Almost anyone can read. Demonstrably, not everyone can understand.
Did I get Screwed by Diveshop Hydro, who never inspected the tank?
- Thread starter SlugLife
- Start date
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
Please evaluate also this possibility.
The technician did find something wrong with your tank, in his opinion.
He did not have the authority for condemning it.
On the other hand, he did not want to be held responsible of giving you back what he evaluated to be a risky tank.
So he asked you to sign a document which proofs that you aknowledged that he evaluated the tank to be bad, before giving it back to you.
If I was in the pants of the technician, I had done exactly the same...
So I do not think they did screw you up. They simply preferred not taking any risk. Better to loose a customer than being sued for neglicency in case an accident occurs...
Your error was not taking the tank back. The bottle itself was worthless, but the valve, the rubber boot and the harness (if any) are components which could be reused.
I also think that you are overthinking what happened. As you said, it was just 40 bucks. I would not loose a minute of my life over it...
The technician did find something wrong with your tank, in his opinion.
He did not have the authority for condemning it.
On the other hand, he did not want to be held responsible of giving you back what he evaluated to be a risky tank.
So he asked you to sign a document which proofs that you aknowledged that he evaluated the tank to be bad, before giving it back to you.
If I was in the pants of the technician, I had done exactly the same...
So I do not think they did screw you up. They simply preferred not taking any risk. Better to loose a customer than being sued for neglicency in case an accident occurs...
Your error was not taking the tank back. The bottle itself was worthless, but the valve, the rubber boot and the harness (if any) are components which could be reused.
I also think that you are overthinking what happened. As you said, it was just 40 bucks. I would not loose a minute of my life over it...
It is not the $40, it is a question of whether he can trust the shop again. If they had found a fault they should have explained it. It seems rather arbitrary to me and, I suspect, probably based on age only.
It could have been for any reason, valid or not.
But if I was the technician who was given by the customer the job of checking and rating his equipment, and I had evaluated it to be unworthy, I had asked to sign a document in which he aknowledges the result of my evaluation before giving him back his unsafe equipment.
Please note that I am not a diving professional, but I am a civil engineer and I have a clear idea of the responsability given to a technician who gets the job of rating the safety of a piece of equipment.
Once he gets this job, there is no way to bring back the animal in its cage...
They did not inspect it in this case but condemned it because of it's age. Also they would not release the tank back to him without rendering it unserviceable.
The reasons for which the technician did evaluate the tank unsafe should not be questioned by the customer.
It is the technician's job and expertise, and the customers should thrust him.
Of course he can ask explanations, but generally speaking, if you give your equipment to a technician for being evaluated, you must be prepared to get a negative response about its worthiness.
A responsible technician would refuse to give back unsafe equipment without a document signed by the owner where he declares that he is aware of the risks, as the equipment has been evaluated to be unsafe by the technician.
The misunderstanding was probably due to the lack of time, with more time available the shop owner could have called the technician and asked to properly explain why he evaluated the tank unsafe.
What I can say is that, even without removing the valve and looking inside, a skilled technician recognizes the tanks made with the bad alloy. He can also evaluate how much the tank has been misused, and if there are traces of impacts. Also tanks of the good alloy can be declared unworthy, and without opening them, if there are clear marks of misuses, as strong impacts. Unfortunately aluminium is much more fragile than steel. It is also prone to galvanic current corrosion. I have a seen an aluminium twin tank condemned due to the galvanic corrosion caused by the collars around the neck, which were installed for the harness (at the time a backplate was uncommon, most twin tanks had a simple harness attached directly to the collars).
The collars were made by brass, and in salt water brass and aluminium alloy react badly, so there was corrosion at the point of contact between the collars and the necks. The result is that both tanks were condemned, without dismounting anything.
In conclusion I still do not see anything wrong in the action of the shop. If you want more details, ask to speak directly with the technician who was in charge of doing the evaluation. But in the end, it is his job, and if he had any suspicion that the tank could have been unsafe, considering its age and low value, the decision of condemning it looks the safe one to me.
Even if just based on the colour (bad tanks have this matte not uniform colour, often associated with some degree of porosity in the alloy).
MaxE
Contributor
This reminds me of a trick learned in a previous life. I traveled a ton and with large, heavy and expensive equipment. Often the airlines would make me sign the baggage tickets releasing them of liability. This stuff was in cases that would protect it from all but the work abuses. I was not given an option to not sign, it felt coercive. In my worst cursive I would sign “I do not agree”. Never was this questioned or denied. It was also never needed to be tested. It made me feel
that in a legal fight I would at least enter not having signed away my rights.
"Signed Under Protest/Duress" also is a method...
This is not what happened. They refused to return the tank unless he gave them permission to condemn it and mark it as such. I wonder if the person doing this had any formal certification for conducting visuals. The tank could not be filled before getting a hydro test so it should have been sent to the licensed hydro facility where, if it was faulty, it could be condemned by someone with the authority to do it.
Bob DBF
Contributor
In the US, the shop technician for VIP needs no formal training or certification, because it is not a DOT required function. Even if the the tech is certified, they have no authority to condem a tank that is not being hydroed. The function of a VIP was to check for water intrusion and corrosion between hydros, it has taken on a life of its own in a time that has less reason for it to exist.
I have met shop techs that are quite knowledgeable, and others that can't read the markings on a tank, both could put a valid VIP sticker on a tank.
Similar threads
