Missing Titanic sub: Explosive 2018 lawsuit reveals safety fears

And a 2018 lawsuit asked the same question.

Hopeful rescue ships and aircraft continue to swarm towards the mid-Atlantic search area. Some are carrying deep-sea exploration robots. Others are carrying specialist cranes. Then there are those deploying sensitive listening and echo-locating equipment.

But, despite the sound of “banging noises” being detected by air force surveillance aircraft, none know precisely where to look.

There is no emergency locator beacon signal.

That could be because the Titan’s brittle, first-of-its-kind carbon-fibre hull has been crushed under the immense weight of water 3km below the surface.

But it could also be because it wasn’t carrying one. Or that an electrical failure has prevented it from being activated.

An employee raised such safety concerns at a formal meeting shortly after the Titan’s construction in 2018. Former director of marine operations David Lochridge claims he was sacked for it.

The submersible’s owner, OceanGate, countersued Lochridge for allegedly breaching confidentiality clauses in his contract.

“The paying passengers would not be aware, and would not be informed, of this experimental design, the lack of non-destructive testing of the hull, or that hazardous, flammable materials were being used within the submersible,” Lochridge’s lawsuit reads.

OceanGate disputes this.

In a promotional video, OceanGate’s CEO Stockton Rush – one of those aboard the missing craft – flippantly reads from a disclaimer form stating it was an “experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma or death … Where do I sign?”

For the past three years, OceanGate has been charging $368,000 for tourists to visit the wreck of the Titanic.

Only they’re not called tourists.

On all formal paperwork, they’re described as “mission specialists”.

Points of weakness

In his lawsuit, Lochridge alleges the experimental craft needed to be the subject of sufficient physical testing to ensure it would survive at extreme depths.

He said OceanGate had been “unwilling to pay” for a series of scans of the Titan’s lightweight carbon-fibre hull to guarantee no imperfections in the laminated material.

Lochridge alleged there were “visible flaws” in the carbon fibre. He said he feared these would develop into tears with the “pressure cycling” the submersible experienced every time it dived to – and returned from – the Titanic’s wreck.

The company’s engineer responded by saying it was using an in-house developed acoustic monitoring system instead. This involves putting sensitive microphones on the hull – like a stethoscope – to listen for telltale signs of the carbon fibres tearing. This would provide “early warning detection for the pilot with enough time to arrest the descent and safely return to the surface,” the company’s website claims.

But Lochridge also alleged the submersible’s viewport was not designed to resist the water pressure at the SS Titanic’s wreck site. Instead of 3800m, it could only reliably cope with pressures at 1300m, he said.

OceanGate’s lawyer reportedly conceded that a simple scratch on the titanium components holding the screen could damage its structural integrity, but added measures to avoid and detect such damage had been adopted.

OceanGate also stated Lochridge was not an engineer and had refused to accept assurances from the company’s engineering team that acoustic monitoring was better than a scan.

History of questions

One of the Titan’s “mission specialists” was US CBS news reporter David Pouge. He says the deep water submersible had technical issues when he visited the wreck last year.

The submersible’s internal navigation system failed, leaving its pilot to grope around the sea bed to find a viewing position. It did not lose contact with the mothership, he clarified.

And last year, OceanGate conceded experiencing technical difficulties on its 2021 dive.

“On the first dive to the Titanic, the submersible encountered a battery issue and had to be manually attached to its lifting platform,” it wrote, adding that the Titan had suffered enough damage to its exterior for the mission to be cancelled.

But marine technician Petros Mathioudakis, who says he undertook two test dives on the Titan in 2019, defended the safety culture behind its design and deployment.

“I am saddened by all the misinformation that is floating around, and the accusations from armchair experts about the lack of build quality of Titan, or by the lack of technical prowess of the whole team,” he told Semafor News.

“Titan is one of a small handful of vehicles that can take passengers to those depths.

“Many regulatory bodies expect an exact replica to be built to study and test, which is not an attainable request. This is not a mass-produced vehicle. This is one of one.”

But Lochridge’s concerns about “the quality control and safety of the Titan, particularly OceanGate’s refusal to conduct critical, non-destructive testing of the experimental design of the hull”, generated enough concern in the deep sea exploration community that 38 experts signed a letter of complaint, saying that OceanGate’s decision to ignore traditional assessment procedures could lead to potential “catastrophic” problems and “serious consequences for everyone in the industry”.

It added OceanGate’s claims that the Titan would meet formal safety standards – despite not planning to subject the craft to such certification – was “at a minimum, misleading”.

“While this may demand additional time and expense, it is our unanimous view that this validation process by a third party is a critical component in the safeguards that protect all submersible occupants,” the letter reads.

Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer | @JamieSeidel