Hose failures: Cooper and others

AD_ward9 · 20th June 2008, 16:36

This is taking up the suggestion by AM that the hose discussion should be on a different thread to: http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebre...tml#post193298 This is an answer to that post.

Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner)

To date I have not heard of a CO2 hit due to sensor bypass on the Meg. Maybe Mike can provide data if he was informed of such an incident. If not, we have one report of the cooper hoses failing with compromised breathing on a Boros (with far fewer years of exposure per Alex) and no CO2 incidents due to sensor housing failure (with much greater exposure). Generally one would conclude that the likelihood of the one incident is much greater than the other.

We do have two incident reports from the Meg with a CO2 cell bypass. Mike's report is just an incident report.

As you know, there is another scrubber bypass route as well on the Meg, and one cannot say it is not implicated in accidents (nor that it is: but it is suspicious).

The hose issue is an interesting one. We put a lot of effort into identifying and preventing hoses risks, even getting special EPDM made. We chose not to go for wire reinforced hose because of a kink problem. The Meg hoses are a good point on that unit: the Meg hose almost kinks (it would fail our test, but passes the CE test - we demand a 180 degree fold back with it kinking for our own designs, but the Meg flattens in this test though leaving a small breathing passage), whereas wire reinforced hose shut totally. We also believe that unshielded hoses are easier to check visually, and choosing the right material they can be just as strong, tough, abrasion resistant.

After saying that, I must agree with Mike's point that a failure that is obvious is not much of a risk. The real hazards with rebreathers stem from the insidious failures - there are too many of them. A lot of our safety work involves turning insidious failure modes into obvious ones, such as by using an auto-shut off valve. That creates the failure Mike describes deliberately, when the diver might otherwise try breathing off a loop that is unsafe.

snicks · 20th June 2008, 21:13

Excuse my ignorance, but what is this second bypass route?

Searching the forum yields a possible bypass between the delrin and the perspex part of the scrubber (ISC stated that the tolerances are too tight if fastend correctly to allow a significant bypass) and some possible bypass with some drain valve that my unit does not posses.

Apart from flapper-valve failure and missing O-rings, what other bypass-path is there?

Greets
Dirk

Drmike · 21st June 2008, 10:57

its quite clear your motivation here is to try to score points over me rather than improve safety awareness but never the less i will reply to your questions (again) I have to say though that you already asked this question and it was well answered by myself AM and alex. It is slightly frustrating when someone asks a question, which you take the time to answer, only to apear to not read it and repeat the same question (rather than argue the answer) usually, and I suspect this is the case here, that happens when someone has an agenda, and has an answer they want to here.

Anyway heres the answer again for you to ignore:

Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner)

Would your opinions (AM and DrMike) change after reading the post below?

Rebreather World - View Single Post - Wow! Meg design - dont know if I like this

By the definition listed in that post I would conclude that the hose issue experienced by DrMike would be considered a "Dangerous Design Flaw".

as I stated (and as AM stated and Alex stated in previous posts) to me the most dangerous design faults are those that dont give any warning before starting to have a negative physiological effect and a failure that cannt be avoided by scheduled replacement. The hose kinking is imediately obvious ergo it would be difficult to become impared before taking action. In my case my electronics were not working on the dive. I didnt even have to bail to oc and it wasnt a task loading problem dealing with the hose whilst still flying the unit manually (in strong current) whilst fixing the memorial to the wreck. ...do that with a co2 cell bypass

Co2 bypass through a failed cell is a dangerous design fault for obvious reasons, because its failure isnt imediately obvious and cant be predicted OR prevented by regular cell replacement (as hose failure can be)

Quote:

To date I have not heard of a CO2 hit due to sensor bypass on the Meg. Maybe Mike can provide data if he was informed of such an incident. If not, we have one report of the cooper hoses failing with compromised breathing on a Boros (with far fewer years of exposure per Alex) and no CO2 incidents due to sensor housing failure (with much greater exposure). Generally one would conclude that the likelihood of the one incident is much greater than the other.

so? so what? how does that change anything physically? why are you comparing component failure modes?? either the POTENTIAL for a failure exists or it doesnt, arguing that yes potential exists but we dont have to worry about it because we havent seen many/any failures YET is illogical

Quote:

Is it bias? I don't know. But it does appear (to me) that two different standards are being applied to at least these two situations. It's a bit puzzling since Alex, AM and DrMike have been those trumpeting loudest the safety issues. Perhaps the sensor placement issue was just strong opinion expressed in the more scientific sounding engineering lingo, whereas the cooper hose incident got the much less aggressive "I wouldn't do it that way" phrasing.

Bollocks.

Lets see,

When I experienced the cell failures then saw the meg head I put a post up saying why I didnt like it.

When I experienced the hose failure on boris I put a post up saying why I didnt like it.

Why did I apear more 'agressive' about the CO2 issue over the hose issue

BECAUSE I CONSIDER IT A MORE DANGEROUS ISSUE

I can see CO2 killing you easily should a cell fail, I cant see boris hose reinforcement spiral retraction killing you if a hose fails.

Quote:

FWIW I don't consider the cooper hoses or the Meg's sensor placement as indicators of design incompetence. As Mike said about the cooper hoses, everything is a tradeoff.

trade off in case of boris hose is good crus$h/tear protection V potential spiral retraction causing kinking (if the hose isnt replaced regularly). Trade off with meg cell position is risk of co2 bypass V WHAT?

What is the trade off? Wheres the upside???? As a designer if someone has a feature (cell bridging the loop or cooper hose use) that has a negative contribution there should on my opinion be an overwelming positive contribution. In the case of boris hose we trade better tear and crush protection against hose kink if hoses arent replaced regularly. In the case of meg cell positions wheres the positive??? THATS what makes it a crap design choice in my opinion. its an 'unneccessarily' dangerous design [Im happy to be proven wrong and a positive explained, but ive asked for it many times and so far ISC has not explained the pro in that design nor anyone else]

Quote:

But I am intrigued by the different handling of the issues, especially given Mike's incident.

because as has been said many times...

BECAUSE I CONSIDER IT A MORE DANGEROUS ISSUE (for all the reasons given in this post and in the other posts you didnt read)

What I find very telling is that within 6 hours of me raising the issue of hose failure the CCRB gave a public statement concerning it......ISC has never made a single public statement regarding the far more potentially dangerous cell failure bypass issue despite all the heated posts and discussion.

You are the most blindly bias user I know, so I find it highly amusing that you attack me, (someone who openly critiques his units when deserved as much as any) - bias! lol!

I put it to you that there are few people as unbiased as me on this forum if for no other reason that to me these things are not lovers they are TOOLS to do a job. Somepeople would do well to get a girlfriend

If I find a dangerous design flaw (or any design flaw/feature) on boris I dont like Id happily post it here (as I have) I very much doubt you would ever do the same for your sweetheart

Drmike · 21st June 2008, 11:26

Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9)

We do have two incident reports from the Meg with a CO2 cell bypass.

Alex am I reading that right?

There has been 2 co2 byass incidents on the Meg due to cell failure???

Dave Sutton · 21st June 2008, 13:24

Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike)

It is slightly frustrating when someone asks a question, which you take the time to answer, only to apear to not read it and repeat the same question (rather than argue the answer) usually, and I suspect this is the case here, that happens when someone has an agenda

We see this all the time here.... (and in other areas of life too) <sigh>

The most defensive participants in these forums are those with low cross-platform experience levels or involvement levels (and here as 'platform' I mean rebreathers, but it could just as easially be cars on the Porsche Club list and airplanes in the aviation lists). The back story for blind defense and/or knee-jerk over-reaction to criticism is always either (A) commercial motives or (B) personal insecurity issues.

It's also interesting to me to see that the people with experience in many different platforms can easially make analysis comparisons without ego interfering, as they realize that all things are flawed, it's just a matter of in what way. Mike has the experience to make valid comparisons, so let him have at it. There's nothing that's perfect, but you need to have experience in many platforms to have really valid opinions about one.

