Closed Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: Rebreather Accident Research Project

  1. #41
    rEject TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS is a jewel in the rough TJS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    541

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote Originally Posted by aainslie  View Original Post
    Sheesh, you just love walking into fights don't you?

    OK, let's go. 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!!!

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I think I just shat myself laughing haha

  2. #42
    Nailer99 Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith has much to be proud of Joshua Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA, USA
    Posts
    688
    Megalodon

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Oh, man- I needed a good laugh today- Thanks, Andrew! I completely agree, by the way.



    Quote Originally Posted by aainslie  View Original Post
    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.

  3. #43
    RBW Member jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk has a reputation beyond repute jkaterenchuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,942
    HammerMeg

    Kiss Classic, Inspiration

    Re: Rebreather Accident Research Project

    Quote: (Originally Posted by aainslie)
    Sheesh, you just love walking into fights don't you?

    OK, let's go. 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!!!


    Andrew

    You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting such a thing.

    A Statisticion of your reputation would clearly know that the addition of multiple brake petals should only be considered after the instrument cluster has been moved to the back seat.

    John

  4. #44
    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 David Pye  View Original Post
    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.
    I am saying the post suffers from scientology, in attacking the reporter instead of attacking the data.

    As usual, a lot of noise, detracting from the actual data.

    I asked for the data on which these numbers are based. The figures quote by Steve appear to be a blend of mortality rates for all rebreathers, and if so, are close to the figures we reported. However, they were not presented as a blend, they were presented as being outside the range we reported and that implies they are eCCR figures - which either they are not or the data behind them is wrong. I asked to see the data, so we can put this to bed.

    Why do so many people have a problem a request to see the data?

    Alex

  5. #45
    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

    Why do so many people have a problem a request to see the data?

    Alex
    I suspect you've misdiagnosed what they have a problem with...
    Andrew Ainslie

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

  6. #46
    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
    [
    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.
    Your implication was that the judge's words should be somehow more revered and that they are above reproach. Whether it's one, two, or a dozen countries judges have biases and are bound by the laws they're presiding over. Argument of the facts are one thing argument of points of view another. I'm with you on the arguments around heart attacks, drownings, etc. There are really only three facts I accept in the discussion around rebreather deaths.

    1. There are too many.
    2. There are various causes.
    3. Some of those causes are not clearly understood.

    Quantifying how many there are, ascribing to them potential causes, and then trying to draw conclusions to reduce them is a worthwhile effort. Even if the motivation of those doing such research are 100% self interest to sell their own Rebreather, so long as the methodology they're using to draw conclusions is communicated it can be debated. And it is being debated.

    Personally I don't believe that Alex's research is 100% self interest. Again he's calling attention to a major issue with RB's. Identifying a major issue with the market you're trying to sell into isn't the strategy that someone would use if they were solely interested in selling RB's. Even if their product purports to solve that major issue you have to know not everyone is going to buy into your solution. And, if they only buy into the major issue (people do have a tendency to believe the negative over the positive), in this case death, you've pretty well set yourself up for failure in the market.

    So it's clear, to me at least, that he's not solely interested in selling RB's. Improving safety is clearly a major stake in the platform he's creating.
    Last edited by onetime; 21st January 2009 at 20:54.

  7. #47
    New Member Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell has a reputation beyond repute Simon Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    683

    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?

    Alex
    Hmmm,

    All my instincts are telling me to keep out of this, but I have had strong views on the matter for some time so I will voice them.

    Scientists and engineers are perfect expert witnesses, so long as they do not have relevant conflicts of interest. I'm sorry Alex, but the simple inescapable fact is that an expert witness in a rebreather-related court case or inquest could not be more mired in conflict of interest than you. Your stance that you can separate your expert commentary from your conflicting interests is undoubtedly based on good intentions, but the scientific community has recognised for some time that such good intentions can't be trusted. That is why there is such emphasis on declaration of conflicts by speakers at medical meetings, and major support toward removing the influence of drug companies (eg in their support of speakers) from the medical education process.

