Titanic Submersible Rescue

Possibly but more likely the MTSB would like to find out where the submersible failed. Was it the viewing window or stress to the carbon fibre material after cycles of loading and unloading.

There is the NTSB and it's office of Marine Safety as well as the USCG and another affiliated body. Normally due to their nature submersibles which don't go into and out of ports as vessels themselves are not scrutinized by these organizations. They get independent certification from a body of naval architects and unofficial bodies and manufacturers.

That's the problem. This needs official regulation as surface vessels are regulated. Not expecting self regulation which never works as with surface ships in the past where unscrupulous owners both in the 18th and even 20th century sent ships and crews out that were overloaded, structurally unsound and badly maintained. Resulting in thousands of deaths even when seas conditions were placid.

You have Samuel Plimsoll and his line that was bitterly fought against and even now shipping lines often try and bend the rules with the NTSB and USCG. For example reading on the El Faro sinking TOTE shipping made major structural alterations which would normally have required re-certification that did not happen because they happened to verbally persuade the NTSB that the changes were minor only. Somehow.

Later analysis post sinking using photographs, modelling showed that the changes made points of water entry through hull hatches and vents far easier and contributed to the internal flooding that ultimately sank the vessel.

These bodies also need more teeth, inspectors and still it often takes disasters to force changes which should not be the case. Ship design still leaves certain classes of vessel very vulnerable at sea. Even though changes in material design, bow shape and compartmentalization should make ships more seaworthy. Not to mention the limited advances in life preserving equipment for crew and the lifeboats themselves. Money still counts for more than lives in many cases with flags of convenience and crews desperate to support their families recruited from some of the poorest parts of the world.

 

If it wasn't due to the fact it was connected to the Titanic it probably wouldn't of got the attention it did. For a mail steamer that sunk over a century ago, the amount of media and press this ship gets is utterly baffling. People sailing to a better life sink not far from Italy and a story like that is brushed under the carpet more or less. I feel bad and sorrow for anyone who loses their lives this way, be it on land, sea, air or outer space. They are tragic accidents most of the time that either could or could not be prevented in form. This one was preventable - build a better sub, get safety precautions and testing approved. Know the risks and assess those risks fully over and over before anyone sets one foot on board. My heart still goes out to the families of all who have lost their lives in these senarios. X

 

The reasons for the fascination with this when several other notable liners have sunk is precisely for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. At the time the general view was that human progress and engineering would overcome every obstacle and that nature had been conquered. The disaster was a right kick in the teeth for that world view. And there were many people on this vessel from Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, Syria and other places also travelling to the US in search of a better life. Indeed the huge surge in immigration from Europe to the US at the turn of the century was what paid the lines their bottom line in terms of steerage passengers.

There's a rather tragic tale for instance from Ireland where a large number of individuals men, women and children from a single village which I cannot recall perished on the ship.

 

Very good.

 

​

Skimping on inspections, not testing rigorously, under engineering is a recipe for disaster. Something perhaps Boeing should know aided by an incompetent FAA fearful of Airbus.

 

Interesting, thanks Smudger. It baffles me as a species we continue to let greed and money blindside us to what is the more important. Human life. That entire project should of been scrapped and re-done from the bottom up. Yes it would of been expensive to do, but charging a quarter of a million they would of soon made that back. I've scrapped numerous software projects halfway through because something didn't feel right or I had lost direction on what the end goal was. It's the same idea, but when you have lives at stake, you think top down. Take one problem and break into smaller problems. Each of those steps can then be tested and amended until they work together and form the original idea.

 

Greed and ego are a dangerous combination when it comes to planning safety. There are of course risk management policies. What is an acceptable risk. Will this instance occur once every thousand launches, flights, years and you engineer accordingly or should. But the cost can get in the way especially if it's a commercial enterprise. There is no excuse if it's public orientated not to mean that commercial safety should be disregarded either but they have financial pressures dictating sometimes to what is deemed an acceptable risk.

The problem is how to make sure that the risk remains minimal because commercial enterprises will always try and push back on safety. Even the likes of Boeing. They now use CFRP carbon fibre reinforced polymer in their plane constructions. It's far more fatigue resistant to pressurization cycles for instance although it's deformation capabilities thankfully have never been tested in a real crash they should be pretty good. However it's conductivity in an environment where planes do suffer lightning strikes is another matter.

Boeing engineers originally engineered multiple safeguards. A N gas system in wing tanks to suppress fuel vapour, copper foil strips in wing spars, insulated nuts in the tanks to prevent sparking plus ensuring zones that are often struck ie the wingtips have aluminium coating. All this added to cost and complexity to manufacture. So gradually in later models of the 787 production run these were removed namely the insulation and foil strips. It sped up construction time and Boeing argued with the FAA that it's all fine and dandy.

This despite many FAA engineers having misgivings that this was done to allow Boeing to deliver planes on time as the whole programme was actually costing Boeing more money than it was making. Then under pressure the FAA reversed the decision and asked Boeing to recheck. So on the one hand they are saying it's safe and on the other they are not sure. But they allowed Boeing to dictate the safety measures. Not ideal. Not to mention Boeing are looking at ways of avoiding ultrasonic scanning of the CFRP empennage and fuselage. Too costly and time consuming. What ! And have made several hundred inspectors redundant which at the same time has caused the proliferation of manufacturing errors resulting in costly delays and recalls.

It does make one wonder what is going on. The FAA need to put their foot down. No one should dictate to the certificating body. And Boeing have found out with the debacle of the Max that they are in hot water now. Thankfully nothing so far has happened to any 787 or the future 777 but if it does this will all come up. Makes me nervous flying on one of these.

 

It must of been terrifiying. Sounds like something you would see in a horror movie, just sort of waiting for the end but not sure when it will happen.