Pre-1989 AL tank exchange program

[Dive Right In Scuba]

Did you go straight to luxfer? If they have a lifetime warranty you should have been covered.

 

[royalediver]

Luxfer did not offer the lifetime warranty U.S. Divers did and it required documented annual service as I recall. The DOT, who is the ruling authority, has ruled these tanks safe to use as long as they are properly inspected .

 

[mudturtle]

While I agree with most of "Roakey's" assessment, he is off the mark, based on my experience with these tanks, in his statement that the number of tanks with this problem is tiny. In my experience, fully 10% of the aluminum tanks tested over a 3 year period flunked due to SLC. 10% of 24 million tanks is 2.4 million tanks - not a tiny number, and a lot of the tanks that flunked we newer than the years in question.
This is scary stuff. The miracle is that so few incidents of occurred.

 

[Cheekymonkey]

IMO just b/c the DOT says they are fine doesnt mean they are, it means they feel there is an acceptable risk.

 

[Stu S.]

There is a man where I work who is a Senior Metallurgist. He knows about the structure and failure mechanisms of aluminum, and was in the pressure vessel business. He is in agreement with the DOT regulations for 6351 cylinders and dives with one he bought in 1978.

Tobin is right about the increased value of scrap aluminum. I recall a dive shop telling me I could get $50 off a new Luxfer by turning in my old one. Well kinda. Ship it to Atlanta at a cost of $25, and get a $50 off coupon. The local scrapyard would have given $25 for it. Same difference. I ended up keeping the old one. It still passes, and gets filled locally.

 

[Crewdog]

While I agree with most of "Roakey's" assessment, he is off the mark, based on my experience with these tanks, in his statement that the number of tanks with this problem is tiny. In my experience, fully 10% of the aluminum tanks tested over a 3 year period flunked due to SLC. 10% of 24 million tanks is 2.4 million tanks - not a tiny number, and a lot of the tanks that flunked we newer than the years in question.
This is scary stuff. The miracle is that so few incidents of occurred.

I havn't seen that published anywhere, I would like to see a copy of that report please. Now if your just talking smack and tring to inflame the paranoia over pre 89 tanks..well done. But if you have data to support your claim on a "fully 10%" then you should be going public with a general safety warning. If 2.4 million tanks fail each year then over the course of the last 10 years we should have seen the systematic weeding out of tanks with SLC.....eh?

Another way to look at this is If inspectors are failing 10% of the pre 89 tanks they inspect then they are doing thier jobs..protecting thier customers...awesome! just as a poor inspector will fail 10% in error (and paranoia) making the problem seem bigger than it realy is. (as was pointed out in the D.O.T. report!)

How about this: I take my pre 89 tanks to my local dive shop THEY have the hydro done, THEY do the annual VIS+EDDY and every time I need a fill THEY do it and THEY know the inspection was done correctly. Thusly I get absolutly no heartburn from my local dive shop over my pre89 tanks. I know them, They know Me..If it fails Inspection, so be it. I know they care about my safety and my RETURNING business. Not just for one new tanks worth either.

In my opinion showing pictures of a destroyed fill station and a broken cylinder in order to sell tanks is a disservice to the community. And mandating that you will not service your customers needs even after the federal government has published data of 6 pcs out of 7 million produced failure on the premere national scuba web message board another disservice.

LADIES AND GENTELMEN (FACT): What no one mentioned is that there are new requirements effective "January 1st" (Ring a Bell anyone?) on doccumentation for shop owners who accept pre 89 tanks for hydro and it would seem that they dont want to deal with, (liability?).... so much for self regulation (DID SOMEONE HEAR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST STEP IN!!??)

 

[hambleto]

After reading all these posts it would seem that some people just want something to be pissed off about. I respect your opinion and point of view, I ask that you do the same for me. What I see is that a shop no longer will fill aluminum tanks that were made prior to 1989. The shop is offering to sell a new tank at cost to someone who has a tank that was made prior to that date.

As far as not filling an aluminum tank made prior to 1989, I have seen several shops do this recently. My feelings are that when I enter someones shop/house I respect their rules. If I don't want to respect their rules than I do not have to go there.

