Deadly Titan Submersible Implosion Was Preventable Disaster, Coast Guard Concludes 124
The U.S. Coast Guard determined the implosion of the Titan submersible that killed five people while traveling to the wreckage of the Titanic was a preventable disaster caused by OceanGate Expeditions's inability to meet safety and engineering standards. WSJ: A 335-page report [PDF] detailing a two-year inquiry from the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Board of Investigation found the company that owned and operated the Titan failed to follow maintenance and inspection protocols for the deep-sea submersible.
OceanGate avoided regulatory review and managed the submersible outside of standard protocols "by strategically creating and exploiting regulatory confusion and oversight challenges," the report said. The Coast Guard opened its highest-level investigation into the event in June 2023, shortly after the implosion occurred. "There is a need for stronger oversight and clear options for operators who are exploring new concepts outside of the existing regulatory framework," Jason Neubauer, the chair of the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation for the Titan submersible, said in a statement.
OceanGate avoided regulatory review and managed the submersible outside of standard protocols "by strategically creating and exploiting regulatory confusion and oversight challenges," the report said. The Coast Guard opened its highest-level investigation into the event in June 2023, shortly after the implosion occurred. "There is a need for stronger oversight and clear options for operators who are exploring new concepts outside of the existing regulatory framework," Jason Neubauer, the chair of the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation for the Titan submersible, said in a statement.
seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:4)
Re: seafloor TPE menstrual cup inside a dude (Score:3)
James Cameron and anyone who knows what he is doing uses the tried and true metal sphere. It is mathematically simple and has been used for decades without any catastrophic incidents.
Instead of taking the engineering advice of a non-engineer celebrity, why not listen to what actual engineers have said on this? In fact, that design not only can work, it's actively used, even with carbon fiber.
https://www.designnews.com/ind... [designnews.com]
Also, just because you fasten composite parts together doesn't make you an expert in composites.
The most likely cause of the catastrophic failure here was a mismatch in the modulus between the titanium caps and the carbon fiber hull, something the lead engineer who R
Pressurized sphere (Score:5, Informative)
James Cameron did not use a sphere when he went to the Mariana Trench. {...} It was certainly no bathysphere.
Did. The pressurized space part of the Deepsea Challenger (as of the Trieste before her -- does English also use she for submarines?) was a pressure sphere at the bottom of the vessel.
As I recall it was a torpedo / cylinder-shaped submersible.
You're confusing the whole submarine including her outer shell and couple of tons of non-pressuized technical equipement, with the tiny pressure sphere within her where James Cameron sat.
See diagrams on her wikipedia page [wikipedia.org].
I think the confusion is due to the fact that the pressure sphere is embed within the hull of the vessel and not very visible, whereas on the Trieste it was clearly distinct and attached under the hull.
It is possible to descend to those depths using shapes other than spheres.
Possible? Probably.
Easy? Even less than when using spheres.
Economically feasible? It's definitely not cheap given the failed attempt of proving the opposite by Titan.
Re: (Score:2)
-- does English also use she for submarines?
Grammatically we don't use gender for non-living things. In informal conversation, some folks assign gender to objects they have an emotional attachment to.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true - the informal bit. While techincally we don't assign gender some English words carried their gender from old English / latin where words did have gender assignments. We call all seafaring vessels "she/her" as per their latin roots (navis was a feminine gender). This has zero to do with emotional attachment.
It's not just used informally, it's also used in formal / technical language to address ships as feminine.
Language evolution (Score:2)
gender to objects they have an emotional attachment to.
Noun-genders have little (but not exactly zilch) to do with emotions, and a lot (but not everything) to do with the very complex and messy evolution of language.
