• ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 months ago

    Let’s also not forget that there was no way to exit the submersible from the inside. The door was bolted on by the surface team. So if they had just lost power (instead of being crushed), they would’ve been floating on the surface with no way out. That’s the another obvious horrendous design choice.

    • notaviking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I have worked in underground mines, and this scenario of being bolted inside gives me way more cluster phobia than any experience I have had

      • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        I work on submarines. Everything that company was doing gave me a panic attack. The SUBSAFE program exists for a reason. Like, there’s a time and place for innovation, and when people’s lives are on the line is NOT it.

        • notaviking@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Usually these program’s rules seem very tedious and restrictive and I can easily see one person looking at this and think they are in place to stifle innovation and keep the little guy out.

          I remember how he said to not have regulatory approval because of of this or that, but why not get a regulatory expert to have a look, might not approve your vessel but might show clearly missed safety critical blindspots.

          But these rules exist for a reason, they where usually written in blood, it’s how I know this incident added rules to your SUBSAFE program.