View Full Version : Trimix Rebreathers? - seeking clarification
The following statment appears in Septembers Dive.
"BSAC now officially recognises the use of some mixed gas rebreathers in its branches to a maximum depth of 70m. The move is another step forward toward integrating rebreather diving in BSAC, following an announcement last year that the club was planning to introduce new rebreather courses in 2004.
?We have no problem with gas mixes being used by closed-circuit rebreather divers as long as that rebreather has the CE mark to do that,? Penny Glover, BSAC chief rebreather instructor told DIVE. ?Currently however, only one closed-circuit rebreather complies for depths below 40m and that rebreather is currently CE marked for heliox use.?
Glover said that a diver must hold the relevant certification for the type and make of the rebreather being used and must attend a unit-specific mixed gas training course. However, BSAC will retain a 70m maximum depth limit for rebreather divers to match BSAC open-circuit mixed gas recommendations, she added. BSAC plans to publish a set of guidelines on the subject this month. "
Are BSAC saying that we can only dive trimix on a CE approved rebreather? - which is none
or are we only going to be allowed to use heliox on CE approved rebreather - cause thats what it is approved for?
Why is there nothing at all on the BSAC website to support this?
Are BSAC saying that we can only dive trimix on a CE approved rebreather? - which is none
or are we only going to be allowed to use heliox on CE approved rebreather - cause thats what it is approved for?
The Insperation is only CE marked for use with Air or Heliox as a dilutent, Trimix is outside certification - BSAC can not official approve something which is not certified can it?
Pete
:=Are BSAC saying that we can only dive trimix on a CE approved rebreather? - which is none
:=or are we only going to be allowed to use heliox on CE approved rebreather - cause thats what it is approved for?
The Insperation is only CE marked for use with Air or Heliox as a dilutent, Trimix is outside certification - BSAC can not official approve something which is not certified can it?
well yeah this is why I'm confussed still they got a while to sort it out - won't be an issue for me for a bit I only get my box next week :-)
still it would be better to have a full explanation that makes sense for a change
Nigel Hewitt
24-08-2003, 10:13
>>Are BSAC saying that we can only dive trimix on a CE approved rebreather? - which is none
>>or are we only going to be allowed to use heliox on CE approved rebreather - cause thats what it is approved for?
>The Insperation is only CE marked for use with Air or Heliox as a dilutent, Trimix is outside certification - BSAC can not official approve something which is not certified can it?
That's a total red herring. Nobody wants them to approve kit as we all use a combination of kit that is not approved in that particular combination. All we want them to do is approve the qualifications we already have.
Are there any people who put trimix in their rebreathers who find that BSAC's lack off aproval effects their diving one iota?
nigelH
> Are there any people who put trimix in their rebreathers who
> find that BSAC's lack off aproval effects their diving one
> iota?
Yep.
I know of several people who found that BSAC's stance meant that they left BSAC.
As a result, they had more money, and BSAC had fewer instructors...
Vic.
neil richmond
29-08-2003, 15:01
From the info published to date and the presentation given by Penny Glover at the Inspiration weekend in Plymouth the following is my take on the issue
Inspiration is approved for Air to 50m and Heliox to 100m
These depths are based almost entirely on Work of Breathing tests (the standards for which were written at the time of testing effectively ensuring that the Inspiration passed the previously non existant tests)
The use of Trimix in the unit has not been approved due to the fact that there will be an increased WOB over that measured using Heliox. In order for the inspiration to be approved the test criteria would need to be changed (or modifications made to the units design in order to lower the WOB towards that currently assessed with Heliox)
The BSAC insurance etc would cover the use of HELIOX to 70m by CCR MIXED GAS TRAINED AND REGISTERED USERS, however the practicalities make it unlikely that folks would be prepared to dive Heliox in this depth range. (in terms of both gas cost and deco obligations)
If you do hold a CCR Mix ticket (inspiration) and wish to dive Heliox to these depthes ( upto 70m max) then the BSAC should not have a problem with that just as long as you dont leave any pesky Nitrogen in the loop!!!
Regards
Neil
Mike Rowley
30-08-2003, 17:25
I think I can give you some clarification here. The article in "Dive" was unauthorised and incorrect. The Rebreather working group will release an enabling statement shortly along with revised FAQs and Safe Diving Practices but they will differ in a number of respects from the information printed in "Dive". This is why there was nothing on the BSAC website.
In relation to CE marking, this is indeed a red herring. There will shortly be a EC standard for rebreathers comming into force, EN14143. This will make it an offence to sell any rebreather in a EC state that is not CE marked and conforms to it's CE mark. It will not be an offence to use a non-CE marked rebreather, only to sell one. This offence will apply regardless of whether the sale is a new rebreather or a second-hand one. Consequently the whole issue of CE marking becomes self policing in the future.
