Filmmaker Rob Stewart dies off Alligator Reef

[rjack321]

You are totally correct in that we cannot reproduce the exact same coin toss due to the minute differences in force, wind, etc. However, for the level of precision that we assign to coin tossing, we assume that these are identical repetitive events because they are close enough.

In the case of a diver fatality, the differences between individual events is orders of magnitude different than those between coin tosses..

You may "teach" statistics, but only in the mathematical sense.

You should try working with some public health epidemiologists sometime. Events do not have to be repetitive or without confounding variables to have statistically meaningful results.

 

[dmaziuk]

So I am flipping a coin and it lands on the table. It will come up heads or tails. There is no way I can repeat the exact same flip. Are you saying that I cannot conclude after 1000 flips that if I am seeing heads 80% of the time that I have a weighted coin?

Maybe, but if you flip a billion coins a billion times, one or two will land on heads every time without any weighting. You let a million people swim in your bathtub, a few of them will die in there and you don't need a case-by-case study to know that.

 

[eelnoraa]

Maybe, but if you flip a billion coins a billion times, one or two will land on heads every time without any weighting.

The conclusion of this experiment is that the one or two coins in this sample of 1 billion coins are unique (weighted, or heads on both side). The things to do in statistic is to exclude the result from these two coins if you can find them. However, unless the manufacturing process is tinted, the overall result should still at 50% for this kind of volume.

You let a million people swim in your bathtub, a few of them will die in there and you don't need a case-by-case study to know that.

Sure. But I bet it will be way less than a few per million. But I agree, everything has some risk associated. I think we can safely say that, without taking take any data, diving is more risky than playing video game at home, or tech diving is more risky than rec diving.

 

[Dr Simon Mitchell]

As far as the court cases Alex Deas has been associated with, I have not yet ever seen him proven wrong based on testing of the rebreathers in question. Noting that the court is interested in determining liability and not fatality root cause. Liability being something that is irrelevant in determining the root cause.

I find your argument on behalf of your company's co-director self-serving and wholly unconvincing. If that were so Brad, why does Deas expend so much time and grieving family's money on trying to prove the root cause of the fatality in these court cases?? The reason is obvious. He believes that if he can convince the jury that the root cause was rebreather failure because of a "design flaw", then the jury will find that the manufacturer is liable. Luckily, in every case he has been involved in, the jury has considered him proven wrong.

Simon M

 

[mmadiver]

Can you outline as to how you know this to be the case. Claiming that a manufacturer approved Instructor facility knowingly advised the removal of the manufacturers recommended safety device i.e. the gag strap is a significant allegation to make due to its importance in any subsequent legal processes e.g. coroners inquiry, court case etc.

I've done two training courses with Add Helium, Peter himself advocated for removing the gag strap to facilitate bailout. Manufacturer recommended or not, wearing a gag strap is a personal choice based on your own risk analysis - which will be based on the limited science pertaining to CCR diving, often incomplete or entirely missing fatality reports, and personal experience. Typically I've found that most people remove the gag strap because they find it uncomfortable, or feel they are at risk for hypercapnia and that the gag strap would impede a bailout. In Peter's case, he was adamantly against them as he had experienced a couple of close calls resulting in a bailout where a gag strap would have exacerbated the situation.

I choose to dive a gag strap due my personal experiences. I have never witnessed a hypercapnia event in my 11 years of Navy and civilian rebreather diving, but have witnessed other events where a full face mask/gag strap was the difference between drowning or not. Additionally, I consider myself at low risk for hypercapnia due to the type of diving I do, age, and fitness level. Other CCR divers have witnessed hypercapnia events or experienced one themselves and choose to dive differently. No right or wrong here, it's entirely up to your own risk assessment.

 

[Steve_C]

Poor design can be compensated for in part by training. However, well trained people are still people and can make mistakes when tired or stressed or in a different situation.

At the same time extra safety features are also mechanical/electrical devices and they can fail or not perform correctly. One still has to train the operators how to handle these situations. Pilots spend time learning how to fly when things are not working right.

 

[doctormike]

Manufacturer recommended or not, wearing a gag strap is a personal choice based on your own risk analysis - which will be based on the limited science pertaining to CCR diving, often incomplete or entirely missing fatality reports, and personal experience. Typically I've found that most people remove the gag strap because they find it uncomfortable, or feel they are at risk for hypercapnia and that the gag strap would impede a bailout.

There is some science about this - the French military study (discussed way upthread) had a 94% survival rate of loss of consciousness which they attributed in part to the gag strap. I'm a new CCR diver, haven't changed my rebreather's stock configuration yet, but I'm wondering if the use of a gag strap implies the need for a BOV? This would eliminate the concern about the gag strap impeding bailout, right?

 

[cathal]

Noting that the court is interested in determining liability and not fatality root cause. Liability being something that is irrelevant in determining the root cause.

First off, "Others have found this to not be the case" you quote one case, where are the other cases that you have alluded to?

Secondly, your statement on Court procedure is completely wrong and at variance with standard court functions in any democracy. The function of any civil court case is to determine liability in order to assign damages to the relevant party. The root cause establishes who the relevant party is. Likewise with any criminal proceedings the root cause will establish the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the court is not interested in determining the root cause of the fatality how can it then assign liability?

 

[Steve_C]

If the court is not interested in determining the root cause of the fatality how can it then assign liability?

Not completely true

If am babysitting the neighbor's 3 year old kid for pay and leave the kid alone for half an hour while I have a beer and watch a ballgame and during that time the kid wanders off into the woods and gets killed, (drowns, falls off a cliff, etc) then I have major liability independent of how the kid got killed since if I had done my duty the death would have been avoided.

 

[cathal]

Not completely true

If am babysitting the neighbor's 3 year old kid for pay and leave the kid alone for half an hour while I have a beer and watch a ballgame and during that time the kid wanders off into the woods and gets killed, (drowns, falls off a cliff, etc) then I have major liability independent of how the kid got killed since if I had done my duty the death would have been avoided.

Root cause = "the fundamental reason for the occurrence of a problem" So in your example, if you had done your job the child would have lived therefore the root cause is you not doing your job while the medical cause of death was the accident itself.