Risk with 1972-1988 AL80 Tanks ?

[Davidstealey3]

did they not make this buyback program known? i never heard of it. could it be the shops never told anyone about it?

and if the PMHSA findings conclude they should be removed, and fill operations are removing them as the dot anticiapated why dont they do the buy back program again?

no need for them to go to a recycling facility and the owner to get ripped off on the price of scrap aluminum. or for the owners to have huge paperweights at the house.

 

[mike_s]

well the Buyback program is over.

did they make it known? yes. HOwever not everyone reads scuba publications and most scuba magazines need news/info months in advance.

just hard to reach everyone in scuba since so many divers are "ocassional divers"

 

[JahJahwarrior]

This is a problem we've known about for years--the buyback program was begun and ended many years back, I want to say 5-10 years ago.

 

[Davidstealey3]

how well did it go over?

why do you think they dont have another one?

do you find any problems with the last one that they had?

if it was taht long ago its no wonder i never heard of it, that was when i was not diving for a while. i really only started diving again for the last 4 years. and if they do it again, why not give the dealers publicatons to put out.

i think this would at least be better then nothing. this debate will go on for ever untill they are gone. unless all shops and the industry in general take a stand and say " we will not fill these tanks anymore". if it is still our discression and people do fill them, it dosent do much to help fix the known issue.

i like to stir the pot as much as anyone, but we filled these tanks for how long before the SLC problem was realized. its not like it was ever a "here one day gone the next issue". if the ALM is inferior it had to be around since day one. might not of happened on the first fill, but we used these tanks for how long and never gave it a thought. it was just something you looked for durring an inspection. now that it is known, it is this huge risk ( which i will agree it is, dont need to be chastized for this comment) but was never gave a secon thought about before what the late 80's when it was discovered.

did the shops say no to filling them then, no, not that i am aware of. i know we did not stop filling them untill 2006. so lets just say your shop stop in 2000, that is still a 12 year period in which they were filled. now i dont know how many are out there still, i am sure it is still alot.

as for tanks on ebay, most of the people selling tanks have no idea what they have. they would not be able to tell you if it was a luxfer or catalina. if it was made before 89 or not. here lays some of the problem. if you are new to diving and have no idea about this, and buy some tanks off ebay for a good deal and find out you cant use them, they will be pissed, at least i know i would be.

if we are going to do something about it we need to do it as an industry. not as individuals. until we all make a stand and say "NO" to the 6351 tanks it will be a long time till this problem is gone. untill then you take a chance every day and you either recognized this percived risk, or you look at how many have actually gone BOOM and fill them.

 

[WD8CDH]

Actually if buying a used 6351 tank, you are most likely to be getting the worst of the 6351 tanks. It often might have been sitting in a closet unused but fully filled for the last 20 years. That is really putting the Sustained Load in Sustained Load Cracking

 

[PhilEllis]

how well did it go over?

why do you think they dont have another one?

do you find any problems with the last one that they had?

David, I don't fully know the reasons why they did the FIRST buy-back program. If I had to guess, the manufacturers had a pretty intense interest in getting these cylinders out of service. At the time of the certificate buy back, I would not be shocked if they expected some high liability potential. After all, there was a perceived problem with the product, and there had been accidents with deaths. They might well have anticipated some regulatory or legal effort to remove them. Had that been the case, I expect that the manufacturers would have been responsible. Removing them from service with a voluntary program is certainly preferable to having to remove them as a result of a CPSC or DOT recall. Of course, the later PHMSA action which DECLINED to remove them from service helped a great deal. With that ruling, the agency that "regulates" the product decided that there is no finding that they should be immediately removed from service. I expect this removed a considerable amount of pressure from the manufacturers.

I think there is another very valid reason why they don't do a second buy-back on these cylinders. Let's be serious here. The product sold on the market place for about $120 at retail. AT A MINIMUM, the newest of the 6351T6 cylinders are now 22 years old; but many are 30 or more years old. Expecting them to now do a buy back would be stretching the limits of a reasonable relationship between a manufacturer and the user. At that age, ALMOST ANY PRODUCT you can name has "outlived" its useful life. Simply take them down to the scrap yard, get your $20 for the alloy, and be happy that you purchased a product that only cost you about $3 per year. In my view, regardless of what I think about these cylinders, there is no logical reason for the manufacturer to participate further.

Oh, many local scuba stores would tell you that the original gift certificate motivation to get them out of the market was sloppy. The user got a $50 certificate toward the purchase of another cylinder. But, it required the return of the cylinder to Luxfer....a cost of about $12 for shipping and several $$$ for packaging. And, it was difficult for the manufacturer to get the word out on a product that has been through several mid-level distribution channels by the time it gets to the end user. Difficult situation.

Phil Ellis
www.divesports.com

 

[Davidstealey3]

good logic phil. i will take that as a very informed and intuitive anwser.

just some thoughts i had. its a damned if we do damned if we dont type problem. just have to wait to see how it plays out i guess.

 

[PhilEllis]

good logic phil. i will take that as a very informed and intuitive anwser.

just some thoughts i had. its a damned if we do damned if we dont type problem. just have to wait to see how it plays out i guess.

I don't think there is anything left to play out. Luxfer has done all they are going to do. So have the other manufacturers. Each year, thousands and thousands of these cylinders are removed from the scuba market by voluntary, unilateral actions at dive stores. As the years progress, fewer and fewer of these things will remain. At their current age (22-40 year old), many more will simply fail the hydro test, will fail the VE inspection, or will be removed for other regulated reasons.

In time, the past use of 6351T6 in cylinders and the cylinders made from it, will be a distant memory. There may yet be an "event" or two with these cylinders. These "events" will be written off as improper inspection, user mishandling, or the various other reasons given for the past "events".

Phil Ellis
Discount Scuba Gear at DiveSports.com - Buy Scuba Diving Equipment & Snorkeling Equipment

 

[Leadking]

This is a problem we've known about for years--the buyback program was begun and ended many years back, I want to say 5-10 years ago.

Buyback program was in 2004. I advertised heavily to dive stores and offered my huge shipping discounts to dive stores. I sent back thousands

 

[rjack321]

I don't think there is anything left to play out. Luxfer has done all they are going to do. So have the other manufacturers. Each year, thousands and thousands of these cylinders are removed from the scuba market by voluntary, unilateral actions at dive stores. As the years progress, fewer and fewer of these things will remain. At their current age (22-40 year old), many more will simply fail the hydro test, will fail the VE inspection, or will be removed for other regulated reasons.

In time, the past use of 6351T6 in cylinders and the cylinders made from it, will be a distant memory. There may yet be an "event" or two with these cylinders. These "events" will be written off as improper inspection, user mishandling, or the various other reasons given for the past "events".

Phil Ellis
Discount Scuba Gear at DiveSports.com - Buy Scuba Diving Equipment & Snorkeling Equipment

In other words, these cylinders are being phased out EXACTLY like DOT anticipated. Through VIP failures, hydro failures, VE failures, and general industry conservatism about uncertain but suspicious defects. Buying one today would be silly since they have ~5 maybe 10 yrs at the most of useful life left. Part of this includes FSOs deciding its not worth it to fill these.