> Anyone who has worked on a challenging project has heard concerns like this at various stages. It's absurd to conclude the project was doomed or reckless, just because someone expresseed concerns about success or not enough precaution.
This is almost certainly what Rush told people and a refutation of this claim is exactly why I think stories like this are valuable.
It's all a matter of degree. When one or two people tell you your ambitious project is doomed or reckless, there's some room for doubt. At some point though the scale tips. When your chief pilot writes a formal document refusing to pilot your vehicle, the overwhelming majority of your close peers tell you in no uncertain terms that you are going to kill someone, a group letter from people ranging from the Coast Guard to other experts again implore you not to dive, then the scale has definitely been tipped.
It is especially frustrating to see the CEO respond to these concerns as "a serious personal insult" as this is an extremely common pattern for how safety gets compromised.
Even if you think that people's safety concerns are overwrought, the absolute worst reaction is to take it as a personal affront, especially if it's coming from all directions. You think they're naive, you think they're not informed, whatever sure maybe. But you think that by raising safety concerns they're insulting you? That is a blaring red flag to me.
Whether you think this story is overplayed or not, in isolation, this article is hardly irresponsible journalism. It is a sober look at how safety gets compromised in the real world.
This wasn't some new gig economy venture, or some software idea. This was a submarine carrying tourists to one of the most dangerous places on earth.
There are companies dedicated to certifying maritime vehicles and standards against which they need to be built and tested, and Stockton Rush explicitly rejected them because he felt that they were stifling to innovation. Additionally, the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields. And again, it wasn't just "someone", it was virtually everyone with experience in super-deep submersible operation.
The idea that just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to and taking passengers on a submersible down to the Titanic is absolutely one of them. This guy played fast and loose with safety and if it had just been him down there, that would be fine, but he managed to bamboozle a bunch of innocent people into it as well.
> the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields
Turns out engineers and other experts disagree with each other all the time.
I assume you are an expert in your field. Do you always get listened to?
> just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to
I didn't say that. People expressing concern, is not enough evidence to say the management was wrong. All good managers consider criticism. It's then up to them to use judgement to decide what to do.
> This guy played fast and loose with safety
I guarantee if he spent 10x more on safety and still had the same outcome, the articles would be the same. Risk is just not easy for the public to reason about.
Maybe you're right, but once again the gossip the journalists dug up doesn't tell us that.
dwohnitmok|2 years ago
This is almost certainly what Rush told people and a refutation of this claim is exactly why I think stories like this are valuable.
It's all a matter of degree. When one or two people tell you your ambitious project is doomed or reckless, there's some room for doubt. At some point though the scale tips. When your chief pilot writes a formal document refusing to pilot your vehicle, the overwhelming majority of your close peers tell you in no uncertain terms that you are going to kill someone, a group letter from people ranging from the Coast Guard to other experts again implore you not to dive, then the scale has definitely been tipped.
It is especially frustrating to see the CEO respond to these concerns as "a serious personal insult" as this is an extremely common pattern for how safety gets compromised.
Even if you think that people's safety concerns are overwrought, the absolute worst reaction is to take it as a personal affront, especially if it's coming from all directions. You think they're naive, you think they're not informed, whatever sure maybe. But you think that by raising safety concerns they're insulting you? That is a blaring red flag to me.
Whether you think this story is overplayed or not, in isolation, this article is hardly irresponsible journalism. It is a sober look at how safety gets compromised in the real world.
the6thwonder|2 years ago
The best evidence for recklessness would be a pattern of similar failures.
> the absolute worst reaction is to take it as a personal affront, especially if it's coming from all directions.
This is a good point. Especially if that's the response given to other insiders working on the project.
jherico|2 years ago
There are companies dedicated to certifying maritime vehicles and standards against which they need to be built and tested, and Stockton Rush explicitly rejected them because he felt that they were stifling to innovation. Additionally, the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields. And again, it wasn't just "someone", it was virtually everyone with experience in super-deep submersible operation.
The idea that just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to and taking passengers on a submersible down to the Titanic is absolutely one of them. This guy played fast and loose with safety and if it had just been him down there, that would be fine, but he managed to bamboozle a bunch of innocent people into it as well.
the6thwonder|2 years ago
Turns out engineers and other experts disagree with each other all the time.
I assume you are an expert in your field. Do you always get listened to?
> just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to
I didn't say that. People expressing concern, is not enough evidence to say the management was wrong. All good managers consider criticism. It's then up to them to use judgement to decide what to do.
> This guy played fast and loose with safety
I guarantee if he spent 10x more on safety and still had the same outcome, the articles would be the same. Risk is just not easy for the public to reason about.
Maybe you're right, but once again the gossip the journalists dug up doesn't tell us that.
58028641|2 years ago