Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Tourist submersible visiting the Titanic is missing Part 2 69
- Thread starter GregLocock
- Start date
- Status
-
1
- #342
LittleInch
Petroleum
This looks to be the best explaination.
Longridge basically got bullied into submission with the threat and actualisation of law suits which he realised would make him bankrupt and destroy his life, even with the theoretical protection of whistleblower legislation.
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
Longridge basically got bullied into submission with the threat and actualisation of law suits which he realised would make him bankrupt and destroy his life, even with the theoretical protection of whistleblower legislation.
Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
-
1
- #343
-
1
- #345
Thanks LittleInch. The conclusion "This tragedy should serve as a wakeup call to state legislatures and Congress alike that they must do more, and soon, to prevent powerful interests from silencing speech they find inconvenient, uncomfortable, or embarrassing through abuse of the legal system." seems well-supported IMO, though expectation much notice will be taken less so.
It's hard to act ethically as an engineer when neither the authorities (or the court of public opinion) seem to have your back.
It's hard to act ethically as an engineer when neither the authorities (or the court of public opinion) seem to have your back.
I haven't been following, so if this is already mentioned, sorry.
Was this the first dive the Titan took to the Titanic wreck, or was it the first dive of substantial depth? If I knew this at some point I've since forgotten. What was the maximum depth this unclassified submersible achieved and returned to atmospheric pressure without rupturing?
Was this the first dive the Titan took to the Titanic wreck, or was it the first dive of substantial depth? If I knew this at some point I've since forgotten. What was the maximum depth this unclassified submersible achieved and returned to atmospheric pressure without rupturing?
Yeah, LittleInch, the fellow was also "here on the visa from his employer" so it started from a highly awkward situation for the employee. Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown. Keep in mind the vast numbers of similar visa from the employer folks are in Redmond, WA, and San Jose, CA, for example. Although they aren't likely to get into an OSHA tangle, they are not in a fantastic legal situation to be a whistleblower, similar to that guy.
The bit about "no jurisdiction," there's at least something to that, the thing only operated in international waters, the "passengers" were "crew members", etc. etc. etc. there was a lot going on and lot of nuance as well.
It looks like my question has been answered, there were quite a few dives, the vast majority weren't to that depth. 13 of 90 did not reach the target depth.
Titan sub only reached the depth of the Titanic on 13 out of 90 dives, says the waiver OceanGate passengers had to sign, Jyoti Mann, BusinessInsider.com, July 9, 2023, accessed 6/21/2024.
The OSHA regulations for the construction of the sub would apply to the workers on the site in the building performing any work on the site, it has nothing to do with the safety of the submersible. OSHA regulations apply to workplaces, so and Amazon warehouse, sure, but the regulations do not apply to the contents of the warehouses, because they aren't people.
The bit about "no jurisdiction," there's at least something to that, the thing only operated in international waters, the "passengers" were "crew members", etc. etc. etc. there was a lot going on and lot of nuance as well.
It looks like my question has been answered, there were quite a few dives, the vast majority weren't to that depth. 13 of 90 did not reach the target depth.
Titan sub only reached the depth of the Titanic on 13 out of 90 dives, says the waiver OceanGate passengers had to sign, Jyoti Mann, BusinessInsider.com, July 9, 2023, accessed 6/21/2024.
The OSHA regulations for the construction of the sub would apply to the workers on the site in the building performing any work on the site, it has nothing to do with the safety of the submersible. OSHA regulations apply to workplaces, so and Amazon warehouse, sure, but the regulations do not apply to the contents of the warehouses, because they aren't people.
OSHA regulates the usage of vehicles by employees in the workplace; the Titan was operated by an employee in its usual workplace, ergo, the safety of the Titan should have been under the purview of OSHA
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
-
1
- #350
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Astronauts were not paying customers.
Murph 9000
Computer
If the US has jurisdiction, either through the flag of the mothership or the company operating the sub (or while they are still within 12/24 miles of shore), I believe it falls under the USCG. I believe the sub itself was registered in the Bahamas, to further escape regulation. In the case of the loss of the Titan, the mothership was flying a Canadian flag and owned/operated (not sure of the exact details from memory) by one of the Canadian First Nations.
It's a complicated situation for jurisdiction. Canada seemed to be quite happy to let USCG take the lead on it, which makes sense in terms of the relative resources available. As with aviation, it's normal for multiple nations to have an interest, and they are used to working together on the investigation.
It's a complicated situation for jurisdiction. Canada seemed to be quite happy to let USCG take the lead on it, which makes sense in terms of the relative resources available. As with aviation, it's normal for multiple nations to have an interest, and they are used to working together on the investigation.
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
SOLAS is the international safety at sea organization but not all vessels are subject to SOLAS rules. None of my vessels are.
3DDave said:
.......they did. Astronauts are full time employees and are subject to OSHA regulated conditions. There was even a special ruling concerning astronaut radiation exposure while in flight at high elevations in the 80s that still carries the force of law today.
TugboatEng said:
OSHA doesn't regulate anything related to paying customers.
They chimed in on ionizing radiation for which NASA got a concession from them because no practical means exist to shield astronauts from ionizing radiation; instead they went to exposure limits.
AFAIK OSHA did not issue any recommendations about solid booster o-ring seals or the ability of ice to damage carbon-carbon heat resistant tiles or the lack of emergency exits or any of the other typical adaptations OSHA requires for dangerous work.
AFAIK OSHA did not issue any recommendations about solid booster o-ring seals or the ability of ice to damage carbon-carbon heat resistant tiles or the lack of emergency exits or any of the other typical adaptations OSHA requires for dangerous work.
Cool_Controls
Electrical
OSHA does not have jurisdiction over federal or state employees, states have the option of creating their own OSHA approved state offices like cal osha. I haven't had the benefit of a osha regulated workplace in 20 years.
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
A little off topic but I think people should know this. State employees can opt out of social security as well.
3DDave said:
They didn't have much to say, considering that astronauts are subject to a lot of hazards with no realistic possible mitigation - but OSHA staff were part of both investigations and NASA files notifications to OSHA about employee injuries/fatalities just like the rest of us do.
We're sort of in the weeds here but... point is, the sub was designed, constructed, and tested on US territory. At least those portions of the process would have been subject to OSHA regulation. US employees working on a US designed platform that's deployed in international waters are outside of OSHA's jurisdiction for enforcement of workplace safety code, but not outside OSHA's jurisdiction of enforcement for whistleblower protection.
It's possible OSHA may have seen a whistleblower complaint concerning the sub and ruled 'it's deployed in international waters, nothing we can do' or something to that effect
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- News
- Question