Overfilling LP Steel Tanks -- How bad is it?
- Thread starter AceszHigh
- Start date
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
Leadking
Contributor
I think I started something...
Any Professional that gives advice or an answer, that is contrary to his or her certifying agency, the manufacture of the product, local, state or federal law is wrong.
My initial comment was to express my public dissapointment with people who have a "professional" designation with their nickname.
We are bound both ethically, code of conduct by our angencies, the law and by liability which doesn't allow us to just give answers people are looking for if they are contrary to those "Right answers".
We all have answers based on experience and the text book answers. These answers don't always agree, in fact they sometimes flat out conflict. As professionals, as people who can be held liable, we should refrain from giving any answer but the one that is in the text book to limit our liability.
We don't always have the luxury to give opinions, or answer questions sometimes the way we'd like to. I am "duty bound" (Legally, ethically, standards, law, liabilty) as is every other Instructor, Asst. Instructor, to give the so called "RIGHT" answer to certain questions.
I know I overfill my tanks on occassion, but publicly, when asked directly by someone the answer has to be NO as a dive professional.
The chances of a tank exploding, especially a steel one is remote, but there IS a chance. I'm not going to be the Instructor that said "yea, go ahead, it's not a big deal to put an extra 500lbs or more in your tank".
Diving safe, responsibly, and eliminating or mitigating as many risks as possible is our job. Giving someone advice that introduces risk, however small, is in my opinion is contrary to our obligation as an Instructor/Asst. Ins/DM.
So, move on with the topic. Sorry for inadverdantly causing it to be hickjacked....
Any Professional that gives advice or an answer, that is contrary to his or her certifying agency, the manufacture of the product, local, state or federal law is wrong.
My initial comment was to express my public dissapointment with people who have a "professional" designation with their nickname.
We are bound both ethically, code of conduct by our angencies, the law and by liability which doesn't allow us to just give answers people are looking for if they are contrary to those "Right answers".
We all have answers based on experience and the text book answers. These answers don't always agree, in fact they sometimes flat out conflict. As professionals, as people who can be held liable, we should refrain from giving any answer but the one that is in the text book to limit our liability.
We don't always have the luxury to give opinions, or answer questions sometimes the way we'd like to. I am "duty bound" (Legally, ethically, standards, law, liabilty) as is every other Instructor, Asst. Instructor, to give the so called "RIGHT" answer to certain questions.
I know I overfill my tanks on occassion, but publicly, when asked directly by someone the answer has to be NO as a dive professional.
The chances of a tank exploding, especially a steel one is remote, but there IS a chance. I'm not going to be the Instructor that said "yea, go ahead, it's not a big deal to put an extra 500lbs or more in your tank".
Diving safe, responsibly, and eliminating or mitigating as many risks as possible is our job. Giving someone advice that introduces risk, however small, is in my opinion is contrary to our obligation as an Instructor/Asst. Ins/DM.
So, move on with the topic. Sorry for inadverdantly causing it to be hickjacked....
bleeb
Contributor
Since someone brought up the topic of Luxfer, I started to wonder about the statistics of tank failures (or non-failure).
With the whole 6351 aluminum tank issue, there were IIRC (vaguely) tens of millions of tanks involved, a couple of dozen ruptures (say one in a million tanks, not including tanks withdrawn from service prior to failure), and a handful of fatalities (call it one in five million tanks).
Potential explosive failure modes may be from mishandling (such water inside) or previously unknown issues (such as 6351's faster-than-expected SLC when it first started to happen). And as a measure of failure rate, ruptures are typically seen almost exclusively in fills, but effects like corrosion can also be measured in tank-years, or more simply, in the number of tanks out there, so both are potentially useful information for quantifying risk.
What I'm wondering is how large a sample size is the number of these 150% Florida cave fills, both in number of fills, and in the total number of tanks that have been regularly exposed to these conditions over all of recorded history. How does this compare to, say, the number of 6351 tanks? One possible way to estimate is to compare the number of Florida cave divers to 'regular' OW divers, and presumably, there are orders of magnitude (thousands) of the latter for every one of the former. There may be other ways. Thoughts? WAGs?
With the whole 6351 aluminum tank issue, there were IIRC (vaguely) tens of millions of tanks involved, a couple of dozen ruptures (say one in a million tanks, not including tanks withdrawn from service prior to failure), and a handful of fatalities (call it one in five million tanks).
Potential explosive failure modes may be from mishandling (such water inside) or previously unknown issues (such as 6351's faster-than-expected SLC when it first started to happen). And as a measure of failure rate, ruptures are typically seen almost exclusively in fills, but effects like corrosion can also be measured in tank-years, or more simply, in the number of tanks out there, so both are potentially useful information for quantifying risk.
What I'm wondering is how large a sample size is the number of these 150% Florida cave fills, both in number of fills, and in the total number of tanks that have been regularly exposed to these conditions over all of recorded history. How does this compare to, say, the number of 6351 tanks? One possible way to estimate is to compare the number of Florida cave divers to 'regular' OW divers, and presumably, there are orders of magnitude (thousands) of the latter for every one of the former. There may be other ways. Thoughts? WAGs?
Mark Michaud SELAUSAR
Contributor
I recently investigated a head on crash that both driver's speedometers were stuck at 53 mph. Neither driver made it. That comparison is like saying getting shot with a .22 caliber is safer that getting shot with a .45 caliber. It just doesn't wash. Many "safety factors" are created due to how much liability someone is willing to accept if something bad happens. It doesn't necessarily mean that the numbers are absolute and going beyond will cause catostrophic consequences.
H2Andy
Contributor
I've been seeing how far I can stretch a tank of gas, so I've been putting along at 50-55mph in the slow lane all week. And it just so happens I stopped by the LDS to pick up 4 overfilled steels. So, does the former help cancel out the danger of the latter?
I'll look through my school stuff when I get home and see if I have the ppt with the slide explaining it. Perhaps I should keep it in my car in the event I get pulled over
Similar threads
- Question
