Should Rebreathers be Dummyproof?

Brainx3

Hi,


Nice quote, Dave I think this is one of the main purposes of this forum which is to share experiences and spread awareness.


Best Regards. Wael

__________________
The depth of life cannot be measured in Bars, nor can the sea of lies, that lies within.

I don't take crap for an answer...

Dutchy

No not dummyproof. Since all nuance was lost in the question it becomes a black and white one. Better as in capable of preventing the most common user errors made by trained divers? Yes.

I fail to see how this this poll can have any other outcome than no. You will never be able to let a dummy dive for the simple reason that a dummy will let go of the moutpiece or break the seal on the full face mask.
Dummy rebreather equipment does exist. It's called a sub-marine.

Now had I put up an equally trivial question like: "Do you think less accidents on a Rebreather would be better?" what do you think the outcome would be?

__________________
= This post is environmentally friendly. It is composed of 100% recycled electrons only. = SK #007

Gobfish1

they got to flog em to somebody ...

__________________
Steve G

Apparently not the only gay diver in the village

http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/o...nzee-glock.gif

http://www.scubatunes.com/audio/vol01/mp3/HiTech.mp3

Nad

Correct.

__________________
The Impossible is often the Untried

Philippe GERIN

I'm one of them. That's why I dive m-CCR and subscribe stictly to the KISS principle as a dynamic paradigm: the more stupid I become, the simpler I do stuff. Oh, I don't trust sentences such as "with God's help...", so I'm counting on anyone else to keep me alive, especially a government body. I think my answer to the poll should be "nah' then, right?
Best
Philippe

Mark Chase

OHHHHHH not too bias and mis leading then


Ill obstain.


How about some other questions

Should we remove all safety devices and solenoids from CCRs thus making the units more reliable and the divers totaly responsible for their own survival?

If a unit is fitted with solenoids and computerized controllers is it wrong to expect them to fail safe as a minimum standard?

Should new CCR divers be forced to do at least 100hours on MCCR before being allowed to dive a ECCR?

Do ECCR lul divers into a false sense of security?

Does the technology really exist to make an idiot proof CCR?

Should ALL CCR be fitted with a industry standard sealed recording black box?

ATB

Mark

__________________
Is it supposed to make that noise ?

I took my unit to the dive shop and demanded they bolt on every thing that would fit.

Join my elite diving teem and get a Tshirt

"Doing It Chasey"Hammerhead Eccr Advanced Diving System

Ben Field

No, a dummyproof Rebreather is impossible, the question is unanswerable.

Should known Rebreather deisgn failings be removed as much as is technically possible? Yes.
Should future designs learn from mistakes of the past and attempt be be "more" idiot proof? Yes.

__________________

Beware Fridge Suck

Gill Envy

Mark, I can't give you any more green yet but I would if I could.

If manual injection is too inconvenient for someone for a given task then maybe that diver or that task is not a suitable match for rebreather diving?

Maybe the question should be:
If it turns out that manual injection is the key to fostering safe habits, should all manufacturers be liable if they continue to produce automatic systems?

g

__________________
Gill Envy

...Because I wasn't born with gills!
><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>><(°>

wedivebc

Not yet

absolutely!

__________________
Cheers,

Dave....

Man is the only animal burdened with the knowledge he will eventually die

Dave Sutton

Here's my take:

Just as in airplanes.... consumers should be able to purchase 'certified' and 'exerimental' designs. They should just be made aware of the differences.

In a "certified" design, the object should be to make it idiot-proof. If this compromises 'edge of the envelope' technical use, so be it. This would meet the "consumer grade" rebreather market. These should be "certified" in accordance with some standard, perhaps not CE, but some published and tracable standard.

"Experimental" rigs should also be available to those who wish to use rigs that are semi-prototype, truly experimental, or "cutting edge" in some way.

The thing that would be nice would be to *know* what is being bought. The days of "let's design it in the garage and then build a few and see how they work in the hands of the users" should be ended except for those users who KNOW that this is what they are getting. As the industry matures, there is an inevitable "Dumbing Down" of the users. The "Old School" guys might have (as a group) been able to handle "experimental" rigs regularly, but as a consumer product this is no longer a viable business or safety model.

There is no answer in the poll reflecting this "third way", so I will abstain from voting. And for US users, fear not: The Government here will NEVER regulate this stuff: It's simply not how we do things here. The idea of a body like CE having *legal* standing is a curious oddity in our view. We are quite happy to have organizations like UL (Underwriters Labs) do tests and put their little seal on things, but this is simply a "checked OK by independant test" seal, not anythig legal at all. In fact, the "Underwriters" part of the name of the lab ought to give a clue: Their "approval" simply means it's easier to INSURE items passing their test. But legal standing? Forget it.



Dave

.