Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

William Kohnen is Interviewed about the Submersible Accident; India's Prime Minister in U.S.; James Cameron is Interviewed about the Titanic. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired June 23, 2023 - 08:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:30:00]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Essentially something that tourists could come and do, is that correct?

WILLIAM KOHNEN, PRESIDENT, HYDROSPACE GROUP INC.: In part that's correct. But I just want to say, the process of certification is for any design, right? Even if it hadn't been with a carbon fiber hull, you still go through same process to certify it. The fact that the carbon fiber hull was present demanded special extra attention just because that had never been done before. And it meant an additional effort and probably quite a bit of extra testing to get past to that certification process.

COOPER: It would have delayed this company's ability to have passengers while they were waiting to go through all that testing. You spoke to Stockton Rush about your concerns, I understand. What was the response? How was that received?

KOHNEN: Well, look, I mean, we're a small community, right, within the submersible committee, we meet annually. It's a bit of a thanksgiving reunion where the entire family around the world comes together for three days. And, I mean, we had had many, many conversations with Stockton. And, you know, the issuing of the letter and the discussion is like, look, you are going really fast over here and you are ignoring some of the knowledge base that we have for these things. And the response, which is not completely unique in an industry, is, well, the existing regulations are stifling innovation and it's too slow and we have a better method. And it's like, well, now, it's maybe not the only answer, but it is a reliable answer and a process that we know works. You put a design at the front and what comes out is a safe submarine.

Finding and developing an alternative method of self-certification, it's not forgiving. I mean - and it's a lot of people that put their minds to this, to get humanity, I like to say, to a level of knowledge where we can go reliably to the deep ocean because there is absolutely nothing easy about this.

COOPER: It does seem like this company was repeatedly indicating that, you know, reputable organizations, like NASA, Boeing, University of Washington, were involved in the production of this vessel. Boeing has come forward and said, look, we had nothing to do with the design or the testing of this. The University of Washington as well.

Is that -- does it seem to you the - like this company was repeatedly using those names in their promotional material to - you know, the allegation is to give passengers a sense of comfort that this was -- somebody had been having eyes on this and somebody responsible had been checking it?

KOHNEN: Yes, sadly, sadly everyone in the industry somewhat remained silent about this to extent that, you know - it's not that - you know, we are all experts in the field and it's like this is - we know how this stuff works. And some of these references were, at minimum, tangential relevant to this industry.

And it did cause some concern. And, yes, I think it was meant to - to show we have some expertise here. But as the experts in this industry, we knew where the expertise lied. And it's - it's a -- you know, it's one of the things that did come out of the letter and one of the issues we asked that OceanGate remediate, and that was to clear up some of their website. They were using some language to reassure people that sounded like they were certified. And we asked, look, you can't use language like that. It will be misconstrued. Please fix it.

And that they did. I mean, in the end, it was very clear that it was experimental, not certified. And, you know, that's part of public safety. It's a - it's a question, what do we do about these things. And one aspect is, full disclosure. Just tell the public, this is not certified, this is experimental, and then it leaves some of the decisions to people to make if -- are you willing to go into this.

COOPER: Yes. Will Kohnen, I appreciate you joining us on this sad morning. Thank you very much.

KOHNEN: It is a sad morning. Thank you very much.

COOPER: Rahel, we'll go back to you in New York.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, Anderson -

COOPER: Yes, Phil and Rahel, that's one of the things that James Cameron talked about last night is that, you know, he has made experimental submersibles that he himself has gone in but that he wouldn't bring passengers in unless something had actually been gone through rigorous safety protocols.

[08:35:14]

MATTINGLY: Yes, it is a significant difference from those two specific cases.

But I want to bring Captain Boynton back in. You've been talking to him thought the course of the hour as well, Anderson.

You had a thought listening to that interview. What kind of crossed your mind there?

CAPT. PETER BOYNTON (RET.), U.S. COAST GUARD: Yes, just listening to it, it's been years since I've read the Coast Guard guidance documents, but if my memory serves here, I could swear that there was a reference to whether or not the operator is misleading about the safety of the vessel, that then becomes a factor as to whether or not it's unsafe operations. And I think that's what your questions are getting to, Anderson, is, was this misleading or not? Was it intended to be misleading or not?

COOPER: Yes, I mean it seems, you know, a press release in 2021 I read from this company uses the name Boeing, uses the name NASA, uses the name the University of Washington. We talked to the -- to Arnie Weissman (ph) a short time ago who said that Stockton Rush, to his face, said, you know -- invoked the name Boeing. All of which, you know, as a -- if I was a passenger onboard this thing and I had somebody telling me, oh, well, Boeing, University of Washington, NASA, throwing around those names, that would be something that would give me a sense of security. The idea that now Boeing and the University of Washington are coming forward and saying, we actually did not have anything to do with the execution of this, with the design of this, with the maintenance of this, that, obviously, you know, more needs to be learned about it.

