Did Uwatec conceal a known computer flaw?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Cert1967

Contributor
Messages
588
Reaction score
433
Location
Vail, Colorado
# of dives
I just don't log dives


A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

This post was moved from another computer thread, where the issue raised derailed that conversation. This interesting data perhaps warrants its own discussion.


Twenty years - a long time. History creates memories that never entirely fade. Corporate actions have consequences, today and tomorrow.

For a start, you could check with Robert Raimo, "permanently injured ... having contracted The Bends".1 For him, the last twenty years have likely been challenging.

Corporate actions have consequences. Some 40 years ago, Johnson & Johnson received kudos for its handling of the Tylenol deaths resulting from product tampering.

Johnson Outdoors and Uwatec, ~20 years ago, were less than candid in their handling of their defective dive computers. The issues reached the highest levels of the companies involved.

Uwatec was accused of


According to information being used in this court case, a design engineer told the founders of Uwatec, Karl Leemann and Heinz Ruchti, that a software defect was discovered that caused the device to underestimate nitrogen levels after a series of closely spaced dives.

Undercurrent wrote
Some of the legal wrangling in these proceedings got downright ugly. The first plaintiff to settle, in February 2003, was David Sipperly. According to Concannon, “Sipperly’s private investigator, Donald Snelling, uncovered a lot of dirt on the defendants. The defendants subsequently hired Sipperly’s private investigator to work for them, but when the judge found out, he issued an opinion disqualifying the investigator and almost disqualifying Johnson’s corporate counsel for hiring him.” Snelling was disqualified after Johnson’s first law firm, Monroe & Shapiro, and partner Matt Monroe, were disqualified for unethical misconduct in March, 2003. The court’s scathing opinions disqualifying both Snelling and Monroe are a matter of public record.



**********************************

4:03-cv-00513-WDB
Raimo v. Uwatec, Inc. et al

Wayne D. Brazil, presiding
Date filed: 02/05/2003
Date terminated: 02/28/2005
Date of last filing: 03/08/2005

Excerpts from the Complaint
73. The air-switching defect in the Aladin Air X Nitrox was first documented in a surprisingly candid e-mail message dated January 30, 1996, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This message was written by Ernst Vollm of Dynatron AG, the company that developed Uwatec AG’s proprietary software for the Aladin Air X Nitrox, in response to this question from Rob Palmer, one of Uwatec’s test divers: “If I reset the old Aladin Nitrox to Nitrox 21 at the surface, will it calculate the offgassing properly between dives?” See Ex. A (emphasis in original).
74. In his response, Vollm warned Palmer about "the faulty” Aladin Nitrox and its miscalculations. See Ex. A. Vollm provided a method for Palmer “to correct the faulty calculations as good as possible,” including manually switching “the instrument to 21% O2 IMMEDIATELY as soon as it displays surface mode.” Id. Vollm added, “I hope this information helps you to perform safe repetitive dives as long as you cannot replace your old version through John Sinclair from Uwatec UK.” Id. Vollm concluded by asking Palmer: “Please keep this information CONFIDENTIAL. I will send a copy of this E-mail to John by fax.” Id.
76. In the seven years since Vollm warned Palmer and Sinclair about the “faulty Aladin Nitrox,” and Sinclair delivered this message to Uwatec’s management in the United States, Uwatec, Scubapro and Johnson have never issued a warning to their customers, retailers, wholesalers or the public about the air-switching defect in Aladin Air X Nitrox dive computers manufactured and sold prior to the date of Vollm’s internal warning. To the contrary, the defendants have taken every available opportunity to reveal this critical information to the public and turned it into a conspiracy to conceal the product defect.
77. In fact, when Robert Raimo called Uwatec in January 2003 to inquire about the safety of his 1995 Aladin Air X Nitrox dive computer, he was told by company representatives that Scubapro/Uwatec was unaware of any defect in the Aladin Air X Nitrox and his computer was perfectly safe to use while diving. As alleged below, this devious misrepresentation could not possibly be true.
135. On and before April 18, 2002, Uwatec, Scubapro and Johnson knew or should have known that, due to defects in its design, the 1995 model Aladin Air X Nitrox dive computer failed to calculate residual nitrogen loads accurately following surface intervals during which the user breathed surface air.
136. This known defect was a highly material piece of information in that it increased the risk of decompression sickness for the user and made the 1995 model Aladin Air X Nitrox dive computer extremely hazardous for use on repetitive dives where the user was breathing enriched air.
137. Uwatec, Scubapro and Johnson had a duty to inform Raimo truthfully and accurately about the safety of the 1995 Aladin Air X Nitrox dive computers, including the potential for the 1995 Aladin Air X Nitrox dive computer to accurately calculate decompression debts during surface mode.
138. Uwatec, Scubapro and Johnson nonetheless failed and refused to disclose this known defect to users, such as Raimo, from whom they specifically concealed it.

"He will never be able to participate in the activity that gave him so much satisfaction in his life."
 

Attachments

  • RAIMO V UAWATEC INC DBA SCUBAPRO AND JOHNSON OUTERDOORS INC 4.03-CV-00513.pdf
    188.3 KB · Views: 177
Only applied to one specific model.
I am still using Uwatec Aladin Pro Nitrox bought in 1997.
 
Only applied to one specific model.
I am still using Uwatec Aladin Pro Nitrox bought in 1997.
True, but that doesn’t change the facts. Seems pretty clear that there was a problem with that particular computer. That’s understandable. What isn’t is what happened after the problem was brought to the attention of management.
 

Back
Top Bottom