I'm not disagreeing with you. But "testing" a repair is a normal part of any good repair action on any item. Sometimes an "operationally realistic" test is not possible or practical. In those cases one may substitute other means of testing like Phill does in his shop or like NASA does with spacecraft. Sure, I'd take one of my freshly DIY serviced regs on a dive vacation and roll off the boat with it with no hesitation. I would have done all the non-diving checks and been confident it will work fine. I'd put the risk involved as extremely low. But I don't have to do that as a test dive is normally very easy to arrange in sunny central TX (pool and lake in my back yard) or I have a number of regs to choose from that have proven their performance in recent dives. So I'd probably take one of those. And from my dealings with Phil and Dive Sports (as well as some of the other larger service providers active on this board), I think I would treat his work the same as mine. Definately not so with the small shops I dealt with years ago that were my motivation for learning to DIY.
I probably shouldn't embolden text so much....probably gives the wrong impression of yelling....
Likewise, I'm not disagreeing, but I'm seriously interested in hearing what specific safety issues, post-service, people are trying to detect with a test dive or if they're just trying to avoid being inconvenienced.
Edit: To be clear, the risk that I am most concerned with is the risk of losing or aborting a dive, not any risk of suffering physical harm.
Your edit makes clear your feeling on the issues, so I'll redirect my comments below to anyone interested.
If the safety issues are insignificant, I'm saying that post-service "non-diving" evaluation of the regulator is going to reveal most issues, IMHO.
What are some examples of
significant safety issues from faulty regulator servicing?
Would examples include dropping the IP so low as to provide inadequate output at significant depth?
What's the minimum IP that's possible in a regulator that otherwise might give the appearance of functioning normally?
With my Sherwoods, if the spring is installed, but the shims omitted, the IP is still going to be 120 psi or so, maybe 100 with a really shot spring. That will still provide adequate output to depths of 5 ata, wouldn't it?
How about a grossly clogged inlet filter? Similarly adequate output as above?
Anything else that couldn't easily be detected above water pre-dive?
For experienced divers doing open-water dives, wouldn't the potential and degree of any safety issues determine whether "operationally realistic" testing is prudent or just overkill?
I know I'm repeating myself, but I just don't see the pressing need to dive-test a recently serviced regulator....but I could easily be missing something very obvious to everybody else....
As W.C. Fields said, "Never smarten up a chump...." Please do, I may need it!
IMHO, the testing should be appropriate to what's at risk.
If the next "real" dive is just the local quarry, there's probably no need for a "test" of any sort. OTOH, if a critical piece of gear (not just regs) has been added or changed/fixed/adjusted, and I'm headed off to a week on a liveaboard then yeah, a little pool time is probably in order.
And besides, "hey, gotta make sure everything works OK" is a great excuse to go get wet!
Even "new" gear can be flawed. That goes for the "new" parts installed by a skilled, competent tech. The precautions we take should be commensurate with the risk involved. A free-flowing reg is probably not that big of a risk to a trained diver in a buddy situation, but to most of us the possibility of having to sit out for a week on a trip that we paid big bucks for certainly is a "risk".
This is what I'm getting at, but you've said it more concisely and clearly than I. Thanks!
Dave C
