Closed Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: Rebreather Accident Research Project

  1. #31
    RBW Member SteveJ is a jewel in the rough SteveJ is a jewel in the rough SteveJ is a jewel in the rough SteveJ is a jewel in the rough SteveJ is a jewel in the rough SteveJ is a jewel in the rough SteveJ is a jewel in the rough SteveJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Whitby
    Posts
    220

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by Nad  View Original Post
    This is what I'm thinking, more health related problems than equipment related. Go ahead Steve, errors can be corrected so can the aim, to rich a result as close as possible to the true.

    Nad
    Hi Nad,

    There are certainly equipment issues with rebreathers. My arguement is that there may be other factors at play.

    The hypothesis I am testing is that there are no statistical differences between OC and rebreather divers (the null hypothesis) in terms of health or dive practices. We might however learn that there are sub populations of rebreather divers who are significantly different from others who are at risk.

    Best Wishes,

    Steve

  2. #32
    Banned - Threat of Litigation AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,428

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by aainslie  View Original Post
    You sorta gave up your ability to claim scientific purity when you 1) decided to become an expert witness, and 2) decided to sell a rebreather. When we met at DEMA, you were doing a fairly good impersonation of a salesman.

    Just saying... :)

    Also, your figures ARE somewhat suspect, Alex. I remember in a previous thread commenting (along with many others) on the fact that you seem awfully willing to attribute very dodgy and complex deaths to a rebreather issue... or even worse, to a specific rebreather. A lot of them look like training, fitness or serious user error might be equally plausible hypotheses as the ones you offer.

    Steve, if you need help with the stats, let me know.
    So you were saying that scientists and engineers can't be expert witnesses?

    Just publish your data. I have. Others looking at the data have concluded the same root cause as we have (almost without exception). If my data is wrong, tell me where it is wrong.

    I have never suggested that there not other factors at play as well as equipment. The heart attack incidence is a very interesting theme that a good scientific study can help sort out how much of that is CO2 retention related, if any, and how much is unfit divers. Training is a key issue: military divers have very few fatal accidents on rebreathers. However, denying that many of the accidents are equipment related simply flies in the face of the data.

    One problem is that an engineer will consider almost any hypoxia accident as an equipment issue (as it is, in a EN61508 design process). A layman may say the guy should have been perfect and done the right thing always. The layman will therefore allocate accidents involving hypoxia to the diver, whereby almost any qualified safety engineer will put it down to the equipment. Similarly for hypercapnia. The safety engineer just applies ALARP. The layman hypothesises. This fundamental divide is allowing a lot of unnecessary accidents to happen.

    The data we published shows that a surprising number of accidents on rebreathers would have happened anyway: from 21 to 54 of the 162 accidents would have happened on open circuit depending on how you divide the classifications. That still leaves between 108 and 141 who died because they chose a specific type of rebreather. The figures show that fixed orifice mCCR and some SCR rebreathers are provably safer than some other types where almost all the accidents occur (variable orifice mCCR and eCCRs).

    Alex
    Last edited by AD_ward9; 20th January 2009 at 21:57.

  3. #33
    CK#69 David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne
    Posts
    435

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by AD_ward9  View Original Post
    So you were saying that scientists and engineers can't be expert witnesses?

    Just publish your data. I have.

    Alex
    And people have pointed out potential flaws. I know it's nice when things are black or white, but sometimes, however much you try to science-up a bunch of reports, the shades of grey persist.

    David

  4. #34
    So Cal Tech Diver aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,236
    Meg

    Inspo (when it works)

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by AD_ward9  View Original Post
    So you were saying that scientists and engineers can't be expert witnesses?
    Well, the expert witness issue is open to debate... although the judge had some fine words about what your put forward recently. But you also said that you and your firm's employees weren't salesmen... yet there you were at DEMA selling.

    So I am suggesting that you have cause to bend the truth, yes. You sell an mCCR. You were an expert witness in a case against an eCCR vendor.
    Andrew Ainslie

    Buhlmann = Bend and Mend
    VPM/RGBM = Mend and Bend
    GF 35-50/70-85 = Mend and Mend

  5. #35
    Banned - Threat of Litigation AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9 has a reputation beyond repute AD_ward9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,428

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by aainslie  View Original Post
    Well, the expert witness issue is open to debate... although the judge had some fine words about what your put forward recently. But you also said that you and your firm's employees weren't salesmen... yet there you were at DEMA selling.

    So I am suggesting that you have cause to bend the truth, yes. You sell an mCCR. You were an expert witness in a case against an eCCR vendor.
    We stated exactly what we produce and design, and that the mCCR was competitive. There was nothing hidden.

    Judges words have a tendency to be quoted out of context as of late. At the end of the day, if a diver signs a load of waivers in training etc, then when the muck hits the fan, some jurisdictions will decide whatever he is in, there is no liability. That is what some cases come down to.

