Rebreather World - View Single Post

AD_ward9 · 22nd February 2007, 18:27

Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers)

hello alex, it is clear that I can only agree half: the current 14143 is clearly written with a specific unit in mind, at the moment that there was only one unit around that was working towards the new 14143

for example, certain parameters in the CE testing, like the WOB in positions you never dive, are not safety-related, but unit-proctectionism.

There has been at least one fatalitybecause counterlungs were not fixed down on a unit properly, floated above the diver in a certain position, with the result that the diver died. Based on that fact, I disagree with you: it is necessary to test the unit in each position. To do so is very simple and requires minimal investment: it is done with the unit only just submerged.

You do not need 3rd party testing. You just need a 3rd party audit of your testing. If you test things properly and report the results properly, the audit is very straight forward. Lack of accredited auditors is another topic ...

I understand EN14143:2003 is to have a new version come out soon ("soon" is a relative word, when it comes to standards). If you post here your specific proposals for a better standard, i.e. what exactly is not right with the present standard, then they may find their way to the people on the committee.

On the mCCR, why not propose exactly what is needed? Send it to the committee working on the next revision of EN14143:2003, framed in terms of what clauses of EN14143:2003 should change.

Dave's point below is smack on the nail. Designing something and building it, is usually only 20% of the way to finishing it. Uncertified rebreathers are experimental, unfinished projects. Fake CE certs do mean "We are defrauding you. This equipment is not fit for the purpose for which it is sold, namely underwater use."

Alex

22nd February 2007, 18:27	#48 (permalink)
AD_ward9 Apocalypse CCR Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,001	Re: submatix EC approval organisation Quote: (Originally Posted by paulraymaekers) hello alex, it is clear that I can only agree half: the current 14143 is clearly written with a specific unit in mind, at the moment that there was only one unit around that was working towards the new 14143 for example, certain parameters in the CE testing, like the WOB in positions you never dive, are not safety-related, but unit-proctectionism. There has been at least one fatalitybecause counterlungs were not fixed down on a unit properly, floated above the diver in a certain position, with the result that the diver died. Based on that fact, I disagree with you: it is necessary to test the unit in each position. To do so is very simple and requires minimal investment: it is done with the unit only just submerged. You do not need 3rd party testing. You just need a 3rd party audit of your testing. If you test things properly and report the results properly, the audit is very straight forward. Lack of accredited auditors is another topic ... I understand EN14143:2003 is to have a new version come out soon ("soon" is a relative word, when it comes to standards). If you post here your specific proposals for a better standard, i.e. what exactly is not right with the present standard, then they may find their way to the people on the committee. On the mCCR, why not propose exactly what is needed? Send it to the committee working on the next revision of EN14143:2003, framed in terms of what clauses of EN14143:2003 should change. Dave's point below is smack on the nail. Designing something and building it, is usually only 20% of the way to finishing it. Uncertified rebreathers are experimental, unfinished projects. Fake CE certs do mean "We are defrauding you. This equipment is not fit for the purpose for which it is sold, namely underwater use." Alex Last edited by AD_ward9 : 22nd February 2007 at 18:37.
(Offline)