Dive Team Accident

[Splitlip]

It is really not that difficult to re thread. As somebody said earlier if you have learned to dive, its really hard to believe you could screw one up this badly, let alone 12. Not at all as complex as a parachute.

Feel bad for all, but something really smells.

 

[Ayisha]

...The officer surley panicked. Even in the event of a ripcord failure the pockets could be opened from the top and the weights removed while breathing on the bottom. and didn't he have a dry suit?

At the time that he sank:

No air to breathe.
No air to fill the drysuit.

 

[Colliam7]

/

If it's possible to re-thread incorrectly, then the design needs to be changed.

Interesting perspective, and I can see some merit in the argument. On the other hand, are there other common designs in scuba equipment, where it is possible to mis-assemble / misuse gear, with the consequence of malfunction and associated injury? And, if so, should all of those designs be changed? It is certainly possible to fail to enter correct data in your dive computer. And, if you do a dive to 80 feet on air, but your computer thinks you are diving 36%, could you conceivably be harmed? Should that computer design be changed? If so, there will be a whole lot of changing going on.

I think the Zeagle system is a very good one. And, I actually don't think the ripcord is technically difficult to rethread, just a bit tedious (not a criticism, just a personal observation), hence my lack of enthusiasm for 'testing' it. But, I also think a reasonably intelligent, reasonably facile person should be able to rethread it properly. However, I also agree it is not foolproof. And, as the signature of one regular ScubaBoard member indicates, 'Nothing is foolproof for a sufficiently talented fool.'

What we don't know from the available data is who was responsible for 'service' of the gear. We know that it (apparently) hadn't been serviced in 3 years, but we don't know who was responsible for that service three years ago. Was it the individual divers on the team? Was it a single member who had taken on the unofficial role of service technician (like an 'armorer' in some police departments - someone with an interest, possibly with aptitude, not necessarily with training)?

It is too easy to assign blame to inanimate 'equipment' (for failure) in a case like this, and obviates the need for evaluation of human performance, which is always challenging. As I suggested before, I think the evidence is consistent with (multiple levels of) human failure, whether it be in rethreading the BCDs, in making the dive knowing that the equipment was not in proper working order, or in overseeing the training exercise.

 

[flots am]

/Interesting perspective, and I can see some merit in the argument. On the other hand, are there other common designs in scuba equipment, where it is possible to mis-assemble / misuse gear, with the consequence of malfunction and associated injury?

They have typically been engineered out.

For example, in the past, the high pressure and low pressure ports were the same, which made it possible to send several thousand PSI right down a hose rated for 250PSI. This was changed so that it's no longer possible. High and low pressure hoses now have different fittings.

And, if so, should all of those designs be changed? It is certainly possible to fail to enter correct data in your dive computer. And, if you do a dive to 80 feet on air, but your computer thinks you are diving 36%, could you conceivably be harmed? Should that computer design be changed? If so, there will be a whole lot of changing going on.

The technology to embed an O2 Sensor in a computer for a price the consumer would pay, and with a level of user care that would be acceptable, does not yet exist, so this isn't currently an option, but yes, a computer that would automatically detect the % O2 (and CO) would be very useful.

I think the Zeagle system is a very good one. And, I actually don't think the ripcord is technically difficult to rethread, just a bit tedious (not a criticism, just a personal observation), hence my lack of enthusiasm for 'testing' it. But, I also think a reasonably intelligent, reasonably facile person should be able to rethread it properly. However, I also agree it is not foolproof. And, as the signature of one regular ScubaBoard member indicates, 'Nothing is foolproof for a sufficiently talented fool.'

I'm not even certain it was re-threaded improperly. It might just be really hard to ditch with 40 LBS even when threaded correctly. Even the DUI Weight and Trim takes a enough force to make functionality questionable if fully loaded.

However it would be possible to redesign the weight ditching mechanism on a BC to be both easy to use and not possible to install incorrectly.

flots.

 

[flots am]

Are you kidding? Because someone fails to do something correctly it needs to be changed. This is life support equipment.

That's exactly why.

It's also the reason you can't put a medical O2 regulator on anything except a medical O2 bottle. The cost of the change is trivial and the benefit of engineering out failure is huge.

flots.

 

[nimoh]

didn't read the entire thread, so I apologize if this is repetitive or misinformed.

PSDs commonly dive heavy for a variety of reasons, (although 40lbs seems a bit excessive, scratch that--a lot excessive). Even so, 40lbs (I assume 20 per side) in the weight pockets is a bad idea regardless of whether or not this interfered with their release.

Dumping one weight pocket should make you neutral, or still slightly negative enabling you to swim to the surface in the case of a BC failure. Dumping both pockets should make you float on the surface.

In a balanced rig, there is no need to dump weights, you should always be able to swim to the surface.

 

[Splitlip]

At the time that he sank:

No air to breathe.
No air to fill the drysuit.

I could not view all the videos. I did not realize he went out of gas.
I did read he rejected his buddy's alternate which to me means panic or hyperventilating/over breathing of the reg/co2 build up. ( some have speculated ipe.)

Also, it is not clear to me if he was losing gas from the inflator mechanism.

 

[ahava]

That's exactly why.

It's also the reason you can't put a medical O2 regulator on anything except a medical O2 bottle. The cost of the change is trivial and the benefit of engineering out failure is huge.

flots.

No, re-engineering is not always the answer. Maybe training on use and care is the answer. As I believe is the issue in this case.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

No, re-engineering is not always the answer. Maybe training on use and care is the answer. As I believe is the issue in this case.

I sold my Zeagle Bc a long time ago; one of the reasons was I didn't like the weight integration mechanism and the release. It is a pain to re-sting it. On the other hand, I don't think the system was unsafe. These guys should have been practicing ditching the lead on every single training dive, even if was while kneeling in 3 feet of water.

 

[Hatul]

40 lbs of lead is clearly over the capacity of the Ranger which has a wing of only 44lb lift. The wing has to lift the lead, full tank and regs. Does anyone know if the BC has a weight pocket limit printed someone on the BC?