Waterford Garda dead - County Wexford, Ireland

[helodriver87]

Human error is a major contributing factor in a significant majority of accidents. In military aviation, it typically shows up as a causal or deciding factor in around 80% of fatal crashes. Technical diving isn't really that different. It's entirely possible the unit malfunctioned as they sometimes do, but the squishy pink thing in the rebreather/cockpit/etc is typically the weak link at the end of the day. Unresolvable situations totally out of the operator's ability to address are actually pretty rare.

 

[John the Pom]

Human error is a major contributing factor in a significant majority of accidents. In military aviation, it typically shows up as a causal or deciding factor in around 80% of fatal crashes. Technical diving isn't really that different. It's entirely possible the unit malfunctioned as they sometimes do, but the squishy pink thing in the rebreather/cockpit/etc is typically the weak link at the end of the day. Unresolvable situations totally out of the operator's ability to address are actually pretty rare.

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. Two of the basic principles of modern safety engineering are:

1. Humans inevitably make mistakes. System design has to consider human error as something that will happen with 100% probability.
2. Nothing can be made completely safe. The best you can do is make the risk "as low as reasonably possible."

I would say that aviation has an incredible safety record, and meets the requirements for safety very comfortably. It is not a coincidence that much of safety engineering was developed from the aerospace industry. Recreational CCR diving is a different beast entirely. IMO it doesn't come close to meeting the requirements for being considered as safe as reasonably possible. Personally, I've nothing against people doing risky activities, as long as they understand the risks, and the potential impact on other people who didn't choose to take those risks.

 

[helodriver87]

I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. Two of the basic principles of modern safety engineering are:

1. Humans inevitably make mistakes. System design has to consider human error as something that will happen with 100% probability.
2. Nothing can be made completely safe. The best you can do is make the risk "as low as reasonably possible."

I would say that aviation has an incredible safety record, and meets the requirements for safety very comfortably. It is not a coincidence that much of safety engineering was developed from the aerospace industry. Recreational CCR diving is a different beast entirely. IMO it doesn't come close to meeting the requirements for being considered as safe as reasonably possible. Personally, I've nothing against people doing risky activities, as long as they understand the risks, and the potential impact on other people who didn't choose to take those risks.

Military aviation is more akin to technical CCR diving than commercial aviation. It has a much higher built in level of risk and complexity. Systems are designed to fail in predictable ways but the nature of the activity and environment means that it often comes down to the human to react appropriately and use quick, informed judgement to assess the situation. This is often where the failure happens. A recreational CCR isn't engineered like a helicopter, but it has a finite and reasonably well understood number of failure modes. The problem tends to be how the diver responds to them.

 

[Celt]

The problem tends to be how the diver responds to them.

The CCR industry doesn’t make the diver aware of the problems, they cover them up.
http://www.deeplife.co.uk/files/How_Rebreathers_Kill_People.pdf

 

[Colliam7]

Well no doubt the manufacturer will put it down to user error. Can’t imagine anyone saying he was using a heap of sh***t and it killed him.

The CCR industry doesn’t make the diver aware of the problems, they cover them up.http://www.deeplife.co.uk/files/How_Rebreathers_Kill_People.pdf

It appears that you have some particular concerns about CCR manufacturers, and the industry in general. Fair enough.

I do find it interesting that in support of your negative view about the industry you post a link from a company that is most definitely in the CCR industry. And, that company would be hard pressed to say that they are an independent entity, unbiased, and with no 'dog in the fight', since on their website they also boast:

'Open Safety Equipment Ltd has six radically different rebreather models in production, all developed by Deep Life. Four of these have full CE certification, and two have equivalent approval by non-EU governmental bodies. All are a product of the Open Revolution safety project pioneered by Deep Life, and meet the IEC Functional Safety standard at SIL 3.'

From my perspective, I would prefer to see truly independent examinations of product safety. Maybe, Deep Life is considered by some to be independent. Maybe not.

 

[helodriver87]

The CCR industry doesn’t make the diver aware of the problems, they cover them up.
http://www.deeplife.co.uk/files/How_Rebreathers_Kill_People.pdf

Concerned about rebreather safety, posts link from possibly the worst source imaginable. Makes sense. Now that you've conjured Brad, you've all but guaranteed there won't be any substance to the discussion. Yes, rebreathers are more inherently dangerous. Yes, they break sometimes. And yes, sometimes manufacturers look hard for the human error to avoid serious liability. But the facts are, human error is almost always a component and Brad Horn is a garbage source who takes any opportunity to **** on competitors to hawk his own magical thinking designs.

 

[Turtle78]

I honestly believe that CCR divers fully understand that rebreathers can be much more dangerous than open circuit. But they can also provide safety for dives no longer feasible on open circuit. It is a personal choice based on one's own risk acceptance. Similar to riding a motorcycle. Pros and cons about rebreathers and their risks have already been discussed countless times. It's not going to change the fact that rebreathers are not going to go away and people will chose to dive them for whatever reasons.

I believe it would be more productive to discuss what specifically can go wrong regarding specific scenarios and how to deal with the problem. In this case, what can cause an unexpected oxygen spike. Thanks for the answers already provided.

 

[Celt]

Concerned about rebreather safety, posts link from possibly the worst source imaginable. Makes sense. Now that you've conjured Brad, you've all but guaranteed there won't be any substance to the discussion. Yes, rebreathers are more inherently dangerous. Yes, they break sometimes. And yes, sometimes manufacturers look hard for the human error to avoid serious liability. But the facts are, human error is almost always a component and Brad Horn is a garbage source who takes any opportunity to **** on competitors to hawk his own magical thinking designs.

If you have information that contradicts the deeplife data you should link it.

 

[helodriver87]

If you're not familiar with Brad, you have a ton of catching up to do. Feel free to check in on any thread he appears in. His sole motivation is to make every rebreather (but his, of course) look like a death trap. He sells the things, of course you're going to find exactly what you're looking for with his "analysis" of competitor's units. You can see some of his "testing" methods if you check out the currently active CCR Selection thread. Short version, he's a joke and an opportunist and his information is worth less than the time it takes to link to it.

 

[Celt]

If you're not familiar with Brad, you have a ton of catching up to do. Feel free to check in on any thread he appears in. His sole motivation is to make every rebreather (but his, of course) look like a death trap. He sells the things, of course you're going to find exactly what you're looking for with his "analysis" of competitor's units. You can see some of his "testing" methods if you check out the currently active CCR Selection thread. Short version, he's a joke and an opportunist and his information is worth less than the time it takes to link to it.

I will take your advice and do some studying thanks