Take this as an example: I have, on my bench at this VERY second, the following rigs:

rEvo
Mark-15 (several)
CIS Lunar Mark-5P
Classic Kiss
Sport Kiss
Azimuth
Dolphin

and an endless variety of experimentals, antiques, and homebuilts.

I have had on the bench for work and modification the following:

Classic YBOD
Evolution YBOD
Prism
Meg
Optima

and others I cannot even remember.

Know what? As a result of this cross-platform experience, I can say this with ease: There are design flaws in EVERY one that have safety implications. Want to hear them all? EVERY ONE has issues that affect diver safety and about which a complete thread could be begun. Don't take it personally, it's just hardware, not (as Mike says) your girlfriend.

To criticize the Meg is just another 'observation' for Mike. Anyone with an engineering background would say the same thing as it's irrefutable. It's a built in flaw that cannot be resolved by the user that has the potential to kill a diver by causing the MOST dangerous situation a rebreather can produce and that is hypercapnia. Here's the thing that makes it a *serious* flaw: You have only two choices to resolve it: Dive a Meg and accept the flaw, or sell it and dive something else. Simple: It's an *organic design flaw* and not a feature. The hoses? By comparison they are small potatos. Selection of them is a risk/benefit ratio decision as Mike says, and can be remediated by user change. Don't like them? Buy Draeger Dolphin hoses and use them. Takes a few minutes to remedy. Know what? On my Mark-15's I have multiple hose sets and I change them according to the dive, Coopers for steel wreck penetration where cutting is an issue and rubber hoses for everything else.

Hose choices are like what pants to wear today. The Meg head issue? That's a *completely* different story. It's also likely an order of magnitude less dangerous than the flaws of the old YBOD, so put it in 'middle ground' someplace.

Dave

.

snicks · 21st June 2008, 15:39

???
Was that rant directed at me?

Sorry, but still cannot find this SECOND BYPASS ROUTE.

I get it that when a sensor breaks or fails in a multitude of possible ways you get a bypass on a Meg head. Count 1.

Count 2? So far I couldnt find that.

Alex stated " As you know, there is another scrubber bypass route as well on the Meg..." and this sounded like a well known fact. For me this was somewhat new and I dont know where this possible bypass is.

Greets
Dirk

**DeepBlueInnovation** · 21st June 2008, 16:14

Dirk, I think that one of the mods copied Mike's post from another thread and the "rant" was directed elsewhere. Cheers, Ben.

Dave Sutton · 21st June 2008, 16:28

Quote: (Originally Posted by snicks)

???
Was that rant directed at me?

No. Not even close.

Looking forward also to Alex's reply.

Best,

Dave

.

**wedivebc** · 21st June 2008, 16:53

Quote: (Originally Posted by snicks)

???
Was that rant directed at me?

Sorry, but still cannot find this SECOND BYPASS ROUTE.

I get it that when a sensor breaks or fails in a multitude of possible ways you get a bypass on a Meg head. Count 1.

Count 2? So far I couldnt find that.

Alex stated " As you know, there is another scrubber bypass route as well on the Meg..." and this sounded like a well known fact. For me this was somewhat new and I dont know where this possible bypass is.

Greets
Dirk

I wouldn't take Mike's rants personally, they are more or less random.
The other bypass mode Alex was referring to was probably the moisture drain fitted in the first generation megs. It was quickly identified as a potential problem if the user did not service his gear properly and a retrofitted blank was made available.
Not sure of the exact numbers but probably less than 100 megs exist in that configuration.

mempilot · 21st June 2008, 23:59

Quote: (Originally Posted by wedivebc)

Not sure of the exact numbers but probably less than 100 megs exist in that configuration.

And most of them have been 'plugged'.

I find it interesting; all this defensive posturing and offensive posturing, and I know I have been part of it in other threads. We all want to believe that the $10K+ we have invested was in the best unit available. Since there is admitably no one single perfect unit, we all loose this battle to defend out Rebreather. The only winners are those that can see through the pride, the ego, the invoice, and see what weaknessess their unit has. This is were admitting a weakness can create safety through diligence. The more time I have with my Meg, the more I realize it's imperfections, and the more I have learned to respect the shortcomings.

