Scuba Sciences Regulator Repair Problem

[cerich]

Hello Everyone,

I was under the impression that Stores were not to be named, only as a "LDS". But since we were named, we will reply to this post.

1. Scuba Sciences has been in business since 1971. In these past 36 years, we have trained several thousand divers, serviced thousands upon thousands of scuba equipment and ran tons of diving trips.

2. Scuba Sciences is (to my knowledge) the only Scuba Training/Retail Store in the Valley that is a member of the BBB. We have been members of the BBB since June of 1994. We are in the business to provide the best services to our customers with training, equipment servicing and dive trips, not to rip anyone off.

3. Scuba Sciences serviced several hundred regulators at our Metro location alone last year. It is not unusual, a few regulators come back for readjustments, but NO MAJOR PROBLEMS.

4. Scuba Sciences follows the strict servicing requirements of the Professional Order of Service Technicians Form, which is required of American Nitrox Divers International (ANDI). It shows a complete check list of everything that is completed during a regulator, bc and/or cylinder service.

5. After our Service Technican is done with the service, he completes a bench test and a water test to look for any bubbles or things out of adjustment. These tests were done to Mr. Just's regulator and showed no signs of anything unusual.

6. According to our computer records, Mr. Just has been very inconsistent with having his equipment serviced annually as required to maintain the manuf warranties.

7. Mr. Just picked up his regulator in late October, 2006, tested it on our testing machine, signed the Repair Agreement and left. Both Scuba Sciences facilities have on-site, indoor, heated salt water pools for our divers and customers to test and/or familiarize themselves with any new or recently serviced equipment. Mr. Just did not take advantage of this opportunity to test his equipment before his trip.

8. Mr. Just claims to have had problems during his trip from Late November to Early December, but never notified Scuba Sciences until early January, 2007.

9. Scuba Sciences' Repair Agreement says in part "...SCUBA equipment, it is highly subject to damage and/or change in adjustment during transportation and/or with misuse. For that reason this company cannot accept any responsibility for the condition or function of the equipment once it has been inspected and accepted by the person signing this document and it has left the premises of this company..." This form was signed by Mr. Just when he picked up the regulator and he admits the regulator was working properly when he tested it on our machine.

10. When Scuba Sciences was notified of Mr. Just's issue, we offered to completely overhaul and re-service the regulator from top to bottom and test his equipment in either of our pools at NO CHARGE. This offer was made to Mr. Just in early January, 2007 and still stands today. At this time Mr. Just has refused our offer.

11. When this regulator left Scuba Sciences, there is absolutely no question that it was working properly.

At this time we are still willing to completely overhaul and re-service Mr. Just's regulator and allow him to test his equipment in the pool. We are awaiting Mr. Just's decision...

Tina
Scuba Sciences, Inc.

I've never seen somebody work so hard to discredit a custumer. This is wrong on so many levels, unfortunatly because of the effort shown so far why it is wrong will never be grasped...

 

[AzAtty]

I've never seen somebody work so hard to discredit a custumer. This is wrong on so many levels, unfortunatly because of the effort shown so far why it is wrong will never be grasped...

How is presenting the other side of the story "work[ing] so hard to discredit a custumer [sic]"? The LDS has simply responded with information taken from its business records that (a) the reg was serviced, (b) the reg was tested in the customer's presence, (c) there were no problems noted when the diver picked up the reg, (d) the diver did not take the opportunity to test the reg in the pool, and (e) the diver did not contact the LDS until one or two months after the incident.

The comment about irregular service may have been a bit much, especially since the diver may have obtained service from another LDS (after all, another LDS is no more than four miles from the diver's residence, whereas the LDS in question is 20-some-odd miles away).

This is a customer service issue, and at least one of the parties involved has expressed a willingness to resolve it on that basis. We should let them work it out instead of attempting to arbitrate a dispute over the internet. Perhaps the mods should consider locking the thread.

 

[cjust]

Wow, I've been away for a few days and I didn't realize this thread had generated so much discussion.

I just wanted to briefly discuss a few points. First, in hindsight, I should have checked the tightness of the connection myself. I do have a predive checklist that I routinely go through, but that had never been on it. I truly did not know that a loose regulator was something that I should concern myself with right after maintenance. Obviously, there is a lot I don't know about regulators and I need to learn more.

Second, I was not messing with the 2nd stage when it broke apart. When I noticed the bubbles I switched mouthpieces. I had barely even had time to start looking at the source of the bubbles when it came apart.

Third, maybe I was doing something wrong, but neither me nor my buddy were able to 'crimp' the hose. And it certainly is not as easy as suggested to grab the house like you grab a hose normally. I tried for several seconds to reach it and it was moving too fast. Once my buddy got it, she tried to no avail to crimp it. I tried to both fold it over and hold my thumb over the end. Air continued to escape at a rapid pace.

Lastly, the LDS has made numerous mentions to me about their track record of "NO MAJOR PROBLEMS". That is simply not true. I have talked to at least one other diver that had a similar problem a few years ago. They informed the LDS and got a similar response to the one I got. I have also received private messages in response to this thread concerning the same shop.

I don't believe that just because they hold my regulator hostage until I sign a form that releases them from liability actually releases a company from any liability.

I am sorry about the debate that my post has caused. I was simply trying to get the word out about my experiences with this company. If you feel like you should lock the thread, feel free.

Chris

 

[redacted]

I'm with Terry. The video shows the diver fiddling with the hose fitting at the second stage. My best guess is that the diver inadvertently unscrewed a loose fitting to the point it gave way. Now, who is responsible for the loose fitting is up for debate. I wouldn't be too quick to harpoon the LDS, if for no other reason than the regulator had long departed custody of the LDS and passed through the hands of several potential interlopers long before the diver hit the water (think: TSA and assorted baggage gorillas). And a finger-tight hose fitting should have been discovered during the pre-dive check.

An unfortunate situation to be sure; glad no one got hurt.

There is little doubt that the diver inadvertently unscrewed a loose connection during the dive. So either he is staging something (like the finger in the can of beans), someone wants him gone, or he is the victim of dangerously bad service which left the connection loose. It doesn't seem to warrent much debate. It is likely a service error, and apparently not the first. Demonstrating to a customer that the reg is working following a service is a good practice. But it can't absolve the service provider of incipient failures induced by the service. The service provider's attempt to absolve itself of any responsibility is a farce which only works to the shop's discredit. Certification by someone with limited knowledge and expertise just isn't worth much. And the attempt to discredit the customer by criticising the frequency he has his regs serviced suggests some desparation on the shops part. It is relevent though because such loose fittings can be avoided by not having a reg serviced.

But, at this point, the shop's attempt to remedy the situation is a reasonable offer.

 

[redacted]

I am sorry about the debate that my post has caused. I was simply trying to get the word out about my experiences with this company. If you feel like you should lock the thread, feel free.

Chris

Don't be sorry about starting this thread. This is just the kind of thread that you, the LDS, and many others can benefit from. Perhaps the LDS will reconsider whether the customer or the tech would be the appropriate party to sign off on a regulator service.

 

[Dive-aholic]

How many OW divers know enough about regulators and equipment to even know to check the connections on the regulator. Most OW dives I come across are afraid to move their hoses from one port to another because of lack of knowledge. I make it a point to teach my open water divers a little about the equipment they're using, but most LDSs don't include that in their OW classes. I've even seen an instructor telling students about burst discs and pointing to the wrong location on the valve. When my wife tried to point out where the burst disc really is (she was a DM at the time), the instructor told her that's not it in front of the whole class. And she approached it in a very PC way. Most new divers get told to look for bulges in the hoses and listen for air leaks. Nothing more. New divers and many experienced divers just don't know enough about their equipment.

 

[Hoosier]

Chris,

Seriously, nothing is wrong with your thread and post. Even, it doesn't matter you post the dive shop name or not.

Like Rick said, SB is giving a fair opportunity to defend on any stakeholders.

If you knew about a regulator everything, you didn't need to bring it to the dive shop. It isn't a rocket science, even high school kicked out shop monkey can do it right.

However, everyone can make a mistake, even a qualified technician. The thing we would like to hear and see is how the LDS handles this issue and does it right.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I'm not sure that checking to see that the nut on the reg-hose is tight is part of anyone's pre-dive check... (except for those guys that still finger tighten only.) Once tightened with a wrench one would not expect it to come loose without... a wrench. I don't see how you can blame the diver for not checking this nor do I see how you can blame it on poor maintainance or the rigors of travel. If the thing came off then it just wasn't tightened down... end of story. Of course, it is possible that the diver himself had previously taken the second stage off and forgot to tighten it up when he replaced it. Only Chris knows the answer to that one.

 

[Scuba Sciences]

Just a couple of things from the past few posts that may help everyone understand some of the issues. First of all, I wasn't discrediting the customer, I was simply responding to his statements.

I agree with everyone that it looks like he was unscrewing the hose. When there is a slight bubble leak, and the hose is unscrewed, it would cause the second stage to come off. In hindsight, it would have be better to abort the dive and return to the boat, rather than play with the regulator underwater.

During our Basic Ocean Courses, we teach our students to inspect every aspect of their scuba equipment before the dive. They look for any bulges in the lp hoses, look for bubbles seeping out of the hp hoses, vacuum test the second stages before turning on the air, listen for any gas leaks, etc.

We have excellent records and keep track of any problems or issues we may encounter. You claim that another customer of ours had a problem similar to yours in the past. We do not show a record of that and I'm sure that if there were any minor issues, it was a simple minor adjustment.

Regulators are very suseptible to damage during transport, being dragged up boat ladders, stepped on by people on the boats, etc. Regulators can get damaged and/or come out of adjustment between service periods. This is why we will readjust any regulator for our customers during that service period in those rare cases that it needs readjusting.

I had problems with a local Auto repair facility a few months ago. When I picked up my car, I had to sign a Repair Release when I picked up my car. I had some trouble with the car, called them that day and took the car back to them. Of course they fixed the problem. The fact is I gave them the opportunity to correct the situation.

Scuba Sciences services a lot of equipment in a year's time, with hardly any issues at all. We were and still are willing to completely overhaul this regulator at NO CHARGE and let Mr. Just use the pool and test his equipment. We are trying to correct this issue with Mr. Just, in fact, we offered this to Mr. Just back in early January, 2007 when we were first notified of this issue.

 

[AZ Desert Diver]

With the cost of the service being under $100.00 (not including parts), wouldn't it be best to make the problem go away and refund the money to the customer??? If this thread is to continue it is going to far more damage than the cost (including parts) of the original service, since your not just dealing with one customer now.

IMO... I would have made the problem go away long before it reached SB and sometime our policies need to be bent depending on the problem at hand. Another thing is to remember that the customer comes 1st and a business should be doing everthing possible to make the customer want to return and spend there dollar with your business.