Wesley Skiles' widow suing over rebreather

[Chris Brown Tech]

Wow, an incredible amount of assumptions going on in this thread.

THERE IS NO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANY OF THE CLAIMS BEING MADE ON HERE!! Now we have hypoxia AND hyperoxia as the culprit. Jeez.

This kind of uniformed speculating isnt tolerated on other boards that specialize in CCR and tec. Just sayin. Im all for a bit of debate but coming up with armchair based reasons for a high profile death is a bit much IMO.

Chris:
I'd be interested in your explanation as to why flushing his loop with air diluent prior to ascent, if indeed he was using air as his diluent, would not have prevented a hypoxic ascent.

Sorry, but no one ever suggested this, you are again presenting your own straw-man: "

What??? You said it over and over - "If he had of flushed the loop with dil hed still be alive"? Im disagreeing with that. Why not post your hypothesis over on rebreatherworld and see how you get on? If what you say is a valid possibility, you will get plenty of support. We both know that you are going to be told the same thing as Dave, Ken and I have told you on here. It isnt SOP and it is actually quite dangerous as a standard practice.

 

[HIGHwing]

Chris -

I think the photo of the deceased at RF3 was a bit much, this is just a conversation. If Terri was concerned about Wes' legacy, or icon, she wouldn't be suing our friends. Terri opened the conversation by her actions. Please don't suggest this thread had gone too far, the conversation is just getting started.

 

[Crush]

This kind of uniformed speculating isnt tolerated on other boards that specialize in CCR and tec. Just sayin. Im all for a bit of debate but coming up with armchair based reasons for a high profile death is a bit much IMO..

In fact, this is the only thread on SB, through all of it's history, where knowledgable and experienced divers have engaged in speculation. All other threads have been based entirely on fact with no suppositions.

 

[DandyDon]

In fact, this is the only thread on SB, through all of it's history, where knowledgable and experienced divers have engaged in speculation. All other threads have been based entirely on fact with no suppositions.

Here's your sign:

 

[Thalassamania]

Wow, an incredible amount of assumptions going on in this thread.

THERE IS NO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANY OF THE CLAIMS BEING MADE ON HERE!! Now we have hypoxia AND hyperoxia as the culprit. Jeez.

This kind of uniformed speculating isnt tolerated on other boards that specialize in CCR and tec. Just sayin. Im all for a bit of debate but coming up with armchair based reasons for a high profile death is a bit much IMO.



What??? You said it over and over - "If he had of flushed the loop with dil hed still be alive"? Im disagreeing with that. Why not post your hypothesis over on rebreatherworld and see how you get on? If what you say is a valid possibility, you will get plenty of support. We both know that you are going to be told the same thing as Dave, Ken and I have told you on here. It isnt SOP and it is actually quite dangerous as a standard practice.

No there are no "an incredible amount of assumptions going on in this thread," the credibility of some assumptions is being tested ... rather a different thing if you know anything about the scientific method.

If you have a favorite besides either hypoxia and hyperoxia, belly up and stop running on about, quite literally nothing. Be part of the process or sit on the side, it's all the same since you are not contributing anything, or go on over to rebreatherworld where the climate seems to suit you better.

You make statements without support like, "What??? You said it over and over - "If he had of flushed the loop with dil hed still be alive"? Im disagreeing with that. Why not post your hypothesis over on rebreatherworld and see how you get on? If what you say is a valid possibility, you will get plenty of support. We both know that you are going to be told the same thing as Dave, Ken and I have told you on here. It isnt SOP and it is actually quite dangerous as a standard practice."

Let's look at that for a moment. Yes, that is what I said and the little CCR familiarization that I've had supports that conclusion, as does a logical examination of the issue. You're entitled to disagree, but disagreement solely based upon the use of logical fallacies (e.g., strawman and appeal to authority) is just a waste of time. Pontificating that, "It isnt SOP and it is actually quite dangerous as a standard practice" is just a waste of bandwidth, you're an instructor and you should know that. Let's try: It is actually quite dangerous because (fill in the because with something more rational than it might expose you to a risk in the case of an additional one-in-a-million failure). I'm always happy to learn things and I'm doing nothing here but using what I remember being told and logical deductions from physics and physiology, you (and for that matter Dave and Ken) are doing naught but saying I'm wrong without clearly identifying why. Is there some inherent difference between the gear that your talking about and the Mk 15 or 15.5 (the 15.5 uses the same electronics, does it not?).

