• Welcome to ScubaBoard

  1. 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. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

Tank failing Visual, shop condemned the tank?

Discussion in 'Tanks, Valves and Bands' started by acarter92, Jul 20, 2019.

  1. rjack321

    rjack321 Captain

    # of Dives: 1,000 - 2,499
    Location: Port Orchard, WA
    Then don't take your tanks to anyone using PSI's materials, your "problem" is solved.
    pauldw likes this.
  2. tursiops

    tursiops Marine Scientist and Master Instructor ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 2,500 - 4,999
    Location: U.S. East Coast
    PSI doesn't require "condemming." It just says if you are going to do it, get the signed waiver first.
  3. TrimixToo

    TrimixToo Regular of the Pub

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: New York State
    Various people, including me, have posted this before, but it bears repeating. A visual inspection cannot determine whether a tank is suitable for O2 service or even nitrox service, for at least two reasons.

    First, not all combustible contaminants fluoresce under black light. Perhaps most importantly, synthetic compressor oils do not. Second, a black light cannot see around corners, and there are lots of corners in a valve. The cleanliness of the valve is arguably (much) more important than that of the tank, actually. Particle impingement during O2 fills has all those turns to make inside the valve, while particles that make it through the valve maze have lots of room to slow down before they get to the bottom of the tank.

    Marking a tank O2 clean follows, well, O2 cleaning. Anyone else who accepts that inspector's sticker must trust the inspector or insist on a separate cleaning and VIS before restickering it.
    rjack321 likes this.
  4. KWS

    KWS ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: SE TEXAS
    Absolutely. either way it is not done by the requalifer.
  5. fullytek

    fullytek Dive Charter

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: ontario
    So what if this cylinder actually has a defect that was found by the lds.

    Now let's assume the OP storms out of the LDS with his sharpie marked tank , stops at home depot and picks up a can of acetone and then drops the tank at another shop where a less throught inspection is carried out. Or as others have suggested an ali express vip sticker finds its way to the cylinder.

    Now this tank ends up at a destanation shop fill station where the defect results in a catastrophic failure killing the fill station operator.

    During the following investigation it is discovered that the tank had failed a visual inspection yet the inspector didnt take all reasonable action to prevent this cylinder from being used.

    What liability is the original inspector exposed to.

    Is the risk of losing a coustomer and getting a bad google review because some one is to cheep to buy a new $200 cylinder more serious than the risk of a serios accadent?

    Of you think the inspecting shop has failed thos tank with the intentint of selling a new cylinder keep in mind that the margin on an aluminum 80 is often less than $25
    JackD342 likes this.
  6. rsingler

    rsingler Scuba Instructor, Tinkerer in Brass Staff Member ScubaBoard Sponsor

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Napa, California
    I really don't understand why we keep going around and around with this.

    If the LDS does not have a statutory obligation to render the tank unable to hold air, and has not had the customer sign one of PSI's "I can kill your tank" forms, it can certainly protect itself from a successful lawsuit by requiring the owner of the tank to sign a shop form in order to retrieve his tank. The form would note that the customer had been informed that the tank failed VIS, was unsafe to use and in the opinion of the inspector, should be condemned for listed defects. Further, the form would note that the tank had been labeled with this information.

    With that information on file, the shop can clearly prove it has satisfied its obligation, and not exceeded its authority by physically drilling a hole in the tank or damaging the threads.

    That won't prevent a lawsuit after the catastrophe, but it will help protect the shop from a successful one. Further, it would tend to return liability to the owner of the tank, where it belongs. Especially if the owner is so foolish as to continue to use the tank after signing a form as described above.

    I understand the desire to protect the world by condemning a tank, but everybody's human, and people make mistakes. Profit margins aren't so large at an LDS that it can afford to regularly exceed its statutory authority in pursuit of an ideal, when more often than not, the tank won't explode, and the disgruntled customer will erode the store's economic survivability by spreading bad news.

    Maybe I'll change my tune when I complete PSI's course at DEMA in November. I'll be sure to ask these questions!
    2TH DIVR likes this.
  7. akdeepdiver

    akdeepdiver Dive Shop

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Iowa Park, TX
    And here is the DOTs input.

    Attached Files:

    captain and lowviz like this.
  8. rsingler

    rsingler Scuba Instructor, Tinkerer in Brass Staff Member ScubaBoard Sponsor

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Napa, California
    Well, that was weird. The guy asks about condemning, just like us, and DOT says you can't, as we suspected, but then quotes verbiage having to do with not "retesting" and not applying a hydro stamp, unless you're a licensed center.

    That letter raises more questions than it answers, IMO.
  9. JackD342

    JackD342 Dive Shop

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: Highland Park, IL
    Well, the only question I would still have for the author of the DOT letter is "did you understand the question?"

    That said, my interpretation of the interpretation is he clearly and succinctly answered the question with a "no" but then muddied the waters by citing the closest available verbiage which as written did not address the actual question, without also providing a rationale or connecting the dots between his reply and the quote. But I think he did understand the question.
    lowviz and rsingler like this.
  10. lowviz

    lowviz Solo Diver ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Northern Delaware or the New Jersey Turnpike
    Pretty much the same take on this.

    So, we can agree that there is a potential for confusion concerning CONDEMN from a VIP inspector's viewpoint???

Share This Page