Two missing on submerged Great Wall - China

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I agree with @uwxplorer and several others on this board regarding their opinions of deeplife and specific persons associated with the entity.

In other words, I’d trust the source of this report about as far as I can throw my refrigerator.

See the first three paragraphs of the linked post (below) for one person’s thoughts on the topic (nice post @JohnnyC, hope you don’t mind I linked to it!)
https://www.scubaboard.com/community/posts/7765690/

Hi All, I found this recently at (www.deeplife.co.uk/or_files/RB_Fatal_Accident_Database_100725.xls). Not a rebreather diver myself so merely passing on the info

Date Wed 06 Sep 2017
Location China, Hebei Province, Panjiakou, underwater section of ancient Great Wall

Deceased's Name Chinese Female
Rebreather involved JJ-CCR, JJ-BOV
Electronics fitted to rebreather for PPo2 Monitoring or Control Shearwater eCCR controller
Type of dive Exploration Dive
Depth of accident 52m
Root Cause Using Fault Tree Human Error
Disabling Injury Hypercapnia

Key information received on accident
Two Chinese technical divers using CCR did not surface after exploring the underwater ancient Great Wall in Panjiakou, Hebei Province, China. The exploring project is one of GUE Project Baseline. Divers were not following GUE Protocol. Dive template of 60min at 60m for 3.7hr RT in 6'C water, understood to a bail out plan. Actual dive 102 minutes to LOC, of which 53 to 55 minutes bottom time, max depth 55.4m with buddy at up to 59.8m, in 6C water. After the loss of her buddy with the main bail out gas 77 minutes into the dive, she continued to decompress until at 100 minutes run time she bolted to the surface while still having a heavy decompression obligation due to aspects early in the dive and from the profile. Diver 43kg hence low metabolism. Disabling injury and cause of death was pulmonary embolism. Dive profile was beyond the known and published capabilities of the scrubber. The BOV was a pre-CE BOV which had too high a WOB to support a diver suffering hypercapnia. Diver bailed to separate OC for ascent but little gas used as LOC occurred. Autopsy found evidence of pulmonary embolism. Some data withheld from publication due to confidentiality.

Comments or Discussion in arriving at most plausible cause, addition to use of the Fault Tree.
Most probable root cause is hypercapnia. Cause of diver bolting to the surface is hypercapnia. Disabling injury is LOC due to arterial gas embolism. Full details of dive not published at family's request.

Training implications
The scrubber duration published by JJ CCR: http://www.jj-ccr.com/the-jj-ccr/scrubber-unit.aspx In this manufacturer's data, the duration is 40 minutes at 40m depth. At 50m, the duration will reduce substantially - not just by 1/6th (the difference of the two absolute depths) and the duration to the point of rapid ascent was considerably longer than 40 minutes. On this data alone, the dive profile exceeds the manufacturer's stated scrubber duration, even at 40m. The JJ-CCR scrubber results were produced by ANSTI, and the dosing was less than 1.6lpm of CO2 at 0C, so the manufacturer's data is for a metabolic rate of between 1.4 and 1.5lpm of CO2 production - this can be generated for a long duration if a diver is working hard. The diver had a lower body mass than her male buddy and her dive involved less exertion, hence she could survive longer on the scrubber than the buddy, however not enough to complete decompression. The non-CE BOV is a factor: the diver would not have been able to breathe from this while suffering hypercapnia, increasing stress and the consideration to bolt to the surface.

Design implications
JJ-CCR publish an honest statement of scrubber duration. Many others do not. Divers using similar sized scrubbers are often presented with misleading durations that involve short bottom times and long decompression profiles, or are based on low metabolic rates. Presentation of long scrubber times within the dive community may well be the factor that led the divers to believe the scrubbers were sufficient for the dive. The buddy's dive scooter failed, which would likely lead to longer bottom times as the divers combined. The BOV was a pre-CE BOV which had too high a WOB to support a diver suffering hypercapnia.

Deceased's Name Chinese Male
Rebreather involved JJ-CCR, DSV
Electronics fitted to rebreather for PPo2 Monitoring or Control Shearwater eCCR controller
Type of dive Exploration Dive
Depth of accident 52m
Root Cause Using Fault Tree Human Error
Disabling Injury Hypercapnia

Key information received on accident
Two Chinese technical divers using CCR did not surface after exploring the underwater ancient Great Wall in Panjiakou, Hebei Province, China. The exploring project is one of GUE Project Baseline, however divers were not GUE trained. Dive template of 60min at 60m for 3.7hr RT in 6'C water, understood to be a bail out plan. Actual dive 77 minutes duration to LOC, of which 54 minutes bottom time, max depth 59.8m in 6C water. Diver 80kg hence typical male metabolism and CO2 production in the circumstances of the dive. Heavier than planned exertion after a scooter failure and with two 11L stages. Dive on video. Dive profile was beyond the known and published capabilities of the scrubber. Dive computers logged depth and PPO2: PPO2 normal. Bailed out onto OC, and emptied both stages rapidly. Cause of death was drowning. Some data withheld from publication due to confidentiality.

Comments or Discussion in arriving at most plausible cause, addition to use of the Fault Tree.
Accident Investigation conducted at behest of friends and family. Root cause was hypercapnia. Causing of death was drowning. Full details of dive not published at family's request.

Training Implications
The scrubber duration published by JJ CCR: http://www.jj-ccr.com/the-jj-ccr/scrubber-unit.aspx In this manufacturer's data, the duration is 40 minutes at 40m depth. At 50m, the duration will reduce substantially - not just by 1/6th (the difference of the two absolute depths). On this data alone, the dive profile exceeds the manufacturer's stated scrubber duration, even at 40m. The JJ-CCR scrubber results were produced by ANSTI, and the dosing was less than 1.6lpm of CO2 at 0C, so the manufacturer's data is for a metabolic rate of between 1.4 and 1.5lpm of CO2 production - this can be generated for a long duration if a diver is working hard. Note the amount of OC gas used (two 11L stages): a person suffering hypercapnia has a very high RMV and requires a considerable volume of bail out gas – divers must bail out as soon as hypercapnia symptoms are apparent, as if left for later then it may be impossible to get enough gas.

Design implications
JJ-CCR publish an honest statement of scrubber duration. Many others do not. Divers using similar sized scrubbers are often presented with misleading durations that involve short bottom times and long decompression profiles, or are based on low metabolic rates. Presentation of long scrubber times within the dive community may well be the factor that led the divers to believe the scrubbers were sufficient for the dive. The scooter failed, leading to heavier exertion and would likely lead to longer bottom times, however the dive was within the template.
 
The deeplife "database" is notorious for mixing up biased hypotheses and facts. In other words, most of it is all made up.
Oh yeah.. is that the "safety organization" that's operated by some rebreather manufacturer.. not coincidentally, the only one they consider to be safe?

Thanks for pointing it out, as I'd forgotten those people. It's a pity that they can't just remain forgotten.

I'm sure it's no coincidence that the link deeplife provided to information about the JJ is not valid, and the numbers deeplife quoted about the JJ seem to be in conflict with the information published by the manufacturer. In fact, someone should probably point it out to the JJ folks. Maybe some kind of legal recourse is in order.
 
184B9DFB-B3EA-46B5-953B-7AD071A6B91F.png
Seems weird. Looking at the JJCCR website shows a 180min scrubber duration.
True

Note however the depth profiles to acheive that!

Then go back and overlay the actual depth, duration, water temp and probable work rates for this particular dive....

Visibility of the pre-dive planning process would have been interesting noting what JJ-CCR publish on the units known safe envelope to dive within. I’m sure however that this is covered during unit training.
 
Due to a long and pretty public history of big claims and little factual data, I find it pretty difficult to put any faith in much "published" by Deeplife, Brad Horn, or Alex Deas.
 
I am very surprised that pressure at 40m will significantly reduce the efficiency of the scrubber.

The CO2 Scrubber in a Diver’s Rebreather

40mins at 40m! Better off with OC.
Nail, meet head. As I pointed out, that's such a "small" dive that you can do it with standard nitrox tables and deco on back gas.
 
Don't quite know about the accuracy of deep life.

However, @24th Nov 17', SB anonyimous updated below info on the website:
如何看待潘家口水下长城探索项目中 9 月 6 日两名潜水员失踪事件? - 知乎

Google translate:
"latest update:
To all of you who are still concerned about this matter, today, after the ceremony has been completed, only some personally open information can be said:
1. At the request of the family, only one diver had an autopsy.
2. At the request of the family, the details of the rescue and the accident analysis of the diving accident are not made public.
3. There is currently no evidence to support the electric shock.

I saw a science fiction movie N years ago. Two astronauts left the space station and walked out of the cabin. One device had a fatal fault and the other had a mistake in the rescue of the companion. Repentant, he finally chose to untie the safety rope behind him and fell into the stars.

RIP
.............."

Being one of the recovering diver, I only want to state one fact:

Both divers are certified JJ, and on JJ standard configuration.
......
All I can say is there is no evidence showing a fatal diver error nor a unit failure.

I know you have the data of the dive for being their friend and the regional dstributor of the dive computer. will you post?
 
Both divers had ascent to shallow(depth was not quoted) initially but suddenly ascent very quickly(the text actually used the term "external force" but did not specify what). However, they never reached the surface and then dropped back to the bottom.

I think the word better to be "The diver had ascent to shallow(depth was not quoted) initially but suddenly ascent very quickly(the text actually used the term "external force" but did not specify what). However, they never reached the surface and then dropped back to the bottom due to loss of neutral buoyoncy."

And this is why I did not translate, anonimous unofficial message....

In the same webpage, another GUE guy "Yang, Xiao" who participated the recovery, mentioned the detailed SMB missing item, which is finally found takeb by a fishman and could be possibly related to this. But that can hardly explain why both of them did not go back to the surface.

Furthermore, comparing this message to the deeplife's, you may find a same implication that only one diver had ascented to shallow(denovo?), but then fell back to the bottom. I'm not so sure if this is a kind of coincedence, or the editor read the chinese website, or they do get the dive data.

However, no data, no fact. This is why I'm calling for the data.
 


A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Please keep this thread on topic. Discussion of politics will not be tolerated on A&I threads
 
"latest update:
To all of you who are still concerned about this matter, today, after the ceremony has been completed, only some personally open information can be said:
1. At the request of the family, only one diver had an autopsy.
2. At the request of the family, the details of the rescue and the accident analysis of the diving accident are not made public.
3. There is currently no evidence to support the electric shock.

This is a bit selfish and does not help the diving community better understand the tragedy and what went wrong and how to perhaps improve safety. Anyways...China is China. Very different mentality and way of looking at things in general.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom