Oceangate structural failure

[NealebParticipant @nealeb]

Auditor, eh? Fancy a job piloting a deep-sea submersible?

All in all, it does sound like a bit of a shoe-string operation.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

The New Yorker article has a link to this article from 2018:
https://news.wsu.edu/news/2018/02/21/a-new-generation-of-titanic-exploration/
It says the control system ws designed and built by gradute engineers and interns. Comments like

“We’ve created a whole ‘Internet of Things’ network on the sub, so you control functions like the lights by just sending a message over Ethernet,” Nelson said. “I’m super happy with that.”

seem to indicate little understanding of safety of life conrol systems. There is no internet on the submersible so why use that technology (IOT). I guess because it was the next great thing and "cool". I'm not saying the control system contributed to the incident, but it shows a lack of understanding of basic safety principles. Using graduates and interns is good, but they need supervision by experienced engineers when carrying out critical tasks.

 

 

Edited By Robert Atkinson 2 on 10/07/2023 10:15:23

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

All new technology has risk.

The space shuttle. Round the world with Cook. The Wright brothers. The Comet passenger jet

If you want to get there first you have to take the risks

Our current culture tends towards safety instead of risk, so that Bloodhound project for instance is taking forever while earlier vehicle record attempts were pretty regular

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Posted by Ady1 on 10/07/2023 11:15:01:

All new technology has risk.

The space shuttle. Round the world with Cook. The Wright brothers. The Comet passenger jet

If you want to get there first you have to take the risks

Our current culture tends towards safety instead of risk, so that Bloodhound project for instance is taking forever while earlier vehicle record attempts were pretty regular

It isn't new technology and you can't beat physics as I believe Mr Rush was told.

Tony

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Posted by Ady1 on 10/07/2023 11:15:01:

All new technology has risk.

The space shuttle. Round the world with Cook. The Wright brothers. The Comet passenger jet

If you want to get there first you have to take the risks

Our current culture tends towards safety instead of risk, so that Bloodhound project for instance is taking forever while earlier vehicle record attempts were pretty regular

There was no need for a un-classed submersible to be used for tourism othe than cost. IT ppears from published information tht Oceangate were actively subverting the regulations regarding passengers and vessel classification.

I can say from direct knowlege that the failure of the Bloodhound project was not about safey. It was about the huge amount of money spent and sponsors / public inerest in somone breaking their own record.
ThrustSSC was run on shoesring compared to Bloodhound and proved it could be done. Personally I did not approve of the orginal Bloodhound project approch were sponsorship seem to take precedence over sound engineering decisions. An example was the oxidiizer pump prim mover selection. Apart from the validity of a petrol ICE they changed the engne OEM / sponser twice.

[Gerard O’TooleParticipant @gerardotoole60348]

Posted by Ady1 on 10/07/2023 11:15:01:

All new technology has risk.

The space shuttle. Round the world with Cook. The Wright brothers. The Comet passenger jet

If you want to get there first you have to take the risks

Our current culture tends towards safety instead of risk, so that Bloodhound project for instance is taking forever while earlier vehicle record attempts were pretty regular

There is no reason to believe that , in general, those took the same cavalier attitude to risk that Rush did. What I do find interesting is that he could circumvent all the regulations in place to ensure the safety of vessels . There are question as to whether he should have been allowed set out from St. John with an uncertified vessel . I expect they might be some tightening of regulations. But in context, how much check is made in North Africa of vessels used to transport refugees across the Mediterranean ?

Another aspect is that a senior inspector of the coast Guard was one of those who signed al letter to Rush about their concerns about the craft. A question is could the Coast Guard have been more proactive ?

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 10/07/2023 10:14:32:

The New Yorker article has a link to this article from 2018:
https://news.wsu.edu/news/2018/02/21/a-new-generation-of-titanic-exploration/
It says the control system ws designed and built by gradute engineers and interns. Comments like

“We’ve created a whole ‘Internet of Things’ network on the sub, so you control functions like the lights by just sending a message over Ethernet,” Nelson said. “I’m super happy with that.”

seem to indicate little understanding of safety of life conrol systems. There is no internet on the submersible so why use that technology (IOT). I guess because it was the next great thing and "cool". I'm not saying the control system contributed to the incident, but it shows a lack of understanding of basic safety principles. Using graduates and interns is good, but they need supervision by experienced engineers when carrying out critical tasks.

…

Well, "fly-by-wire" systems are used on submarines, and the military do use ordinary Games Controllers – sometimes.

Conventional submarines are partitioned by bulkheads to protect the vessel against leaks and fire, increasing the chance of survival. The ideal bulkhead is solid, but in the real world they are penetrated by a hatch and a multitude of pipes, cable, and maybe mechanical linkages. And many of the systems passing through the bulkhead are duplicated to provide resilience.

As every hole made in a bulkhead is a risk, much thought is put into minimising them. A power bus and Ethernet are one way of massively reducing the number of separate control wires and pipes needed. In practice balancing the risks and opportunities. Hydraulic control is simple and robust and the technology well-developed, but miles of heavy high-pressure pipe and thousands of joints are unwelcome inside a submarine. Electrical systems are lighter and better than hydraulics in many circumstances, but have other issues – like catching fire! Ethernet is robust on the wire, but relies on somewhat delicate electronics driving various types of electric motor, none of which work well in salt water!

