Waterford Garda dead - County Wexford, Ireland

[cathal]

That’s an answer you’d get from the rebreather manufacturer’s solicitors, when in actual fact the onus should be on them to prove the gear hasn’t killed someone. The dead can’t defend themselves.

It’s quite simple, You are making this claim, so prove it.

 

[Turtle78]

But it was examined by an independent expert as alluded to in that news article.

The person who examined it is an instructor not an engineer,

I can agree with your point about an instructor not being truly independent. After all, an instructor makes a living to a certain extent teaching that rebreather, even if he also teaches other units. However, rebreather diving is such a niche activity, that when an accident happens, authorities have no other choice but to ask an instructor or even the manufacturer. There is no real independent examination similar to aviation.

Does it really make a difference though? The rebreather initially passed CE testing before sale (ok this opens another can of worms). So let's assume the rebreather is in acceptable working order before it is bought. Then something "breaks" and the diver cannot react in time and dies. Or the diver was trained to react to whatever malfunction could possibly happen but still dies. Or the rebreather was in perfect working order, but due to user error the diver dies. Unfortunately, all 3 scenarios have the same outcome. No victim blaming here at all, even the most experienced and educated divers have died due to one of the 3 scenarios. Everyone who gets into rebreather diving knows that there is a much higher risk of death compared to open circuit. It is a personal decision whether one accepts that risk.

Is it a life insurance issue? My understanding is that life insurance would be granted to family regardless of malfunction or user error. Life insurances even cover suicide.

Is it a manufacturer issue? Since the rebreather passed CE, the manufacturers are "safe"

If the deceased was a friend of yours, I'm very sorry for your loss.

 

[helodriver87]

You will find that using the Engineers who designed both the unit and the electronics in a Coroners inquest involving one of their units would lead to a legal conflict of interest and their findings would be open to criticism of bias. Let’s not forget the Coroner satisfied themselves to the competency of the person they appointed to act as an expert for this matter and I understand another expert group may have been helped this expert with the analysis of the electronics.

Let mac believe what he wants. There's proof enough in this thread that he lacks credibility or knowledge on the subject.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that there may or may not have been equipment failure, but there's not enough information to be sure. What does seem clear is that either the high PO2 warnings were missed or the decision was made to stay on the loop despite them. At the end of the day, that's the proximal cause regardless of the precipitating event, to borrow a phrase.

 

[Celt]

Having a belief in the absence of any evidence is just cognitive dissonance. Beliefs do not work in getting to the bottom of an accident investigation. We need verifiable facts, facts that may or may not contradict your beliefs,

All the more reason for an international independent investigation unit to deal with diving fatalities.

 

[Celt]

I understand another expert group may have been helped this expert with the analysis of the electronics.

Who were they and what are the engineering qualifications of the expert your referring to

 

[Celt]

It’s quite simple, You are making this claim, so prove it.

You show proof it wasn’t the rebreather, I don’t build, sell or profit from the sale of rebreathers. There’s no onus on me to prove their safe or not.

 

[cathal]

You show proof it wasn’t the rebreather, I don’t build, sell or profit from the sale of rebreathers. There’s no onus on me to prove their safe or not.

https://thelogicofscience.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/burden-of-proof1.jpg

 

[John the Pom]

The inquiry stated "O2 spike" as an issue, and the reason behind it won't be discovered by a dick-waving competition on an internet forum. If people want to put their knowledge to use, draw up a list of possible causes for an "O2 spike" and try to assign rough probabilities to each one. Better, find some actual "O2 spike" incidents so that those probabilities are based on real data. Even better still, establish a reporting and analysis process (such as FMECA) where incidents of that type are reported and their causes and consequences analysed. That way, you will build up a database of information that will allow you to say which failure modes are likely to lead to an "O2 spike" and whether or not it is a serious issue that requires further attention, or if it is addressed by current training methods.

That's thinking like an engineer: collect data; analyse; act - and people on this forum are probably well-placed to do that data collection and analysis. That's what they do when an aeroplane crashes. That's why air travel used to be risky and now is very safe.

 

[Colliam7]

That's thinking like an engineer: collect data; analyse; act - and people on this forum are probably well-placed to do that data collection and analysis.

Yes!!! Data-driven decisions are the preferred path in practice.

It is good to be passionate about an issue. But, it is better to be both informed, AND inquisitive. And, in science, we do operate on the basis of the null hypothesis. That is not a matter of passion-only behavior. It is, at least from a statistician's perspective, the better way to move forward. I need to be 'skeptical', until I have data to guide me.

I have no vested interest in taking a position in a discussion of whether technology is more imperfect, or humans are more imperfect, in rebreather diving. BOTH technology and humans are imperfect. OK, I will go out on a limb - I am not (yet) persuaded that there is a completely reliable technological solution for human error. So, I favor BOTH continued development of the technology, AND continuing education of divers with regard to what we know about human factors, and how to address their impact on reality.

 

[Celt]

it won't be discovered by a dick-waving competition on an internet forum.

Do you have scientific proof for that?