(Some very old language, including reconstructed proto-indo-european, had two genders..."animate" and "inanimate".
then a messy lineage of sometime reassigning(*) them to- or co-using them along with- "masculine" and "feminine",
some time adding back a neutral on top of that to bring back inanimate and/or try to (partially**) assign objects(***),
then
Re: (Score:3)
Did. The pressurized space part of the Deepsea Challenger (as of the Trieste before her -- does English also use she for submarines?) was a pressure sphere at the bottom of the vessel.
Referring to ships, or in the case of submarines, boats, she is traditionally used; at least by sailors.
Re: Pressurized sphere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In some countries. Russia uses masculine words for ships. I believe Ukraine does the same.
Thanks, I did not know that.
Roots (Score:2)
The word used in a lot of slavic languages is masculine (something like: korab) (Imagine it in cyrillic. But, well, /. and unicode...)
BTW: So is the word used in French (le bateau, le sous-marin. Even "le navir" shifted to masculine gender-noun, even if in Latin navis [wiktionary.org] was feminine).
It's the English where I wasn't sure if the "ships are feminine" extends to include submarine.
Re: (Score:2)
The word used in a lot of slavic languages is masculine (something like: korab) (Imagine it in cyrillic. But, well, /. and unicode...)
BTW: So is the word used in French (le bateau, le sous-marin. Even "le navir" shifted to masculine gender-noun, even if in Latin navis [wiktionary.org] was feminine).
It's the English where I wasn't sure if the "ships are feminine" extends to include submarine.
It is interesting apparently in France while ships are masculine, they can be given a feminine name, Germany a ship is general neutral, but is often referred to in the masculine. It was interesting to do a little research and discover how ships are referred to in different cultures. As for submarines in English, they are generally referred to by the feminine, even if they have a masculine name so the USS Pulaski, for example, would still be referred to as she. However, submarines are generally just referr
Re: (Score:2)
Did. The pressurized space part of the Deepsea Challenger (as of the Trieste before her -- does English also use she for submarines?) was a pressure sphere at the bottom of the vessel.
Referring to ships, or in the case of submarines, boats, she is traditionally used; at least by sailors.
In naval parlance (at least British naval parlance) a boat is a vessel that can be carried by another larger vessel, a ship isn't. A boat can be carried by a ship, as most early subs were carried by ships the habit stuck and became tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, well, James Cameron did not use a sphere when he went to the Mariana Trench. As I recall it was a torpedo / cylinder-shaped submersible. It was certainly no bathysphere. It is possible to descend to those depths using shapes other than spheres.
While it is possible, Cameron did use a conventional sphere. The whole submersible vehicle is not the crew compartment. Most of it is just buoyancy material with the operator sphere at the bottom, the same way the Trieste was built 60 years ago. But the important point here is that is was good old non-fracturing, non-delaminating steel.
The submersible features a pilot sphere, large enough for only one occupant. [wikipedia.org] The sphere, with steel walls 64 mm (2.5 in) thick, was tested for its ability to withstand the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were carbon fibre deep sea vessels before Titan [designnews.com], including for the US Navy.
You can build an experimental titanium submersible, skip certification tests and have it fail too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the problem.
Regular submarines are buoyant because the volume of low pressure air enclosed by their hull makes them overall weigh less than the water they displace. They have to carry ballast, which might be weights or water pumped into tanks, in order to dive. This is nice beacause when you want to come back up you can drop the weights.
To dive deeper you need a thicker hull to withstand the pressure. At some point your steel hull plus the enclosed air is heavier than the water it displaces. Then you
Re: (Score:2)
And you'd be wrong - Cameron's sub had a sphere for the pilot.
Nice diagram and photos at Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As yellow-jersey wearing wannabe cyclists often discover, arrogance is not a substitute for physics.
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be the first customer at my Eat At Your Own Risk We Don't Need Inspections bistro.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be the first customer at my Eat At Your Own Risk We Don't Need Inspections bistro.
He clearly ordered a large course of stupid with hubris as the dessert.
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
Why would I trust a bistro in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny story, while driving through Bangalore the other day I did see a restaurant called "Toxic Bar and Kitchen". This in Bangalore of all places where any westerner is already guaranteed food poisoning if staying longer than a couple of days.
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
Even with inspections, how often does milk get in this vegetarian's chocolate, crackers, etc.?
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:5, Insightful)
Loopholes (Score:2)
Part of the con was ensuring customers that the vehicle passed all government safety standards with flying colors. This report seems to indicate that in fact it did not.
Well, it did pass lots of loopholes with flying colors.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just paying customers. Operating the vehicle with passengers of any kind (not just the guy who owns it) without explicit warnings about the actual dangers and full information about it not being certified safe.
There are crimes like manslaugher and reckless endangerment too.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the con was ensuring customers that the vehicle passed all government safety standards with flying colors. This report seems to indicate that in fact it did not.
No, Ocean Gate did pass all government safety standards that applied to it. The con was Ocean Gate did everything they could to make sure the submersible did not fall under any government's jurisdiction thus no standards applied to it.
That reminds me of this liquor store where I grew up. It was the only one within 3 counties; however all 3 counties were dry with not even beer or wine sales allowed. How did this store exist? Well someone figured out that a small patch of land along a highway was technically
Re: (Score:2)
The minute you start asking suckers to pay you to use your unsafe equipment, the government should start getting involved in enforcing safety standards.
If I recall from the Netflix documentary, Stockton Rush was insistent that the word "passenger" was never used and that OceanGate's paying customers were instead "mission specialists". This was the legal work-around that allowed the company to avoid government regulations. You'd think that his wealthy customers would have been savvy enough to understand what was going on, not least when signing the required waivers. What they might not have known was that the Titan was not registered, not even in the Bah
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
How many safety checks do Boeing planes pass, yet still have sensors fail catastrophically, or doors blow out in flight?
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:5, Funny)
He's part of DOGE
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what argument one could give that would convince the guy who responded to a story about the OceanGate implosion with "regulation is out of control".
It would appear that the person is seeing it from their own point of view only. "If I want to kill myself in a submarine that I built, you have no authority to stop me... (but I don't believe I am killing myself because *I* think it will work).
And they would be right. I have no authority to tell someone they can not do something that directly involves only themselves.
So, the trick to getting that person to understand is that the guy was selling access to his invention. Once you involve someone else, a whole
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
"would you want the submarine you are renting a ride on to be condemned by numerous engineers but still allowed to sell the ride to you? (without you being informed of the disagreements by the engineers)"
Ever hear of caveat emptor? Why shouldn't I do my own due diligence? If I just trust the salesperson, is that on me?
Re: (Score:3)
The free market sorts it out just fine. Nobody likes the value the free market chooses for their life though.
Re: (Score:3)
The free market sorts it out just fine. Nobody likes the value the free market chooses for their life though.
I mean, for real companies, the free market does sort it out, because regardless of the payout for the deaths and whether it bankrupts the company, nobody is going to ride in a submarine knowing that the company's last design collapsed on the first try.
The problem is the existence of concepts like shell companies and the corporate veil. Most people don't like the idea of rich billionaires being able to create products and services that kill people without meaningfully getting punished for killing people, b
Re: (Score:2)
While stuff like that does happen, the big reason we have regulations is indeed because the value the free market places on lives is not what we'd like it to be. There are lots of cases where companies were perfectly able to pay out settlements. The Ford Pinto case is the classic example of a company specifically choosing the expense of settling lawsuits over the expense of fixing a dangerous product.
When I was a teenager the local autobody guy who'd just informed me my first car wasn't worth repairing note
Re: (Score:2)
As I put it: companies are in the business of making one thing, money; all else is a side-effect.
Re: (Score:2)
As I put it: companies are in the business of making one thing, money; all else is a side-effect.
