BSAC avoids annual VIP

[boulderjohn]

It's a racket in the US, but with a different set of players. Since it isn't actually regulated here, the tank inspection can be done by a tank monkey without certification by anyone but the senior tank monkey. That shop sticker is just as valid as a PCI stickèr, and without certification as a inspector the profit margin is higher.

You are right, of course, but it may even go beyond that.

A couple of years ago, in preparation for my annual stay in South Florida, I cleaned and inspected my tanks, putting on my official PSI-PCI stickers with my official PSI-PCI inspector number on them. On my first day in town, I took them to a shop I had not used for fills before, Force-E in Pompano Beach. (I mention that because it is a long-established--1976--and highly reputable operation.) The man doing the filling looked at the stickers and was absolutely baffled. "Who did this inspection?" he asked, clearly suspicious. When I said that I had done the inspection myself, he was doubly suspicious. I soon realized that his question meant "What dive shop did the inspection?" I guess what he usually saw was stickers with the name of a dive shop on them. He had never heard of PSI-PCI, so that name had no meaning to him. He eventually agreed to fill the tank.

If my stickers had the name "Joe Blow's Dive Shop" on them and had been inspected by a new employee who had no training whatsoever, he would have filled the tanks without any question, but he was quite concerned about a tank certified by some random guy trained by some unknown agency.

 

[chrisch]

It's a racket in the US, but with a different set of players. Since it isn't actually regulated here, the tank inspection can be done by a tank monkey without certification by anyone but the senior tank monkey. That shop sticker is just as valid as a PCI stickèr, and without certification as a inspector the profit margin is higher.

Y...I soon realized that his question meant "What dive shop did the inspection?" I guess what he usually saw was stickers with the name of a dive shop on them. He had never heard of PSI-PCI, so that name had no meaning to him. He eventually agreed to fill the tank.....

In the UK testing is by an IDEST registered test facility. Any other test is simply not recognised (this is not law it is universal dive shop policy). The PCI style self testing cannot happen as the IDEST will not recognise the test. Tanks must be stamped with an IDEST stamp and you can only get one if you pay IDEST and agree to their terms and go on their training schemes. You cannot buy O2 clean stickers - they have to be a dive shop sticker. If you self clean then you will not get a fill from any shop that PP fills. Continuous flow up to 40EAN is OK and doesn't need a sticker, but very very few shops have that kind of compressor.

I have a blenders ticket and O2 cleaning ticket, but I cannot buy O2 stickers. A shop can O2 clean and the cleaner doesn't need an O2 ticket.

As I posted earlier the annual visual is no big deal if it could be done by a club (or someone with a PCI certification) but the industry isn't going to allow that.

My local facility somehow or another "always" finds rust and so always charges for a shot blast. The last time I took a tank in they also replaced the black valve knobs and fitted green ones "because you must have green for nitrox". (It was a H valve so two of them - and I didn't get the old ones back). Although I paid and took my tank I was extremely rude to the shop owner and have never gone back and taken every chance to put off anyone else from ever going there. I now get them done somewhere else. Despite this dishonest rip off and dreadful service I am sorry to say the facility is still in business.

 

[Diving Dubai]

As I posted earlier the annual visual is no big deal if it could be done by a club (or someone with a PCI certification) but the industry isn't going to allow that.

I don't see why not, If you can get a nationally recognised inspection certificate from an approved agency then it shouldn't be difficult.

Way back when I was in aerospace, I used to hold a Level 3 in 6 NDT disciplines (with both CAA and FAA recognised certifications) And teach NDT as well as write inspection procedures.

Visual inspection as you say isn't hard, especially with scuba cylinders where frankly the allowed defect size is so large a one eyed dog could find it.

It does make my blood boil that it's been turned into an "industry" as a way of increasing profits. The Eddy Current (VE) inspection on old Ali cylinders is one that I've said before is a waste of time - mainly because you have unskilled operators using a toy that if it does "find" a defect has to be confirmed by eye - where in reality Eddy current can find and distinguish between fatigue cracks, thread laps, corrosion and material or extrusion defects.

Policies and procedures put in place with the best intent have clearly been abused.

Here we're clearly lucky to have a first rate shop. I don't even know how much a Vis, O2 clean and hydro is, simply because if its done when I pick up my tanks the price difference (from just having gas fills) isn't enough to worry about - I guess £25- £30 (my cylinder fills are £4 up to 50%).

Clearly if I return to the UK and man up enough to go diving in the cold I'll be renting my tanks...

 

[Hickdive]

Okay, a fair bit of misinformation in this thread.

Firstly, although BSAC brought industry and HSE together on the issue, it is a bit of a stretch for BSAC to claim all the credit. The HSE did a risk assessment that demonstrated that the existing five year hydraulic test period with a visual inspection at 2.5 years did not lead to an increase in cylinder failures. The HSE was then able to persuade the ISO to include Annex A para c to ISO18119:2018 which allows local regulations, subject to a risk assessment, to maintain the 5 and 2.5 regime.

The UK inspection and testing regime continues to be a five hydraulic test period with a visual inspection at 2.5 years. It is NOT a five yearly test and inspection.

The UK is unique in having a self-appointed (post 2009) industry cartel in IDEST. There is no legal requirement for IDEST to approve UK test stations. However IDEST affiliated shops will generally not fill cylinders not tested by IDEST affiliated test centres, creating a virtual monopoly. As we can see from the rest of the world, such a cartel is unnecessary.

ISO18119:2018 requires that cylinders presented for filling when empty must have the valve removed and be visually checked for moisture.

A visual inspection, whether at 1 year or 2.5 years, must include the use of calibrated go/no go thread gauges on the cylinder neck and the valve stem. If you're doing your own without these test gauges and then labeling to say the cylinder has been visually inspected then you are a danger to everyone who fills those cylinders.

 

[Pavao]

The HSE did a risk assessment that demonstrated that the existing five year hydraulic test period with a visual inspection at 2.5 years did not lead to an increase in cylinder failures.

I didn’t see it posted anywhere, but could someone elaborate more or point to where we can find information on how they arrived at that conclusion?

 

[Edward3c]

Okay, a fair bit of misinformation in this thread.
Firstly, although BSAC brought industry and HSE together on the issue, it is a bit of a stretch for BSAC to claim all the credit. The HSE did a risk assessment that demonstrated that the existing five year hydraulic test period with a visual inspection at 2.5 years did not lead to an increase in cylinder failures. The HSE was then able to persuade the ISO to include Annex A para c to ISO18119:2018 which allows local regulations, subject to a risk assessment, to maintain the 5 and 2.5 regime.
...

Whilst BSAC didn't do all the work, they were the co-ordinating body without which we would have annual visuals in the UK now. BSAC encouraged SITA to get test results data from the members which was presented to the HSE. The HSE didn't organise or do the research as they interest was, initially, the commercial diving industry.

 

[BRT]

Hey Folks...

I like it...sounds good in principle...

I'm VIP certified and O2 clean all my tanks...rebreather and bailout...

My only concern is...especially when diving ''away'' and that rare occasion you get an ''oily'' fill and hydrocarbons are unintentionally introduced into the cylinder...and remain there for five years...

Locally I'm down from December to at least the end of March...I service and re-sticker my tanks during this period...clean tanks for me is critical...I'll continue to do this for myself even if the standard is revised...

The OW...''air only'' divers who rely solely on ''shop service'' for everything will certainly benefit from this change...

If the US adopts the standard and Canada does not...US divers diving in Canada with their own tanks may have a problem...as the tank stickers will not show ''Annual Servicing''...in Ontario we get a lot of US divers driving up to Tobermory...bringing all their own gear...rebreathers...doubles...and side-mount...

I don't know whether Canada will follow the lead...we can only hope...likely will not be an ''over-night'' change anyway...

Dive Safe...

Warren

Just for consideration, you get the "oily" fill. Wouldn't the most dangerous PP fill be the next one?

 

[Schwob]

@Schwob You always seen to have a handle on things

Sam, I sure would like to think so, except that quite often it turns out "things" in turn really have a handle on me...

About your questions: My post was more in reply to the thread than to your post ... and, just diving since 3 years, I am the wrong man for your questions. Just trying to keep diving, trying to get the family diving once in a while, trying to do it all somewhat on a budget with way too little time... and trying to avoid unevessary expense and time and miles where I can... and always questioning if I should trust i.e. a dive shop employee on a dive shop wage with my safety over trusting myself.

The answer to the latter I can give you:
Some, if I know them, with some things that I haven't wrapped my head around yet ... yes, I can, would, do and will trust them.
Some others that I know however... no I definitely would not, not if I can avoid it.

Trusting some anonymous unknown to me employee with my life just because he/she maybe passed a class that is rather hard to fail and is sort of sold to me as truly having my safety as his/her primary interest in mind over everything else that is going on in his/her life, the dive shop job, the other job (sorry, but that mostly is the reality, isn't it), ... ... Yeah, we know the answer to that...Sometimes, there is no choice. Double checking is healthier, putting yourself in a position to having a choice may be healthier yet... imho...

 

[Schwob]

In the UK testing is by an IDEST registered test facility. Any other test is simply not recognised (this is not law it is universal dive shop policy). The PCI style self testing cannot happen as the IDEST will not recognise the test. Tanks must be stamped with an IDEST stamp

Asking as potentially of interest, not critiquing:
So, i.e. divers driving over from the continent on holiday need not bother bringing any of their own scuba or diluent tanks (tested appropriately wherever they are from) as for sure, nobody will fill them?

 

[JackD342]

Well, I went to my PSI/PCI training materials to see if I could find any info on the history of visual inspections - no luck. Closest I got is a bullet point that PSI was started in 1982 or 1983.

But skimming through the book helped clarify some other thoughts for me. Everyone is right!
Cylinders are fine with less frequent inspection, and cylinders should be subjected to more frequent inspection!!!

The issue is that everywhere that has a regulatory mandated or an industry practice, is using a one-size-fits-all standard for every cylinder ever made. Frequent inspections are absolutely correct in a single "lowest common denominator" approach. Less frequent inspections are (probably) correct given a specific cylinder. Not that I am suggesting that there should be a dozen different standards depending on design, age, composition, condition etc. of a cylinder, but that is probably the only way to possibly meet all needs with the minimum of justifiable inspections. Now think about implementing something like THAT!

I will provide one example cited in PSI/PCI "Inspection Cylinders", 5th edition.
University of Rhode Island has in the past conducted multiple tests, including a test on steel cylinders in 1970, simulating tropical environmental conditions. One of the outcomes of that test was that a steel cylinder stored in a horizontal position with 500ml of salt water inside for 100 days at 103°F and at full pressure lost as much as 2/3 of the wall thickness.

So a modern day steel tank, galvanized or zinc coated, is subject to the same testing procedures as those 1970 tanks, still in use today, that flash rust in the blink of an eye. Does that help clarify how we arrived at the current state of inspection practice and controversy?

There is a lot more good info along the same line in that book; if you have one and haven't read it since training (if then even) go ahead and take another look.