binklebonk wrote:Given that legislation is meant to catch the lowest common denominator, I wouldn't support a reduction from quarterly testing.
In other words, penalizing the compliant majority for the misdemeanors of the non-compliant few.
Everyone thinks their maintenance and equipment is top notch (it may well be) but such hubris is a sure sign of why we need regular testing. The longer we go without incident the greater the risk that the standards will slip.
Let's be realistic here, before legislation came in requiring air quality audits, we didn't have divers dying every second weekend from poor quality air, and what about the dozens (if not hundreds) of privately operated compressors in backyard sheds and on boats that have never had an air quality audit. The air quality auditors are not stupid, they can see own maintenance and running logs and know if an operator has good systems and procedures and follows them.
We have had enough occurrences of CO poisoning from poorly maintained compressors (not privately owned ones) and that's with quarterly testing...
Mykl wrote:Let's be realistic here, before legislation came in requiring air quality audits, we didn't have divers dying every second weekend from poor quality air, and what about the dozens (if not hundreds) of privately operated compressors in backyard sheds and on boats that have never had an air quality audit. The air quality auditors are not stupid, they can see own maintenance and running logs and know if an operator has good systems and procedures and follows them.
So why aren't we informed about those operators that fail air quality audits? After all the diving public are paying them good money for air that is supposed to meet a certain standard.
They didn't prosecute because there was no solid evidence either way as to whether the CO was introduced prior to filling at Dive Picton or during fillingMykl wrote:It is interesting that you raise the issue of the Davidson Coroner's Report, I was going to use that in my next argument. Having been trained by Dive Picton (albeit by different owners from those that were mentioned in the report), and having used their airfills on numerous occasions, I am very familiar with this report and have read it several times. I have also talked to Bruce Carter the previous NZUA air quality auditor who gave evidence at the Coroners hearing. Bruce is certain the Dive Picton compressor had nothing to do with the introduction of CO into the Davidson cylinders and points out that the Department of Labour made no moves to prosecute Dive Picton over the incident.
Not if they didn't have water tight evidence, it is costly bringing prosecutions.Bruce commented to me that if the DOL had even the smallest inkling that Dive Picton was culpable in the death of Davidson, they would have gone after Dive Picton like a Pit Bull.
They were more than just "university scientists" one of them in particular had many years as an accident reconstruction consultant, one was a chemical process engineer and the other a phd in mechanical engineering. Remember that scientists will not give absolutes, they will give likelihood's within narrow parameters. Those with a less scientific approach will give more compelling opinions.As you mentioned Dive Picton had a current air purity certificate yet it was accused of introducing CO into the Davidson cylinders even though other cylinders filled before and after the Davidson cylinders showed no evidence of CO contamination when tested. The university scientists who gave evidence at the hearing came up with a hypothesis about spontaneous combustion occurring within the filter medium but produced no proof that this happened.
Frankly, I have no idea how the Coroner came up with his recommendation, but it provided the catalyst which results in the air purity testing that is carried out today.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests