Tank failing Visual, shop condemned the tank?

[rjack321]

Word games. You XXX my numbers and my tank is now unusable for my purposes. You have no right to do that and no need to do that. Just don't pass it and you've done your job. I'm sorry, if that means I do not trust you, so be it. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it.

Note Malcolm Gladwell's new book, which is about trusting strangers, and how it is against our best interests.

Then don't take your tanks to anyone using PSI's materials, your "problem" is solved.

 

[tursiops]

Then don't take your tanks to anyone using PSI's materials, your "problem" is solved.

PSI doesn't require "condemming." It just says if you are going to do it, get the signed waiver first.

 

[TrimixToo]

I would see some problems with that approach. The requalifer only does a vis to meet the requalifying needs. They do not do a vis to support nitrox. You shop will have to do that when it comes to looking for hydrocarbons with the light etc. When the tank leaves the hydro it is good for air. And by the way the hydro stamp is also the vis for the first period after hydro. Many shops argue that also that you have to have a sticker. what you have to have is proof of vis.which is part of the hydro and covered by the stamp'

Various people, including me, have posted this before, but it bears repeating. A visual inspection cannot determine whether a tank is suitable for O2 service or even nitrox service, for at least two reasons.

First, not all combustible contaminants fluoresce under black light. Perhaps most importantly, synthetic compressor oils do not. Second, a black light cannot see around corners, and there are lots of corners in a valve. The cleanliness of the valve is arguably (much) more important than that of the tank, actually. Particle impingement during O2 fills has all those turns to make inside the valve, while particles that make it through the valve maze have lots of room to slow down before they get to the bottom of the tank.

Marking a tank O2 clean follows, well, O2 cleaning. Anyone else who accepts that inspector's sticker must trust the inspector or insist on a separate cleaning and VIS before restickering it.

 

[NAM001]

Various people, including me, have posted this before, but it bears repeating. A visual inspection cannot determine whether a tank is suitable for O2 service or even nitrox service, for at least two reasons.

First, not all combustible contaminants fluoresce under black light. Perhaps most importantly, synthetic compressor oils do not. Second, a black light cannot see around corners, and there are lots of corners in a valve. The cleanliness of the valve is arguably (much) more important than that of the tank, actually. Particle impingement during O2 fills has all those turns to make inside the valve, while particles that make it through the valve maze have lots of room to slow down before they get to the bottom of the tank.

Marking a tank O2 clean follows, well, O2 cleaning. Anyone else who accepts that inspector's sticker must trust the inspector or insist on a separate cleaning and VIS before restickering it.

Absolutely. either way it is not done by the requalifer.

 

[fullytek]

Ok
So what if this cylinder actually has a defect that was found by the lds.

Now let's assume the OP storms out of the LDS with his sharpie marked tank , stops at home depot and picks up a can of acetone and then drops the tank at another shop where a less throught inspection is carried out. Or as others have suggested an ali express vip sticker finds its way to the cylinder.

Now this tank ends up at a destanation shop fill station where the defect results in a catastrophic failure killing the fill station operator.

During the following investigation it is discovered that the tank had failed a visual inspection yet the inspector didnt take all reasonable action to prevent this cylinder from being used.

What liability is the original inspector exposed to.

Is the risk of losing a coustomer and getting a bad google review because some one is to cheep to buy a new $200 cylinder more serious than the risk of a serios accadent?



Of you think the inspecting shop has failed thos tank with the intentint of selling a new cylinder keep in mind that the margin on an aluminum 80 is often less than $25

 

[rsingler]

I really don't understand why we keep going around and around with this.

If the LDS does not have a statutory obligation to render the tank unable to hold air, and has not had the customer sign one of PSI's "I can kill your tank" forms, it can certainly protect itself from a successful lawsuit by requiring the owner of the tank to sign a shop form in order to retrieve his tank. The form would note that the customer had been informed that the tank failed VIS, was unsafe to use and in the opinion of the inspector, should be condemned for listed defects. Further, the form would note that the tank had been labeled with this information.

With that information on file, the shop can clearly prove it has satisfied its obligation, and not exceeded its authority by physically drilling a hole in the tank or damaging the threads.

That won't prevent a lawsuit after the catastrophe, but it will help protect the shop from a successful one. Further, it would tend to return liability to the owner of the tank, where it belongs. Especially if the owner is so foolish as to continue to use the tank after signing a form as described above.

I understand the desire to protect the world by condemning a tank, but everybody's human, and people make mistakes. Profit margins aren't so large at an LDS that it can afford to regularly exceed its statutory authority in pursuit of an ideal, when more often than not, the tank won't explode, and the disgruntled customer will erode the store's economic survivability by spreading bad news.

Maybe I'll change my tune when I complete PSI's course at DEMA in November. I'll be sure to ask these questions!

 

[akdeepdiver]

And here is the DOTs input.

 

[rsingler]

And here is the DOTs input.

Well, that was weird. The guy asks about condemning, just like us, and DOT says you can't, as we suspected, but then quotes verbiage having to do with not "retesting" and not applying a hydro stamp, unless you're a licensed center.

That letter raises more questions than it answers, IMO.

 

[JackD342]

Well, that was weird. The guy asks about condemning, just like us, and DOT says you can't, as we suspected, but then quotes verbiage having to do with not "retesting" and not applying a hydro stamp, unless you're a licensed center.

That letter raises more questions than it answers, IMO.

Well, the only question I would still have for the author of the DOT letter is "did you understand the question?"

That said, my interpretation of the interpretation is he clearly and succinctly answered the question with a "no" but then muddied the waters by citing the closest available verbiage which as written did not address the actual question, without also providing a rationale or connecting the dots between his reply and the quote. But I think he did understand the question.

 

[lowviz]

That said, my interpretation of the interpretation is he clearly and succinctly answered the question with a "no" but then muddied the waters by citing the closest available verbiage which as written did not address the actual question, without also providing a rationale or connecting the dots between his reply and the quote. But I think he did understand the question.

Pretty much the same take on this.

So, we can agree that there is a potential for confusion concerning CONDEMN from a VIP inspector's viewpoint???