Close to true. There are two main types of companies, non-profits (often referred to as 501c.3 in the US after the relevant section of the tax code) and for-profits (including a variety of structures such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs as well as as publicly traded)
It's pretty much a tautology that if you create a for profit company your primary goal is to make a profit. Lots of non-profit companies are simply trying to not lose so much money that they can no longer do whatever it is their prim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the free market sorted this one out.
Much in the same way the Sufrside Condominium [wikipedia.org] residents got sorted out?
What are we complaining about.
People who are against any form of regulation? Especially ones that are serious about the "free market will sort it out" shtick.
If you want a serious answer: The fact that Rush killed 4 people with a defective piece of equipment that was sold as safe. Caveat Emptor only goes so far, especially when you have no viable means to personally verify the claims of the seller. If he wanted to turn himself into a tube of toothpaste, whatever.
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
"Caveat Emptor only goes so far, especially when you have no viable means to personally verify the claims of the seller."
If you have no way to verify, but trust the guy anyway, isn't that what Caveat Emptor is all about? Should his passengers have been beware of trusting the guy with their lives?
Did they not even sign any disclaimers?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have no way to verify, but trust the guy anyway, isn't that what Caveat Emptor is all about? Should his passengers have been beware of trusting the guy with their lives?
That's really the crux of the whole argument. If I go down to the car lot and buy a random Chevy, I'm not qualified to judge whether the car was built to my expected levels of safety. I also have no means to verify stuff like the tires, airbags, windshield, brake pads, etc. were all sufficiently designed-for-purpose. I do, however, have some modicum of trust that the vehicle was built to meet the regulations applicable at the time. And I also have some trust that the regulators were doing their jobs prop
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
What if the previous owner modified the car to bypass regulations? If you watch youtube channels like Matt's Off-Road Recovery, Robby Layton, etc. will you see how many cars they buy as is, which have been illegally modified?
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty complicated because if you regulate too few, you end up with lead in the food, but if you regulate too much, you end up passing a law where only bayer or monsanto is allowed to deliver products because you need a multi-billion dollar equipment they hold a patent of.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But those who wish to regulate don't have a specific amount of regulation in mind. They have either a goal of 100% safety, or a direction of "more regulation". This means you have regulatory bodies who spend all their time d
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
How come my car now beeps at every tiny stupid thing that someone thought might be unsafe, but I was opening my door to back up just fine in an older car?
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem. You can build your home on the East Coast in a flood zone which is impacted by hurricanes every few years. Then, when your home is destroyed because you didn't want to spend the money to make it hurricane-resistant, you get to pay to rebuild. Not your insurance company, and definitely not the government.
To see why we have "budensome" regulations, look at Boeing jets.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason we have the Boeing jets we do -- specifically, the 737-MAX -- is those burdensome regulations. To put modern engines on something the regulators would consider a modification of the existing 737s rather than a new design (which would require a much more burdensome process, not just for the aircraft itself but triggering a requirement to retrain all the pilots -- pilots have to be certified specifically for every aircraft type they f
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:5, Informative)
The 737 max occurred because Boeing execs chose not to produce a modern design in an attempt to compete with airbus. Boeing chose short term returns to shareholders over the long term health of the company. The shenanigans over MCAS are a consequence of that decision. The regulations and testing requirements are not the problem - they are justified based on the lessons of history.
Re: (Score:3)
The 737 max occurred because Boeing execs chose not to produce a modern design in an attempt to compete with airbus.
Ya, because the A320neo is totally not an slightly upgraded and re-engined A320.
MCAS was a "failure" to adhere to existing regulations.
There's nothing wrong with MCAS. Pilots weren't fucking told about it.
Even if the system hadn't been vulnerable to AoA disagreement, pilots still weren't fucking told about it.
And that was because the self-monitoring compliance regime also didn't tell the fucking FAA about it being a safety critical system.
You're right that Boeing acted like a corporation. Regulatio
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, because the A320neo is totally not an slightly upgraded and re-engined A320.
