FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Tourist submarine goes missing
Tourist submarine goes missing
Jump to: Newest in thread
I believe these trips have been happening for quite some time, £250,000 per trip I believe. So they must have a safe route to the wreck, so I can’t see that it hit something.
My guess is there’s been a problem with the sub itself and maybe communications have also been affected.
Such a horrible fate if they’re not found. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It has been speculated that the sub may have actually become trapped in the wreckage of the Titanic.
There is still air left onboard the sub but it is running out.
A massive search is presently underway and I’m sincerely hoping for a happy ending in this story.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *dy-ukTV/TS
over a year ago
Alcester |
There's about 70 hours of oxygen left.
It's alleged the sub has actually got stuck inside the titanic, guessing they went inside a large opening to explore and the titanic became their Venus fly trap.
It has an emergency buoyancy aid, but if it's trapped inside, it can't possibly help.
It's a slow way to die, knowing there is nothing that can save you.
If something else happened to the submarine, at that depth, (it broke up) then the colossal pressure would turn them to mush soup, before they could had chance to feel owt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Airtime will run out tomoz Thursday your worst nightmare ever
They are now saying there was a leak and it imploded at least death was quick if that was the case |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The waiver they sign is pages and pages long and mentions death three times on the opening page. It's an experience with a lot of risks attached. Hopefully all is well in the end but unfortunately the worst case scenario is never too far from everyone's thoughts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's about 70 hours of oxygen left.
It's alleged the sub has actually got stuck inside the titanic, guessing they went inside a large opening to explore and the titanic became their Venus fly trap.
It has an emergency buoyancy aid, but if it's trapped inside, it can't possibly help.
It's a slow way to die, knowing there is nothing that can save you.
If something else happened to the submarine, at that depth, (it broke up) then the colossal pressure would turn them to mush soup, before they could had chance to feel owt. "
The hatch can only be opened from the outside (bizarre!), so even if they surface, but away from the ship, they still die. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dy-ukTV/TS
over a year ago
Alcester |
"Airtime will run out tomoz Thursday your worst nightmare ever
They are now saying there was a leak and it imploded at least death was quick if that was the case"
I also read somewhere, they lost all communication with the sub and even the pulse beacon just stopped. That makes me think it imploded. They'll be nothing left to find.
If it was simply 'just stuck in the titanic' communication would still be there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It takes around 3 hours to get down and 3 hours to get back up so that the cabin can pressurise accordingly. They lost contact at 2h15 my guess is they went down too quickly and got ripped apart???? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There’s a few “fate of mankind” thoughts to this….
Why do the press counting down the minutes think that’s a good story?, clickbait, click here to read their fate, click here to read who’s who! Meanwhile advert revenues increase while the oxygen runs out!
As posted earlier, how many rescuers tend to a boat of economic or war torn migrants off the coast of Greece?, perhaps the life of a CEO is more important than a cleaning lady who wants to feed her children (for context, I’m the son of a cleaning lady)!
Why doesn’t said CEO have more emotional intelligence than money?, £250k invested on coral bleaching research, why do whales beach?, why is the Parrot fish changing colour?, all possible climate change impacts on the ocean which inevitably impacts us on land yet he chooses to spend an obscene amount of money to view the final resting place of our ancestors from a metal tube post a six hour round trip to/from the ocean floor.
Baffling to me, the cynical aspect in my head says they deserve their fate, the logical side is genuinely perplexed!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Baffling to me, the cynical aspect in my head says they deserve their fate, the logical side is genuinely perplexed! "
I'm not sure that people deserve to suffocate in a metal tube 3 miles down at the bottom of the ocean just because they're stupidly rich.
I also don't think that you can EXPECT (although it would be nice) people to give away their personal wealth to fund research or social projects... ultimately that is the responsibility of the world's Governments.
Without a doubt, they will continue to search for the sub for some time after all deadlines have passed, simply because all concerned parties have the available money to fund that search.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There’s a few “fate of mankind” thoughts to this….
Why do the press counting down the minutes think that’s a good story?, clickbait, click here to read their fate, click here to read who’s who! Meanwhile advert revenues increase while the oxygen runs out!
