An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc

[The Chairman]

What's a hydro?

Spoiler

 

[Omisson]

i missed the part about tank stickers? Where is that again?

1. Make sure your new tank has a visual inspection decal, or an enriched air inspection decal (if you plan to use it for enriched air diving).

perhaps you could use a reading lesson in addition to remedial scuba lessons.... instructor huh? which agency would that be....

 

[tursiops]

This is getting silly.
Dan, you are conflating training standards with just suggestions and best practices in the manual. There is nothing in the PADI training that "prohibits" using a tank that is out of date, or without a sticker, or whatever. And you know better. Where are you going with all this? What are you up to?

 

[Zippsy]

Yeah, I am not sure it is a Standards violation but it sure is stupid, it shows bad judgement and it is possibly illegal as pointed out. That's bad enough, no?

 

[redacted]

Additional "twist" to the thread. (And moderators- feel free to move it if needed- but it stemmed out of this thread's discussion of standards violations of the instructor).

So over the past few days -offline- I received a series of "questions" from a diver who participated in this thread-about the fact that I raised as a separate violation of industry standards, the tank in question's hydro on the tank expired in 1996 and there was no evidence of a VIP. Of course I mentioned in my post here that the child having been given the tank to use in the dive was a violation of Federal law (which technically it may not be depending on how the statute is construed and if the instructor filled the tank, transported the tank, etc.), and so the offline discussion was centered around the fact that the law in the CFR, §173.32 Requirements for the use of portable tanks. does not expressly prohibit the "use" of the tanks out of hydro, but only the filling and transport of the tanks (one is left to wonder how a 1996 tank could have air in it after 20 years... or how it got to the lake to be dove).

Without getting into all the details, the diver who emailed me saw no safety issue in the student's use of an out of hydro, un-inspected tank. Now I know PADI includes a section in Open Water training on looking for the VIP and Hydro stamp- and trains divers that diving without them being current is prohibited- but do other agencies not teach this? Or do other agencies not discuss the consequences of un-inspected and out of hydro tanks from a safety perspective?

In my classes have stressed the dangers of metal fatigue, valve rupture, and rust through accidents that are caused by diving and using such tanks, but the diver I have been discussing it with doesn't see a danger. It is frightening to think this isn't being taught- and am wondering what the experiences of other instructors are in this regard.

Beyond the graphic pictures of tank failures and the engineering obviousness of the dangers - do new divers today really not understand what a metal container pressurized to 3500 pounds can do if it fails?

My question clearly was directed at your accusation that the instructor violated Federal Law by using a tank that was out of hydro. The initial PM exchange is here:

Re: Thread 'An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc'

In Reply to your post #7300078

Originally Posted by Omisson
The letter was riddled with untrue accusations. They were never retracted. I would hope no agency stands by an instructor who tragically cut short the life of a boy scout just to earn a few bucks- by breaking half a dozen safety standards and federal law (diving hydro expired scuba tanks).



I believe the federal law violation deals with the filling of tanks with expired hydro, not the use of filled tanks.

[SIZE=10PT][SIZE=-1]173.34(e)(1)(2) Every 5 years cylinders with the following specification marks (3A, 3AA or 3AL) must be retested to 5/3 times he service pressure, or to the test pressure marked on the cylinders shoulder when such is present. (what his means is that a cylinder's markings need o be carefully scrutinized prior to the retest procedure to determine to what pressure he cylinder is to be retested. No cylinder maybe charged (filled) unless that cylinder has been inspected and retested and the retester has marked the cylinder appropriately. [/SIZE][/SIZE]

Have you got something different?

_____________________


This received a reply that it is a safety hazard to which I replied that Federal Law (Same CFR) specifically permits a tank with expired hydro to continue to be used:

Re: Re: Thread 'An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc'

Originally Posted by Omisson
It's a safety issue- the reason you don't use a tank that is out of hydro is the danger it can pose - coupled with no visual inspection is a serious safety threat.



Not according to the CFR. Do you have another authoritative source or any data to support that?


§173.32 Requirements for the use of portable tanks.

(a) General requirements. No person may offer a hazardous material for transportation in a portable tank except as authorized by this subchapter.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, no person may use a portable tank for the transportation of a hazardous material unless it meets the requirements of this subchapter.
(2) No person may fill and offer for transportation a portable tank when the prescribed periodic test or inspection under subpart G of part 180 of this subchapter has become due until the test or inspection has been successfully completed. This requirement does not apply to any portable tank filled prior to the test or inspection due date.



​

I would have thought the case against the instructor based on documented PADI standards is strong enough without have to fabricate bogus accusations and falsehoods. Perhaps not!!!

 

[Omisson]

This is getting silly.
Dan, you are conflating training standards with just suggestions and best practices in the manual. There is nothing in the PADI training that "prohibits" using a tank that is out of date, or without a sticker, or whatever. And you know better. Where are you going with all this? What are you up to?

