Seaduction ® | scuba diving | scuba diving equipment | scuba gear

Rebreather Fatality or Simple Pilot Error

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:36:00 +0000

Rebreather fatalities are largely caused by primary equipment failure. This is an opinion piece, the views expressed are solely those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this publication or its principles.

Gretchen

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:16:33 +0000

Just as you state, "If you cannot verify that the technology failed in a diving accident do not imply that some piece of technology is responsible", neither should those in the media - or anyone else - imply or assume diver error until THAT is verified.

I have known this diver's wife for over 20 years, and I hope and pray she never sees this editorial which implies her husband is at fault.

Mike Ange

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:15:50 +0000

Hi Gretchen,
I appreciate your comments and it is unfortunate that this article timed to post when it did. I also apologize if you were offended by the content, however, your indignation is misplaced and the result of jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
This article was written 2 weeks before the accident in Key West and actually was initiated by two other rebreather fatalities that have occurred in the fairly recent past. In those cases the pilot error is demonstrable as a significant contributing factor to the accident. There was no reference to the accident in Key West here because this text was finalized days before the accident occurred.

You are correct we do not know if the Key West accident was pilot error or not. In fact I will go so far as to say that initial indications are that it was not pilot error. This article was about finding out the facts before jumping to conculsions and accepting personal responsibility for decisions made as opposed to finding scape goats. The statistical facts in the article are still verifiable and the key points in the article still apply – across the board. We did consider holding the article in light of the incident in Key West – but I did not think that was warranted and therefore I could not justify modifying the editorial schedule. That would have been a disservice to our subscribed readers. Sorry for your misunderstanding and please accept our sincere condolences on the loss of your friend.

Safe Diving,
Mike A
Mike@Seaduction.com
http://www.seaduction.com
http://www.mikeange.net

Mark Chase

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:24:22 +0000

Sadly Mike your spot on. I have dived a CCR for six years and the truth is, the overwhelming majority of the accidents I have been able to gain information on have been pilot error. The rest are unclear as to what caused the incident.

There is a move toward fully automated safety for CCR so they can be more forgiving of diver error. However if past attempts are any gauge, in doing so, the increased complexity of the units just opens up new possibilities for problems to occur. At the same time reducing the input of the diver reduces her/his responsibility to notice the problems.

Statistically the safest units are the ones with no warning devices and no automated life support. Giving the diver full responsibility of their own survival with out any option to rely on the machine seems to have worked well in the past.

It is hard to accept that a loved one has made an error which has cost them their life. We all want to be able to pin blame elsewhere. As a result of such action we the re-breather community have now lost the support of Teledyne who provided the most reliable 02 Cells available. The cost and threat of legal action has made them pull out of the market. The issues with galvanic cells are well known and they should never result in injury to a CCR diver who is diving the unit properly.

In an attempt to unfairly apportion blame, the loved ones have just made re-breather diving a little bit more dangerous for those of us still using the equipment.

ATB

Mark Chase