As posted earlier, how many rescuers tend to a boat of economic or war torn migrants off the coast of Greece?, perhaps the life of a CEO is more important than a cleaning lady who wants to feed her children (for context, I’m the son of a cleaning lady)!
Why doesn’t said CEO have more emotional intelligence than money?, £250k invested on coral bleaching research, why do whales beach?, why is the Parrot fish changing colour?, all possible climate change impacts on the ocean which inevitably impacts us on land yet he chooses to spend an obscene amount of money to view the final resting place of our ancestors from a metal tube post a six hour round trip to/from the ocean floor.
Baffling to me, the cynical aspect in my head says they deserve their fate, the logical side is genuinely perplexed! "
I hope they get found, I really do but I fear the worst. Very sad.
Perhaps that sort of money could be better used for the rescue services rather than unnecessary trips to that wreck. I understand the fascination and the daring.I know it sounds harsh, but I do care. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They are searching an area approximately the size of Northern Island. It surely wouldn't have been unfeasibly expensive for the submarine to have a small boat accompanying it, to mark the location of where it submerged. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They are searching an area approximately the size of Northern Island. It surely wouldn't have been unfeasibly expensive for the submarine to have a small boat accompanying it, to mark the location of where it submerged. "
They did have a support boat but under sea currents could have swept them away from that location |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I read reports that the company doing the dive dismissed safety checks and certification.
I hope the families and the governments working on the search mission sue them into oblivion.
As they say, health and safety regulation is written in blood. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *TG3Man
over a year ago
Dorchester |
When you do risky stuff they make you sign your rights away so you pay your $250,000 dollars knowing the risk you take, the risk being death, one of the guys actually has said "if i die i die" not related to this mission but on others  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When you do risky stuff they make you sign your rights away so you pay your $250,000 dollars knowing the risk you take, the risk being death, one of the guys actually has said "if i die i die" not related to this mission but on others "
The riskiest thing I've had to sign for is surgery.
If I died in surgery and my family discovered that there was non compliance with regulations, you're saying that because I'd signed a form, it doesn't count? Please  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Expert interviewed on the news said it took 73 years to find the titanic. "
Not strictly true.
Yes, it was 73 years from when it sank to when it was found, but expeditions to find it couldn't begin until the technology enabled it and suitable submersibles were available.
Dr Robert Ballard had been commissioned to search for a couple of missing submarines and agreed to do so provided he could then go on to search for Titanic - so that was how he got the funding to go look for it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't believe that they'd go without backup rescue cover."
I think returnable deposits to rescue teams should be paid for missions like these. If they can afford this amount of money, then it's not a problem. Deposits returned if rescue not needed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *acktopervMan
over a year ago
Stourport-On-Severn |
"I can't believe that they'd go without backup rescue cover."
At the depth this sub was at, there is no option of rescue. At this moment in time even if the sub is found, the only possible outcome is recovery of the sub and the bodies inside. Even that may only have a slim chance of success. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't believe that they'd go without backup rescue cover.
I think returnable deposits to rescue teams should be paid for missions like these. If they can afford this amount of money, then it's not a problem. Deposits returned if rescue not needed. "
I agree. This kind of high risk recreation should come with high level insurance - it's not reasonable that people get to dick around for funsies and have no liability when their risks don't pay off. This will cost taxpayers dearly.
Yes I think the rescue mission is appropriate - I just think that extreme recreation should have compulsory insurance to pay for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You'd think with all the money they charge that in a emergency a beacon could be deployed that stays attached to it and floats to the surface. All the rescue team would need to do was follow the line from it to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's about 70 hours of oxygen left.
It's alleged the sub has actually got stuck inside the titanic, guessing they went inside a large opening to explore and the titanic became their Venus fly trap.
It has an emergency buoyancy aid, but if it's trapped inside, it can't possibly help.
It's a slow way to die, knowing there is nothing that can save you.
If something else happened to the submarine, at that depth, (it broke up) then the colossal pressure would turn them to mush soup, before they could had chance to feel owt.