Titan's interior was empty, a good thing up to a point, but not if it was achieved uncritically. Using a games controller and Bluetooth eliminates dangling wires, which are risky in a vessel with no seats. Doing without seats simplifies the design, reduces weight, and increases air-space, but assumes the vessel will never lurch. Bolting the hatch on from outside much reduces the chance of water leaks, and saves space inside, but made the vessel a death trap if anything caught fire. Locating most of the control and power cabling outside the pressure hull with the motors is good, except it becomes vulnerable to snagging and the elements. And the pressure hull has to be penetrated in some way to control the motors: can a Bluetooth signal get through 5" of Carbon Fibre? And if a games controller were used, I'd expect to see at least one spare.

I think the problem here is not the experimental nature of the vessel, but the way it was designed. It appears that an unchallengeable optimist was in-charge, who didn't think the risks through. Taking necessary risks is brave, taking unnecessary risks is Incompetent.

Maybe I'm completely wrong. I'd dearly like to see the Risk Assessment. Possibly it was done correctly and came honestly to a faulty conclusion: that's allowed – everybody makes mistakes. Unfortunately the evidence – much of it direct from Mr Rush – suggests serious persistent bodging. Maybe the only 'Risk Assessment' done was inside his mind.

I blame Hollywood! I must have watched hundreds of films in which the plain-speaking maverick hero defeats evil by breaking all the rules and single-mindedly ignoring advice and orders. In Star Trek the emotionally unstable but gallant Captain James T Kirk always triumphs over Mr Spock's cold logic. All rubbish. Hollywood presents a fiction on which, we the audience, can stamp our desires. We all want to be the leather-clad gunman taking brutal revenge on shoals of unsympathetic baddies wearing black hats; no-one identifies with the cowardly bar-keep (who has 6 children and elderly parents to support.)

Real-life is much more complicated, and mavericks generally fail miserably. Results are mostly achieved by learning from experience and doing an analysis, not by taking wild guesses and hoping for the best. Films rarely depict real-life because it's a bit boring.

Arrogant gung-ho amateurs are rotten at designing safe systems; what's needed is expertise, attention to detail and a positive attitude to criticism.

Permissible of course to accept risk when the circumstances demand it, but not to ignore it. During WW2 many submarine commanders chose to bolt-down escape hatches. In peacetime this was stupid because it guaranteed no escape from survivable accidents. Different in wartime! Escape hatches are easily damaged by depth-charges, and bolting them down made it more likely the boat would survive to fight another day. Rules help, but it's always necessary to think.

Dave

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

When they started building a wooden high performance twin engined plane in 1940 nobody really expected to get what they eventually created.

The idea may not be as flawed as is commonly believed… but only if the people who design it get things right

The first 100 years of Car racing is littered with mavericks

Edited By Ady1 on 10/07/2023 13:29:57

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Nothing wrong with wood as a structural material, and DeHavilland knew what they were about. Main problem is rot in humid climates. It was the all metal Hawker Typhoon that had issues with the back end of the fuselage falling off

Obviously you wouldn't choose wood for a submarine, it's not at its bed in compression

Edited By duncan webster on 10/07/2023 14:01:48

[Chuck TaperParticipant @chucktaper]

Posted by Ady1 on 10/07/2023 09:36:31:

I did auditing for a few years

Most businesses stray into legal grey areas from time to time, the very nature of business is to "take a risk" from the very start of whatever business it is

So the risk taking mindset is there from the start, the issue is to avoid becoming reckless

Absolutely.

Risk taking mindset is not in itself the issue. The bigger issue is that the "system" filters for that type of personality.

Reiteration over time then tends to co-select other, less desirable, personality traits.

There is a body of thought that says "high achievers" often exhibit psychopathic personality traits.

My own experience (in management) would lean me towards supporting that view.

As always your milage may vary.

Regards.

Frank C.

PS We also tend to confuse managers and leaders – two very, very different things.

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 10/07/2023 12:16:09:

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 10/07/2023 10:14:32:

I think the problem here is not the experimental nature of the vessel, but the way it was designed. It appears that an unchallengeable optimist was in-charge, who didn't think the risks through. Taking necessary risks is brave, taking unnecessary risks is Incompetent.

Nicely put, Dave.

J. E. Gordon, in the "Structures" book Clive mentions earlier, also puts it well:

"…the whole subject [of structures] is littered with traps for the unwary, and many things are not as simple as they might seem. Too often the engineers are only called in, professionally, to deal with the structural achievements of 'practical' men at the same time as the lawyers and the undertakers." [p.25].

[Peter Cook 6Participant @petercook6]

On the subject of "practical men" vs professional engineers I have just finished an interesting book – The Rainhill Trials by Christopher McGowan – which discusses the relationships and behaviours of the main protagonists as well as some of the technology issues they faced and covers the early development of railways in the UK.

[ChrisLHParticipant @chrislh]

This all reminds me of a curiosity of our previous house. The practical men who built its roof knew very well what purlins and rafters were and made sure the former was adequate; 8×4. It's usual for the purlin to be supported by end walls or other structures and for it to support the rafters at mid span. Not so in our case. One end of one of our purlins was supported by a brick wall but the other end only by fresh air. Effectively the usual situation reversed, rafters supporting purlin. The latter could have apparently been omitted with no detriment. Fortunately nothing fell down during our occupancy thanks to a degree of redundancy in the structure.

[Author]

Posts