I have read this thread every morning for the past three days. It is extremely unfortunate that the OP had the problems with the regulator. This type of accident can be deadly, so our collective wish that it never happen again is not misplaced.
As I read this again this morning, I was thinking how lucky I am that a few of my mistakes were not brought to an internet chat board. We service about 250 regulators a year, and I will admit that over the past seven years, a few of these left the shop with clearly stupid omissions in the service procedures. In fact, one left our shop with exactly this same problem. Thank goodness the customer caught this on the pre-dive inspection. Our regulator technicians are very high quality people and they do an extremely good job on the repair bench. I would bet that the complete satisfaction percentages would be over 99.5%. That does not mean that a couple didn't exhibit some clearly stupid omissions. For the customers unfortunate enough to be exposed to those omissions, the DISSATISFACTION percentage is 100%.
In my previous life (prior to going into the scuba business), I dabbled in industrial statistics as a quality inprovement consultant. My mentor was the famous quality guru, Dr. Edward Deming. He once told me "never make ANY conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. It is often not representative, in any way, of the real situation...and it only leads to the necessity for the good statistician to revoke and correct conclusions made from it."
In this situation with Scuba Sciences, we have a few (maybe more than a few) examples of complete 100% dissatisfaction from the folks that were potentially exposed to stupid omissions by Scuba Sciences. Does this, in any meaningful way, give evidence of the skill and abilities of Scuba Sciences? I would say no. It does demonstrate that silly, often dangerous, mistakes happen on the repair bench. I also fear that it might give excellent proof as to why the good Dr. Deming gave me that strongly worded warning about anecdotal evidence.
Tina came here to attempt to explain what happend in this case. Her explaination was filled with clear information (from her viewpoint) of what happend in this case, including her timeline of when things happened. It was also full of attempts to displace any blame her organizaiton might have for the problem. I expect there was just a little bit of organizational fear when they learned of the negative thread about them. While misplaced, this attempt to avoid blame is normal. After all, GREAT organizational damage can be done by a thread like this one. I remember, several years ago, about a posting about rust in scuba cylinders at Aldora Divers in Cozumel. A very limited problem caused them extremely expensive organization damage. I have no current knowledge of the situation, but I would bet they continue to suffer to this very day because of a single thread, detailing a very limited problem. Tina responded to this particular thread with an abundance of human nature........try to avoid the blame and stop the damage at almost any cost. A pure demonstration of the drive to survive. She also offered a remedy for the OP. Maybe not the remedy we would have wanted, but a remedy all the same.
The original poster had every right to come here and express thoughts about his problem. It is also worthwhile to note that the original poster came here ONLY to express his thoughts about this problem. He had never posted before, and hasn't posted since. Nothing about the OPs first experience drove him to contribute on any of the other excellent threads opened in the few days since he joined. Apparently only a single-minded desire to make sure everyone here fully understood the truth, as he saw it, about the quality of the services at Scuba Sciences.
I have some good friends and customers that have made remarks on this thread. Like me, they all wish that this particular problem had not occurred and they all, like me, hope that their responses caused Scuba Sciences (and all of us that repair scuba equipment) get the point and do a better job. But please remember that the story is simply anectodal evidence, probably not representative of the day to day work at Scuba Sciences. Remember that Tina's response was the first response of an individual, acting with an abundance of human nature, attempting to limit the damage of what she views as a limited problem. Doesn't change the fact that it scared the H**L out of the OP and it doesn't change the fact that the OP has 100% dissatisfaction with the quality of the work at Scuba Sciences. It doesn't change the fact that it could have worked out MUCH worse were it not for the controlled and reasoned response of the OP when the problem occurred at depth. But it is, when all things are considered, simply anectodal evidence of what can happen when things go wrong on the repair bench. Not at all, I suspect, typical of the true statistical performance of the repair bench at Scuba Sciences. Sometimes, SLIGHT mistakes have terrible consequences.
I end with this plea. If any of you are unfortunate enough to be the customer who gets the brunt of MY occasional stupid mistakes (sending the wrong valve with a cylinder order, losing an occasional order, shipping someone elses order to you by accident, or that occasional stupid bench mistake) PLEASE CALL ME AND LET ME MAKE IT RIGHT! Why do I make this plea? Because your problem is simply anectodal evidence that I am, after all, human and will occasionally make that stupid human mistake that looks SO bad on a thread like this. Thanks for your time to read.
Phil Ellis
