4 ms·

Except basically all release forms include clauses about "risks of serious bodily injury or death" with the understanding that the people running whatever exper

by rtkwe 3y ago

Except basically all release forms include clauses about "risks of serious bodily injury or death" with the understanding that the people running whatever experience it is have done their job and are mitigating those risks. Instead Mr Death Sub here active ignored experts and violated tons of safety rule in favor of making money taking passengers down.

tartoran 3y ago
Yes, the risks are still there even with no safety violations. I bet it didn't say in the waiver forms that the viewport was only certified for 1300m and that they were going way lower than that. That should have been in red and bold text. A lot of people aren't qualified to asses risks and trusted the adults who unbeknownst to them were just wishful thinkers.
- stickfigure 3y ago
  > viewport was only certified for 1300m The 1300m rated viewport was on the (retired/rebuilt) 1st gen sub, not the one that failed. If you pay attention to the photos, the Titan has an obviously different viewport. If you are this mistaken on such a simple matter of fact, please look inward and maybe reconsider being so assertive and judgmental.
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    Oh, so they got a class rating for the sun and we can readily see all the paperwork about the equipment on this particular vehicle? I'm sure you'll be along soon to link to that documentation. You won't because it doesn't fucking exist because there was zero certification of the vehicle. There's no way for potential customers to verify any safety claims of the sub.
    - stickfigure 3y ago
      The sub was classified as experimental. That literally means "not certified". Everyone, including the people who signed the release forms, knew this. You can, today, buy any manner of uncertified experimental aircraft and fly them in general aviation. What is the surprise? Experimental vehicles are a thing. If you don't like them, don't fly/float on them.
      - PepperdineG 3y ago
        >You can, today, buy any manner of uncertified experimental aircraft and fly them in general aviation. No you can't. Experimental aircraft have to get certified by the FAA.
        rtkwe 3y ago
        In the US there's only really one category can carry a person and is unregulated and unlicensed by the FAA and that's Ultralights [0]. <254 lbs dry excluding safety and floatation devices, <5 gallons of fuel capacity, <55 knots and there are strict restrictions on when and where they can fly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aircraft_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aircraft_(United_St...
- rtkwe 3y ago
  There's an implicit assumption that the providers/operators aren't being actively negligent both by the customers and backed up by the fact that negligence can pierce these kinds of releases in most cases.

by rtkwe 3y ago

tartoran 3y ago

Yes, the risks are still there even with no safety violations. I bet it didn't say in the waiver forms that the viewport was only certified for 1300m and that they were going way lower than that. That should have been in red and bold text. A lot of people aren't qualified to asses risks and trusted the adults who unbeknownst to them were just wishful thinkers.

stickfigure 3y ago
> viewport was only certified for 1300m The 1300m rated viewport was on the (retired/rebuilt) 1st gen sub, not the one that failed. If you pay attention to the photos, the Titan has an obviously different viewport. If you are this mistaken on such a simple matter of fact, please look inward and maybe reconsider being so assertive and judgmental.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  Oh, so they got a class rating for the sun and we can readily see all the paperwork about the equipment on this particular vehicle? I'm sure you'll be along soon to link to that documentation. You won't because it doesn't fucking exist because there was zero certification of the vehicle. There's no way for potential customers to verify any safety claims of the sub.
  - stickfigure 3y ago
    The sub was classified as experimental. That literally means "not certified". Everyone, including the people who signed the release forms, knew this. You can, today, buy any manner of uncertified experimental aircraft and fly them in general aviation. What is the surprise? Experimental vehicles are a thing. If you don't like them, don't fly/float on them.
    - PepperdineG 3y ago
      >You can, today, buy any manner of uncertified experimental aircraft and fly them in general aviation. No you can't. Experimental aircraft have to get certified by the FAA.
      - rtkwe 3y ago
        In the US there's only really one category can carry a person and is unregulated and unlicensed by the FAA and that's Ultralights [0]. <254 lbs dry excluding safety and floatation devices, <5 gallons of fuel capacity, <55 knots and there are strict restrictions on when and where they can fly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aircraft_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aircraft_(United_St...
rtkwe 3y ago
There's an implicit assumption that the providers/operators aren't being actively negligent both by the customers and backed up by the fact that negligence can pierce these kinds of releases in most cases.