Cylinder Inspectors & Liability Insurance

[boulderjohn]

I think that's a bad idea to state that on the sticker. The inspector is only vouching for the condition of the tank on the inspection date (year/month) which is punched on the sticker. The inspector has no business warranting the inspection for a year or any other time period.

Besides, who says the inspection is good for a year? I thought that was just an industry practice not a law? If a shop chooses to fill a tank with an expired sticker or no sticker at all, they may be exposing themselves to liability but are they breaking any laws?

No, it's not a law. It is just an industry standard. But it is one that is largely adhered to. A couple of months ago I was filling a number of tanks intended for a deep deco dive. Everything was fine except that the vis sticker on my 6 cubic foot argon bottle, which had been used about 6 times in its life, was a couple of months out of date. I didn't have any inspection equipment or stickers with me. The shop refused to fill it. Fortunately I had a full 13 cubic foot bottle I could use instead.

 

[ReefHound]

No, it's not a law. It is just an industry standard. But it is one that is largely adhered to. A couple of months ago I was filling a number of tanks intended for a deep deco dive. Everything was fine except that the vis sticker on my 6 cubic foot argon bottle, which had been used about 6 times in its life, was a couple of months out of date. I didn't have any inspection equipment or stickers with me. The shop refused to fill it. Fortunately I had a full 13 cubic foot bottle I could use instead.

Right, my point is that it is the fill station operator who decides the validity period of the sticker, not the inspector. The fill station doesn't have to honor the sticker even if it's less than a year. Many shops will reject it if they don't like the looks of the tank, discover it has no pressure in it, know that the valve has been removed and replaced, etc. An inspector would be smart to simply mark the date of inspection and leave it up to others what they want to do with it.

 

[tadawson]

They are all good for a year. The alternative would be requiring a vis after each time the tank is used, which would be absurd. By making it good for a year, they hope to find a reasonable compromise between daily inspections and never being inspected. My point was that a tank could develop problems after an inspection, and it would be close to impossible to prove that the imperfections were present at the time of the inspection.


Wow! The McDonalds Coffee case rears its head yet again. I wonder how many times this will be brought up and refuted before people finally realize that this was not a frivolous lawsuit and that McDonalds deserved to lose it. Here are some links that should help:

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I still call BS! Anyone with a brain larger than a salt grain knows that coffee is brewed with boiling water - IE 212 degrees. So, the holding temp is largely irrelevant. You know coffee is made with boiling water, you choose to dick with it in an unsafe place (your lap . . . ) you burn yourself due purely to your own stupidity, you should lose . . . no questions asked . . .

- Tim

 

[boulderjohn]

I still call BS! Anyone with a brain larger than a salt grain knows that coffee is brewed with boiling water - IE 212 degrees. So, the holding temp is largely irrelevant. You know coffee is made with boiling water, you choose to dick with it in an unsafe place (your lap . . . ) you burn yourself due purely to your own stupidity, you should lose . . . no questions asked . . .

So if I get a glass of iced tea that was originally brewed with boiling water I should assume it will scald me if I spill it on myself?

I think I would instead assume that because of what happened after it was boiled had an effect on it, the temperature would no longer be 212°. Maybe that's silly, but I don't assume that iced tea will burn me just because at some time in the past it was hotter.

Similarly, if one stores coffee at the standard temperatures and it is spilled on the lap, it will be very uncomfortable, but it will not cause the kind of injuries this person sustained. The jury agreed that the injured person had the right to assume that the coffee had been stored at a normal, safe temperature and thus did not pose as grave a threat as that coffee did.

 

[tadawson]

Don't be a 'tard . . . it's not iced tea until it's cold . . . before that, it's hot tea, and yes, it's your responsibility to know what you ordered . . .

I regard coffee that is just brewed/served/etc. as a burn looking for a place to happen, as do most . . . . that is a typical response, call it "common knowledge".

Brew a pot of coffee at home and pour it in your lap . . . I pretty much guarantee you you will be burned! Folks would not have any expectation of a difference just because it is from a retail source.

The jury was just plain misled . . . why else do you think the award was drastically reduced? That's the judge basically calling "BS", but due to the system, he could not invalidate the verdict, as much as he may have wanted to . . .

If someone didn't know what they were ordering, that's not the fault of the merchant . . . or do we need to do IQ & knowledge tests at fast food restaurants now to make sure that people aren't too stupid to be allowed to order?

- Tim

 

[Scared Silly]

They are all good for a year. The alternative would be requiring a vis after each time the tank is used, which would be absurd. By making it good for a year, they hope to find a reasonable compromise between daily inspections and never being inspected. My point was that a tank could develop problems after an inspection, and it would be close to impossible to prove that the imperfections were present at the time of the inspection.

