Port Erin - Further Discussion

AM

Unfortunately due to the actions of several commentators, the original Port Erin thread has been closed.

Christine herself, as well as others, have expressed the desire to continue with constructive discussion, with the objective of raising awareness.

Therefore, please either move this post into that thread or allow us to continue discussion in this thread, without first having to PM our posts to moderators. Having to PM posts to moderators and awaiting the administrative actions in order to continue discussion is not conducive to furthering debate.

I would like to discuss another fundamental aspect relating to the generic practice of using cardboard wedges in Inspiration Classic rebreathers.

This practice came into common, accepted use by being taught by training agencies and by anecdotal commentary amongst the Inspiration Classic user group on an international mailing list. The manufacturer did not make any official public comment either way on whether or not they had tested or indeed sanctioned the use of cardboard wedges, as a potential mitigation for the battery bounce design fault.

We should be arguing, as a collective consumer community, that in instances where manufacturers do not provide written guidance over user-developed modifications, that if they fail to comment, they are in fact sanctioning these user-developed fixes by pure acquiescence.

It would never be acceptable to operate like this within any other safety-critical industry.

Furthermore, when training agencies teach the practice of modifying life-support equipment, in a manner that may not be officially sanctioned by the manufacturer, they are equally as liable as the manufacturer/design fault for the failure to ensure that the equipment and it's correct use is being taught appropriately. Training agencies teaching users to modify their life-support equipment actually means the user leaves the course, already diving on a modified rebreather, with no formal approval by the manufacturer.

When users choose to mitigate design faults by making modifications to their equipment, which are non-sanctioned modifications by the manufacturer, they may be unaware of the full implications in doing so. If said users then die, those very non-sanctioned modifications may mean that their family may find it difficult, if not impossible, to avail of any life insurance policy.

Regards

AnneMarie

__________________

silent running

Hi AnneMarie, you are quite right for cutting to the chase with regards to life insurance claims and self remedies to critical design flaws. This ought to sober up anybody who thinks they are doing themselves a favor by trying to fix a serious design problem on their own.

But of course, if our objective is to get manufacturers to be more proactive with fixes to flaws, it would seem that some changes to our respective legal systems might be in order. If there is no middle ground between outright negligence and an unexpected complication to a particular design due to things like consumables, then small companies might never undertake the risks associated with designing a CCR. Frankly, I'm amazed we have as many different CCR choices as we do, given the very small size of our consumer base and the relative risk of serious litigation to anybody trying to bring a device which provides underwater life support to market.

Is there some legal way to distinguish between outright design negligence and a design flaw which is only discovered over time?

I'm not trying to let any mnfs off the hook. While I have no problem believing that AP never imagined anybody would try to calibrate their sensors underwater, I think this is beside the point as it was apparently too easy to do with early Inspo electronics. That's where I personally would draw the line. But of course I would like to hear where others draw theirs. The line between cynicism and realism is very thin indeed. -Andy

EBT

To be honest as a user the choice is in your hands. If you are truly unhappy with a system failing you contact the vendor referring to the relevant sales regulation in your market (sales of goods act for the UK) and requesting it be either rectified or refunded. You then dont dive the unit.

OR, you can build a workaround in.. and take that on your own head.

(overly simplistic view, i know.... but in essence its correct)

__________________
Eagles May Soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines!

Rebreather World Terms of service
Real diving t-shirts for real divers

lancsman

I agree we are very lucky with our choice but this could also be the problem. There is a cost associated with designing and delivering an new system to market as well as then manufacturing it.

We need to decide if we are happy to be the testers of equipment so that the price is low and the choice is high or if we expect the system to be fully tested before launch.

We also need to decide what type of after sales service we expect, this is also a cost we will have the bear in the intial cost of the unit.

We need to look at training and how we ensure a single and consistant message by all training agencies for any particular unit and they should not add anything that require modification to a unit.

Finally we have to be open minded to issue and how we discuss them in forums like this, I know if I was a manufacture I would be concerned about letting this community know of any issued due to the partisan way discussions often go.

So what are my choices.
1, I would prefare less choice but better tested system.
2, I want better after sales service with more communication from the manufacturers of issue they have been made aware of.
3, I would like some independent (non govenmental) overseeing of training standards, All instructor must requalify every 2 years.
4, I would like this forum to become less confrontational and more open to the fact manufactures are not all knowing and there is not a perfect system.

Mark

Abbo

In the country where I live, people moving into a rental property are forced to pay the landlord a 'gift' ranging from 3 to 6 months of rent. This is because after the War rental properties were scare because most had been burnt. Even when vacancy rates were huge, in the 'Lost Decade' of the Nineties, Japanese people failed to demand an end to this practice and went on paying. The practice continues to this day. If you don't fight for your rights you will have none. Patience is a vice.

The same thing very definitely applies to the rebreather business: nobody is served by putting up with rebreathers that are not fit for purpose. Not users, who are entering themselves in a lottery for their lives: not makers, who are living on borrowed time till a tort lawyer rips their throats out. Makers need helping to do the right thing. Most of us enjoy the thrill of a risk and have the self confidence to believe we are careful enough to come home alive. We find it all too easy to forget that more than 150 people with our love of risk-taking and the very same self-confidence failed to come home to their loved ones. So I suppose the question we need to ask ourselves is "whose life did I risk today for failing to confront the maker of the 'breather I dive over its failings?"

This leaves me with a quandrary: the Meg that I dive has a well-known failing of a scrubber bypass when the oxygen sensors disintigrate. Should I have confronted the manufacturer about it, or is the problem being blown out of proportion? This is not a rhetorical question. The trouble is these issues are never black and white and always shades of gray.

