OceanGate Submersible Victim's Family Sues For $50 Million, Partly Blames $30 Logitech Controller (extremetech.com) 92
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ExtremeTech: The family of a French mariner who died on the imploded Titan submersible last year has sued Titan's maker, OceanGate Expeditions, for more than $50 million. The lawsuit claims OceanGate is responsible for explorers' suffering immediately preceding their deaths, as well as for failing to disclose the extent of the submersible's risks. Among those risks are Titan's cheap materials, including the $30 Logitech gaming controller used aboard the vehicle. [...]
The lawsuit points at Titan's "hip, contemporary, wireless electronics system" and then alleges that none of the controllers or gauges inside Titan would operate without a constant source of power and a wireless signal. One of those controllers was a modified Logitech F710 Gamepad, a $30 to $40 device designed for, well, gaming. The gamepad quickly became the subject of internet mockery following the loss of Titan; some speculators said the submersible must have been doomed to fail if it used such cheap components. The lawsuit even claims the controller's Bluetooth (rather than wired) connectivity set it up for failure. Still, other speculators believe the controller wouldn't have had much impact on the submersible's operational durability. Instead, the issue would have been with the vehicle's carbon fiber pressure cylinder, which Rush allegedly bought off Boeing at a discount after the material passed its "airplane shelf life." Regardless of the exact material, it seems the consensus among members of the public is that for OceanGate, quality was an afterthought.
The lawsuit points at Titan's "hip, contemporary, wireless electronics system" and then alleges that none of the controllers or gauges inside Titan would operate without a constant source of power and a wireless signal. One of those controllers was a modified Logitech F710 Gamepad, a $30 to $40 device designed for, well, gaming. The gamepad quickly became the subject of internet mockery following the loss of Titan; some speculators said the submersible must have been doomed to fail if it used such cheap components. The lawsuit even claims the controller's Bluetooth (rather than wired) connectivity set it up for failure. Still, other speculators believe the controller wouldn't have had much impact on the submersible's operational durability. Instead, the issue would have been with the vehicle's carbon fiber pressure cylinder, which Rush allegedly bought off Boeing at a discount after the material passed its "airplane shelf life." Regardless of the exact material, it seems the consensus among members of the public is that for OceanGate, quality was an afterthought.
sponsored content? (Score:5, Funny)
"hip, contemporary, wireless electronics system"
This is the first time I've ever seen a product endorsement in a wrongful death lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a factual statement. If it was an endorsement, they wouldn't be asking for damages.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't asking for damages from Logitech.
The Logitech controller had nothing to do with the implosion.
COTS devices like the Logitech controller are often more reliable than super expensive bespoke designs because they are far more thoroughly tested in real-life scenarios.
COTS = Commerical Off The Shelf
Re: (Score:3)
COTS devices like the Logitech controller are often more reliable than super expensive bespoke designs because they are far more thoroughly tested in real-life scenarios.
Not even remotely true.
Devices like the Logitech controller are designed to be cheap and easily replaced when they fail. As long as the user is content with replacing it for the newer model, Logitech doesn't care about enhancing reliability.
In a role where your life is literally dependent on a product, that is not what you want. You want not just reliability, but redundancy and resilience. When shit goes wrong, you want a backup that's more useful than "Go to Best Buy and buy another one."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with them using an off the shelf controller, if they have spares handy. Otherwise I'd expect a control system that has built in redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, except the logitech controller is modular and trivial to replace and I can have with me in the parts kit a tested spare one that if necessary can be swapped in.
The logitech controller's failure just means I bring out the spare. Cheaping out on something that cannot have a spare (the pressure hull) is dumb.
It is typical CEO failure to understand/arrogance. Where I used to work I heard multiple CEO/EVP's say exactly this (on 1000+ people townhalls, at least 3 separate ones weeks apart): "AI will be a
Re: (Score:2)
"AI will be able to take the low resolution MRI/CatScans that do not have enough detail and add detail making the results (of tumors/cancer/...) much easier to read." They so misunderstand what AI is doing that they believe any detail that it makes up is TRUE detail that really exists.
lol, it's the old "zoom in, enhance" crime drama trope.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, except the logitech controller is modular and trivial to replace and I can have with me in the parts kit a tested spare one that if necessary can be swapped in. The logitech controller's failure just means I bring out the spare. Cheaping out on something that cannot have a spare (the pressure hull) is dumb.
