LDS BS in Nitrox class today...

[Mark_J]

How would that work?

I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not but there were several examples already brought up in this thread. If a reg is harder to breathe from due to a lack of maintenance and the diver has to work harder for each breath a poorly operating reg could lead to or add to the potential for an increase in CO2 retention. I believe that was what the Instructor may have been suggesting to the OP during his Nitrox class.

We could debate ad nauseum whether or not a poorly operating reg could cause an increased risk for CO2 retention and by how much of a risk factor but that is not really the issue. My point is simply this, when has regular maintenance performed by competent techs ever been a bad idea?

 

[b1gcountry]

The instructor could have been a little more accurate, and said that CO2 retention could be caused be a poorly performing regulator. That might be a little more accurate, but even the way you stated it, there is still a valid point. Service intervals for regs are not cut in stone. There's no guarantee that your reg will be bad 366 days after the last service, but there's also no guarantee it will be good on day 364.

Annual service is one way to be reasonably sure your regs are performing well. If you learn enough about regs, you can start to learn the warning signs of a reg that's detuned, and you can start to monitor your IP for signs of creep, or fluctuation. If everything is nominal, you might be able to go several years between service, but this ISN"T the same as saying "I don't service my regs because its a scam." To me that's akin to sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself your regs will be fine as long as you ignore them.

Tom

 

[DevonDiver]

The primary issue with this thread is that a dive professional tried to create a false link between spending money at the dive shop and safety. This is a common sales tactic; the fallacy is continually presented as something like "don't skimp, isn't your life worth X"

The whole point of diver training is that dive behavior, not equipment, is what determines safety. That's why we have the buddy system, recreational limits which allow immediate access to the surface, etc....

As a dive instructor, I would have thought you would understand this, but instead you seem intent on just criticizing my post and helping to perpetuate the dive industry's favorite myth, that we as divers can buy our way to increased safety.

If you are that sceptical of the dive industry, why not take up a different hobby?

1. As a dive instructor and center manager, I advocate the correct servicing and maintenance of equipment. I do not sell retail or provide servicing...so this is not a sales pitch - just prudent advice.

2. Diver training (safety) is a combination of training AND equipment. The right training (procedures and responses), attitude (safety orientated, conservative and progressive accumulation of experience) and the use of appropriate, well maintained and trustworthy equipment is what keeps people safe in the water.

Like legs of a table, if one is removed, everything can topple.

We don't learn AAS Ascents and CESAs so that we can get away with untrustworthy equipment.

Manufacturers specify servicing intervals - for scuba kit, along with many other items (cars, boat engines, air conditioners etc etc). THEY do so because of the liability issues that you remarked on. Dive professionals have a duty to act as proper role-models...and that means compliance with recommendations about equipment maintenance.

It may be possible in YOUR country that a un-certified minimum wager would be servicing customer's regulators - but that is not true of every country....and even if it was true...then some enlightened thinking on behalf of the consumer should soon lead them to the door of a properly trained service technician who was licensed by the manufacturer.

AND...for those who scoff at the phrase "life support equipment"...I wonder where they grew the gills needed to survive underwater without a functioning regulator.:kiss2:

 

[redacted]

My point is simply this, when has regular maintenance performed by competent techs ever been a bad idea?

Whenever the maintenance was unnecessary. If everything is done correctly during the unnecessary maintenance, then it was just a waste of money. If a maintenance error is made (can happen even with a competent tech) then the problem may be loss of $$ and the inconvenience of a problem regulator.

And then there is the problem of distinguishing the competent techs from the others. I tried "professional" service for a few years when I first started. I may have just been unlucky but believe I went only one out of four in receiving competent service.

BTW, if you work hard enough UW, you can overbreath just about any regulator. That is, you will get the feeling that you are not getting enough gas. I'm pretty sure the underlying cause of that feeling is CO2 retention. The cure is to reduce the workload and breath. It could take a minute or two for the feeling to pass. A better performing reg is a little harder to overbreath than lower performance reg. Lower performance could be a matter of design or it could be a matter of tuning/service.

 

[Web Monkey]

Annual service is one way to be reasonably sure your regs are performing well. If you learn enough about regs, you can start to learn the warning signs of a reg that's detuned, and you can start to monitor your IP for signs of creep, or fluctuation. If everything is nominal, you might be able to go several years between service, but this ISN"T the same as saying "I don't service my regs because its a scam." To me that's akin to sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself your regs will be fine as long as you ignore them.

Pretty much.

Considering that a huge percentage of divers dive maybe once a year on vacation, factory recommended service intervals aren't a bad idea. Most don't remember which way the tank valve faces when attaching the reg, so I wouldn't want to put a lot of confidence in their ability to determine when service is required.

And if annual is too much for some people, buy Atomic. They're every two years.

Terry

 

[Mark_J]

Whenever the maintenance was unnecessary. If everything is done correctly during the unnecessary maintenance, then it was just a waste of money. If a maintenance error is made (can happen even with a competent tech) then the problem may be loss of $$ and the inconvenience of a problem regulator.

