Regulator failure - timing in service cycle

[Divectionist]

I take good care of my regs but sometimes I am really surprised by what I see inside.

What do you see inside?

 

[Germie]

I service myself after letting do it and problems start. I had my regs 2 years and 450 dives made with them. Then I brought them away to let them service by a 'prof'. The regs were still clean inside and after servicing the freeflows started. Never real issues, but it is not nice if you think the freeflowing issue is solved and you go to 110m depth and on the ean50 you get again a freeflow and then the regulator blocked. So I had a cylinder full of gas and no regulator that was working due to that service (but because you are trained before you do such dives, and you have backupplans, and a teammate, you can end the dive without panic or problems).

Since then I do it myself. I never use the 'recommended' intervals, I always dive more. But I know how to service and can check things. So then you can do it. I have regs with over 600 dives and no servicing needed, still clean inside. I also have had regs with less than 100 dives, less than 10 months after purchase that gave problems with a leaking membrane. I always have a service kit with me when I travel by car. 1 thing that make that I can do more dives than average without servicing is because 98% of my dives is in fresh water and no others are allowed to touch my gear (on divetrips, I never use the 'service' of gearing up by another person, don't touch, stay away from my gear). Of course you have to rinse, but salt water is never good (but the diving is great). I have 12 first stages with a second stage, and do over 200 dives a year. It is impossible to service all every year, and some regs are used 150 dives and others only 10. I have now 1 reg that needs servicing, fresh water entered inside. You can see that water has entered, but it is still working. I would not be afraid of using it for serious dives. But I know I have to service, so before I use it again it is serviced.

 

[Bigbella]

My two failures, over several decades, resulted from, variously, a poorly-maintained rental regulator, whose second stage physically detached from the LP hose, and was found to have minute cracks, along its junction; the second, one of my own regulators, after having had it foolishly rebuilt by a local dive shop, who managed to tear the first stage diaphragm, not once, but twice, during its service. The effect, not immediately noticeable, upon opening a valve, was not dissimilar to having a dose of Alka-Seltzer, foaming out of the first stage; and a subsequent loss of pressure.

Its more lasting, positive effect was to never again rent dive gear; and to never again have a shop service my regulators; and to perform my own maintenance and rebuilds, ever since . . .

 

[Divectionist]

the second, one of my own, after having it rebuilt by a local dive shop, who managed to tear the first stage diaphragm, not once, but twice, during its service.

another perforated diaphragm - perhaps it is a usually not considered fact that diaphragm regs are at a higher risk of service induced failure than piston regs. More parts and a fragile key component if someone is not careful with a pick would suggest so.

 

[Bigbella]

another perforated diaphragm - perhaps it is a usually not considered fact that diaphragm regs are at a higher risk of service induced failure than piston regs. More parts and a fragile key component if someone is not careful with a pick would suggest so.

Sadly, it resulted from simply catching the diaphragm with the threaded cover for the valve housing, which is not easy to do, since the older Poseidon ones are quite thick and tough; the second time, with a defective piece, which obviously wasn't inspected before installation. It has never again occurred with any of my own serial rebuilds, over the years . . .

 

[Divectionist]

Quick summary of the data so far with 38 respondents.

A lot more data will of course help to firm things up, particularly for the imperfect care lot, however, some trends are hard to put down to chance.

32 take perfect care of their regs.
The failures experienced before/after service was due are even at 4 each.
There is an overwhelming count of 18 who experienced a failure immediately after a service.
Still 6 had a failure immediately after a new purchase.

6 take imperfect care of their regs.
There were more failures post due date at 3, than before the due date at 1.
Still 2 regs failed immediately following a service.
No failures after a new purchase among these few regs.

A couple things seem to emerge from this:

• There is an overwhelming amount of failures attributed to servicing 53% across both groups, so more than half of failures reported are service related
• If regs are used with imperfect care, it appears to be important to stick to the recommended service interval, but they still do okay within the interval
• There is still a 12.5% occurrence of perfectly maintained regs failing before their service due date has been reached
• A total of 18.75% of regs had issues from new
• Given the rate of non-service related failure reported vs the number regs reported in each group, taking perfect care of a reg shows to reduce its failure potential significantly

Some thoughts:

So far, I would take away that an owner who takes perfect care of their regulators is far more at risk of an issue developing after a service than when going beyond the recommended service interval. There is obviously a limit here somewhere, but it would make sense that an IP gauge monitored reg can be safely taken beyond the service interval, as long as it is cared for.

Second, if you dive a reg that has not received proper care, it should be serviced regularly to avoid a high failure potential. It is also wise to consider taking perfect care of the reg going forwards to further mitigate risk. There will still be a risk of service-induced failure, likely to be just as high as in the other group once more data is available.

Third, do not blindly trust your perfectly maintained reg within its service period. Frequent checks should be performed. If you have a 100 dive interval, performing a visual and IP check every 15-25 dives should safeguard against issues with warning signs without too much inconvenience. I would also check all connections and do a quick scan every dive.

Importantly, there is obviously a reason for the recommendation to thoroughly test dive new and newly serviced regs in a controlled environment. I would think the data so far should convince everyone not to skip this recommendation. Again, owning an IP gauge is a cheap and easy way to not only test before getting them wet, but to also use it for ongoing monitoring to determine when a reg should be undergoing the risky process of servicing.

 

[Angelo Farina]

Interesting results....
What about differences about the group of divers who service personally their regs, vs. the group which relies on having them serviced at a shop?
I am in the first group, as I always thought that I cannot thrust an unknown technician for a device which is critical for my life.
Do the data collected support my expectation that personally serviced regs are safer than regs serviced in a shop?

 

[Divectionist]

Interesting results....
What about differences about the group of divers who service personally their regs, vs. the group which relies on having them serviced at a shop?
I am in the first group, as I always thought that I cannot thrust an unknown technician for a device which is critical for my life.
Do the data collected support my expectation that personally serviced regs are safer than regs serviced in a shop?

There is of course so much more refinement that could be done by breaking the data up further and having a larger sample size, but each distinction doubles the amount of poll options.

Whilst there is no direct link based on the questions asked, I think it is a reasonable assumption that regs are put at risk through servicing due to mistakes made by the technician first and foremost, so if you service your reg yourself with great attention to detail and knowledge of the process, I would be surprised if that would not reduce the failure potential. All provided the individual is a conscientious person.

 

[Bigbella]

Whilst there is no direct link based on the questions asked, I think it is a reasonable assumption that regs are put at risk through servicing due to mistakes made by the technician first and foremost, so if you service your reg yourself with great attention to detail and knowledge of the process, I would be surprised if that would not reduce the failure potential. All provided the individual is a conscientious person.

Self-selected polls are always in question and statistically invalid, in any formal sense. That said, you can still obtain a general, moistened-finger-in-the-wind idea of public opinion.

That said, I don't even know the number of regulators -- aside from the dozen or so that I have on hand -- that have been repeatedly serviced without a problem -- certainly no torn diaphragms to report, on this end.

That real link to technician mistakes, I certainly believe to be valid. Most of the manufacturer's courses only require a few hours at a Marriott or Ramada conference room; and the biggest challenge posed by those courses, is keeping the powdered sugar from doughnuts, off ones work mat, to a bare minimum (I opted for the cheese danish).

That kid who botched my regulator -- twice -- years ago, was handling my gear, turning it end over end, like those hominids in 2001 did bones. That should have been warning enough.

I can only assume that he's either an air traffic controller or working for Boeing by now . . .