Thank you Agility,
I contacted the dive shop in Frankfurt, and they couldn't/wouldn't give me any specifics, just "good luck" finding the information. So I did look harder on my own, and discovered the European Underwater Federation. So it does seem the European Competent Body CEN (Which operates under authority from the European Commission), has developed European Norms (EN standards), which were then transposed and agreed upon by ISO, bring them to international status.
I am quite familiar with this structure, and yet I see a couple of missing elements that I have not discovered. I want to start by saying, I am impressed with much of what the European Underwater Federation has done to harmonize the dive industry in Europe. I do have some questions, and some concerns however, and forgive me for not having all the information I might have needed, before drawing up this post. It is an fascinating area to me, since it is no small thing to bring the world together to agree on one set of diving rules, which is what I see has happened in Europe. I do find some things to be doubtful, in terms of the legal (public law) authority of the standards you mention.
What authority does the EUF have with regard to any legal framework. Legal (meaning Public Law). ISO is legally considered a "private law body". CEN doesn't write laws either, but voluntary standards,which may give a presumption of conformity with the legal requirements, but where is the legal, binding, Public Law issued by the European Commission (EC). I have not seen it. So it must be, at best, as "Scheme Owned" system for managing the dive industry, and each nation may elect to adopt it into law.
Simply put, it is not illegal to deviate from the European Norms.
I am not taking sides, just making some observations. I can't find anything to be "illegal", although if the dive shops find it financially impossible to operate outside of the framework established by the EUF, well then it would seem to any diver that it is some kind of law. The end result makes them buy a regulator that is rated for 100% O2, when the EAN mix is below below 40%. What was harder to grasp was that the manufacturer's recommendations are even to be ignored? This is something very unusual indeed. Keep in mind, standards do not LEAD technology. This is a dangerous precedent.
If a manufacturer recommends a regulator for a certain diving purposes, but the EUF and ISO standards prevent it, that is a problem. I have found evidence some evidence this may be happening.
Divers could, are being forced to buy 100% 02 compatible regulators, instead of other regulators that are better made for certain types of diving. What if the law forced someone to use a less reliable regulator, and an accident happened using the 100% 02 regulator, because it was less reliable? I have observed this at one highly recognized technical dive equipment manufacturer, selling both to the USA and Europe). They do not recommend buying the 100% 02 regulator, unless absolutely necessary by some kind of law?. They say, for reliability, they recommend the none 100% 02 version of the same regulator. The point is..
When we try to reduce one risk, sometimes there are consequences. So it better to be certain that there is a risk, and that the "risk control" approach doesn't introduce another problem. Since real world experience, and DAN has confirmed it statistically, fire hazards related to EAN up to 40% are nil, why then would anyone enforce a widespread approach to mitigating an absent risk, especially now that we know it introduces another.
Question - I am not sure why you placed an "EC" in front of a voluntary standard. "EC" usually refers to "European Commission" (e.g. reference to Public Law governing all of the EU member states). European Standards do not exist as law, unless they underpin a European Council Directive. CEN doesn't make laws, they however harmonize standards to them. Is their a European Regulation or European Directive (Public Law) that covers diving in Europe? I have never seen or found European Regulation or Council Directive, and I know where to look at Europa.
The EUF is a voluntary organization carrying industry stakeholders. If national or European law gives them any authority, I cannot find. Certainly German law may have done so, but did they actually pass a law enforcing all this?
The EUF certification scheme appears to be enforced by auditors in Austria, and technical authority originates from Austria as well from Austrian Standards?. This is a stronger indication that, if it is enforceable under any law (Public) it is far more confined to individual member states of the EU. However, the very fact that "Certifications" are being issued to ISO standards, without oversight from the National Accreditation Body in Austria, this would seem to deviate from the European Regulation (EC) No 765/2008. You might want to look into this European Regulation, since EUF would seem to be violating this (EC) regulation. The Auditing Organization in Australia may have to be cleared by Austria's Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the auditing organization may have to meet ISO 17024 or ISO 17021. The it would have the legal authority under European Law to certify dive shops to ISO standards. I work alongside the European cooperation on Accreditation, IAF and ISO, by coincidence.
Although I understand and to a great extend support the route EUF has taken toward harmonizing the dive industry under regional, and even international standards, I am aware that these standards remain voluntary, except when seeking approval from the EUF (which appears to be acting as a "scheme owner" of dive shop certification to ISO standards)
Returning to the subject at hand, I do believe technology must be allowed to surpass the limitations of standards. This is why, even in Europe, the Public Laws keep standards voluntary (although they should be considered). Surely those ISO standards will be revised, and I hope they make good use of statistics from actual use.
But mostly, I hate the idea that better equipment may not be used with higher levels of 02.
I think DIN regulators are indeed safer, and not much more expensive; However again, they are statistically not so much safer than what we are using in the United States.