Actually they are not good for a year. They are good on the date they were inspected. The industry standard is that AFTER a year the cylinder should be re-inspected (more often for more frequent use such for rental). That is no different that a vehicle safety inspection. At the time of inspection my vehicle was to standards. But guess what my 3rd tail light is out again. It is a fine word smithing but guess what far smaller wording differences have made a much different result - like the guy who signed a rental agreement that was for "overnight" yet he rented it for the "day" (or something to that affect). Had the wording been slightly different it would not have gone to trial. Things like word smithing is what drives lay people nuts and drives lawyers to the bank.

 

[superstar]

I think the vip sticker thing is a bunch of dive shop BS and if congress could get there heads out of their butts and pass tort reform life would be much better for all.

 

[Scared Silly]

I understand and agree completely. All I am saying is that the first step in risk management is correctly assessing the risk and putting it in perspective. I think the risk of being sued for doing a vis is ridiculously low and not worth worrying about. Just about everything else you do in your day incurs as much or more risk. How many lawsuits have been filed in the last 20 years against a VIP inspector?

Okay I see your point, and for the most part agree. The chances are slim but given few friends have asked recently and now that I have some real assets I have decided to do my own only. Not that in a pinch I would not inspect a friend's cylinder.

Do you mean should as in that's how the world should be? Or as in you know this is legally the case? Cops have such protection form personal liability but it takes special code for that. I doubt it extends to private sector employees, although it's usually the business that is sued because they usually have the deep pockets.

For me it is, I do some consulting, in my agreements there is a bit of cross referencing so I can only be sued for certain things and visa-versa.

Plus a lot of work is done around the shop by DMs/instructors who are not "employees". If a DM/instructor (even a direct employee) need his own liability insurance to teach a shop class within the prescribed description (a pretty well established fact), why wouldn't they need it for inspecting tanks or rebuilding regs or anything else?

When I did some teaching I never carried any insurance as I was working as an official employee. A direct employee that needs separate insurance to perform their job then I do not believe they can not be considered a direct employee unless the shop has an insurance policy that state that explicitly as such. Which I can see where this scenario could so that the shops reduces their costs. I do not know - good thing to look at.

 

[Doc Harry]

They are all good for a year.

Actually, the inspection interval is based on the frequency of use of the cylinder. The recommended inspection interval can be as frequent as monthly for heavily-used cylinders, or as infrequently as annually for rarely-used recreational cylinders.

Since, as an inspector, you don't have control over how the cylinder is used, you can't specifiy that the inspection is valid for one year. If, right after inspection, the user completely empties the tank and get salt water inside, how can say that your inspection is still valid for 12 more months?

Your inspection should certify only that it passed inspection while it was in your possession.

I think the vip sticker thing is a bunch of dive shop BS and if congress could get there heads out of their butts and pass tort reform life would be much better for all.

Actually, the VIP sticker "thing" developed as the result of an extensive research project conducted by the U.S. Navy. In the late 1960s a gelatinous corrosion product was found in a number of U.S. Navy aluminum scuba cylinders at a facility in Maryland. Concerned, the Navy inspected at total 1,336 aluminum cylinders. The inspection revealed that 16% of the cylinders were corroded, many with severe corrosion. Did cylinder corrosion degrade cylinder strength? The U.S. Navy consulted the Battelle Memorial Institute to investigate this, and other, questions about scuba cylinders.

One of the recommendations that arose from that Battelle study was -- annual scuba cylinder visual inspections.

If you want to read the original report, here it is:

http://http://www.stormingmedia.us/51/5182/0518217.html

Abstract:
A program was conducted to determine the cause of the corrosion that was discovered in a number of aluminum scuba cylinders, and to determine whether the rupture strength of the cylinders had been degraded by the corrosion. An examination was made of 68 corroded cylinders received from Naval facilities. Rupture experiments were conducted on new cylinders and on the most severely corroded cylinders. Detailed analyses were made of corrosion products from selected aluminum cylinders, and of corroded and uncorroded material from the ruptured cylinders. It was concluded that the corrosion in the cylinders examined had not significantly reduced the rupture strength of the cylinders. Recommendations were formulated concerning changes in manufacturing specifications, cleaning procedures, and inspection procedures to provide increased assurance that corrosion will not progress to the point of significantly degrading the rupture strength of aluminum scuba cylinders.

As a result of visual inspections, scuba cylinder now have a remarkably good track record. Other than the old cracking problems with the 6351 alloy, almost all major problems and fatalities have occurred with cylinders that did not have a current visual inspection, and, in almost all likelihood, wouldn't have happened had the cylidners been inspected regularly.

"He who forgets history is condemned to repeat it"

-George Santayana

 

[DNScarboro]

Your friends will not be your friends in court...Trust me get liberality insurance or pass. It is not worth it.