5 ms·

My opinion that no one needs: We don't need more regulations on extreme deep sea submersibles. There are on average approximately 0 deaths per year, and fewer

by csours 3y ago

My opinion that no one needs: We don't need more regulations on extreme deep sea submersibles. There are on average approximately 0 deaths per year, and fewer than 1000 users per year. This number is extremely unlikely to go up. On average, Classic Cars kill AT LEAST an order of magnitude more people than extreme deep sea submersibles per year. People want to drive their old cars because they look cool. People want to do all kinds of dumb stuff. When proposing regulations, ask at least these three questions: Is it a big problem? Will it become a big problem? Is it truly voluntary? You can still argue about these questions and their answers, but at least it's not a binary or knee jerk response.

andrewfromx 3y ago
not to mention unnecessary car trips even in just normal cars! Do I really need to go from point A to point B? I could just stay point A and that's safer.
kayodelycaon 3y ago
There are more people doing deep dives that you probably suspect. Safety regulations involving things like ships, subs, and airplanes are quite literally written in blood. Is it too onerous to require a ship have navigation lights and life jackets? Subs should have at least some basic safety minimums.
- rvba 3y ago
  Dont they dive in a part of sea that is international, so no rules apply?
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    The companies are incorporated in some country however. And ships that go out to sea must be flagged under some country, and those ships have to follow the rules/regulations of the country they're under.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      And their failures cause those same countries non-trivial amounts of money. Consider the Coast Guard and Navy efforts for this latest event.
    - nielsbot 3y ago
      According to the news I read, Titan did not need to be classed/certified because it didn't launch from any port. Even if the mother ship did. I'll try to find the citation.
- david38 3y ago
  Why? You are comparing ships, which have passengers whose goal is to get somewhere (not necessarily be on a ship) and don’t self-identify as final-frontier risk takers with subs which are the exact opposite. Nobody takes a sub as regular or holiday transport. The point of the (non-military) sub is to go where almost nobody goes, where only a sub can go. And you don’t leave the sub.
EdwardDiego 3y ago
We do need regulations on submersibles offering transport to passengers. 1) Dead people 2) How much is this debacle costing taxpayers? If your private actions can impose significant cost on the public, the public has a right to ensure you're minimising risk.
- RandomBK 3y ago
  On (2), I think there's some general policy discussions we should have around government spending rescuing people willing and knowingly doing obviously dangerous/stupid things. Americans fucking around in North Korea or active war zones is another example that comes to mind. I think that would be a better use of time than spinning up a 100-person government licensing program to regulate the 1000 people playing with submarines.
  - EdwardDiego 3y ago
    Yeah, the costs of SAR when people made very dumb decisions is an ongoing debate. In my country at least, the consensus is that we don't want people to _not_ call for help when they need it because they're afraid of being invoiced. I used to be a ranger, so was involved in SAR to a small extent, usually triggering them, manning the radio, and hitting up other hikers who might have seen something for info, but a lot of our rangers were also volunteers with LandSAR, as they had the techical skills and the local knowledge. And as far as I'm aware, there was only one serious attempt to invoice someone for a search. An American serviceman with Operation Deep Freeze had left his intentions for a multi-day hike with the rangers, and when he didn't make contact within 24 hours of his expected date out, a search was initiated. The personal details he'd left weren't great, we knew that an American called Mike was following the Casey Stream - Poulter River - Lake Minchin - Townsend Pass - Taramakau River route, and we knew he hadn't signed out. No details of his car (if any), or where it was parked, no local contact details, nothing much but an overdue Yankee Mike who was headed into an area where the route he was following wasn't quite here-be-dragons, but you'd certainly stumble into dragons if you made navigation mistakes or bad choices in general. Volunter searchers on foot spent about 6 weeks scouring his route, and possible wrong turns he could've taken for, which involves very challenging terrain, they brought in both kinds of SAR dogs (the kind that are trained to find people, and the kind that are trained to find bodies) and, significantly more expensively, there was a lot of helicopter flight hours expended trying to find him. The rescue choppers had the IR cameras, ideal for finding warm bodies in the cold, and night vision great at enhancing any light emitted on the ground. Plus the massive spotlight and the winch and the trained paramedics etc. (Apparently a small torch is very damn visible at night with the NVG, just don't be under trees, it doesn't help). After those six weeks, the search was called off. A few months later he was eventually located by our Police who'd been following up every angle to identify him. He was safe and sound at home, in Utah. He'd returned to the US shortly after his hike. I'm guessing his deployment (or the season for flights to the Antarctic) had been at an end, so he went on one last hike and just forgot to sign out. The Police took it personal, and desperately wanted to invoice him for the rescue, even suing him in a US court if need be, but the diplomats nixed it as the US is very protective of its citizens, especially when they're in the service.
twiss 3y ago
I agree that car safety and regulations (and probably even more importantly, replacing car trips with safer modes of transport wherever possible) are more pressing than submarine safety regulations, but why does one preclude the other? We should have both.
- RandomBK 3y ago
  Instead of targeted regulation specific to submarines, I would look at the laws around legal liability and depth of disclosures. That would scale across many more types of activity rather than any single one. 1. Is what you're doing dangerous? 2. Did you tell your customers about the danger? 3. Do they really understand the danger, including past incidents? 4. Is anyone else being harmed or are you just gambling your own life? Even then, I would posit that this case probably passes this bar - OceanGate was quite clear in their waiver and there's a level of due diligence that a reasonable person spending 250K should be expected to make.
teeray 3y ago
