"failing" vs. "condemning"

[RonFrank]

Ron Frank, since there is no government regulation on doing a visual inspection, then any way you do them is the "right" way?

What hogwash. Not doing a direct visual inspection of the exterior of a tank during a visual inspection is the *wrong way*, despite the absence of a law saying that you have to.... just like hammering a nail with the butt end of the handle of a hammer is the wrong way to hammer a nail, despite there being no government regulation on hammering.

Hey, I'm not saying there should not be a requirement for a VIS. What I AM saying is that the people doing VIS range from next to nothing, to bribes.

When that type of stuff happens, maybe it's time for some standards. DOT regardless of if you like them or not provides standards. Based on what I've seen at various LDS's, and read from forums around the USA, there ARE not VIS standards at the LDS, but count on getting charged for the process! :11:

So rather than shooting me down, IS There a Standard that EVERY LDS abides by when doing a VIS? IF so I apologize, I'm not an expert on this. If not, well shad up cause that is exactly what I'm suggesting, and the lack of that standard is a problem.

 

[akscubainst]

YES, There is an industry standard for visual inspections it's PSI "professional Scuba Inspectors, Inc" www.psicylinders.com Call them (after DEMA) you'll probably talk to Bill High himself.

We as visual inspectors take a class from PSI to become certified to do inspections. You also have to refresh every 3 years it's not just fluff.

Can I guarantee that every inspector out there is doing the inspections properly? No of course not but if they are using PSI stickers, they are saying that they are.

Dave

From the PSI website:
PSI, Inc. visual inspector workshops exceed the training standards of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Compressed Gas Association (CGA), and Transport Canada (TC). It meets compliance requirements for U.S. Hazardous Materials Training (high-pressure air and other gases are classified as hazardous materials) required of all employees exposed to the potential hazards of pressurized air).

 

[RonFrank]

Just what I need vis'n my tank...a lawyer.

So how can you tell whats under the label? Do a vulcan mindmeld on the tank?

I will state again...they are doing it wrong.

My AL80's were made in 1990, both are painted, and both have the original manfacutes stickers still on them. I purchased them both this year, but they have been passing Visual inspection for 6 years. IF there is a standard to remove stickers then obviously that standard is NOT getting followed, so saying they are "Doing it wrong" has no teeth.

Either there IS a standard, on there is not. This is not subjective. I say there is NOT, but many LDS's take advantage of rules that really do not exist?

I'm all in favor of standards in the name of safety, what I'm not backing is an LDS free for all changing clients in the name of safety for no reason without any real rules.

 

[padiscubapro]

My AL80's were made in 1990, both are painted, and both have the original manfacutes stickers still on them. I purchased them both this year, but they have been passing Visual inspection for 6 years. IF there is a standard to remove stickers then obviously that standard is NOT getting followed, so saying they are "Doing it wrong" has no teeth.

Either there IS a standard, on there is not. This is not subjective. I say there is NOT, but many LDS's take advantage of rules that really do not exist?

I'm all in favor of standards in the name of safety, what I'm not backing is an LDS free for all changing clients in the name of safety for no reason without any real rules.

mandatory Removing all the stickers hasn't been a standard for long... Maybe twoish years...

 

[duckbill]

O.K. Interesting new topic here. To remove the stickers or not?
If removing stickers is mandatory, or even necessary, then manufacturers had better stop painting their tanks! A good coat of paint constitutes the ultimate sticker.
I have a very nice set of Healthways 53s from 1971 in a galvanized finish and the original manufacturers decal around their circumferences. They are semi-vintage now, and I would be really upset if an inspector removed the decals for a visual. It seems to me that any decent inspector should have no trouble spotting signs of blistering under the decal (or paint, for that matter) from any significant corrosion. Besides, it would seem that the decal would help to protect the integrity of the hot-dipped galvanizing thereunder.
I could be wrong- I'm not an inspector.

 

[oxyhacker]

Interesting enough, the PSI 18 step protocol doesn't say anything about stickers (at least mine doesn't) though some PSI inspectors will tell you it is inferred since you cannot see the exterior without removing them. Though it does say remove accessories which it lists as boots, banks and covers. And the PSI list of necessary inspection tools list doesn't include a scraper.

I think removing stickers - especially tank bands - is usually overkill. corrosion serious enough to cause problems is almost always accompanied by bubbling of the surface - be it sticker or paint - and detectable to a good inspection of the surface of the sticker. If anything, stickers seem to have a protective effect. Some common sense is necessary here - if a tank is heavily gouged and pitted, then an inspector will want to remove all stickers, and if it sticker is wrinkled or starting to pull off in areas it should be removed so it can't trap water and form corrosion cells. But on a clean tank, where the rest of the surface is in good condition, it shouldn't be necessary to remove wraps or stickers, assuming the are lying flat and smooth and show no sign of bubbling or flaking underneath.

So if a diver has a newish tank, in good exterior condition, then it seems a bit nuts to insist on removing and replacing a $20 (I've seen them that high!) tank band each inspection. And if the shop is also refusing to fill the tanks without the wrapper, extortion too. But it is clearly a gray area, and up to the inspector's descretion.

Hey, shouldn't this topic really have it's own, new, thread?

 

[roakey]

Interstate transport has nothing to do with it - any public roads are fair game.

The federal government only has authority over interstate issues. A federal entity, such as the DOT can only regulate interstate commerce. Of course, as of late, the federal government follows few of the rules that are supposed to restrict it's power over the states, and the people, but that's a whole other discussion.

Roak

Ps. How can Oahu have interstate highways?

 

[oxyhacker]

Nope. The DOT's power was extended to cover intrastate as well as interstate commercial transport, as part of Hazardous Material Transportation act or '75, which aimed at setting one uniform set of regs for the transport of hazardous materials that would cover the whole country. Another blow to states rights, perhaps, but that's the way it is, as a call to the DOT will confirm.

BTW the rationale is that there is very little exclusively intrastate commerce anyhow -even if a trucking company never goes out of state some of the goods they transport would almost inevitably be from out of state, so it doesn't make much sense to try and regulate safety and packaging on a state-by-state basis. Good thing to otherwise Massachusets would probably have us hydroing tanks very 27 months, and arresting out-of-state divers at the state line.

Filling (of commercial cylinders) even comes under the DOT's thumb, as it is considered a "pretransportation function" and hence part of the overall process.

The federal government only has authority over interstate issues. A federal entity, such as the DOT can only regulate interstate commerce. Of course, as of late, the federal government follows few of the rules that are supposed to restrict it's power over the states, and the people, but that's a whole other discussion.

Roak

Ps. How can Oahu have interstate highways?

 

[royalediver]

[Back to the original question: Can a Visual Inspector condemn a tank? - Yes, with your permission, generally it's part of the workorder or if you find a problem you call the customer in and show them the standard and the problem. I've had several old AL tanks fail this past year. Once shown the problem the customers are actually very satisfied with my service maybe bummed that the tank is dead but glad that if there was a problem we found it.


This part of the statement I can live with. NO ONE should be able to condem a cylinder if not a licensed DOT requalifier WITHOUT the permission of the cylinder owner, and not some fine print on a service order.

 

[duckbill]

I guess I wouldn't mind signing a waiver, IF I ABSOLUTELY knew that the inspector was honest and knew PRECISELY what he was doing. However, being the eternal sceptic, I don't think such is very often the case. As the customer, I would feel much more comfortable knowing I could have a death verdict reviewed by another independent inspector. Signing a waiver is like saying, "Here is my private property. I'm trusting you, and you alone, to make an accurate, educated determination as to it's fate. I am giving up all recourse to have your decision verified, so do as you please."