Rebreather World Traitor

Dave Sutton

So he's betrayed who?

You? You ever send him a dollar for his work? No? He's not betrayed you. Your just a spectator as far as he's concerned.

Me? Nope, not me..... I never paid him and he doesn't even have the obligation to be polite to me, never mind to put aside his professional work in order to keep me happy. No betrayal there.

Any other member of this "community"? Nope... there's no annual collection being taken up by Rebreather World members to keep his bills paid, to pay back for him going to school to get his degree, or to maintain his office. Face it, this so-called "community" is one step above bar-talk from it's standpoint as an organization.

The "Industry"? Nope... there is no "Industry" as an entity, just a collection of competing interests, some making good products and some making absolute junk. It's not a monolith... you cannot be a traitor to an unorganized rabble with quality control ranging from aerospace to 'let's see if it works... send out a dozen to customers and let's see how many come back busted".


So who? Tell me *who*?

Seems to me that he's just a businessman, and his only obligation is to the truth (which, never fear, will be told due to the nature of the system), and to the folks who PAY him (which would be none of us).


As to conflict of interest: The bottom line is that anyone who has sufficient professional credentials to testify as an expert will also be employed in the industry. Without full time employment in the related industry, there is no expertise to tend. With almost 100% certaintly, all experts deal with 'some' conflict of interest question as a result.

This is just another day in the office for a professional engineer. Someone is going to be hired by each side: Who would YOU prefer? Name who you would LIKE to see do the work? Anyone? Name ONE. Or is it simply that ANYONE who dares to testify as an expert against ANY manufacturer is going to be the subject of this abuse? My answer is a huge <yawn> .... Let it go. Heck, we might even find out why people were dropping like flies on the older YBOD. There's NO doubt that they were, BTW. It's not a coincidence.


Dave

.

AM

Using a car analogy in this context is utter nonsense.

If someone dies in a Mercedes, it is *generally* because they committed a driving error, or someone else, a third party, caused an accident. If, and only if, it could be estalished that any accident was caused by a car design fault, then yes, it would not be unheard of for a fellow car manufacturer to be called upon to give evidence.

There is much confusion here about what the term 'conflict of interest' really means. In a specialised industry such as CCR manufacture, the only party capable of giving expert evidence, by nature of the industry, is OF COURSE going to be someone WITHIN this industry.

The duty of an expert witness is to the Court, not to bowing down to public perception of what drives their motivation for offering their expert opinion. Furthermore, Alex was called to give evidence recently at an inquest, not a civil or criminal trial. There is no "cross-examination' per se at an inquest, the purpose of the inquest is to establish the facts and attempt to determine causation, incorporating any relevant factors, that can be elicited by expert opinion and detailed questioning on either side.

Real cross-examination at an actual trial, such as a civil trial for professional negligence, is extremely effective at determining inconsistencies or inaccuracies or indeed bias. Quite often, a credible witness, i.e. credible in terms of qualifications and experience, will be presented as a biased witness by the other side because that is the only argument available to them to attack the witness' credibility.

Alex is not a traitor - he is merely filling a gap that has existed for years. He has not brought this litigation. Are we saying that NO ONE else from the industry should ever present alternative evidence and that all manufacturers must be right/telling the honest truth/producing perfect rebreathers/all deaths are user error?

This is like the equivalent of suggesting that if you innocently find yourself the subject of a criminal or civil trial, that you are not entitled to representation. Everyone is entitled to representation and part of that representation includes the entitlement to engage an expert opinion to assist understanding of the facts, without the risk that a one-sided discussion will impede ELICITING THE TRUE FACTS.

One case a year is what Alex has suggested. Quite how anyone can misconstrue this as "traitordom" or commercially driven, is beyond belief. What is one case a year going to do for anyone that is in fact giving up their time to attend said case and may only claim out of pocket expenses. What commercial gain is feasible from one case a year? There is no product on the market yet from Alex, so what gain is envisaged?

The bottom line is, a one-sided trial is not a trial and is not objective. For every commentator that believes Alex is a traitor, I believe there are ten who support this initiative and who truly understand that Alex is driven by honest motives, with the integrity to pursue safety, as vigorously as possible.

