John Bantin
Contributor
Just a point, if you modify equipment, the manufacturer no longer has any legal liability. No case has been won against any CCR manufacturer after a fatality if the unit has been modified in any way. (I am APD CCR diver 004)
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
And that sums it up. It just about how you send to get CE testing done
My new signature first stage regs are stamped with it but my older ones are not.
Just a point. In my line of work as in many others there are safeguards in place to protect us from judgements by placing the liability on other entities, such as code officials or engineers or architects. Their knowledge and/or code language is often faulty or obsolete.
I will not follow their guidance when I know it to be more risky but that puts the responsibility squarely on my shoulders(where arguably it belongs). This acceptance of risk means I really have to know what I'm doing and have a thorough understanding of physics and everything else involved in the decision. If I am competent to make a better decision, then I reduce my risk of a lawsuit being filed by doing what I know won't fail. Following the laid out path, or in this case, not modifying a certified product, may reduce my liability but it doesn't reduce the risk of a mishap or a lawsuit.
For most in my business the safest course is to follow the course that relies on the knowledge of others but what they should be doing is working to gain a better understanding of the issues involved so they can reduce the risk and refuse to follow a course of action that is suboptimal. I could give lots of real world examples but this portion of my post is already off topic and may get moved from this thread if it leads the discussion into a completely new direction. My point is really that certifications are helpful for the uninformed consumer but are not always an indication of the level of quality or suitability of a product to perform correctly. In the end the decision is ours EN250A isn't going to be dealing with a freeflow at depth, you will.
Redundancy is good.
Just a point. In my line of work as in many others there are safeguards in place to protect us from judgements by placing the liability on other entities, such as code officials or engineers or architects. Their knowledge and/or code language is often faulty or obsolete.
I will not follow their guidance when I know it to be more risky but that puts the responsibility squarely on my shoulders(where arguably it belongs). This acceptance of risk means I really have to know what I'm doing and have a thorough understanding of physics and everything else involved in the decision. If I am competent to make a better decision, then I reduce my risk of a lawsuit being filed by doing what I know won't fail. Following the laid out path, or in this case, not modifying a certified product, may reduce my liability but it doesn't reduce the risk of a mishap or a lawsuit.
For most in my business the safest course is to follow the course that relies on the knowledge of others but what they should be doing is working to gain a better understanding of the issues involved so they can reduce the risk and refuse to follow a course of action that is suboptimal. I could give lots of real world examples but this portion of my post is already off topic and may get moved from this thread if it leads the discussion into a completely new direction. My point is really that certifications are helpful for the uninformed consumer but are not always an indication of the level of quality or suitability of a product to perform correctly. In the end the decision is ours EN250A isn't going to be dealing with a freeflow at depth, you will.
Redundancy is good.
In reading all the responses an item lacking clarity here is what exactly the EN250A standards are, a pull from simply scuba is below to better define the standard:
WHAT IS EN250?
EN250 is the requirements of the European standard for diving equipment to meet the demands placed on it at depth and under high breathing loads. Which basically means that your regulator has been tested to make sure it will deliver gas to you at acceptable depths at acceptable temperatures in any situation even if you have two panicking divers demanding gas from it.
With Scuba diving becoming more popular and more of us travelling to go diving as well as pushing the boundaries of exploring the depths, manufacturers are producing smaller lighter regulators for travel that are great for warm water but cannot meet the same standards as the rest of their range for cold water and demanding depths so there needed to be different standards for different types of regulator.
There are more than one EN250 standards now because of this. EN250:2014 is the current standards that all Scuba regulators must meet but there is also a separate annex 'A' standard EN250A. Most manufacturers have regulators that surpassed the previous standards so much that they already meet the new guidelines so they simply have to brand their newly produced regulators with the new EN250A.
EN250:2014
The new standards decided in 2014 outline how an octopus rig, single 1st stage and two 2nd stages, is not the preferred option if you're diving deeper than 30m or water colder than 10°C. If you are diving in colder waters or deeper than 30m then it is advised that you only use one 2nd stage per 1st stage. You can do this by either using twin cylinders or a cylinder with twin outlets like a H Valve. Dual 1st stages have been the preferred method for advanced divers with twin sets for a long time already because of its redundancy but could mean that single cylinder divers may need to invest in new 1st stages and a new cylinder valve or a pony cylinder.
EN250A
EN250A tests the 1st stage with a demand on the primary and alternate demand valve to simulate two divers breathing off a single 1st stage. If the 1st stage can deliver gas to two 2nd stages it will have EN250A stamped somewhere on it. If your regulator has EN250A stamped on it then an octopus setup should be fine even in colder deeper waters but dual valves will always be recommended.
EN250A >10°C
With the new EN250:2014 regulators that are not designed for cold water will have to have to be marked with “>10°C” somewhere on the 1st and 2nd stages. 'Cold Water' is defined as water temperature below 10°C, and regulators marked with EN250A are tested to a temperature of 4°C. Smaller, lighter regulators do not have enough metal parts to act as a heat sync and absorb heat from the water to prevent icing up in cold waters so it should only be used in warmer waters.
WHAT IS EN250?
EN250 is the requirements of the European standard for diving equipment to meet the demands placed on it at depth and under high breathing loads. Which basically means that your regulator has been tested to make sure it will deliver gas to you at acceptable depths at acceptable temperatures in any situation even if you have two panicking divers demanding gas from it.
With Scuba diving becoming more popular and more of us travelling to go diving as well as pushing the boundaries of exploring the depths, manufacturers are producing smaller lighter regulators for travel that are great for warm water but cannot meet the same standards as the rest of their range for cold water and demanding depths so there needed to be different standards for different types of regulator.
There are more than one EN250 standards now because of this. EN250:2014 is the current standards that all Scuba regulators must meet but there is also a separate annex 'A' standard EN250A. Most manufacturers have regulators that surpassed the previous standards so much that they already meet the new guidelines so they simply have to brand their newly produced regulators with the new EN250A.
EN250:2014
The new standards decided in 2014 outline how an octopus rig, single 1st stage and two 2nd stages, is not the preferred option if you're diving deeper than 30m or water colder than 10°C. If you are diving in colder waters or deeper than 30m then it is advised that you only use one 2nd stage per 1st stage. You can do this by either using twin cylinders or a cylinder with twin outlets like a H Valve. Dual 1st stages have been the preferred method for advanced divers with twin sets for a long time already because of its redundancy but could mean that single cylinder divers may need to invest in new 1st stages and a new cylinder valve or a pony cylinder.
EN250A
EN250A tests the 1st stage with a demand on the primary and alternate demand valve to simulate two divers breathing off a single 1st stage. If the 1st stage can deliver gas to two 2nd stages it will have EN250A stamped somewhere on it. If your regulator has EN250A stamped on it then an octopus setup should be fine even in colder deeper waters but dual valves will always be recommended.
EN250A >10°C
With the new EN250:2014 regulators that are not designed for cold water will have to have to be marked with “>10°C” somewhere on the 1st and 2nd stages. 'Cold Water' is defined as water temperature below 10°C, and regulators marked with EN250A are tested to a temperature of 4°C. Smaller, lighter regulators do not have enough metal parts to act as a heat sync and absorb heat from the water to prevent icing up in cold waters so it should only be used in warmer waters.
John Bantin
Contributor
Good reply from loosenit2. As an aside, I wonder how many Scubaboard users are familiar with metric measurements (m, kg, litres, °C, bar, etc)? Obviously, everyone outside of the US now uses metric but how many American divers get it?
Similar threads
