Yes, they certainly do.
Roak
Information about the Luxfer recall / exchange 6351 alloy
- Thread starter chrispete
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Roak
FredT
Guest
I have this from exactly ONE source, but I have gotten good info from him in the past. It's time to see if others have the same info.
1. Luxfer's rebate/recall on 6351-T6 tanks will expire on Jan 1 2004 with no extension.
2. His shop insurance (from a "major certification agency" marketing organization that has written a "significant" percentage of LDS insurance policies) has advised him they will not cover him after 1/1/2004 if he fills ANY aluminum tank older than 1:90 hydro date. (I'm still not clear if any steels are involved in this "blanket ban" and if so how they would "justify" it.)
These two pieces of information raise several questions. Some of the answers will interest shop owners, and others the legal beagles on the board.
In my order of interest:
1. Is ANY of this fact?
2. Are steels involved in the insurance scam in ANY way?
3. What is Luxfer and/or P***'s liability for any outstanding 6351-T6 tanks no longer "useable" after 1/1/2004 that were originally sold as "lifetime" tanks?
4. Is there a class action suit in the offing for those who have pre-1/1/90 6061 alloy tanks that will be captured by the insurance blanket "ban" but are not covered under the "exchange" program?
4. Has ANYONE done any realististic testing as to tank class failure rates, or are they just pulling numbers out of their collective fundaments?
5. Is there a marketing collusion between P*** and Luxfer acting in restraint of use or trade of a US Government approved product?
6. _If_ there is evidence of 5, is a RICO activity warranted?
Just a few thoughts.....
FT
1. Luxfer's rebate/recall on 6351-T6 tanks will expire on Jan 1 2004 with no extension.
2. His shop insurance (from a "major certification agency" marketing organization that has written a "significant" percentage of LDS insurance policies) has advised him they will not cover him after 1/1/2004 if he fills ANY aluminum tank older than 1:90 hydro date. (I'm still not clear if any steels are involved in this "blanket ban" and if so how they would "justify" it.)
These two pieces of information raise several questions. Some of the answers will interest shop owners, and others the legal beagles on the board.
In my order of interest:
1. Is ANY of this fact?
2. Are steels involved in the insurance scam in ANY way?
3. What is Luxfer and/or P***'s liability for any outstanding 6351-T6 tanks no longer "useable" after 1/1/2004 that were originally sold as "lifetime" tanks?
4. Is there a class action suit in the offing for those who have pre-1/1/90 6061 alloy tanks that will be captured by the insurance blanket "ban" but are not covered under the "exchange" program?
4. Has ANYONE done any realististic testing as to tank class failure rates, or are they just pulling numbers out of their collective fundaments?
5. Is there a marketing collusion between P*** and Luxfer acting in restraint of use or trade of a US Government approved product?
6. _If_ there is evidence of 5, is a RICO activity warranted?
Just a few thoughts.....
FT
The $50 rebate and the threat of a dead line is a nice way for Luxfer to encourage owners to take these tanks out of service and by doing so limit their liability if these tanks are ever condemned or are recalled due to a materials problem. The only reasonLuxfer is offering it is because it is a good deal for them. They get rid of a potential liability problem and still sell you a new tank above their cost even after rebate. I would not exactly lay roses at their feet for their undying generosity.
Personally, if the tanks are recalled or if you have a tank that fails inspection due to a stress crack, as long as you have properly maintained and inspected the tank, my guess is Luxfer will still be liable regardless of whether you accept or decline their "nice' offer. I also supsect, that based on this offer and the wide acceptance it seems to have gotten from the paranoid divers out there, that they will have a good case for limiting their liability on your tank to the $50 value it has under the current offer. Again, a great deal for Luxfer. (I'll just skip the expletives.)
As for insurance underwriting, they can proabably decline policies to shops that fill old tanks. But more likely may just opt to decline coverage for damages caused by an old tank that may explode. But in the abscence of any actuarial statistics to support that properly inspected 6051-T3 AL tanks are dangerous, they would be hard pressed to make this fly in court should a class action suit be filed.
The distinction of "properly maintained and inspected" is important as if the insuror can show that the shop was negligent in not ensuring the tank was properly inspected or can show that the inspector did not properly inspect the tank, then they are off the hook. Similarly, if the insuror can show that the inspection procedure was followed and the tank was still unsafe (ie, it blew up) then they are still off the hook and Luxfer would be the deep pocket that gets picked. The bad news that everybody would be stuck in court for years and that costs big bucks, so it's quicker and easier to just try and deny coverage. Its not a conspiracy but rather just a situation where both Luxfer and the insurance companies would coincidentally benefit.
Personally, if the tanks are recalled or if you have a tank that fails inspection due to a stress crack, as long as you have properly maintained and inspected the tank, my guess is Luxfer will still be liable regardless of whether you accept or decline their "nice' offer. I also supsect, that based on this offer and the wide acceptance it seems to have gotten from the paranoid divers out there, that they will have a good case for limiting their liability on your tank to the $50 value it has under the current offer. Again, a great deal for Luxfer. (I'll just skip the expletives.)
As for insurance underwriting, they can proabably decline policies to shops that fill old tanks. But more likely may just opt to decline coverage for damages caused by an old tank that may explode. But in the abscence of any actuarial statistics to support that properly inspected 6051-T3 AL tanks are dangerous, they would be hard pressed to make this fly in court should a class action suit be filed.
