We (I've been on a few of these snark hunts while in the military) spend millions and use military resources worth billions to rescue US citizens in trouble (many times of their own making). It's a small part of the countries total treasure the governed IMO rightly expect from the government they pay for. I and my fellow ship-mates never complained about doing our duty because we knew one day it might be us or one of ours in some dark hole needing rescue. IMO there is no exemption on this pact due to misadventure.

 

We (I've been on a few of these snark hunts while in the military) spend millions and use military resources worth billions to rescue US citizens in trouble (many times of their own making). It's a small part of the countries total treasure the governed IMO rightly expect from the government they pay for. I and my fellow ship-mates never complained about doing our duty because we knew one day it might be us or one of ours in some dark hole needing rescue. IMO there is no exemption on this pact due to misadventure.

Well of course we don’t abandon people, that’s why they do get rescued. The question I am asking has to do with proactive considerations, not retroactive ones.

But I do think it also extends deep into how one sees the relationship between individuals and society, the role of government, and the “legitimacy” of drawing lines that can be seen as arbitrary.

 

Concerning GA, it is famously a domain of the well off, and also famously suffers from disaster-by-incompetence.

The perception that it is the domain of the well off is no more accurate than the perception that skiing is the domain of the well off. Most GA hours are flown by middle class folks. I got my private pilot's license (PPL) while I was a grad student, living on a grad student's stipend. The cost to get a PPL is generally in the $5k to $10k range (it was about half that when I got mine), though you can certainly pay more. To cost to maintain it can be as low as about $100/mo, though it's highly debatable that you are maintaining a suitable degree of proficiency at that level. There are LOTS of activities the the not-well-off undertake that cost less than that.

As for disaster-by-incompetence. Hard to argue that that's not the case a good fraction of the time. But the same claim can be made for most automobile accidents, skiing accidents, hunting accidents, boating accidents, and on and on.

Why chutes are not mandatory on GA aircraft since they certainly seem to stop deaths, I don’t know.

They are heavy -- often cutting the usable load in half -- and expensive to install and maintain. They are also only practical for very small aircraft. Pilots often fail to deploy them, though this is a matter of training. But, as a rule, pilots are control freaks and would rather retain control in an off field landing than rely on an uncontrolled descent under a parachute with no control over exactly where you end up.

Nonetheless, from what I have seen and read, GA misadventures are overwhelmingly the result of pilot hubris, incompetence, or both.

That's largely a reflection of what does and doesn't make the news. And, again, the same claim can be made for most human activities.

It’s hard to understand how public resources can reasonably be committed to mitigating the risks of such completely voluntary activity accessible. in general, only to the well off among us.

In the United States, there are over 600,000 active general aviation pilots and over 200,000 general aviation aircraft. GA generates about $150 billion annually in economic activity and accounts for as much as 19% of state GDP in places like Hawaii. GA is also increasingly the source of pilots and aircrew for commercial operators and the role of the military is declining, for a number of reasons.

So, insurance for GA maybe well reflect the actuarial reality for the insurance companies. I don’t know, but an activity which depends on literally not falling out of the sky, and one where falling out of the sky is surprisingly common (as opposed to the amazingly robust person-mile record of commercial aviation) does seem like one that would be expensive to underwrite.

Not sure how surprisingly common it is. In the U.S., there are roughly 200 fatal GA accidents each year with about 300 fatalities. If a plane crashes in Vermont, it's probably on the news in Nevada.

 

It's almost as if he wanted to go out with a globally televised bang and take a few others with him.

A desperate email from Stockton Rush's friend showed how resigned he was to the fact that the OceanGate CEO was spurred on, rather than deterred, by criticism of his sub

Stanley added: "The time frame that he did this all on was beyond any common sense. He was willing to take people out to the middle of the North Atlantic when he had done only four deep dives and probably not even one without a major system failure. I am beginning to wonder if he was suicidal."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66045554
Titanic tourist sub photos show wreckage being brought ashore

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66045554
Titanic tourist sub photos show wreckage being brought ashore


View attachment 297267

I wonder if one or more of the objects they pulled up contained bodies ... or parts of them ...

