Tanks - True cost of ownership

[NAM001]

get a new shop

Tank came plugged, but I took the plug out to place the cylinder. Dont know if the shop would have approached it any differently if i just handed them the plugged tanks and loose valves.


I just talked to the shop again and they indicated that since the valves had been off a new O2 clean was to be performed. This included visual inspection, cleaning the inside, tumble the tank, take apart valves and clean, inspect put back together.

They don't charge for this service for new tanks.

Also, they indicated for EAN up to 40% tanks that this process is conducted every year for the vis. Regular air fill tanks would only be a sight vis and only cost $18.

 

[Bigd2722]

When I brought a new tank into my LDS for its first fill, they insisted on checking inside, however there was no charge for doing it

 

[mjrob]

At the risk of the inevitable backlash, almost everyone who has brought us an online, used cylinder they've puchased, once they find out the cost of a Hydro/VIP (which they inevitably need) and factors in the shipping cost says something very similar to, "That's crazy, I could have bought a new one for that."

They're usually right. If you're going to buy used, local is the way to go. And no, we don't sell used cylinders.

 

[kombiguy]

Folks need to understand the difference between federal regulations and industry standards. VIPs are a scuba industry standard. Not following regulations and standards can have implications when things go wrong regardless.

Yes, we understand the difference. The question is whether some things, in this case a requirement for a visual if the valve has been removed, is a regulation, an industry standard, or just some LDS BS. It appears that it is the latter.
Not following LDS BS has very few implications beyond becoming unwelcome in the shop.

 

[Akimbo]

Another issue is the cylinder you want may not be made anymore.

Cylinders last forever so it doesn't matter that much after the first fill.

 

[Scared Silly]

Yes, we understand the difference. The question is whether some things, in this case a requirement for a visual if the valve has been removed, is a regulation, an industry standard, or just some LDS BS. It appears that it is the latter.
Not following LDS BS has very few implications beyond becoming unwelcome in the shop.

I'm an not sure you do understand the difference. The industry standard is to perform a cylinder inspection if a valve has been removed from a cylinder. Now one can argue about the extensiveness and the cost of that inspection but the inspection standard is certainly not shop BS.

 

[kombiguy]

The industry standard is to perform a cylinder inspection if a valve has been removed from a cylinder.

Can you provide any support for that assertion? Any evidence at all?

 

[tursiops]

Can you provide any support for that assertion? Any evidence at all?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p_u7_62i9acZB0A&bvm=bv.85076809,d.eXY&cad=rja
Page 5, Items 1, 2, 5 are reasons to take a look inside.

 

[kombiguy]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p_u7_62i9acZB0A&bvm=bv.85076809,d.eXY&cad=rja
Page 5, Items 1, 2, 5 are reasons to take a look inside.

Here are those items you noted:
1. Dropped, fell,was struck,was in an accident, or when the care and maintenance
of the cylinder is obviously poor;
2. Was stored improperly4 and shows signs of damage;
5. Was stored with water, material or matter inside the cylinder;

None of which suggest that it is an industry standard to do a visual if the valve has been removed. At best, the referenced material advises end users never to let a tank be completely emptied, lest water contamination become a problem. Nowhere in that document does it suggest a visual is mandatory, or that it is an industry standard. It is, at best, a Luxfer recommendation. They also recommend never using their tanks for O2 service. Is that, too, now an industry standard?

 

[jzipfel]

Not following LDS BS has very few implications ......

I'm going to call you out on this one. The shop is the one assuming the risk of that first fill. If they want to perform a procedure that protects their employees I'm all for it. Does it cost me a few bucks? Sure, everything in diving does. Did I learn a lesson? Sure. I just chalk that one up as a small cost.

Now consider these other BS dive shop procedures and ask yourself is it true safety or just safety you happen to agree with:

- Shop says:"We filled that tank, we know it is 32% EAN, you don't need to check it" Do you check it or is it just some dive shop BS that requires you to test you own cylinders? Are you willing to assume that risk?
- " I assembled the CCR by the checklist. I knew you were running late so we can go now. Here you go, no need for you to check my assembly for something you are going to use" Willing to do that?
- You ask the shop: "Could you do the hydro on these tanks? Don't worry I already bled them down, no pressure left in those" Think they are you going to take someones word for it or do you think they might want to check just to make sure?
I fully appreciate that really neither I nor the shop knows if the tanks are OK. I bought them used from some guy over the interwebs. (He's a good guy, but hey not everyone is)

See where I am going? In my view if the shop is going to do what they believe to be safest for their employees, I believe they are going to do what is safest for me. If they can explain themselves and there is a reasonable justification for the procedure/service/cost I'm all for it. When I talked to the owner yesterday he said, if you're thinking of buying some used tanks again, call me. "I'll let you know if they are a good deal" "If I'm not honest it comes around to bite me pretty quick" That's the kind of person who earns my business.