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

[gianaameri]

I was typing this up when your shooting analogy came in. I don't think it is a fair comparison because you need to have a licence to shoot. If you commit a violation, you either are thrown out of the range and/or end up in jail. In diving, there are no dive police and it is up to YOU to make the decision about breaking the rules, or keeping current in your skills . This is not the case in shooting where you have a direct level of supervision.

Shooting works similarly to diving.

It is self-regulated, in the sense that the Shooting Club does the training and issue the C-cards.

The Shooting Club is approved by U.K. authorities similarly to the way a diving training agency is approved by the HSE in the U.K.

No one stops you doing any violation. If you do, and kill someone, you will face the consequences.

No one has the ability to respond in time to stop you doing a violation (they will catch you only after the fact has occurred, whether you broke the rules deliberately or accidentally).

As far as I know, there have been no recreational civilian shooting fatalities on U.K. MoD Ranges.

Not one (that I know of) - notwithstanding I am comfortable to say "violations" have probably occurred (not deliberate ones that I know of).

 

[GLOC]

This does not mean that intelligent people cannot still reach some meaningful conclusions as to how the current situation could be made better and what could be tackled, and what not, and if not what disclosures could be made, which are not made.

I am not saying that this shouldn't be done, but if you take pareto principle, focus on the biggest 80% of the problem and try and solve that, potentially Skill Errors and Violations.

If there were all of the Functional Safety issues which you are making out to be, then there would be far more fatalities than there are because the divers wouldn't know there is an issue and carry on regardless.

Fortunately, as one aviation paper put it, "Comparing accident and incident statistics with typical transport pilot career flying exposure will quickly show that most pilots rarely experience significant incidents and those that they do experience are not generally crew-originated - indeed most incidents involve the crew members preventing errors originating elsewhere from becoming accidents." [1]

Regards

[1] Last, S 1997, ELIMINATING "COCKPIT-CAUSED" ACCIDENTS, from Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline

 

[gianaameri]

I am not saying that this shouldn't be done, but if you take pareto principle, focus on the biggest 80% of the problem and try and solve that, potentially Skill Errors and Violations.

If there were all of the Functional Safety issues which you are making out to be, then there would be far more fatalities than there are because the divers wouldn't know there is an issue and carry on regardless.

Fortunately, as one aviation paper put it, "Comparing accident and incident statistics with typical transport pilot career flying exposure will quickly show that most pilots rarely experience significant incidents and those that they do experience are not generally crew-originated - indeed most incidents involve the crew members preventing errors originating elsewhere from becoming accidents." [1]

Regards

[1] Last, S 1997, ELIMINATING "COCKPIT-CAUSED" ACCIDENTS, from Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline

Why not focus as well on the remaining part of the problem (which you allege to be 20%, and 20% seems already a significant enough %)?

80% + 20% = 100%.

 

[GLOC]

Time and resource?

 

[Mark Rowe]

Shooting works similarly to diving.

It is self-regulated, in the sense that the Shooting Club does the training and issue the C-cards.

The Shooting Club is approved by U.K. authorities similarly to the way a diving training agency is approved by the HSE in the U.K.

No one stops you doing any violation. If you do, and kill someone, you will face the consequences.

No one has the ability to respond in time to stop you doing a violation (they will catch you only after the fact has occurred, whether you broke the rules deliberately or accidentally).

As far as I know, there have been no recreational civilian shooting fatalities on U.K. MoD Ranges.

Not one (that I know of) - notwithstanding I am comfortable to say "violations" have probably occurred (not deliberate ones that I know of).

Don't look at man kills other man. Focus on how many people killed nearly killed themselves or another while cleaning their gun - whatever type. British army have ad quiet a few and are overly anal about following rules for weapon handling and remember hat the environment is saturated in others (soldiers) whose own expertise should help spot and prevent accidents - civilian man cleaning gun at home maybe only person present with the skill to prevent it - but doesn't - sh-t happens. Don't get me started on US weapon availability

 

[gianaameri]

Don't look at man kills other man. Focus on how many people killed nearly killed themselves or another while cleaning their gun - whatever type. British army have ad quiet a few and are overly anal about following rules for weapon handling and remember hat the environment is saturated in others (soldiers) whose own expertise should help spot and prevent accidents - civilian man cleaning gun at home maybe only person present with the skill to prevent it - but doesn't - sh-t happens. Don't get me started on US weapon availability

US I am leaving out of the comparison (a 5 year old with his own gun bought for him by the parents shot dead his 2 year old little sister yesterday).

I am only using UK because GLOC has the data (if he looks) and it is close to his field of expertise (certainly closer than rebreather cave diving :rocker.