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...e-of-titanic-tourist-sub-u-s-coast-guard-says
‘Presumed human remains’ found in wreckage of Titanic tourist sub, U.S. Coast Guard says

 

We (I've been on a few of these snark hunts while in the military) spend millions and use military resources worth billions to rescue US citizens in trouble

Reagan put a stop to a lot of that for the Coast Guard. Now, unless it is a critical threat to life, it is handled by a number of small seagoing Tow Boat companies. Their rate is ~100$/hr to and from their dock, and since it is a tow boat it is very slow. Even a small inshore incident can cost over 500$ and serious offshore problems can be in the thousands. USCG still does search and rescue but for stranded boats near shore or inshore on Channel 16 VHF CG hailing channel the CG asks "which company do you want us to call to come get you?" For more severe and further offshore life-threatening incidents, they still send the rescue copter.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...e-of-titanic-tourist-sub-u-s-coast-guard-says
‘Presumed human remains’ found in wreckage of Titanic tourist sub, U.S. Coast Guard says

At least now their families have something to bury ...

 

Reagan put a stop to a lot of that for the Coast Guard. Now, unless it is a critical threat to life, it is handled by a number of small seagoing Tow Boat companies. Their rate is ~100$/hr to and from their dock, and since it is a tow boat it is very slow. Even a small inshore incident can cost over 500$ and serious offshore problems can be in the thousands. USCG still does search and rescue but for stranded boats near shore or inshore on Channel 16 VHF CG hailing channel the CG asks "which company do you want us to call to come get you?" For more severe and further offshore life-threatening incidents, they still send the rescue copter.

I was first in when Ford was President.

We get lots of Coast Guard rescues here. This is where they train for the extreme.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66045554
Titanic tourist sub photos show wreckage being brought ashore


View attachment 297267

Well with that picture I guess we can anticipate the viewport being convicted as the cause in the court of public opinion. But my money is on that being an effect of the implosion rather than the cause of it.

Their rate is ~100$/hr to and from their dock, and since it is a tow boat it is very slow. Even a small inshore incident can cost over 500$ and serious offshore problems can be in the thousands.

How old are these price figures? That seems very low. Like cheaper than an electrician or a plumber who doesn't even have a vessel to maintain. Cheaper than a tow truck to haul your car off the highway. I don't see how anyone could make money at that rate in 2023 unless they're operating a 12ft jon boat.

 

How old are these price figures?

You're right! I'm quite a bit dated it seems. The current rate is ~250-300$/hr! And my boat insurance only covers 600$ of it. Time to buy boat tow insurance as well. Road tows around here are fairly cheap, as in less than 100$, unless the insurance company is paying for it that is.

 

Well with that picture I guess we can anticipate the viewport being convicted as the cause in the court of public opinion. But my money is on that being an effect of the implosion rather than the cause of it.
...

I have more faith in public opinion and common sense.

This didn't age well.

 

I have more faith in public opinion and common sense.

Uh... why?

This didn't age well.

"The passengers inside won't feel a thing."
Well, technically correct (probably).

 

Uh... why?

"The passengers inside won't feel a thing."
Well, technically correct (probably).

The public has been told a thousand times the defective Carbon Fiber Hull killed them, first impressions (one's that seem correct from daily experience with similar materials) are hard to change.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/23/struc...-sub-hull-could-have-caused-implosion-expert/
Structural issues with Titan sub hull could have caused implosion: expert

 

Experts....pffffft.

I'm pretty sure it was the water pressure that caused the implosion.

 

Experts....pffffft.

I'm pretty sure it was the water pressure that caused the implosion.

And hence, the effect was the implosion itself ...

 

The public has been told a thousand times the defective Carbon Fiber Hull killed them, first impressions (one's that seem correct from daily experience with similar materials) are hard to change.
https://nypost.com/2023/06/23/struc...-sub-hull-could-have-caused-implosion-expert/
Structural issues with Titan sub hull could have caused implosion: expert

They've also been told about about the window that wasn't rated for 4km.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90913298/oceangate-titan-disappearance-start-up-tech

Of critical importance in Lochridge’s counterclaim suit was the “viewport” (e.g., window) that was only rated for “a certified pressure of 1,300 meters [4/5 of a mile], although OceanGate intended to take passengers down to depths of 4,000 meters [nearly 3x more].”

 

And hence, the effect was the implosion itself ...

Yes, from a defective hull supposedly designed to withstand the cause.

 

They've also been told about about the window that wasn't rated for 4km.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90913298/oceangate-titan-disappearance-start-up-tech

The public as also heard this about the hull.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-heard-cracking-noise-hull-breaking-down.html

REVEALED: Submersible expert who took 2019 trip on Titan heard cracking noise which signaled 'an area of the hull was breaking down' and raised safety concerns in chilling email to OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush

I'm not saying what was the cause, only that the bulk of media has been pointing to the hull since day one of this misadventure.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672417882100097027