Dave is spot on. Cross-platform experience is crucial in having unbiased opinions or dialouge about a particular unit. While I have experience in 44 types of aircraft, I only have experience on 1 type of rebreather. Several aircraft have tried to kill me, and one almost did. There are several aircraft I will not fly anymore. I don't consider myself an expert in either category, but I have defended my rebreather with gusto. But, I would never defend any aircraft I have owned or flown with such vigor. That was the reality check for me, and happened just recently. I asked myself, 'why?'

Aircraft all have their demons, bad nature, and gremlins. We learn to operate within parameters that allow safe operation and avoid the problem areas, or we simply choose not to fly that type of aircraft. I have learned to look at my Meg under the same litmus. The only issue that I see as a serious threat on my unit is the possible sensor bypass. Even though the chance is very small, it is there. Other rebreathers have their Achilles Heal as well, and the risks have to be weighed. No unit will ever be perfect, but that doesn't mean that working towards perfection isn't or shouldn't be the goal.

Sorry for the long post, but my mood on rebreather defense has changed in the last few months. She works and looks great, but I really know she is trying to kill me on every dive. Same can be said for some of the aircraft I fly.

20th June 2008, 16:36	#1 (permalink)
AD_ward9 So much more to learn Current Rebreather/s: Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Other CCR Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,732	Hose failures: Cooper and others This is taking up the suggestion by AM that the hose discussion should be on a different thread to: http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebre...tml#post193298 This is an answer to that post. Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner) To date I have not heard of a CO2 hit due to sensor bypass on the Meg. Maybe Mike can provide data if he was informed of such an incident. If not, we have one report of the cooper hoses failing with compromised breathing on a Boros (with far fewer years of exposure per Alex) and no CO2 incidents due to sensor housing failure (with much greater exposure). Generally one would conclude that the likelihood of the one incident is much greater than the other. We do have two incident reports from the Meg with a CO2 cell bypass. Mike's report is just an incident report. As you know, there is another scrubber bypass route as well on the Meg, and one cannot say it is not implicated in accidents (nor that it is: but it is suspicious). The hose issue is an interesting one. We put a lot of effort into identifying and preventing hoses risks, even getting special EPDM made. We chose not to go for wire reinforced hose because of a kink problem. The Meg hoses are a good point on that unit: the Meg hose almost kinks (it would fail our test, but passes the CE test - we demand a 180 degree fold back with it kinking for our own designs, but the Meg flattens in this test though leaving a small breathing passage), whereas wire reinforced hose shut totally. We also believe that unshielded hoses are easier to check visually, and choosing the right material they can be just as strong, tough, abrasion resistant. After saying that, I must agree with Mike's point that a failure that is obvious is not much of a risk. The real hazards with rebreathers stem from the insidious failures - there are too many of them. A lot of our safety work involves turning insidious failure modes into obvious ones, such as by using an auto-shut off valve. That creates the failure Mike describes deliberately, when the diver might otherwise try breathing off a loop that is unsafe. Last edited by AD_ward9 : 20th June 2008 at 16:39.
(Offline)

20th June 2008, 21:13	#2 (permalink)
snicks New Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 33	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others Excuse my ignorance, but what is this second bypass route? Searching the forum yields a possible bypass between the delrin and the perspex part of the scrubber (ISC stated that the tolerances are too tight if fastend correctly to allow a significant bypass) and some possible bypass with some drain valve that my unit does not posses. Apart from flapper-valve failure and missing O-rings, what other bypass-path is there? Greets Dirk __________________ Weltmacht mit drei Buchstaben? ICH!
(Offline)

