Scuba Cylinder kills fire fighter

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Reading the narrative of the event is absolutely frightening. I think about all the years I spent around hundreds of scuba tanks in various conditions (including tanks in countries with very lax regulations.)


When I saw the pictures of the tanks, I couldn't believe how wasted they were. If you look around at the price of the equipment in a firehouse, scuba tanks are relatively cheap. Even in my pirate dog days, I don't think I would have been comfortable with that tank, much less paid money for it. I understand that budgets are often shrinking but to risk life over a tank that you saved 50-60 bucks on isn't worth it. (and ,yes, I know you can get a killer deal on a used tank if you know what to look for.)

It all reminded me of a phone call I got when I worked in a dive shop decades ago. It was the early 90s so tech diving was just being born and I was doing 200 foot tech dives with hyperoxic deco mixes. The phone at the dive shop rings...


"Hello, I'm * name redacted * with the * name redacted * Fire Department. We setting up a dive rescue team and we're looking to buy some gear. Do you guys have any old used gear that you can sell us? We're on a budget so we need a good price."


I was building up my tech diving systems with redundant buoyancy, redundant gas supplies and oxygen clean parts. Were these guys going to be the ones to rescue me if I got in trouble? Were they the ones that would dive to recover my body? It really concerned me and I never forgot that call.

I think public safety diving has come a long way since then...
 
Reading the narrative of the event is absolutely frightening. I think about all the years I spent around hundreds of scuba tanks in various conditions (including tanks in countries with very lax regulations.)


When I saw the pictures of the tanks, I couldn't believe how wasted they were. If you look around at the price of the equipment in a firehouse, scuba tanks are relatively cheap. Even in my pirate dog days, I don't think I would have been comfortable with that tank, much less paid money for it. I understand that budgets are often shrinking but to risk life over a tank that you saved 50-60 bucks on isn't worth it. (and ,yes, I know you can get a killer deal on a used tank if you know what to look for.)

It all reminded me of a phone call I got when I worked in a dive shop decades ago. It was the early 90s so tech diving was just being born and I was doing 200 foot tech dives with hyperoxic deco mixes. The phone at the dive shop rings...


"Hello, I'm * name redacted * with the * name redacted * Fire Department. We setting up a dive rescue team and we're looking to buy some gear. Do you guys have any old used gear that you can sell us? We're on a budget so we need a good price."


I was building up my tech diving systems with redundant buoyancy, redundant gas supplies and oxygen clean parts. Were these guys going to be the ones to rescue me if I got in trouble? Were they the ones that would dive to recover my body? It really concerned me and I never forgot that call.

I think public safety diving has come a long way since then...
I doubt a fire department dive team will attempt a body recovery on a tech diver.
 
Thanks for not answering my question. :wink: I'm looking for advice on how this IS done. I am a trained PCI/PSI tank inspector but can't recall being trained how to deal with this situation. We had one of our students drop a tank and destroyed the handle assembly. Mike at PCI/PSI advised us to secure the tank and loosen the relief valve slowly. Ultimately we were able to turn the stem with a lot of effort and the help of a long nose pliers and pry open the valve.

Personally I would not try and do anything with an O2 tank with broken valve. That's beyond my acceptable risk level.

Since the knob, outer retainer, and stem can all be removed with the valve in place and closed, and none of them retain the valve or are pressurized when the valve is closed, I am not sure why one would not first try to replace the stem, screw the retainer back in, and them open the valve as usual with a (perhaps new) knob. Other things could follow after that, but this seems simple enough. What am I missing?
 
Quote taken from the article. "The unsecured cylinder began to spin, rotate and bounce off the engine bay floor until it became an airborne projectile. The airborne cylinder struck a concrete block wall, causing the cylinder valve body to shear off, resulting in a larger oriface for the cylinder contents to vent through. "

Does the above sound possible, or could the order of events be wrong? It seems more plausible that the valve was sheared before the tank became airborne.
 
The whole scenarios sounds unlikely to me. I am also somewhat surprised that the report was able to come to such a definitive conclusion and precise narrative about the sequence of events which probably occurred in a few moments. Perhaps there was surveillance video?

However, it does make sense to me. I find it difficult to believe that the air leaving a burst disc orifice had enough energy to propel a tank at a velocity that would cause the entire valve to shear off, but on the other hand, it seems more improbable that someone using a small wrench or socket on a burst disc bolt would be able to apply enough force to snap a valve off. That seems entirely impossible to me.
 
Does the above sound possible, or could the order of events be wrong? It seems more plausible that the valve was sheared before the tank became airborne.

So "The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, /ˈnaɪɒʃ/) is the United States federal agency responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related injury and illness." They took several months to look - reenact and piece together a Firefighter death so that others may learn and not repeat the same mistake. This is their job - pretty much their only job.

And you would like to second guess their outcome? Based on what? Only asking...
:popcorn:
 

Back
Top Bottom