The game controller as interface isn't necessarily an issue: it's a perfectly fine input device overall - it just looks janky compared to custom-made controls.
There's a really good thread on the numerous other issues with the design of the Titan at https://twitter.com/LadyDoctorSays/status/1671700989429297152. It's a long one, but pretty good in how it compares the Titan to the Deepsea Challenger (which was used by James Cameron to go to Challenger Deep).
Considering they were advised about the safety issues and apparently just said "F it", I expect a very expensive negligence lawsuit is in their future.
I guess one good thing about the game controller is that if it failed they could just plug in another one.
But seriously, it's probably a fine peice of equipment under normal circumstances, but it may not stand up to the rigors of the environment it was placed in. Ipads are common in cockpits now, but before the FAA certified them for use, it did extensive testing on how the pressure changes affected the devices.
Here, I think it's not just a matter of using off-the-shelf equipment but doing so without a good handle on how that equipment would fare under very tough conditions.
Considering it's inside the pressurized environment of the sub cockpit, the controller's resistance to pressure changes is probably not an issue 'cause if it gets to the point it's experiencing unusual pressure change it's too late anyway (unlike in an airplane where you can [ostensibly] lose pressure and keep flying - so you'd need the iPad/other new equipment to be tested with those sudden changes in pressure).
The greater issues are the overall design of the vessel; the lack of redundancy in basically all systems; and the negligence of ownership to continue with known unsafe design/components (seriously: how do you just ignore the safety rating on the viewport plexiglass?).
Aviation safety has improved tremendously in the last 50 years, but as I have said before, I would never be comfortable with designing aircraft. I understand the forces involved but it seems the safety factors are inadequate considering that stresses frequently alternate between tension and compression. My design would probably never get off the ground. I'm thinking that rigid inspection and corrective actions plus pilot competence keeps planes safe.
Regarding submersibles, I remember a cardinal rule - never let anything fail in tension. There is little or no warning. I'm pretty sure implosions (and explosions too) occur because of tensile stress on the low-pressure surface. When in doubt, make it stout. Submersibles do not suffer much from a little extra weight.
The game controller as interface isn't necessarily an issue: it's a perfectly fine input device overall - it just looks janky compared to custom-made controls.
There's a really good thread on the numerous other issues with the design of the Titan at https://twitter.com/LadyDoctorSays/status/1671700989429297152. It's a long one, but pretty good in how it compares the Titan to the Deepsea Challenger (which was used by James Cameron to go to Challenger Deep).
Considering they were advised about the safety issues and apparently just said "F it", I expect a very expensive negligence lawsuit is in their future.
Thanks for that link. VERY informative!
I guess one good thing about the game controller is that if it failed they could just plug in another one.
But seriously, it's probably a fine peice of equipment under normal circumstances, but it may not stand up to the rigors of the environment it was placed in. Ipads are common in cockpits now, but before the FAA certified them for use, it did extensive testing on how the pressure changes affected the devices.
Here, I think it's not just a matter of using off-the-shelf equipment but doing so without a good handle on how that equipment would fare under very tough conditions.
I'll second that your thread is very good.
Considering it's inside the pressurized environment of the sub cockpit, the controller's resistance to pressure changes is probably not an issue 'cause if it gets to the point it's experiencing unusual pressure change it's too late anyway (unlike in an airplane where you can [ostensibly] lose pressure and keep flying - so you'd need the iPad/other new equipment to be tested with those sudden changes in pressure).
The greater issues are the overall design of the vessel; the lack of redundancy in basically all systems; and the negligence of ownership to continue with known unsafe design/components (seriously: how do you just ignore the safety rating on the viewport plexiglass?).
Aviation safety has improved tremendously in the last 50 years, but as I have said before, I would never be comfortable with designing aircraft. I understand the forces involved but it seems the safety factors are inadequate considering that stresses frequently alternate between tension and compression. My design would probably never get off the ground. I'm thinking that rigid inspection and corrective actions plus pilot competence keeps planes safe.
Regarding submersibles, I remember a cardinal rule - never let anything fail in tension. There is little or no warning. I'm pretty sure implosions (and explosions too) occur because of tensile stress on the low-pressure surface. When in doubt, make it stout. Submersibles do not suffer much from a little extra weight.