that. 

4
TXDirt
Posts
7786
Joined
7/29/2015
Location
Plano, TX US
6/23/2023 5:55am

I was shocked to learn the the chamber was made of 5” thick carbon fiber.  Carbon fiber is an amazing material. But it is better under tension than under compression. The problem is that under repeat cycles, the resin sustains growing Micro fractures. It happens under cycles of both tension and compression. But it is well know that performance is slightly worsening compression. Maybe ok for some time. But over time, it grows weaker.

6
1
IWreckALot
Posts
8677
Joined
3/12/2011
Location
Fort Worth, TX US
6/23/2023 6:07am

I guess I'm more callous than you guys are. These aren't poor people without the ability to do due diligence before going to a depth they know damn well is unforgiving. They make financial decisions that made them very well off. Decisions that require understanding risks and benefits of their decisions and require due diligence. They put their blinders on to see the titanic and ignored every other warning sign possible. 

There were warnings from several well respected companies and people to abandon what this company was doing. The manufacturer of the port window in the sub alone was certified to 1300 meters. They wouldn't certify it beyond that. The guy had parts from camper world screwed on the sub. He had sand bags and oilfield pipes used as the weights to drop in case they needed to gain buoyancy.

The hull was made of carbon fiber and titanium. The owner refused to do any cycle testing on the sub to determine how many times the sub could be subjected to the pressures of that depth. This was all very clear before this last run to the bottom. 

The sub blew up on day one. 100%. There were two independent comms systems that both lost contact with the top side simultaneously and there was also an implosion noise picked up around the same time. Nobody suffered or saw it coming fortunately.  

As far as the oxygen concerns, apparently they had a battery operated rebreather  on board. Fewer people "alive" on board would not have extended the oxygen life. So simply killing off the other passengers wouldn't have bought them more time if they had made it past the 5th day. 

This sub was one rig job after another rig job followed by gross negligence. The port window alone is enough to prove negligence.

Lastly, if anyone wants to know what their death was like, look up the Byford Dolphin accident. It wasn't painful for more than a few milliseconds.  Here is a good link to what happens when humans are instantaneously subjected to the pressures of deep water. 

https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/byford-dolphin-acci…

5
3

The Shop

swordfish
Posts
1950
Joined
9/2/2021
Location
Somewhere , AB CA
6/23/2023 11:40am

56687D42-477C-4415-A0B3-B407D848883B

 

25
4
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
13629
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX US
6/23/2023 6:42pm
TXDirt wrote:
Negligence cannot be waived. It does not matter what you sign. You are the one who brought up the express negligence doctrine, which has zero application...

Negligence cannot be waived. It does not matter what you sign.

You are the one who brought up the express negligence doctrine, which has zero application here. So yes I had to waste a bunch of time explaining the definition and application of the doctrine to you that you brought up and clearly have misapplied here with regards to the submersible because the express negligence doctrine applies primarily in mergers and acquisitions, and is used in the construction industry between general contractors being indemnified against negligence performed by the duty of a sub contractor.

That doesn’t apply here.

The discussion was originally about a waiver the participants signed. No matter the language of that waiver, you cannot sign away your rights to sue someone over the operators own negligence. It’s not an enforceable action no matter what the OceanGate company had the participants sign.

Hazardous and dangerous activity, even activity that could result in death, has absolutely no bearing on injury or death arising out of negligence in said activity.

Why do you think the term, “a waiver isn’t even worth the paper it’s written on”, came to be?

Because operators were trying to get others to waive away their rights to sue even in cases of operator negligence, and the courts have said no, you cannot do that.

You cannot get people to waive their rights against someone else’s negligence.

You obviously do not understand this. Which is probably why you brought up the express negligence doctrine which has no application here and doesn’t seem like you understand that either.

SEEMEFIRST wrote:
We had an expensive, well written waiver at the track I worked for 15 years, and we got sued for something almost every year.  Wanna be...

We had an expensive, well written waiver at the track I worked for 15 years, and we got sued for something almost every year. 

Wanna be a track owner? Before you stick a plow in the ground, put a good attorney on retainer, and get a LARGE insurance policy. 

GrapeApe wrote:
Anyone can sue anyone for anything, the question is how did the waiver hold up in litigation? VC had a tough run of injuries and deaths...

Anyone can sue anyone for anything, the question is how did the waiver hold up in litigation? VC had a tough run of injuries and deaths for a period, I'm sure its waiver was put to the test.

The waiver never absolved the owner of being sued.

It helped though because you signed up for this. If you got it wrong,  good chance you're not going to win.

I witnessed more than I would like. 

Man, the kid who crashed going up the hill was crazy. Sadly I can't remember his name, but someone's peg hooked his helmet after he fell. How do you fix that?

Hall killed himself getting something wrong on the top of the track. 

He was out there alone.  I don't condone riding alone.  Maybe Hall lives if someone else was there. 

The guy who shouldn't have been where he was haunts me. 20 feet from me.

I was first there, ugh. His children were there.

1
Shakybonez15
Posts
439
Joined
2/3/2023
Location
Killa,Kali, CA US
6/23/2023 9:31pm
IWreckALot wrote:
I guess I'm more callous than you guys are. These aren't poor people without the ability to do due diligence before going to a depth they...

I guess I'm more callous than you guys are. These aren't poor people without the ability to do due diligence before going to a depth they know damn well is unforgiving. They make financial decisions that made them very well off. Decisions that require understanding risks and benefits of their decisions and require due diligence. They put their blinders on to see the titanic and ignored every other warning sign possible. 

There were warnings from several well respected companies and people to abandon what this company was doing. The manufacturer of the port window in the sub alone was certified to 1300 meters. They wouldn't certify it beyond that. The guy had parts from camper world screwed on the sub. He had sand bags and oilfield pipes used as the weights to drop in case they needed to gain buoyancy.

The hull was made of carbon fiber and titanium. The owner refused to do any cycle testing on the sub to determine how many times the sub could be subjected to the pressures of that depth. This was all very clear before this last run to the bottom. 

The sub blew up on day one. 100%. There were two independent comms systems that both lost contact with the top side simultaneously and there was also an implosion noise picked up around the same time. Nobody suffered or saw it coming fortunately.  

As far as the oxygen concerns, apparently they had a battery operated rebreather  on board. Fewer people "alive" on board would not have extended the oxygen life. So simply killing off the other passengers wouldn't have bought them more time if they had made it past the 5th day. 

This sub was one rig job after another rig job followed by gross negligence. The port window alone is enough to prove negligence.

Lastly, if anyone wants to know what their death was like, look up the Byford Dolphin accident. It wasn't painful for more than a few milliseconds.  Here is a good link to what happens when humans are instantaneously subjected to the pressures of deep water. 

https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/byford-dolphin-acci…

Bro your paragraph and the whole event sent me down a rabbit hole and frankly im never ever ever going scuba diving unless its in a pool thats less than 10ft deep lol.

The ocean is nothing to fuck with past 15ft deep imo lol

3
6/24/2023 1:14am Edited Date/Time 6/24/2023 1:19am

Capture1.png?VersionId=LeElhmQv89I5K0 JaqpMFcUHf9QXW

looks like they screwed the screen into the side

 

2
6/24/2023 5:56am

Deep water is a phobia of mine. Be zero chance I get in any sub. 

3
TAUTOG
Posts
1606
Joined
1/27/2023
Location
Mohrsville, PA US
6/24/2023 8:22am

Don't feel sorry. Bunch of idiots if you ask me. 

6
4
ATKpilot99
Posts
10427
Joined
4/13/2010
Location
Lake Geneva, WI US
6/24/2023 9:22am

Deep water is a phobia of mine. Be zero chance I get in any sub. 

Same here . I'd be claustrophobic sitting in that thing on the surface 

4
Magoofan
Posts
10401
Joined
5/4/2021
Location
Shadow Glen (for those who remember), CA US
6/24/2023 10:50am

Interesting article that speaks volumes of the world today.   

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/j…

"The jeers arising from this peanut gallery range from the lurid to the positively sadistic : “Actually, it’s funny when rich people die in a homemade submarine.

 

1
indy_maico
Posts
5102
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN US
6/24/2023 10:51am

Sub

 

9
5
6/24/2023 2:29pm
TAUTOG wrote:
Don't feel sorry. Bunch of idiots if you ask me. 

Don't feel sorry. Bunch of idiots if you ask me. 

Like dirt bikers?

2
6/24/2023 2:44pm

One of the lads was only 19, he didn't deserve that. Horrible business all round.

5
1
ATKpilot99
Posts
10427
Joined
4/13/2010
Location
Lake Geneva, WI US
6/24/2023 3:13pm

One of the lads was only 19, he didn't deserve that. Horrible business all round.

Agreed . And apparently he really didn't want to go but did for his dad . 

2
philG
Posts
10894
Joined
5/12/2012
Location
GB
6/25/2023 12:32pm

This whole thing is a pretty good example of how normal people in everyday life have no clue about how things work, and what goes in to making sure they dont fail. 

The people that got on that sub will have flown thousands of times, without even a second thought for their safety, because they know that all the rules and regulations that are in place, mean that the chances of that happening, are really slim. 

Now sadly , they have assumed that this mini-sub has the same level of 'background safety' which it quite clearly doesnt. 

So this is why a guy like me, who makes sure you dont fall out of the sky, wont go on Carny rides, because there is zero expectation of any kind of real safety .

