Functional Safety, Human Factors and General Safety Discussion (Moved from Mk VI)

Igor said:
I do believe it is possible to dive a rebreather with reasonable safety but it takes a lot of dedication and a completely different mind-set compared to single tank OC diving.
Click to expand...

That is the fundamental issue and probably the most sensible thing anyone has said in any forum discussion on rebreather safety for a while.

I've got quite a few friends who have done thousands of dives who won't buy a rebreather because they know they will not maintain and dive it with the attention required to dive it safely. They know they don't have the discipline and are able to make an informed decision on rebreather use based on that knowledge.

That's what's worrying about marketing to people who don't know what they don't know.
 
gianaameri said:
indeed the French have ZERO fatalities on rebreather)
Click to expand...

There is a published paper over French Navy rebreather accidents, which shows 3 drownings.

Descriptive Epidemiology of 153 Diving Injuries With Rebreathers Among French Military Divers From 1979 to 2009
by Gempp, Emmanuel, Louge, Pierre, Blatteau, Jean-Eric, Hugon, Michel


ABSTRACT
Introduction: Rebreathers are routinely used by military divers, which lead to specific diving injuries. At present, there are no published epidemiologic data in this field of study.

Methods: Diving disorders with rebreathers used in the French army were retrospectively analyzed since 1979 using military and medical reports.

Results: One hundred and fifty-three accidents have been reported, with an estimated incidence rate of 1 event per 3,500 to 4,000 dives. Gas toxicities were the main disorders (68%). Loss of consciousness was present in 54 cases, but only 3 lethal drowning were recorded. Decompression sicknesses (13%) were exclusively observed using 30 and 40% nitrox mixtures for depth greater than 35 msw. Eleven cases of immersion pulmonary edema were also noted.
 
Thanks Alex, that was the paper I inferred above but on iphone so couldn't pull reference up.

Regards
 
GLOC said:
Gian, I'd love to know where you are getting these stories from.

The military wanting to take over CCR diving and remove it from civilians? Really? Zero French fatalities on CCR? Really? Protocols reduce incidents, they do not remove them. I know of at least one incident where despite protocols there was no scrubber material present in the CCR and the diver passed out on the surface just before descending.

My work (self-funded) worries you?

My (and other Human Factors specialists) work is not a panacea and no-one said it is. If you ever bother to read up on HFACS you will see it covers supervisory and organisational influences. However, there is a distinct lack of evidence to identify the failures at the higher levels, even if, in some cases, it exists.

Regards
Click to expand...

Sure.

In my bisiness they say, "When you gef something for free, you have paid a lot of money for it.".

I have no doubt you will do well and succeed

You have the motivations, and the skills, and the resources.

I look forward to read your and other Cranfield research to convince the general public that it is all a Human Factor thing.

Sent from my HTC Desire C using Tapatalk 2
 
bazSXD said:
Really simple question:

Is the MKVI certified to EN 14143-2003 or is it like a few other units that claim CE certification via a non-ratified std (EN 14143-2009 or 11 or even 13).

I know the APD and JJ units are certified to EN 14143-2003 but if the others aren't then what are we to measure them against ???

regards Baz
Click to expand...

for rEvo it's simple

CE type approval using a Technical File approved by the notified body

the Technical File lists the requirements (and results) the unit must meet to comply with the PPE (the 'law')

our 'Technical file' is the project of the new standard as it was in 2009

(biggest difference with the 2003 is correcting of errors, and allowance of mCCR)

in general: there is no unit on the market that fully compies with EN14143:2003 as there were also very simple errors in the standard (for example wrong numbers)


also, it's never a manufacture that 'claims' anything

it's at the end always the Notified Body who attests the CE type approval, when he has seen sufficient proof that the unit meets the PPE directive, by checking against a harmonised standard, or a Technical File
 
Last edited:
paulraymaekers said:
for rEvo it's simple

CE type approval using a Technical File approved by the notified body

our 'Technical file' is .. the project of the new standard as it was in 2009

(biggest difference with the 2003 is correcting of errors, and allowance of mCCR)

in general: there is no unit on the market that fully compies with EN14143:2003 as there were also very simple errors in the standard (for example wrong numbers)
Click to expand...

Clause 5.13.1 has been confirmed by EU wide unanimous vote NOT to be one of those Clauses in the standard containing any error.

I quote CEN/CENELEC (the EU Standard making body in which you sit representing Belgium):

"During the plenary meeting of CEN/TC 79 on 15th May 2012, the following resolution was taken to endorse the SC 7 position:

RESOLUTION 4 taken by CEN/TC 079 on 2012-05-15

Subject: Claim of defective European Standard EN 14143:2003

CEN/TC 79/SC 7 has considered the claim of defective European Standard EN 14143:2003 with respect to Clause 5.13.1 Functional Safety and the assessment of such in Clause 6.2 relating to visual inspection of the technical file.

In Clause 5.13.1 EN 14143:2003 calls up a recognised generic Functional Safety standard, i.e. IEC 61508 to which all electrical components must comply; the assessment of the functional safety and any supporting documentation is called up by Clause 6.2.

The detailed application of the functional safety standard is dependent on the design of the apparatus. For the products falling under the scope of EN 14143:2003, the involvement of notified bodies is mandatory. Verification of the conformity of the relevant products to all Clauses of the standard is the responsibility of the notified body.

EN 14143:2003 is not defective in respect of Functional Safety and offers a recognised pragmatic approach to safety that benefits the whole diving community. [emphasis added]

Note: EN 14143 is currently under revision.

The decision was taken by unanimity."
 
gianaameri said:
Clause 5.13.1 has been confirmed by EU wide unanimous vote NOT to be one of those Clauses in the standard containing any error.

I quote CEN/CENELEC (the EU Standard making body in which you sit representing Belgium):

"During the plenary meeting of CEN/TC 79 on 15th May 2012, the following resolution was taken to endorse the SC 7 position:

RESOLUTION 4 taken by CEN/TC 079 on 2012-05-15

Subject: Claim of defective European Standard EN 14143:2003

CEN/TC 79/SC 7 has considered the claim of defective European Standard EN 14143:2003 with respect to Clause 5.13.1 Functional Safety and the assessment of such in Clause 6.2 relating to visual inspection of the technical file.

In Clause 5.13.1 EN 14143:2003 calls up a recognised generic Functional Safety standard, i.e. IEC 61508 to which all electrical components must comply; the assessment of the functional safety and any supporting documentation is called up by Clause 6.2.

The detailed application of the functional safety standard is dependent on the design of the apparatus. For the products falling under the scope of EN 14143:2003, the involvement of notified bodies is mandatory. Verification of the conformity of the relevant products to all Clauses of the standard is the responsibility of the notified body.

EN 14143:2003 is not defective in respect of Functional Safety and offers a recognised pragmatic approach to safety that benefits the whole diving community. [emphasis added]

Note: EN 14143 is currently under revision.

The decision was taken by unanimity."
Click to expand...

I was not going to answer any of this, as I can not speak for the comittee, but..

false and fully out of context, as misleading

the claim was filed by an individual

the wording of the resolution states

1 the standard is not defective in respect of Functional Safety
2 the standard is a recognised pragmatic approach to safety...
3 the claim of... is invalid as it does not fall under the CEN/TC79 SC7 to verify the assessment of clause 6.2 (as was in the claim): that is the work of the NB, not the TC79/SC7
4 the resolution does not say anything about the need or not need of 61508 in a rebreather standard (as that was not the claim)
5 the standard is under revision (and in the final version the global vision on safety related to rebreathers of all the experts in the comittee will be worded)

END
 
paulraymaekers said:
I was not going to answer any of this, as I can not speak for the comittee, but..

false and fully out of context, as misleading

the claim was filed by an individual

the wording of the resolution states

1 the standard is not defective in respect of Functional Safety
2 the standard is a recognised pragmatic approach to safety...
3 the claim of... is invalid as it does not fall under the CEN/TC79 SC7 to verify the assessment of clause 6.2 (as was in the claim): that is the work of the NB, not the TC79/SC7
4 the resolution does not say anything about the need or not need of 61508 in a rebreather standard (as that was not the claim)
5 the standard is under revision (and in the final version the global vision on safety related to rebreathers of all the experts in the comittee will be worded)
Click to expand...

I was not aware of having been misled by CEN/CENELEC.

I quoted word for word what I received from them.

Do you have copy of the actual resolution for all to see?

Quite frankly, Paul, be honest to yourself and just say "The rEVO rebreathers DO NOT meet Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003."

That is the simple truth, innit?
 
gianaameri said:
I was not aware of having been misled by CEN/CENELEC.

I quoted word for word what I received from them.

Do you have copy of the actual resolution for all to see?

Quite frankly, Paul, be honest to yourself and just say "The rEVO rebreathers DO NOT meet Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003."

That is the simple truth, innit?
Click to expand...

what has this in God's name to do with 'honesty'?

I never even claimed it meets EN14143:2003

so: have I ever claimed this? where?

check your data: I have always stated everywhere that 61508 did not belong into the rebreather standard. so why would I have claimed it meets this?


do you actually understand the real meaning of 'honesty'?

i'm out of this BS
 
paulraymaekers said:
do you actually understand the real meaning of 'honesty'?
Click to expand...

The MKVI is in the same position, I believe.

All rebreathers currently available to the general public do not satisfy the Functional Safety requirement of the current rebreather standard.

Is not that an honest statement?

If Yes, I understand honesty.

The real issue is why keep it secret (i.e. from people like the deceased in this this thread) that rebreathers do not meet Functional Safety requirements.

Why then?
 
ebt said:
I reached the same conclusion a while back. Its like having a discussion with David Koresh.
Click to expand...

What non-sense.

What does religion (i.e. David Koresh) have to do with a product either meeting or not meeting an essential requirement of the EU wide established standard (and the MKVI deceased not being told a peep about it)?
 
paulraymaekers said:
check your data: I have always stated everywhere that 61508 did not belong into the rebreather standard. so why would I have claimed it meets this?
Click to expand...
As none of your products have ever even been audited to 61508 and none comply, and you have not even bothered to go on any accredited training in Functional Safety, how on earth do you know whether it belongs in the standard or not?

As someone who has spent a career involved at various levels in Functional Safety, I am absolutely positive that 61508 DOES belong in the rebreather standard, and that was the view expressed by many experts in the public consultation of the standard.

The fact that you and your associates have lobbied to have Functional Safety removed from the prEN14143:2013 draft, simply destroys credibility in the system.

Alex
 
Gian, at what point are you going to realise that having or not having a declaration of Functional Safety won't make a blind bit of difference to someone's behaviour?

Do you think that an experienced CCR diver is going to change their behaviour? Do you think a new rCCR instructor is going to change his behaviour when giving a try-dive lesson or teaching Mod 1 on MkVI? Do you think the liability forms that everyone signs at a commercial outfit which say you could die at any time and without notice will make (or do make) any difference to a beginner's behaviour?

There is a balance to be made between educating people and getting them into this sport. Some people are not 'made' for OC diving let alone CCR diving - agencies need to be robust and say 'sorry, it's not for you' rather than try and milk the commercial position.

Regards
 
AD_Ward9 said:
As none of your products have ever even been audited to 61508 and none comply, and you have not even bothered to go on any accredited training in Functional Safety, how on earth do you know?

As someone who has spent a career involved at various levels in Functional Safety, I am absolutely positive that 61508 DOES belong in the rebreather standard, and that was the view expressed by many experts in the public consultation of the standard.

The fact that you and your associates have lobbied to have Functional Safety removed from the prEN14143:2013 draft, simply destroys credibility in the system.

Alex
Click to expand...

Credibility?

I buy Made in the U.S.A. rebreathers and firearms and everything I can possibly buy.

They are cheaper and better.

Service is tops.

Dealers are honest.

"CE" is a complete sham.
 
GLOC said:
Gian, at what point are you going to realise that having or not having a declaration of Functional Safety won't make a blind bit of difference to someone's behaviour?

Do you think that an experienced CCR diver is going to change their behaviour? Do you think a new rCCR instructor is going to change his behaviour when giving a try-dive lesson or teaching Mod 1 on MkVI? Do you think the liability forms that everyone signs at a commercial outfit which say you could die at any time and without notice will make (or do make) any difference to a beginner's behaviour?

There is a balance to be made between educating people and getting them into this sport. Some people are not 'made' for OC diving let alone CCR diving - agencies need to be robust and say 'sorry, it's not for you' rather than try and milk the commercial position.

Regards
Click to expand...

Agencies are honest.

PADI I think has one of the best rebreather training programs out there.

However, if the training and the behavior is based on a distorted perception as to the riskiness of the tools used, everything falls apart.

When will you understand that Perception, Cognition, and Projection precedes and forms Human Behavior - and bad information is the precursor of bad behavior, bad decisions, Human Error, and death?
 
gianaameri said:
Agencies are honest.

PADI I think has one of the best rebreather training programs out there.
Click to expand...
On paper or delivered? On paper the OW courses are very good, delivered this isn't necessarily the case with 25% of violations committed by OW and DMs in an Australian study. I already know of one Mk VI user who is working up his hours by using two batteries (one he is using, one another diver is) to become an mix instructor more quickly.
However, if the training and the behavior is based on a distorted perception as to the riskiness of the tools used, everything falls apart.

When will you understand that Perception, Cognition, and Projection precedes and forms Human Behavior - and bad information is the precursor of bad behavior, bad decisions, Human Error, and death?
Click to expand...
Thanks again for your notes on human behaviour, it is appreciated, I will bear them in mind and put it next to the Human Factors material I have under the sections [Personal Readiness, CRM and, Skills and Knowledge Based Errors]...

So, do the PADI training materials (CD/IT and CCR Instructor manuals and training notes) cover the lack of Functional Safety on the CCRs? (I am not a PADI instructor so don't have access to them, nor am I an instructor for any other agency so can't answer that question for anyone else). If not, then they are also perpetuating the risk perception argument that you keep banging on about and yet you say they are the way forward. If the CD/IT materials don't contain it, then the Instructor won't get taught it and they won't pass it on to their students.

Regards



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
GLOC said:
So, do the PADI training materials (CD/IT and CCR Instructor manuals and training notes) cover the lack of Functional Safety on the CCRs?
Click to expand...

How could they?

PADI is an information taker same as the User.

If the manufacturer keeps a secret, PADI has no way of knowing, nor can the User (pre and post-purchase).

Are you the "expert" they talk about in this video?

the dictator - pointed missile - YouTube

Missile standard: pointed or round?
 
Last edited:
MODS - can we please have this off topic arguing moved elsewhere? This is supposed to be a thread about the MKVI fatality in Portugal.

Also - in the interests of full disclosure for those members who do not know the history - Alex Deas was discredited as a Subject Matter Expert in a British court of law by the judge presiding over the very case he was supposed to be providing evidence to an an expert witness. There is also a conflict of interest with his association with DeepLife / the Apocalypse rebreather.

Alex Deas - Why we have a hard time believing his claims

Crossbow Diving - Barrett vs Ambient SELECTED Court Documents
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top