• FuglyDuck
    link
    English
    361 year ago

    To be clear, it wasn’t a “tourist sub”… so maybe the first regulation should be defining exactly what that is,

    • jkmooney
      link
      fedilink
      271 year ago

      The CEO was very careful to skirt applicable regulatory laws. He even called his passengers “crew members”. In the aviation world, I have some experience harmonizing multiple regulatory authorities. Because of “international waters”, there will need to be some agreement and harmonizing of regulations. There’s already SOLAS so, I think it can be done.

      • @Zron
        link
        English
        91 year ago

        A “crew member” would be some kind of employee.

        Employees don’t pay a company a quarter of a million dollars to do “work” for eight hours. You don’t pay to work, you get payed to work.

        Just because you call someone a crew member doesn’t necessarily mean that would hold up in a court of law.

        • @Skavargen
          link
          English
          61 year ago

          Technically I believe they were classified as employees that “donated” to the company. Nice workaround Stockton! Let’s see how that holds up in court with the obvious gross negligence.

        • @average650
          link
          English
          51 year ago

          I think if they were alive to sue and be sued… He’d be fucked.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        The regulations come from the countries that the company is founded in. OceanGate is (was) as US based company.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        21 year ago

        Absolutely.

        The issue is that the regulations that do exist allow them to skirt it by not offering a hard, and broad, definitions of ‘tourist subs’.