I wonder about the people who would work on the subs, who are basically not millionaires. Would regulation, insurance and such help them have some protection and compensation?
I was using it satirically and I honestly think that's where this word is going. I find it fascinating though - it's absolutely meaningless but it also sounds safe and incredibly artificial. It's full of these paradoxical features that make this word really fun. I'd invest meme points into it tbh.
I'll be honest, I don't think that's a sensible approach. Yes, it's billionaires offing themselves, sure. But regulations are quite important, in particular in sensible and critical areas like this.
If they also protect some billionaires that's an unfortunate side effect, but overall these regulations would be very good to have. The rise of venture capitalist attitude outside of IT is only going to get worse, so the sooner we can establish rules against that the better.
Could you expand on why? Surely there must be more important areas to spend resource to regulate than protecting some rich people hobbie that only few people per year partake in. It would cost millions of dollars to regulate something like this effectively. The only argument I can think off is that it could cost less to regulate than to "save and rescue" these idiots but save and rescue is not a pro bono service for the most part either. They or their insurance will have to cover the costs of this.
Didn't they ignore a bunch of regulatory bodies by claiming the passengers were experts and not tourists? I think throwing more laws at it won;t do much, unless they close similar loopholes.
The CEO was very careful to skirt applicable regulatory laws. He even called his passengers "crew members". In the aviation world, I have some experience harmonizing multiple regulatory authorities. Because of "international waters", there will need to be some agreement and harmonizing of regulations. There's already SOLAS so, I think it can be done.
Tickets for the tours aren't sold from international waters, and countries can still sue someone for breaking their laws outside their territories if they want.
Dude. Do you think that "international waters/airspace" means you can just anything? Consider airlines. What happens if you suddenly drop trou and shat in the aisles? You will be restrained and arrested the moment you land. Similarly, people on ships are bound by the laws their ship is flagged with. In addition, insurance companies won't insure your vessel if you decide to not obey any laws. That alone can destroy your business venture.
Dude. Do you think that “international waters/airspace” means you can just anything? Consider airlines. What happens if you suddenly drop trou and shat in the aisles? You will be restrained and arrested the moment you land.
Cameron is talking about binding the owners not the passengers with his proposed regulations. If I own the airplane I can totally shit on the floor and there is no law to stop me.
Similarly, people on ships are bound by the laws their ship is flagged with.
Exactly, future-risky-sub-owner could simply seek out a country that doesn't adhere to any safety regulations. I imagine there would be many small nations which could have their "Private submarine regulation" laws bought for a relatively small sum of money.
In addition, insurance companies won’t insure your vessel if you decide to not obey any laws. That alone can destroy your business venture.
The insurance angle is a good one, but that would just mean they would have to go uninsured (or self insured) and risk losing clients that have a problem with it.
It is going to be tricky to regulate, but the expedition ship does come back to shore to resupply. They don’t leave the sub adrift on the high seas, they bring it back with them, and I imagine it’s easier to do maintenance on it on dry land, or at least in the protected waters of port.
I honestly don't care much about this topic at all. If people want to go down and get imploded, they should be free to do so. It has zero effect on the rest of the world.
In the aviation world, an experimental aircraft may not be used for "compensation or hire". The only exception is that a kitplane manufacturer is allowed to give demo flights.
There are plenty of mutually agreed upon international regulations that ships, aircraft, etc. all abide by. It’s not rocket science (well there’s that too).
I work in aviation regulatory law but, a friend of mine does work in this arena. I did ask him if my analog existed in the nautical world and he was able to walk me through how he'd managed to avoid any regulatory oversight. There's SOLAS but, other than that, it's a gap that apparently needs to be closed.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the subs only operate in international waters. The ships carrying these deep sea submersibles dock at ports, but the subs themselves are cargo until you get out into the middle of nowhere.
ROFL. Love James Cameron much? Stop idolizing celebrities ffs. I think you’re the one that needs to touch grass instead of caring about what some boomer thinks.
He’s extremely knowledgeable about submersibles. He helped design and build the Deepsea Challenger, which he then took to the bottom of Challenger Deep, the deepest known location on the planet. He’s one of two people to have done that.
He has a ton more experience on top of that. I’ll leave it up to you to go learn about it if you can be bothered to do so.
This is true. HOWEVER, he's only opening his mouth to push for legislation on this because he doesn't want any more of his asshole billionaire friends to die. This isn't out of altruism for the average Joe... because let's face it, how many folks do you know who can afford a trip like that?
I don't know, I'm an aircraft structural engineer and, based upon what technical commentary I did hear him make, it kinda sounds to me like he knows what he's talking about.