Rec rebreather deaths occur at ~x10 the rate of deaths among open-circuit divers.+

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

DocVikingo

Senior Member
Rest in Peace
Messages
5,721
Reaction score
472
Per this recent study.

“Diving Hyperb Med. 2013 Jun;43(2):78-85.

Analysis of recreational closed-circuit rebreather deaths 1998-2010.
Fock AW.

SourceHead, Hyperbaric Service, Department of Intensive Care and Hyperbaric Medicine, The Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road Prahran, Victoria, Australia, Phone: +61 3 9076 2269, E-mail: a.fock@alfred.org.au.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of recreational closed-circuit rebreathers (CCRs) in 1998, there have been many recorded deaths. Rebreather deaths have been quoted to be as high as 1 in 100 users.

METHODS: Rebreather fatalities between 1998 and 2010 were extracted from the Deeplife rebreather mortality database, and inaccuracies were corrected where known. Rebreather absolute numbers were derived from industry discussions and training agency statistics. Relative numbers and brands were extracted from the Rebreather World website database and a Dutch rebreather survey. Mortality was compared with data from other databases. A fault-tree analysis of rebreathers was compared to that of open-circuit scuba of various configurations. Finally, a risk analysis was applied to the mortality database.

RESULTS: The 181 recorded recreational rebreather deaths occurred at about 10 times the rate of deaths amongst open-circuit recreational scuba divers. No particular brand or type of rebreather was over-represented. Closed-circuit rebreathers have a 25-fold increased risk of component failure compared to a manifolded twin-cylinder open-circuit system. This risk can be offset by carrying a redundant 'bailout' system. Two-thirds of fatal dives were associated with a high-risk dive or high-risk behaviour. There are multiple points in the human-machine interface (HMI) during the use of rebreathers that can result in errors that may lead to a fatality.

CONCLUSIONS: While rebreathers have an intrinsically higher risk of mechanical failure as a result of their complexity, this can be offset by good design incorporating redundancy and by carrying adequate 'bailout' or alternative gas sources for decompression in the event of a failure. Designs that minimize the chances of HMI errors and training that highlights this area may help to minimize fatalities.”
 
Well, all I can say is that it's a very good thing the major scuba agencies aren't fast-tracking inexperienced instructors to teach rec CCR and marketing those courses to the masses...

Phew... that'd be terrible..
 
Closed-circuit rebreathers have a 25-fold increased risk of component failure compared to a manifolded twin-cylinder open-circuit system. This risk can be offset by carrying a redundant 'bailout' system. Two-thirds of fatal dives were associated with a high-risk dive or high-risk behaviour.

Reading between the lines would suggest that they are comparing non-military non-commercial open circuit dives to non-military non-commercial closed circuit dives, including comparing twin-sets (doubles) to CCR dives. I would further read between the lines and say that this includes deep (deeper than 130 feet), wreck, and cave recreational dives.
 
I think PADI has created a definition for "R" type recreational and "T" type technical rebreathers. I can't seem to find the details on what those are, or I'd post links.
 
If you read the entire article that was release about a month ago, and you have even the slightest brain power, you can draw your own conclusions about the "scientific" approach of this article. Do a search on any of the technical forums and the consensus is that this report is a joke with so much bs in the data collection and so much first person "experience" by the writer that we pretty much discount the entire article. The writer actually makes comments like, "In my experience" blah blah blah. At any rate, if you've ever taken a course on statistical analysis or ever written any kind of research paper, you'll quickly catch that this was a poorly written piece of junk.
 
Reading between the lines would suggest that they are comparing non-military non-commercial open circuit dives to non-military non-commercial closed circuit dives, including comparing twin-sets (doubles) to CCR dives. I would further read between the lines and say that this includes deep (deeper than 130 feet), wreck, and cave recreational dives.

That's my reading of it as well. The full text study can be found here --> http://www.divegearexpress.com/media/library/Fock-Rebreather_deaths.pdf , but it doesn't seem to provide a direct response to the question of, "Does "recreational" in this context mean "non commercial/military" or "non technical", i.e less than 130 feet etc?"

The author's email is included in the abstract I posted above, a.fock@alfred.org.au, and I much suspect that he would be willing to field pertinent & respectful inquiries.

Cheers,

DocVikingo
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom