Yeah, they should have based themselves out of Seattle where they built the sub and crossed the canal for every dive so they could stay properly regulated. I honestly don’t think avoiding regulation was the driving factor. I think saving every penny was the driving factor.
It's a same sort of factor that enters in homebuilt airplane accidents: The belief that if it worked *once*, it would work OK forever. Too many homebuilders think that the first flight is where all the danger is; in reality, while the first 10 hours does have the highest rate of accidents, there's a secondary peak at 40-60 hours as mechanical issues eventually develop.
Probably depends on what venue the lawsuits end up in. Might be Canada; might even be the Bahamas. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the estates of the passengers will probably try to get it filed in the US, but even there, it might depend on what state it ended up in.
Of course there was combustion. Boyle's Law still works, even if the relevant time period is one millisecond (which is pretty close for the instantaneous collapse of a cylinder having a radius of 27 inches at a depth of 3,800 meters). The atmosphere in the pressure chamber was compressed (decreased volume), and the resulting air temperature increase was extreme (no need to debate "surface of the sun" temps or slightly less). The time period supports an adiabatic reaction, where no heat transfer to the surrounding sea water occurred due to the extremely short time period involved. The subsequent wall of 33°F water quenched all. But yeah, they didn't have time to process what was happening (had happened) to them.
And not Or
Honestly this seems like the biggest driving factor. Everyone looks to reduce costs and reduce regulatory burden, but that alone is not the crux. Top leadership sets the ethos for the organization. The most damning to me are the established industry experts (such as Cameron, Ballard, basically you name it) having prior issued concerns about this vessel. I appreciate the innovative angle, but there's widely available public research out there documenting why carbon fiber is not an appropriate pressure hull.. there's even university YouTube out there from 10 years ago documenting how they fracture and implode..
Temporary thread drift: https://fieldsports-journal.com/fieldsports/shoot/a-brace-of-snipe-and-a-pint-of-portWhat do you have against snipe hunting? I rather enjoy snipe hunting. Here's a brace I took with with my 1924 LC Smith:
And here are a couple more I got with my 1930s vintage Stevens 330 (branded as a "Worthington Special"):
(I have a fondness for old SxS shotguns.)
Here's @2-Bit Speed (high school years) with his very first snipe and his Christmas present, a 12ga pump:
Maybe you should give snipe hunting a try!
I was thinking more like quail, but then I’ve never had a snipe so I can’t judge. Have you tried them? Big favorite of Winston Churchill.
You'll find the failure paths of metal vs composite are two very different things. To include with aircraft. Metal crumples and in general holds itself together as it fails where composite shatters into dust and fibers. I would never want to be in an accident where the only structure is composite.
That’s what he said.
I don’t know zip about F1 construction, however, I have repaired and site-recovered a number of composite and hybrid-composite aircraft over the years. But if you prefer to use a purpose built, crash tested F1 as an example of composite structures, in general, have at it. I’ll stick to my initial conclusion when it comes to accidents and composites based on my observations and experiences.
No need to wait. Composites have been used in in all facets of GA for quite some time. There’s plenty of data on how well composites perform… and don’t perform. But what’s interesting is the last two clean-sheet designed GA aircraft, Cessna Sky Courier and Beechcraft Denali, use primary metal structures vs composite structures. Why, if composites are “superior”? Regardless, I also think if the CAPS hadn’t been a certification requirement for the Cirrus, there would have been a much more “public” display of why composites, in general, are not equal to an F1 cockpit.
I find some amusement in your juxtaposition of "good reporting" and "The Daily Mail."