    You are supporting the idea that if someone was at DEMA showing commercial diving rebreathers (the main pic used in court to suggest I was a long standing competitor ) then they can't stand up and say what is seriously wrong. That is what is wrong with this industry: covering up things which are a downright scandal. Like the tobacco industry: attack the witness and make lots of noise in the hope it can suppress or hide the truth.

    We help out our clients, and promote our technology. That means trade shows sometimes (recently flu from two of the OS staff, meant I am here, seconded at Boot 2009, doing it again...). I have never had any sales training, never worked in any company's sales department, and do very little of it fortunately. I have had a solid engineering training, and do a great deal of engineering work: and have done for over 30 years. I am trained in contract writing, but that is not sales. This means that when asked, I answer that I am an engineer.

    Anyhow, your response and what you dive, tells me just where you are coming from.

    Alex
    Last edited by AD_ward9; 20th January 2009 at 22:44.

  6. #36
    RBW Member MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    175
    Inspiration Classic

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Judges words have a tendency to be quoted out of context as of late. At the end of the day, if a diver signs a load of waivers in training etc, then when the muck hits the fan, some jurisdictions will decide whatever he is in, there is no liability. That is what some cases come down to.

    Again more of your dancing and playing with facts in order to promote your own interests. The decision in the case you testified in had NOTHING to do with waivers in training etc. If that were the case it would have never come to trial. Furthermore the judge clearly stated that your theories were "doubtful". This statement was not an off the cuff remark but in a formal ruling from a Federal judge.

    Additionally, your previous claims of being supported by two witnesses is laughable. The experienced police officer you mentioned was not at the recovery and did not take initial custody of the equipment. The second witness lied about the fact that he was taking a course even after stating that to any number of people present at the scene and also is employed by the plaintiffs father.

    My only pleasure in all of this is the fact that your lace curtain is being seen through by most.

  7. #37
    Closed Account onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime is a splendid one to behold onetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    0

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkZ  View Original Post
    Furthermore the judge clearly stated that your theories were "doubtful". This statement was not an off the cuff remark but in a formal ruling from a Federal judge.
    Parts of this thread are interesting. I have no entrenched beliefs at stake in this debate but, as an analyst, some thinking in this thread flies in the face of reasonable analysis.

    Federal judges are not a standard of infalibility. If a case was tried in front of another that judge may well have been a full believer in a witness's testimony. Just because one doesn't buy into an argument that doesn't mean there isn't merit. There have been plenty of "doubtful" leaps on the parts of judges.

    Another implication in this thread also seems colored by some bias. A "salesman" can not tell the truth. First, just because someone sits in a tradeshow booth it doesn't make them a salesman. I help to manage a 1,000+ person healthcare salesforce in the US. I've spent many more hours in tradeshow booths than I care to remember and I am far from a "salesman". A salesman has a job that is 100% dedicated to overcoming buyers' objections and making the sale. I've read plenty of Alex's threads and it's clear that he is not a salesman. Does he have strong beliefs that he tries to sway people towards? Yep. Does he have an interest in certain products being accepted in the market? Yep. Does he have a strong belief that there are inferior products in the market? Yep. It still doesn't make him a salesman. If the above defined what a "salesman" was we'd all be considered one.

    Second, successful salesmen tell the truth. Lying to people to win them over works in the short term for one or two sales but poisons the well of future sales. Buyers are not stupid and they have choices. Even if that choice is simply not to buy any product in a category. It's tough for me to buy into the argument that Alex is pushing a completely biased agenda to sell units when his company is a design center and not a manufacturer AND he is publicizing the fact that rebreathers are dangerous. How many salesmen try to convince a potential market of how deadly their products are? Publicizing death rates of product users is not the action of someone that's solely interested in unit sales. And being a design center he wants the entire market to grow and it would appear that he believes that one of the biggest factors keeping it from growing is the death rate. Defining it and showing improvement in it is the only way to overcome buyers' objections to the dangers of rebreathers.

    Of course I'm not implying that those who have said the above don't have a right to say it. We all have that right and that's why we come to boards like this. :D

    And, fwiw, it seems there is a disagreement among some debaters around fundamental pieces of the discussion. For example, some want to attribute user error as one of the more prominent issues in rebreather fatalities. Alex has stated repeatedly that he believes such an error to be the fault of the rebreather. i.e., the rebreather should not allow the diver to make such errors (or at least should absolutely minimize the possibility since there are certain things that a rebreather design could not possibly stop). When two sides are in disagreement on a foundational issue such as this there is almost no chance they can come together in their beliefs. It's kind of like the Pro-life and Pro-choice debates. One side believes that life begins at conception and one believes it's later. The side that believes it's at conception will never change its stance on the issue because there is a fundamental difference of opinion about a key factor in drawing a conclusion.
    Last edited by onetime; 21st January 2009 at 14:52.

  8. #38
    CK#69 David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye is a jewel in the rough David Pye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne
    Posts
    435

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by AD_ward9  View Original Post
    Anyhow, your response and what you dive, tells me just where you are coming from.

    Alex
    You need to be careful making throwaway comments like that. It is making exactly the same mistake others make when they say you cannot be honest and impartial as you work for a company producing an Inspo competitior.