The A320 airframe had a higher clearance under the wing allowing the re-engining. This is something Airbus did early in the A320 design - it specifically had space to accommodate ever increasing engine sizes of back in the late 80s and the very first model plane shipped with high-bypass turbofan engines. This is something which was not even remotely considered back when the 737 was designed in the 60s. The 737 was designed at a time when turbofans didn't even consider the phrase high/low bypass.
MCAS was a "failure" to adhere to existing regulations.
There's nothing wrong with MCAS. Pilots weren't fucking told about it.
Partially tr
Re: (Score:2)
The A320 airframe had a higher clearance under the wing allowing the re-engining. This is something Airbus did early in the A320 design - it specifically had space to accommodate ever increasing engine sizes of back in the late 80s and the very first model plane shipped with high-bypass turbofan engines. This is something which was not even remotely considered back when the 737 was designed in the 60s. The 737 was designed at a time when turbofans didn't even consider the phrase high/low bypass.
The engine positioning for neos is not the same for ceos. The delta is not as much as for a MAX, but it is still there, and it is absolutely corrected for in software.
Partially true, partially false. Existing regulations were adhered to. The problem was the regulations were deficient in that they allowed the plane vendor to dictate what training was required. But ultimately it also had a shithouse design and was based on a fundamentally bad premise. Hardware sucks - fix it in software was the mantra here. The 737 needed a software fix as the airframe was no longer sufficient to fly stably with hardware alone. The A320 didn't need software fixes because it was. That was the fundamental difference.
The A320 has a flight control computer with complete control over the plane. All inputs are filtered through there.
MCAS makes a 737 more like an A320.
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
The engine positioning for neos is not the same for ceos.
I didn't say it was the same, I said it didn't rely on a software hack to keep stable. The A320 doesn't aerodynamically nose up when thrust is increased.
The A320 has a flight control computer with complete control over the plane. All inputs are filtered through there.
MCAS makes a 737 more like an A320.
False, the two systems are nothing alike.
You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Right back at you.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was the same, I said it didn't rely on a software hack to keep stable. The A320 doesn't aerodynamically nose up when thrust is increased.
Unless it defies the laws of physics, yes, it absolutely fucking does.
The ELAC in an A320 is a "neutral trim" system.
It automatically adjusts trim to make sure the plane does not change angle of attack based on thrust or any other environmental condition.
The reason it has to account for thrust, is because like a MAX, the engines on an A320 are not perfectly in line with their center of lift.
False, the two systems are nothing alike.
Sure, they're nothing alike because ELAC is in control of your plane in an A320, not you, while in a 737, MCAS is n
Re: (Score:2)
The 737 max occurred because Boeing execs chose not to produce a modern design
At the behest of its customers.
"Make us retrain our pilots and we might as well train them to fly Airbus."
Re: (Score:3)
So I'd say that MCAS itself as a concept wasn't flawed- those regulations did their work well- the MAX is a great aircraft.
The problem is corporate malfeasance and sel
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The regulations were so bad that they came up with a (lawful) workaround (changing the mounting position of the engines) to avoid triggering some of the worst of them, and then when that workaround changed things enough that too much regulation would be triggered, they came up with another lawful workaround, MCAS. And that caused the trouble. They couldn't do make anything new because the regulatory burden for new things was too great, so instead they piled workaround after workaround on the old thing.
And
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We do define our risk tolerance. You're more than welcome to go and use a welder while staring into the arc. What we don't allow is for you to dictate your risk to others, especially when you as the subject matter expert have a duty of care for people who are clueless on the subject.
Tell me: When you step into a car, did you completely inspect it yourself? Did you check the welds so it won't fall apart? Did you inspect / test your brakes? Did you assemble the airbag yourself and are you sure you have quanti
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
How come I had to cut a wire to a beeper on my car because it issued long piercing loud beeps for stupid reasons like not detecting the key fob in situations (such as camping) where I know exactly what I'm doing, and no regulator thought of?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you drive a Honda.