 

[Chris Brown Tech]

For an example of a more useful thread on what may / may not have caused a fatality on a CCR see an example here:

Rebreather Death in Galapagos - Rebreather World

Unfortunately this thread is muddied by too much speculation, misinformation and utter inaccuracies to be worthy of useful debate.

Later!

 

[HIGHwing]

The issue at hand is that the modern eCCR that Wes was using appears, for whatever reason, to NOT HAVE maintained the set point it was supposed to for the whole dive. Because of the effects of dropping ambient pressure on ppO2, failure to maintain the set point (at least on the hypoxic side) tends to present as an issue on ascent. Had Wes flushed his loop with diluent prior to ascent (as I routinely do), his ppO2 would have been 0.6, or higher, and his ascent would have been without incident.

Ya know... You're going to have to blow off that gas and to allow for the increased O2 from the solenoid and the expansion the loop volume during the ascent. So basically all you're really accomplishing is being gas inefficient, as you're blowing off the gas you needed (with higher PO2) to obtain diluient (creates a lower FO2 in the loop). That dil is now going to expand in the loop while ascending against the decreasing Pamb (dropping the PO2) and the off gassing process is going to cause a further decaying PO2. The electronics are going to compensate by firing O2 into the loop. That's a whole lot extra stuff you're advocating that serves almost no purpose other than to establish a known FO2 in the loop where you can double check the PO2 calculation - if you so choose to do it. I suppose your argument is that you are beginning an ascent on a known gas even thought it might not be the most efficient action? IF that's what you're trying to get us to understand, I think I get why you're doing it. Trust but verify!

My technique leaves the rebreather at the 1.2 or 1.0 SP, ascend slowly and blow off the expanding gas as required. By this method, I don't "do" anything other than monitor my PO2 and decompression while listening to the solenoid to click in its little cadence or inject a little O2 manually. I've been known to suck the loop down a little and manually inject some O2 to begin an ascent just to pre-load the loop with O2. I know this sounds cheap, but that technique seems to save a few molecules of gas.

 

[wedivebc]

Ya know... You're going to have to blow off that gas and to allow for the increased O2 from the solenoid and the expansion the loop volume during the ascent. So basically all you're really accomplishing is being gas inefficient, as you're blowing off the gas you needed (with higher PO2) to obtain diluient (creates a lower FO2 in the loop). That dil is now going to expand in the loop while ascending against the decreasing Pamb (dropping the PO2) and the off gassing process is going to cause a further decaying PO2. The electronics are going to compensate by firing O2 into the loop. That's a whole lot extra stuff you're advocating that serves almost no purpose other than to establish a known FO2 in the loop where you can double check the PO2 calculation - if you so choose to do it. I suppose your argument is that you are beginning an ascent on a known gas even thought it might not be the most efficient action? IF that's what you're trying to get us to understand, I think I get why you're doing it. Trust but verify!

My technique leaves the rebreather at the 1.2 or 1.0 SP, ascend slowly and blow off the expanding gas as required. By this method, I don't "do" anything other than monitor my PO2 and decompression while listening to the solenoid to click in its little cadence or inject a little O2 manually. I've been known to suck the loop down a little and manually inject some O2 to begin an ascent just to pre-load the loop with O2. I know this sounds cheap, but that technique seems to save a few molecules of gas.

I advocate flushing with O2 at 20ft prior to ascent which allows you to validate cells and give you a SAFE breathing gas at the surface. Thass' method is just stupid. Sorry Thass can't find a way to sugar coat that.

 

[HIGHwing]

I'd go with complicated and gas inefficient rather than stupid. His method does create a cell check prior to a decaying PO2 from the reduction in Pamb during the ascent. If you did flush with Dil you could simply click push the piezo button and see the expected pO2. The suggestion does create a cross check of sorts. I suppose if the PO2 doesn't match you could just bail and worry about it topside.

 

[Thalassamania]

First of all, it's not MY method. Second of all, it's not stupid, it may be (in someone's view) wasteful of gas. Third, the claim is repeatedly made that it is dangerous, but no one seems to be able to make a real case for the danger. Fourth, we continuously have folks who have seem to have every certification card on earth but do not provide a more insightful and definitive explanation than, "you're stupid." Perhaps that's just way the Master Chief taught the "eggheads" so there was a one solution solves all arrangement for folks who had no issues dealing with buoyancy changes and such, which carries over from O/C and drysuit use. HIGHwing's explanation of "trust but verify" makes some sense. I took a look at the rebreatherworld column, frankly it does not look a whole lot different from what I see here, except for the few pedants over there who provide Dalton's law calculations to support their explanations, something that we seem to take for granted here, but that's about it.