Mike Rowley.
:=Are BSAC saying that we can only dive trimix on a CE approved rebreather? - which is none
:=or are we only going to be allowed to use heliox on CE approved rebreather - cause thats what it is approved for?
The Insperation is only CE marked for use with Air or Heliox as a dilutent, Trimix is outside certification - BSAC can not official approve something which is not certified can it?
Pete
Ed Kearton
03-09-2003, 11:12
:=Are BSAC saying that we can only dive trimix on a CE approved rebreather? - which is none
:=or are we only going to be allowed to use heliox on CE approved rebreather - cause thats what it is approved for?
The Insperation is only CE marked for use with Air or Heliox as a dilutent, Trimix is outside certification - BSAC can not official approve something which is not certified can it?
Pete
Mike
Let me get this straight:
Does that mean that if I ,in the UK, ordered a New Hammerhead for my Inspiration, or a new KISS/Prism or Meg from the states, or bought a secondhand Russian Deathbox off EBAY, presuming I know what I am doing and am qualified, I would (soon) be breaking the law. However if I went outside the EU I could buy and then bring it back (Isn't there a tax/import charge on this as well?) into the EU safely and legally? This seems to be just foolishness. As I will still be using the offending items in the EU regardless of weither it is CE or not. What is the new reg protecting in the first place?
I bet AP are clicking their heels with joy!
Does this new reg apply to rebreather spares and mods as well?
Would I be nicked if I bought a new Bob'o'matic?
Just a thought.
Regards
Ed
neil richmond
03-09-2003, 12:07
Ed
As I understand it, its SELLING a non "approved/marked" unit thats is illegal not BUYING OR USING one.
Ed Kearton
03-09-2003, 12:49
Cheers Neil
Pretty sure that was case. Just checking!
Don't get wrong I think AP are doing a great job - customer service bar none.
How does this effect the modification market?
regards
Ed
Ed
As I understand it, its SELLING a non "approved/marked" unit thats is illegal not BUYING OR USING one.
Ed Kearton
03-09-2003, 12:53
Sorry Peeps
This appears to have been done to death previously on this forum. Really should check the archives more often.
Ta
Nigel Hewitt
03-09-2003, 19:33
As I understand it, its SELLING a non "approved/marked" unit thats is illegal not BUYING OR USING one.
And selling as 'a dealer' too I think.
nigelH
> And selling as 'a dealer' too I think.
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
If it's "as a dealer", then it's not going to affect most of us.
If it's "selling", regardless of dealer status, then we have a few pallets of canned worms ready for opening...
Let's hope it is the former; the latter would be *crazy*.
Vic.
Mike Rowley
07-09-2003, 18:42
Sorry to be so late replying but I have been at sea for a week.
The legal advice I have been given is that the offence under EN14143 is "selling" a rebreather in a EC state that is not CE marked and/or not conforming to it's CE mark specification. The offence does not only apply to dealers. Anyone who sells such a rebreather is breaking the law, dealer or private individual.
Consequently, were I to sell my rebreather I would need to remove all modified bits that were not covered by the manufacturers CE mark to be legal.
Another sting in the tail is that where an importer is not identifiable (such as in the case of the KISS perhaps) then the person who takes delivery of the 1st unit after EN14143 becomes law, will be deemed to be the importer for all units imported into the EC. The importer will share with the manufacturer the liability and if the manufacturer cannot be prosecuted because he is outside the jurisdiction of EC then the importer will carry the liability. Of course, this would need to be confirmed by a sucessful case but that is the legal opinion I have heard.
I understand that EN14143 is now in force and all EC member states have 6 months in which to incorporate it into national legislation.
Mike
> And selling as 'a dealer' too I think.
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
If it's "as a dealer", then it's not going to affect most of us.
If it's "selling", regardless of dealer status, then we have a few pallets of canned worms ready for opening...
Let's hope it is the former; the latter would be *crazy*.
Vic.
> The legal advice I have been given is that the offence under
> EN14143 is "selling" a rebreather in a EC state that is not
> CE marked and/or not conforming to it's CE mark
> specification. The offence does not only apply to dealers.
> Anyone who sells such a rebreather is breaking the law,
> dealer or private individual.
I've done some digging on this, and I've come up with an intermediate result...
According to BSI, this law is not restrospective - anything already in use is already exempt, so there's no problem with selling second-hand at present.
See <a href="http://www.bsi-global.com/CE+Marking/EU+Directives/ppe_notes.doc" >http://www.bsi-global.com/CE+Marking/EU+Directives/ppe_notes.doc</a> - look for the section entitled "PPE specifically excluded from the Directive?s scope". There's a line there "Second-hand PPE, except for that which, since its last use has been subjected to further manufacture". Now it's not clear to me what constitutes "further manufacture", but it's quite clear that any re-working that occurs *prior* to the "last use" is specifically excluded from the PPE regulations.