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
Does the fact that I don't indicate this is a widespread problem across all manufacturers?
Re: (Score:2)
My Honda frequently emits a fast-beeping to indicate that the key fob is not communicating properly after the vehicle is shut off. Same thing if I close the trunk with the key fob next to it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, but it has zero to do with regulations since there's no requirement for a car to do so, so what is your point?
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:2)
Do you remember when Toyota was fined a record amount because drivers didn't know how to place their floormats? Do you think that experience made all manufacturers go overboard with safety features no one wants, for fear of regulators?
Re: (Score:2)
So this is an unfair accusation. While he did hire kids, it's not as though they were unprofessional or unqualified. They just did not have the career knowledge to know when something shady was going on, and that they were being taken advantage of. They also did not have the ability to stand up to Rush; the guy was a notorious asshole who fired people often and loudly. It's not their fault they did not want to have their young careers ruined by getting fired, so they took the risk of working with this g
Re: seafloor carbon-fiber cannoli (Score:3)
Except they were probably aware that in this business, cutting corners means people die - had they chosen to be honest with themselves they might have just left.
I've been in the situation were I was ordered to do something that would be very risky to other people, on pain of getting fired. I decided to try another method first that worked very well (it escalated to ministerial levels before it got squashed, without my obvious pawprints on it) but I would never have signed off on something that would very ea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easily Preventable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Easily Preventable (Score:5, Funny)
Some risks are dependent on who's in the bed with her...
Re: (Score:2)
Some risks are dependent on who's in the bed with her...
Your mom? (Had to be said...)
Re: (Score:2)
Easily prevented by not going under water.
Easily prevented by doing a few hundred unmanned tests at full depth for progressively longer periods of time, and using a portable CT scanner to see if there are any signs of hull damage after each descent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
for example [neurologica.com].
Of course, that one is a medical design, and wouldn't work for this purpose, but there are various industrial CT systems out there, and I'm pretty sure there have to be some that would work for this as well.
You can't prevent stupidity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recently watched... (Score:2)
Re: Recently watched... (Score:2)
You should hear the sounds of other submersibles. They're different, but not exactly confidence inspiring either
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like widespread adoption of the HANS device in Nascar after Earnhardt's death.
After the investigation, it was concluded that a HANS device couldn't have mitigated the forces that resulted in Earnhardt's death.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the inventor would say that. The opinions are still mixed and will probably never be fully resolved.
https://www.al.com/sports/2011... [al.com]
https://www.auto123.com/en/new... [auto123.com]
Re: (Score:2)
really should used an wired controller with an lon (Score:2)
really should used an wired controller with an long cable!
In other news... (Score:2)
In other news, the sky is blue, and water is wet.
Just making a note here (Score:2)
Just making a note here... a whole lot of rubbish has been written to the effect that carbon fiber composite does not perform well under compression. Did I say this is rubbish? Yes I did. If it were true then all those aircraft relying on composite wing spars would be falling out of the sky, because guess what. A wing spar applies equal amounts of compression and tension to the composite material.
The problem was not carbon fiber vs titanium. The problem was shoddy engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was the only person who thought that carbon fiber works well under compression. We do have the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, whose fuselage is carbon fiber and does experience compression and decompression thousands of times every day and they don't explode or implode.
Re: Just making a note here (Score:2)
Did you just make the argument why regulation is dumb because all the gungâho regulators on here would ban carbon fibre hulls in an instang based on their emotional takes which they're so sure are backed by science they don't need to check, they just assert it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Let's just ban everything (Score:2)
That's just plain wrong and reading the summary should have let you realize that.
The coast guard proposes a framework that includes experimental vehicles. Precisely to prevent them from going outside the regulations in order to be able to progress. This is quite typical for regulatory frameworks.
Re: (Score:2)