Rebreather Discussion from Brockville Incident

[Doppler]

There was a fatal accident on the Daryaw in Brockville yesterday morning. I was diving in Brockville this weekend and have interviewed witnesses. The Ontario Underwater Council is conducting an investigation and preparing an Incident Report.

HEADING a thread: A rebreather accident, and then having no other info within is kind of accusatory... maybe I am just sensitive BUT: a couple of questions. Which rebreather? What happened (malfunction causing bailout, unknown malfunction, or health issue, et al)? Was the victim's buddy on the same type of unit, another unit, OC? Did the victim use a physical checklist when setting up and doing pre-dive tests? Who is doing the equipment inspection and is the manufacturer involved?

There are a bunch more
(http://www.apdiving.com/downloads/resa/pdf/Equipment Inspection following a diving incident.pdf)

We came to a general consensus at Rebreather Forum 3.0 more than a year ago about the procedures for dealing with this type of situation. I hope the OUC is aware of those findings and follows them.

 

[Tortuga68]

I'm very curious to hear what went wrong; I've read a lot of posts here discussing why rebreathers are a big risk. Simultaneously an LDS is pushing Poseidon rebreather rigs pretty hard making it tempting to try.

Further to Doppler's post above, a diver who was using a rebreather having an incident isn't any more of an indication of risk than an open circuit diver having a problem... accidents happen, for a lot of different reasons, which may or may not be related to the equipment itself

So I wouldn't be put off for that reason alone, any more than I would not buy a car because lots of people are killed in them

Having said that, at your listed 25-49 dives you're along way from needing to make that decision IMO. Rebreather diving takes a lot of investment, training, attention to detail and so on, not to mention the reason for that piece of expensive equipment (and training) becoming advantageous to you i.e why do you need it. Just enjoy recreational diving for a while

 

[InTheDrink]

Further to Doppler's post above, a diver who was using a rebreather having an incident isn't any more of an indication of risk than an open circuit diver having a problem... accidents happen, for a lot of different reasons, which may or may not be related to the equipment itself

So I wouldn't be put off for that reason alone, any more than I would not buy a car because lots of people are killed in them

Having said that, at your listed 25-49 dives you're along way from needing to make that decision IMO. Rebreather diving takes a lot of investment, training, attention to detail and so on, not to mention the reason for that piece of expensive equipment (and training) becoming advantageous to you i.e why do you need it. Just enjoy recreational diving for a while

But the MKVI is a recreational rebreather so nothing can go wrong

On a serious note, will be interested to hear the report when it comes out & RIP to diver.

 

[Doppler]

Sorry to hear that news.

I'm very curious to hear what went wrong; I've read a lot of posts here discussing why rebreathers are a big risk. Simultaneously an LDS is pushing Poseidon rebreather rigs pretty hard making it tempting to try.

Rebreathers... at least SOME units, are not a big risk. That is with the right mindset and training. In general, according to the best data I can lay my hands on, the problems are with the users skipping pre-dive checks or users pushing the limits.

But the MKVI is a recreational rebreather so nothing can go wrong

On a serious note, will be interested to hear the report when it comes out & RIP to diver.

Probably best not even to go there... PM sent to kelemvor.

 

[gianaameri]

It is absurd and bizarre that whenever a rebreather is involved in an accident that it is not possible in a forum to openly say that the diver was using a rebreather (and which make and model).

We have more than 288 recorded fatalities to date whilst using a rebreather which is an extremely dangerous and insidious tool for diving (you pass out without warning and then drown, buddy generally unable to help fast enough, autopsy unable to determine cause of death since we all die of hypoxia and a bit of hypercapnia).

Rebreathers have been sold in Europe as "meeting" the rebreather standard EN14143:2003 when this is completely untrue insofar no electronic rebreather available to the general public since 2003 meets the required "Functional Safety" (i.e. Clause 5.13.1 of the standard EN14143:2003). This is FACT (hence the coonsumer is lulled into perceiving a greater sense of security in purchasing and using a rebreather than the tool actually has).

I'd like very much to know publicly (rather than by PM) if a rebreather was involved in the accident and which make and model.

It is far less relevant in an OC incident which regulator was involved because regulators these days are very robust and have evolved to be extremely reliable as a design and all truly meet the standard EN250 - but rebreathers it is another story.

