Rebreather Forum 3.0 - Consensus Positions

***GLOC*** · June 13th, 2012, 10:25 PM

The following were posted on the Rebreather Forum 3 Facebook page and cover the consensus recommendations and finding made at the end of the conference. All of the recommendations were either unanimous or majority positions.

Checklists

The Forum acknowledged the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the efficacy of checklists in preventing errors in parallel fields that share similar technical complexity. Two recommendations regarding checklists were consequently agreed:

1. The Forum recommends that rebreather manufacturers produce carefully designed checklists, which may be written and/or electronic, for use in the pre-dive preparation (unit assembly and immediate pre-dive) and post-dive management of their rebreathers.

Written checklists should be provided in a weatherproof or waterproof form; and,
The current version of these checklists annotated with the most recent revision date should be published on the manufacturer***8217;s website.

2. The Forum recommends that training agencies and their instructors embrace the crucial leadership role in fostering a safety culture in which the use of checklists by rebreather divers becomes second nature.

Training and Operations

1. The Forum applauds and endorses the release of pooled data describing numbers of rebreather certifications by training agencies and encourages other agencies to join ANDI, IANTD, and TDI in this initiative.

2. The Forum endorses the concept of making minimum rebreather training standards available in the public arena.

3. The Forum endorses the concept of a currency requirement for rebreather instructors. We recommend that training agencies give consideration to currency standards with respect to diving activity, class numbers, and unit specificity for their instructors.

4. The Forum recognizes and endorses the industry and training agency initiative to characterize ***8220;recreational***8221; and ***8220;technical***8221; streams of sport rebreather diver training. These groups will have different operational, training and equipment needs.

Accident Investigation

1. The Forum recommends that training agencies provide rebreather divers with a simple listof instructions that will mitigate common errors in evidence preservation after a serious incident or rebreather fatality. These instructions will be developed under the auspices of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Diving Committee in consultation with the relevant RF3.0 presenters.

2. The Forum endorses the concept of a widely notified centralized ***8220;on-call***8221; consultation service to help investigators in avoiding errors or omissions in the early stages of a rebreather accident investigation and to facilitate referral to expert investigative services.

3. The Forum recommends that in investigating a rebreather fatality the principal accident investigator invite the manufacturer of the incident rebreather (or other relevant equipment) to assist with its evaluation (including the crucial task of data download) as early as is practicable.

4. The Forum endorses the DAN worldwide initiative to provide a means of on-line incident reporting with subsequent analysis and publication of incident root causes.

Design and Testing

1. The Forum recommends that all rebreathers incorporate data-logging systems, which record functional parameters relevant to the particular unit and dive data, and allow download of these data. Diagnostic reconstruction of dives with as many relevant parameters as possible is the goal of this initiative. Footnote: An ideal goal would be to incorporate redundancy in data logging systems, and as much as practical, to standardize the data to be collected.

2. The Forum endorses the need for third party pre-market testing to establish that rebreathers are fit for purpose. Results of a uniform suite of practically important unmanned testing parameters such as canister duration, and work of breathing (qualified by clear statements of experimental parameters) should be reported publicly. Ideally, this testing should be to an internationally recognized standard.

3. The Forum acknowledges recent survey data indicating a poor understanding of rebreather operational limits in relation to depth and carbon dioxide scrubber duration among trained users, and therefore recommends that:

Training agencies emphasize these parameters in training courses; and,
Manufacturers display these parameters in places of prominence in device documentation and on websites.

4. The Forum strongly endorses industry initiatives to improve oxygen-measurement technologies, and advocates consideration of potentially beneficial emerging strategies such as dynamic validation of cell readings and alternatives to galvanic fuel cells.

5. The Forum identifies as a research question the issue of whether a mouthpiece-retaining strap would provide protection of the airway in an unconscious rebreather diver.

6. The Forum identifies as a research question the efficacy of a full-face mask for use with sport rebreathers.

The proceedings of Rebreather Forum 3.0 will be available before the end of 2012 and available to download. To see what happened at RF3.0, visit Rebreather Forum 3 - RF3 Summary | Online Registration by Cvent

Philippe GERIN · June 13th, 2012, 11:32 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC)

All of the recommendations were either unanimous or majority positions.

Thanks Clare for reposting. At least the majority agrees on the basics.
I'm surprised that along with safety (training, check list...) and accident/incident reporting system, means and procedures, nothing appears about deco algorithm, deco computer (live or unplugged).
Were VR Tech, SW and others not present ?
Best
Philippe

**PeterN** · June 14th, 2012, 02:29 AM

The check list stuff interests me. No arguement that they are usefull. What should be on the list is a matter for debate I feel.