This gets attention because it’s a unique and horrific way to die. Car accidents are boring and routine. Being instantly compacted into ice cube sizes by Poseidon evokes all kinds of narratives about mankind’s hubris and whatnot and is tied up with the entire history of Titanic itself. It’s a lightning rod for popular interest that some senators will try to latch onto to wedge themselves in the minds of the voting public.
- david38 3y ago
  It’s not at all horrific. It’s likely the most humane (if ecologically expensive) way I can think of. Assuming you don’t have any build-up which causes stress, it’s unbelievably fast and this painless.
  - Vanit 3y ago
    To paraphrase Hank Green, you cease to be a biological organism and become physics.
- csours 3y ago
  Mysterious Peril = Interesting Normal Peril = Annoying
nelox 3y ago
Not to mention the risk in which you place others, when things go wrong and they come looking for you.
happytoexplain 3y ago
There is another cost of not regulating: If I live in a society that is keen on regulation, then I feel more safe doing things. I can not have information in my head about what all is regulated and how much. When I do things in the US, I feel safe (relative to known risks), because I believe we are a high-regulation society (feel free to argue that). If that image starts to slip, then I have to start asking myself: Should I take my kids on this helicopter ride at the county fair? Should I go down this remote cliffside road on public transport? Should I get in this old elevator? Should I leave this electrical appliance running while I sleep? Maybe it's a little thing in the big picture, but some people value it immensely, and many Americans appear to be those people. Declining to regulate deep-sea subs, or whatever else, maybe doesn't have any practical effect, but it is one little chip out of the image of high-regulation.
- jason_pomerleau 3y ago
  When I was 16 years old I took a job at a travelling carnival that was in town for a long weekend. My job was to run a helicopter ride for little kids. The green button started the ride, the red button stopped it. And if it didn’t start, I was instructed to give the control unit a moderate smack. It worked. This was in Canada, ~1990. Awhile ago admittedly, but I haven’t looked at travelling fair rides the same way since.
- csours 3y ago
  I agree, but as a counterpoint, I don't think that deep sea submersibles should feel safe.
JamesLeonis 3y ago
I agree that we don't need new regulations, but I do think liability waivers will come under scrutiny. I expect this will come under the courts as lawsuits are filed against the company, and thus tighten up standards about liability and safety expectations for businesses like this. I also think a degree of insurance will become required for these waivers. In the end it's dolts like OceanGate that make it more difficult for the rest of us.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  On the one hand, yeah, maybe it's fine if the 100 morons per year have to sign a waiver acknowledging "this experimental submarine has not been approved by any verification provess. There is no reason to believe you will survive this trip." On the other hand, last week I had to sign a waiver saying essentially the same thing when I rented a frisbee golf kit. And everything in the state of California is "known to the State of California to cause cancer" .
  - JamesLeonis 3y ago
    > On the other hand, last week I had to sign a waiver saying essentially the same thing when I rented a frisbee golf kit. They are everywhere, which is why I think a court case on them will have far-reaching effects. I have a strong feeling they will not be the get-out-of-liability-free card they once were. In a way it mirrors the Love Canal liability case against Hooker Chemical about a similar release of liability. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#Sale_of_the_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#Sale_of_the_site
flashgordon 3y ago
If I can be honest. This sounded pretty callous to me. Not having regulation or having minimal regulation makes sense when the impact is low not when it is life or death. This was not a submersible somebody built in their backyard and took only their family and friends into the ocean. this was a legit business. They were marketing and the only avenue that customers would have is the word and review of other customers. You can't expect customers to be well versed in the mechanics and engineering of building submersibles to be able to assess the safety of those things and this is why we need that regulation. Even in your example it is true that car accidents are way more. But the number of miles driven in cars is orders and orders and orders of magnitude more then number of miles of ocean floor traversed! Edit: this also got me thinking a bit more. I can see why in America the R word seems scary and is a bit triggering. Regulation here can be as simple as insure your customers for say a million dollars of no questions asked policy and pass the cost of that to customers and let them (and the actuaries) decide if it is worth it!
- fragmede 3y ago
  There are only so many hours in the day. Instead of politicians spending time working on this, how about working on any of the other more important problems out there. Like homelessness or wealth inequality or the increasing political divisiveness?
  - flashgordon 3y ago
    Sure by that logic we shouldn't be fighting wars or funding space exploration But seriously there has to be some threshold of common sense. You are sending a sealed box 100s (thousands?) of meters into the ocean (or replace with another similarly risky sounding proposition - trying on experimental jet packs, getting shot out of a cannon with a parachute etc). It can't be that unreasonable to ask "if something went wrong who should be responsible and for how much damages and what level of insurance should be mandatory (or atleast available for sale)" - we already do this for mortgages where risks and impacts are a lot lower. Now if you have more time and patience sure go ahead and enumerate it and do the actual work of passing regulation around it until that insurance premium actually becomes profitable. The free market actually can help if you ensure it is used.
bradknowles 3y ago
I think the key objection here is taking an experimental vehicle and using it for commercial purposes. None of those passengers could ever possibly have properly understood the risks they were taking, because the people who made those submersibles didn't understand the risks they were taking. If it had only ever been the people directly involved in the research of creating deep sea vehicles using carbon fiber pressure vessels, I don't think there would be such an outcry. But it was charlatans who didn't know what they were doing and taking unwitting passengers out on inherently unsafe vehicles, and they got those people killed. This is how regulations get made. This is how regulatory agencies like what is now called the FAA are created.

