On Monday, October 08, 2001 5:52 PM, Robert Delfs (Frogfish), wrote:

> From reports I've read, a surprising number of tragedies and near
> misses have involved people who have had very extensive training.

G'Day, Robert!  Certainly mine was a very sweeping and broad-brush statement
but I didn't make it lightly!  :-)

It seems to me that r/b manufacturers trying to target the
recreational/technical end of the market face two major problems, the cost
of the unit being possibly the most obvious, added to which is the cost of
training the user to a level of proficiency where they don't even have to
consciously think about what they're doing, i.e. where the routines,
procedures and skills are second nature.  That's something that requires
considerable in-water time backed up by a lot of repetitious theory specific
to the particular machine - and that's then followed by constant use of the
unit.  Possibly even full refresher courses if the would-be user's skills
have become rusty through lack of application.  To my way of thinking,
something that would make the cost of proper - by my definition <BWG> -
training almost prohibitive. :-)

At this point, I should also add that while the comments in my previous post
were directed at one specific machine, the above comments are intended to
apply to all types of rebreathers.  Something that's regarded as heresy even
among some good friends who believe that I have an unnecessarily austere
approach to the things! :-)

In that regard, I've found that the concept of - to use your words -
'extensive training' is very subjective! :-)

(At this point I was going to climb onto a soap-box and waffle on about how
easy and quick it was to become a R/B Instructor - classic cases in some
instances of that saying, "In the valley of the blind the one-eyed man is
king" - but I'll hold off from pontificating on that for the present!)  :-)

> There was a time when I was considering rebreathers, mainly for the
> reported advantages in underwater photography (no bubbles!). The
> casualty rate - and particularly the casualties involving divers with
> extensive training and experience - was the most important reason I've
> decided to put this on indefinite hold.

It may now sound as though I'm taking a 180 degree turn, (and I probably
am?), but there are other factors to consider before you say 'no' to
rebreathers - apart from the calibre of the training that you receive.  One:
The unit itself and its intended application.  And, two, the amount of
effort that a user is willing to expend on retaining what they've learned;
applying it properly; and adding to their knowledge.  In that regard
attitude is everything - and even very experienced and well-trained
open-circuit divers come to grief when they forget basics.  (Rob Palmer is
one who springs instantly to mind!)  :-(

> I can see that there may be military applications or other special
> situatoins where rebreathers may be necessary, but the bottom line for
> me is that I can do every dive I really need or want to do on air.

The really short answer here is:  If you don't think that you need one, then
you definitely don't!  :-)

> The
> technology may be sound in principle, or not - I'm not qualified to
> say.  But it does seems clear that the equipment available for civilian
> use today is nowhere near robust nor safe enough for recreational
> diving.

The rush to be the first to market with a viable unit intended for
recreational use did see some badly designed machines.  But they do seem to
be getting better in terms of safety "add-ons" - like PPO2 sensors!

> Enough divers have already been lost.  Worse, I'm concerned that
> continued high fatalities could increase the likelihood that government
> agencies may decide that diving and mfg of diving equipment needs to be
> regulated, which could impact of us in very negative ways.

Funnily enough, here in Oz it's gone the other way as regards the
introduction of rebreathers!  :-)

In 1990, I was involved with a guy who'd bought up a couple of ex-Navy
Drager FGT's.  (This was at a time when 'tek diving' was still a largely
underground movement and home-brew mixes were commonplace.)  Intending to
offer training in the things, all of his efforts were thwarted by the
Workplace Health and Safety authorities.  After years of intensive lobbying
by him - and recognising that, like King Canute, attempting to turn back the
tide would only result in getting wet feet - the authorities relented.
(With the Drager 'Atlantis', not the FGT's - which were 'orrible pieces of
junk anyway!)  Since when there's been a proliferation in use.  (There's
even a group of dedicated enthusiasts - the Australian Amateur Rebreather
Group, (AARG), who build and dive their own.)

I've rambled on a bit there, but if you can work out which side I'm on as
far as rebreathers go, please let me know!  :-)

Strike