The soldiers stick to their own business. They do not interfere with civilians, and civilians do not interfere with the soldiers (and police, and SAS...).

Bear in mind some "soldiers" are not much older than school kids getting trained to go to Afghanistan (I feel sad and sorry for them, so naive they are). Some are true professionals and amongst the best (you are talking elite forces here though, not kiddies in uniform).

I am not aware of people killing themselves in the U.K. cleaning a gun (I gotta clean my firearms tomorrow and sincerely hope not to be the first... might bruise or cut a knuckle pushing the rod in though... never happened yet).

 

[GLOC]

Oh dear...quick Google...9 hrs old.

BBC News - Western Isles man dies after 'gun accident'

Another Google, this time around 3 weeks ago

Rabbit hunter dies after his gun goes off by accident - Mirror Online

From 3 years ago

Shock at child gun accidents | UK | News | Daily Express

Regards

 

[gianaameri]

Oh dear...quick Google...9 hrs old.

BBC News - Western Isles man dies after 'gun accident'

Regards

Yep, people shoot themselves sometimes (and sometimes shoot others deliberately).

Let us stick to UK MoD Ranges to start.

Happy to look at other aspects (Dunblane?), but let us start to keep it simple and to sport recreational shooting which in the U.K. does take place on U.K. MoD ranges (there are private ranges as well, but GLOC may not have access to that data).

 

[GLOC]

Let us stick to UK MoD Ranges to start.

Happy to look at other aspects (Dunblane?), but let us start to keep it simple and to sport recreational shooting which in the U.K. does take place on U.K. MoD ranges (there are private ranges as well, but GLOC may not have access to that data).

No thanks. I do have a full time job, a family and a whole bunch of studying, and why should I go digging for data which I have no interest in. Just because I work for the MOD why do you think I have access to this data? If you are really interested, you can put in a FOI request but I am sure the HQ LAND guys have much better things to do than run around after a query which has very limited relevance to this area.

Regards

 

[gianaameri]

why should I go digging for data which I have no interest in.

Well, for a number of reasons.

Aircraft related statistics which you rely on by quoting is less relevant than, for example, MoD Range fatalities in sports recreational civilian shooting.

When you are dealing with aircraft (civilian or military) you are talking about a class of individuals which is very different from rebreather divers.

Rebreather divers are recreational sports divers and have far more in common with civilian recreational sport shooters than with commercial/military pilots.

Well, that was my thinking, but guess it is of no interest to you, which is fine.

 

[DGraham]

Gian,

I am at a loss as to what part of this standard you are claiming the Rebreather (any Rebreather) does not measure up to.:deadhorse

I actually went and downloaded the standard so I could see for myself what it was you are so determined about and I simply am more confused now than ever.

From Page 20 of EN 14143-2003

5.13 Electrical systems

5.13.1 Functional safety
Any electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of
IEC 61508, Part 1 to Part 7.
Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2.

5.13.2 Programmable systems
Any software or firmware used on the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC 12207 and IEC
60300-3-6.
Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2.

5.13.3 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
Out of water and during calibration of any electrical system the performance or calibration of the apparatus
shall not be affected when exposed to electromagnetic fields and shall satisfy the requirements of EN 61000-
6-1.
Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.12.

6.1.2 Nominal values and tolerances
Unless otherwise specified, the values shall be subjected to a limit deviation of  5 %. Unless otherwise
specified, the room temperature for testing shall be (22  5) °C and at a relative humidity of at least 50 %. The
temperature limits shall be subject to a limit diviation of  1 °C.

6.2 Visual Inspection
Visual inspection shall be conducted at normal visual acuity by the responsible expert(s) appointed by the
accredited test station to test the apparatus.
The visual inspection shall verify that the apparatus has been produced in accordance with the manufacturer’s
technical file and include marking and information supplied by the manufacturer.

Danny

 

[bazSXD]

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

 

[dmainou]

Yes, but do car manufacturers find a short-cut to get their cars certification and not tell the implications (i.e. "we found a short-cut and are circumventing the CE standard car safety requirements for cars...?")

Maybe they do... it'd be pretty scary though!

The short answer is yes. Do some research on the exploder and firestone. On the differences between the tested cars and what they sell you in various markets.

The only thing they require is a particular legislation not requiring them to have some safety feature installed and it will be removed or replaced with a cheaper option. Call it non exploding petrol tanks, back head rests, air bags, crash bars, etc.

Still the ad with the five star safety rating gets shown everywhere.

D

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Igor]

IMHO i fear the MK6 and the RCCR´s will be the start of government regulation to rebreather diving. It may be the start of the end of it all. The unit it self might be OK, i have no idea. I have little knowledge about it and as such i do not attempt to claim it is inferior to other rebreathers on the market.

What scares me is the marketing strategy and the targeted market. I let my son do a PADI OW (3 days!) course in Thailand last year, he is 14 and did pretty well considering the darn course was a complete joke with an instructor still bothered by acne. Young enthusiastic instructors can be the best for sure but my concern is if PADI will be able to quality control this globally. It seems improbable.Would i let him do a MK6 RB Course? Absolutely not. Now , he might be a little young to provide a good example but i am sure you get my point.

Who came up with the bright idea to jump in to one of the most fatal accident prone "sports" known to man (280 dead) and decide to target recreational divers like my son and grand mom? The MK6 and its apparent reliance on electronic control scares the shit out of me! We have previously seen indications on this forum that instructors and retailers are claiming cells are OK to use in the Posiedon as long as they pass the on board cell verification even if they are past best before date.

I have had a lot of rec divers asking about my RB on the boat and asking if i think they to should get in to RB diving. Hell NO!!! is my answer. 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. The Posidon marketing claims seems VERY far away from any reasonable truth if you ask me.

I do not see the average rec diver getting any decompression on a single tank either, even if on air. They will suck that tank dry before that anyway. Up here in the north the temperature is setting your dive time more then anything else. Getting a nice set of double 12´s and electrical vest and good undergarments is the best bet for longer dives. A lot safer then rebreather diving to. Now, i do realize there are warmer waters in the world but still i do not get the point. I fear this is just the beginning...

 

[gianaameri]

Gian,

I am at a loss as to what part of this standard you are claiming the Rebreather (any Rebreather) does not measure up to.:deadhorse

5.13.1 Functional safety
Any electrical, electronic or programmable electronic part of the apparatus shall satisfy the requirements of
IEC 61508, Part 1 to Part 7.
Testing shall be done in accordance with 6.2.

 

[GLOC]

Gian,

The point I am making is that no matter how much robust functional safety and legislation you put in place, people will break the rules and when you do you have a much greater chance of a fatality than a non-fatal incident.

If you want to compare range shooting with CCR diving, you should look at training fatalities because there you have a direct level of supervision (instructor cf range officer). The reason I pulled those news clips out is because they were in unsupervised situations.

Regards

 

[gianaameri]

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

It don't matter.

None of those you mention have a Certificate attesting conformity to Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

I enquired and the reply from the Notified Body was that if a product il "less than SIL one" it is "outside of the scope" of Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003 - even if the Certificates (and they do) have got "EN14143:2003" written all over them.

You would be misleading yourself to believe that a rebreather with a certificate stating "EN14143:2003" meets Functional Safety while a rebreather Certifcate like for the rEVO stating "prEN14143:2010doc.360" (or something like that, cannot remember exactly the crap) does not.

Neither meet Functional Safety as instead required by the current rebreather standard Clause 5.13.1 of EN14143:2003.

I trust I will be informed by the "experts" that I am wrong, if I am wrong.

 

[gianaameri]

Gian,

The point I am making is that no matter how much robust functional safety and legislation you put in place, people will break the rules and when you do you have a much greater chance of a fatality than a non-fatal incident.

If you want to compare range shooting with CCR diving, you should look at training fatalities because there you have a direct level of supervision (instructor cf range officer). The reason I pulled those news clips out is because they were in unsupervised situations.

Regards

For a single shooter, the RCO (Range Conducting Officer) is the shooter.

For a group of shooters, the RCO is a qualified (trained) member of the Shooting Club.

The RCO is the equivalent of the Divemaster on a dive boat.

 

[gianaameri]

IMHO i fear the MK6 and the RCCR´s will be the start of government regulation to rebreather diving.

HSE has got their head buried in the sand for years on the issue of rebrerathers (Tec and Rec are a new thing, but both are recreational sport activities, done by people at work as well like Instructors and Divemasters).

I do not think much will come from these authorities.

GLOC activities is what worries me.

The Military wants to outlaw civilian use of rebreathers.

If the Military can show that it is not a suitable use, that is civilians are prone to Human Factors, and User Error, they will succeed in their task.

They will argue (and are doing so) that the Military has protocols which are strictly adhered and rebreathers are fine for them (indeed the French have ZERO fatalities on rebreather), and in any event rebreathers for military purposes are excluded from "CE."

Politically, this is convenient as well to the politicians.

The political responsibility for the current situations rests, for example in the U.K., with the U.K. Secretary of State.

Politically, GLOC's activities (and those of other academicians at Cranfield) are the perfect solution (i.e. User Error is responsible, not "something else").

When the numbers get high enough (280+ is insignificant in the big scheme of things), and the media will take interest, I think civilian rebreather diving could get pulled by Military and politicians under the pretence that we are too damn incompetent to use them safely.

 

[GLOC]

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