Pony bottle question

[uncfnp]

How would the shop owner know that? By definition, this is a person traveling by air from another part of the world, so it's not like this is a regular customer that he or she would just trust. In that situation, I would also want to do a visual inspection. And if they do a visual inspection, why wouldn't they be justified in charging?

Seriously, I'm not trolling.

doctormike. I think that is kinda the point. Anytime the tank leaves the shop it could come back contaminated. There is no guarantee that even that O2 clean tank that arrives with gas in it hasn't been contaminated somewhere along the line. Has every fill been appropriate, modified grade E?


And as I said earlier, the vip empty tank requirement must not be universal, in fact I was not aware of it, since the Florida LDS wants the tanks empty, otherwise they have to spend the time emptying them before doing PPB fills. And this is the fills with that start with 100 O2.

Of course, I'm just another diver willing to accept the risk myself with equalizing my pony bottle, empty or partial full. And for me its for convenience only. Not to avoid a vip. Well maybe to avoid the cost of gas too.

 

[redacted]

Oh, c'mon... by that logic, every tank should get a VIP after every fill.

It seems to me pretty easy to just have a policy that if a tank is empty, it needs a VIP. That way there is no need to second guess what the person was doing with the tank, who the person is, who gets special exceptions, etc...

If you have your own compressor, you do what you want, but for people who make a living filling and inspecting tanks, I'm not sure why there should be special cases where you can fill empty tanks without pulling the valve.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't shops or places in the world where this is not policy. But I am saying that it's a good policy.

I mean, how often is this an issue? Once per time that you fly somewhere with a pony bottle? Hard to believe those VIP charges are really adding up to a significant percentage of the diving budget.

Well, YES. I believe DOT regs require an inspection before each tank fill. Does your shop not perform that required inspection?

Easy and smart do not necessarily go together. Shops lose business when they piss off customers with stupid requirements and excessive charges.

I have never found it to be an issue outside the US. Apparently, foreign dive shops do not depend on VIS as a major money making scheme.

 

[halocline]

For those of us who subscribe to dive training magazine there was an article of diver knocking over his o2 bottle in the garage and the tank exploded taking out the garage and half the house. i also think the wife was partially injured as well. In the end ir turned out the tank was not cleaned properly. i dont see what the issue is with a policy that keep divers safe in the water and the dive shop covering them self from a lawsuit.

So an article in some magazine about an O2 bottle exploding means that a dive shop should charge a customer for a VIS on a tank with a valid sticker simply because the owner of that tank had to remove the valve for air travel? And the charge is there due to liability of the shop in the event of a tank explosion? Good one....

---------- Post added May 22nd, 2015 at 09:56 PM ----------

How would the dive shop know which scenario applied when a traveling stranger walks in the door with an empty tank?

You're right, a stranger walks into a shop in a vacation dive destination where divers fly to routinely with dive gear and presents a tank that he says is empty because airline travel requires removing the valve. In this 'unbelievable' scenario the shop should assume that the diver is lying and instead is trying to get a cheap thrill by conning the shop into filling an unsafe tank.

Again the assumption here is that the pony tank in question has a valid VIS sticker, and that the locale of this dive shop requires VIS stickers in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with any shop anywhere in the world refusing to fill a tank that it has cause to believe presents a hazard. The shop owns the compressor. The issue here is if the shop should charge a customer to look in a tank that already has the valve removed, which takes maybe 30 seconds, when the tank is otherwise up to date on inspections and apparently in good working order.

 

[doctormike]

There's nothing wrong with any shop anywhere in the world refusing to fill a tank that it has cause to believe presents a hazard. The shop owns the compressor. The issue here is if the shop should charge a customer to look in a tank that already has the valve removed, which takes maybe 30 seconds, when the tank is otherwise up to date on inspections and apparently in good working order.

So you don't mind the empty tank VIS policy, you just feel that the shop should do it for free because it's such a quick service?


One thing that toddlers do all the time is put stuff in their ears. Safely removing a foreign body wedged into the ear canal of a screaming, struggling toddler is one of the most difficult things to learn how to do. Almost ever week, I see some kid where they have been to a doc who doesn't do this regularly, and the ear is a bloody mess after someone tried for 20 minutes to get the thing out, using incorrect technique and instruments.


I can usually do this in literally one second, with no injury. That's because I spent 20 years getting better at it, and because I hire an excellent assistant to help me position the child, and because I have a $20,000 surgical microscope in my office, and because I have a bunch of dedicated ear tools to do it. And just to keep the office open, I have to carry a very expensive insurance policy to cover my malpractice liability. Not to mention all of my other fixed expenses which I need to cover whether or not I see patients.


So should I charge an hourly rate and figure out what one second's worth of labor is worth?


OK, maybe a VIS isn't such a big deal. But it still takes equipment, training, and involves some liability. The LDS business is a lot of things, but a license to print money it most definitely is not. I'm just not sure why you think that it's SUCH a scam for a shop to charge $20 to inspect your empty pony tank when you have just arrived by air for a dive vacation.


