My twin aluminum 50s have seen their last fill. I am in the process of "decommissioning" them. They will be removed from service, along with my two AL 80s that I got as a present from a friend about ten years ago. Why? They have passed their hydros and their visuals/eddie current testing. Why decommission them then? Well, I have read the Federal Register over a year ago, where the DOT was saying that these tanks had a useful life of about 35 years. I don't have that reference in front of me, but these tanks date to 1974 and 1976, respectively. That makes the older of the two 37 years old. It has had a lot of use, and spent several winters unused with pressure in them. So, they will be taken out of circulation (no offers to buy, please). The major impetus for this is the thread on Scubaboard about Rick Allen's accident:
While I don't think these tanks would do this, I don't want even the slightest chance. Here's the rundown on the marking of these 50 cubic foot tanks.
Tank #1
DOT-SP6493-3000 (with a "3AL" stamped above the "SP")
R21316 USD
Hydros: 10/74, 3/80, 3/88, 7/99, 8/04, 10/09
Tank #2
DOT-SP6498-3000
R21389
A
Hydros: 10/76, 3/88, 9/93, 7/99, 8/04, 10/09
I got these tanks from a friend/coworker of my wife's when she lost her husband to a bridge collapse accident. A portion of the bridge collapsed, and the workers were wearing harnesses for fall protection while on a scaffold. But the harness was tied off to the portion of the bridge that fell into the river. I believe two people died, including this diver who's wife my wife knew. I bought these tanks from her, as her husband had owned them and was a diver.
So they have had a long and productive life. Will I miss them? Probably not, as I have two sets for replacements. I put together the PJ jump tanks last fall, and now recently bought a set of USD twin 53s (52.8 cubic feet, according to the 1970 USD catelog). These twin 53s are a bit buoyant, but they will have some weights attached to them to counter that. I've also get two 72 cubic foot single cylinders, so I won't miss the AL 80s that I'm decommissioning.
Here are the two 80 cubic foot tanks I'm also decommissioning:
DOT-E6498-3000 (3AL stamped above the "E")
P130552 USD
Hydros: 10/76, 4/86, 10/03, 8/08
CTC/DOT-E6498-3000
P 269127 USD
Hydros: 6/80, 10/90, 8/95, 3/02, 2/07
Puff, I may do that (keep them for desplay), but they do take up some space. It is a good thought though.
I talked to the LDS about these tanks, and they feel that the best way would be to put "XXXXXXX" through the DOT information stamped at the top of the tank. Before, I have drilled some tanks (US Navy Aluminum tanks that were received by a school for welding practice, and someone wanted to try diving them, and a set of steel PJ jump tanks with damaged threads). Any ideas about which is best?
Finally, my UDS-1 has been down for over a year because of a filler hose fitting which broke. So I'm getting the UDS-1 up and running again. Yes, they are this older aluminum tank, but these have had very slight use over the years, have a different diameter, and if they pass hydro and visual/eddie current testing will be a unique set to dive. So I'm not getting rid of all my aluminum tanks, but the majority with high use are going bye-bye.
John