tank inspections & fill pre 1989 AL tanks

[deepstops]

as it stands my compnay will deny filling or inspection of any tank manufactured prior to 5 of 1988. or with an alloy rating of "6498" in any combination even if marked "3al" thos old tanks are cool and fun and still old. if you take great care of them 1 in 10000 will fail. or you can just buy a new tank..

So you're saying saying you wouldn't fill a 21 year old Catalina tank?? If that's true, your policy is lame. Catalina never used the "bad" alloys.

 

[Scared Silly]

its actually a federal issue. but since there are no scuba police it comes down to the various inspection organizations. PSI is who i am an inspector with. i currently work for sport chalet here on the west coast. big company, lots of clout. anyway, there is us code that dictates what is safe and not safe but it is not always passed along so freely. the information that is.

as it stands my compnay will deny filling or inspection of any tank manufactured prior to 5 of 1988. or with an alloy rating of "6498" in any combination even if marked "3al" thos old tanks are cool and fun and still old. if you take great care of them 1 in 10000 will fail. or you can just buy a new tank..

Never heard of an alloy rating of "6498", :-( You mean SP 6498 which is a special permit (must of stepped out during that part of the course ). Which cylinders mfg under SP 6498 also used the 6351 alloy.

 

[roakey]

6351 tanks need to just go away. People die when these things explode. These tanks were probably under $100 when new and they're 18+ years old now. I think everyone got their money's worth from them. :shakehead

People die when any cylinder explodes. If you think that 6351 is the biggest problem out there, it shows how you, and others, are completely unable to distinguish between real and perceived risk. I hate to point this out for fear that the shops will find another way to gouge their customers, but there are more AL SCUBA cylinders in circulation than steel. But, paradoxically, more steel cylinders have exploded than AL cylinders.

So ALs, no matter how you cut it (absolute number or per capita), are safer than steels! But so much FUD has been spread about 6351 that it's a classic case of repeat a lie enough times and people start believing it.

A properly inspected 6351 cylinder is perfectly safe, period. The problem is that a greedy, inactive "self regulating" industry has allowed the inspections to become sloppy. There's a price to be paid in order to remain "self regulating" and the industry as a whole isn't willing to pay it.

Roak

 

[deepstops]

People die when any cylinder explodes. If you think that 6351 is the biggest problem out there, it shows how you, and others, are completely unable to distinguish between real and perceived risk. I hate to point this out for fear that the shops will find another way to gouge their customers, but there are more AL SCUBA cylinders in circulation than steel. But, paradoxically, more steel cylinders have exploded than AL cylinders.

So ALs, no matter how you cut it (absolute number or per capita), are safer than steels! But so much FUD has been spread about 6351 that it's a classic case of repeat a lie enough times and people start believing it.

A properly inspected 6351 cylinder is perfectly safe, period. The problem is that a greedy, inactive "self regulating" industry has allowed the inspections to become sloppy. There's a price to be paid in order to remain "self regulating" and the industry as a whole isn't willing to pay it.

Roak

Roak,

I work in the clinical diagnostics field in a position closely regulated by the FDA. I'm well aware of the difference between a real and perceived risk. I perform risk analysis as a daily job function. You can come on here and jump up, down, and around and shout until you're blue about how the rest of us are too stupid to be able to distinguish the dive shop hyperbole from reality but it won't make you correct.

The company I work for, based on FDA guidelines and three checked boxes on the risk analysis evaluation, would have upgraded all of our customers before the third tank blew up. And whenever we're in doubt, we always err on the side of safety. (IMO, the DOT is pretty lax compared to what I deal with everyday)

While I thought we were discussing AL cylinders, could you please cite (with references) ONE steel tank rupture that happened to a tank that was both in hydro and VIP in the course of the last 15 years??

 

[MikeFerrara]

People die when any cylinder explodes. If you think that 6351 is the biggest problem out there, it shows how you, and others, are completely unable to distinguish between real and perceived risk. I hate to point this out for fear that the shops will find another way to gouge their customers, but there are more AL SCUBA cylinders in circulation than steel. But, paradoxically, more steel cylinders have exploded than AL cylinders.

Personally, I dislike the idea of being killed by an exploding steel tank every bit as much as I dislike the idea of being killed by an exploding al tank. All that means is that it might be worth looking into the causes of the steel tank falures also. I don't see how that lets 6351 off the hook though.

So ALs, no matter how you cut it (absolute number or per capita), are safer than steels! But so much FUD has been spread about 6351 that it's a classic case of repeat a lie enough times and people start believing it.

But do we want to lump all aluminum tanks in one catagory and all steels in another or do we want to look at things a little closer?

A properly inspected 6351 cylinder is perfectly safe, period. The problem is that a greedy, inactive "self regulating" industry has allowed the inspections to become sloppy. There's a price to be paid in order to remain "self regulating" and the industry as a whole isn't willing to pay it.

Roak

A "properly inspected"...or 6351 tank without SLC represents a small risk. I'll agree with that. I've filled a lot of them and I'm still in one piece. It's the one that does have SLC that hasn't been caught that worries me. Personally, I don't miss the ones I used to own and I don't miss being in a position where people expected me to fill them.

I think we're in agreement on the effectiveness of the "self regulation" of the dive industry. It's almost an oxymoron. If it's anywhere near as effective when it comes to tank inspection as it is in other aspects of diving and dive training, I think we can just take it right off the table as a means of protecting ourselves from exploding tanks. If I really thought tanks needed anual visual inspection I wouldn't be to keen on the idea of filling any tank that I didn't inspect. Put another way, dive shop visual inspections are only acceptable because we don't need them and they usually don't do any harm. I've never seen any evidence that they help anything at all and since the DOT doesn't generally require them, apparently they haven't either. I guess I could get talked into going along with getting rid of the stupid vis stickers and the 6351 tanks.

The dive industry is greedy and, I think, incompetent at times. The problem here, as I see it, is that some tanks with a problem were manufactured and left in the field for someone other than the manufacturer to deal with. Having some experience in manufacturing, I've seen that before.

 

[in_cavediver]

You may want to reread what both you and I said, because it turns out, given what you wrote, that you completely agree with me!

I'd say we almost completely agree. The only disagreement has to do with the responsibility of each shop. There is no way for a single LDS to 'force' policies on another LDS. The only possible entities I can think of that might be able to do this are the certification agencies with the threat of pulled affiliations/credentials.

If you know of another way for a shop to regulate other shops, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[roakey]

Roak,The company I work for, based on FDA guidelines and three checked boxes on the risk analysis evaluation, would have upgraded all of our customers before the third tank blew up.

And if we applied FDA safety thresholds to cars, the only ones that would still be on the road would cost 1.5 million dollars. Last time I checked, tanks were regulated by the DOT, not the FDA. Applying parameters from one agency to another is makes your point totally specious. Nice try though.

Roak

 

[deepstops]

And if we applied FDA safety thresholds to cars, the only ones that would still be on the road would cost 1.5 million dollars. Last time I checked, tanks were regulated by the DOT, not the FDA. Applying parameters from one agency to another is makes your point totally specious. Nice try though.

Roak

You don't get it and it appears you never will. The risk is real, the proof is in the bodies.

Most of the shops in SE FL won't touch those tanks and the one that will, you're still not happy with them.

I'm done here.