• chris.@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      right? the more that comes out about oceangate, the more baffled i am that this is a real company that actually generated revenue; i mean the context & details surrounding this story have become ironic enough to be almost cartoonish at this point. even the name of the company in itself seems like some sort of foreshadowing (well, if we’re going by past uses of the -gate suffix)

      • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        They weren’t a profitable company though, according to the late CEO. And the sub imploded on its 5th voyage.

    • Fauxreigner@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Honestly, this kinda feels like a non-story. It’s not made explicit what this plane was, but some kit aircraft have been around for decades by many different people. There are something like 30k experimental aircraft licensed by the FAA. They’re statistically more dangerous, but “experimental” isn’t the same as “unregulated”. You still have to have them inspected by the FAA, including detailed build logs, clearly mark them as experimental, and you have to have them re-inspected every year. It’s a category that exists to make aviation more accessible, not an excuse to ignore all of the basic rules.

      It’s not that surprising that a 2-seater would be an experimental aircraft, they’re common at that size. It’s certainly possible that he was flying a plane that he designed all on his own, but it’s more likely that he built a standard kit that was designed according to well established best-practices for aviation, and he definitely had to have a regulator take a look at it and say it was safe. It’s a completely different scenario than the Titan, where the only question was “can you get someone to agree to get in this thing”?