21st June 2008, 10:57	#3 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,157	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others its quite clear your motivation here is to try to score points over me rather than improve safety awareness but never the less i will reply to your questions (again) I have to say though that you already asked this question and it was well answered by myself AM and alex. It is slightly frustrating when someone asks a question, which you take the time to answer, only to apear to not read it and repeat the same question (rather than argue the answer) usually, and I suspect this is the case here, that happens when someone has an agenda, and has an answer they want to here. Anyway heres the answer again for you to ignore: Quote: (Originally Posted by UWSojourner) Would your opinions (AM and DrMike) change after reading the post below? Rebreather World - View Single Post - Wow! Meg design - dont know if I like this By the definition listed in that post I would conclude that the hose issue experienced by DrMike would be considered a "Dangerous Design Flaw". as I stated (and as AM stated and Alex stated in previous posts) to me the most dangerous design faults are those that dont give any warning before starting to have a negative physiological effect and a failure that cannt be avoided by scheduled replacement. The hose kinking is imediately obvious ergo it would be difficult to become impared before taking action. In my case my electronics were not working on the dive. I didnt even have to bail to oc and it wasnt a task loading problem dealing with the hose whilst still flying the unit manually (in strong current) whilst fixing the memorial to the wreck. ...do that with a co2 cell bypass Co2 bypass through a failed cell is a dangerous design fault for obvious reasons, because its failure isnt imediately obvious and cant be predicted OR prevented by regular cell replacement (as hose failure can be) Quote: To date I have not heard of a CO2 hit due to sensor bypass on the Meg. Maybe Mike can provide data if he was informed of such an incident. If not, we have one report of the cooper hoses failing with compromised breathing on a Boros (with far fewer years of exposure per Alex) and no CO2 incidents due to sensor housing failure (with much greater exposure). Generally one would conclude that the likelihood of the one incident is much greater than the other. so? so what? how does that change anything physically? why are you comparing component failure modes?? either the POTENTIAL for a failure exists or it doesnt, arguing that yes potential exists but we dont have to worry about it because we havent seen many/any failures YET is illogical Quote: Is it bias? I don't know. But it does appear (to me) that two different standards are being applied to at least these two situations. It's a bit puzzling since Alex, AM and DrMike have been those trumpeting loudest the safety issues. Perhaps the sensor placement issue was just strong opinion expressed in the more scientific sounding engineering lingo, whereas the cooper hose incident got the much less aggressive "I wouldn't do it that way" phrasing. Bollocks. Lets see, When I experienced the cell failures then saw the meg head I put a post up saying why I didnt like it. When I experienced the hose failure on boris I put a post up saying why I didnt like it. Why did I apear more 'agressive' about the CO2 issue over the hose issue BECAUSE I CONSIDER IT A MORE DANGEROUS ISSUE I can see CO2 killing you easily should a cell fail, I cant see boris hose reinforcement spiral retraction killing you if a hose fails. Quote: FWIW I don't consider the cooper hoses or the Meg's sensor placement as indicators of design incompetence. As Mike said about the cooper hoses, everything is a tradeoff. trade off in case of boris hose is good crus$h/tear protection V potential spiral retraction causing kinking (if the hose isnt replaced regularly). Trade off with meg cell position is risk of co2 bypass V WHAT? What is the trade off? Wheres the upside???? As a designer if someone has a feature (cell bridging the loop or cooper hose use) that has a negative contribution there should on my opinion be an overwelming positive contribution. In the case of boris hose we trade better tear and crush protection against hose kink if hoses arent replaced regularly. In the case of meg cell positions wheres the positive??? THATS what makes it a crap design choice in my opinion. its an 'unneccessarily' dangerous design [Im happy to be proven wrong and a positive explained, but ive asked for it many times and so far ISC has not explained the pro in that design nor anyone else] Quote: But I am intrigued by the different handling of the issues, especially given Mike's incident. because as has been said many times... BECAUSE I CONSIDER IT A MORE DANGEROUS ISSUE (for all the reasons given in this post and in the other posts you didnt read) What I find very telling is that within 6 hours of me raising the issue of hose failure the CCRB gave a public statement concerning it......ISC has never made a single public statement regarding the far more potentially dangerous cell failure bypass issue despite all the heated posts and discussion. You are the most blindly bias user I know, so I find it highly amusing that you attack me, (someone who openly critiques his units when deserved as much as any) - bias! lol! I put it to you that there are few people as unbiased as me on this forum if for no other reason that to me these things are not lovers they are TOOLS to do a job. Somepeople would do well to get a girlfriend If I find a dangerous design flaw (or any design flaw/feature) on boris I dont like Id happily post it here (as I have) I very much doubt you would ever do the same for your sweetheart __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment Last edited by Drmike : 21st June 2008 at 11:16.
(Offline)

