Last year, five people hoping to view the Titanic wreckage died when their submersible imploded in the Atlantic Ocean.
This week, a US coast guard panel that is investigating the Titan disaster listened to four days of evidence that has raised serious questions about whether warning signs were ignored.
The panel plans to listen to another five days of testimony next week.
Here is what witnesses have been saying so far:
– The lead engineer says he would not get in the Titan
When giving evidence about a dive that took place several years before the fatal accident, lead engineer Tony Nissen said he felt pressured to get the Titan ready and he refused to pilot it.
“I’m not getting in it,” Mr Nissen said he told Stockton Rush, the co-founder of OceanGate, the company that owned the Titan.
Mr Nissen said Mr Rush was difficult to work for, made demands that often changed day-to-day, and was focused on costs and schedules.
Mr Nissen said he tried to keep his clashes with Mr Rush hidden so others in the company would not be aware of the friction.
– The Titan malfunctioned a few days before its fatal dive
Scientific director Steven Ross said that on a dive just a few days before the Titan imploded, the vessel had a problem with its ballast, which keeps vessels stable.
The issue caused passengers to “tumble about” and crash into the bulkhead, he said.
“One passenger was hanging upside down. The other two managed to wedge themselves into the bow.”
He said nobody was injured but it took an hour to get the vessel out of the water.
He said he did not know if a safety assessment or hull inspection was carried out after the incident.
– It was not the first time the Titan had problems
A paid passenger on a 2021 mission to the Titanic said the journey was aborted when the vessel started experiencing mechanical problems.
“We realised that all it could do was spin around in circles, making right turns,” said Fred Hagen. “At this juncture, we obviously weren’t going to be able to navigate to the Titanic.”
He said the Titan resurfaced and the mission was scrapped. Mr Hagen said he was aware of the risks involved in the dive.
“Anyone that wanted to go was either delusional if they didn’t think that it was dangerous, or they were embracing the risk,” he said.
– One employee said authorities ignored his concerns
Operations director David Lochridge said the tragedy could possibly have been prevented if a federal agency had investigated the concerns he raised with them on multiple occasions.
Mr Lochridge said that eight months after he filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a caseworker told him the agency had not begun investigating and there were still 11 cases ahead of his.
By that time, OceanGate was suing Mr Lochridge and he had filed a countersuit.
A couple of months later, Mr Lochridge said, he decided to walk away from the complaint. He said the case was closed and both lawsuits were dropped.
“The whole idea behind the company was to make money,” Mr Lochridge said. “There was very little in the way of science.”
After Mr Lochridge’s testimony this week, the federal agency responded that, at the time, it had “promptly referred” his safety concerns to the coast guard.
– Some people had a rosier view
Renata Rojas, a member of the Explorers Club which lost two paid passengers in the fatal dive, struck a different tone with her evidence.
She said she felt OceanGate was transparent in the run-up to the dive and she never felt the operation was unsafe.
A passenger on a previous dive, Ms Rojas was volunteering with the surface crew when the Titan imploded.
“Some of those people are very hardworking individuals that were just trying to make dreams come true,” she said.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel