Tanks - True cost of ownership

[kombiguy]

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.

You missed my point. Elegantly, but you missed. If a shop says "I won't do x unless we do y first," fine. I can either accept their conditions, or go elsewhere.
If a shop says "I have to do x before I do y, it's the law(or regulation, or industry standard)," and it's not, I can either accede to their demands, go elsewhere, or call them out on their BS. If I call them on their BS, there are no implications, other that my not being welcome at their shop.
Any shop is more than welcome to set standards by which they will do business.
I am more than welcome to not patronize them.
If a shop flings BS at me, I'll call them on it, then go elsewhere. Or sometimes, I just shake my head and leave.
That some shops act stupidly is no reason for everyone to act that way.

 

[Scared Silly]

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

Take a cylinder inspection course and you will find that one of the reasons to inspect a cylinder is when it presented for filling and is completely drained. Last time I checked removing the valve requires draining the cylinder.

Luxfer also recommend never using their tanks for O2 service. Is that, too, now an industry standard?

A manufacturer recommendation is just that a recommendation (though it can become a standard, regulation, or law). If one ignores it, that too can be an issue. So for your edification, it would behoove folks to understand the difference between, laws, regulations, industry standards, and manufacturer recommendations. Not following laws, regulations, standards, and recommendations can have implications when things go wrong regardless.

Luxfer also recommend never using their tanks for O2 service.

I get to call BS. Read FAQ #2

Aluminum scuba cylinders in oxygen-enriched and oxygen service - Luxfer: Setting The Standard Worldwide

Can I fill my Luxfer aluminum scuba cylinder with pure oxygen so that I can use it for decompression?

Yes, if you follow the Luxfer requirements listed below, which must be met both for pure oxygen and gas mixtures containing more than 23.5% oxygen:

If a shop says "I won't do x unless we do y first," fine. I can either accept their conditions, or go elsewhere. If a shop says "I have to do x before I do y, it's the law(or regulation, or industry standard)," and it's not, I can either accede to their demands, go elsewhere, or call them out on their BS. If I call them on their BS, there are no implications, other that my not being welcome at their shop.

While I will be the first to admit that the scuba industry (i.e. shops) likes to make up rules when it comes to cylinders, it does help to know the basics before attempting to call people out. Or as Mark Twain said "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

[kombiguy]

Take a cylinder inspection course and you will find that one of the reasons to inspect a cylinder is any time it has been completely drained. Last time I checked removing the valve requires draining the cylinder.

You keep saying this, but you can't point to any regulation, law, or industry standard that says so.

---------- Post added February 2nd, 2015 at 06:37 AM ----------

I get to call BS. Read FAQ #2

From Luxfer, in the previousy offered document:
12. Some scuba divers have been known to have scuba cylinders partially filled with
pure oxygen, then having them topped off with air or nitrogen (NITROX). This practice
can cause catastrophic failure and loss of life or serious injury. Scuba cylinders,
valves and other components are not specifically cleaned for oxygen use. Also, some
lubricants used in the industry are not compatible with pure oxygen, or high oxygen
air. This could result in a fire or rupture.

---------- Post added February 2nd, 2015 at 06:41 AM ----------

A manufacturer recommendation is just that a recommendation (though it can become a standard, regulation, or law). If one ignores it, that too can be an issue. So for your edification, it would behoove folks to understand the difference between, laws, regulations, industry standards, and manufacturer recommendations. Not following laws, regulations, standards, and recommendations can have implications when things go wrong regardless.

You keep repeating this. Let me make it clear. The question is, does a cylinder require a visual inspection if the valve has been removed?" You keep insisting it is, and that it is a regulation. When I ask for proof, you provided none. I understand the difference between regulations, laws, etc. All I ask is that you cite some evidence that there is a regulation, law, or industry standard that requires an inspection when you remove that valve.

---------- Post added February 2nd, 2015 at 06:43 AM ----------

While I will be the first to admit that the scuba industry (i.e. shops) likes to make up rules when it comes to cylinders, it does help to know the basics before attempting to call people out. Or as Mark Twain said "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Wonderful quote, great insult, but not on point. Where is the evidence that I am wrong or that you are right? Not some bull**** about "take a class," or, "know the basics." Real evidence in the form of a law, regulation, etc. Until you can put up, it might be wise to shut up.

 

[boulderjohn]

Take a cylinder inspection course and you will find that one of the reasons to inspect a cylinder is any time it has been completely drained. Last time I checked removing the valve requires draining the cylinder.

I took the PSI course, went too long before renewing my certification, and then had to take it again. There was never any mention that draining a tank required an inspection.

In fact, many cylinders are routinely completely drained. If you are partial pressure blending nitrox or trimix without the benefit of a booster or banked nitrox, it is the best way to make the next fill. When you make nitrox, you first add oxygen, then top it off with air from a compressor. When you make trimix, you usually do the helium first, then the oxygen, then the air from the compressor. When you are doing this a lot, you want to start with empty tanks, because you can only add the oxygen and helium from the supply bottles to a tank with a lower PSI than the supply bottles. As the supply bottles get lower and lower in pressure, the tanks you are filling need to start very low in order to make it work, and empty works best. I cannot even begin to estimate how many tanks I have drained in order to make those fills.

 

[Scared Silly]

I took the PSI course, went too long before renewing my certification, and then had to take it again. There was never any mention that draining a tank required an inspection.

It happens to be in my materials from PSI ...

In fact, many cylinders are routinely completely drained. If you are partial pressure blending nitrox or trimix without the benefit of a booster or banked nitrox, it is the best way to make the next fill.

I should qualified my statement - if a cylinder is presented for filling and is fully drained, an inspection should be done.

You keep saying this, but you can't point to any regulation, law, or industry standard that says so.

I told you where to learn about ... I am done here.

 

[kombiguy]

I told you where to learn about ... I am done here.

You told me to take a class. You never backed up your idiotic statement.
Of course you're done. Because you're wrong, and can't prove what you say, you leave.
Well done.

---------- Post added February 2nd, 2015 at 10:05 AM ----------

I should qualified my statement - if a cylinder is presented for filling and is fully drained, an inspection should be done.

Should does not mean required; it is merely a suggestion.

---------- Post added February 2nd, 2015 at 10:05 AM ----------

I should qualified my statement - if a cylinder is presented for filling and is fully drained, an inspection should be done.

Should does not mean required; it is merely a suggestion.

 

[tursiops]

HAZMAT Training materials from PSI, Cursory Inspection instructions prior to filling a cylinder, "Inspect cylinder having zero pressure."
The same instruction if part of the PSI Training for Fill Station Operators (FSO).
The FSO poster for "Cylinder Filling Reminders" says: "Formally inspect cylinders that are empty."
This is not a law or a CFR regulation. It is promulgated by PSI as an industry standard.

 

[kombiguy]

My copy of "Inspecting Cylinders" by PSI/PCI, 5th edition, 2009, merely says that "An alert owner or service technician...should consider an inspection when" the cylinder is completely emptied or the valve has been removed.
I am unsure as to whether my book is the most cyrrent of editions.

 

[tursiops]

My copy of "Inspecting Cylinders" by PSI/PCI, 5th edition, 2009, merely says that "An alert owner or service technician...should consider an inspection when" the cylinder is completely emptied or the valve has been removed.
I am unsure as to whether my book is the most cyrrent of editions.

I was quoting from the training materials for HAZMAT and FSO.

 

[kombiguy]

I was quoting from the training materials for HAZMAT and FSO.

I realize that. I was pointing out a possible inconsistency in PSI materials.