21st June 2008, 11:26	#4 (permalink)
Drmike Custom Title Allowed! Current Rebreather/s: MK 15.X Ouroboros Other CCR Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Other CCR Home Build Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,157	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others Quote: (Originally Posted by AD_ward9) We do have two incident reports from the Meg with a CO2 cell bypass. Alex am I reading that right? There has been 2 co2 byass incidents on the Meg due to cell failure??? __________________ Cave diving is a sport Wreck diving is a sport Diving in general is a sport 'Rebreather diving' is not a sport its the delusional obsession with a highly dangerous and often inappropriate piece of equipment
(Offline)

21st June 2008, 13:24	#5 (permalink)
Dave Sutton Membership Cancelled Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss MK 15.X rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Narragansett, Rhode Island and Hackettstown, New Jersey Posts: 2,637	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others Quote: (Originally Posted by Drmike) It is slightly frustrating when someone asks a question, which you take the time to answer, only to apear to not read it and repeat the same question (rather than argue the answer) usually, and I suspect this is the case here, that happens when someone has an agenda We see this all the time here.... (and in other areas of life too) <sigh> The most defensive participants in these forums are those with low cross-platform experience levels or involvement levels (and here as 'platform' I mean rebreathers, but it could just as easially be cars on the Porsche Club list and airplanes in the aviation lists). The back story for blind defense and/or knee-jerk over-reaction to criticism is always either (A) commercial motives or (B) personal insecurity issues. It's also interesting to me to see that the people with experience in many different platforms can easially make analysis comparisons without ego interfering, as they realize that all things are flawed, it's just a matter of in what way. Mike has the experience to make valid comparisons, so let him have at it. There's nothing that's perfect, but you need to have experience in many platforms to have really valid opinions about one. Take this as an example: I have, on my bench at this VERY second, the following rigs: rEvo Mark-15 (several) CIS Lunar Mark-5P Classic Kiss Sport Kiss Azimuth Dolphin and an endless variety of experimentals, antiques, and homebuilts. I have had on the bench for work and modification the following: Classic YBOD Evolution YBOD Prism Meg Optima and others I cannot even remember. Know what? As a result of this cross-platform experience, I can say this with ease: There are design flaws in EVERY one that have safety implications. Want to hear them all? EVERY ONE has issues that affect diver safety and about which a complete thread could be begun. Don't take it personally, it's just hardware, not (as Mike says) your girlfriend. To criticize the Meg is just another 'observation' for Mike. Anyone with an engineering background would say the same thing as it's irrefutable. It's a built in flaw that cannot be resolved by the user that has the potential to kill a diver by causing the MOST dangerous situation a rebreather can produce and that is hypercapnia. Here's the thing that makes it a serious flaw: You have only two choices to resolve it: Dive a Meg and accept the flaw, or sell it and dive something else. Simple: It's an organic design flaw and not a feature. The hoses? By comparison they are small potatos. Selection of them is a risk/benefit ratio decision as Mike says, and can be remediated by user change. Don't like them? Buy Draeger Dolphin hoses and use them. Takes a few minutes to remedy. Know what? On my Mark-15's I have multiple hose sets and I change them according to the dive, Coopers for steel wreck penetration where cutting is an issue and rubber hoses for everything else. Hose choices are like what pants to wear today. The Meg head issue? That's a completely different story. It's also likely an order of magnitude less dangerous than the flaws of the old YBOD, so put it in 'middle ground' someplace. Dave . Last edited by Dave Sutton : 21st June 2008 at 15:04.
(Offline)

21st June 2008, 15:39	#6 (permalink)
snicks New Member Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Inspiration Classic Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 33	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others ??? Was that rant directed at me? Sorry, but still cannot find this SECOND BYPASS ROUTE. I get it that when a sensor breaks or fails in a multitude of possible ways you get a bypass on a Meg head. Count 1. Count 2? So far I couldnt find that. Alex stated " As you know, there is another scrubber bypass route as well on the Meg..." and this sounded like a well known fact. For me this was somewhat new and I dont know where this possible bypass is. Greets Dirk __________________ Weltmacht mit drei Buchstaben? ICH!
(Offline)