by csours 3y ago

andrewfromx 3y ago

not to mention unnecessary car trips even in just normal cars! Do I really need to go from point A to point B? I could just stay point A and that's safer.

kayodelycaon 3y ago

There are more people doing deep dives that you probably suspect. Safety regulations involving things like ships, subs, and airplanes are quite literally written in blood. Is it too onerous to require a ship have navigation lights and life jackets? Subs should have at least some basic safety minimums.

rvba 3y ago
Dont they dive in a part of sea that is international, so no rules apply?
- dragontamer 3y ago
  The companies are incorporated in some country however. And ships that go out to sea must be flagged under some country, and those ships have to follow the rules/regulations of the country they're under.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    And their failures cause those same countries non-trivial amounts of money. Consider the Coast Guard and Navy efforts for this latest event.
  - nielsbot 3y ago
    According to the news I read, Titan did not need to be classed/certified because it didn't launch from any port. Even if the mother ship did. I'll try to find the citation.
david38 3y ago
Why? You are comparing ships, which have passengers whose goal is to get somewhere (not necessarily be on a ship) and don’t self-identify as final-frontier risk takers with subs which are the exact opposite. Nobody takes a sub as regular or holiday transport. The point of the (non-military) sub is to go where almost nobody goes, where only a sub can go. And you don’t leave the sub.

EdwardDiego 3y ago

We do need regulations on submersibles offering transport to passengers. 1) Dead people 2) How much is this debacle costing taxpayers? If your private actions can impose significant cost on the public, the public has a right to ensure you're minimising risk.

RandomBK 3y ago
On (2), I think there's some general policy discussions we should have around government spending rescuing people willing and knowingly doing obviously dangerous/stupid things. Americans fucking around in North Korea or active war zones is another example that comes to mind. I think that would be a better use of time than spinning up a 100-person government licensing program to regulate the 1000 people playing with submarines.
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  Yeah, the costs of SAR when people made very dumb decisions is an ongoing debate. In my country at least, the consensus is that we don't want people to _not_ call for help when they need it because they're afraid of being invoiced. I used to be a ranger, so was involved in SAR to a small extent, usually triggering them, manning the radio, and hitting up other hikers who might have seen something for info, but a lot of our rangers were also volunteers with LandSAR, as they had the techical skills and the local knowledge. And as far as I'm aware, there was only one serious attempt to invoice someone for a search. An American serviceman with Operation Deep Freeze had left his intentions for a multi-day hike with the rangers, and when he didn't make contact within 24 hours of his expected date out, a search was initiated. The personal details he'd left weren't great, we knew that an American called Mike was following the Casey Stream - Poulter River - Lake Minchin - Townsend Pass - Taramakau River route, and we knew he hadn't signed out. No details of his car (if any), or where it was parked, no local contact details, nothing much but an overdue Yankee Mike who was headed into an area where the route he was following wasn't quite here-be-dragons, but you'd certainly stumble into dragons if you made navigation mistakes or bad choices in general. Volunter searchers on foot spent about 6 weeks scouring his route, and possible wrong turns he could've taken for, which involves very challenging terrain, they brought in both kinds of SAR dogs (the kind that are trained to find people, and the kind that are trained to find bodies) and, significantly more expensively, there was a lot of helicopter flight hours expended trying to find him. The rescue choppers had the IR cameras, ideal for finding warm bodies in the cold, and night vision great at enhancing any light emitted on the ground. Plus the massive spotlight and the winch and the trained paramedics etc. (Apparently a small torch is very damn visible at night with the NVG, just don't be under trees, it doesn't help). After those six weeks, the search was called off. A few months later he was eventually located by our Police who'd been following up every angle to identify him. He was safe and sound at home, in Utah. He'd returned to the US shortly after his hike. I'm guessing his deployment (or the season for flights to the Antarctic) had been at an end, so he went on one last hike and just forgot to sign out. The Police took it personal, and desperately wanted to invoice him for the rescue, even suing him in a US court if need be, but the diplomats nixed it as the US is very protective of its citizens, especially when they're in the service.

twiss 3y ago

I agree that car safety and regulations (and probably even more importantly, replacing car trips with safer modes of transport wherever possible) are more pressing than submarine safety regulations, but why does one preclude the other? We should have both.

RandomBK 3y ago
Instead of targeted regulation specific to submarines, I would look at the laws around legal liability and depth of disclosures. That would scale across many more types of activity rather than any single one. 1. Is what you're doing dangerous? 2. Did you tell your customers about the danger? 3. Do they really understand the danger, including past incidents? 4. Is anyone else being harmed or are you just gambling your own life? Even then, I would posit that this case probably passes this bar - OceanGate was quite clear in their waiver and there's a level of due diligence that a reasonable person spending 250K should be expected to make.

teeray 3y ago

This gets attention because it’s a unique and horrific way to die. Car accidents are boring and routine. Being instantly compacted into ice cube sizes by Poseidon evokes all kinds of narratives about mankind’s hubris and whatnot and is tied up with the entire history of Titanic itself. It’s a lightning rod for popular interest that some senators will try to latch onto to wedge themselves in the minds of the voting public.

david38 3y ago
It’s not at all horrific. It’s likely the most humane (if ecologically expensive) way I can think of. Assuming you don’t have any build-up which causes stress, it’s unbelievably fast and this painless.
- Vanit 3y ago
  To paraphrase Hank Green, you cease to be a biological organism and become physics.
csours 3y ago
Mysterious Peril = Interesting Normal Peril = Annoying

nelox 3y ago

Not to mention the risk in which you place others, when things go wrong and they come looking for you.

happytoexplain 3y ago

There is another cost of not regulating: If I live in a society that is keen on regulation, then I feel more safe doing things. I can not have information in my head about what all is regulated and how much. When I do things in the US, I feel safe (relative to known risks), because I believe we are a high-regulation society (feel free to argue that). If that image starts to slip, then I have to start asking myself: Should I take my kids on this helicopter ride at the county fair? Should I go down this remote cliffside road on public transport? Should I get in this old elevator? Should I leave this electrical appliance running while I sleep? Maybe it's a little thing in the big picture, but some people value it immensely, and many Americans appear to be those people. Declining to regulate deep-sea subs, or whatever else, maybe doesn't have any practical effect, but it is one little chip out of the image of high-regulation.