There was a nationwide restaurant company I did some work for at one time, their budget for mechanical maintenance was about 3 million annually. Their repair costs for those mechanical systems was about 6 million annually. By increasing their Preventive Maintenance budget by 1.2 million, in two years they cut 4 million off of their annual repair costs. Was their Preventive Maintenance Program worth it for them?

I change batteries before they die (yes even my every day watch), oil every 3000 miles, and have my dive gear serviced every year whether I think it needs it or not. I pretty firmly believe that preventive maintenance really does prevent equipment failure and my own experiences tell me that I'm not wasting any money by adhering to those beliefs. That said I respect your opinion to the contrary and we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[DevonDiver]

Web Monkey makes a good point.

The people on this thread advocating ignoring service schedules for regulators all seem to be experienced, regular divers. With experience, comes familiarity. With familiarity comes an ability to determine the functionality of the equipment they use.

However, for those people to categorically state that other divers (many of whom will not be regular divers who are intimately familiar with their equipment) should disregard the safety recommendations given to them by instructors is both irresponsible and dangerous.

Generally, divers tend to be over-confident in their abilities. Pride, ego and ignorance of what they don't know all play a part. This is especially true of NOVICE divers in the region of 50-250 logged dives. Providing 'advice' to these people that is contrary to industry-wide safety recommendations, such as some of the comments in this thread, is like handing a loaded gun to a child.

When an instructor teaches a course they take legal responsibility for the safety of the customer...and gives the most prudent advice for that reason.

When someone posts advice on a forum, they should consider taking some moral responsibility for their words.

Everyone has the right to post their opinions - but undermining professional instructor, agency and manufacturer safety recommendations and encouraging people to take any increased risk because of that...is just plain irresponsible.

 

[Plumb bob]

If you are that sceptical of the dive industry, why not take up a different hobby?

I gotta take exception to this phrase. Perhaps you didn't mean it as I take it but..

The dive industry is ancillary to diving. It is not diving.

I think and I know many many others will agree that it is very healthy to be skeptical of the motivations of some within the industry. Due to the "bad apple" effect this skepticism does spill over to all unfortunately. Divers should be encouraged to view information provided by those with vested interest as potentially "suspect".

 

[Meng_Tze]

I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not but there were several examples already brought up in this thread. If a reg is harder to breathe from due to a lack of maintenance and the diver has to work harder for each breath a poorly operating reg could lead to or add to the potential for an increase in CO2 retention. I believe that was what the Instructor may have been suggesting to the OP during his Nitrox class.

We could debate ad nauseum whether or not a poorly operating reg could cause an increased risk for CO2 retention and by how much of a risk factor but that is not really the issue. My point is simply this, when has regular maintenance performed by competent techs ever been a bad idea?

In that same vein.... a poorly trained diver could also lead to increased CO2 retention, a poorly planned dive could also lead to CO2 retention etc, etc.

Your point on 'when has regular maintenance performed by competent techs ever been a bad idea?' is well put and well taken. But it is a different point to saying that a poorly operating reg could lead to increased CO2 retention.

 

[vondo]

There was a nationwide restaurant company I did some work for at one time, their budget for mechanical maintenance was about 3 million annually. Their repair costs for those mechanical systems was about 6 million annually. By increasing their Preventive Maintenance budget by 1.2 million, in two years they cut 4 million off of their annual repair costs. Was their Preventive Maintenance Program worth it for them?

I change batteries before they die (yes even my every day watch), oil every 3000 miles, and have my dive gear serviced every year whether I think it needs it or not. I pretty firmly believe that preventive maintenance really does prevent equipment failure and my own experiences tell me that I'm not wasting any money by adhering to those beliefs. That said I respect your opinion to the contrary and we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

To play devil's advocate, why don't you get your oil changed every 1000 miles. That has to be better, right?

No, it could be worse. First, studies of cars, even cars driven hard say that following the mfr schedule is already conservative. Many cars now recommend 7500-10000 and more mile intervals between oil changes under normal conditions and half that for extreme conditions like being stuck in traffic, towing, etc.

Second, I know and I imagine all of us do people who have had their engines ruined or severely degraded by grease monkeys who didn't tighten the oil plug sufficiently, allowing all the oil to drain out. That's the equivalent of the reg that has problems immediately after service.

So the choice I've made, which I think is both prudent and economical, is to have my service done every few years or couple hundred dives and not worry about mfr imposed limits.

Considering that the service cost for a reg is 10-30% the cost of the reg, everything I've read about failures, and the types of diving I do, I think that's reasonable.

I also change my oil at the mfr suggested (extreme conditions) interval of 5K miles. That's about 0.1% of the cost of the car, so I feel that's a good trade off.

But more is not always better and I'm sure your example company didn't just say "OK, lets spend twice as much on preventative maintenance and see what happens" I suspect they studied the situation.