The Titan sinking hearing ended with few definitive answers. Here’s what happened next
Another surprising omission was in the testimony Thursday of Mark Negley, a Boeing engineer. Negley conducted preliminary design studies for Titan and supported OceanGate with test equipment and consulting for nearly a decade. He demonstrated the challenges of building carbon fiber structures.
The panel did not ask Negley about the email he sent Rush in 2018 sharing analysis based on information Rush provided. “We think you have a high risk of significant failure at or before reaching an altitude of 4,000 metres,” he wrote. Email included a diagram showing a skull and crossbones at that depth.
Many red flags, few solid answers
This week also saw technical testimony from other expert witnesses on submersible design and classification. All have been skeptical, or completely criticalregarding OceanGate’s operational decisions Titan uses a new carbon fiber hull with little testing and relies on an unproven acoustic monitoring system for direct information on the integrity of the hull.
“Instant separation and collapse can occur in less than a millisecond,” said Roy Thomas of the US Bureau of Shipping. “Real-time monitoring cannot capture this.”
Donald Kramer, a materials engineer at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), demonstrated that there was a manufacturing defect in the composite hull. He described TitanIts wreckage appeared to have sloughed off into layers of carbon fiber consistent with its multi-story structure, but he did not offer an opinion on what might have caused the explosion.
Neither the hull manufacturer nor OceanGate’s technical director at the time of its construction were called to testify.
“We don’t need to take testimony from every witness,” MBI President Jason Neubauer said in a press conference after the hearing. As long as we receive factual information and data from the company, through forensics and from other witnesses, it is unlikely that we will interview every identified witness.”
Kramer noted that the data is from 2022, when a boom was heard after the earthquake. Titan surface after diving the Titanicshows a worrying change in tension in the ship’s hull. OceanGate’s then-technical director, Phil Brooks, testified that he was probably not qualified to analyze that data and that Rush personally cleaned the submersible for its final dive.
Over the past two weeks, many witnesses have testified Rush’s primary role is to drive business, technical and operational decisions as well as his personality and hot temper. Matthew McCoy, a technician at OceanGate in 2017 and a former Coast Guard officer, testified today about his conversation with Rush about receiving Titan Registered and checked.
McCoy recalled that Rush said that if the Coast Guard became a problem, he would “buy a Congressman and the problem would go away.” McCoy submitted his notice the next day.
What happens next?
Following the conclusion of the public hearings, the Coast Guard MBI will begin preparing the final report. That could include the exact cause of the fatal crash, referrals for criminal investigation and recommendations on future policy and regulation.
the TitanThe ship’s hull and its view figured prominently in expert testimony about the potential physical causes of the explosion. Regardless of which component ultimately failed, witnesses have leveled criticism at everyone from the designers and manufacturers to OceanGate’s operations team and executive decision-makers. . This can make it difficult to fix just one cause or point to individuals responsible, with the exception of Stockton Rush.
