Equipment Dive School Fined For Negligence - Australia

This Thread Prefix is for incidents caused by equipment failures including personal dive gear, compressors, analyzers, or odd things like a ladder.

Please register or login

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. Log in or Register now!

DandyDon

Umbraphile
ScubaBoard Supporter
Messages
54,274
Reaction score
8,400
Location
One kilometer high on the Texas Central Plains
# of dives
500 - 999
A volunteer instructor lost a leg and they were fined $40,000 = $25,998 USD. Australian regs require visual inspections and hydros annually...

Australian Diving Instruction, a PADI 5* instructor development centre in Geelong, south of Melbourne in Victoria, has been fined Aud $40,000 (£20,460) for the explosion of an out-of-test scuba cylinder that resulted in a diver's leg being blown off.

Half of the 53 cylinders in use at the dive-school’s premises were later found to be out of test, though they had not been kept separate from those that were in test.

Charged under the name Stelkea Pty, the company was sentenced without conviction at Geelong Magistrates Court on 14 November, having pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to provide a safe workplace.

In Australia, a court has the discretion to find an offender guilty but choose, on a variety of grounds, not to record a conviction. The company was ordered to pay costs of $4,386 (£2,260).

The male diving instructor, described as a volunteer by health & safety authority WorkSafe Victoria, had been filling the cylinders with air at Australian Diving Instruction’s workplace in October 2022, and was said to have been following standard procedure.

As he had been closing the valve on one of the cylinders he heard a whistling noise. Within seconds the cylinder had exploded, severing his left leg below the knee and severely injuring his right foot. The man was taken to hospital for emergency surgery.

The dive-shop’s windows were blown out, with debris scattered about and “significant” internal structural damage caused to the building.

Annual testing​

Australian Standards stipulate that scuba cylinders should be visually inspected and pressure-tested at a certified testing station every 12 months. A WorkSafe investigation found that the cylinder that exploded had been out of test, though it could not be established when it had last been tested.

It would have been “reasonably practicable” for Australian Diving Instruction to keep out-of-test cylinders separate from those in test for safety purposes, the court found.

“This is a horrific and preventable incident that has sadly left a worker with life-changing injuries,” said WorkSafe executive director of health and safety Sam Jenkin.

“It is particularly disturbing to see the failure in this case, given that diving is an industry where keeping equipment properly maintained and ensuring it complies with appropriate standards can be the difference between life and death.”

Australian Diving Instruction was founded as a dive-club in 1984 and became a PADI dive-centre in 2012.
 
It would be interesting, and helpful, to find out how far out from the 1 year mark the other 26ish tanks were. But, we’ll probably never know.

Erik
 
I know zero about tank testing and inspection procedures, so can someone who has done this explain how it’s done, what they look for, and what criteria would have been used to inspect this tank and rejected it? How would the defect in this tank have likely been detected during the inspection and testing process to re-certify it?
 
As horrible as this "accident" was, the man is lucky to have his life.

I knew another person who was killed outright and in a very bloody manner.

The matter of tanks needing to be in test is well known. There should not be "accidents" like this anywhere.
 
I know zero about tank testing and inspection procedures, so can someone who has done this explain how it’s done, what they look for, and what criteria would have been used to inspect this tank and rejected it? How would the defect in this tank have likely been detected during the inspection and testing process to re-certify it?
If (?) my understanding is correct, in the US a visual inspection is required annually whereupon the valve is removed and the inside of the tank is inspected for corrosion or other problems and I suppose the licensed inspector uses some special optical tool. A hydro test is required every five years subjecting the tank to tremendous pressure to ensure that it'll stand the strain ok. Visuals are not required in the Carribean I don't think; just five-year hydros. Other countries may have their own requirements while some don't bother.
 
In Australia a hydro test is required each and every year. I am aware of at least two others who have lost a limb in the past 15 years or so in New South Wales (the above case is in Victoria). Not aware of any fine imposed in those cases. At least one case involved a tank well out of test.
 
Do we know what kind of tank? LP to 3000 or 3500? Cave fill? It would help to know all the extenuating circumstances and not Just NO VIS/HYD = BAD. Of course we need HYD and VIS. Just wondering if any other facts were omitted?
 
Out of curiosity, I looked at some YouTube videos to answer my own questions and this is one of the videos I watched.
I have another question, often times you hear people say "The dive shop gave me a good fill!" to mean they filled your tank with more air than the tank is rated for. So my question is, if this practice is done on every tank, will that shorten the life of the tank and maybe lead to a premature failure? Or is the "good fill" only a few hundred pounds over the rating and has no impact on the life of the tank?
 
Out of curiosity, I looked at some YouTube videos to answer my own questions and this is one of the videos I watched.
I have another question, often times you hear people say "The dive shop gave me a good fill!" to mean they filled your tank with more air than the tank is rated for. So my question is, if this practice is done on every tank, will that shorten the life of the tank and maybe lead to a premature failure? Or is the "good fill" only a few hundred pounds over the rating and has no impact on the life of the tank?
Everytime you fill a tank, the tank goes through a "cycle". It expands and contracts. These cycles can be mild causing insignificant molecular change to the substrate. To wild causing permanent malformations in the alloy. The more cycles performed and/or the more wild the cycle is, will lead to its eventual failure.
 
Do we know what kind of tank? LP to 3000 or 3500? Cave fill? It would help to know all the extenuating circumstances and not Just NO VIS/HYD = BAD. Of course we need HYD and VIS. Just wondering if any other facts were omitted?
We are not likely to get those kind of details from a news story, but then they wouldn't be important to the inferred safety lesson,
 
Back
Top Bottom