MATTINGLY: Yes, I don't think there's any question about that.

Anderson, stick with us. We'll be back to you shortly.

Meanwhile, President Biden hosting India's prime minister at the White House. We'll give you a look at the lavish state dinner and the major geopolitical implications, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:40:52]

HARLOW: Welcome back.

Well, the search for answers continues after the Titan submersible suffered a catastrophic implosion with five people onboard. We're going to be getting back to Anderson and Newfoundland shortly.

But first we want to go down to Washington, D.C.

India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, receiving VIP treatment at the White House at Thursday's lavish White House dinner. Top CEOs attended, like Google, Microsoft, Apple, they were all there. Top officials as well. The toast at that dinner followed a news conference, which, for Modi, is quite rare. He actually took questions from one U.S. reporter, one Indian reporter, including questions about his human rights record.

Now, in between that news conference and that dinner, he also addressed Congress. Today, Vice President Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken will host a luncheon for Modi.

CNN's Arlette Saenz joins us now from the White House.

And, Arlette, this is an all-out blitz to some degree by the White House, by the administration, but also by Capitol Hill. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. There are very real concerns about human rights, perhaps backsliding on the Democratic front with India. Some Democrats didn't attend the speech yesterday in Congress and yet the White House is unequivocal about the need and necessity to go all in here. Why?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil, the White House has really pulled out all the stops with this state dinner in order to show that they are trying to boost this relationship with India. A key part of that is they are seeking to build up these ties to have India serving as a counterbalance to China's growing influence in the region.

Now, last night it capped off with that state dinner, which was rather glitzy and included a vegetarian menu to accommodate Modi's vegetarian diet. And those two men actually toasted with ginger ale because they don't drink. And the president gave that toast to two great nations and two great powers.

Of course, China is in the backdrop of all of these discussions that played out yesterday. And yesterday the president did not back down from his recent labeling of Chinese President Xi Jinping as a dictator. He said he doesn't think that those comments have thwarted efforts to stabilize relations with China and ultimately said he does hope that he and Xi can meet soon.

But that news conference between President Biden and the Indian prime minister was also remarkable for the fact that Modi simply doesn't take questions from reporters very often. But he stood there and faced a very pointed question about his own record when it comes to cracking down on political dissent and also targeting religious minorities. Modi stood there and claimed that he - that there is no space for discrimination in his country. A lot of people had also been watching how Biden would approach that.

Now, in just a short while, in a few hours, Biden and Modi will be gathering once again here at the White House to meet with tech leaders involved in the AI space and also semiconductor world. Just another effort highlighting how Biden views India as a possible counterbalance to China.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it certainly are, Arlette, a cornerstone of the White House strategy here. You look at everything they've done over the course of the last two and a half years.

Arlette Saenz, from the North Lawn at the White House, thanks so much.

And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:48:44]

COOPER: We are live here in St. John's reporting on the efforts initially to find the Titan submersible that suffered a catastrophic implosion on its way to the Titanic wreckage. Now, last night I spoke with "Titanic" filmmaker and deep sea explorer

James Cameron. He's been to the Titanic shipwreck more than 30 times. He's one of the world's most renowned deep-sea explorers. He says he had gotten indications on Monday, based on his own sources, that the Titan sub had imploded. He called the tragedy both heartbreaking and preventable.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: People think about the bow of the Titanic and they think of your film "Titanic" with that iconic scene on the bow.

I heard you earlier kind of talk about these two captains and kind of a similarity that you see.

JAMES CAMERON, DEEP-SEA EXPLORER: Yes.

COOPER: And I'm wondering if you could talk about that.

CAMERON: I think there's great almost surreal irony here, which is Titanic sank because the captain took it full steam into an ice field at night on a moonless night with very poor visibility. After he had been repeatedly warned by telegram, by marconigram, by radio, during the day that that's what was ahead of him. And so I think we're also seeing a parallel here with unheeded warnings about a sub that was not certified, where the entire deep submergence community, actually - or not the entire community but a large number of them got together to write a letter to OceanGate, the company, and say, we believe that this could lead to catastrophe.

[08:50:20]

It was less a criticism of the engineering than of the process. But it contemplated the fact that the engineering probably wouldn't pass muster from a certification bureau. And so they were trying to head this whole thing off. It was our worst nightmare.

I mean all of us in the deep submergence community, people like myself that pilot subs and design subs, implosion is obviously the specter that looms over us all the time. But because of that, that's the thing that you engineer for the most years in advance. So, that should never be the problem. I've never believed that if I was, you know, going to have a serious problem in a sub that it would be implosion. Maybe entanglement in a fishing net, maybe a fire from the electronics, hard to rule those things out. Implosion, absolutely not, especially with modern finite element analysis and, you know, computer-aided design.

COOPER: Do you -- I mean, what should be the -- I mean, what should we learn from this? Because, obviously, water -- deepwater exploration, I mean, there's a pretty great -- I mean I don't know if it's great, but a very good safety record with people who have done the certification, people who have really studied this.

CAMERON: Yes. It's a phenomenal --

COOPER: Do you worry about this having an impact on the continued explosion?

CAMERON: I do. I do. Look, I'm not worried about exploration because explorers will go. And I'm not worried about innovation, because people will innovate. I'm worried that it has a negative impact on let's say citizen explorers, tourists, you know. But these are serious people with serious curiosity willing to put serious money down to go to these interesting places. And I don't want to discourage that. But I think that it's almost now the lesson, the takeaway is, make sure if you're going to go into a vehicle, whether it's an aircraft or a surface craft or a submersible, that it's been through certifying agencies, you know, that it's been signed off.

Every day we trust our lives to engineering. We step into an elevator. We make an assumption that somebody somewhere has done the math properly and it's all been certified properly. We should take the same precautions when we get into a submersible. Even if it's at a resort and we're only going down 300 feet or 1,000 feet.

COOPER: The Coast Guard rear admiral was talking about the unforgiving environment at those depths. Can you just talk about that feeling of being down there.

CAMERON: Right.

COOPER: I mean, yes, I can't believe how deep you have gone into the ocean, three times deeper than the Titanic I think you said.

CAMERON: Yes.

COOPER: What is that feeling of being down there?

CAMERON: Well, I always say, you'd have to take a backhoe with you to go deeper than I went anywhere on this planet. That is a feeling of remoteness. I knew when I made that dive that there was no hope of rescue. There literally was no vehicle in the world, no matter if you could fly it in, no matter if I could survive long enough on my - on my life support system, there was no rescue. I had to self-rescue if I had a problem.

And we thought about that for the seven years that we spent building the sub. And I designed a lot of the safety systems myself knowing I was going to be in that sub in terms of how to drop the weights, if I was incapacitated the weights would drop themselves over -- after a certain period of time. Many, many communications, beacons for when I got back to the surface if I had drifted off someplace, I'd have been picked up by satellite. They would have reported my position. I had radio. I had visual beacons. It wouldn't have required an aircraft search. They'd have found me pretty quickly. So, you think all that stuff through.

But the feeling in the moment, it's almost a sacred space. It's a place where there's nobody else there, it's just you. You and yourself and a sense of deep time. You're looking at something that no one has ever seen. It's been that way for hundreds of millions if not billions of years. At Titanic it's different. You feel the presence in -- of the tragedy,

you know, and I think that's the lure. I think that's why people want to go and experience it for themselves, to feel -- to remember history, you know? I think people go to battlefields, to Gettysburg, to, you know, Normandy Beach and all those things to remember history and to take it in and make it make a part of their lives. And I don't think that's -- you know, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean some people don't like -- they say it's a gravesite and that sort of thing. But I think it's important for us to remember.

But here's a case starkly where the collective we didn't remember the lesson of Titanic. These guys at OceanGate didn't, because the arrogance and the hubris that sent that ship to its doom is exactly the same thing that sent those people in that - that sub to their fate. And I just think it's heartbreaking.

[08:55:02]

I think it's heartbreaking that it was - it was so preventable.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: And retired U.S. Coast Guard Captain Peter Boynton is with us.

I wonder what you think about what James Cameron was saying there. I mean do you think the lessons were ignored, were forgotten and do you think we'll learn them again this time?

BOYNTON: I think it's tragically ironic that here at the same place two incidents book ending a century between them. The Titanic, absolutely innovative in its day, biggest, fastest, unsinkable, of course. We've all heard that. And out of that there were insufficient life boats for passengers on board.

We did learn from that the 1914 Safety of Life at Sea Convention was passed by nations. It led to much safer and better, greater use of the oceans as well. So, we need to learn from that, from this incident. But I would take a little exception with what he said that I am worried about innovation. And I think we can do better with inspection and regulation at the speed of innovation, not because it's sloppy, but because we're in a new century. We need to move fast to support the innovators.

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN ANCHOR: Anderson, thank you so much for the coverage this morning. Our thanks, of course, to the captain, who has been with us as well for the last three hours, really breaking this story down across angles.

MATTINGLY: And so many more questions to be answered in the weeks and months ahead. Thank you, Captain, for being here.

Hey, (INAUDIBLE). Thanks for being here.

SOLOMON: Good to be with you, Phil Mattingly.

MATTINGLY: Our coverage continues with "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" right after this break.

Have a good weekend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)