I also don't understand why you think Whitefang's post is irrelevant - there was a disaster that was caused by an improperly serviced tank. That seem relevant if we are discussing why standard procedures are useful, as opposed to requiring the pump jockey to figure out which empty tanks are fine, and which need an inspection.

 

[redacted]

There's nothing wrong with any shop anywhere in the world refusing to fill a tank that it has cause to believe presents a hazard. The shop owns the compressor. The issue here is if the shop should charge a customer to look in a tank that already has the valve removed, which takes maybe 30 seconds, when the tank is otherwise up to date on inspections and apparently in good working order.

So you don't mind the empty tank VIS policy, you just feel that the shop should do it for free because it's such a quick service?


One thing that toddlers do all the time is put stuff in their ears. Safely removing a foreign body wedged into the ear canal of a screaming, struggling toddler is one of the most difficult things to learn how to do. Almost ever week, I see some kid where they have been to a doc who doesn't do this regularly, and the ear is a bloody mess after someone tried for 20 minutes to get the thing out, using incorrect technique and instruments.


I can usually do this in literally one second, with no injury. That's because I spent 20 years getting better at it, and because I hire an excellent assistant to help me position the child, and because I have a $20,000 surgical microscope in my office, and because I have a bunch of dedicated ear tools to do it. And just to keep the office open, I have to carry a very expensive insurance policy to cover my malpractice liability. Not to mention all of my other fixed expenses which I need to cover whether or not I see patients.


So should I charge an hourly rate and figure out what one second's worth of labor is worth?


OK, maybe a VIS isn't such a big deal. But it still takes equipment, training, and involves some liability. The LDS business is a lot of things, but a license to print money it most definitely is not. I'm just not sure why you think that it's SUCH a scam for a shop to charge $20 to inspect your empty pony tank when you have just arrived by air for a dive vacation.


I also don't understand why you think Whitefang's post is irrelevant - there was a disaster that was caused by an improperly serviced tank. That seem relevant if we are discussing why standard procedures are useful, as opposed to requiring the pump jockey to figure out which empty tanks are fine, and which need an inspection.

What could that "empty" tank possibly contain, that might have been accidentally introduced through the valve opening (or however), that would present a safety hazard to the dive shop or shop personnel? What could have been purposely introduced to an "empty" tank that could not be contained in a tank under pressure?

I doubt if you can find a single incident of a shop liability involving a VIS.

I have no problem with the shop (or boat captain) that wants to take a peek inside of an empty tank before they fill it. If they want to charge a couple extra bucks for that peek and fill, I guess that is OK. It is their charging $20+ for a VIS and fill because a tank that is in hydro and has a current VIS sticker that make me feel they are scamming the customer.



You may have 20 years of training and experience under your belt for medical practice; but that VIS "tech" may have only one day of training, if that. They really don't need the training. They just need the sticker. I have seen a DM who was so good at it that he just slapped a new sticker on his tank while sitting in a parking lot without even removing the valve.

 

[doctormike]

What could that "empty" tank possibly contain, that might have been accidentally introduced through the valve opening (or however), that would present a safety hazard to the dive shop or shop personnel? What could have been purposely introduced to an "empty" tank that could not be contained in a tank under pressure?

Well, maybe you are correct, I don't know that much about this stuff. But I do know that the idea of requiring a VIS for an empty tank isn't just something that I made up, it's pretty common practice.

The logic behind it is that the greatest risk for contamination or water entry is if the valve has been pulled. So when you encounter a tank with 0 PSI, and if all tank fillers were to follow this rule (obviously no guarantees), then there is a greater possibility of contamination. That is because a tank with (1) a sticker and (2) some gas in it, can't have had the valve pulled at anytime since the last visual inspection (again, assuming everyone follows that rule).

I have no problem with the shop (or boat captain) that wants to take a peek inside of an empty tank before they fill it. If they want to charge a couple extra bucks for that peek and fill, I guess that is OK. It is their charging $20+ for a VIS and fill because a tank that is in hydro and has a current VIS sticker that make me feel they are scamming the customer.

So we are just haggling over price? OK

You may have 20 years of training and experience under your belt for medical practice; but that VIS "tech" may have only one day of training, if that. They really don't need the training. They just need the sticker. I have seen a DM who was so good at it that he just slapped a new sticker on his tank while sitting in a parking lot without even removing the valve.

Right, obviously I was just giving an example from my field since I knew something about that, and I'm not implying that a visual inspection is such a difficult thing. I was just saying that I'm sympathetic to business owners that have a lot of fixed costs, slim margins and who don't do that well in a tough economy where optional purchase like SCUBA diving support are often the first to go. So to nickel and dime a shop over what is a very small expense in the context of a fly-to dive trip seems a bit harsh.

 

[halocline]

So you don't mind the empty tank VIS policy, you just feel that the shop should do it for free because it's such a quick service?


...Safely removing a foreign body wedged into the ear canal of a screaming, struggling toddler is one of the most difficult things to learn how to do....I can usually do this in literally one second, with no injury. That's because I spent 20 years getting better at it...

I also don't understand why you think Whitefang's post is irrelevant - there was a disaster that was caused by an improperly serviced tank. That seem relevant if we are discussing why standard procedures are useful, as opposed to requiring the pump jockey to figure out which empty tanks are fine, and which need an inspection.

1. It's not a complete vis, although you seem to be ignoring that obvious fact. The tank already has a valid vis.

2. You went to medical school and had to pass difficult exams and endure years of specialized training, and presumably you have a peer-reviewed, state issued license to practice medicine. It's illegal for people without this training and licensing to practice medicine because it's very dangerous. Anyone at a dive shop can 'inspect' a tank without any training, certification, or peer review. There's no law, there's only a self-regulating 'policy' agreement that dive shops will 'inspect' tanks and issue stickers good for a year.

3. Someone with the brains to get into and through medical school must certainly understand that pressurized 100% O2 presents an entirely different type of hazard than compressed air. That's why there are much higher standards for the handling of pressurized O2. There is no relevance, NONE, between a story about an O2 bottle igniting in someone's garage and charging for a VIS on a presumably clean pony bottle that has had the valve removed, before filling it with air.

4. Catastrophic accidents at air filling stations are stunningly rare, to the point that there is not a single solitary documented example of a modern alloy (6061) tank exploding when filled with air to it's recommended service pressure. This despite what must amount to many millions of air fills. You're much more likely to get struck by lightning or eaten by a shark while waiting in line to cash in your winning lottery ticket....

As far as me being so bothered by this seemingly small charge, it's not about the money. It's about the persistent BS; its an annoyance.

 

[Dave616]

Thanks guys, but...
[Unsubscribed]

 

[doctormike]

1. It's not a complete vis, although you seem to be ignoring that obvious fact. The tank already has a valid vis.

Dunno, if they tell you that you need a vis, and charge you for a vis, then I assume that it's a vis. The point that we were discussing was the shop policy of requiring a new vis and sticker for an empty tank. Didn't realize that I was ignoring anything. I'm sure that there are all sorts of varying degrees of inspection, and all sorts of shops that will charge you for one thing and do another, but for the purposes of this discussion, I was just referring to a regular vis.

2. You went to medical school and had to pass difficult exams and endure years of specialized training, and presumably you have a peer-reviewed, state issued license to practice medicine. It's illegal for people without this training and licensing to practice medicine because it's very dangerous. Anyone at a dive shop can 'inspect' a tank without any training, certification, or peer review. There's no law, there's only a self-regulating 'policy' agreement that dive shops will 'inspect' tanks and issue stickers good for a year.

My point was that a business has to make money by charging for services, even though it's "only" 30 seconds or whatever, because any business has a lot of hidden costs and requirements that they have to cover. It's an analogy. As in, it's a different situation but there is a common feature.

3. Someone with the brains to get into and through medical school must certainly understand that pressurized 100% O2 presents an entirely different type of hazard than compressed air. That's why there are much higher standards for the handling of pressurized O2. There is no relevance, NONE, between a story about an O2 bottle igniting in someone's garage and charging for a VIS on a presumably clean pony bottle that has had the valve removed, before filling it with air.

I think that poster just meant that cutting corners can have bad results, even thought the example that he gave (O2 bottle service) wasn't identical to the topic under discussion (pony bottle service). But if you don't feel that this is relevant, that's OK.

4. Catastrophic accidents at air filling stations are stunningly rare, to the point that there is not a single solitary documented example of a modern alloy (6061) tank exploding when filled with air to it's recommended service pressure. This despite what must amount to many millions of air fills. You're much more likely to get struck by lightning or eaten by a shark while waiting in line to cash in your winning lottery ticket....

As far as me being so bothered by this seemingly small charge, it's not about the money. It's about the persistent BS; its an annoyance.

My last vis on my doubles was an afterthought, it was after I had gotten a fill on a boat that subsequently had a problem with their compressor. My current sticker was valid, but I decided to "splurge" on an extra vis and we found a bunch of debris in both of them, so I sent them out to be tumbled. Vis isn't just about catastrophic accidents.

 

[uncfnp]

So, I would like to get myself a pony bottle. Would be used as a redundant air supply when doing solo diving as well as dives deeper than 100'.

My question is - would you get a Steel pony or Aluminum pony?
And then also what size. I was thinking a 30 or 40cf?

Thanks for the help.

I wonder if the op made a decision?

Slightly back on topic. Today I saw my first 40 cf pony on a dive boat. It was obvious among the few other 13 and 19's.

Still haven't seen one used though...it stayed on the boat.