Rebreather Discussion from Brockville Incident

[wedivebc]

In Canada, when people make requests for Freedom of Information documents to prove some point, and these documents are granted, it is customary for the person(s) who made the request to publish what they found for all to see. Perhaps you can do the same. Otherwise it just seems to be an unsubstantiated claim.

It always amazes me that people will make unsubstantiated claims then expect you go through the process of obtaining your own documentation to prove them right.
Sorry but I remain unconvinced

 

[shoredivr]

So you can't substantiate your claim.

 

[gianaameri]

It always amazes me that people will make unsubstantiated claims then expect you go through the process of obtaining your own documentation to prove them right.
Sorry but I remain unconvinced

You are a CCR Instructor, so you should know (or could just ask the manufacturer if you don't) for the rebreathers you teach/sell if they meet Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

All it will take you is an email to the manufacturer (no need to ask the U.K. Secretary of State ) and then you can let us know if you are still unconvinced.

I am not releasing any documents on an internet forum.

 

[Dsix36]

In the U.K., responsibility for these type of disclosures (i.e. lack of Functional Safety in accordance to Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003) rests solely and exclusively with the manufacturer. So, it is a little different than in Canada.

On the bigger picture of things, I might publish something after the new rebreather standard EN14143:2013 (I presume it will be so called) is released by CEN/CENELEC.

All documents are in any event accessible through a FOI request. Best to address any request a. directly to the U.K. Secretary of State who is in charge of the U.K. National Authority in respect of implementation of EU Directives and CEN/CENELEC standards like EN14143:2003 and b. to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Let me see if I got this right. You were politely asked to either put up (show papers) or shut up.

You come back with this crap of telling people to do it themselves either because you are to selfish to share or do not actually have the papers?

If you are indeed that selfish, then why bother with any of this and stop posting these threads, since it has nothing to do with any one but yourself. If you can not show the papers, just silently go away or admit to being untruthful about it.

 

[gianaameri]

Let me see if I got this right. You were politely asked to either put up (show papers) or shut up.

You come back with this crap of telling people to do it themselves either because you are to selfish to share or do not actually have the papers?

If you are indeed that selfish, then why bother with any of this and stop posting these threads, since it has nothing to do with any one but yourself. If you can not show the papers, just silently go away or admit to being untruthful about it.

I have the documents, but the position in the U.K. is that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make product disclosure.

So, I will not post the documents.

They can be obtained the same route I received them or if you are an instructor or a customer you can make enquiries directly with the manufacturer as to product conformity to Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

No electronic rebreather currently available to the general public is certified to meet Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

If you can locate one such certification, please let us know.

Always ready to learn something new.


Sent from my HTC Desire C using Tapatalk 2

 

[shoredivr]

See, right there your credibility went pffft with me.

 

[wedivebc]

I have the documents, but the position in the U.K. is that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make product disclosure.

So, I will not post the documents.

They can be obtained the same route I received them or if you are an instructor or a customer you can make enquiries directly with the manufacturer as to product conformity to Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

No electronic rebreather currently available to the general public is certified to meet Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

If you can locate one such certification, please let us know.

Always ready to learn something new.


Sent from my HTC Desire C using Tapatalk 2

Since none of the RBs I teach are manufactured in EU I don't have any cause to do any research to support your argument
Put up or shut up

 

[gianaameri]

Since none of the RBs I teach are manufactured in EU I don't have any cause to do any research to support your argument
Put up or shut up

On your website I found re: the ISC Pathfinder:

CE 14343 standard duration is 134 min at 41 degF​

US Navy duration test 218 min at 73 DegF​

You may want to correct the typing error (it is CE 14143 or better EN 14143:2003).

Nice unit!

 

[dfx]

No electronic rebreather currently available to the general public is certified to meet Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

That isn't even the point. You're saying that the manufacturers claim that their rebreathers meet this standard, when in fact they don't. So far I haven't seen any such claim anywhere. If you could point any such claim out to us, then that would be a start.

 

[gianaameri]

That isn't even the point. You're saying that the manufacturers claim that their rebreathers meet this standard, when in fact they don't. So far I haven't seen any such claim anywhere. If you could point any such claim out to us, then that would be a start.

There is tons of pdfs on the internet with rebreather manuals and CE certifications all claiming conformity to EN14143:2003 (or even prEN14143:2009 or similar) and none disclose lack of Functional Safety (i.e. they do not meet or cannot meet Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003).

Just google about and you will find them.

This is an example I just googled (but I really do not want to single out any single rebreather or rebreather manufacturer insofar no electronic rebreather currently available to the general public satisfies the Functional Safety of the rebreather standard in force since 2003 - and we are in 2013):

http://www.technologyindepth.com/pdf/Ouroboros User Manual Rev A 1209.pdf

All products seem to satisfy Functional Safety pertaining to their category/class except for rebreathers.