These guys made the assumption that nobody would risk killing them, because they were too rich. 

They were wrong. 

Darwinism at its finest. 

 

5
4
mofomotojoe
Posts
279
Joined
11/22/2019
Location
Lodi, CA US
6/25/2023 4:16pm Edited Date/Time 6/25/2023 4:16pm
Mxpilot20 wrote:
looks like they screwed the screen into the side  

Capture1.png?VersionId=LeElhmQv89I5K0 JaqpMFcUHf9QXW

looks like they screwed the screen into the side

 

waitaminit... is there a liner inside the carbon tube, or did they screw those screens straight into the 5" thick hull tube?Blink

 I am surprised they did not use 3M adhesive tape, ultra strong hold, up to 50 lbs ..from Home Depot.

 

Guys... I just realized why this is so sad... these poor fellas might have not even catch a glimpse of the Titanic... 

That is just so wrong.... All this time I was assuming that they at least saw it. 

 

In hindsight a glass tube hull might be better suited for better all around view. Easier to spot cracks too. And glass is inert and therefore more eco-friendly. And it could be sourced from fair trade sand, slowly melted inside a solar furnace.

 

Nevermind, My ex-navy buddy just smacked some sense into these thoughts. Yup. You guessed that bastard's age and ethnicity.

2
3
6/25/2023 6:14pm

This video gets you inside the Titan on a test dive just before the implosion.  It gives you an idea of how many issues it had. This kid was lucky his one way ticket to death was called off:

 

 

6
1
mofomotojoe
Posts
279
Joined
11/22/2019
Location
Lodi, CA US
6/25/2023 6:30pm

reminds me of this ancient video

 

 

2
Magoofan
Posts
10401
Joined
5/4/2021
Location
Shadow Glen (for those who remember), CA US
6/25/2023 10:11pm

I'm going to smoke a turd in hell for this.....   but watching that video ^^^^ All I could think of was Hans and Franz "going to paaamp u up"    Grinning

4
6/26/2023 5:25am
ATKpilot99 wrote:

Agreed . And apparently he really didn't want to go but did for his dad . 

Turns out not to be true. His mom gave up her seat for him because he really wanted to go. 

Gworm
Posts
2728
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO US
6/26/2023 6:48am
This video gets you inside the Titan on a test dive just before the implosion.  It gives you an idea of how many issues it had...

This video gets you inside the Titan on a test dive just before the implosion.  It gives you an idea of how many issues it had. This kid was lucky his one way ticket to death was called off:

 

 

Thanks for posting this. He did a good job of showing good information and still being respectful to the ones that died. 
 

i was particularly interested because I’ve spent more than 2 months of my life in St. John’s, a few days at a time. 
 
I’ve hiked trails along The Narrows, which is the inlet into the bay. The video doesn’t do it justice. At the top of the hill on the left looking out, is Signal Hill. There is a little castle looking monument there. It is where Marconi sent the first wireless signal across the pond to England. If I’m remembering correctly, the communication to and from the Titanic was done by Marconi employees. 

 

3
Magoofan
Posts
10401
Joined
5/4/2021
Location
Shadow Glen (for those who remember), CA US
6/26/2023 9:25am
ATKpilot99 wrote:

Agreed . And apparently he really didn't want to go but did for his dad . 

Dirtydeeds wrote:

Turns out not to be true. His mom gave up her seat for him because he really wanted to go. 

Imagine living with that the rest of your life.   Sad

4
TeamGreen
Posts
36815
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
6/26/2023 9:30am
ATKpilot99 wrote:

Agreed . And apparently he really didn't want to go but did for his dad . 

Dirtydeeds wrote:

Turns out not to be true. His mom gave up her seat for him because he really wanted to go. 

Magoofan wrote:

Imagine living with that the rest of your life.   Sad

Yup

Gotta feel sorry for the families that are left trying to make sense of all of it. It’s a tragedy that’s NOT an accident and it didn’t have to happen.

2
1
sumdood
Posts
8727
Joined
3/11/2013
Location
San Clemente, CA US
Fantasy
6/27/2023 9:31pm

AB999352-04C6-4C74-9639-7D9F9836AF63

 

9
2
PNWMXer
Posts
1734
Joined
1/13/2022
Location
Washington, WA US
6/28/2023 5:02am
Mxpilot20 wrote:
looks like they screwed the screen into the side  

Capture1.png?VersionId=LeElhmQv89I5K0 JaqpMFcUHf9QXW

looks like they screwed the screen into the side

 

I read somewhere that the screws went into a liner which was bonded to the carbon fiber, as opposed to screwing directly into it. That said, nothing would surprise me at this point with regard to idiotic construction of that thing.

Post a reply to: Hard time feeling sorry for Titanic looky loos..

The Latest