    My opinion is this: Your contribution to the industry is significant and appreciated, but you should remove yourself from involvement in court cases and inquests relating to competitors' products. You are not a unique resource. There are other expert engineers who are unconflicted. If there is a strong case to be put about hazards associated with a particular product, these people are perfectly capable of putting it. If there is no-one else other than you prepared to support a particular stance, well, that should be telling you something.

    Please interpret these comments in the polite and respectful manner they were intended.

    Warm regards,

    Simon M
    Last edited by Simon Mitchell; 21st January 2009 at 21:03.

  8. #48
    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 Simon Mitchell  View Original Post
    Hmmm,

    Scientists and engineers are perfect expert witnesses, so long as they do not have relevant conflicts of interest. ...

    That is why there is such emphasis on declaration of conflicts by speakers at medical meetings, and major support toward removing the influence of drug companies (eg in their support of speakers) from the medical education process.

    Warm regards,

    Simon M
    Hey Simon,

    Interesting points but it seems to be a considerably higher standard that you're presenting than the courts allow. Expert witnesses are often paid for their participation in a case. So in the vast majority of uses of expert witnesses is that not a conflict of interest, by the above standard?

    Clearly it's up to the judge, opposition lawyers, and jury to decide who is an expert and who is not. The judge likely could have stopped Alex from testifying if he didn't believe he could be considered an expert.

    Speakers at medical conventions are a different matter than the courts altogether since there isn't really a process of vetting their conflicts. There's no responsibility on the part of conference organizers to insure freedom from conflicts, there's not necessarily someone acting as opposing council, but there is, ultimately, a jury since the audience in this case judges the believability of the presenter.

    edit: Alright, clearly I've been bitten by the debate bug today in this thread. I'll step back now. ;)

  9. #49
    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
    I am saying the post suffers from scientology, in attacking the reporter instead of attacking the data.

    As usual, a lot of noise, detracting from the actual data.

    I asked for the data on which these numbers are based. The figures quote by Steve appear to be a blend of mortality rates for all rebreathers, and if so, are close to the figures we reported. However, they were not presented as a blend, they were presented as being outside the range we reported and that implies they are eCCR figures - which either they are not or the data behind them is wrong. I asked to see the data, so we can put this to bed.

    Alex
    I find that comes across as very arrogant, even if it isn't intended to be.

    "If his data doesn't agree with my data, either we are talking at cross purposes or his data is wrong".

    Couldn't your data be either missing something or subject to different interpretations/opinions?

    David

  10. #50
    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 SteveJ  View Original Post

    Attempts have been made in the past to get at the denominator and you get a wide distribution of answers.

    For ALL recrational divers (OC, tech, CCR) the mortality rate is around 1 - 2 deaths per 10,000 divers per year (DAN and BSAC figures). There have been in the order of 130 rebreather fatalities since 1997(reported in English speaking literature). Various complicated but probably inaccurate estimates of the numbers of active rebreather divers have been made ranging from a low of 3000 to a high of 10,000. Assuming 10,000 rebreather divers (in Europe, US and Australasia) in 2007 and starting from a base of a few dozens in 1997 then my estimate for mortality in rebreather divers is in the order of 23 deaths per 10,000 divers per year. Others will argue that there are far fewer active rebreather divers hence significantly increasing the comparative mortality.

    To further complicate matters, the ALL divers mortality must include a lot of holiday divers who only dive 10 times a year which is probably much less than the committed rebreather diver.

    So, yes, finding out more about the amount and type of diving done on rebreathers is a vital part.

    Thanks for you post.

    Steve
    Alex,

    To quote myself from a previous post. The estimate was made last year. The numerator was compiled from your spreadsheet and my own but excluded fatalities that I could not corroborate from a second source. The assumptions on the denominator are as above. Please note this was an estimate and see the caveat above.

    The point I was making, and continue to make is that there is a significant excess mortality amongst rebreather divers compared to all recreational divers.

    Best Wishes,

    Steve

Closed Thread
Page 5 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