I would surmise that the production of the Open Revolution concept is not Alex's main source of income and he does not need to level the playing field in order to make good his "attack".

Cracked handsets and the like are an intrinsic design flaw on a rebreather. Even if a user carries bailout but fails to deploy it and dies, the original manufacturer is still partially liable and the diver is contributorily liable. The only reason this has carried on so long, unchallenged, is the patent lack of OBJECTIVE evidence from a non-APD expert.

CE rating on rebreathers is nonsense. The idea that all Euro rebreathers are CE is nonsense. Anyone can buy a rebreather or build a rebreather anywhere in the world and dive it anywhere they like, with relevant certifications, from training agencies that are flagrantly NOT aligned with manufacturer's guidelines.

So the industry problems are not all about design faults, but certainly it is time we universally realised that poorly designed rebreathers, do, in part, contribute to user deaths. One of the legal tests employed in causation in civil litigation in the UK is the "but for" test. So, but for a unit failing, A.N.Other user would..on the balance of probabilities...still be alive. The failure to deploy bailout is NOT a get out clause for the manufacturer to continue to produce clearly faulty (by design) equipment. The car analogy - should we all be able to take immediate corrective action when the car's (new and properly maintained) brake pads/shoes/disks fail, for no other reason than bad design? Is it driver error if we didn't plan for that and hit a wall?!?!?!

No matter how much bailout you carry, or whatever risk mitigations users choose to employ - if a unit switches off and cannot display PPO2, (as a direct result of a design fault, not related to reasonable use) then that equipment is categorically not fit for diving applications, where the very premise of the application is that the unit's electronics will support life and display PPO2. The fact that such equipment has passed CE, clearly makes a mockery of the CE rating system. Faults affecting electronic display and control SHOULD be picked up in the testing cycle and rectified, no matter what the cost, NOT beta tested in the field, where people's lives are at stake. Commercial gain/loss versus unnecessary loss of human lives? Let's get real here!!!!

Finally, I would suggest that any commentary on details of specific user deaths is desisted from immediately. This is unacceptable practice while inquest(s) are ongoing. Have some respect.

Regards

AnneMarie

__________________

UWSojourner

First, the Rebreather market should not be compared to basic consumer products (as in the “child choking on magnets” post). To fix the magnet analogy you’d have to say the magnets were sold to a lab, only after a professional skilled in the use of magnets was required to train the lab personnel on their proper use, and then someone in the lab decided to put them in their mouth and died. Recall? I don’t think so. When RBs are sold to children at the local toy store we can revisit the issue.

Second, the current situation is not simply Alex acting as an expert witness. The situation (IMO) is Alex combining a marketing strategy for his products that includes

1) taking the most extreme positions possible (to his company’s benefit) with regard to accident analysis (i.e. “Nobody dies on a rebreather from user error …”),
2) campaigning for regulations (government assistance) that support his products/services, and
3) assuming the role of police by promoting legal action to harass/scare competition into doing things his way (“As there is no-one else doing the policing, then for reasons of safety but also to ensure a level playing field, Deep Life will provide technical expertise to lawyers claiming damages… Now is the last call for manufacturers and Notified Bodies to put their house in order.”).

He has a very high vested interest in regulatory action / legal outcomes. Claims of being the champion of widows and orphans are a bit, shall we say, exaggerated.

Ron's post (IMO) is not simply a complaint that he’s an expert witness. IMO Alex has not been honest in prior posts stating he wasn’t seeking these other avenues of “competition”. His own website now makes that clear. I fully support his effort to bring a very safe Rebreather to market. I deplore the heavy-handedness he's using to attempt to coerce the market into using his services and believe it will not benefit us, the users.

MarkZ

I got this from the fact that I was there when it happened and assited in the recovery. Your understanding is filled with misinformation. How can battery bounce be an issue when the individual surface swam from the shore of a quarry to a training platform? Both handsets were in the off position when the individual was recovered. The eyewitnesses all have stated that same fact including his dive buddies.

You, Alex and whoever else that is interested can model and conjecture to your hearts desires but the simple fact is that while it was a terrible tragedy it was due to diver error. Whatever problems that may exist with the Inspiration or any other unit for that matter is immaterial if it was not turned on. Wet switches are often discussed but there is a real downside to them also as it allows you to go in the water without proper setup procedures being completed.

I too am waiting for the perfect unit but suspect that it may be a very long time coming. In the mean time I will simply follow the recommendations of the manufacturer and instructors as to the proper use of the unit and do anything else in my power not to become the next discussion topic.

mempilot

And dying on rebreathers isn't often caused by diver error? Not utter nonsense at all. I'm not comparing a car to a rebreather. You miss the point all together AM. Pick whatever industry you will. It is a conflict of interest to put yourself you publically as an expert witness against a competiter under the guise of safety when you stand to profit from the their demise.

You just contradicted your statement about utter nonsense with this sentence. You are right that it would not be unheard of for a fellow car manuf. to give testimony, but it would be unheard of for that car manuf to put themselves out publically in a statement on their website that they do so.

The rebreather industry is not special in any such way. What is the motive? It is awfully convenient that the expressed motive also lends to what Ron is stating is the underlying motive, profit. Not profit as in margin, but profit as in discrediting people who have been working on making their units safer through design, just not at what is deemed acceptable by Alex.

I agree with you. If he was called upon for his expert testimony, then I have no problem with him. But by posting this statement on his website, he is basically handing out an invitation to civil attourneys to use him against his competition is BS, any which way you cut it.

I agree. Alex is not a traitor. I think he is over zealous and bordering on predatory, but not traitorous. To be a traitor means he turned on his own. Since he has no loyalty to any of the other Rebreather manufs, they he can't be a traitor. Using his safety badge to actively pursue being a part of lawsuits against these companies is predatory and worthy of a tongue lashing by those in the community that feel it is bad form.

What gap? It's not a gap in the Rebreather industry that no one has been called to the stand to point out the dangers of RB units. It's a gap in the civil lawyers capability to put together an argument. If Alex wants to be that argument, more power to him. I don't damn him for that. I would like to see safer units and therefore less deaths. But, don't think for a second that any of these other companies that he is so willing to draw the sword on aren't trying to increase safety in their own units. To think so is utter nonsense to steal your words.

Where do you get this from? No one is saying that victims and their families don't deserve a hearing and claim against a manuf. But holding CE up as a badge of honor and saying that other rebreathers will kill you for lack of that badge is BS. Let's revisit this post when one of Alex's units is involved in a death. He treads a slippery slope in his claims.

That's all he needs to do the damage to his competition. Are you telling me that no one out, not affiliated with a manufacturer, has the knowledge to testify. BS Again, only one person used the word 'traitor' and you have actually used it more times than him in one post.

Bottom line is Alex can do what he wants. The way he goes about doing it is how he should be judged by the community he wants to service.

No one would debate this any other way. Alex has named many reputeable rebreathers as bing poorly designed. He gets people on this board to jump on the band wagon. I would be interested to see if these comments show up in legal actions against such manufacturers? The problem I see with this is that much of what gets published on Rebreather World is subjective and can also be taken out of context. There seems to be some real ego stroking going on.

No one has given any commentary on any details of specific user deaths in this thread. Don't throw the respect thing in anyone's face here.

__________________
MEM "Da Pilot"

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

"If at first you don't succeed, don't dive silent."

"Would you mind not shooting at the thermo-nuclear weapons." ~ Vic Deakins

"Donkey's kill more people annually than plane crashes."

AM

You misunderstand the correct interpretation of a conflict of interests. The fact that Alex "may" have an increased market share if ONE of his competitors is found to be producing unsafe equipment, does not in itself create a conflict of interests. There are other manufacturers out there - who is to say that users will not choose them, rather than Alex. Until you can categorically state that Alex WILL profit because another manufacturer is producing unfit equipment, then you can't establish a conflict of interest - only a potential bias. Users might well decide to buy Alex's rebreather because it may offer better safety features, nothing to do with another manufacturer producing bad gear.

The automotive industry as a whole is not comparable to a small, specialised industry such as CCR production and manufacture. Think about what the two represent. Alex is entitled to put what he likes on his own website, it does not mean he is on a witch hunt, merely that he wishes to provide objective testimony, which has been missing in all rebreather litigation, to date.

The only potential discredit that will occur, is the outcome determined by any litigation. Alex may well end up the loser, which would seriously undermine his own credibility in the market. Alex may well end up the winner, which means that conclusions may have been drawn that his assertions present a stronger argument that the X/Y/Z manufacturer. THAT is what will discredit other manufacturers, not the practice of Alex deciding to take the stand.

There IS a gap. You can get the best civil lawyers in the world, but if no one is willing to go head to head against a manufacturer, then the trial will never be a fair, objective trial. I don't believe commercial agendas are secondary to safety, it is evident from the length of time and the lack of product recall, that safety is NOT the paramount consideration with many manufacturers.

Who suggested that? I did not suggest for a second that CE marking renders a unit fit for diving. I prefer non CE rated units for various reasons! CE marking is nonsense - especially considering how many CE rated units have inherent design faults!

Again, your argument is fundamentally flawed. The collateral damage will only occur IF and WHEN a judicial process makes a finding that X/Y/Z manufacturer is negligent and producing unfit/faulty equipment.

Yes, they have, my friend, look a bit closer. Although two commentators appear to be unwittingly discussing two separate incidents!

__________________

Ilikerisk

Respectfully, both sides seem to misunderstand the supposed "conflict of interests."

A conflict of interests is only a BAD thing when someone has an interest that conflicts with an obligation of loyalty.

In this case, Alex' combining marketing with acting as an expert witness is not just not a bad conflict of interest, it is EXACTLY what the law of product liability was intended to encourage, which is competition over safety and manufacturers trying to prove what they do is safer.

If people have a problem with this, they should take it up with their legislators, not with Alex or AM or anyone else on this board.

mempilot

Let's change conflict of interest to underlying motive.

While his overall motive is commendable, his solicitation publically for lawsuits to come trotting his way discredits the safety motive and exposes a competetive predatory motive.

Is this illegal? Absolutely not.

Is this irresponsible? Absolutely not.

Since when is Alex the defacto standard in the industry? He hasn't sold unit one yet, so it all sounds good, but the proof will be in the pudding. If he suceeds, then congratulations. If he takes down some other manufactures through lawsuits and pressure to make CE a conformity, then good for Alex's business. But go look at some of the arguments he raises about certain units on this board. He's stretching in many cases.

The argument for no tolerance of Rebreather caused deaths has put him on a crusade - a dark and lonely path in most cases. But hey, Poseidon is striving for the same thing. They may not be in the same league, but the goal is the same. Do they have underlying motives other than safety? Yep. Money. As Alex or Poseidon should, for a broke company does no one any good.

I'll just say it again: Soliciting your willingness to sue the other manufacturers as the champion of widows is a crusade. Why not just develop what you preach and the attourneys will have something to compare.

Here's a question for Alex:

Which manufacturers are you willing to set your sights on? Or is it just any manufacturer that doesn't meet your unproven standard?

Why not make public your convictions?

__________________
MEM "Da Pilot"

Black holes are where God divided by zero.

"If at first you don't succeed, don't dive silent."

"Would you mind not shooting at the thermo-nuclear weapons." ~ Vic Deakins

"Donkey's kill more people annually than plane crashes."

Mdemon

I was asked what this means and I don't know. Would you or the person that wrote it care to explain please?

__________________
www.southwestmafia.com



"Once the agenda-monkeys and perfect-worlders have moved on, perhaps we can do some diving?"

gibbogeo

Just for information, normally here in Italy, the preferred expert on law litigation are university professor with a background in the field of the discussion. Here the title of "university professor" have an incredible power. And also if the professor is completely dumb, to contrast his opinion you need at least another professor, better of a higher level.

The problem, in the field of CCR, is that there are no degrees on this matter, no courses, no university working fom a long time on it, so probably i agree that some technician from major manufacturer, also from abroad, will be called in similar situation.