OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who died on the Titan submersible that went missing on Sunday, proudly described himself as a rule-breaker and frankly acknowledged two years ago that the vessel’s design had “broken some rules.”
But he said this was part of the point of his experimental submersible, which he described as an innovative way to explore the ocean’s depths.
It is unclear what specific rules he broke or how this may have contributed to the failure of the submersible. However, it is possible that his propensity to break rules may have led to design flaws or oversights that contributed to the disaster.
Explorer Josh Gates, known for his sometimes foolhardy expeditions, hinted at “concerning” problems with the vessel and said that a chance to film aboard it was canceled when it “did not perform well” during a test dive.
David Lochridge, who was the director of marine operations at OceanGate in 2015, warned the company that the Titan submersible had not been built or tested to suitable safety standards. Lochridge produced a report in which he said the craft needed more testing and stressed “the potential dangers to passengers of the Titan as the submersible reached extreme depths”.
Not only were his warnings ignored, but he was fired after calling a meeting with OceanGate bosses. Lochridge alleged that the submersible was potentially putting passengers “milliseconds from implosion”. In a sad twist, implosion turned out to be precisely the fate of the Titan submersible.
The Titan was not certified as seaworthy by any regulatory agency or third-party organization because it operated in international waters and did not carry passengers from a port. Later however, it did carry tourists to the shipwreck of the Titanic.
In addition, a TechCrunch article reports that the manufacturer of the Titan’s forward viewport would only certify it to a depth of 1,300 meters due to OceanGate’s experimental design, way short of the 3,800 meters depth of the Titanic shipwreck that the submersible would be reaching.
The claim was denied by an operator of OceanGate, who said the Titan submersible is capable of diving to depths of 4,000 meters (13,120ft) “with a comfortable safety margin.” But the question is, how trustworthy was this assessment? The tragic end of the submersible would seem to lend credence to the fears expressed by Lochridge and others.
In addition to Lochridge’s warnings, experts expressed concerns about the lack of safety guarantees for the submersible and sent the company a letter asking them to allow an independent audit. However, these warnings were also ignored.
According to media reports, messages between Stockton Rush (CEO of OceanGate) and a deep-sea exploration expert show that he dismissed all safety concerns as “baseless cries”.
Years before the tragedy, Rush said in a 2021 interview with the Spanish YouTuber alanxelmundo that he hoped to be remembered as an innovator.
“I think it was General MacArthur who said: ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break,'” Rush said, smiling. Rush seemed to be proud to break rules, even when safety was at stake.
“I think I’ve broken them with logic and good engineering behind me. Carbon fiber and titanium? There’s a rule you don’t do that,” he told alanxelmundo. “Well, I did.”
The Titan’s hull, which was made to withstand crushing deep-sea pressure, was constructed with aerospace-grade carbon fiber that OceanGate said was designed under an agreement with NASA.
But submersible hulls are typically made using solid metals like steel or titanium. In his 2021 interview with alanxelmundo, Rush said the choice of material was more about pioneering ocean exploration.
“It’s picking the rules that you break that are the ones that will add value to others and add value to society,” Rush said. “And that really, to me, is about innovation.”
In the end, even though Rush was warned multiple times about safety, he forged on, putting a higher premium on innovation than the safety of those who would board the Titan submersible.
According to Neama Rahmani, a trial lawyer, if the company ignored safety precautions, then it can be held criminally responsible. However, it is difficult to determine what charges the company can face because it comes down to various factors.
The question of whether OceanGate could face criminal liability has yet to be answered, but some government or perhaps a combination of governments will investigate this tragedy and may determine that the repeatedly ignored warnings amount to criminal negligence. For now, it remains mere speculation.
