Brad_Horn
Contributor
- Messages
- 231
- Reaction score
- 68
From an equipment perspective this still has to be interesting to rebreather community. Because a cause of ‘drowning’ probably tells you that the unit wasn’t fitted with a gag, crown or mouthpiece retaining strap. That then tells you it either wasn’t CE certified and therefore was almost certainly utterly untested, the strap had been removed (either by the manufacturer, instructor or diver) post CE technical file audit or the unit in question wasn’t tested to the ratified standard of EN14143 in full. Each raising questions about its suitability to follow up on.IMO there is little useful to the rebreather diving community at large to be learned from examination of the public record. The coroners job (sometimes called a medical examiner in the US) in these circumstances is usually just to name a cause of death.... typically "drowning" but sometimes if the underlying health condition was the obvious cause (for example heart disease that resulted in MI) then the cause of death will be reported as the medical condition. As one coroner told me, "If there is water in the lungs, they drowned.”
Those dying whilst diving with gag straps tending to not be reported as ‘drowning’ based on public records Deep Life Design Team: databases and analysis of rebreather accident data
Also https://www.researchgate.net/public...mong_French_Military_Divers_From_1979_to_2009
Well said.The court cases are, surprisingly to many, not about determining a "cause" but rather apportioning liability to those best able to pay. Thus, I've observed parties on both sides of the same case seeming to obscure facts and discredit evidence. One tactic employed by attorneys is to attack the evidence by discrediting the sources, such as the recovery divers and experts advising law enforcement.
However considerable value can certainly still be gained by the community in ignoring the resultant liability only focused decision and understanding the implications of the accident analysis (where conducted by experts and published) for the court case or coroners report in question.
Especially where this can be recreated by the reader at home if they have the same gear. Inquest verdict from Jersey Channel islands UK
They might be “understood” by some of the few experts but what is known, and why those causes occur still seems to need considerably better education across the board. A small sample of potential relevant examples to this thread being:But I've never found anything that is going to result in an OMG moment where some press release warning divers of a new here-to-fore unknown cause of rebreather deaths. Like open-circuit diving accidents, the causes of closed-circuit diving accidents are now understood. That's not to minimize the loss of life or the investigation in to the accident, but simply to point out that we already have the knowledge to dramatically reduce rebreather accidents.
- Scrubber duration Diving a Rebreather in Frigid Water: Canister Concerns
- Current limited cells https://www.apdiving.com/shop/downl...nt_manufacturer_warning_on_cell_limiting.docx
from Coroner’s Report in Phil Gray’s Death Yields Important Lessons | IntoThePlanet
- Water blocked cells https://www.opensafetyglobal.com/Safety_files/DV_O2_cell_study_E4_160415.pdf
No matter how well 'understood', the ratio for the causes, still seems to surprise https://www.facebook.com/OpenSafetyEquipment/photos/a.3505576419471833/3505578606138281/