I think the Padi rule is onboard bailout is fine to 60ft, beyond that you need off board gas. But either way you require bailout for all CCR dives.Originally Posted by jkaterenchuk
Welcome to the Cave Diver's Forum.
I think the Padi rule is onboard bailout is fine to 60ft, beyond that you need off board gas. But either way you require bailout for all CCR dives.
Initially it was posted that he was not trained on the unit, but I don't know what the fact of the matter is.
Interesting that the owner of the unit wasn't named as a defendant too....
If I recall correctly, the depth was 70', not 40', but I have not down a search and confirmed that or the source.
---
As I read the linked court news, it appears to me that the attorney is basically throwing up as much mud as possible to try to get a settlement. The references to the "recalls" and in particular the recall of the OPV spring, for example, seem to be an effort to show a long history of problems with the rebreather, even through there is no history of previous similar deaths that would support the claim the the unit is unsafe.
Similarly, some of the wording is vague, like the statement something to the effect that "Hires was warned that hurried assembly of the unit was causing...from unknown sources of moisture". Was this warning about hurried assembly by end users - who are often around water and changing scrubber on wet units - or does it refer to the factory assembly.
The suggestion that Lamar Hires asked the investigators to have someone associated with Dive Rite inspect the unit is very interesting, to the point of being inflammatory, but it does not mean much absent the entire context. For example, if an investigator called Lamar and said "Gee...we got this thing, can you suggest someone who could look at it to see if it was functioning properly?, then the implications are different than if Lamar called the investigator and insisted that a specific person look at it prior to any other person who might be able to determine the condition of the unit.
Obviously a great deal of effort is being made to skew the picture in the plaintiffs favor, and that's normal given that court proceedings are not about finding "truth" and that "justice" is actually irrelevant in a court room.
----
If it goes to trial, the defendants would have to provide an affirmative defense (Wes died on our rebreather/cells/head/handsets, but it was not our fault) by showing that Wes voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of using it, and/or Wes's negligence (or perhaps lack of certification on the unit if he did not have it) in using the unit contributed to his death.
Which is to say, if it goes to court, it will get ugly.
---
I think the cause of death is also important. If there is a lack of evidence that the rebreather failed, then it's substantially more likely that Wes died of natural issues, not related to the rebreather. Consequently his medical records and any medications he may have been on will become key pieces of evidence. It's interesting that the accusation is in effect that Dive Rite spoiled the evidence regarding the rebreather as that then opens the door for them to try to level the field in terms of the lack of any definitive information in the autopsy as to what the cause of death may have been. If a neutral third party cleared the unit, then it would have left natural causes as the cause of death by default.
----
The observation that it could discourage O2 cell manufacturers from selling to rebreather companies or owners is a good one, as it does increase their liability, much like some welding gas companies are very hesitant or outright refuse to sell O2 or helium to divers, if they become aware of the end use.
I'm going to remain curious about the cells. When I send my O2ptima for a health check I don't send the cells as that's just an opportunity for them to get damaged in transport. Maybe the unit did go to DR and it was tested, repaired, etc with good cells in the tray. I can see a potential breakdown in the process whereas the end user puts some cells they have available from "yesterday".
No doubt anyone who was asked to look at the gear (Mark or other knowledgable individual) would have checked the born date, bench tested the cells in a pressure pot, and eventually put a new set in the tray to see how the machine operates.
I wonder what kind of fins he had. Scubapro has some mighty deep pockets...
Whoever said money can't buy love never bought a puppy.
The case against AP a few years ago was found to have no merit, and the woman who brought the lawsuit against them was told to pay costs for the defendant. I hope that Skiles's widow is aware that she may be out of pocket on this one if it doesn't go her way... apparently the AP widow, after being told she had to pay AP's costs, wrote a letter to Martin Parker asking for clemency and for him to forgive her debt to him. If it had been me my reply would have been two words.
Andrew Ainslie
Almost extinct cave diver
no problem?
dont think those were the 2 he had in mind
As my son prepares to head off to start law school, I find myself once again cursing the profession he has chosen. This seems to clearly be a case of suing everyone in the hope of getting a settlement. The thread has gotten a bit off track, so let me add my feelings.
I feel for Terri and her kids. I only met Wes a couple of times and was impressed by what a great guy he was. And I've heard he was a great diver. BUT.....
1. Wes was not trained or certified to dive the Optima and was using a borrowed unit from an acquaintance. Somehow that person seems to have escaped the lawsuit. Makes me wonder....
2. I don't remember any "recall" of AI cells, although there were a lot of problems with them failing a while back. They made changes and started including milivolt test numbers with every cell.
3. There is no relationship between Dive Gear Express, aka Dive Rite Express, aka Fill Express and Dive Rite or Lamartek. There is also no relationship between Dive Rite and Mark Derrick. After an accident, the gear must be examined as part of any investigation. Who should do it? The police or Coast Guard who know nothing about rebreathers? A competing manufacturer or shop that may have an axe to grind? The manufacturer who has its own agenda? No, it seems logical that a dealer with knowledge of the unit but no legal tie to the manufacturer would be a logical choice. Maybe not the best situation, but to assume that an independent dealer would falsify evidence to collaberate with the manufacturer goes beyond my sense of reasonable doubt.
4. If there were "serious quality control issues" and "serious life-threatening defects" that were ignored for years, the safety record of the Optima would not be anywhere near as good as it is. And nothing about the electronics or Juergensen Marine was even mentioned, which I'm sure Don will remind everyone are the weak point of the Optima. I had plenty of problems with my old metal handsets, but none of it had to do with O2 sensors.
So just slap that broad brush around and see where it sticks. Don't concern yourself with the damage it may cause to other people's reputations or business. And conveniently forget that your husband violated written standards by diving equipment he wasn't trained or certified to use, and did so without the bailout safety net that is required by standard. I think I'll go out and borrow a friend's plane even though I'm not trained as a pilot. I'll just tell my wife to sue the manufacturer and the airport I took off from.
I think Russell had a great point.
Actually there is a very long relationship between the two companies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks