Dangerous gear?

[Couv]

....The original Scubapro Mk-1. Not the one that replaced it, but the one that was totally re-called. There are a few that survived the re-call and are owned by some collectors. It must have been unsafe, but not much is known about it.

Hi Luis,

Was this MK 1 also a flow through piston? I just checked the SP Museum and there is no information about it. One would think a totally recalled regulator deserves mention at a site like that.

Thanks,

Couv

 

[John C. Ratliff]

My Scubapro catalog from 1972 shows the Mark I as a balanced flow-through piston. My understanding of the Mark I is that it performed better than the Mark V and Mark VI in US Navy tests due to its simple flow-through design and in-line LP port (on top in line with the piston). Scubapro called it a "precision balance valve/maximum air flow." Scubapro pulled it because it was embarrassed about that, and the fact that they modified the their subsequent more expensive first stages to have the flow-through with a top port. I never heard that it was a "dangerous" regulator, only that it perform very, very well at a lesser cost.

SeaRat

 

[captain]

I also went through a couple of Farallon Decomputers as they were called. I still have a Farallon 3 window mask and snorkel.
I rather liked the mask but also had sealing problems.

 

[Couv]

The Farallon mask (I think it was called the Panoramic) would not seal on my face until I placed a couple of rubber bits between the skirt and frame on the inside. The rubber bits served as spacers that made the skirt deeper. Once I discovered that, the mask fit very well. However, it was probably about the ugliest mask I've ever seen-the frame was safety orange and black.

 

[Luis H]

Hi Luis,

Was this MK 1 also a flow through piston? I just checked the SP Museum and there is no information about it. One would think a totally recalled regulator deserves mention at a site like that.

Thanks,

Couv

The original Mk-1 was fully recalled. There are no official traces on the Scubapro museum.

Take a look at this link:
Read Ovalis post.
Vintage Double Hose • View topic - Scubpro MK I/109 (Model 101) restored


and the other thread.


The other Mk-1 was around through the 70's, but it lost its popularity when inflators and octopus started showing up.

 

[duckbill]

That you can safely do a buoyant emergency accent.

O.K. So, why was (is) the Navy doing this, but the civies were taught the CO2 was only to be deployed at the surface?

 

[Thalassamania]

Hey ... I love my Farallon Ankle Brace fins. I don't dive them, but I do love them.

 

[John C. Ratliff]

O.K. So, why was (is) the Navy doing this, but the civies were taught the CO2 was only to be deployed at the surface?

Duckbill, the U.S. Navy had to train for submarines. The training we got at the U.S. Naval School for Underwater Swimmers simulated a buoyant ascent from about 30 feet out of a submarine hatch. Every diver who went through that school had to pass the buoyant ascent training (blow and go...). They would put us under a air lock, have us duck out, inflate our vests while holding onto the edge of the air lock, then we would blow out our air and let go and fly to the surface blowing all the way. If we did not blow out before letting go, a Navy dive instructor was right there to either stop us or give us a fist to the solar plexis to ensure that the air was expelled before we let go. The student did not pass if those extreme techniques were employed--they would have to try it again. Every Navy diver could be assigned to a submarine, and they needed to know this technique to perform a submarine escape.

Thalassamania, The Farrallon Ankle Brace Fins were a great idea which was badly implemented. I have had two pairs, one of which I experimented on and one I currently have. The ones I bought new were awful to swim with. The reason was that their ankle brace did not allow the foot to point correctly so that the blade could engage the water with any force vector backwards. So those who used them were literally "spinning our wheels." We could not gain purchase on the water in a normal finning motion. I tried to modify them to allow this, and was not successful. I did not have the milling machinery to allow me to move the engagement point back so that my feet could be pointed rearward instead of down. It was a great concept that the designers had, but it was extremely poorly put into practice.


SeaRat

 

[Thalassamania]

John, we were successful in making the fin work but it required cutting down the blade area and machining an adjustable "stop" that controlled the limit of the ankle angle. Left my calves really sore though. I'll see if I still have the machined part around for a photo, last I saw it was in a box of misc. crap.

 

[captain]

O.K. So, why was (is) the Navy doing this, but the civies were taught the CO2 was only to be deployed at the surface?

The U.S. Navy recognizes and trains its scuba
divers in positive buoyancy emergency ascent
procedures. The U.S. Navy (1973) states, “the
principal function (referring to the scuba diver's life
preserver or buoyancy vest) is to assist a diver in
rising to the surface and to maintain him on the
surface in a head-up position.” On page 5-37 of U.S.
Navy (1973) specific instructions for emergency
ascent include, “After dropping all heavy objects and
the weight belt, activate the life preserver and surface
immediately.” The new U.S. Navy Diving Manual
does not appear to place the same hazard emphasis
on the positive buoyancy ascent as previous editions.
In U.S. Navy (1970) it states, “Use positive buoyancy
ascent only to resolve a life or death
situation, and no other. Otherwise, swim to the surface.

http://www.oseh.umich.edu/articles/emertrain.pdf