The distinction of "properly maintained and inspected" is important as if the insuror can show that the shop was negligent in not ensuring the tank was properly inspected or can show that the inspector did not properly inspect the tank, then they are off the hook. Similarly, if the insuror can show that the inspection procedure was followed and the tank was still unsafe (ie, it blew up) then they are still off the hook and Luxfer would be the deep pocket that gets picked. The bad news that everybody would be stuck in court for years and that costs big bucks, so it's quicker and easier to just try and deny coverage. Its not a conspiracy but rather just a situation where both Luxfer and the insurance companies would coincidentally benefit.
DOT has issued a safety notice about these tanks. Part of the problem is that so few of the tanks have failed. Why so few? Well it could be the inspections are catching them and taking them out of service. Obviously the tank manufacturers, all of them except Catalina (who never used the alloy in question) are also pressuring DOT not to recall the tanks. It appears the real cause of the problem is hot fills and over fills which cause the tank to heat, which in turn causes the alloy to change its properties.
There is a claim that the failures are not slow growing cracks, but a rapid failure. In one case the tank had passed hydro and vis within 6 months before it blew up causing insjury to the kid who was taking a presure reading prior to filling it.
There is alos a safety notice by DOT out about one company in FL who was improperly conducting test.
Bottom line is there have been more than one or two tanks that have expoded. One taking a leg off, another part of a hand, and others just doing property damage. The cause is not certain, and there is much debate over if it is slow growth or rapid growth cracks. Natually, the slow growth argument comes form the mfg of the tanks. The only thing that is certain is that AL Alloy tanks fo the 6351-T6 are the common thread in the exploding tank mystery.
The decision to continue to use these tanks or for a LDS to fill them rest with the owner and LDS at the moment. Each must decide for them selves what is there best insterest and comfort level. If an insurance company will not ensure damage resulting from an older tank exploding, then I would argue the LSD will not fill older tanks. These things pack quite a wallup when the explode and severly damage the store and anyone near by.
My usual dive buddy runs a hydrotest facility and has found four 02 tanks and two scuba tanks with cracks in them in the last year or so.
One was rather obvious with the tank squirting a small stream of water out the neck after coming out of the hydro test chamber. The 5/3rds test pressure was apparently enough to finish it off. In this case it was on O2 tank that was not visualled since the last hydrotest which was prior to the eddy current requirement. It was not visualed before the hydro so it is not known if the crack would have been detectable without an eddy current test. But it is obviuos that the overpressure for the test aggravted the situation to the point of failure.
This O2 tank would seem to represent the worst case situation in that it was old, had never been eddy current inspected, and had been in service with a high number of cycles for 5 yrs with medical O2 supplier without even a regular VIP. The good news is that the flaw was discovered at hydro and almost certainly would have been detected with the eddy current visual plus inspection.
My opinion is that there have been virtually no accidents recently because the test procedures are doing exactly what they were designed to do - discover faulty tanks before they fail. A lot of people still cite the original catastrophic failures that led to the discovery of the problem but what is important I think in judging the saftey of continued use of these tanks is the lack of catastrophic failures that have occurred lately.
I agree that increased attention is helping. The bad news is that the failure is often of a catastropic in nature resulting in an explosion flinging large chuncks of the tank with great force. The resulting explosion tears up buildings, equipment and unfortunatly, sometimes people, even killing a man in one 2001 incident. In some states they now require a suitable enclosure to contain the explosive force.
Now everyone has their own definitions of "recent" November 2001 is not yesterday, but not all that long ago either (21 months) when a tank exploded and killed a man http://archives.mundoacuatico.com/nov01/20novdiveexperts.PDF
Personally, I think a tank of the suspect alloy that is over 10 years old, should be retired.
Oh, and just for balance, here is a web site with pictures of a STEEL tank that exploded and became a missle.http://www.diveshop-pr.com/pages.dir/engl.dir/tankexplosion.html But that is the result of a different problem, no inspection and poor maintenance.
Hmmm.....both links are to articles about steel tanks that exploded do to lack of proper inspection and maintainence. This really does not have any bearing on the 6051 T-3 alloy issue or on whether the current inspection programs are adequate to prevent catastophic failures.
It does seem to support the idea that proper inspections are vital to preventing the explosion of any tank regardless of what it is made of.
It does seem to support the idea that proper inspections are vital to preventing the explosion of any tank regardless of what it is made of.
Sorry, those were both on the steel tanks, kinds of points out the importance of getting the inspections done.
Here are two links about AL Alloy exploding http://archives.mundoacuatico.com/jan02/01janupperkeysdivecaptain.PDF
http://www.scubabomb.freeservers.com/
Here are two links about AL Alloy exploding http://archives.mundoacuatico.com/jan02/01janupperkeysdivecaptain.PDF
http://www.scubabomb.freeservers.com/
If you want better odds of saving your life, give up meat and don't ever get in a car -- both far, far more dangerous than standing next to a correctly inspected 6351-T6 alloy cylinder while it's being filled.
Roak
Roak
Would anyone out there be interested in buying 2 certificates from me?
I turned in 2 luxfer cylinders using the rebate program and received the rebate certificates. I'm living in Nevada and don't have need for tanks of my own at the moment. I believe that the rebate has to be used by sometime early next year 2004. I can provide the details to anyone that might be interested.
I turned in 2 luxfer cylinders using the rebate program and received the rebate certificates. I'm living in Nevada and don't have need for tanks of my own at the moment. I believe that the rebate has to be used by sometime early next year 2004. I can provide the details to anyone that might be interested.
Similar threads
