An expensive education

[roakey]

Tom,

I think the LDS is pulling a fast one and is trying to sell you a new cylinder. There is NO reason to fail a Walter Kiddee cylinder that passes a visual and hydro.

Step 0. Do this right now. Get the reason for failure IN WRITING from the shop before you do anything else. Make sure it’s signed and if possible on letterhead. Fib and tell ‘em you need it to pursue the seller via eBay. This is especially important if they’ve destroyed the cylinder. Make SURE it states something along the lines of “Failed because it was a Walter Kiddee manufactured before 1986”

Step 1. Go back to the shop and ask them to pull their VCI (Visual Cylinder Inspector) workbook. I bet they don’t have one. If the don’t, go to step 3.

Step 2. Have them turn to the “Cylinder Markings and Codes” (page 33 in my July, 2001 VCI workbook). Have them note that Walter Kiddee exemption E7042 does NOT have the magic “*” after it that says, “must condemn.” Now ask them on what grounds they’re failing a cylinder that passes both a visual and an eddy current test (admittedly we don’t know about hydro at this point). When they mumble something about a “dangerous alloy” wander over to their AL80s that they have for rent and classes and give them a quick going over. Any Luxfer AL80 that has manufacturers hydro stamp of 1986 or earlier is made from the 6351 alloy as well as your Walter Kiddee. I’m sure at this point the “I refuse to lose face in front of this informed customer” mentality will kick in and the BS waffling will start. At this point you’ll know why many shop employees earn the name “dive shop monkey.” Ask to speak with the owner of the shop and if you don’t get any satisfaction, you have learned not to do business with the shop. Go to step 4.

Of course, if they realize their mistake and change their tune, you do know to stick around and continue to do business with them.

Step 3. Ask to speak with their PSI (Professional SCUBA Inspector) certified inspector. See if you can convince them using their VCI workbook (if they have it). Ask to see their certificate. If it’s over three years old it’s expired. I bet it is. One shop I know of proudly displays their ten-year-old PSI certificate on the wall.

Point out the tremendous amount of liability that their shop is shouldering by not having a current inspector on staff, as well as spreading incorrect information about cylinders due to their education not being up-to-date. Terminate the relationship with the shop, telling them you’ll be back when they’re current on their cylinder information. Go to step 4.

If the inspector’s certificate is valid, have him/her do your inspection if they weren’t the one who originally did it. At this point you may have a problem. Again, if the shop doesn’t want to lose face and they’re totally dishonest, the inspector will now find some reason to fail your cylinder. If this happens, you have every right to go non-linear and point out (given that the visual and eddy passed) that they missed the “now found” defect the first time around. Question the quality of their inspection process – is a poor initial inspection that misses defects what you are to expect in the future? Terminate the relationship with the shop. Go to step 4.

If the inspector passes the cylinder (I’d be surprised) know you’ve got a good shop that’s willing to admit their mistakes and avoid the dive shop monkey that gave you the original bad information.

Step 4. Finally, if the shop has destroyed the cylinder, with the paperwork in hand (that you got in step 0) stating that it was destroyed because it was “too old” (not a reason to condemn it) tell them that you’re taking them to small claims court. Also offer to settle out of court for a brand new AL80 from their stock. If they don’t settle out of court take them to court for cost of cylinder plus all costs associated with taking them to court. Given that someone from their shop will have to show up, it’ll be cheaper for them to give you a brand new cylinder.

Sorry, uninformed shops really annoy me.

Roak.

Ps. Here’s a list from a site that lists all cylinders made from the 6351 alloy:

Here is "The List" of scuba tanks that the DOT says are most likely made from the 6351-T6 aluminum alloy:
 All DOT-3AL 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 Kiddee DOT-3AL scuba tanks.
 All Cliff Impact DOT-3AL scuba tanks made before July 1990.
 All Luxfer 80.8 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S80.8) made before May 1987.
 All Luxfer 72 and 100 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S72, S100) made before August 1987.
 All Luxfer 80 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S80) made before January 1988.
 All Luxfer 50 and 92 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S50, S92) made before April 1988.
 All Luxfer 30 and 63 cu. ft scuba tanks (S30, S63) made before May 1988.
 All Luxfer 40 cu. ft. scuba tanks (S40) made before June 1988.
 All other scuba tanks made in the US before February 1990 (except Catalina).
 All scuba tanks not made in the US.

 

[TwoBitTxn]

Thanks Roak,

I guess a few points. They didn't fail the tank. I was talking to the shop owner and PSI inspector at the time he's current. I saw his cert on the wall with a cert date of 2000. They both said no shop in my area would fill it, a point which I have verified, due to line 3 in your DOT alloy list.