Where I am is expanding the discussion of what you, me and everyone else, THINKS they know about their obligations as an Instructor versus what those obligations actually ARE...That's where we are heading. This thread has demonstrated three things:

1) Folks are willing to believe anything they read without investigating for themselves- and even after reading things- they often stop at what they read and don't think beyond the express written word
2) Instructors- as well as students- in scuba don't know what the TYPES of rules are that govern this sport -ow what their training or their liabilities and dangers truly are
3) The Court of law is the last place you want to get an education on 1 & 2 yet it seems likely too many will learn this the hard way

In this thread's case points out, it seems painfully obvious that as an instructor you will be judged in court- not just by the standards of the agency you work for, but by the industry's best practices and standards.

One of those industry standards is NOT using expired hydro/VIP tanks.

To say that an instructor is "prohibited from using an out of date cylinder" is accurate- but not precise. It is accurate because doing so not only violates the "best practices" of most Agencies, but in order to use an out of date cylinder - one presumably had to get it filled and drive it to a dive site to be used- which therefore violates Federal Law. It is not a precise statement because the prohibition is not express- it is inferred from the corresponding Federal law and the inherent danger occasioned by such an UN-inspected, un-tested scuba device as a training best practice in the industry.

Violating a law or ordinance under the common law creates per-se legal liability (automatic). Using an out of hydro tanks could create liability in and of itself with no other negligent acts or omissions on the part of an instructor on a dive. Yet I bet 5 in 10 instructors would give the answer "using a tank that is out of hydro" is not prohibited (regardless of the inherent safety concerns they should have) either because they don't see it expressly prohibited "in a standard" or because they think they are clever and have read the federal statute and presumes it only applies to the fill station putting the air in it.... but they of course are missing the "common law" of the "best practices" and "industry standards" requirements that are ALSO imposed on them- often without them knowing it.

No agency (PADI included) that I know of does sufficient training in this regard, they just don't spell it out to their instructors and dive professionals. Your liability assessment is not limited to the written standards of your agency. They are broadly construed against the backdrop of industry standards and best practices you may not even be aware of.

Caveat emptor my friends.

 

[tursiops]

Instructing and operating by best practices AS WELL AS following the standards one has agreed to is a good idea, surely.
But this thread had been about standards, especially regarding the Boy Scout in Bear Lake. Other pitfalls and landmines while instructing might better be in another thread.

 

[Omisson]

My question clearly was directed at your accusation that the instructor violated Federal Law by using a tank that was out of hydro. The initial PM exchange is here:

Re: Thread 'An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc'

In Reply to your post #7300078

Originally Posted by Omisson
The letter was riddled with untrue accusations. They were never retracted. I would hope no agency stands by an instructor who tragically cut short the life of a boy scout just to earn a few bucks- by breaking half a dozen safety standards and federal law (diving hydro expired scuba tanks).



I believe the federal law violation deals with the filling of tanks with expired hydro, not the use of filled tanks.

[SIZE=10PT][SIZE=-1]173.34(e)(1)(2) Every 5 years cylinders with the following specification marks (3A, 3AA or 3AL) must be retested to 5/3 times he service pressure, or to the test pressure marked on the cylinders shoulder when such is present. (what his means is that a cylinder's markings need o be carefully scrutinized prior to the retest procedure to determine to what pressure he cylinder is to be retested. No cylinder maybe charged (filled) unless that cylinder has been inspected and retested and the retester has marked the cylinder appropriately. [/SIZE][/SIZE]

Have you got something different?

_____________________


This received a reply that it is a safety hazard to which I replied that Federal Law (Same CFR) specifically permits a tank with expired hydro to continue to be used:

Re: Re: Thread 'An Open Letter of Personal Perspective to the Diving Industry by NetDoc'

Originally Posted by Omisson
It's a safety issue- the reason you don't use a tank that is out of hydro is the danger it can pose - coupled with no visual inspection is a serious safety threat.



Not according to the CFR. Do you have another authoritative source or any data to support that?


§173.32 Requirements for the use of portable tanks.

(a) General requirements. No person may offer a hazardous material for transportation in a portable tank except as authorized by this subchapter.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, no person may use a portable tank for the transportation of a hazardous material unless it meets the requirements of this subchapter.
(2) No person may fill and offer for transportation a portable tank when the prescribed periodic test or inspection under subpart G of part 180 of this subchapter has become due until the test or inspection has been successfully completed. This requirement does not apply to any portable tank filled prior to the test or inspection due date.



​

I would have thought the case against the instructor based on documented PADI standards is strong enough without have to fabricate bogus accusations and falsehoods. Perhaps not!!!

How did the child get the cylinder? it was TRANSPORTED by the instructor to the site. How did the cylinder get filled? The instructor FILLED it with air.

There is no ambiguity that the federal law was violated there.

But MORE importantly it was a SAFETY HAZARD using an unsafe tank is a violation of INDUSTRY NORMS. It is NOT using "best practices"- and therefore creates liability - in some states PER SE liability (automatic liability).

What's more astounding then the minutia of the law you are attempting to inaccurately interpret- but that you ask for DATA that using an out of hydro tank is dangerous.

When I said:
"It's a safety issue- the reason you don't use a tank that is out of hydro is the danger it can pose - coupled with no visual inspection is a serious safety threat."

You INCREDIBLY SAID:

"Not according to the CFR. Do you have another authoritative source or any data to support that"

First since when does alegal statute EVER tell you disregarding a safety rule may kill you? Unlike the label we are forced to put on bleach reminding idiots NOT to drink it, our laws have not yet fallen so far as to come with an explanation as to why its bad to not follow them.... perhaps folks like you will be the cause of such additions in the future though....

But more importantly, it beggars belief that anyone diving more than 10 minutes wouldn't understand that- on a pure reason basis- just the science and common sense of it-let alone the numerous incidents of abused tanks exploding to devastating effect- that using a tank which has not been tested in 20 years or even visually inspected is a REALLY BAD IDEA.

Its a shame the gene pool requires us to cull the population from time to time, eh?

---------- Post added December 30th, 2014 at 10:55 PM ----------

Instructing and operating by best practices AS WELL AS following the standards one has agreed to is a good idea, surely.
But this thread had been about standards, especially regarding the Boy Scout in Bear Lake. Other pitfalls and landmines while instructing might better be in another thread.

agreed which is why i prefaced the post with a note to the moderators to feel free to move it....

---------- Post added December 30th, 2014 at 10:57 PM ----------

Instructing and operating by best practices AS WELL AS following the standards one has agreed to is a good idea, surely.
But this thread had been about standards, especially regarding the Boy Scout in Bear Lake. Other pitfalls and landmines while instructing might better be in another thread.

No its a legal obligation.

A very important distinction- and in this context- everything.

 

[redacted]

How did the child get the cylinder? it was TRANSPORTED by the instructor to the site. How did the cylinder get filled? The instructor FILLED it with air.

There is no ambiguity that the federal law was violated there.

But MORE importantly it was a SAFETY HAZARD using an unsafe tank is a violation of INDUSTRY NORMS. It is NOT using "best practices"- and therefore creates liability - in some states PER SE liability (automatic liability).

What's more astounding then the minutia of the law you are attempting to inaccurately interpret- but that you ask for DATA that using an out of hydro tank is dangerous.

When I said:
"It's a safety issue- the reason you don't use a tank that is out of hydro is the danger it can pose - coupled with no visual inspection is a serious safety threat."

You INCREDIBLY SAID:

"Not according to the CFR. Do you have another authoritative source or any data to support that"

First since when does alegal statute EVER tell you disregarding a safety rule may kill you? Unlike the label we are forced to put on bleach reminding idiots NOT to drink it, our laws have not yet fallen so far as to come with an explanation as to why its bad to not follow them.... perhaps folks like you will be the cause of such additions in the future though....

But more importantly, it beggars belief that anyone diving more than 10 minutes wouldn't understand that- on a pure reason basis- just the science and common sense of it-let alone the numerous incidents of abused tanks exploding to devastating effect- that using a tank which has not been tested in 20 years or even visually inspected is a REALLY BAD IDEA.

Its a shame the gene pool requires us to cull the population from time to time, eh?.

While I agree that it is probably unlikely that the tank was filled 20 +/- years ago, I'm not sure why you are so sure it was the instructor who filled it.

What dive boats do you use where the captain or crew inspects the tanks you bring aboard to verify they have current hydro and VIS? That is what should happen if your claim of "INDUSTRY NORMS" were true, isn't it.

 

[Omisson]

While I agree that it is probably unlikely that the tank was filled 20 +/- years ago, I'm not sure why you are so sure it was the instructor who filled it.

What dive boats do you use where the captain or crew inspects the tanks you bring aboard to verify they have current hydro and VIS? That is what should happen if your claim of "INDUSTRY NORMS" were true, isn't it.

You really are clueless.

the instructor ran the program for the BSA on site - affiliated with the dive shop- and almost ALL affiliated instructors (or their DMs) I know fill the student tanks for their classes. Maybe u just don't know much.

What on site scuba programs do you know that use independent instructors?

Ummmm none?

Also there is no similarity to a dive boat - which is a hired ride and has nothing to do with tank filling obligations- are you really that unable to draw accurate parallels? Oh wait.... Yea.

Finally I note you failed to address ANY of the underlying safety issues in using an outdated cylinder- shocking I know to everyone here....

---------- Post added December 31st, 2014 at 12:08 AM ----------

While I agree that it is probably unlikely that the tank was filled 20 +/- years ago, I'm not sure why you are so sure it was the instructor who filled it.

What dive boats do you use where the captain or crew inspects the tanks you bring aboard to verify they have current hydro and VIS? That is what should happen if your claim of "INDUSTRY NORMS" were true, isn't it.

The instructor handed a child a tank that hadn't been hydroed in 20 years- are you seriously saying that was safe?

Several folks told me it was pointless to reason with you- I guess they were right....