On other subs, there are backup controls already hardwired into the sub. No need to swap out controllers. Unfortunately this kind of precaution was something OceanGate complained about as being expensive and "killing innovation".
Re: (Score:2)
The official periscope control interface on US nuclear submarines is an Xbox 360 controller.
That is false. *An* official etc etc would be true. It is NOT the only way they have to control the periscope. The original control is still there and still works. The 360 controllers were added, they did not replace anything.
Re: (Score:2)
COTS devices like the Logitech controller are often more reliable than super expensive bespoke designs because they are far more thoroughly tested in real-life scenarios.
Citation needed. In this exact case, the controller failed on more than one occasion. Since the vessel was "experimental" there was not an investigation as to why and how to prevent it in the future as would have done with "super expensive bespoke designs".
Interesting (Score:2)
Should have used Thrustmaster (Score:4, Funny)
They probably make an accessory just for piloting sub sims but a bit on the expensive side so I don't blame them for using something cheaper
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
CEO didn't get fired either by choosing Logitech and nobody will ever be able to fire him now!
Re: (Score:3)
No, but you might implode.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, I own 5 Logitech F710 gamepads, the kind used in the sub. If anyone is going to implode it's me.
Additional fun fact: One of them seems to drift to the right and regularly lose connection so I can totally believe the sub just drove around in circles until it imploded.
Re: (Score:2)
Should have hired competent engineers (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the competent engineers tend to be a bit on the expensive side, so they hired some inspirational college graduates without useful experience in building high pressure machinery, but with ample expertise in computer games and gaming hardware. Well... at least the bean counters were happy, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a smart engineer they aren't going to let you under design the critical pressure hull, so you need to keep getting new engineers that aren't smart enough to know that is a bad idea. You simply replace the engineers with new ones until the ones you have need a job enough to keep their mouth shut and do what you want or are simply not smart enough to know it is a really bad idea. Some CEO's don't want people who disagree, and at least in this case the CEO paid for his mistake, usually the CEO
Re: (Score:2)
They're intuitive, readily available, and ultimately are going to be just as good as sending "up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A and Start" signals to the underlying electronics as an over-engineered bespoke controller while being a few orders of magnitude less expensive. Compared to the us
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they should have used Microsoft. If the XBox controller is good enough for the US Navy's nuclear submarines [newsweek.com], including the latest Virginia class, then it should be good enough for OceanGate. They're intuitive, readily available, and ultimately are going to be just as good as sending "up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A and Start" signals to the underlying electronics as an over-engineered bespoke controller while being a few orders of magnitude less expensive. Compared to the usual $10,000 hammers and toilet seats, what's not to like?
If they can make a hammer cost 10K, what do you think an XBox controller costs them? You know damned good and well our government doesn't buy anything off the shelf. There's gotta be a contract through backdoors with padding for each step along the way. I would almost be willing to be they spend more money per individual XBox controller than what it would have cost to engineer a new controller from the ground up.
Re: (Score:2)
I would almost be willing to bet they spend more money per individual XBox controller than what it would have cost to engineer a new controller from the ground up.
It's not about the money spent, it's about the jobs created! /s
Re: (Score:2)
If they can make a hammer cost 10K, what do you think an XBox controller costs them? You know damned good and well our government doesn't buy anything off the shelf.
They chose them because they could get them cheap off the shelf, they are very reliable, they are cheap, and they are maintainable. I chose them for the same reasons, I am still using a 360 wireless pad for gaming with Linux. I connect to a $5 USB dongle I got from eBay.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Thrustmaster has better plastics than Logitech, but not better electronics.
I still have the venerable F22 Pro. The springs broke, and the pots and one of the four hat switches went bad. They didn't use optical encoders or anything fancy pants like that. I was able to source new parts, which is nice, but that's not practical while on a submarine mission so it's irrelevant here.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the new Slashdot, where cryptocucks decide what stories hit the front page, and drive-by cowards get modpoints every day.
Hey, I'm a drive-by coward! I demand mod points!
But seriously, I have no idea why anyone would mod your previous comment down. It seems like a perfectly valid addition to the conversation.
Re: flamebait for facts (Score:2)
It's because I have my own personal troll.
On most days he mods down three of my comments within the space of a couple of minutes, making it very obvious what is happening.
How he gets enough mod points for this is the question. I can only assume that it is intentional on the part of the owners at this point.