For me a list that includes bolting the can to the backplate etc., is more pain than gain. 40 or more obvious points do not help me concentrate.

There are however a few critical points that really must be observed. Muchroom valves, spacers, O rings etc.

Probably this deserves its' own thread. As I am off for a few days of diving, for me it will have to wait.

I would be happy to post my much truncated list when I get back. If this is allowed.

Peter

***GLOC*** · June 14th, 2012, 10:22 AM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Philippe GERIN)

Thanks Clare for reposting. At least the majority agrees on the basics.
I'm surprised that along with safety (training, check list...) and accident/incident reporting system, means and procedures, nothing appears about deco algorithm, deco computer (live or unplugged).
Were VR Tech, SW and others not present ?
Best
Philippe

It's Gareth

The consensus opinions came from discussions that occurred during the major presentations rather than a couple of presentations on the Friday morning.

Deco algorithms etc are such a personal choice because of the variance in human physiology and environmental influences there would be no point in trying get a consensus opinion.

VR were there, Shearwater were a major sponsor of the event.

Regards

Simon Mitchell · June 14th, 2012, 11:55 AM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Philippe GERIN)

I'm surprised that along with safety (training, check list...) and accident/incident reporting system, means and procedures, nothing appears about deco algorithm, deco computer (live or unplugged).
Were VR Tech, SW and others not present ?
Best
Philippe

Hello Phillippe,

It is not decompression sickness that is killing rebreather divers. While decompression algorithms are an interesting topic, they were not seen as a high priority in attempts to improve safety.

Simon M

**Mark Powell** · June 14th, 2012, 01:50 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC)

It's Gareth

or Mavis

Ben Field · June 14th, 2012, 01:50 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC)

4. The Forum strongly endorses industry initiatives to improve oxygen-measurement technologies, and advocates consideration of potentially beneficial emerging strategies such as dynamic validation of cell readings and alternatives to galvanic fuel cells.

IMVHO this should be far and away the #1.

The CCR industry likes to confuse itself with sticking band-aids over much more minor issues and charging the earth for them, fact is a leading accident cause is incorrect loop PPO2.

For years we have been pretty successful without CO2 sensors, HUDs, multiple displays, colour handsets, rumbling DSV's and opto-electrical magic SPG's but any unit is lethal in seconds without solid PPO2 measurement.

Frankly I'd be glad to give up all of these toys for a PPO2 sensor than I could rely on to be correct.

**Mark Powell** · June 14th, 2012, 01:53 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC)

The following were posted on the Rebreather Forum 3 Facebook page and cover the consensus recommendations and finding made at the end of the conference. All of the recommendations were either unanimous or majority positions.
Training and Operations

3. The Forum endorses the concept of a currency requirement for rebreather instructors. We recommend that training agencies give consideration to currency standards with respect to diving activity, class numbers, and unit specificity for their instructors.

This is an interesting one, what do we think the requirement for currency should be?
How many rebreathers can you practically teach?
How many dives on an individual rebreather do you need in the last year in order to teach it?

Dave Sutton · June 14th, 2012, 02:09 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Powell)

This is an interesting one, what do we think the requirement for currency should be?
How many rebreathers can you practically teach?
How many dives on an individual rebreather do you need in the last year in order to teach it?

Why don't we model it on the way we teach in aviation?

Basic aviation currency requirements to carry passengers: Legally in the USA: Three takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days. Basic diving currency? How about three hours of diving with at least three "cycles" (meaning from suit on to suit off, not sitting in the water and making three back to back dives) on the same or similar platform (IE open circuit, closed circuit) in the last 90 days with at least one hour on the *specific platform to be taught* in the last 30 days? Think of "while carrying passengers" as an analog to "diving with students".

How many platforms can be taught? An infinite number. Human knowlage is not like pushing pigs thru a python or peas thru a straw. Adding one knowlage set does not remove another. Once expertise is gained, it is not lost save for disuse, and even then it can be regained fairly quickly. I teach in small aerobatic airplanes, large business jets, and in about ten different military tactical-type fast jets... I don't confuse a MiG with a Hawker Hunter when teaching, nor a fighter with a small aerobatic biplane. If you cannot sort out the differences between a Meg and a rEvo and a JJ when teaching, you're not smart enough to teach even one. Similarly, I can move from a rEvo to a Mark-15 to an IDA-71 to a Dolphin and not confuse one with the other. the fact is that the more platforms you teach on, the easier it is to teach on more platforms. There are really "just so many ways" do to things, and the basics are the same on all.

Platform specific recency of experience? Three hours in the last 90 days would be fine with one hour being in the last 30 days. Make it the same as the basic currency requirements so that an out if currency instructor (think "post winter season") can come into basic currency and platform specific currency with one set of dives.

Where I think we need to beef it up as regards to instructor qualification is to increase the overall experience level of instructor candidates. That's both "as a diver" and "as a CCR diver". There are WAY too many "fast track" instructors out there, and way too many people who get an instructors cards as a merit badge. I'd model CCR Instructor qualifications the same way as we do in flying as well: 200 hours of flying (CCR diving) before being qualified as an Instructor "at all" with minimum of 10 hours of diving on each *specific* platform that an Instructor wants to add to his certificate. That may seem low, but if you are COMPETENT with one platform, it does not *really* take a huge effort to migrate to another. And that is bearing in mind that the candidate needs to pass a test in order to migrate to a new platform. The 200 hour minimum as a CCR diver rule would weed out most of the weak instructors... of which we have a load.

Dave

.

matt · June 14th, 2012, 10:50 PM

I like Dave's summary. I'd also add that the instructor should also be a diver - a practitioner of what they preach; at least for the "mod 2" courses an upwards. Too many instructors seem to only instruct.

Matt.

June 13th, 2012, 10:25 PM	#1 (permalink)
*GLOC* real name: Gareth Lock! Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Malmesbury, Wilts Posts: 501 Thanks: 305 Thanked 220 Times in 104 Posts	Rebreather Forum 3.0 - Consensus Positions The following were posted on the Rebreather Forum 3 Facebook page and cover the consensus recommendations and finding made at the end of the conference. All of the recommendations were either unanimous or majority positions. Checklists The Forum acknowledged the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the efficacy of checklists in preventing errors in parallel fields that share similar technical complexity. Two recommendations regarding checklists were consequently agreed: 1. The Forum recommends that rebreather manufacturers produce carefully designed checklists, which may be written and/or electronic, for use in the pre-dive preparation (unit assembly and immediate pre-dive) and post-dive management of their rebreathers. Written checklists should be provided in a weatherproof or waterproof form; and, The current version of these checklists annotated with the most recent revision date should be published on the manufacturer*8217;s website. 2. The Forum recommends that training agencies and their instructors embrace the crucial leadership role in fostering a safety culture in which the use of checklists by rebreather divers becomes second nature. Training and Operations 1. The Forum applauds and endorses the release of pooled data describing numbers of rebreather certifications by training agencies and encourages other agencies to join ANDI, IANTD, and TDI in this initiative. 2. The Forum endorses the concept of making minimum rebreather training standards available in the public arena. 3. The Forum endorses the concept of a currency requirement for rebreather instructors. We recommend that training agencies give consideration to currency standards with respect to diving activity, class numbers, and unit specificity for their instructors. 4. The Forum recognizes and endorses the industry and training agency initiative to characterize 8220;recreational8221; and 8220;technical8221; streams of sport rebreather diver training. These groups will have different operational, training and equipment needs. Accident Investigation 1. The Forum recommends that training agencies provide rebreather divers with a simple listof instructions that will mitigate common errors in evidence preservation after a serious incident or rebreather fatality. These instructions will be developed under the auspices of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Diving Committee in consultation with the relevant RF3.0 presenters. 2. The Forum endorses the concept of a widely notified centralized 8220;on-call8221; consultation service to help investigators in avoiding errors or omissions in the early stages of a rebreather accident investigation and to facilitate referral to expert investigative services. 3. The Forum recommends that in investigating a rebreather fatality the principal accident investigator invite the manufacturer of the incident rebreather (or other relevant equipment) to assist with its evaluation (including the crucial task of data download) as early as is practicable. 4. The Forum endorses the DAN worldwide initiative to provide a means of on-line incident reporting with subsequent analysis and publication of incident root causes. Design and Testing** 1. The Forum recommends that all rebreathers incorporate data-logging systems, which record functional parameters relevant to the particular unit and dive data, and allow download of these data. Diagnostic reconstruction of dives with as many relevant parameters as possible is the goal of this initiative. Footnote: An ideal goal would be to incorporate redundancy in data logging systems, and as much as practical, to standardize the data to be collected. 2. The Forum endorses the need for third party pre-market testing to establish that rebreathers are fit for purpose. Results of a uniform suite of practically important unmanned testing parameters such as canister duration, and work of breathing (qualified by clear statements of experimental parameters) should be reported publicly. Ideally, this testing should be to an internationally recognized standard. 3. The Forum acknowledges recent survey data indicating a poor understanding of rebreather operational limits in relation to depth and carbon dioxide scrubber duration among trained users, and therefore recommends that: Training agencies emphasize these parameters in training courses; and, Manufacturers display these parameters in places of prominence in device documentation and on websites. 4. The Forum strongly endorses industry initiatives to improve oxygen-measurement technologies, and advocates consideration of potentially beneficial emerging strategies such as dynamic validation of cell readings and alternatives to galvanic fuel cells. 5. The Forum identifies as a research question the issue of whether a mouthpiece-retaining strap would provide protection of the airway in an unconscious rebreather diver. 6. The Forum identifies as a research question the efficacy of a full-face mask for use with sport rebreathers. The proceedings of Rebreather Forum 3.0 will be available before the end of 2012 and available to download. To see what happened at RF3.0, visit Rebreather Forum 3 - RF3 Summary \| Online Registration by Cvent __________________ Gareth Images of Life Photography - Underwater Print Sales, Teaching and Stock Library Team Foxturd - The Home of the Chimps Diving Incident and Safety Resource Centre “Set your expectations high; find men and women whose integrity and values you respect; get their agreement on a course of action; and give them your ultimate trust.” “It is far better to be trusted and respected that it is to be liked.” Last edited by GLOC; June 13th, 2012 at 10:31 PM.
(Offline)

