DOT raiding dive centers in Monterey?

[Joe Underwater]

I just heard through the kelpvine that a or some dive center in Monterey are being visited by the US Department of Transportation concerning the vis's and hydros they are providing. I have never heard of this before. Anyone heard anything?

 

[zf2nt]

First off, DOT has nothing to do with standards on visual inspections. That is an industry standard and about the closest you can come to any authority trying to set uniform standards is PSI (PSI-PCI - Home). But DOT does have everything to do with hydrostatic tests. The standards for doing that are quite specific and have the force of law. The record-keeping requirement is very onerous and the penalties for non-compliance are severe. There are only two people in Monterey who do hydros: Ernie and Jared. It would be an easy enough matter to ask them if somebody has been around checking their records. I've seen Ernie's records (since he just flunked one of my HP100's a few weeks ago) so I'm sure Ernie is ready for any DOT inspector.

Bruce

 

[Wookie]

First off, DOT has nothing to do with standards on visual inspections. That is an industry standard and about the closest you can come to any authority trying to set uniform standards is PSI (PSI-PCI - Home). But DOT does have everything to do with hydrostatic tests. The standards for doing that are quite specific and have the force of law. The record-keeping requirement is very onerous and the penalties for non-compliance are severe. There are only two people in Monterey who do hydros: Ernie and Jared. It would be an easy enough matter to ask them if somebody has been around checking their records. I've seen Ernie's records (since he just flunked one of my HP100's a few weeks ago) so I'm sure Ernie is ready for any DOT inspector.

Bruce

Like usual, when someone who isn't in the business starts talking about hydro requirements, they are a little bit right. To quote DOT:

(3) Visual inspection.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, each time a cylinder is retested, it must be visually inspected, internally and externally, in accordance with CGA Pamphlets C-6, C-6.1, C-6.2, or C-6.3, as applicable. The cylinder must be approved, rejected or condemned according to the criteria in the applicable CGA pamphlet. Internal inspection may be omitted for cylinders of the type and in the service described under paragraph (e)(13) of this section. DOT 3BN cylinders must be inspected in accordance with CGA Pamphlet C-6.

Which pretty much gives CGA pamphlet C-6 whatever the rule of law. So, no, DOT does not specify the standard to follow, except they specify that you must follow the standard outlined in the CGA pamphlet, so they do in fact specify a visual inspection. In fact, the visual inspection as specified comes before the pressure test.

 

[Adobo]

Like usual, when someone who isn't in the business starts talking about hydro requirements, they are a little bit right. To quote DOT:

Which pretty much gives CGA pamphlet C-6 whatever the rule of law. So, no, DOT does not specify the standard to follow, except they specify that you must follow the standard outlined in the CGA pamphlet, so they do in fact specify a visual inspection. In fact, the visual inspection as specified comes before the pressure test.

Which *business*? Bruce used to own a dive shop in Monterey.

 

[raftingtigger]

Wookie, I don't claim to be "in the business" - My understanding is that the DOT mandates Hydros when the tanks are in commercial service or if transported (lets not get into nitpicking on definitions above - immaterial to my point), but the intervening visual inspections are not government regulated, but an industry standard. If this is the case then the DOT only cares about the conduct of a visual inspection that is an intergral part of the hydro testing.

 

[zf2nt]

He's right: DOT does mandate a visual inspection as a part of the hydrostatic testing. I didn't do hydro tests, so wasn't familiar with that. I sent all the tanks that came to me for hydro out to a test facility and they did it. But that is the only time DOT gets involved with visual inspections. The annual visual inspection is, as I said, strictly an industry convention.

But back to the original poster...he is right. I understand Ernie got a complete and thorough exam by a DOT inspector last week and in the end...after 5 hours of dealing with a government inspector...there were no issues. I got an earful about the experience. And it just reinforced my decision years ago not to go into the hydro testing business and instead to send tanks out to somebody else who was willing to assume the risks.

 

[Wookie]

Wookie, I don't claim to be "in the business" - My understanding is that the DOT mandates Hydros when the tanks are in commercial service or if transported (lets not get into nitpicking on definitions above - immaterial to my point), but the intervening visual inspections are not government regulated, but an industry standard. If this is the case then the DOT only cares about the conduct of a visual inspection that is an intergral part of the hydro testing.

A cylinder must be in current hydro to be transported or filled. Commercial service has nothing to do with it. The mistake you are making is "Transported in commerce". That means you, as Joe Diver, carrying a cylinder in your trunk to Monterrey Bay to go get an abalone for dinner are not subject to DOT regulations, but the DM carrying 12 cylinders to the quarry for an OW class is. But for anyone to fill it, regardless of who owns it or what it will be used for, it must be in current hydro, or retest.

To be in current hydro, the cylinder must have been visually inspected as a part of the re qualification test. See what I said there, I didn't call it a hydro, because the pressure test is only one part of qualification. A "hydrostatic test facility" is not, they are a cylinder retester.

The Visual Inspection Program is not a part of anything really, aside from some folks to make some cash. Not that I don't do it, but I do it myself.

So what Joe Underwater said was that someone in Monterrey was inspected by DOT. Then someone else came in and said that DOT didn't care about vis. DOT does set standards for visual inspection as part of a retest, but it is correct that the annual VIP is so much hoohah.

But if you have to replace the neck O-rings anyway, you might as well have a peek inside. Doesn't hurt, and it might help.

 

[redacted]

lh.

But if you have to replace the neck O-rings anyway, you might as well have a peek inside. Doesn't hurt, and it might help.

Helps put another $15 in the till of the shop that just received the tank back from the hydro facility where it was already inspected.

 

[BRT]

Like usual, when someone who isn't in the business starts talking about hydro requirements, they are a little bit right. To quote DOT:

Which pretty much gives CGA pamphlet C-6 whatever the rule of law. So, no, DOT does not specify the standard to follow, except they specify that you must follow the standard outlined in the CGA pamphlet, so they do in fact specify a visual inspection. In fact, the visual inspection as specified comes before the pressure test.

The real beauty of this when it comes to the average person is it will cost them $140 bucks or so to get to read the CGA pamphlets. Hard to believe we can't just read the laws we are regulated by on the internet or at the library.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

A cylinder must be in current hydro to be transported or filled. Commercial service has nothing to do with it. The mistake you are making is "Transported in commerce". That means you, as Joe Diver, carrying a cylinder in your trunk to Monterrey Bay to go get an abalone for dinner are not subject to DOT regulations

Off topic, but you would be subject to California Department of Fish and Wildlife fines. Abalone may not be taken using scuba gear, and may only be taken in Northern California. Just saying.