AM

[
Andy, thank you for your comments. Yes, users creating self-remedies is counter-productive to the long term strategic direction that should govern the reporting and resolution of faults with life support equipment.

Without engaging into a long diatribe, there is a middle ground. But all this talk of litigation would not be necessary if the testing lifecycle was managed appropriately. My experience of high volume, enterprise level system architecture design, integration, testing and implementation into live production within the Defence platform, is that systems which have to fail safe and have rock solid disaster recovery, require extensive testing, in an environment which replicates the intended environment. Hardware and software integration testing as well as component integration and functional testing should be the basic premise of the rebreather testing lifecycle, yet users are beta testers, reporting software bugs and hardware problems, years after product release. This would never be acceptable in any other safety-critical system-release commercial environment.

The difficult for manufacturers and consumers is that there is no proper effective infrastructure for actually determining fitness for purpose. The CE rating process is nonsensical as we know.

Yes, absolutely, but I cannot comment on that on this forum at this moment in time.

The real way to improve this situation is for users and manufacturers to focus on a two-pronged approach, which will require a strong degree of commitment from both groups. This necessitates encompassing both a drive towards proactive improvement in regards to improving product testing and a drive towards reactive improvement, in regards to the approach adopted when faults are reported.

Regards

AnneMarie

__________________

Dsix36

I have been following this post and the previous one also, but my post was shot done for being off track.

It is my opinion that we all have the right to decide!!!!!!!!!
1 - if the Rebreather has a design fault, do we dive or not
2 - if our training is inadequedate, do we dive or not
3 - is our health crappy, do we dive or not
4 - etc. etc. etc.

We all know that diving has its' risks and that Rebreather diving has even more risks. Then we go technical and still more risks pop up. It is up to each individual diver to weigh out the "odds" of risk that we are ok with taking.

If divers accept the risk, great go dive,but don't cry foul when there are problems. You should have thought it out prior to diving in the first place. I accept that I may very well die while diving, but will still fight to prevent it. This is just my own decision and you will have to make your own choices.

If you think that the risks are too great, then stay the f**k out of the water. Insist that the Rebreather is properly repaired and suitable for your use and you are trained and ready to dive it before entering the water. Just remember there are still risks associated with any kind of diving.

I am sure that the technoligly in Rebreather will improve over time, but right now this is all we have. Either use it, tell the manufacturer that you will buy if they fix (insert problem with unit here), or go back to blowing bubbles.

We started this problem by allowing ourselves to be the test subjects a long time ago. It will be almost impossible to reverse the chain of events now.

Flame on

.

__________________
THE MORE THAT I LEARN, THE MORE THAT I STILL NEED TO LEARN!!!!!!

fireman

The training agencies, by teaching a non sanctioned "fix" to a problem are really putting themselves in a bad spot.
They are acknowledging that there is a problem.
(which should be addressed by the manufact)
They are giving an untested "solution"
Perhaps the way to solve these issues is to sue the piss out of the agencies, so that they in turn will pressure the manufact to do it right.

"well sir you could buy the unit, but they won't sell it to you unless you are trained by a recognized oraganization, but unfortunatly none will touch this unit, thats why its on sale so cheap"

One could also make the case that the training groups should be (are) aware of problems because they are around the units more, dive more to stay current etc etc.

Certainly comments like
"well he is obviously not trained because he didn't rub the pad on his groin and turn around twice when installing his cardboard wedges"

I mean really, listen to yourself.

Surely on a unit that is CE any fix must cause some kind of re-cert testing.

On that note how is it we are haveing problems with units that allegedly are CE certified. Perhaps we should take it up with whatever gullable body puts it stamp on something that doesn't work...

__________________
Heres to you Capt. Bill
Never Forget, and stay safe everyone.

AM

You are missing the point entirely. The point is that diving, whilst being a risky activity, should not be made more so by unfit equipment. When a CE rating has been awarded, it is a reasonable expectation that equipment is at least fit for the purpose.

Hear hear! Someone who "gets" it. The CE rating process is shambolic.

Regards

AnneMarie

__________________

PeteS

I agree with open discussion. However, you start the discussion with several statements that are questionable.

I would dispute that with regard to cardboard that:-

a/ the practice is generic. OED definition :- "applied to any individual of a large group or class, general."

b/ the practice is common.

c/ the practice is/was taught by training agencies.

Your thesis is flawed as you make these statements and then base your whole argument on them. First you need to prove / disprove / demonstrate these statements, then enter into discussions about them. I'm not saying that battery bounce did or didn't happen. I'm disputing a, b, and c, above. A bit like stating that pigs fly, and as a result of this we will need to issue hats with wider brims. You can issue the hats, but did pigs ever fly?

Anyway, assuming battery bounce does occur, when it occurs why don't divers catch it within the first minute or so of the dive when they check the PPO2 of the gas they are breathing? Or do they only do the part of the training that says put cardboard under the batteries and ignore the part of the training that says "always know your PPO2"? I can remember Richie hammering into me "check your handsets, check your handsets!!" If there is a failure of your equipment you need to know and act upon it, not just drift along in ignorance.

I'm certainly not saying that there should not be product improvement and proactive work by manufacturers towards that. But bear in mind that that manufacturers are on difficult ground; unable to admit failures because if they do they get sued.

Diving is dangerous. Life is dangerous. Make your choices and live with it!

__________________
Pete S.

http://www.steggle.co.nz

Every silver lining has a cloud