The shop doesn't have a tank older than '91 in the rentals. I looked.

Essentially they explained the hazards involved with the tank and the fact that it would be very difficult to get filled in the DFW area. I really can't fault someone for not wanting to take that risk.

I am nervous about one thing though. My other two Luxfers are '86.

Tom

 

[Fishkiller]

SO the LDS took your tank out of service because it was on the list of things that DOT considered bad?

Do you think the shop should have told you that at the time, intead of leaving you in a quandary?
then again should you have left in one?

get your tank money back if it was old and barely used why was it repainted? hummm

 

[TwoBitTxn]

I voluntarily let the shop pull the tank. I guess I screwed up there.

The inspector at the shop explained the reasons why the tank needed to be pulled and I guess I'm gullible or soft but I listened to him. According to him since its an alloy that has been known to fail it needed to be pulled. I got the same story from another shop, and the shops around here are very cut throat.

My lesson was never make uninformed purchases like that again. I doubt I will every buy another used tank.

I didn't understand any of this until now and I'm still not sure I understand it.


Tom

 

[roakey]

Let me make it clear; that list is simply a list of cylinders made from the 6351 alloy.

It is NOT a list of condemned cylinders. DOT considers ALL those cylinders on the list perfectly legal and able to be filled.

All the cylinders on that list are completely legal and safe to fill, IF you’ve done a proper inspection. The PSI inspector knows this since PSI emphasizes that over and over again during the class (I just took my update about 5 months ago). As a WAG, that list makes up somewhere between 70% and 80% of all the AL cylinders out there. I’m sure they’re filling 6351 Luxfers without even knowing it.

The problem is that the Kiddee has a funky neck so it’s easy to recognize.

SLC isn’t an all-of-a-sudden kind of thing. For a recreational diver it could take years after a visible crack forms until a cylinder lets go, giving ample time and inspections to catch the crack.

Saying that other shops won’t fill them is simply, as we call in the software business, FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). I think this is a simple case of them wanting you to buy a cylinder from them.

Bottom like is that you got taken. Not by the eBay seller but by your LDS. That’s the expensive lesson you should take away from this experience. For them to arbitrarily decide that they won’t fill a DOT approved cylinder is tantamount to gas stations arbitrarily deciding not to sell gas to Volkswagens, “just because.”

Roak

Ps. What I find particularly heinous about this situation is that the inspector has to fall in one of two categories. He either knows all this stuff and lied to your face or didn’t pay attention in his PSI class. Neither option bodes well for the shop.

 

[scubabunny]

Ok....speaking as someone who works occassionally as a "tank monkey" (ie...filling tanks when someone goes to lunch or calls in sick), I have seen pictures of what has happened while filling tanks that are on the DOTs list of bad tanks. I, for one, do NOT want to experience one exploding first hand.

Our shop (as well as most shops on the island) will refuse to fill tanks that are on that list. Not because we are being difficult, but because we care about the lives of our employees. We also offer to sell our tanks at cost plus shipping (note: we make no money) to anyone that has had their tanks denied, condemned or whatever.

From what I have read here, shops should risk their employees lives and/or fill stations to fill tanks that have already been ruled as "unsafe" just to make their customers happy? I thought diving was all about being safe? Including the employees. Am I wrong?

 

[The Chairman]

The reason I took my PSI class was there was so much "misinformation" out there.

Fact 1; SLC (sustained load cracking) or Room Temperature Grain Creep happens only on tanks using 6351 alloy (so far).

Fact 2; SLC/RTGC should not result in "exploded" cylinders. It occurs in the neck/shoulder area where there is a LOT of aluminum and has so far only resulted in leaking tanks. (that's according to the CGA and PSI). Tanks rupture from defects and conditions in their sides like pits, gouges and dents. So don't condemn these tanks as unsafe, the CGA does not.

Fact 3; SLC/RTGC can be determined by a simple tank inspection. The current eddy (Visual +) will find them even earlier!

Fact 4; Tanks should be stored with -0- psi in them. The cracking results from maintaining a high pressure for long periods of time. Give 'em a break! Higher temperatures also will result in a higher fail rate. Vent them before winter, and do your inspection in the spring when you start diving again. No, its NOT what we were taught, but it's what Luxfer and the CGA believe should happen now.

Final Fact; According to a study done by the US Navy ALL tanks made from the 6351 alloy will ultimately develop SLC/RTGC. However, they should be considered useful until those cracks develop. It takes only ten/fifteen minutes to inspect a tank completely (including Vis +) and much less if you are -just- checking the neck area. If a tank comes in with a foreign EOI sticker, than you should empty it and take a look inside for your own (and your shop's) edification. You don't have to charge for this "courtesy inspection" and you don't have to provide an EOI sticker either. It's really not that much more work and you are showing your customer that you take "extra care".

 

[roakey]

fishkiller, scubabunny, it seems you're both missing what the DOT is saying here. Stop using the word "bad" in reference to 6351. That list is a list of cylinders that are prone to sustained load cracking. Period. End of story. They’re not bad. If they were bad the DOT would have called for their condemnation long ago, as they have done with other cylinders (so it’s not like there isn’t a history of the DOT condemning cylinders)

Note "sustained" implies quite a bit of time.

SLC is easily detectable via a visual inspection if you're properly trained and you do an inspection correctly.

The fact that some shops are arbitrarily deciding not to fill cylinders that have passed *ALL* the DOT requirements is a crime in my opinion. The only reason that shops are getting away with it is because the vast majority of divers are completely naive to the shafting that the shops are giving them. Read that last sentence as: The shops are taking advantage of their customers.

A shop that won’t fill 6351 tells me one or more things about the shop:

1. No one in the shop is PSI trained, period.
2. They don’t feel that their inspectors are adequately trained.
3. They don’t trust PSI when PSI says it’s OK to fill 6351 cylinders (why send your inspectors to PSI if you don’t trust it?)
4. They simply ignore their PSI training (if they ignore that, what else do they ignore?)
5. They don’t trust other shops’ inspections

The last is the scariest, because all we need is some yellow journalism calling for government control over SCUBA industry due to shops saying other shops are not doing adequate inspections. Then it’s all over for the "self-regulating" SCUBA industry.

And the biggest reason I think shops are refusing to fill 6351? They want a sale, period.

In any other retail endeavor, the behavior I see in many SCUBA shops would put them out of business in no time. I have no idea how the industry has so insulated itself from market pressures, but it has.

A question for you, scubabunny. PSI also makes it quite clear that hazmat training is required for all fill station operators (per OSHA). This training requires reading of the pertinent OSHA regulations and the signing of documents, kept on file, that you have received the required hazmat training. Has your shop done that with you as a fill station operator?

Roak

 

[The Chairman]

not even most! I think that there is SOOOOOOO much misinformation that we can explain why a multitude of shops shy away from taking the risk. There has been so much crap put out by so many, that I do not blame them for being "tank-shy". We don't need to assign more sinister motivations than that. It is when we denigrate the motives of our fellow workers in this industry that we will be quoted and then used against us in the future.

Education, is the answer to these problems. You can't educate if you come out and make people defensive to begin with. Only the individual shops know precisely why they do what they do, and I for one will not try to devine their intentions. I would much rather work on clarifying that which is out of focus, than trying to assign blame and guilt.

As for OSHA requirements... they are quite strict and I doubt that few if any can or would try to meet the letter of the law. Did you know that you are only supposed to carry 150 cf of compressed gas in your private vehicle, whether it is a truck, car or moped? Thats less than two 80cf cylinders! Not only are fill station operators required to undergo hazmat training, but anyone lifting and transporting a tank (even from the back to the front of the shop) should be trained as well.

All these and many more items are covered by PSI in their training. I would reccomend it to all divers... even those like me who do NOT work for a SCUBA shop.

 

[roakey]

Originally posted by NetDoc
Not all shops are villains... not even most!

I do agree. However, with a few exceptions on the coasts, I think most shops are horribly ignorant. Or they simply pay attention to the information that suits them.

On one hand they're willing to chest-pound and proclaim "life support equipment" and on the other they're willing to ignore the information that's available on 6351! So they make the customer think they're experts and then turn around and, through ignorance (most common) or deception abuse that trust and tell customers that their perfectly good 6351 cylinders won't be filled!

Case in point: NetDoc, you shelled out, what, about $300 for the PSI course because you didn't trust the information you were getting from your local shop(s)! I did too. I don't work for any shop, but I was so tired of trying to get a straight answer instead of FUD I shelled out the bucks as well.

As for hazmat training, that's covered in the PSI course, and PSI has a small, inexpensive book that covers everything a shop needs to do to comply with the training requirements. $15 bucks for the book and a signed form from each employee and the shop complies.

Peanuts.

But most shops ignore that piece of PSI wisdom as well.

Roak

Ps. PSI webpage: http://www.psicylinders.com/ look at their catalog for their hazmat training book.