CEO Who Said Safety Is a “Waste” on Board Lost Submarine
CEO Who Said Safety Is a “Waste” on Board Lost Submarine
The CEO of the company whose Titanic-seeking submarine has been missing for nearly two days once said safety was a "pure waste."
The CEO of the company whose Titanic-seeking submarine has been missing for nearly two days once said safety was a "pure waste."
I work as a researcher in the university lab OceanGate used to test their vessels. My colleague told me that they would have tests run 7 times resulting in 6 failures and 1 success. OceanGate engineers (maybe their leadership?) would chalk that up as a success and keep going. My colleague says no one in the building would ever get into anything these "morons" built.
I assume there's a fair bit of hyperbole in this, but I think it generally is matching what we're seeing. Oh, also the general consensus here is that their hull caved in and they've been dead for a while.
Jesus that's just terrifying.
I highly doubt they will ever find the sub, its too small and could be literally anywhere.
One thing I can say is if they ever do find the sub intact, its very likely these guys recorded their last hours on their phones and we are very likely to see that at some point… talk about nightmare fuel.
ts very likely these guys recorded their last hours on their phones
So now we know that they were only an hour and forty five minutes into the dive when they imploded.
I saw one interview on youtube with a member of the submersible community who claimed to have some inside information from people close to the incident. He said that the sub got into trouble and communicated to the mothership that it was aborting the mission and returning to the surface, before going dark.
So I am imagining the billionaires in there listening to cracking sounds from the hull before it gave way. I bet that they recorded video, and I bet that the recordings can be recovered, but I doubt that they will be released.
To quote the article:
I mean, if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk-reward question.
Because passenger vehicle safety hasn't had leaps and bounds since their inception. This is the equivalent of "don't get hurt" on job sites, and has about the same results. Regulations are written in blood.
I think there is a valid point to be made that there is only so much risk reduction that can be done, and people will then either accept the risk level of the action or not. The thing that is important though is that people know what risk they are accepting.
When I learned to ride a motorcycle the instructor flat out said that motorcycling is not a safe activity. It is inherently risky, and the stakes are very high. Injuries are severe, and you're far more likely to die. You can somewhat lower that risk by wearing proper safety gear and practicing safe riding, but riding a motorcycle is not and will never be safe.
Oh no! Anyway
Fuck the billionaires taking submarine rides for shits and giggles.
I feel the same about billionaires that take trips to space for fun.
I propose that we replace the phrase "hoisted by your own pitard" with "sunk by your own submarine." Feels more modern and less like my wife will laugh at me whenever I say it.
Its too bad that idiot had to take 4 other people to their deaths with him, especially that kid
We should never replace that phrase, just send your wife this simple explanation to get her on board with it.
Personally I have no problem with this dude being the billionaire's underwater tour manager.
I assume that they had quite some time to discuss the topic since Sunday, unfortunately.
"I think I can do this just as safely while breaking the rules," he added at the time.
Doesn’t sound that out of context to me. Rules and regulations are written in blood. FAFO
In that case Stockton is about to become an author.
He fucked around and found out
Sounds like a good candidate for a Darwin Award.
I think those kind of statements shouldn't be taken out of context.
I mean, it's not wrong to say there has to be a balance between security and usability, but neglecting security measures is a totally different thing.
It's true that, unfortunately often, top managers are the ones always trying to be cheap on security, but I don't think it's fair trying to imply someone actually did by publishing a statement out of context.
This thing will be investigated for sure, let's not start a witch-hunt before knowing the facts.
They're clearly not witches, as evidenced by the fact that they don't float.
So here's what he actually said:
"You know, at some point, safety is just pure waste," Rush told CBS' David Pogue during an episode of his "Unsung Science" podcast. "I mean, if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk-reward question."
I don't think that's unreasonable. I mean you can never go outside again to be safe but most people are gonna take a little bit of risk and go outside to get groceries or meet friends.
There is a huge difference between acceptable risk and recklessness. Reading his interviews he was a cowboy and this was an inevitability. This was in essence a murder suicide.
There's also the concept of informed risk, which relates to informed consent, and this can be a big issue.
For example, if I ask a friend to come for a drive with me, they'll likely say "yes" on the assumption that the car is road safe and I have passed my driving test. But if I wait until we're already on the road to tell them that the fuel line sprays petrol into the footwell and the engine constantly misfires, then they agreed without understanding the full risks, and might have decided differently if they had all the info ahead of time.
I think any "reasonable person" would refuse to enter that sub if they were given a full understanding of the risks posed, and their likelihood.
Not unreasonable, but getting out of bed and going to the most dangerous part of our planet don't really equate, you know? And when your own engineers are telling you you've made something unsafe, but you just keep going?? Well...
I agree it's not that unreasonable of a decision to make for yourself. I'm the same way, I do things that many people would consider dangerous while out climbing.
However he was responsible for other people's safety... and now he's responsible for other people's deaths.
Eh I think their answer is dishonest, and I've had way too much exposure to risk calcs at work lately. Risks aren't born equally. Getting out of bed? Ridiculously low risk. Driving in my car? Still low risk, but higher. Skydiving? A lot higher risk, although it depends on the rate at which parachutes fail.
If it were just his life in his hands, maybe I'd feel different, but he chose to pit others life in his hands. When you do that you need to care about safety.
Thanks for the quote.
The reward for a billionaire making such a trip is to brag by saying he did something we couldn't do. Risk he took was high despite his belief.
No insurance plan exists to pay for the rescue operations of such idiotic selfish trips even after this question was discussed concerning sail boat races around the world's seas.
On the other hand, the reward for making the groceries is to have food to stay alive. Risks of death for grocery's trip is less than 1/100_000_000 (very rough estimate).
Let's put our resources and energy where it is sensible.He clearly missed the point where it was just wasted.
I'm a rock climber, and I accept that my activity involves a fair bit of risk. It doesn't mean I climb without a rope or helmet.