Scuba Sciences Regulator Repair Problem

[redacted]

You've tried, convicted, and hung the LDS without ever knowing if their service was actually to blame for this failure.

What's your guess? Col Partrige with the hatchet in the green room?

 

[lowwall]

Scuba Sciences,

Here's a note from someone who has never even heard of your shop and has no particular ax to grind.

Do you guys realize how dumb you look for refusing to refund the cost of a clearly faulty service that could have had catastrophic consequences.

Any claims that this wasn't your fault fail the straight face test. The only way this couldn't be entirely your fault is if the OP took a wrench and loosened the connection himself. Which is absurd. The OP isn't asking for something unreasonable, all he wants is his money back so he can go get the reg reserviced from someone who hasn't tried to kill him lately.

Even if it hurts your pride, instead of impugning the OP's character, you should be handing over the cash, apologizing profusely and telling him how great a dude he is for handling the situation so well (and saving you from worrying about whether your precious waiver would hold up in the face of a wrongful death suit).

What are you gaining by keeping this thing alive? Even if he accepts your latest offer, all you've done is ensure that an unhappy customer will have several more opportunities to come to your shop and share his displeasure with anyone else that happens to be there.

 

[booth22]

I think the OP is simply after his (Mr.) just deserts.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

What's your guess? Col Partrige with the hatchet in the green room?

OK... I'm I the only one that doesn't get this... sorry.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Golly Rick, I'd hate to be in your court. You've tried, convicted, and hung the LDS without ever knowing if their service was actually to blame for this failure. As has been pointed out, I think the majority of the posts on this thread is in reaction to the LDS somewhat defensive original response to the OP.

There is a different "standard of proof" when dealing with safety issues than when dealing with guilt or innocence. In hazard mitigation we are in the business of "trust but verify."
From everything posted here by both the OP and Scuba Sciences, I think you'll agree that you cannot eliminate the Scuba Sciences service as the source of the loose second stage. Indeed, given the typical handling of a regulator, I think you'll agree that there's even a pretty good chance that the regulator left the shop with a second stage that wasn't torqued to spec. But whether you can prove it or not doesn't matter... it's what Scuba Sciences chooses to do with the information that they might have let one slip by that counts, and my question remains, have you (Scuba Sciences) changed anything in the way you check outbound regulators?
FWIW, because of this incident, in addition to the normal breathing and leak checks, I am going to give all the regs I service a final torque check on all first and second stage hose attachments - and I know we weren't involved in any way with Mr. Just's problems.
You'll note that Mr. Just, to his credit, early on said he was changing his own pre-dive checks to include tight hoses, even though he "shouldn't" have to do it.
This isn't about guilt or innocence. It is about making sure - to the extent possible - it never happens again.
Is that a little clearer?
Rick

 

[jagfish]

Scuba Sciences,

Here's a note from someone who has never even heard of your shop and has no particular ax to grind.

Do you guys realize how dumb you look for refusing to refund the cost of a clearly faulty service that could have had catastrophic consequences.

Any claims that this wasn't your fault fail the straight face test. The only way this couldn't be entirely your fault is if the OP took a wrench and loosened the connection himself. Which is absurd. The OP isn't asking for something unreasonable, all he wants is his money back so he can go get the reg reserviced from someone who hasn't tried to kill him lately.

Even if it hurts your pride, instead of impugning the OP's character, you should be handing over the cash, apologizing profusely and telling him how great a dude he is for handling the situation so well (and saving you from worrying about whether your precious waiver would hold up in the face of a wrongful death suit).

What are you gaining by keeping this thing alive? Even if he accepts your latest offer, all you've done is ensure that an unhappy customer will have several more opportunities to come to your shop and share his displeasure with anyone else that happens to be there.

Nice post...this seems like solid advice to me...

 

[cjust]

I have been reading this thread with great interest since I noticed it has drawn so much attention. For the most part, I have tried to stay out of the conversation as much as possible since it is clear what my views are and there probably wasn't much that I could productively add.

I am glad that the LDS is reading this too. I think it should be a learning experience for everyone involved. I am also happy to see that it looks like they are taking this more seriously than I previously felt.

I appreciate their latest offer and I will definitely give it consideration. But, I just explained in a pm to Tina what some of you have already said - my biggest problem is that I don't trust the shop anymore and I would just prefer to quit doing business with them. I really do understand that they would like to prove to me that this isn't normal. And to be honest, I am fairly sure it isn't normal or they couldn't stay in business. But all the same, at this point it would be really hard to go back to their shop.

Thanks for all your input. I have learned a lot since this incident happened.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

Any claims that this wasn't your fault fail the straight face test. The only way this couldn't be entirely your fault is if the OP took a wrench and loosened the connection himself. Which is absurd.

Actually... that's a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation and the OP hasn't denied that yet.

 

[redacted]

OK... I'm I the only one that doesn't get this... sorry.

A popular board game years ago - I guess I'm showing my age: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1294

 

[cjust]

Actually... that's a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation and the OP hasn't denied that yet.

Seriously? I can't tell if that is sarcasm or not. I didn't realize that was something I would have to deny. But for the record, no I did not loosen the hose with a wrench.