3 ms·

Lochridge was also a submersible pilot. Being fired was an ideal outcome for Lochridge, because Lochridge was therefore not piloting the sub this week.

• renewiltord 3y ago
  The ideal outcome for Lochridge, I'm sure would have been the sub being modified so that these problems did not occur. I'm pretty sure he does not set the utility of other peoples' lives at 0, so their surviving along with him would definitely be better. So this has to be the second-best outcome at best.
  • margalabargala 3y ago
    That's true. What outcome is ideal depends on the priors, I suppose. If the company not listening to Lochridge is a given, then being fired is better than not, and having to go down on the sub. The company listening to Lochridge is better than the company not listening to Lochridge. The company putting safety first and engineering something that met Lochridge's standards from the outset is better than the company listening to Lochridge when he brought up problems. And so on.
  • wnkrshm 3y ago
    I think they couldn't modify the sub to be safe - the big worry is the integral part of the sub (and the one with the highest cost in this one), the composite pressure hull. You cannot ensure its safety, since you cannot evaluate it for growing defects. As is best practice for all other DSVs in the world that use metal pressure hulls. I suspect a metal hull and all it entails (way more complex design and careful selection of materials, equipment, passenger space etc.) would have cost too much.
• hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
  > Being fired was an ideal outcome for Lochridge, because Lochridge was therefore not piloting the sub this week. What an absurd thing to say. Not having the sub sink has all the upsides and none of the downsides of having it sink. Ergo, being fired is guaranteed not to be optimal.