21st June 2008, 16:14	#7 (permalink)
DeepBlueInnovation Between Breathers Current Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Other Rebreather/s: Prism Topaz Not Bought Yet Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 353	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others Dirk, I think that one of the mods copied Mike's post from another thread and the "rant" was directed elsewhere. Cheers, Ben.
(Online)

21st June 2008, 16:28	#8 (permalink)
Dave Sutton Membership Cancelled Current Rebreather/s: Sport Kiss MK 15.X rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Other Rebreather/s: Classic Kiss rEvo Other CCR Azimuth Home Build Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Narragansett, Rhode Island and Hackettstown, New Jersey Posts: 2,637	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others Quote: (Originally Posted by snicks) ??? Was that rant directed at me? No. Not even close. Looking forward also to Alex's reply. Best, Dave .
(Offline)

21st June 2008, 16:53	#9 (permalink)
wedivebc FIGJAM Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other CCR Other Rebreather/s: Not Bought Yet Inspiration Classic Sport Kiss Other CCR Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada Posts: 1,410	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others Quote: (Originally Posted by snicks) ??? Was that rant directed at me? Sorry, but still cannot find this SECOND BYPASS ROUTE. I get it that when a sensor breaks or fails in a multitude of possible ways you get a bypass on a Meg head. Count 1. Count 2? So far I couldnt find that. Alex stated " As you know, there is another scrubber bypass route as well on the Meg..." and this sounded like a well known fact. For me this was somewhat new and I dont know where this possible bypass is. Greets Dirk I wouldn't take Mike's rants personally, they are more or less random. The other bypass mode Alex was referring to was probably the moisture drain fitted in the first generation megs. It was quickly identified as a potential problem if the user did not service his gear properly and a retrofitted blank was made available. Not sure of the exact numbers but probably less than 100 megs exist in that configuration. __________________ Cheers, Dave.... Man is the only animal burdened with the knowledge he will eventually die
(Offline)

21st June 2008, 23:59	#10 (permalink)
mempilot What is this..terrafirma? Current Rebreather/s: Megalodon Other Rebreather/s: Megalodon Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Posts: 1,269	Re: Hose failures: Cooper and others Quote: (Originally Posted by wedivebc) Not sure of the exact numbers but probably less than 100 megs exist in that configuration. And most of them have been 'plugged'. I find it interesting; all this defensive posturing and offensive posturing, and I know I have been part of it in other threads. We all want to believe that the $10K+ we have invested was in the best unit available. Since there is admitably no one single perfect unit, we all loose this battle to defend out Rebreather. The only winners are those that can see through the pride, the ego, the invoice, and see what weaknessess their unit has. This is were admitting a weakness can create safety through diligence. The more time I have with my Meg, the more I realize it's imperfections, and the more I have learned to respect the shortcomings. Dave is spot on. Cross-platform experience is crucial in having unbiased opinions or dialouge about a particular unit. While I have experience in 44 types of aircraft, I only have experience on 1 type of rebreather. Several aircraft have tried to kill me, and one almost did. There are several aircraft I will not fly anymore. I don't consider myself an expert in either category, but I have defended my rebreather with gusto. But, I would never defend any aircraft I have owned or flown with such vigor. That was the reality check for me, and happened just recently. I asked myself, 'why?' Aircraft all have their demons, bad nature, and gremlins. We learn to operate within parameters that allow safe operation and avoid the problem areas, or we simply choose not to fly that type of aircraft. I have learned to look at my Meg under the same litmus. The only issue that I see as a serious threat on my unit is the possible sensor bypass. Even though the chance is very small, it is there. Other rebreathers have their Achilles Heal as well, and the risks have to be weighed. No unit will ever be perfect, but that doesn't mean that working towards perfection isn't or shouldn't be the goal. Sorry for the long post, but my mood on rebreather defense has changed in the last few months. She works and looks great, but I really know she is trying to kill me on every dive. Same can be said for some of the aircraft I fly. __________________ 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."
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode