• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

    Benefits of registering include

    • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
    • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
    • You can make this box go away

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

Dive Gear Express Rubber LOW PRESSURE HOSE RECALL

Discussion in 'Manufacturers Recall Notices' started by martincohn, Jul 24, 2019.

  1. seeker242

    seeker242 DIR Practitioner

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Pompano Beach, FL
    1,144
    662
    113
    Yea but the date for the bad hoses end in Sept 2018. Feb 1 2018 to July 31 2019, the way I read it, means the dates DGX was selling them. But that can’t be true because that would mean they are still selling them, lol. Maybe they meant July 13 2019???
     
  2. MaxE

    MaxE DIR Practitioner

    242
    102
    43
    Yes. I just re-read the email. Sept was the end date for the recall. Maybe they have orders in transit that may possibly fall into the recall and are listing that date out of an abundance of caution? 3rd party distribution for online or amazon store they are worried about?
    Regardless, from where I stand (both hoses on my primary reg set out of service) they were notified of the problem and had contacted me within 24hrs. So far they have handled it the best the could have. Not the question is how long until replacements are in my hand. This will not totally be in their control, they will likely have to rely on their source to get them stock for all the claims.
     
  3. MaxE

    MaxE DIR Practitioner

    242
    102
    43
    1. I got another email today (well multiple, but I’ll cover that in a sec)
    It seems the email address they gave out yesterday was not active, so if you sent an email to them at the one listed yesterday re send it. I had sent to that email and also replied to the one generating the email.

    2. I was also informed that because I replied to fast that they had stock on hand and were shipping my replacements, then emails with order confirmation, tracking etc... so I could not be happier with this has all been handled. I hope everyone has a similarly good experience.
     
  4. DiveGearExpress

    DiveGearExpress Dive Shop

    186
    104
    43
    As always, these notices trigger questions no matter how carefully we attempt to word them. Here is some clarification...

    In July 2019, Dive Gear Express was notified of a safety concern regarding specific lots of low-pressure rubber regulator hoses. The hoses in question were assembled by DaniCorp that we purchased through Innovative SCUBA, a wholesale distributor serving the recreational diving marketplace, and sold by Dive Gear Express to our retail customers.

    The rubber hose material is now suspected of not adhering to the ANSI Z86 7.1 standard for low-pressure hoses. This means the hose could rupture during normal operation, causing a catastrophic loss of breathing gas and the diver could sustain serious injury or loss of life. The rubber hose material itself is marked with a lot code of: 0308, 0388, 0598, 0808, 1648, 1738, or 1998 and these are the only hoses in question. The manufactured hose assembly finished goods (i.e. the rubber hose with the fittings attached) were manufactured between February 22, 2018 and September 30, 2018 have Danicorp's month-year code for date of assembly stamped on the ferrule of the fitting: D0218 through D0918. None of our flex hoses are affected, and none of our rubber low-pressure quick-disconnect BC hoses are affected.

    Effective July 17th, 2019 Dive Gear Express has removed any of the described hoses from our inventory, although some of the affected hoses were in still transit to our customers on that date. Not all rubber hoses sold by Dive Gear Express are affected, because during the recall period we were transitioning to a different rubber hose supplier. However, out of an abundance of caution we have e-mailed all our customers who have or will receive from us any rubber low-pressure regulator hose from February 2018 to July 2019 a request to please inspect the date code stamp on the hose ferrule. Any rubber regulator hose purchased from Dive Gear Express with a five-character date code between D0218 and D0918 should immediately be removed from service. We have strong evidence the hoses were sold through other channels but are not able to provide advice or service for hoses sold through other channels.

    Dive Gear Express will allow you to either request a full refund OR request a replacement. We don’t need the hose returned, send us a picture that includes the date code and upon confirmation cut the fitting off. Refunds will of course be issued as soon as we receive the picture of the cut hose. We will do our best to dispatch replacement hoses immediately using our Super Saver class of shipping service, but existing inventory may not be adequate and so some people may experience a dispatch delay. If you are willing or would prefer, we can also supply our rugged DGX Premium Flex hose as a replacement instead of a rubber hose. If you have a critical need by a specific date, please let us know and we’ll make every effort to get you back in the water.

    If you have any questions or concerns, we would prefer you please send them directly to Dive Gear Express at customercare@divegearexpress.com
     
    couv, deeno, billt4sf and 4 others like this.
  5. iain/hsm

    iain/hsm Manta Ray

    590
    231
    43
    Better to let the scuba public know late than never I guess. Because this batch of bad hose was known about over a year ago. In fact it was first stated on the 15th September 2018 some 10 months ago that the hose be scrapped. Regardles of this on 1st October 2018 some 9 months ago the crimping procedures were revised to try and save this junk I guess to the unsuspecting divers. Now 9 months later I guess the baby looks like a still birth.

    Its always the same in scuba la la land change the original vendor from a quality brand to some imported junk hose then no one bothers to measure out for tolerance deflections. Next thing you get is because the hose OD to ID is different to the original quality brand subsequently the ferrure and crimp dimentions dont quite form correctly to the crimp and set crimp pressure. One reason why you should not use scuba amateurs to make diving gear I guess,
    Mind you its only scuba sports equipment made for margin markup and profit. Who cares if you dont get told its junk till a year later Its not like its divers breathing. I thought this lesson was known about since the Miflex super flex fiasco. I guess not.
     
    Scuba Cobra and chris kippax like this.
  6. 2airishuman

    2airishuman Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 100 - 199
    Location: Greater Minnesota
    2,379
    1,578
    113

    While I don't disagree with your line of reasoning overall, I think it bears pointing out that DaniCorp is a major U.S. based wholesale supplier. I don't think your post has anything to do with DGX.
     
  7. JackD342

    JackD342 Dive Shop

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Highland Park, IL
    2,064
    1,151
    113
    First I have heard that one, certainly first mention in this thread. Can you cite a source for that info you provided?
     
  8. tursiops

    tursiops Marine Scientist and Master Instructor ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: U.S. East Coast
    7,663
    5,247
    113
  9. seeker242

    seeker242 DIR Practitioner

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Pompano Beach, FL
    1,144
    662
    113
  10. JackD342

    JackD342 Dive Shop

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Highland Park, IL
    2,064
    1,151
    113
    Only at first glance. Content of the letter says they were informed last year. So yeah, if DaniCorp was aware of a problem last year, why are their customers only learning of it now? Could have been some question of root cause at the time that delayed an immediate communication in order to get it right, but still feels like the timeline is too long.
     

Share This Page