It is a young industry dominated by small companies lacking the R&D resources of the larger companies and one unit is not necessarily as dependable as the other, and all are equally intrinsically very dangerous tools for diving.

So, I follow regularly Scubaboard and post very little, but I'd like to voice the importance of information such as a rebreather being involved in an accident not being silenced in this forum (a very good source of information).

Hence, I ask publicly, rather than by PM, do we know which rebreather was involved in the fatality (now that it appears to be publicly established that a rebreather was actually involved)?

 

[Tortuga68]

In principal I agree, but *if* the guy died of a heart attack does it really matter?

 

[gianaameri]

In principal I agree, but *if* the guy died of a heart attack does it really matter?

A heart attack on a rebreather?

This was the common thinking before an investigative protocol involving an autopsy was put in place (i.e. when someone for no apparent reason passes out underwater on a machine one believes to be "perfect" it is natural to believe a medical condition is at play).

However, nowadays the "eCCR Heart Attack" story is not credible unless an autopsy has actually established MI as the cause of death (i.e. in the autopsy report itself).

The autopsy, however, even though brain tissues are analysed (and an MRI or similar performed beforehand) cannot detect hypoxia or hyperoxia as the cause of death (i.e. because when we die that is what naturally happens anyway in the tissues).

Bear in mind that CO2 dissolved in blood beyond the physiologically normal limits from references to the medical research (ref. Marescoop.com - Accesso LimitatoMarescoop.com - Accesso Limitato ) I have read appears to change the pH of the blood and MAY precipitate a cardiac problem with or without a prior existing condition present (as much is my understanding of the research).

So, it is useful to know that a rebreather was involved, which model (and which variant because manufacturers over the years have made modification to the rebreather hardware and software which means, for example, a 2005 rebreather may be substantially different from a 2006 or later rebreather of the same make and model).

Surely it does stand out when information is suppressed from public forums when a rebreather is involved in a fatality and it begs asking why!

 

[Tortuga68]

A heart attack on a rebreather?

Surely it does stand out when information is suppressed from public forums when a rebreather is involved in a fatality and it begs asking why!

My question is was it "involved" i.e. causual. People using rebreathers can still have heart attacks, aneurisms etc, right?

What i mean is we have no idea what the problem was, the guy could have taken his loop out and gotten thirsty for all we know right now

To put it another way, if an OC diver died, would you be clamouring to know what brand of reg he was diving?

 

[gianaameri]

To put it another way, if an OC diver died, would you be clamouring to know what brand of reg he was diving?

NO - because regulators nowadays are extremely simple and reliable and fully meet the EN250 standard. Furthermore, they deliver a fixed gas mix - the one coming from the tanks.

As I tried to explain before in the post below, rebreathers are an entirely different story because:

1. The mix is not fixed, but variable, raising the risk of sudden loss of consciousness and ability to self-help due to hyperoxia, hypercapnia, or hyperoxia (none of which are detectable by post-mortem autopsy making a rebreather a perfect silent killer).
2. Rebreathers with a galvanic O2 Sensor (i.e. allowing for depths beyond 6 meters) are a relatively new technology marketed for to the general public by relatively small companies with limited R&D departments, funds, and know-how (hence we are still at the early stages of the learning curve).
3. Rebreathers do not fully meet the "Functional Safety" requirements (although this has been kept hidden from the general public) of the relevant standard EN14143:2003 (i.e. the standard in effect since 2003).

So, OC vs. CC are two entirely different technologies and tools reason for which what is relevant for CC is less relevant for CC.

Whilst I appreciate a manufacturer would be keen, same as in any industry, not to have publicised a fatality on his/her product - from the user/consumer perspective, given the nascent industry and technology about to be more widely adopted, there is no other reason why the information should be withdrawn from internet forums (i.e. it may be relevant).

 

[Tortuga68]

Ok, I get it - you don't like rebreathers aka boxes of death. But you're way ahead of yourself in terms of what may have caused this incident

A&I forum is supposed to be for analysing the incident (currently, there is nothing to analyse), not getting on your soapbox

BTW I don't dive a RB so it's not like I care either way, and as stated previously I agree there is no reason to remove RB from the title, but that's a long way from saying that the equipment was "involved" in this event