    Your line implies that if you dive an inspo and/or don't agree with all of of the DL/OS research that you are either in league with AP, or simply don't care about safety.

    David

  9. #39
    RBW Member MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ is a splendid one to behold MarkZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    175
    Inspiration Classic

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    [
    Federal judges are not a standard of infalibility. If a case was tried in front of another that judge may well have been a full believer in a witness's testimony. Just because one doesn't buy into an argument that doesn't mean there isn't merit. There have been plenty of "doubtful" leaps on the parts of judges.


    The judge did not render the decision a jury of fairly well educated individuals including a commercial diver did after less then an hour of deliberations. The judges statement was made after the trial when the plaintiff attempted to get the verdict thrown out. Also remember I was a direct witness to the events that these wonderous theories were developed around. Additionally a similar comment was made by a judge at an inquest in the UK who deemed Alex an advocate which is a nice way of saying his opinions are biased to the point that they are doubtful. Two for two in seperate coutries.

    The above is just a couple of examples of the stretch taken with fact. Another is the whole WOB/ heart attack/ co2 retention theory which is now almost being accepted as a "fact". Here is the actual fact, the vast majority of scuba incidents are labeled either drowning, DCI or heart attack. The cause of death listed on a certificate is the final issue or opinion as to the cause. Often heart attack is given as the cause due to the fact that is what eventually killed the person. If a person had an embolism it is often listed as a heart attack because an embolism in itself does not necessarly cause death even though it may be the reason caused the fatality. DAN has recently commented on this reference their attempts gather facts.

    Last but not least is this whole design versus manufacturing role of Alex. Is it really to be believed that this is an arms length transaction? I for one don't buy it.

  10. #40
    So Cal Tech Diver aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie has a reputation beyond repute aainslie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,236
    Meg

    Inspo (when it works)

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by AD_ward9  View Original Post
    We stated exactly what we produce and design, and that the mCCR was competitive. There was nothing hidden.

    Judges words have a tendency to be quoted out of context as of late. At the end of the day, if a diver signs a load of waivers in training etc, then when the muck hits the fan, some jurisdictions will decide whatever he is in, there is no liability. That is what some cases come down to.

    You are supporting the idea that if someone was at DEMA showing commercial diving rebreathers (the main pic used in court to suggest I was a long standing competitor ) then they can't stand up and say what is seriously wrong. That is what is wrong with this industry: covering up things which are a downright scandal. Like the tobacco industry: attack the witness and make lots of noise in the hope it can suppress or hide the truth.

    We help out our clients, and promote our technology. That means trade shows sometimes (recently flu from two of the OS staff, meant I am here, seconded at Boot 2009, doing it again...). I have never had any sales training, never worked in any company's sales department, and do very little of it fortunately. I have had a solid engineering training, and do a great deal of engineering work: and have done for over 30 years. I am trained in contract writing, but that is not sales. This means that when asked, I answer that I am an engineer.

    Anyhow, your response and what you dive, tells me just where you are coming from.

    Alex
    Sheesh, you just love walking into fights don't you?

    OK, let's go. Shall I tell you the single silliest thing I have seen on a rebreather? The twit who put the PO2 readout on the diver's shoulder. It's so dumb, that if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I'd have thought the person telling me was joking. Let's see, where's the best place to put life critical information....oh I know, out of the user's line of site! Why? Oh, because the buddy should be telling him/her what their PO2 is, perhaps using elaborate hand signals every minute or so... good freaking grief. Tell me, how do teh two buddies each manage to stay on the right hand side of the other buddy... there's a logical inconsistency there, Alex, that a 10 year old can work out EVEN IF you buy into the idiocy of someone else monitoring your PO2 for you. And it makes a mockery of the CE process if THOSE idiots with all their endless certification documents can't work out what a moronic idea that is. Good grief - in order to remove a "failure point" i.e. the cable, you make the device unusable! Imagine if we did that in cars... let's see, the hydraulic line to the brakes is a failure point, so let's put 4 brake pedals on the car, one by each wheel... and oh, if the driver wants to stop he must yell "STOP" really loudly and 4 of his buddies sitting over each wheel must all depress the pedals simultaneously. Yay - we've removed a failure point!!!

    THAT, my friend, is a downright scandal.

    As to allegiance to AP... hardly. I dive with revo and hammerhead divers a lot, and I think both units are beautiful. In fact I'm seriously tempted to get a revo mccr for cave diving. I was considering yours until i saw the readout idiocy.

    Finally, go reread post 27. YOU stated that your firm didn't have salespeople... yet clearly many of you, including yourself, often take on that role. And YOU imply in that posting that salespeople can't be impartial, not I. Sheesh. Your statement on salespeople was inaccurate. Your implication was questionable. I'm merely reporting both.
    Last edited by aainslie; 21st January 2009 at 16:06.
    Andrew Ainslie

    Buhlmann = Bend and Mend
    VPM/RGBM = Mend and Bend
    GF 35-50/70-85 = Mend and Mend

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts