BSAC avoids annual VIP

[guruboy]

Oh boy. I can’t wait for reports of exploding tanks to start coming in so all the LDS can give a big I TOLD YOU SO

 

[BRT]

well I have to take my hat off to BSAC on this one. It appears they have avoided implementing annual VIP's for dive cylinders. Now we just need the US to get rid of them as well and the world will be a better place....

BSAC Takes Stand To Avoid Annual Cylinder Inspections – DeeperBlue.com

What will keep them from all dying?

 

[JackD342]

In the U.K. with the existing rules it is practically unheard of for people to get hurt by diving cylinder failures.

"Practically" unheard of implies occurrences are very rare, but not completely zero. I can't say one way or the other whether tighter schedules for inspections and testing would reduce any such occurrences to an even smaller number or perhaps zero, but doing the $$ math on acceptable levels of catastrophic consequences is a slippery slope, and sounds more like a big corporation accounting practice that no one would want to admit to. Wherever you are, backing off of something that is working could be quite a minefield for decision makers involved.
Yes, I understand there are "socially acceptable risks," but that phrase probably indicates an issue where society would do more if they could, and should keep trying to find less costly ways to achieve lower risks, rather than to give up on trying.

 

[NAM001]

Simple as a Club, but how can shops make money then?

Please dont go there. there are enough issues with policies for the sake of making a buck.

 

[NAM001]

2 issues about VIPS.

first any PROPERLY done vip for under 25 dollars is a deal. It doesnt sound like many have ever done a PSI check sheet for a VIS.
Second issue is whether the annual periodicity is realistic as a safety measure. I would be in favor of moving to a 2 year schedule. re-examining the results and if good move to a 3 year sched. for many tanks that should be workable but for tanks ta tare rentals or boat fills that may not work.

 

[KenGordon]

"Practically" unheard of implies occurrences are very rare, but not completely zero. I can't say one way or the other whether tighter schedules for inspections and testing would reduce any such occurrences to an even smaller number or perhaps zero, but doing the $$ math on acceptable levels of catastrophic consequences is a slippery slope, and sounds more like a big corporation accounting practice that no one would want to admit to. Wherever you are, backing off of something that is working could be quite a minefield for decision makers involved.
Yes, I understand there are "socially acceptable risks," but that phrase probably indicates an issue where society would do more if they could, and should keep trying to find less costly ways to achieve lower risks, rather than to give up on trying.

I have literally never hear of anyone being hurt in the U.K. due to steel cylinders. That is not to say they never fail, I have seen a couple of examples that shops keep to show how they look and convince people of the need for testing. Generally those look like they have been used as water bottles on the inside.

Someone was injured by an old aluminium cylinder according to an HSE notice a couple of years ago.

So, if there is not a problem and no proof that changing the regime will make a difference then why change? I can tell you for free that keeping a bunch of cylinders in test is already a major hassle. If I want to use the gas in my bailouts I have to practice at a site 3 hours drive away. They could test them there but how do I get them back? So actually I drive there, spend the weekend, bailout on the second day, drive home, next weekend I take the cylinders in t8 t(e local guy, get them back the following week. A three week cycle. Or maybe I just never get them tested and transfill if I have to?

Another counter arguement is that if you make it too much hassle more people will just buy compressors and never have their cylinders tested.

 

[Edward3c]

...
Their real bone was saving divers the cost of an annual vis. In the great scheme of things not a huge cost. Especially when most clubs can inspect cylinders "in house" for free.
...

Whilst one or two clubs might have the equivalent and qualified people to do inspections (mine did for 4 years) most don’t.

To get a cylinder filled at a U.K. commercial outlet the cylinder’s stamp (not sticker) must prove it was tested by a UKAS accredited facility. IDEST is the market leader - some air stations refuse to accept anything else.

 

[Diving Dubai]

I can tell you for free that keeping a bunch of cylinders in test is already a major hassle.

Oh come on now. Seriously?

My wife and I run 9 steels each, they all get at least 2 fills per month. The annual vis is no more hassle then dropping off the tanks for the fill as usual and paying a little more on collection. Our test dates are staggered so all don't require testing at once.

I agree that actual cylinder failure is rare, but this action isn't about safety, even though BSAC like to suggest that they support divers with the highest quality of safety recommendation (quoted from their Linked In page). This is all about trying to increase their membership by reducing annual dive expenditure.

Just for peace of mind an annual vis is better than a 2.5 year, at least if your cylinder does have some corrosion it can be more easily stopped and the cylinder recovered, where as with lengthy inspections not so much.

 

[chrisch]

Oh come on now. Seriously?

My wife and I run 9 steels each, they all get at least 2 fills per month. The annual vis is no more hassle then dropping off the tanks for the fill as usual and paying a little more on collection. Our test dates are staggered so all don't require testing at once.

So at the UK cost of £49.50 for a visual O2 clean tank you have 18 so £891 a year or US$ 1,113 a year. You clearly have way too much money.

I agree that actual cylinder failure is rare, but this action isn't about safety, even though BSAC like to suggest that they support divers with the highest quality of safety recommendation (quoted from their Linked In page). This is all about trying to increase their membership by reducing annual dive expenditure.

BSAC represent all UK divers as the governing body. It certainly was not about increasing club numbers. If anything the BSAC stood to benefit if the VIP could have been done by a club rather than a shop. Lots of divers would then join a club to get the VIP done rather than going to a shop. In t he UK it is not currently possible to test tanks yourself. Shops will not fill tanks that have not been tested by a commercial tester.

It is not unusual to get a bill for £80-100 for a test on doubles. (US$100-120) Hydro can near £160

Just for peace of mind an annual vis is better than a 2.5 year, at least if your cylinder does have some corrosion it can be more easily stopped and the cylinder recovered, where as with lengthy inspections not so much.

Why would a cylinder have corrosion in it? The only moisture that can enter a tank is through the compressed gas pumped into it. That should be dry. I know there are some parts of the world where the compressor operators are so bad that this is not true - in the UK air is pumped dry. It is very very unusual to have problems. The problem is not the tanks it is the compressor - the only reason to have more frequent inspections is that you are buying a tank full of crap from your LDS.

 

[Diving Dubai]

That should be dry

The important word is should...

What you're assuming is that filling stations are infallible. Even the most diligent of operators can have issues.

Personally I don't consider £100 per year too much of a cost in the great scheme of the annual costs of diving

My opinion is that I disagree with the principle, others like you have a different view