June 13th, 2012, 11:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Philippe GERIN New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Orléans, France Posts: 115 Thanks: 17 Thanked 17 Times in 8 Posts	Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC) All of the recommendations were either unanimous or majority positions. Thanks Clare for reposting. At least the majority agrees on the basics. I'm surprised that along with safety (training, check list...) and accident/incident reporting system, means and procedures, nothing appears about deco algorithm, deco computer (live or unplugged). Were VR Tech, SW and others not present ? Best Philippe
(Offline)

June 14th, 2012, 02:29 AM	#3 (permalink)
PeterN Supporting Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 321 Thanks: 232 Thanked 49 Times in 22 Posts	The check list stuff interests me. No arguement that they are usefull. What should be on the list is a matter for debate I feel. For me a list that includes bolting the can to the backplate etc., is more pain than gain. 40 or more obvious points do not help me concentrate. There are however a few critical points that really must be observed. Muchroom valves, spacers, O rings etc. Probably this deserves its' own thread. As I am off for a few days of diving, for me it will have to wait. I would be happy to post my much truncated list when I get back. If this is allowed. Peter
(Online)

June 14th, 2012, 10:22 AM	#4 (permalink)
*GLOC* real name: Gareth Lock! Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Malmesbury, Wilts Posts: 501 Thanks: 305 Thanked 220 Times in 104 Posts	Quote: (Originally Posted by Philippe GERIN) Thanks Clare for reposting. At least the majority agrees on the basics. I'm surprised that along with safety (training, check list...) and accident/incident reporting system, means and procedures, nothing appears about deco algorithm, deco computer (live or unplugged). Were VR Tech, SW and others not present ? Best Philippe It's Gareth The consensus opinions came from discussions that occurred during the major presentations rather than a couple of presentations on the Friday morning. Deco algorithms etc are such a personal choice because of the variance in human physiology and environmental influences there would be no point in trying get a consensus opinion. VR were there, Shearwater were a major sponsor of the event. Regards __________________ Gareth Images of Life Photography - Underwater Print Sales, Teaching and Stock Library Team Foxturd - The Home of the Chimps Diving Incident and Safety Resource Centre “Set your expectations high; find men and women whose integrity and values you respect; get their agreement on a course of action; and give them your ultimate trust.” “It is far better to be trusted and respected that it is to be liked.”
(Offline)

June 14th, 2012, 11:55 AM	#5 (permalink)
Simon Mitchell New Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 165 Thanks: 85 Thanked 343 Times in 61 Posts	Quote: (Originally Posted by Philippe GERIN) I'm surprised that along with safety (training, check list...) and accident/incident reporting system, means and procedures, nothing appears about deco algorithm, deco computer (live or unplugged). Were VR Tech, SW and others not present ? Best Philippe Hello Phillippe, It is not decompression sickness that is killing rebreather divers. While decompression algorithms are an interesting topic, they were not seen as a high priority in attempts to improve safety. Simon M
(Offline)

June 14th, 2012, 01:50 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mark Powell CCRX Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Chepstow Posts: 28 Thanks: 13 Thanked 11 Times in 5 Posts	Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC) It's Gareth or Mavis
(Offline)

June 14th, 2012, 01:50 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ben Field New Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Weymouth, UK Posts: 232 Thanks: 23 Thanked 77 Times in 32 Posts	Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC) 4. The Forum strongly endorses industry initiatives to improve oxygen-measurement technologies, and advocates consideration of potentially beneficial emerging strategies such as dynamic validation of cell readings and alternatives to galvanic fuel cells. IMVHO this should be far and away the #1. The CCR industry likes to confuse itself with sticking band-aids over much more minor issues and charging the earth for them, fact is a leading accident cause is incorrect loop PPO2. For years we have been pretty successful without CO2 sensors, HUDs, multiple displays, colour handsets, rumbling DSV's and opto-electrical magic SPG's but any unit is lethal in seconds without solid PPO2 measurement. Frankly I'd be glad to give up all of these toys for a PPO2 sensor than I could rely on to be correct.
(Offline)

June 14th, 2012, 01:53 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mark Powell CCRX Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Chepstow Posts: 28 Thanks: 13 Thanked 11 Times in 5 Posts	Quote: (Originally Posted by GLOC) The following were posted on the Rebreather Forum 3 Facebook page and cover the consensus recommendations and finding made at the end of the conference. All of the recommendations were either unanimous or majority positions. Training and Operations 3. The Forum endorses the concept of a currency requirement for rebreather instructors. We recommend that training agencies give consideration to currency standards with respect to diving activity, class numbers, and unit specificity for their instructors. This is an interesting one, what do we think the requirement for currency should be? How many rebreathers can you practically teach? How many dives on an individual rebreather do you need in the last year in order to teach it?
(Offline)

June 14th, 2012, 02:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
Dave Sutton Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Union Beach, New Jersey Posts: 1,281 Thanks: 73 Thanked 189 Times in 103 Posts	Quote: (Originally Posted by Mark Powell) This is an interesting one, what do we think the requirement for currency should be? How many rebreathers can you practically teach? How many dives on an individual rebreather do you need in the last year in order to teach it? Why don't we model it on the way we teach in aviation? Basic aviation currency requirements to carry passengers: Legally in the USA: Three takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days. Basic diving currency? How about three hours of diving with at least three "cycles" (meaning from suit on to suit off, not sitting in the water and making three back to back dives) on the same or similar platform (IE open circuit, closed circuit) in the last 90 days with at least one hour on the specific platform to be taught in the last 30 days? Think of "while carrying passengers" as an analog to "diving with students". How many platforms can be taught? An infinite number. Human knowlage is not like pushing pigs thru a python or peas thru a straw. Adding one knowlage set does not remove another. Once expertise is gained, it is not lost save for disuse, and even then it can be regained fairly quickly. I teach in small aerobatic airplanes, large business jets, and in about ten different military tactical-type fast jets... I don't confuse a MiG with a Hawker Hunter when teaching, nor a fighter with a small aerobatic biplane. If you cannot sort out the differences between a Meg and a rEvo and a JJ when teaching, you're not smart enough to teach even one. Similarly, I can move from a rEvo to a Mark-15 to an IDA-71 to a Dolphin and not confuse one with the other. the fact is that the more platforms you teach on, the easier it is to teach on more platforms. There are really "just so many ways" do to things, and the basics are the same on all. Platform specific recency of experience? Three hours in the last 90 days would be fine with one hour being in the last 30 days. Make it the same as the basic currency requirements so that an out if currency instructor (think "post winter season") can come into basic currency and platform specific currency with one set of dives. Where I think we need to beef it up as regards to instructor qualification is to increase the overall experience level of instructor candidates. That's both "as a diver" and "as a CCR diver". There are WAY too many "fast track" instructors out there, and way too many people who get an instructors cards as a merit badge. I'd model CCR Instructor qualifications the same way as we do in flying as well: 200 hours of flying (CCR diving) before being qualified as an Instructor "at all" with minimum of 10 hours of diving on each specific platform that an Instructor wants to add to his certificate. That may seem low, but if you are COMPETENT with one platform, it does not really take a huge effort to migrate to another. And that is bearing in mind that the candidate needs to pass a test in order to migrate to a new platform. The 200 hour minimum as a CCR diver rule would weed out most of the weak instructors... of which we have a load. Dave . Last edited by Dave Sutton; June 14th, 2012 at 02:20 PM.
(Offline)

June 14th, 2012, 10:50 PM	#10 (permalink)
matt New Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: London Posts: 1,541 Thanks: 168 Thanked 74 Times in 60 Posts	I like Dave's summary. I'd also add that the instructor should also be a diver - a practitioner of what they preach; at least for the "mod 2" courses an upwards. Too many instructors seem to only instruct. Matt.
(Offline)