zzzzzzzz

Dear List,

No words can quell the suffering those close to the chap that was recently lost. With that in mind, this is the humblest expression of condolences to friends and family. Our thoughts go with you. There is sincerity in the equal risk we share from participating in these activities.

As with all events of this type, there are precious lessons for us to carry on. All of us can remember some incident that changed how we dive. Diving is without question one of the few civilian disciplines that is still writing "the manual" in blood.

We are all quite lucky to enjoy minimal regulatory intervention. Ideally, wisdom will prevail in the continued saga.

It is really too bad that rebreathers are still very much experimental in many regards. For many also, this is the reason that makes them so interesting.

The IUCRR is quite usefull and the reports are exceptional if only they were not for such events. The one element they are lacking is the extra information that can provide a feel for what hapenned. They are technical descriptions of the circumstances found at the scene. They can't provide the frame of mind of the indivuduals, nor the extent of the endeavors undertaken by the victim(s).

The only way to obtain that information and to translate it into a lesson useful to intereted parties, such as us, is by way of forums such as this. The only other way is to talk to the folks who were there, or to be associated with the community.

As with many such events, there is more than meets the eye. Such would be the case with Steve which someone brought up. It would be a stretch to think that the gas management wasn't executed to perfection. Maybe the CNS exposure on the other hand... It was another time.

What is peculiar about the incident in question is that the double 100's were both empty. While a valiant effort at hauling all the gear out, leaving the one that got emptied out first behind may have bought that ten feet. In any case, it is trite to play monday morning quarterback, and not particularly appropriate or constructive. However it is an analysis that may be useful someday (and hopefully not).

In regard to the magnitude of the bailout gas supply, double 100's does appear to be quite adequate bailout. Why was this was still not enough! Certainly a flooded unit would pose an added burden. However, if there was diluent left, it stands to reason that the buoyancy handicap was not a major contributor. Is the factor the nature of the passageways where the exploration was being carried out? This would be an interesting fact to know.

Small tunnels may explain how the unit got flooded if the plumbing, hoses, or anything else was damaged during this phase. One reason for going CC is to minimize the profile.

Perhaps with a flooded unit, the oxygen could be depleted as a result of the solenoid firing all the time. If this were the case, then the O2 depletion is explained. The remaining element is mainly a gas management issue. Perhaps the analysis will reveal a reason for the flood. If it is from a punctured hose, there are solutions and alternatives.

More importantly, how much more conservative should the estimates have been? Is there an important safety factor that was missed.

In regard to the incident in question, there is the added element of the BOB that springs to mind. We've all come to grips with the fact that a true BOB must actually be more sophisticated since it must "manage" itself through the course of the dive so as to be ready for operation. There are several little factors that make this a surprising technical challenge.

In any case, any added information is helpful for the rest of us.

z

__________________
z