Supply Chain Issues (Score:4, Funny)
Instead, the issue would have been with the vehicle's carbon fiber pressure cylinder, which Rush allegedly bought off Boeing at a discount
OK, I've heard all sorts of stories about how shoddy this submersible was, but this takes the cake.
Boeing??!
Re:Supply Chain Issues (Score:5, Interesting)
We know the carbon fiber was substandard because Oceangate's CEO *told* us he built it with expired materials, so for once this isn't on Boeing. They apparently were up front about what he was getting.
Stockton designed the sub with a material other engineers didn't use, arguing that it was sufficiently strong that he'd have plenty of warning of failure. Then he actually built the sub with a batch of that material whose properties *could not be guaranteed*. That was engineering malpractice of an appaling magnitude. Not surprisingly there are numerous other instances of bad judgment in the system design, but those aren't what killed Rush's victims.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. To many competent engineers, this failure was not an actual surprise. You cut out enough redundancy, eventually something is going to break. On a vehicle like this one, you cannot afford that. Of course, most people have no clue how solid engineering works. Stockton seems to be one of those people and the whole project seems to be more something a bored amateur would do in his garage.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but it was also easy for other engineers *working in the field* to see in advance that it was going to fail. So your point is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an asshole trying to be contrarian. ACs are usually not worth the typing effort to reply to.
Re:Supply Chain Issues (Score:4, Informative)
Right, in hindsight it was easy for an Engineer to see that it would fail!
In hindsight it was obvious to everyone that it would fail, once they found out the relevant details.
An engineer with experience in the field could see that it would fail with foresight. And indeed, many did say so.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I've read enough of his shenanigans to conclude that an implosion or other accident was just a matter of time - and I'm shocked it took at long as it did to happen.
Basically nothing about the sub was rated for the depth it was supposed to operate at.
Re:Supply Chain Issues (Score:4, Funny)
OK, I've heard all sorts of stories about how shoddy this submersible was, but this takes the cake.
Boeing??!
Not just Boeing. But materials too poor even for Boeing. Let that sink to the bottom of your brain before it implodes.
Dumbasses (Score:1)
You know who is responsible for dumbasses doing dumbass things?
It's the dumbasses doing dumbass things.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure the paper they signed included "I acknowledge I may be a dumbass, the owner may be a dumbass, and this dumbass may very well kill me."
Re: (Score:1)
That's certainly what it should have said.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true only so long as it is a single-person operation. As soon as people have to rely on others, that simplistic view does stop working.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. When signing on to descend thousands of meters below the ocean's surface, the safe thing to assume is that everyone is a dumbass, unless they can show otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. That is just your prejudices speaking. In other words, you do this crass and unsustainable simplification because you like the idea that you are superior to these people.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I'm alive. I got that much on them, eh?
Re: Dumbasses (Score:2)
With your logic, no one should ever join the navy, because they may be placed on a submarine without the ability to verify the entire design. Itâ(TM)s ridiculous to take the stance that we shouldnâ(TM)t do anything without individually verifying its safety. That would result in so much duplicated effort as to bring the entire world to a standstill. We have laws on safety precisely to stop needing all that duplicated effort.
Re: Dumbasses (Score:2)
Dumbasses doing dimbass things is one of the important mechanisms making Darwin's laws work.
Re: Dumbasses (Score:1)
Re: never board a homemade submarine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Potentially the trickiest case... (Score:5, Interesting)
None of this makes Rush's little experiment in composite fatigue less of a terrible idea; but it makes it considerably more plausible that he would have been a participant in the risks; rather than a dupe who got fast-talked into something he thought was safe by a conman(with Dawood and son being the easiest to make that argument for; neither knowing anything particular about the subject, and Harding having some experience with safety-critical things in airplanes but not tons of submarine knowledge. Rush, obviously, had the best information available but apparently not the best judgement).
He's also the one where relative risk insensitivity is the most plausible: Nargeolet was 77, apparently really liked doing titanic dives, and was by a fair degree the least wealthy person involved, so his ability to go back was pretty much entirely dependent on being able to latch on to someone else's project(which, at the time, had last happened over a decade ago, in 2010). That's the sort of situation where taking a chance on somebody you think is a reckless cowboy(but whose submersible has worked several times previously) doesn't necessarily seem all that crazy vs. holding out hope that someone with real engineers and a real budget feels like recruiting you out of the nursing home at some point.
As noted, this doesn't make Rush's operation not reckless; and it would not be a surprise if he did a lot of "I'm such a disruptive innovator that none of the certification bodies will touch me; aren't I daring?" posturing and a lot less specific disclosure of...unpleasant...incidents like the time Oceangate fired an engineer for not being a team player about it being totally fine to use massively underspecced portholes and do no non-destructive testing of a composite pressure vessel; so it would not be a huge surprise for what's left of Oceangate to lose; but Nargeolet is definitely the one where the case is hardest to make and would require the most egregious deception to keep him as a victim rather than a participant in the risky behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
If you willfully get into a sub made and operated by a guy whose whole thing is skipping safety then it seems like you should be giving up your family's right to be surprised about it when you die. This is just going to cost us all money and for what? So that some rich people can shuffle around some bucks? More importantly, is there even any blood to squeeze out of this turnip? The company's value has to be negative at this point, unless they pivot to the billionaire disposal business.
The game controller th
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know about his background, but thought much the same.
You can *see* the cheap controller as you climb in, you can quickly understand the bluetooth and whatnot, and can therefore deduce pretty quickly that it's all electronic and not likely to work without continuous power. You can't see the materials fatigue, nor can you see the engineering, design and testing that did (or did not) go into it. For that you need them to tell you - and if they mislead you, then I could see some grounds to sue them.
Weak carbon fiber winding pattern (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever see a scuba tank with more pressure on the outside than on the inside? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever see a scuba tank with more pressure on the outside than on the inside? Didn't think so.
I frankly don't know how the cylinder was wound, but if it actually was wound all in one direction, that's not appropriate for either kind of pressure vessel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Controller issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the gamepad was the sole way to maneuver the craft, including emergency maneuvers like dropping ballast to abort a dive.
That probably wouldn't have helped for an instantaneous, complete failure of the pressure vessel. But we don't know if that's what happened.
Also, I'm not sure why you choose to capitalize random nouns in your sentences. Is it to make your writing appear more Germanic, or like a legal document? It does neither of those, it just makes it look like you have trouble wi
Re: Controller issue... (Score:2)
No, the controller has nothing to do with the incident itself, obviously. However, it might be indicative for the generally sloppy engineering of the whole thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but that certainly doesn't make Logitech liable. OceanGate chose to use a COTS product designed solely for entertainment in a safety-critical system. This goes far beyond the bounds of the purpose for which the controller was designed. I know lawsuits tend to target every possible source, but I don't think the case against Logitech holds water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Logitech who? (Score:1)
I think they have a case here against Logitech. (Score:2)
One of those controllers was a modified Logitech F710 Gamepad
Does Logitech have a similar disclaimer? Don't use our equipment in dangerous situations, even if (especially if) you have modified them to do so? If NOT, what are their lawyers doing?
Client: Yes, your honor, I took their product, opened it, replaced all of the components and completely re-wired the circuitry and then manually implanted them inside my body, heart, and brain, causin
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
It's certainly in the EULA for the software Logitech includes with their devices:
The software is not intended for use in the operations of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control systems, medical devices or other equipment in which the failure of the software could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage. You acknowledge that the software is not certified for emergency purpose and should not be used for this purpose. Logitech d
Re:I think they have a case here against Logitech. (Score:4, Informative)
Does Logitech have a similar disclaimer?
My understanding is that this isn't about a case against Logitech. The controller's involvement is solely as an exhibit of "look how OceanGate used inappropriate hardware." The assertion isn't that the controller caused the deaths. It's that OceanGate's willful, deliberate, systemic, consistent negligence did.
Re: (Score:2)
So did Solaris.
Great choice for a controller (Score:2)
Using a cheap off-the-shelf controller, was probably one of the best design choices in that sub.
A controller is just a bunch of buttons, potentiometers, A2D's, etc. There was probably some reasonably substantial development and testing effort put into that controller, by an established company...no need to reinvent the wheel.
And like the (now dead) designer said...the controllers were so cheap, he kept multiple spares in the sub.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, yeah, the rest of the design was shit...but it didn't implode, because he didn't custom make a $100,000 controller.
A game controller just happens to be the only piece of hardware that the average, dumb, masses can wrap their head around...and makes for a "funny" headline that feeds into the billionaire hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a $30 controller. The price of the controller is a red herring and a bad attempt at perception manipulation. By extension, does that mean no part on a submarine can cost under $30? And what does it matter if the controller only operates when it has power. Do the engines operate without power? Then if the power fails, do you really need a controller?
Bluetooth is an eminently good solution for that environment. If it's a choice between bluetooth and
Re: (Score:2)
Using a cheap off-the-shelf controller, was probably one of the best design choices in that sub.
A controller is just a bunch of buttons, potentiometers, A2D's, etc. There was probably some reasonably substantial development and testing effort put into that controller, by an established company...no need to reinvent the wheel.
And like the (now dead) designer said...the controllers were so cheap, he kept multiple spares in the sub.
That part I didn't mind... to an extent.
The first issue was the bluetooth. A wireless connection for a safety critical system and no backup? That's madness. Sure you can have a pile of spare controllers but it doesn't matter if the receiver is getting some kind of interference or has simply hit some kind of bug in the bluetooth software stack (much taller than the stack for a serial connection). Bluetooth is simply not a reliable enough protocol
The second issue is the environment. Some specialized controlle
Re: (Score:2)
The first issue was the bluetooth. A wireless connection for a safety critical system and no backup? That's madness. Sure you can have a pile of spare controllers but it doesn't matter if the receiver is getting some kind of interference or has simply hit some kind of bug in the bluetooth software stack (much taller than the stack for a serial connection). Bluetooth is simply not a reliable enough protocol
As I understand it, "emergency ascent" was possible without the controller.
Of course, if you get 0.005 seconds of warning before the hull implodes, that doesn't help.
You don't know what you don't know (Score:2)
My Logitech F710 Gamepad lasted for almost 20 years, and was *retired*. Never broken.
Good luck with that lawsuit LOL
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit only uses the controller as an example. There are plenty of other mess-ups as well that contributed more. It's just that with a lawsuit, you generally have to bring up everything the first go, so in it goes because it might end up being the straw that breaks the company's back.
That said, the CEO died in the implosion, the sub was lost, the IP is probably useless unless you WANT defective submersibles, etc...
I'm not sure what they can recover, as the company probably doesn't have any assets lef
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what they can recover, as the company probably doesn't have any assets left.
I wonder if that's why they mention Logitech, even though that's not the party being sued...today.
Perhaps a nuisance action could be brought against Logitech, with a settlement that would net (only) the lawyers some pittance. Which is better than nothing. Seems far-fetched, though. Nothing wrong with the Logitech controllers, obviously, and they are used in all kinds of serious applications (warfare, space exploration, etc.) anyway.
EULA change ? (Score:2)
Will be interesting how the many EULA will change just due to this story as opposed to the actual law suite.
For example "This item is only to be used for this one function, all other users are not allowed and ..."
Re: (Score:2)
It does not blame Logitech, it blames the builders (Score:2)
1. OceanGate using technology not intended or tested for this kind of use.
2. OceanGate's design having no redundancy or fail safe. It was a bluetooth controller with no wired backup and it was the only way you could control the sub.
There are many more details in the suit that layout the case that the owner flagrantly disregarded established engineering knowledge and practice as well as advice and feed
sue them for a trillion, youre probably going to w (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is useful. The public has a a short memory. The courts have a much longer memory.
When these guys get sued and are found liable, it will be remembered by future companies that have half-assed plans for a risky vehicle.
The real blame... (Score:2)
... lies with Nargeolet. As experienced as he was with deep sea submersibles, he must have realised this thing was a death trap. A number of people who knew him came forward to say they talked with him about their major concerns.
And yeah I'm sure the controller and all the shoddy construction and jury rigged and other short cuts Stockton Rush oversaw took were instrumental in the sub imploding. But Nargeolet should have seen the red flags. He lent credibility to the company with his name and was complicit w
Let me guess (Score:2)
The subscription ran out while they were down there, causing the sub to implode.
Blames Logitech Controller ? (Score:2)
What have Logitech got to do with idiots designing an obvious death trap of a submarine ? Nothing whatsoever.
What next ? News at 11:
"Alabama man Joe Thicko sues Nestle after making a fireguard out of several of their chocolate bars. Said fireguard melted after which a stray piece of coal ignited Mr Thicko's home, burning it, and several neighbouring properties to the ground. Mr Thicko is quoted as saying 'Durgh... Them Nestles shoulda done gone hadda a safety warning on the packaging - do not use to ma
Re: (Score:2)