In other words, as long as you don't "further manufacture" a unit after your last dive with it, it is exempt from European PPE regulations.
> Consequently, were I to sell my rebreather I would need to
> remove all modified bits that were not covered by the
> manufacturers CE mark to be legal.
Disagree. See the reference.
> Another sting in the tail is that where an importer is not
> identifiable (such as in the case of the KISS perhaps) then
> the person who takes delivery of the 1st unit after EN14143
> becomes law, will be deemed to be the importer for all units
> imported into the EC.
"For all units"? I don't think that would carry weight.
I can't find the exact text of EN14143 yet (please send me a copy if you've got one!), but all references I've found talk about "commercialisation" and PPE being "placed on the market". It is clear that the standard is aimed at commercial ventures, but I've (so far) been unable to prove that it doesn't apply to home-build. Assuming I can, then the KISS is also exempted - it is abundantly clear that the kit of parts that the user imports do *not* constitute a PPE, and every single KISS is a home-build.
Vic.
Mike Rowley
18-09-2003, 20:47
Vic
EN14143 has not been published yet as far as I am aware. It will be available from HM Stationary Office in the usual way I am told.
The advice I have received is that it does apply to second-hand sales and it does apply to kits as well as modified units.. Now, you can choose to believe what you will. Not being a lawyer, either of the real or forum variety I will bow to qualified opinion. As the opinion I have been given has come from corporate lawyers I am just going to take their word for it. You will have to make your own choices.
Cheers
Mike
> The legal advice I have been given is that the offence under
> EN14143 is "selling" a rebreather in a EC state that is not
> CE marked and/or not conforming to it's CE mark
> specification. The offence does not only apply to dealers.
> Anyone who sells such a rebreather is breaking the law,
> dealer or private individual.
I've done some digging on this, and I've come up with an intermediate result...
According to BSI, this law is not restrospective - anything already in use is already exempt, so there's no problem with selling second-hand at present.
See <a href="http://www.bsi-global.com/CE+Marking/EU+Directives/ppe_notes.doc" >http://www.bsi-global.com/CE+Marking/EU+Directives/ppe_notes.doc</a> - look for the section entitled "PPE specifically excluded from the Directive?s scope". There's a line there "Second-hand PPE, except for that which, since its last use has been subjected to further manufacture". Now it's not clear to me what constitutes "further manufacture", but it's quite clear that any re-working that occurs *prior* to the "last use" is specifically excluded from the PPE regulations.
In other words, as long as you don't "further manufacture" a unit after your last dive with it, it is exempt from European PPE regulations.
> Consequently, were I to sell my rebreather I would need to
> remove all modified bits that were not covered by the
> manufacturers CE mark to be legal.
Disagree. See the reference.
> Another sting in the tail is that where an importer is not
> identifiable (such as in the case of the KISS perhaps) then
> the person who takes delivery of the 1st unit after EN14143
> becomes law, will be deemed to be the importer for all units
> imported into the EC.
"For all units"? I don't think that would carry weight.
I can't find the exact text of EN14143 yet (please send me a copy if you've got one!), but all references I've found talk about "commercialisation" and PPE being "placed on the market". It is clear that the standard is aimed at commercial ventures, but I've (so far) been unable to prove that it doesn't apply to home-build. Assuming I can, then the KISS is also exempted - it is abundantly clear that the kit of parts that the user imports do *not* constitute a PPE, and every single KISS is a home-build.
Vic.
John Bantin
21-09-2003, 09:12
The law in this country tends to be enterpreted by the independant judicary, as anyone who has been to court may know to their cost. (Judges do not always make the expected decision.) We need a test-case for clarification.
Taking a pragmatic view, I bet that if you buy a rebreather abroad that is not CE-marked and it is for your own use, you will not be penalised. If you sell it after you have used it to a third party you will not be penalised unless they commit a crime with it. (If they kill themselves while using it, in this country we call it misadventure and anyone is free to go that way.)
If you are proved to be a dealer, things are very different. People who deal in illicit items get caught and prosecuted. People who have illicit items for their own use tend not to.
(Remember the illicit stuff you had so much of when you were a student? It was the dealers the police were interested in.)
If you buy a car abroad that has not been homologated for use on British roads you can still sell it.
Probably!
Of course that does not help the BSAC to set its own rules.
keith S.
22-09-2003, 20:48
Taking a pragmatic view, I bet that if you buy a rebreather abroad that is not CE-marked and it is for your own use, you will not be penalised. If you sell it after you have used it to a third party you will not be penalised unless they commit a crime with it.
The fact is that if you can legally import such equipment
and use it in the UK, which you most certainly can do right now,
then there is little that a court of law can do if you try and
sell it as an individual, despite what Rowley and BSAC HQ will tell you.
