Walter Kidde tanks -- returns, hydrostatic testing

[cdiver2]

On this we agree... The cylinder manufacturers and dive shops keep trying to get old 6351-T6 cylinders booted to increase their sales, and the DOT keeps concluding that with proper inspection and testing, they're safe.

Always follow the money on issues like this...

Roak

But as I have stated it is going to backfire on the lds's, all its going to do is alienate the customers against them and they will buy on line

 

[roakey]

But as I have stated it is going to backfire on the lds's, all its going to do is alienate the customers against them and they will buy on line

It should, but I don't think so. Most SCUBA consumers are pretty well ill-informed, and especially if the LDS blames the hydro shop, as they did in this case, the customer isn't going to realize that they're being bent over by the dive shop.

I'm sure properly played the dive shop could even garner some sympathy from being "caught in the middle" -- as they seperate their customer from their hard-earned cash for a new cylinder.

Roak

 

[FredT]

It should, but I don't think so. Most SCUBA consumers are pretty well ill-informed, and especially if the LDS blames the hydro shop, as they did in this case, the customer isn't going to realize that they're being bent over by the dive shop.
Roak

As devils advocate here, the new DOT rules do require the inspection of all 6351 cylinders (not jut SCUBA cylinders) for SLC at time of hydro. A hydro shop unequipped to do the required inspection may not recertify them. This indicates it's time to find a new hydro shop more than anything else.

FT

 

[Ontario Diver]

As devils advocate here, the new DOT rules do require the inspection of all 6351 cylinders (not jut SCUBA cylinders) for SLC at time of hydro. A hydro shop unequipped to do the required inspection may not recertify them. This indicates it's time to find a new hydro shop more than anything else.

FT

TC regs up here in the frozen wasteland are the same, but a hydro shop that can't afford copy of the CGA documents, an inspection light and a mirror would be one that I stay away from on general prinicple...

(A Visual Eddy system is NOT required!)

 

[cdiver2]

It should, but I don't think so. Most SCUBA consumers are pretty well ill-informed, and especially if the LDS blames the hydro shop, as they did in this case, the customer isn't going to realize that they're being bent over by the dive shop.

I'm sure properly played the dive shop could even garner some sympathy from being "caught in the middle" -- as they seperate their customer from their hard-earned cash for a new cylinder.

Roak

But it is more the new divers that will get bent over as they learn they become aware of it and pass the word on, remember one bad report will travel a lot further than ten good reports.
Coupled with this the internet ie this board will enlighten a lot of people.

 

[frenzer3]

After looking at http://www.cdnn.info/article/high/high.html I contacted the company who provides visual eddy equipment, and they said with tort law rulings, Luxfer won't stand behind any of their 6351 tanks unless you have eddy current testing done at least every 2 1/2 yrs. Does anyone know more about this? (My 6351 72 cu.ft. tank was hydro'd 8 yrs. ago and last visualed 3 or 4 years ago. I haven't been diving locally, so I didn't need it. Now I'd like to get everything up to date. It sounds like I may have trouble, but there's no legal reason the LDS should refuse, unless they claim it's beyond 2 1/2 yrs since its last visual? I'm not even sure that the last visual was an eddy current kind...)

 

[LUBOLD8431]

Well, just try to get the cylinder hydroed and visualed by your shop. They may refuse, or they may do it. It has nothing to do with being legal or not. They can refuse to service any piece of equipment, and make any justification for it...