Every time I read something about this it just breaks my heart for everyone involved.
The “looking at the monitor and crying” part especially. That’s a horse lover through and through right there, ya’ll.
I find this part incredibly disturbing and heartbreaking, like she knew what was about to happen and it was unavoidable at that point:cry:
None of this information is new, it’s all referenced in the main thread. She was conscious when the paramedics first got to her and this is what she told them. I really don’t see the need for three separate threads talking about the same thing.
In any accident investigation you’ve got two tracks:
First, the Probable Cause of the mishap. This is the clear identification of the chain of events that lead to the loss.
Second, using that chain of events to fix legal responsibility.
The first is critical because nobody wants explosions and deaths on their property. It’s bad for business. Manufacturers don’t want their products exploding for the same reason. So there has to be a clear, unbiased examination of the facts. From that process there will be decisions made. Usually these decisions revolve around the training of personnel, the protocols for use of the device, and the way the device, itself, is made. There will also be a serious discussion of the interplay of these factors.
If the first examination is unbiased, the second is not. Persons injured want compensation and revenge (usually stated as “justice”). Public regulatory agencies want to extend the reach of their authority to “protect the public interst” (when the motivation may be far darker, like leaders getting bigger staffs, bigger budgets, and using those items being usded to justify higher compensation for leaders). Reporters want to help sell their newspapers (prosperous newspapers pay better). And then there’s the “zealot” community demaning abolition of the entire process in the name of Never Again. And this is just the beginning of the list. 
Sounds to me like the first part is done. It’s a pretty “clean” analysis. There are some very clear things that should be done to alter the chamber usage protocols, training, and maybe manufacture.
The second will now get underway. Prepare for the mess to follow.
G.
Graduate, U.S. Naval Aviation Safety School, Monterey, CA.
Former Safety Officer, Traing Squadron 28, NAS Corpus Christi, TX
Member, State Bar of Texas (Retired)
[QUOTE=Guilherme;6151321]
Public regulatory agencies want to extend the reach of their authority to “protect the public interst” (
)[/QUOTE]
another issue all in the name of Safety is competitor manufacturers will want a higher degree of regulation to limit the competition which also raises the threshold of entry for new manufacturers… results in less competition, higher costs, greater profits, less risk for the manufacturer
Former product development marketing engineer
Major International Manufacturer
[QUOTE=Instant Karma;6150988]
I find this part incredibly disturbing and heartbreaking, like she knew what was about to happen and it was unavoidable at that point:cry:[/QUOTE]
I don’t know a lot about the chamber being used, so why was she crying when she looked at the monitor?
I mean, I understand its full of O2 air, and O2 is highly flammable, but what was she about to do to cause an emotional outburst? I am not trying to stir a pot or get anyone upset, I am just trying to figure it out.
Thanks.
Munch, there had already been a smaller explosion inside the chamber and flames were present inside before the chamber itself exploded. The horse may have been already burning as an O2 saturated atmosphere makes many things more flammable than normal, but she certainly knew what was about to happen. There is already a lengthy thread present on this incident in the eventing forum with some more accurate information.
We merged two threads in the Off Course forum on this topic into one to keep the info together.
Thanks ~
Mod 1
What with all the threads I hadn’t been able to keep track. Coth has an article by Molly Sorge that is short and to the point, the link is to the right there.
I remember Apollo 1, it was in the news and pretty horrific and then touched on in the movie Apollo 13.
I was not aware that the horse was in the chamber alone, with the workers outside. I don’t think the explosion was anticipated at all or both the workers would have run for safety.
Just really horrible. My condolences 24, you never get over that sort of thing, but it does become less sharp a pain.
RIP to the young lady and the horse and best wishes for the injured worker.
[QUOTE=wildlifer;6151363]
Munch, there had already been a smaller explosion inside the chamber and flames were present inside before the chamber itself exploded. The horse may have been already burning as an O2 saturated atmosphere makes many things more flammable than normal, but she certainly knew what was about to happen. There is already a lengthy thread present on this incident in the eventing forum with some more accurate information.[/QUOTE]
Thank you Wildlifer. I was having a hard time keeping up with all the threads.
[QUOTE=MunchingonHay;6151351]
I don’t know a lot about the chamber being used, so why was she crying when she looked at the monitor?
I mean, I understand its full of O2 air, and O2 is highly flammable, but what was she about to do to cause an emotional outburst? I am not trying to stir a pot or get anyone upset, I am just trying to figure it out.
Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Once I saw the last report I had to turn off the computer and walk away while railing the whole time. Clearly she had no idea how much danger she was in or was in shock. I cannot believe this whole situation, just incredible and such a horrendous waste.
[QUOTE=MunchingonHay;6151351]
I don’t know a lot about the chamber being used, so why was she crying when she looked at the monitor?
I mean, I understand its full of O2 air, and O2 is highly flammable, but what was she about to do to cause an emotional outburst? I am not trying to stir a pot or get anyone upset, I am just trying to figure it out.
Thanks.[/QUOTE]
I had the same thought and was thinking she meant cry out, like scream. But I think it is most likely she saw the horse engulfed in flames and was looking away and crying. The monitor, where she was trained to look, was the place where
her eyes went. I absolutely believe the idea that the chamber would explode like a bomb never crossed her mind in that horrific moment.
Also note, enough time passed from recognition of a fire, telling someone to call 911 (and possibly were the phone is located), and her leaving the room before the explosion. Had she known fire could cause the unit to explode like it did, survival instinct/fear would have had her running for the nearest exit. She clearly was not memorized by the burning horse since she had a clear emotional and physical reaction the the event.
Very, very sad!!
I do hope the therapy continues for appropriate medical conditions, but that obvious changes are made in the industry.
The young woman who survived is probably going to need rehab which may or may not be covered by insurance/NHS. Depending on her personal situation she may need help around the house, help with cooking and cleaning and even taking a shower. She’s probaly not going to be able to work for a while and may or may not get short term disability.
Wanting the responsible party to cover those expenses is NOT revenge.
not revenge, but, first, i’m sure if she sues, she’ll be seeking a lot more than $$$ needed to cover medical and costs of living expenses…
second, sometimes there is no “responsible party.” it’s an accident. or the responsible party has no assets and no insurance. and then who pays? (this is how a nationalized health care system could help with reduction of suits for personal injuries)
[QUOTE=carolprudm;6152829]
Wanting the responsible party to cover those expenses is NOT revenge.[/QUOTE]
Nevermind…
[QUOTE=Guilherme;6151321]
If the first examination is unbiased, the second is not. Persons injured want compensation and revenge (usually stated as “justice”). Public regulatory agencies want to extend the reach of their authority to “protect the public interst” (when the motivation may be far darker, like leaders getting bigger staffs, bigger budgets, and using those items being usded to justify higher compensation for leaders). Reporters want to help sell their newspapers (prosperous newspapers pay better). And then there’s the “zealot” community demaning abolition of the entire process in the name of Never Again. And this is just the beginning of the list.
I never thought much about this till some guy, who owned a brokerage in NYC (?), explained how it all works. Totally made sense to me.
The second will now get underway. Prepare for the mess to follow.[/QUOTE]
It is going to be a real zoo.
[QUOTE=Rhiannonjk;6152858]
No, there were two women and I believe you are getting confused as to where they were. Woman #1 was INSIDE the chamber, with a monitor that controlled the pressure and oxygen. Woman #2 was outisde the chamber. After the first explosion, Woman #2 went to call 911, and Woman #1 was trying to de-pressurize the chamber so that she could get out. She was crying because she was INSIDE a chamber that she knew was about to explode.[/QUOTE]
Oh, dear God…
I think? Can somebody tell me if I’m understanding things correctly?
[QUOTE=marta;6152838]
not revenge, but, first, i’m sure if she sues, she’ll be seeking a lot more than $$$ needed to cover medical and costs of living expenses…
second, sometimes there is no “responsible party.” it’s an accident. or the responsible party has no assets and no insurance. and then who pays? (this is how a nationalized health care system could help with reduction of suits for personal injuries)[/QUOTE]
Having spent between 11 and 15 years (depending on how you count them) in the claims business and almost 20 more in the criminal prosecution business I stand by my observation.
One of the bed-rock principles of professional accident investigation (the first kind) is that there is no such thing as an accident. ALL mishaps have an identifiable human cause (or causes). The job of the investigator is to discover those causes. They must also, then, assign probabilities to each identifiable cause. This is based upon evidence, not speculation. Needless to say this makes the investigator a rather unpopular fellow with people who “have a dog in the fight.” The ability to pay or the reputation of any person or enterprise or any other non-relevant factor to causation is to be disregarded.
Another thing that gets folks worked up is when the investigator puts a “probable cause” finding upon a person who died in the mishap. The opponents of this cry, “You’re blaming the victim!” And, indeed, that might be. But if the evidence leads to the victim as a substantial factor in the mishap then it is what it is.
In the incident in question there seems to be a farely clear chain of causation. Part one is done. As I said, part two will be messy.
G.
[QUOTE=Rhiannonjk;6152858]
No, there were two women and I believe you are getting confused as to where they were. Woman #1 was INSIDE the chamber, with a monitor that controlled the pressure and oxygen. Woman #2 was outisde the chamber. After the first explosion, Woman #2 went to call 911, and Woman #1 was trying to de-pressurize the chamber so that she could get out. She was crying because she was INSIDE a chamber that she knew was about to explode.[/QUOTE]
No, I do not think that is accurate at all.
this article has a pic of a horse [not the horse who died] in the chamber:
http://www.ocala.com/article/20120216/ARTICLES/120219739/-1/NEWS?Title=Report-released-on-hyperbaric-chamber-explosion
