1989 Luxfer cylinder VIP refusals

[Joe Botz]

Hello,, I've tried to get my luxfer S30 cylinder VIP'd today, said cylinder was hydo'd in 2005. By the same dive shop here on LongIsland, they refused to vip it saying that though luxfer (who I contacted today and received a e-mail response stating that my cylinder was composed of al. alloy 6061).

This shop stated that I'd not be able to get my cylinder VIP or filled by any dive shop.

Anyone hear of any issues regarding issues such as mine? The luxfer site and customer service is either wrong or the dive industry (shops) on Long Island NY are possibly wrong.

 

[Don Wray]

Alot of shops are refusing anything but catalina before 1990

 

[spectrum]

Actually it's a bit worse. Many shops have begun to refuse any aluminum cylinder over 20 years ago. This is regardless of brand alloy etc. I even heard on one that extended the 20 year rule to steel.

I don't know if it's ignorance or manipulation of the 6351 alloy issue to drive sales but it's unjustified. Another charges $120. to do a VIP on cylinders from 1990 or prior.

The VIP sticker seems to be the big gate but I don't doubt that some will refuse to fill fully inspected cylinders for these reasons.

Unless you have a rational LDS that will be doing most of your fills an older aluminum cylinder is quickly becoming a liability.

Pete

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Not that it helps but the DOT published a list of tanks made from 6351-T6 aluminum.

The Department of Transportation has released the
following list of scuba tanks that are most likely to be
made from the 6351-T6 aluminum alloy to which a
disproportionate number of tank explosions are
attributable:

All DOT3AL tanks manufactured under one of the following exemptions or
special permits: 6498, 7042, 8107, 8364, 8422;

All composite cylinders manufactured under one of the following exemptions:
7235, 8023, 8115;

All Walter Kidde DOT3AL scuba tanks;

Cliff Impact DOT3AL scuba tanks made before July, 1990;

Luxfer 80.8 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S80.8) made before May, 1987;

Luxfer 72 and 100 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S72, S100) made before August, 1987;

Luxfer 80 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S80) made before January, 1988;

Luxfer 50 and 92 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S50, S92) made before April, 1988;

Luxfer 30 and 63 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S30, S63) made before May, 1988;

Luxfer 40 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S40) made before June, 1988;

All other scuba tanks made in the U.S. before February; 1990 (except Catalina);

All scuba tanks not made in the U.S.


Per the DOT list, a Luxfer 30 made in May of 1988 or later would be made from 6061-T6 alloy and would not be suceptible to sustained load cracking.

Personally, I tend to avoid shops with policies of not filling properly inspected tanks given that there has been no incidence of a properly inspected 6351-T6 aluminum alloy tank exploding since the implementation of eddy current inspections over 8 years ago. Filling one is not a safety hazard and shops that suggest it is are either ignorant or are perhaps trying to promote tank sales by telling you your tank is unsafe. Either one woudl be reason enough for me to take my business else where.

 

[deepstops]

Per the DOT list, a Luxfer 30 made in May of 1988 or later would be made from 6061-T6 alloy and would not be suceptible to sustained load cracking.

And therefore you need to locate a more competent shop.

 

[Joe Botz]

Good idea! thanks all.

 

[Isaac-1]

I have several tanks from this period, and I am just glad I have my own compressors.

Ike

 

[dannobee]

I have several tanks from this period, and I am just glad I have my own compressors.

Ike

I don't have any tanks from this period and I too, am glad I have my own compressor.

Dive shops are notorious for making arbitrary stuff up when it comes to filling tanks. Witness the whole VIS thing, then the end of month/beginning of month thing with VIS's. And the re-vis/tumbling after coming back from hydro inspection.

I won't even get into the "short fill" thing.

 

[PhilEllis]

Personally, I tend to avoid shops with policies of not filling properly inspected tanks given that there has been no incidence of a properly inspected 6351-T6 aluminum alloy tank exploding since the implementation of eddy current inspections over 8 years ago. Filling one is not a safety hazard and shops that suggest it is are either ignorant or are perhaps trying to promote tank sales by telling you your tank is unsafe. Either one woudl be reason enough for me to take my business else where.

I was the only remaining shop in my area filling 6351-T6 cylinders until slightly over a year and a half ago. We sent a cylinder out to the re-qualification facility locally and had the hydro with the required VE inspection completed (Note: This was the same week that the gentleman from RI was badly injured by a failure of one of these cylinders). Upon return to the shop, we throughly inspected the threaded area of the cylinder and found no problem. While ON THE FILLING STATION, my employee noticed the common sound of air venting. Upon inspection and checking of all of the valves and releases, he noticed that the air was venting FROM THE SIDE OF THE NECK OF THE CYLINDER. We immediately evacuated the store and I went back inside to do the shutdown and draining. We have the very cylinder in question right here in our store and have shown it to many who express interest in this situation. In fact, some other members of this board have seen it and can probably relate what they have seen. NO NECK CRACK WAS VISIBLE in the neck at inspection, but 30 minutes later.......an obvious crack, leaking air.

I am not an alarmist. I do due diligence and research on most issues related to my business. I try to make my decisions with deliberation. I did not adopt a policy of refusing these cylinder fills just to "sell another tank". Heck, I make more money from the inspection and air fill than I do from the sale of a new cylinder. When I refuse to fill these older cylinders, my customers certainly can take their business elsewhere if they disagree. However, they would not be moving because they are leaving an uninformed and unthinking dive center, but would be leaving one who actually has thought this through and is acting out of reasonable precaution.

Phil Ellis

 

[mike_s]

I was the only remaining shop in my area filling 6351-T6 cylinders until slightly over a year and a half ago. We sent a cylinder out to the re-qualification facility locally and had the hydro with the required VE inspection completed (Note: This was the same week that the gentleman from RI was badly injured by a failure of one of these cylinders). Upon return to the shop, we throughly inspected the threaded area of the cylinder and found no problem. While ON THE FILLING STATION, my employee noticed the common sound of air venting. Upon inspection and checking of all of the valves and releases, he noticed that the air was venting FROM THE SIDE OF THE NECK OF THE CYLINDER. We immediately evacuated the store and I went back inside to do the shutdown and draining. We have the very cylinder in question right here in our store and have shown it to many who express interest in this situation. In fact, some other members of this board have seen it and can probably relate what they have seen. NO NECK CRACK WAS VISIBLE in the neck at inspection, but 30 minutes later.......an obvious crack, leaking air.

A year or two ago, I would have argued that if properly inspected, the 6351 cylinders were fine to use.....

but I dropped by Phil's store the day after the above referenced cylinder cracked and he showed me the crack. I asked him how old it was and spun the tank around to read the dates and last hydro date.... I imediately noticed it was just hydro'd that month. (He had just gotten it back from a trusted hydro facility).

The crack was a hairline crack in the neck and was definantly big enough to vent air.

It would have scared the crap out of me if I was filling it and it started venting air and essentially a pending explosion about to happen.

I guess that getting my hands on this and inspecting it myself and easily seeing the crack that has just formed was reason enough for me to change my argument that 6351 cylinders had the possibility to not be safe all the time.

I can now see at least one instance of evidence that justifies shops not filling these 6351 cylinders. And to be completely honest, I don't see putting anyone elses life at risk (of explosion/rupture) over what is essentially a $50 used 20 year old tank.


-Mike