So you've emailed and complained about an air fill that someone else got, four years ago, that meets the required standards from a compressor that may or not be still in use, with filters and oil that will have been changed and that has been used without incident in the interim and presumably has its output analysed regularly in accordance with local regulations. An air fill with 5ppm CO from a filling station in a city when the atmospheric content in certain areas of that city today is 3ppm. And when that email gets punted into the round file you, the non-customer, is undoubtedly going to blacken that shop's name to all and sundry either because of their air-quality or because of their customer-service or perhaps both.
Sounds entirely fair and reasonable.
Hickdiver,
You assume my driver was to have a go at the LDS and then if I get no response to then bag them. Rule 1 perhaps is to never assume. It was never my intent to do anything like that for a number of reasons.
Firstly I did not actually witness the issue, it was relayed to me by the previous tank owner, thus whilst I assume he is telling me the truth, in fairness to all I cannot absolutely state that as fact hence my NOT including the LDS name or to make it obvious as to which LDS it was. I felt it was reasonable to publicly discuss the issue in general terms on SB but not identify the LDS.
Secondly it was some 4 years since the fill and I suspect that perhaps the compressor, if it had an issue, would have been fixed now, thus the issue has gone, however I should not just assume it was resolved, better to contact them and make sure.
However had you of actually read what I posted previously, you would have seen my main driver was to ensure that 1. the issue no longer exists so no one is now at risk (I try not to assume), and 2. try and help the LDS by alerting them to this problem without bias and to try and let them know the details as I know them (after all if one is never told of an issue how can one be expected to deal with it).
I never implied I was bitter, complaining or angry, "Out of conscience for the well being of divers in my local area I felt compelled to do the right thing".
Lets look at your assumptions which are incorrect;
1.
So you've emailed and complained about an air fill that someone else got, (Wrong I emailed and advised [not complained] and told them I was advising out of all good conscience so they would know my true intent).
2.
from a compressor that may or not be still in use, with filters and oil that will have been changed and that has been used without incident in the interim and presumably has its output analysed regularly in accordance with local regulations. (Neither of us know that this is absolutely true, whilst we can assume this is the case, perhaps the said compressor still has an issue, or whether there has been an incident or not as a result of the fills, or whether they are meeting their obligations to check air quality. perhaps in fact the issue came from where the compressor intake is situated and they are not aware they get contaminated air from time to time?)
3.
An air fill with 5ppm CO from a filling station in a city when the atmospheric content in certain areas of that city today is 3ppm. (and what city would that be, seeing I did not mention the actual city, I mentioned the area - Port Phillip Bay Melbourne simply so overseas people would know the area of Australia I am talking about. In fact the city was not Melbourne as such and the air quality is much cleaner than Melbourne. In fact the tanks I fill always have a reading of 0 ppm CO and have never seen a reading on my CO meter unless calibrating it. Glasgow might be choking in fumes, but much of Australia has high quality air)
4.
you, the non-customer, is undoubtedly going to blacken that shop's name to all and sundry either because of their air-quality or because of their customer-service or perhaps both. (I have been a customer of theirs and have used their services on a number of occasions. I had no intent nor do I intend to "blacken their name" and I actually find your remark offensive at best. Please never assume you know my intent, ask so I can tell, or remain zip lipped. I do believe I posted "I do recognise that they will probably not care and probably ignore my email, however that says volumes about the company (to me anyway). All I would expect is that they email back and say they will look into it, but I am not holding my breath". Where in that do you read I am going on a campaign to blacken their reputation).
---------- Post added May 13th, 2015 at 12:38 AM ----------
However - if I was an LDS and you came back to me 4 years later and told me that you thought I was responsible for CO contamination - I think I would take that with a big heaping of skepticism - I would expect that if someone 4 years ago had complained it would be more relevant - and if I knew there was an issue 4 years ago I would let you know...
But...
Yes again, you could assume that and yes it would be more relevant then, however, the diver involved was only OW (from memory). (In my opinion), he seemed to not have a great lot of experience and I suspect he might not have realised the air was contaminated (if he had actually used the tank when it was contaminated). Remember, the tank had a fill and then sat in his cupboard for 4 years, perhaps the final fill was the one that contaminated it, thus he was never aware of the contamination as he might never have used it after the contaminated fill. Even if he did use it with the oil contamination from prior fills, he may not have thought much that the air was a bit funny, due to his inexperience. I know my first exposure to bad air was in Bali, we were new divers and I noticed that the air tasted a bit oily. After the dive my wife was violently ill on the pier for 20 minutes. Had she not been sick I might not have thought anything about it at the time (blissful ignorance), now I would. In this recent case I could smell the air was bad as I dumped it.
In any regard, whilst I can understand a position of scepticism, if I owned the shop, I would ask for more info (maybe that's just me though). In my email to them I stated that I was doing it out of conscience and that perhaps the compressor was now fixed, but that maybe there was a glitch on the compressor servicing or procedures. Also that I was more than willing to give them as much info as I could if that helped. At no time did I attack them or portion any blame, I simply tried to send them the facts as I knew them.
This post made the pages here because I have a desire to help others here and nothing more. The post was for information to highlight the issue, also to advise that one should check air and not assume all is good etc etc. I believe no where have I tried to attack the LDS or to highlight who they are.
---------- Post added May 13th, 2015 at 01:00 AM ----------
I haven't seen the LDS named anywhere in this post and can only see that Pete is only trying to help the shop and it's customers. Nice job though in trying to pot him with your assumptions.
Thank you for your support, it is exactly my intent to help the LDS perhaps resolve a problem they have had in the past that might reoccur from a procedural issue or something, thus ensure the safety of divers using their air. Prevention is always better than remedial action after the event.
Also I simply wished to highlight this issue to people here on a number of fronts in the following respects;
1. Never assume air in a tank is good, particularly when you have little knowledge of its history.
2. Just because the air came from a LDS that appears competent, doesn't mean that they cant make mistakes or have issues
3. As others state here, its better to test the gas and find nothing wrong, than to not test and die proving the gas was bad.
4. If we know of an issue, it is our moral and ethical responsibility to try and help resolve it and in particular prevent something bad from happening to others.
I have a saying; "If I don't have knowledge about a problem, I can be excused for not acting to prevent it. However having knowledge now means I have an obligation (moral or ethical) to take action".
Maybe its appropriate at this time to state the obvious;
Leave ego's at the door, they are not conducive to good diving or quality conversations, just excess baggage and too much drag, just like an over inflated wing!