Me, I believe they're in the pockets of AP Valves.
- Keith
> The advice I have received is that it does apply to
> second-hand sales and it does apply to kits as well as
> modified units..
This differs from what BSI say. Can we see the original text of the advice given to RWG?
> As the opinion I have been given has come from corporate
> lawyers
Are these BSAC corporate lawyers? If so, I'd like to see their advice, please.
> You will have to make your own choices.
Yes, but these aren't our choices, are they? Once BSAC has spoken, it's very difficult to get things changed, even when there are clear mistakes in published material. To avoid the difficulties we went through last time, how about we do some peer review this time? Because at the moment, the alleged advice from un-named lawyers differs significantly from that given by the British Standards Institute - who are generally well-versed in such matters. So how about we get some data on the table, and leave the interpretations behind?
Vic.
Mike Rowley
26-09-2003, 13:43
> The advice I have received is that it does apply to
> second-hand sales and it does apply to kits as well as
> modified units..
This differs from what BSI say. Can we see the original text of the advice given to RWG?
> As the opinion I have been given has come from corporate
> lawyers
Are these BSAC corporate lawyers? If so, I'd like to see their advice, please.
Not possible I'm afraid Vic. The advice was given in confidence and privately. BSAC does not have any corporate lawyers as far as I know, so no, they were not the BSAC corporate lawyers.
John Bantin is quite correct in that the issue will eventually be decided by case law. When the lawyers are looking around for someone to carry the can after an incident.
As far as I am aware BSAC nor the RWG does not have any opinion regarding this issue. I merely passed on the information as it had been given to me. It may be correct, it may not be. I am no lawyer so cannot give any difinitive advice one way or another, nor would I attempt to. I suspect that despite what you would like to believe neither can you. We will all have to make our choices based upon what we choose to believe if and when we come to sell our gear. That is, until such times that case law solves the problem for us.
BSAC's attitude to the whole issue is that we accept approved training courses for the use of equipment and state those courses that we approve. We also accept the manufacturer's recommendations for the equipment within the boundaries of our safe diving practices.
Mike
> As far as I am aware BSAC nor the RWG does not have any
> opinion regarding this issue.
Well it really ought to! BSAC was formed as an organisation to promote diving; this standard, if it is as draconian as you have implied, will prevent a significant amount of diving - we ought to be fighting tooth and nail to protect divers' rights to build their own kit, and to trade in kit they already have.
> I am no lawyer so cannot give any difinitive advice one way or
> another, nor would I attempt to. I suspect that despite what
> you would like to believe neither can you.
Definitive advice? No, of course I can't. I haven't been able to see the standard yet. But I can - and have - provided an authoritative source that claims the very opposite of what you have implied; I think that such major discrepancies need to be understood
Vic.
Mike Rowley
29-09-2003, 13:27
Here we go again. Vic, you have a tendency to always shoot the messenger if you don't like the message!
I have merely passed on the information I received for the general benefit and as a private individual. This does not imply I like the information or that I agree with it. It merely means that it was the advice received.
The source of the advice was from the corporate barristers employed by a multi-national company. The advice was given verbally and on a private basis, not as a result of a formal request. However.these people deal on a daily basis with these types of issues. I suspect they may know what they are talking about. If it proves they are wrong then no one will be happier than me. I just don't want to be the one to test the case! If you would prefer I did not pass on these things in future then I am more than happy to desist.
As far as EN14143 is concerned BSAC has no input into it's formulation. It is an EU standard under PPE Directive and is put together by the member countries "Experts". I don't think BSAC, as a body would have been consulted at any stage. Next your going to be telling me that the EU is a democratic body!!
As far as restricting diving is concerned I think you may be wrong there. It is only an offence to import or sell non-CE marked rebreathers. There is no offence in using them. It isn't even an offence to buy one outside the EU and bring it in for personal use, as I undestand it. So, if a non-CE marked rebreather were purchased through the Isle of Man or Channel Isles for instance, then brought back to UK mainland for personal use there would be no offence. Similarly, if one sold ones rebreather to a non-EU state there would be no offence.
There are always loopholes.
Mike
> As far as I am aware BSAC nor the RWG does not have any
> opinion regarding this issue.
Well it really ought to! BSAC was formed as an organisation to promote diving; this standard, if it is as draconian as you have implied, will prevent a significant amount of diving - we ought to be fighting tooth and nail to protect divers' rights to build their own kit, and to trade in kit they already have.
> I am no lawyer so cannot give any difinitive advice one way or
> another, nor would I attempt to. I suspect that despite what
> you would like to believe neither can you.
Definitive advice? No, of course I can't. I haven't been able to see the standard yet. But I can - and have - provided an authoritative source that claims the very opposite of what you have implied; I think that such major discrepancies need to be understood
Vic.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.