uwatec lawsuit

[Braunbehrens]

jonnythan once bubbled...


Because I don't think I'm good enough yet to get the most out of the class, and I can't afford to waste the money.

Do they teach this in DIRF? It never seems to be mentioned in the DIRF class reports, the GUE website says nothing at all about it, but a lot of DIR guys say to take DIRF for it.

Why the shadiness?

It looks like you are approaching DIR-F the way I did. I got into a huge fight on quest because I wanted to know exactly what I would be taught, and what I should already have down pat. I didn't want to take it and fail it. In the end I was overprepared.

What is covered depends in part on the students. If they are all wearing doubles and so on the class will be different than if they are all single tank recreational divers.

When I took it the F class didn't go into much detail about computers and deco. It was more of a skills training and figuring out what to work on. Tech 1 really is the one that covered deco. If you don't want to do Tech stuff then rec triox is always an option.

I think most instructors will let you take DIR-F, and if you don't pass for some reason you can just come back later after some practice and sit in on the last day of class to finish it. You might want to ask about that.

If you have more than a few dozen dives you're ready, IMO. I don't know what the official GUE guidelines are. I took the class a long time ago, so things may have changed.

I suggest emailing some GUE instructors directly, Andrew and Tamara both had helpful replies when I asked stuff before taking DIR F.

I was very intimidated before taking the F class, because it's so hyped up, and there is so much "my way or the highway" b.s. on the internet. In fact the class was fun, and there were people there who knew very little about DIR, and were VERY recreational with no intention of going Tech. Andrew was great at making everyone feel comfortable and answered all questions in a friendly manner.

Tech 1 was a little tougher, but you'd expect that.

 

[cstreu1026]

OK, let me get up to speed on this thing. Am I correct in thinking the Aladin Air X Nitrox incorrectly assumed that the diver was using EANx rather than air. This in turn resulted in the diving absorbing more nitrogen that was shown by the computer.

If all that is correct then the majority of the error lies in the computer itself as there was either a defect or malfunction. There are also to a lesser degree some diver error involved.

I was taught not to dive to the limits. I also know that if I choose to dive right up to the no decompression limits there is a good chance that I will eventually take a hit. I was also taught that even though my book said a minimum 12 hours was required before a flight that more realistically 24 hours is the minimum. I leave for my 2 week honeymoon in bonaire and curacao just 3 weeks from now. My fiance agreed with me that if we dive as we hope/plan to in bonaire that we should not dive the last full day in boanire before we catch our flight to Curacao not just 24 hours from our flight time. We will be diving nitrox the entire week but our more reasonable sides say that if we are doing 3 or 4 dives a day for multiple days that we will need/want the extra time to rid ourselves of nitrogen.

 

[Braunbehrens]

cstreu1026 once bubbled...
I also know that if I choose to dive right up to the no decompression limits there is a good chance that I will eventually take a hit.

Actually, if you do enough diving there is a good chance that you will eventually take a hit.

 

[Jonathan]

of the attached the algorithm worked correctly during the first dive when set to a nitrox mix but during the subsequent surface intervals assumed you were breathing the same nitrox mix rather than the air all around.

This would give you somewhat of an error! (always one for the understatement).

Sounds like it would have worked alright if you were using air all the way through - probably a good thing nitrox was not that commonly available (so I believe) back when we are talking about or there would have been more cases to pursue.

As to flying 10 hours after multiple dives during a day - I think our good friend Darwin was trying to help out.....

Jonathan

 

[leadweight]

I have an Aladin Pro Nitrox. Defective or not, it gives frightfully short times to fly on air, nitrox or beer. In the past I have cut the 24 hour rule a bit short (like 22 hours) before DAN lowered the standard to 18 hours. This was based in part on much shorter no fly times the Aladin was calculating.

Even if these two divers had used more caution and waited 18 hours, they might have been bent anyway because the surface intervals between their dives were crediting more offgassing than would have been possible on air. By that third dive they could easily have been past the NDL.

Its been a while since I cracked a lawbook on product liability, but as I recall contributory negligence of the plaintiff is not a defense. (Anyone who is sure of the anwer want to comment?) In other words, the failure of the injured divers to observe the normal 12/24 no fly time does not excuse the alleged defect by Uwatec. The alleged concealment will set up a nice punitive damages case. Johnson Outdoors gets stuck with the bill and they have to chace the old owners down to get any relief. By now those crafty Swiss so & so's may have spent the money on cheese.

This is not intended to be legal advice, if you have a products liability problem, see a qualified lawyer.

 

[wreckchick]

I'm not at all a lawyer, but won't the defendants be able to argue that the result would have been the same regardless of any product defect? They may be able to say that although the algorithm was very liberal and had an error, the judgement of the plaintiffs actually was the causal factor and that the recall was just to tidy up the differences between the newer and older models.

Don't get me wrong, I think they were probably negligent, but going against "common practices" and blaming the product I thought was a no-no.

If someone isn't wearing a seatbelt and the airbag doesn't deploy, can the car manufacturer be held solely responsible for injury?

Rachel

 

[daylight]

Dive computers are only a tool. aid, or accessory. They can fail, glitch, or lockup. Common sense says don't bet your a$$ on them.
It isn't a DIR or non-DIR issue much a some would have it.
Folks who dive once or twice a year in the Caribbean need some assistance. When you market diving to the masses, computers probably save more than they injure. For the environment and technology, they are amazingly reliable. We all fly on airplanes everyday with thousands of known software defects in the air traffic control system. That's why we have air traffic controllers. Man in the loop isn't a bad thing.
Am I going to rely 100% on my tool- No. I still use it as a double check on myself.
Larry

 

[detroit diver]

daylight once bubbled...
Dive computers are only a tool. aid, or accessory. They can fail, glitch, or lockup. Common sense says don't bet your a$$ on them.
It isn't a DIR or non-DIR issue much a some would have it.
Folks who dive once or twice a year in the Caribbean need some assistance. When you market diving to the masses, computers probably save more than they injure. For the environment and technology, they are amazingly reliable. We all fly on airplanes everyday with thousands of known software defects in the air traffic control system. That's why we have air traffic controllers. Man in the loop isn't a bad thing.
Am I going to rely 100% on my tool- No. I still use it as a double check on myself.
Larry

I would never rely 100% on my tool either......

 

[leadweight]

biscuit7 once bubbled...
I'm not at all a lawyer, but won't the defendants be able to argue that the result would have been the same regardless of any product defect? They may be able to say that although the algorithm was very liberal and had an error, the judgement of the plaintiffs actually was the causal factor and that the recall was just to tidy up the differences between the newer and older models.

Don't get me wrong, I think they were probably negligent, but going against "common practices" and blaming the product I thought was a no-no.

If someone isn't wearing a seatbelt and the airbag doesn't deploy, can the car manufacturer be held solely responsible for injury?

Rachel

I don't think that Uwatec can use the 12/24 practice as a defense because in effect they are telling the users of their computers to ignore this rough standard and use their computer to calculate a no fly time (based on actual exposure) that is usually shorter. Perhaps, if the injured divers had come rocketing up to the surface Uwatec culd say that was the cause of their injury.

As an owner of an Aladin computer, I can tell you that I have never seen it report a no fly time of more than 21 hours and often the no fly time is less than 12 hours.

I believe that some of the new RGBM tables also have no fly time calculations built in.

I realize this will irk some of the personal responsibility advocates and divers who don't like computers, but I believe that divers have a right to rely on their computers, in practice this will be safer for most divers and that manufacturers of defective computers should be held responsible for the injuries that result from these defects. There are quite a few dive boats that require divers to use computers.

Fine with me if you want to do it in your head. Buddy with someone else. Just remember that computational ability declines at depth and distractions cause errors.

I believe that under applicable law if a computer gave a no stop time of 50 minutes at 80 feet on air the manufacturer would none the less be responsible for any resultant injury and could not argue that the user should have known no dive tables (including US Navy) allow that much bottom time. What if the depth sensor measured 60 feet at 80 feet? We are not required to check our buddy's computer or carry a backup to see if it agrees. That is how it is. Product liability law is stacked heavily in favor of the injured party.

This is not intended to be legal advice, if you have a products liability issue or are injured, see a qualified lawyer in your area.

 

[Braunbehrens]

leadweight once bubbled...
What if the depth sensor measured 60 feet at 80 feet?

This is exactly what happened to my SUUNTO, and I did get bent (although not severely so). However, all products will eventually fail. Are you saying that if a product fails, the manufacturer is responsible? I have heard of lots and lots of stories where the computer malfunctioned.

If they can get sued every time, I think they'll stop making dive computers before long. It's almost impossible to make a dive computer that is not subject to failure. First, it's a COMPUTER. That measn that the software could run into a bug. Second, we are talking about electronics used in salt water under pressure. It's easy to imagine the consequences.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the manufacturer is probably only liable if they were negligent. I.e., they knew there was a problem with the unit, yet they didn't recall it.

Any lawyers here who want to set me straight?