 

[scubapro50]

Jim, alot of the shop are no longer filling them. Some of the older tanks have problems with sustained load cracking. Try a google search for aluminum scuba tank explosions also DOT has just gotten involved at the hydrostatic level in requiring tanks to be visual eddyied, stamp and records kept. The old aluminum tanks have a history of cracks, voids, etc. Luxfer cylinders even a couple of years ago offered an exchange program. The problem is they did this for a limited time.

To other sites that go over this are
http://www.psicylinders.com/ Professional Cylinder Inspectors
www.visualeddy.com -- Eddy Current Machines currently being used


Hope this helps. See ya John
www.northeastscubasupply.com

LUXFER didn't try very hard to contact divers who purchased their tanks about the exchange program. I filled out a warranty card when I purchased the tanks with my name and address and never heard from those guys. I think we should give credit to Northeast Scuba for trying to do something about the problem. I don't believe there will be a "recall" on these tanks unless several people get killed and someone sues LUXFER over it.

 

[deepstops]

I havn't seen that published anywhere, I would like to see a copy of that report please. Now if your just talking smack and tring to inflame the paranoia over pre 89 tanks..well done. But if you have data to support your claim on a "fully 10%" then you should be going public with a general safety warning. If 2.4 million tanks fail each year then over the course of the last 10 years we should have seen the systematic weeding out of tanks with SLC.....eh?

Another way to look at this is If inspectors are failing 10% of the pre 89 tanks they inspect then they are doing thier jobs..protecting thier customers...awesome! just as a poor inspector will fail 10% in error (and paranoia) making the problem seem bigger than it realy is. (as was pointed out in the D.O.T. report!)

How about this: I take my pre 89 tanks to my local dive shop THEY have the hydro done, THEY do the annual VIS+EDDY and every time I need a fill THEY do it and THEY know the inspection was done correctly. Thusly I get absolutly no heartburn from my local dive shop over my pre89 tanks. I know them, They know Me..If it fails Inspection, so be it. I know they care about my safety and my RETURNING business. Not just for one new tanks worth either.

In my opinion showing pictures of a destroyed fill station and a broken cylinder in order to sell tanks is a disservice to the community. And mandating that you will not service your customers needs even after the federal government has published data of 6 pcs out of 7 million produced failure on the premere national scuba web message board another disservice.

LADIES AND GENTELMEN (FACT): What no one mentioned is that there are new requirements effective "January 1st" (Ring a Bell anyone?) on doccumentation for shop owners who accept pre 89 tanks for hydro and it would seem that they dont want to deal with, (liability?).... so much for self regulation (DID SOMEONE HEAR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST STEP IN!!??)

I can say this, my LDS here in SE FL is FillExpress, one of the top three fill stations in the USA. They do a huge amount of VIPs and hydros for their clients. At any given time, there's five or six condemned tanks off to the side waiting for their owners to pick them up. Of those tanks, perhaps half are getting rejected for deep pits in the AL and half for neck cracks. Is it 10%? I doubt it. That being said, I'm still seeing a significant number of SLC tanks. And for the record, they still fill 6351's provided they did the VIP+ on it. Otherwise, they don't fill them for you. (way too many people out there with access to stickers)

Regarding your figure of six (catastrophic) failures, the number is at least four times that. Let's also not forget the number of 6351 tanks that have been taken out of service BEFORE they failed (they're still failed tanks in my book). When you look at the number of 6351s removed from service because they failed VIP+ (SLC evidence), the number is probably well over 10% of the total produced for the scuba industry.

I honestly think these tanks should be removed from the field. If you want to own them, that's your prerogative but I wouldn't keep one in my garage. Come on folks, it's $125. A single trip to the Oriskany costs more than that and I don't see anyone complaining.

Perhaps John's (North East Scuba Supply) wording is a bit sensationalistic but the bottom line is 6351s are failing (VIP+) at a much higher rate than the 6061s.

Regarding the (big number of) steel tanks that failed, show me a link to one steel tank failure where the tank was properly VIP'd and hydro'd.

 

[Crewdog]

I wasnt mad......was anyone mad? Maybe people are a little frustrated

oh, and I agree. If a business wont/cant provide you with things that you need....find another who can.

I dont recall that he said cost...

btw, nice site...cool pics/info