[abstract] ALTERNATIVES TO CHAMBER TESTS IN VALIDATING RECREATIONAL DIVE COMPUTERS.

Rubicon Research Repository/Manakin Repository

[abstract] ALTERNATIVES TO CHAMBER TESTS IN VALIDATING RECREATIONAL DIVE COMPUTERS.

Show simple item record


dc.contributor.author Peterson, RE
dc.date.accessioned 2009-07-28T21:09:02Z
dc.date.available 2009-07-28T21:09:02Z
dc.date.issued 1993
dc.identifier.uri http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/8115
dc.description Abstract of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, Inc. Annual Scientific Meeting held July 7-10, 1993. World Trade and Convention Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. (http://www.uhms.org) en
dc.description.abstract Criticism of recreational dive computers suggests that some of these devices are being sold without having been submitted to formal testing. Without discussing the validity of this complaint, it is pertinent to describe a relatively new mechanism of ethically meeting some testing requirements with a minimal need to actually expose subjects in a pressure chamber. The Workshop on Validation of Decompression Tables issued by the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS 74(VAL)1-1-88, 1989) provides guidelines on, among other things, using past experience and field exposures as part of the validation process. The Workshop's efforts were directed primarily toward commercial and institutional diving, but there are useful lessons that can be applied to dive computers. The Workshop recognized that the developing organization clearly has the responsibility for decisions about the quality of decompression, and suggested a mechanism for making the decisions requiring judgement. This could be through a board or group-within the organization but perhaps including outside expertise-charged with that responsibility and having the competence to do it. This could be called a Decompression Decision Board (DDB). The Workshop felt that "interpolative" past experience could be used for new procedures within the tested limits of the experience, and if its applicability could be documented. Advanced ideas which, extrapolations of available experience, require appropriate formal testing. Whatever the validation process, initial field implementation-a provisional stage of operational evaluation-should be with special care, medical backup, monitoring, documentation, and feedback. The DDB would judge when the procedures or DC are fully operational. While the DDB would not be responsible to any higher authority, if questioned its actions would have to stand the scrutiny of its peers. Ongoing feedback and analysis of routine field use is strongly encouraged. en
dc.format.extent 258 bytes
dc.format.mimetype text/plain
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, Inc. en
dc.subject dive computer en
dc.subject testing en
dc.subject workshop en
dc.subject validation en
dc.subject decompression tables en
dc.subject decompression decision board en
dc.subject chamber test en
dc.subject past experience en
dc.title [abstract] ALTERNATIVES TO CHAMBER TESTS IN VALIDATING RECREATIONAL DIVE COMPUTERS. en
dc.type Other en

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
abstract.txt 258bytes Text file View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • UHMS Meeting Abstracts
    This is a collection of the published abstracts from the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS) annual meetings.

Show simple item record

Browse

My Account