Submarines

[Lawre]

I saw a post of someone post asking about the subs. I wanted to ask about the release that has to be signed but when i tried to post to that thread, it's blocked. Does anyone who has been on teh Seabourn sub have a copy of the release that they can share? 

[texanaust]

I'm sure they absolve themselves of all liability and take your first born.

[Rothko1]

I imagine right now fewer people are thinking a submarine adventure is in their future.

[Mr Luxury]

36 minutes ago, Rothko1 said:

I imagine right now fewer people are thinking a submarine adventure is in their future.

And why would we be thinking that?

[Cantara24]

20 hours ago, Lawre said:

I saw a post of someone post asking about the subs. I wanted to ask about the release that has to be signed but when i tried to post to that thread, it's blocked. Does anyone who has been on teh Seabourn sub have a copy of the release that they can share? 

 

Frankly I would be more concerned about reading the fine print on exclusions in my life insurance policies when weighting the risk / benefit analysis of doing this type of excursion. By the way it is not a submarine, is a submersible, world of difference.

 

As a certified recreational scuba diver, I know where I stand on that issue.

[jlsam]

8 hours ago, Mr Luxury said:

And why would we be thinking that?

I’m booked on Seabourn’ submarine. 

[SLSD]

5 hours ago, Cantara24 said:

 

Frankly I would be more concerned about reading the fine print on exclusions in my life insurance policies when weighting the risk / benefit analysis of doing this type of excursion. By the way it is not a submarine, is a submersible, world of difference.

 

As a certified recreational scuba diver, I know where I stand on that issue.

It was a submersible that was lost as well.  I've been reading up on the difference in a submarine and submersible.  A submarine doesn't need to be launched by another ship whereas a submersible does.  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/submarine-submersible-difference-meaning-titan-titanic-b1089500.html

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by SLSD

[cruiseej]

The biggest difference between the Seabourn subs and the ill-fated voyage to the Titanic wreck is the depth: up to 1,000 feet (30 times atmospheric pressure) and 12,500 feet (400 times atmospheric pressure). Additionally, the Seabourn subs have been fully certified (to a depth nearly double how deep Seabourn will dive) and use a proven design and materials; the Titan used an experimental design which had never been used for extremely deep diving, and the craft never went through the proven certification process. The company which builds the Seabourn subs, U-Boat Worx, has had the current technology in use for cruise ships and private yachts for the past 7 years.

[billdip]

Was on the sub a couple weeks ago. Great experience with safety procedures that back up the back ups. Went to the bottom of a fjord - almost 500 feet. More of an experience than sightseeing. Would do it again.

[Lawre]

Thank you @crusieef and @billdip.All I wanted to know, by asking about the release, was really they are safe.@billdip, no one else who was on it so I am grateful that you posted.(i guess no one who posted was on it which begs the question of how anyone can truly assure me if they did not do it.)Thank you.I do just  wish that Seabourn would have gotten ahead of this.

[Lawre]

On 6/27/2023 at 4:05 PM, jlsam said:

I’m booked on Seabourn’ submarine. 

Did you see the release yet?

[jlsam]

No. But I did this 25 years ago. I’m sure they cover their butts. I’m not worried. 

[LNugent]

I was on the submersible last September. The pilot goes through all the steps with someone at the surface confirming he completes all steps. Very professional. I felt very safe and plan to go again next June. 

[2SailingNomads]

Seabourn is not the only cruise company to offer this,  Scenic and others do.  The sub only goes down 300 feet.  (Friends who did a very expensive one - and some TA's on very discounted Scenic cruises who also did the sub said it was not worth it. Not like the promotion claimed as far as what you actually see)  YMMV.  I'd prefer a heli myself, at least I know I can see interesting scenery, Scenic one in Norway was amazing, true 30 minutes, and not the maybe 20 minutes for the Seabourn more expensive one on our upcoming Ovation cruise. 

[Khareef]

Submarine in Antartica was really a waste of money. Nobody saw anything and people were pretty dissatisfied, so don't make that mistake. I am sure in the pacific or the med it is way more interesting.

[cruiseej]

On 6/29/2023 at 10:10 PM, Lawre said:

I do just  wish that Seabourn would have gotten ahead of this.

 

I'm not clear on what you think Seabourn should have done that they didn't do? Seabourn has had no safety issue with their subs. The builder of the subs which Seabourn uses has a post about how this model of sub completed 1,000 dives in the Antarctic during the recent season. 

 

20 hours ago, 2SailingNomads said:

The sub only goes down 300 feet.

 

Just for accuracy, the subs which Seabourn uses are for dives to a depth of 300 meters, not 300 feet. (300 meters is 985 feet.) And they are officially certified up to a depth of 500 meters (1,640 ft).

[2SailingNomads]

3 hours ago, cruiseej said:

 

I'm not clear on what you think Seabourn should have done that they didn't do? Seabourn has had no safety issue with their subs. The builder of the subs which Seabourn uses has a post about how this model of sub completed 1,000 dives in the Antarctic during the recent season. 

 

 

Just for accuracy, the subs which Seabourn uses are for dives to a depth of 300 meters, not 300 feet. (300 meters is 985 feet.) And they are officially certified up to a depth of 500 meters (1,640 ft).

Yes indeed I meant to use metric, sorry for my US school influence 

[Lawre]

@cruiseej I would have liked to see the assurances that some posters here provided.  Does that answer your question?

 

[cruiseej]

3 minutes ago, Lawre said:

@cruiseej I would have liked to see the assurances that some posters here provided.  Does that answer your question?

 

Actually, no. 😀 You wrote that you were disappointed in Seabourn for not getting "ahead of this." I don't know what the posts by people here have to do with what you thought Seabourn didn't do and should have done. The information about the subs they are using — which have been used on other cruise ships before Seabourn — is readily available online. And we know the Venture has been in service for a year and there have been no reported issues with the subs, other than people not always seeing as much as they had expected/hoped.

 

In light of the tragedy in Newfoundland, would you have wanted them to put out a press release touting "Our subs are safe! Look at our perfect safety record!"?? If not that, then what then? That's all I was questioning. 

[Lawre]

24 minutes ago, cruiseej said:

 

Actually, no. 😀 You wrote that you were disappointed in Seabourn for not getting "ahead of this." I don't know what the posts by people here have to do with what you thought Seabourn didn't do and should have done. The information about the subs they are using — which have been used on other cruise ships before Seabourn — is readily available online. And we know the Venture has been in service for a year and there have been no reported issues with the subs, other than people not always seeing as much as they had expected/hoped.

 

In light of the tragedy in Newfoundland, would you have wanted them to put out a press release touting "Our subs are safe! Look at our perfect safety record!"?? If not that, then what then? That's all I was questioning. 

Thought I answered your question.  Unfortunately for you, you seem quite frustrated.  I have not been able to find responses online, as you state.  Not necessarily a press release, but an acknowledgement on the website. (The sub that failed had also been in operation for quite some time as well, and yet it failed). I appreciate those who posted with substantive information.  

[cruiseej]

@Lawre Frustrated? No, not at all — just trying to have a friendly conversation. I'm sorry you seem miffed, or think I am. I thought I shared substantive information above, but it seemed not to be what you were looking for, so I was just trying to understand how you thought Seabourn had failed. 

 

You're correct that the sub which failed had several years of history of dives to the Titanic. Since before its first dive, though, experts from inside and outside the company raised concerns about the experimental design and the company's unwillingness to put the vessel through normal testing and certification procedures.

 

The subs Seabourn is using utilize a longstanding and fully certified design; the company has been delivering its subs for nearly 20 years, and the subs for cruise ships for 8 years. Here's a link to explore if you're interested in seeing more about the Seabourn subs from the manufacturer. 

 

As I mentioned higher in the thread, there's a massive difference in the challenges of survival at the depths the Seabourn subs dive versus the ill-fated Titan. At its maximum depth of 1,000 feet, the Seabourn subs experience about 30 times more atmospheric pressure than at the surface; at more than 10 times that depth (the Titanic rests at 12,500 feet), the pressure on the Titan was 400 times more than the surface.

 

Your original question in this thread, though, was about the release passengers sign. I have not seen anyone share a copy of the release, but it's not hard to imagine what it likely contains. Any activity with any degree of risk typically requires some form of Release of Liability/Assumption of Risk/Non-agency Acknowledgement. The standard form for scuba diving, for instance, includes the following language, and I would expect that the sub excursion release contains similar language: 

 

"In consideration of being allowed to participate in this [activity], I hereby personally assume all risks of this program, whether foreseen or unforeseen, that may befall me while I am a participant in this program. I further release, exempt and hold harmless said program… from any claim or lawsuit by me, my family, estate, heirs or assigns, arising out of my enrollment and participation in this program… I further state that I am of lawful age and legally competent to sign this liability release, or that I have acquired the written consent of my parent or guardian. I understand the terms herein are contractual and not a mere recital, and that I have signed this Agreement of my own free act and with the knowledge that I hereby agree to waive my legal rights… I understand and agree that I am not only giving up my right to sue the Released Parties but also any rights my heirs, assigns, or benefi- ciaries may have to sue the Released Parties resulting from my death. I further represent I have the authority to do so and that my heirs, assigns, or beneficiaries will be estopped from claiming otherwise because of my representations to the Released Parties."

[Mr Luxury]

2 hours ago, cruiseej said:

@Lawre Frustrated? No, not at all — just trying to have a friendly conversation. I'm sorry you seem miffed, or think I am. I thought I shared substantive information above, but it seemed not to be what you were looking for, so I was just trying to understand how you thought Seabourn had failed. 

 

You're correct that the sub which failed had several years of history of dives to the Titanic. Since before its first dive, though, experts from inside and outside the company raised concerns about the experimental design and the company's unwillingness to put the vessel through normal testing and certification procedures.

 

The subs Seabourn is using utilize a longstanding and fully certified design; the company has been delivering its subs for nearly 20 years, and the subs for cruise ships for 8 years. Here's a link to explore if you're interested in seeing more about the Seabourn subs from the manufacturer. 

 

As I mentioned higher in the thread, there's a massive difference in the challenges of survival at the depths the Seabourn subs dive versus the ill-fated Titan. At its maximum depth of 1,000 feet, the Seabourn subs experience about 30 times more atmospheric pressure than at the surface; at more than 10 times that depth (the Titanic rests at 12,500 feet), the pressure on the Titan was 400 times more than the surface.

 

Your original question in this thread, though, was about the release passengers sign. I have not seen anyone share a copy of the release, but it's not hard to imagine what it likely contains. Any activity with any degree of risk typically requires some form of Release of Liability/Assumption of Risk/Non-agency Acknowledgement. The standard form for scuba diving, for instance, includes the following language, and I would expect that the sub excursion release contains similar language: 

 

"In consideration of being allowed to participate in this [activity], I hereby personally assume all risks of this program, whether foreseen or unforeseen, that may befall me while I am a participant in this program. I further release, exempt and hold harmless said program… from any claim or lawsuit by me, my family, estate, heirs or assigns, arising out of my enrollment and participation in this program… I further state that I am of lawful age and legally competent to sign this liability release, or that I have acquired the written consent of my parent or guardian. I understand the terms herein are contractual and not a mere recital, and that I have signed this Agreement of my own free act and with the knowledge that I hereby agree to waive my legal rights… I understand and agree that I am not only giving up my right to sue the Released Parties but also any rights my heirs, assigns, or benefi- ciaries may have to sue the Released Parties resulting from my death. I further represent I have the authority to do so and that my heirs, assigns, or beneficiaries will be estopped from claiming otherwise because of my representations to the Released Parties."

Well answered 

Perfectly clear.

[Khareef]

When we were in Antartica they had real troubles recovering one of the subs after a dive (passengers still inside), strong wind and rough sea made it complicated apparently, there were like 10 zodiacs around the sub  trying to figure out a way to deal with the issue and you could sense some real anxiety about it. I'd say it took them about 1 hour to do it. The captain was following closely the sub drifting away thanks to the great agility of the Venture. 

 

So just like everything there is always something that can go bad. The Viking ship that was in Antartica with us was hit by a rogue wave that killed one woman... they were going back early because a zodiac exploded and injured a passenger...How unlucky can you possibly be....

 

This does not mean you should exaggerate the risk associate to any of the activities but if you don't feel comfortable just don't do it. 

 

But comparing these subs with the prototype that exploded is really apples and oranges.

 

 

By the way what insurance does cover international waters accidents? 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Khareef

[Mr Luxury]

Let's all stay at home and wrap ourselves in cotton wool.

[texanaust]

Is there really anything much to see down at 1000ft on the sub?  If you already scuba dive, then this just seems to be a glorified glass bottom boat excursion.  

 

Of course if the sub is included as one of my Seabourn Club benefits, then I'd certainly consider it!😁