jason_pomerleau 3y ago
When I was 16 years old I took a job at a travelling carnival that was in town for a long weekend. My job was to run a helicopter ride for little kids. The green button started the ride, the red button stopped it. And if it didn’t start, I was instructed to give the control unit a moderate smack. It worked. This was in Canada, ~1990. Awhile ago admittedly, but I haven’t looked at travelling fair rides the same way since.
csours 3y ago
I agree, but as a counterpoint, I don't think that deep sea submersibles should feel safe.

JamesLeonis 3y ago

I agree that we don't need new regulations, but I do think liability waivers will come under scrutiny. I expect this will come under the courts as lawsuits are filed against the company, and thus tighten up standards about liability and safety expectations for businesses like this. I also think a degree of insurance will become required for these waivers. In the end it's dolts like OceanGate that make it more difficult for the rest of us.

hgsgm 3y ago
On the one hand, yeah, maybe it's fine if the 100 morons per year have to sign a waiver acknowledging "this experimental submarine has not been approved by any verification provess. There is no reason to believe you will survive this trip." On the other hand, last week I had to sign a waiver saying essentially the same thing when I rented a frisbee golf kit. And everything in the state of California is "known to the State of California to cause cancer" .
- JamesLeonis 3y ago
  > On the other hand, last week I had to sign a waiver saying essentially the same thing when I rented a frisbee golf kit. They are everywhere, which is why I think a court case on them will have far-reaching effects. I have a strong feeling they will not be the get-out-of-liability-free card they once were. In a way it mirrors the Love Canal liability case against Hooker Chemical about a similar release of liability. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#Sale_of_the_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal#Sale_of_the_site

flashgordon 3y ago

If I can be honest. This sounded pretty callous to me. Not having regulation or having minimal regulation makes sense when the impact is low not when it is life or death. This was not a submersible somebody built in their backyard and took only their family and friends into the ocean. this was a legit business. They were marketing and the only avenue that customers would have is the word and review of other customers. You can't expect customers to be well versed in the mechanics and engineering of building submersibles to be able to assess the safety of those things and this is why we need that regulation. Even in your example it is true that car accidents are way more. But the number of miles driven in cars is orders and orders and orders of magnitude more then number of miles of ocean floor traversed! Edit: this also got me thinking a bit more. I can see why in America the R word seems scary and is a bit triggering. Regulation here can be as simple as insure your customers for say a million dollars of no questions asked policy and pass the cost of that to customers and let them (and the actuaries) decide if it is worth it!

fragmede 3y ago
There are only so many hours in the day. Instead of politicians spending time working on this, how about working on any of the other more important problems out there. Like homelessness or wealth inequality or the increasing political divisiveness?
- flashgordon 3y ago
  Sure by that logic we shouldn't be fighting wars or funding space exploration But seriously there has to be some threshold of common sense. You are sending a sealed box 100s (thousands?) of meters into the ocean (or replace with another similarly risky sounding proposition - trying on experimental jet packs, getting shot out of a cannon with a parachute etc). It can't be that unreasonable to ask "if something went wrong who should be responsible and for how much damages and what level of insurance should be mandatory (or atleast available for sale)" - we already do this for mortgages where risks and impacts are a lot lower. Now if you have more time and patience sure go ahead and enumerate it and do the actual work of passing regulation around it until that insurance premium actually becomes profitable. The free market actually can help if you ensure it is used.

bradknowles 3y ago

I think the key objection here is taking an experimental vehicle and using it for commercial purposes. None of those passengers could ever possibly have properly understood the risks they were taking, because the people who made those submersibles didn't understand the risks they were taking. If it had only ever been the people directly involved in the research of creating deep sea vehicles using carbon fiber pressure vessels, I don't think there would be such an outcry. But it was charlatans who didn't know what they were doing and taking unwitting passengers out on inherently unsafe vehicles, and they got those people killed. This is how regulations get made. This is how regulatory agencies like what is now called the FAA are created.