Analysis of gear post accident - SPLIT from sorb thread

Steve

Hi Jeff,
I stopped using it after speaking with John Pennyfather (30 odd years as the RAN's Chief Diving Scientist) who inspected Crusty's Inspo after he died a few years ago. Crusty was using Medisorb so this was looked at as a part of the analysis of his death (not found to be the reason which wasn't surprising to those that knew a bit about how he died). I was shown his test data and the speed at which it fails compared to Sofnolime and Draegersorb was alarming and he strenuously cautioned me against ever using it.

I had no problems with it but when a man that knows as much as he has demonstrated not to use it, I certainly listened.

__________________
WARNING: I contain occasional coarse language, extreme sexual references, nudity, and adult themes, which may offend some people - Usually churchy types.

Bazza

Just as a bye the bye on Crusty's unit.

By the time they got to testing the unit it had been sat in the Water Police evidence locker for over 7 months completely untouched from the day I recovered it, not even washed off. I know because I had to go down and show them how to get it working again. The sorb was well and truely stuffed before anybody got to do any tests on it.

The unit was almost a total right off due to their efforts and had to be completely rebuilt with all new components. Even with me doing all the repair work etc for nix it still cost the widow several thousands of dollars in resale value.

A total disgrace in my view.

regards Baz

decoweenie

This begs a hypothetical question...

What is the legal remifications of recovering an unit from an accident, and do some fundamental checking on the unit itself before turning it over to the police ?

Would that be considered evidence tampering ?

__________________
"...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..."

- Rebreather World PM

DivnSapper

Oh oh... getting the popcorn out!

This should be interesting...

Where's Alex when you need him?

NeilHolden

Good question. It would I think depend on the coroner and how he interprets the check. However if it was completed in a logical and thorough manner (ie fully documented) I'm sure that any information direct from the scene would be treated as useful.

I do have a copy of what is required for UK military divers to complete on recovery of equipment after any incident. It is a few pages long so am not posting the whole reply here but it breaks down into:

a) Thorough visual inspection.
b) Don't open any closed valves.
c) Close any valve/slider/flow stop device etc; all positions should be noted and number of turns to close recorded, as should difficulty in valve movement.
d) Tape all valves/sliders etc so they can't be re-opened by accident (miss-handling during transit). This includes all bailout and secondary systems.
e) Quarantine the set, and if possible another set charged from the same supply. Again all bailout and secondary systems are included.
f) Send the equpment for analysis/testing.

It would of course also be good if you could get a second person to witness all of the above to prevent any 'tampering' accusations.

Of course witness statements are required from all divers and support staff involved in the incident - to be completed as soon as possible after the incident is over / as time permits. If you are the person sealing the set this should all, of course, be recorded in your witness statement.

Hope this helps

Neil

__________________
Diversi Veshi Tem

decoweenie

Thanks for posting that, Neil.

However, I was thinking about more in-depth inspection since any of steps posted really just to make sure that the gas is preserved for later inspection.

Anything else such as current-limited cells, exhausted sorb, incorrect packing, faulty electronic, etc. can't really be inspected throughoutly. And many of those items might not last thru a 7-month lock up before someone taking a look at the set.

__________________
"...after a while you get bored offering advice to a bull that like to keep butting the fence with its head rather than walking through the open gate..."

- Rebreather World PM

koputai

I heartily agree with Bazza, the fuzz leave gear in an 'as found' condition until they decide to check it, usually many months later. What they finally find is totally useless presumptions.
After my accident the cops impounded my unit 'in case it becomes a fatality'. That's why as soon as I could walk I took off from hospital with a mate, got down to the water police as fast as I could and rescued my gear. I went back to my hospital bed feeling much better that night having taken the machine home and cleaned it up.
I saw the aftermath that was Crusty's unit and that was a real mess.


Cheers,
Jason.

NeilHolden

Well personally I would not go into anything other than detailed above, as this might well be considered 'tampering' either by the coroner, manufacturer or victim's lawyers.

I have had some conversations with some of the people that conduct lab investigations on equipment after incidents, and delays of 'several' months before they get it is not uncommon. However as it is in the lab, they can actually do a lot more with it than you might otherwise suspect. The SORD can be tested in a number of ways, to see whether it was functional at the time of the incident, including testing the liquid in any flooded system (provided that it is sealed at the time of the incident) etc etc.

There is lots of suspision that cells 'might' last longer than advertised (but then there is always a chance they will fail early - however the OEM recommnedations are based on MTBCF etc), the cells can be also be tested using lab equipment and 'extrapolation' made over a period of time to determine decay etc.

They can also (once the set is up and running again) put the set through tests under pressure, down to the depth of the actual dive, reconstruct the profile, induce errors and do a lot of 'what if' experiments, and this is only a little of what can be achieved by the scientists in the lab.

My personal preference would be to seal and quarantine the set, fully document this, and leave it to the 'experts' who have the lab equipment and procedures that can not be 'questioned' by a lawyer.

Just to cover my own back!!

Regards

Neil

__________________
Diversi Veshi Tem

MHD

In QLD and I think NSW the state law usually is the work place laws that applies if the accident happened in a commerical operation. You are not supposed to play with the gear but there is one proviso, that is you can do any manufacture recommneded task that prevent further damage to the equipment. Last time this had to be done we split the head on an inspo and flushed it on a unit that had been flooded to save the head. To cover our arse the process was video tapped describing what was done and why with reference to the OEM manual and procedures. Means the unit was saved and actually if they went to test it later could be tested (a few issue along hte way where also identifed!) . It is well worth having a read of the state laws in this respect, as their usually is a out like this in most of them. A few people I know have been threatened a few times with prosecution for interferring with evidence after dive accidents, but when you trot out this defence it has never eventuated.

Matt