4 ms·

Real-world training for the newbies, exercise for the journeymen, and teaching moments for the experts. That alone is worth my tax dollars for keeping a robust

Real-world training for the newbies, exercise for the journeymen, and teaching moments for the experts. That alone is worth my tax dollars for keeping a robust search and rescue force. At least some of the CEO's estate should go to paying for it, but pay out to victims' families first.

raldi 3y ago
Exactly. Same reason that, even setting aside basic humanitarian ethics, it made sense for fire departments from all over America to send their crews to help out after 9/11 even though the victims didn't fund them; the experience is well worth the expense.
- hawk_ 3y ago
  Which of the victims asked those planes to be sent their way?
  - raldi 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      You're comparing a terrorist attack (9/11) to reckless malfeasance (this sub). The more apt comparison would be of 9/11 to the Andriana disaster. It's a bit ridiculous to champion the humanitarian benefits of sending a throng of people to look for a handful of people in a very unusual situation while ignoring the larger humanitarian disaster that is far more likely to happen again (ergo far more important to practice for). And, yes, it's a zero sum game. People looking for the five rich guys are people that cannot look for the hundreds of children trapped on a sinking ship.
      - kelthan 3y ago
        At this point, we don't know that there was reckless malfeasance at play. However, there is plenty of circumstantial data to indicate that may have been the case. There was certainly an explicit and willful disregard for expert advice or battle-tested opinions. However, we don't have enough information yet (and may never get it) to conclude that was the cause of the accident. It could be that someone/something damaged the hull (oceans and boats are notoriously hostile environments) and that created a weak spot that failed under pressure, or that some other mechanical failure occurred. However, those are both every bit as speculative as what I'm cautioning against. They are provided for illustration, only.
        inferiorhuman 3y ago
        Could be? The whistleblower found visual defects in the carbon fiber before they even started using the sub. That's why they fired him. They eventually found more damage and repaired the hull in 2020/21.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        You're assuming these searchers would actually be able to get to the sinking ship with children in time. The Mediterranean Sea (near Greece specifically) is quite far from the Titanic site. Exactly how fast do you think ships can travel?
saalweachter 3y ago
Besides any sort of altruism, there's also fame-seeking or marketing to consider; pulling off a high-profile rescue puts you and your company's name in the news, and makes people think of you as a business that can solve other difficult problems.
cdolan 3y ago
Agree with the sentiment, but 3+ of the victims had far more net worth than the CEO The 5th passenger from the French, maybe not
kelthan 3y ago
Agreed. Hopefully, this will result in a requirement for "black boxes" or "flight recorders" for this type of recreational/tourist endeavour going forward. They aren't going to prevent the accident that just occurred, but they provide valuable data to prevent future accidents.
dctoedt 3y ago
> Real-world training for the newbies, exercise for the journeymen, and teaching moments for the experts. That alone is worth my tax dollars for keeping a robust search and rescue force. This. When the shit hits the fan, and lives could be at stake, the participants in responsive operations seem to focus more intently, and the lessons learned seem to get imprinted more firmly, than when it's a drill. (There was a reason that when Pearl Harbor was attacked, the emergency radio transmission that went out was, "Air raid Pearl Harbor X This is no drill." [0]) I suspect the psychology might be related somehow to Samuel Johnson's dictum that "When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/07/urgent-1941-radiogram-warns-airraid-on-pearl-harbor-x-this-is-no-drill/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/0...
hawk_ 3y ago
Yes I get the training aspect. My point was around charging them for this. There are other such rescue missions where our brave men and women risk their lives because of reckless behavior of some. We should at least have such reckless actors take a bigger burden where possible.
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  It's my understanding that in rescue missions where the targets don't pay with their lives, they end up paying monetarily afterwards.
  - _moof 3y ago
    Depends a great deal on who is doing the rescuing and whether the people rescued are considered negligent. Iceland's SAR team, for example, has gone back and forth on whether to charge people because when people believe they'll have to pay, they're less likely to call for help until the situation has gotten way worse and way more dangerous for the team.
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      The same would happen for the fire department. Can you imagine if an investigation blamed you for a house fire, then the fire department charged you for services? Many fewer people would call the fire department, and many more would die in house fires. People seem pretty casual here about wagging the finger. Just wait until they make an accidentally poor decision and need to be rescued.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    In general, certainly at smaller scale (e.g. hikers who get lost/injured in winter), they're not charged in many places unless there was clear negligence. Which is mostly how you want it to be. You don't really want people to avoid search and rescue and just hope things work out because they're afraid of a big bill.
    - deleted 3y ago

raldi 3y ago

Exactly. Same reason that, even setting aside basic humanitarian ethics, it made sense for fire departments from all over America to send their crews to help out after 9/11 even though the victims didn't fund them; the experience is well worth the expense.

hawk_ 3y ago
Which of the victims asked those planes to be sent their way?
- raldi 3y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    You're comparing a terrorist attack (9/11) to reckless malfeasance (this sub). The more apt comparison would be of 9/11 to the Andriana disaster. It's a bit ridiculous to champion the humanitarian benefits of sending a throng of people to look for a handful of people in a very unusual situation while ignoring the larger humanitarian disaster that is far more likely to happen again (ergo far more important to practice for). And, yes, it's a zero sum game. People looking for the five rich guys are people that cannot look for the hundreds of children trapped on a sinking ship.
    - kelthan 3y ago
      At this point, we don't know that there was reckless malfeasance at play. However, there is plenty of circumstantial data to indicate that may have been the case. There was certainly an explicit and willful disregard for expert advice or battle-tested opinions. However, we don't have enough information yet (and may never get it) to conclude that was the cause of the accident. It could be that someone/something damaged the hull (oceans and boats are notoriously hostile environments) and that created a weak spot that failed under pressure, or that some other mechanical failure occurred. However, those are both every bit as speculative as what I'm cautioning against. They are provided for illustration, only.
      - inferiorhuman 3y ago
        Could be? The whistleblower found visual defects in the carbon fiber before they even started using the sub. That's why they fired him. They eventually found more damage and repaired the hull in 2020/21.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      You're assuming these searchers would actually be able to get to the sinking ship with children in time. The Mediterranean Sea (near Greece specifically) is quite far from the Titanic site. Exactly how fast do you think ships can travel?

saalweachter 3y ago

Besides any sort of altruism, there's also fame-seeking or marketing to consider; pulling off a high-profile rescue puts you and your company's name in the news, and makes people think of you as a business that can solve other difficult problems.

cdolan 3y ago

Agree with the sentiment, but 3+ of the victims had far more net worth than the CEO The 5th passenger from the French, maybe not

kelthan 3y ago

Agreed. Hopefully, this will result in a requirement for "black boxes" or "flight recorders" for this type of recreational/tourist endeavour going forward. They aren't going to prevent the accident that just occurred, but they provide valuable data to prevent future accidents.

dctoedt 3y ago

> Real-world training for the newbies, exercise for the journeymen, and teaching moments for the experts. That alone is worth my tax dollars for keeping a robust search and rescue force. This. When the shit hits the fan, and lives could be at stake, the participants in responsive operations seem to focus more intently, and the lessons learned seem to get imprinted more firmly, than when it's a drill. (There was a reason that when Pearl Harbor was attacked, the emergency radio transmission that went out was, "Air raid Pearl Harbor X This is no drill." [0]) I suspect the psychology might be related somehow to Samuel Johnson's dictum that "When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/07/urgent-1941-radiogram-warns-airraid-on-pearl-harbor-x-this-is-no-drill/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/12/0...

hawk_ 3y ago

Yes I get the training aspect. My point was around charging them for this. There are other such rescue missions where our brave men and women risk their lives because of reckless behavior of some. We should at least have such reckless actors take a bigger burden where possible.

stronglikedan 3y ago
It's my understanding that in rescue missions where the targets don't pay with their lives, they end up paying monetarily afterwards.
- _moof 3y ago
  Depends a great deal on who is doing the rescuing and whether the people rescued are considered negligent. Iceland's SAR team, for example, has gone back and forth on whether to charge people because when people believe they'll have to pay, they're less likely to call for help until the situation has gotten way worse and way more dangerous for the team.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    The same would happen for the fire department. Can you imagine if an investigation blamed you for a house fire, then the fire department charged you for services? Many fewer people would call the fire department, and many more would die in house fires. People seem pretty casual here about wagging the finger. Just wait until they make an accidentally poor decision and need to be rescued.
- ghaff 3y ago
  In general, certainly at smaller scale (e.g. hikers who get lost/injured in winter), they're not charged in many places unless there was clear negligence. Which is mostly how you want it to be. You don't really want people to avoid search and rescue and just hope things work out because they're afraid of a big bill.
  - deleted 3y ago