I think I have been "had" just a bit

[Web Monkey]

The only thing that bothers me a bit, is the fact that in reality any scuba shop can say they won't accept a hydro or vis on a tank for whatever reason. So its like I could in theory, have to pay to get any tank I have tested every time I switch shops

Yes, anybody can refuse to fill any tank for any reason.

Tank guys typically have an aversion to being blown up, and have their own rules about what they will and won't fill. Some won't fill tanks made before 19xx, some won't do particular alloys, some won't fill tanks inspected by someone they don't trust.

From the diver's perspective, it's annoying, however it's also an incentive to buy good tanks, keep them in good shape and only get fills where you trust the air and the operator.

FWIW, about 5 years ago, I bought a brand new 19Cu Ft tank, flew it down to Florida on vacation, had it filled once, never used it and when I finally got it back home, the shop wanted to look inside before filling it. There was some sort of slime in the bottom.

I don't know if it was crap from the compressor in Florida or the TSA guy blew his nose in it, but it was definitely contaminated. I'm pretty selective where I get my fills now and never turn down a quick inspection. FWIW, everything doesn't need to be a VIP with Eddy Current Test. Sometimes they just want to make sure there's nothing nasty in there.

Terry

 

[Stu S.]

It is about more than tanks.

In industry, we must have controls on stored energy. That means electricity, gas or steam pressure, the weight of a press ram, etc. must be mechanically blocked, locked or isolated from people. We lock, block, guard, tag and barricade, as the law requires it.

A SCUBA shop will often have high pressure gas filling out in the store. One place around here has it right next to the entrance door. A "please don't bring old tanks" policy may be a form of safety, but it relies on some discipline. We call that an administrative control. Better to have a safety enclosure for the fill operation, if it represents potential hazard. That's an engineered control. Who knows... something else in the fill process may fail besides the tank.

This is required of an industrial workplace, but not often seen in a retail workplace. The picture shown previously is at an "open" fill station, which was a contributing cause to the injury.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

It is about more than tanks.

In industry, we must have controls on stored energy. That means electricity, gas or steam pressure, the weight of a press ram, etc. must be mechanically blocked, locked or isolated from people. We lock, block, guard, tag and barricade, as the law requires it.

A SCUBA shop will often have high pressure gas filling out in the store. One place around here has it right next to the entrance door. A "please don't bring old tanks" policy may be a form of safety, but it relies on some discipline. We call that an administrative control. Better to have a safety enclosure for the fill operation, if it represents potential hazard. That's an engineered control. Who knows... something else in the fill process may fail besides the tank.

This is required of an industrial workplace, but not often seen in a retail workplace. The picture shown previously is at an "open" fill station, which was a contributing cause to the injury.

Good points. A lot of the shops in Key West have their fill whips outside the shop, one in particular is right in front of the store facing parking and the Roosevelt St. Not much in the way of blast protection for the public. Another Store in WPB has theirs right on the show room floor not 10 feet from the register.

 

[Stu S.]

Diver's Direct in Orlando had a fill system where each tank went into a steel enclosure. The high pressure air activated only with the enclosure was securely shut. That's a safer system.

Not filling old aluminum tanks may represent a safety plan, but remember that many steel cylinders have failed, too.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Diver's Direct in Orlando had a fill system where each tank went into a steel enclosure. The high pressure air activated only with the enclosure was securely shut. That's a safe system.

I was really surprised to hear they shut down, I would have liked to check out their station.

Not filling old aluminum tanks may represent a safety plan, but remember that many steel cylinders have failed, too.

Very true.

 

[DaleC]

There are those who depend on skill to mitigate risk and there are those who depend on technology. The retail dive industry bases much of what it markets catering to the second group.

Those who rely on skill usually are able to assess potential risk factors and adjust their actions to mitigate it. In this case that may include:

a.) Incorperating a proper fill station design
b.) Insisting on doing their own VIP
c.) Developing the skill to do a proper inspection
d.) Deciding not to accept the risk

All are acceptable to me. I have no problem with a fill operator not wanting to service 6351 tanks if that is their choice. I trust them more if they have based that decision on some sort of assessmnet of fact and not just because the tanks are "old". After all, I have to trust that they service their compressors routinely and aren't providing me with contaminated and potentially lethal air.

Someone who relies on technology to cope with risk lacks the ability to apply skill to their assessment so they tend to reject the risk, out of hand, as the prefered means of mitigation. Sometimes to the point of rejecting courses of action/material that has no risk attached to it at all (as in the case of not filling 20+ year old tanks). This bothers me because it is the lazy mans way out of risk assessment and doesn't require any skill. The person who opts to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as it were, develops no discernment and is the same person who will be "stumped" when the sh_t hits it despite their new and improved gear selection.

I run in to this "mindset" quite often as someone who dives vintage gear. I don't care. I manage to dive the same profiles as them regardless and have no problem using equipment and techniques that span 50 years of diving.

I have no bone to pick with anyone who has considered the subject, weighed the risk, and decides to not fill 6351 tanks. Only with those who try to "scare" divers into making the same decision with out an honest disclosure of all the facts.

I think this sums up my view on the subject. Others can read into it anything they want.

 

[Web Monkey]

Diver's Direct in Orlando had a fill system where each tank went into a steel enclosure. The high pressure air activated only with the enclosure was securely shut. That's a safer system.

Not filling old aluminum tanks may represent a safety plan, but remember that many steel cylinders have failed, too.

The difference is that when an AL cylinder fails, you get chunks of it flying around, while steel cylinders tend to split but remain in a single piece.

Terry

 

[DaleC]

Your problem is you want to justify the risk of someone else's life and livelihood based on a monetary budget and not science or acceptable risk.

As I've said before, show me the link tfrom PSI or DOT that supports the outright rejection of 6351 alloy tanks (or is that not sciency enough for you?). Still waiting...

You don't get to make that choice and it seems abundantly clear that it really pisses you off.

What are you talking about? I'm able to get all my tanks filled just fine. Oh I forgot, twisty twisty.

Here's the solution, gather up the names of LDS that don't care what alloy your tank is or care anything about SLC and then offer it up to those that complain they can't get their tanks filled. Everyone wins and you look like a hero instead of a cranky old poster hell bent on defending your Jacque Cousteau hand me downs in light of the dangers that can exist.

Every LDS in my region so far (send me my medal) and I could only wish I had JYC's hand me downs. I don't consider that a bad thing like you. But the bigger point is that you cannot seem to seperate the fact that some people choose to fill 6351 tanks with the notion that they don't care about SLC. Perhaps some people just assess the risk differently. Is that OK with you or does everybody have to believe the same things you do?

On a side note it's funny, I don't see anywhere that I stated a properly inspected 6351 was a problem or shouldn't be used. Only that a shop should verify. That must be your interpretation.

WHAT??? Mr Flip Flop stikes again! I don't have the lifespan to provide all the contradictory links on that one.

I do agree with one point. We disagree. However I'm in a position to ignore your sage advise and continue to do what more and more FSO's are doing, either charge the customer for a VIP (and sticker it) or refuse to fill possible problematic bottles.

I don't recall offering any sage advise (other than to investigate the facts). But don't sidestep the fact that you also insist on an unnecissary hydro (I can provide that link if you've forgotten yourself there).

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

As I've said before, show me the link tfrom PSI or DOT that supports the outright rejection of 6351 alloy tanks (or is that not sciency enough for you?). Still waiting...

There isn't one and I never claimed there to be one that outright rejected it .

What are you talking about? I'm able to get all my tanks filled just fine. Oh I forgot, twisty twisty.

I'm sure you are, I'm also sure that the shops you frequent know you and your bottle. Interestingly that was the same thing I mentioned to the OP.

Every LDS in my region so far (send me my medal) and I could only wish I had JYC's hand me downs. I don't consider that a bad thing like you. But the bigger point is that you cannot seem to seperate the fact that some people choose to fill 6351 tanks with the notion that they don't care about SLC. Perhaps some people just assess the risk differently. Is that OK with you or does everybody have to believe the same things you do?

It's not an assessment of risk to fill them if they are intact. That's why we check them. Do you read these post or do you just glance over them?

WHAT??? Mr Flip Flop stikes again! I don't have the lifespan to provide all the contradictory links on that one.

I'm sure you are amusing to yourself but there are VOLUMES of your posts and examples of the piss poor attitude you are displaying right now to other members that have said the same things I've have. As a matter of fact there are links to them on page 8.

I don't recall offering any sage advise (other than to investigate the facts). But don't sidestep the fact that you also insist on an unnecissary hydro (I can provide that link if you've forgotten yourself there).

You insist it's unnecessary many do not. You are not in the position to make that call because once again you don't have any skin in the game. I haven't forgotten or denied anything and that's the second time you brought up something that I know to have factually stated in yet ANOTHER thread where you pretend to have some insight into a job you yourself have never done. If it wern't for the internet you would only have your LDS to back you up. Go spend a few hundred thousand dollars on equipment training and insurance then come back at me with you version of acceptable risk. Until then I suggested you do what you said you were going to do and bow out because I no longer have the inclination or patience to deal with your whining. If anyone else is interested they can get there fill in every other thread on the subject with a whole new host of posters and the SAME antagonist.

 

[DaleC]

Well, I've maintained the same stance through all those threads and this one too so, disagree or not, at least I know what my position is. Yours, however, changes like the wind.

If your position now is that:
there is some risk with 6351 alloy,
that the risk can be mitigated with proper inspection,
that it is reasonable for a shop to insist on their own vip before filling
and that every shop has the right to fill, or not fill, such a tank if it wishes...

then I say hurray! we are in agreement. I will however not agree with your stance that it is ok for you to require an unnecessary hydro on such tanks. That to me, is meaningless destructive testing that doesn't do anything to detect SLC.