OMS Featherweight

[mahjong]

There is a minority of tech divers who use OMS gear. Generally, mainstream tech diving is at odds with regards to OMS equipment philosophy and gear configuration.

Let me put it another way. When tech divers show pictures to ridicule some behavior or ridicule some gear configuration, it is usually a photo of someone wearing OMS gear.

Interesting. I'm not a tech diver, per se. So most likely I am out of line even commenting; however, it strikes me that you can configure gear any way you wish. The design of the gear might have in mind certain configurations; however, it's not all that limiting--the gear strikes me as being by and large modular--you can mix and match and do as you wish. Could it be that OMS is made to be the strawman because it has a bad rap for customer service, and not because its gear is so inherently problematic?

Again, from the perspect of this non-tech diver (but I do only dive BP/W's), the only noteworthy complaint I see about some OMS gear, particularly their wings, is that they persist with the bungees and where they offer non-bungeed alternatives, these alternatives are not the most streamlined and sleak. But all their wings are extremely well made.

 

[Doc Harry]

But all their wings are extremely well made.

No, they are not well made.

I can attest to that. My OMS wing literally fell apart after only 60 dives. Good luck getting warranty service from OMS if your wing fails. I was never able to get OMS to fix my wing, and couldn't get them to answer any of my phone calls or e-mails. They had my wing for months and they wouldn't fix it or return it to me.

One of my diving buddies persists in using OMS even though his OMS wing has fallen apart on him several times, at depth, during our last two annual trips to Cozumel. He couldn't get his first wing fixed, so eventually he bought a new one. That one fell apart too, at depth, leaving him without any buoyancy device. His sons assisted him to the surface.

As far as tech diving configuration is concerned... yes, you can try to re-invent the wheel and configure your gear any way that you want. But, by and large, the tech diving community has generally settled on one basic configuration (for back-mount cylinders) for a reason -- it works, it works well, it is a proven configuration, and everyone else knows exactly what you have and where it is located.

Again -- there are so many problems with OMS and there are so many other good scuba gear manufacturers out besides OMS, why bother with OMS?

 

[CT Sean]

Really? I find it odd that you reference tech divers as my research on the brand evidenced heavy use of OMS gear by the tech crowd. They all seemed pleased with the gear. I have also not seen any bad reviews on the board. However, it may be that OMS as a search phrase does not do well.

I can't help much with the OMS good vs. bad, I can only say that I have an OMS SPG and it's fine (in fairness though it's the same B&G SPG that everyone sells) and a stainless STA which is pretty hard to screw up

Regarding the search, if you search on "OMS*" (the asterisk being the key) you will get past the forum requirement of at least 4 characters for a search and you will see lots of OMS discussions

 

[mahjong]

Perhaps some substance is needed: What does "fall apart" mean? The seams unravel at depth? The two exhaust valves unscrew at depth? There's not too too much going on with a wing, so I'm having a hard time imagining what "fall apart" might mean?

OMS uses mainly 1000D cordura, which is good stuff (arguably better than 1680, the cheaper Asian-made immitation). They polyurethane coat the underside of the outershell, something most companies do not do. Their inner bladder is also a polyurethane coated D nylon--perhaps beats all but the thickest of urethane rubber film bladders. Their wings are made in USA.

No, they are not well made.

I can attest to that. My OMS wing literally fell apart after only 60 dives. Good luck getting warranty service from OMS if your wing fails. I was never able to get OMS to fix my wing, and couldn't get them to answer any of my phone calls or e-mails. They had my wing for months and they wouldn't fix it or return it to me.

One of my diving buddies persists in using OMS even though his OMS wing has fallen apart on him several times, at depth, during our last two annual trips to Cozumel. He couldn't get his first wing fixed, so eventually he bought a new one. That one fell apart too, at depth, leaving him without any buoyancy device. His sons assisted him to the surface.

As far as tech diving configuration is concerned... yes, you can try to re-invent the wheel and configure your gear any way that you want. But, by and large, the tech diving community has generally settled on one basic configuration (for back-mount cylinders) for a reason -- it works, it works well, it is a proven configuration, and everyone else knows exactly what you have and where it is located.

Again -- there are so many problems with OMS and there are so many other good scuba gear manufacturers out besides OMS, why bother with OMS?

 

[Doc Harry]

Perhaps some substance is needed: What does "fall apart" mean? The seams unravel at depth? The two exhaust valves unscrew at depth? There's not too too much going on with a wing, so I'm having a hard time imagining what "fall apart" might mean?

OMS uses mainly 1000D cordura, which is good stuff (arguably better than 1680, the cheaper Asian-made immitation). They polyurethane coat the underside of the outershell, something most companies do not do. Their inner bladder is also a polyurethane coated D nylon--perhaps beats all but the thickest of urethane rubber film bladders. Their wings are made in USA.

Falling apart for me = the zipper and zipper guard (on the bladder cover) stitching fell out and the zipper and zipper guard detached from the wing. After only 60 dives.

Falling apart for my friend = corrugated hose attachement point on the wing separated from the wing = wing could not hold any air. I do not know the age of his first OMS where this happened. The second OMS wing was almost brand new.

 

[SeekerOfJustice]

No, they are not well made.

I can attest to that. My OMS wing literally fell apart after only 60 dives. Good luck getting warranty service from OMS if your wing fails. I was never able to get OMS to fix my wing, and couldn't get them to answer any of my phone calls or e-mails. They had my wing for months and they wouldn't fix it or return it to me.

One of my diving buddies persists in using OMS even though his OMS wing has fallen apart on him several times, at depth, during our last two annual trips to Cozumel. He couldn't get his first wing fixed, so eventually he bought a new one. That one fell apart too, at depth, leaving him without any buoyancy device. His sons assisted him to the surface.

As far as tech diving configuration is concerned... yes, you can try to re-invent the wheel and configure your gear any way that you want. But, by and large, the tech diving community has generally settled on one basic configuration (for back-mount cylinders) for a reason -- it works, it works well, it is a proven configuration, and everyone else knows exactly what you have and where it is located.

Again -- there are so many problems with OMS and there are so many other good scuba gear manufacturers out besides OMS, why bother with OMS?

I suppose I liked the price point and the fact that the Featherweight looks nearly identical to the Scubapro Lighthawk for around half the price. Also, I guess it's because I saw many other reviews of their other gear and they were overall positive. I certainly don't want to deal with poor customer service but I hope to avoid that.

 

[Doc Harry]

I suppose I liked the price point and the fact that the Featherweight looks nearly identical to the Scubapro Lighthawk for around half the price. Also, I guess it's because I saw many other reviews of their other gear and they were overall positive. I certainly don't want to deal with poor customer service but I hope to avoid that.

Leisure Pro is reliable, so if you bought from them then you dodged the OMS customer service bullet.

 

[Straegen]

I suppose I liked the price point and the fact that the Featherweight looks nearly identical to the Scubapro Lighthawk for around half the price. Also, I guess it's because I saw many other reviews of their other gear and they were overall positive. I certainly don't want to deal with poor customer service but I hope to avoid that.

If you get 60+ dives out of it before it falls apart at that price IMO you got your moneys worth. I am glad they are creating more competition in the travel BC market. Looking forward to seeing more refined back inflate BCs coming down the line.

 

[JimmyC]

Well apart from the OMS bashing, I thought this is about the OMS featherweight. Here are some stats. A friend saw it at Beneath the Sea this weekend and yes it's 1680 nylon, weighs in at 5 pounds and only has a single tank strap. I do agree the wings are gi-normous for a travel BC once you get past the medium size, but this is still a new market for the dealers to work with, and I'm sure they will get it right. Oceanic, Zeagle, Scubapro and who knows else will be bninging them out. Can't forget the Zuma either. Some like it and some don't.

Please stick to the subject of the thread, as for OMS Cust Service, yes, about 3 - 4 yrs ago they were having some real issues, but they have gotten better. Alot of dive gear manufacturers have cut back due to the economy...oh well. Happy diving!

 

[SeekerOfJustice]

Well apart from the OMS bashing, I thought this is about the OMS featherweight. Here are some stats. A friend saw it at Beneath the Sea this weekend and yes it's 1680 nylon, weighs in at 5 pounds and only has a single tank strap. I do agree the wings are gi-normous for a travel BC once you get past the medium size, but this is still a new market for the dealers to work with, and I'm sure they will get it right. Oceanic, Zeagle, Scubapro and who knows else will be bninging them out. Can't forget the Zuma either. Some like it and some don't.

Please stick to the subject of the thread, as for OMS Cust Service, yes, about 3 - 4 yrs ago they were having some real issues, but they have gotten better. Alot of dive gear manufacturers have cut back due to the economy...oh well. Happy diving!

Thanks for the info. I still have not been advised of a shipping date from Leisure Pro. I am hoping for the thing to arrive before the 16th of April.

As noted above, Scuba Pro has come out with the Litehawk. Which is pretty close the the same setup as the OMS Featherweight. I liked the Litehawk but have not dove with it.

JJ