The hatch can only be opened from the outside (bizarre!), so even if they surface, but away from the ship, they still die."
It's a water pressure thing. They are about 2 miles underwater, the water will be exerting several tons of weight on every square centimetre of the sub. If a hatch was capable of opening inwards it would be crushed in before they reached the ocean floor. Any mechanism of handles or whatever that allowed an unlock from the inside once they reached the surface, would be a weak point that would probably leak when at depth. On a mini sub like this, an escape hatch is just not feasible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You'd think with all the money they charge that in a emergency a beacon could be deployed that stays attached to it and floats to the surface. All the rescue team would need to do was follow the line from it to them."
I read that the sub wasn't even rated for the depth it was going to. It was rated for 1.6km and it was going closer to 4km.
I almost hope the people signing up didn't know this - because it'll help if the families sue the company into oblivion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When you do risky stuff they make you sign your rights away so you pay your $250,000 dollars knowing the risk you take, the risk being death, one of the guys actually has said "if i die i die" not related to this mission but on others
The riskiest thing I've had to sign for is surgery.
If I died in surgery and my family discovered that there was non compliance with regulations, you're saying that because I'd signed a form, it doesn't count? Please "
What if the surgery you were signing for was experimental?
Because this was defined as experimental technology that they were signing to accept the risks of. And the certification is also not regulatory, its entirely optional. They didn’t hide the fact it wasn’t certified. They openly said that bringing the certification body up to speed on the developments of new technology slows the pace of innovation so they wouldn’t be doing it.
The company haven’t broken any laws , the ceo of the company is down there with the “paying customers”. This attitude of someone always to blame, someone there to sue in today’s society is awful. If you sign yourself up for this you know going in you might not come back and sad as it is it then becomes your own fault.
Completely agree on the insurance point though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You'd think with all the money they charge that in a emergency a beacon could be deployed that stays attached to it and floats to the surface. All the rescue team would need to do was follow the line from it to them.
I read that the sub wasn't even rated for the depth it was going to. It was rated for 1.6km and it was going closer to 4km.
I almost hope the people signing up didn't know this - because it'll help if the families sue the company into oblivion."
One guy pulled out of going because of safety concerns, he's definitely not regretting his decision |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When you do risky stuff they make you sign your rights away so you pay your $250,000 dollars knowing the risk you take, the risk being death, one of the guys actually has said "if i die i die" not related to this mission but on others
The riskiest thing I've had to sign for is surgery.
If I died in surgery and my family discovered that there was non compliance with regulations, you're saying that because I'd signed a form, it doesn't count? Please
What if the surgery you were signing for was experimental?
Because this was defined as experimental technology that they were signing to accept the risks of. And the certification is also not regulatory, its entirely optional. They didn’t hide the fact it wasn’t certified. They openly said that bringing the certification body up to speed on the developments of new technology slows the pace of innovation so they wouldn’t be doing it.
The company haven’t broken any laws , the ceo of the company is down there with the “paying customers”. This attitude of someone always to blame, someone there to sue in today’s society is awful. If you sign yourself up for this you know going in you might not come back and sad as it is it then becomes your own fault.
Completely agree on the insurance point though. "
No.
I actually don't think that being experimental should get people off the hook - nor there not being a law. I'm talking morally, here. They've been quite open about their disregard for safety protocol. And although people can consent to do things that are experimental, at some level presumably negligence comes in. You can't just sign away your rights to expect a reasonable duty of care to your safety - or you shouldn't be able to. There should be some protection for consumers over "experimental but it'll probably be fine" sorts of things.
If I were emperor of everything I'd put in high cost insurance for high risk activity that people consent to - to compensate the taxpayer for rescue efforts. But I'd also severely limit how much companies can rely on "but they consented" to hold back lawsuits, when there's a level of foreseeable negligence that results in catastrophic injury or death. Even if the people who consented knew or should have known about the negligence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When you do risky stuff they make you sign your rights away so you pay your $250,000 dollars knowing the risk you take, the risk being death, one of the guys actually has said "if i die i die" not related to this mission but on others
The riskiest thing I've had to sign for is surgery.
If I died in surgery and my family discovered that there was non compliance with regulations, you're saying that because I'd signed a form, it doesn't count? Please
What if the surgery you were signing for was experimental?
Because this was defined as experimental technology that they were signing to accept the risks of. And the certification is also not regulatory, its entirely optional. They didn’t hide the fact it wasn’t certified. They openly said that bringing the certification body up to speed on the developments of new technology slows the pace of innovation so they wouldn’t be doing it.
The company haven’t broken any laws , the ceo of the company is down there with the “paying customers”. This attitude of someone always to blame, someone there to sue in today’s society is awful. If you sign yourself up for this you know going in you might not come back and sad as it is it then becomes your own fault.
Completely agree on the insurance point though.
No.
I actually don't think that being experimental should get people off the hook - nor there not being a law. I'm talking morally, here. They've been quite open about their disregard for safety protocol. And although people can consent to do things that are experimental, at some level presumably negligence comes in. You can't just sign away your rights to expect a reasonable duty of care to your safety - or you shouldn't be able to. There should be some protection for consumers over "experimental but it'll probably be fine" sorts of things.
If I were emperor of everything I'd put in high cost insurance for high risk activity that people consent to - to compensate the taxpayer for rescue efforts. But I'd also severely limit how much companies can rely on "but they consented" to hold back lawsuits, when there's a level of foreseeable negligence that results in catastrophic injury or death. Even if the people who consented knew or should have known about the negligence."
So by the same logic should smokers with lung cancer be able to sue cigarette companies because its negligence to sell something so unhealthy even though its lawful and they have warnings all over the packet?
At some point, people who are of sound mind need to take responsibility for their own lives, actions, consequences.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When you do risky stuff they make you sign your rights away so you pay your $250,000 dollars knowing the risk you take, the risk being death, one of the guys actually has said "if i die i die" not related to this mission but on others
The riskiest thing I've had to sign for is surgery.
If I died in surgery and my family discovered that there was non compliance with regulations, you're saying that because I'd signed a form, it doesn't count? Please
What if the surgery you were signing for was experimental?
Because this was defined as experimental technology that they were signing to accept the risks of. And the certification is also not regulatory, its entirely optional. They didn’t hide the fact it wasn’t certified. They openly said that bringing the certification body up to speed on the developments of new technology slows the pace of innovation so they wouldn’t be doing it.
The company haven’t broken any laws , the ceo of the company is down there with the “paying customers”. This attitude of someone always to blame, someone there to sue in today’s society is awful. If you sign yourself up for this you know going in you might not come back and sad as it is it then becomes your own fault.
Completely agree on the insurance point though.
No.
I actually don't think that being experimental should get people off the hook - nor there not being a law. I'm talking morally, here. They've been quite open about their disregard for safety protocol. And although people can consent to do things that are experimental, at some level presumably negligence comes in. You can't just sign away your rights to expect a reasonable duty of care to your safety - or you shouldn't be able to. There should be some protection for consumers over "experimental but it'll probably be fine" sorts of things.
If I were emperor of everything I'd put in high cost insurance for high risk activity that people consent to - to compensate the taxpayer for rescue efforts. But I'd also severely limit how much companies can rely on "but they consented" to hold back lawsuits, when there's a level of foreseeable negligence that results in catastrophic injury or death. Even if the people who consented knew or should have known about the negligence.
So by the same logic should smokers with lung cancer be able to sue cigarette companies because its negligence to sell something so unhealthy even though its lawful and they have warnings all over the packet?
At some point, people who are of sound mind need to take responsibility for their own lives, actions, consequences.
"
In some circumstances, perhaps. The tobacco industry is known to have lobbied against changes and tried to find its way into young hands to keep itself afloat.
I think corporate responsibility should also be a thing - in many cases they have much more power, don't give sufficient information for informed consent (not speaking to this specific instance), etc.
"Personal responsibility" is often an excuse for those in power to not have to look to their own responsibilities, and to blame those with less culpability or choice.
The best recompense isn't money, but it's what our system allows for. I'm all for suing them, tobacco, and oil/ gas companies, into oblivion. Negligence shouldn't pay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
