Visual inspection for new tank?

[rjack321]

I don't know how to take the valves off (probably need a special tool). The inside and neck is inspected just like any other tank.

For the exterior:
PSI makes an intentionally scuffed and cut wrapped scba which shows the different levels of exterior damage - minor through condemned. The manufacturer/owner's manual should reference the correct CGA pub for damage limits - that is some types allow level 2 (moderate) damage to be repaired, some don't.

All I remember is the carbon fiber cylinders visual being particularly sensitive to any cuts. Glass fibers are supposedly slightly more durable and less cut sensitive too. Thus, carbon fiber may be condemned at a lower level of cut damage, whereas glass can possibly be repaired at the same damage level.

Sometimes a new hydro's required, sometimes not. SCBAs in general seem very manufacturer specific. Not like luxfer vs. catalina aluminums where the same pit limits apply, etc.

 

[SDAnderson]

I have been in the Fire Service for 26+ years, and the fire service is not required to due annual inspections. Luxfer makes almost all the tanks for the fire service. So my question is what's the difference between a scuba tank or a fire service tank. In either under water or a smoke filled room if you don't have good air you will be in a bad way! Just my 2 cents

If I'm wrong, I hope I won't get flamed to badly (rotten pun but the best I could do on the fly) but don't NFPA and OSHA regulations require inspection and testing of SCBA systems used by firefighters prior to every use - not just every year?

Additionally, I think the regulations also require that fire departments follow manufacturers maintenance and inspection recommendations which, at least in the case of some cylinders used by FP's, would mandate annual inspections using CGA/PSI protocols and standards, no?

 

[rjack321]

I suspect the "prior to every use" bit is not a formal inspection, just a cursory exterior looky-loo for obvious defects. Something that should be done on scuba cylinders too.

Like is it bulging, leaking, out-of-date hydro, huge gouge, etc.

 

[hazmat1800]

Every time I fill a tank I look for dents, cuts, hydro date and fire marks on the tank. But we don't take the valve out and look in the tank unless it's been hydro'd. The other thing is what training does the person that is doing the inspection of the tank have? My local dive shop won't accept me doing a vip and my department even has a Visual Plus machine. It all most seems like a way for the lds to make money for an o-ring and a sticker.

 

[razor218]

here in new zealand scuba tanks need to be hydro tested every two years and a visual done annually.when a visual is done the valve is taken off,the outside is checked for damage,the inside is checked not only for dead rodents but any other contaminates,corrosion etc,also for crackes.if the valve is left on and no pressure in the tank then the only contaminates that can get in is moisture-condensation-so even if the tank is empty but the valve is turned off nothing can get in.not a good idea leaving a tank empty.here we have to put a inspection tag on that stays on the tank as it fits around the valve,two ways of getting it off-remove valve or cut it off.
it probably be easier to leave your tanks at home and rent them when you are on holiday

 

[SDAnderson]

I suspect the "prior to every use" bit is not a formal inspection, just a cursory exterior looky-loo for obvious defects. Something that should be done on scuba cylinders too.

Like is it bulging, leaking, out-of-date hydro, huge gouge, etc.

Heh. At the risk of hijacking this thread, it's been my experience that when OSHA, NFPA, CGA, etc. get together to write a protocol for inspections, the results tend to be quite formal and you won't find them using terms like "looky-loo."

I don't know what the standards are (they're proprietary and I don't want to pay the money to find out, nor do I want to publish them here and violate copyright) but I suspect that you are correct to some degree: the each-use inspection may not be as thorough as the PSI inspection. Then again, the fire departments know their users better than most shops and have a far better idea what has been going on with the cylinders so they don't have some of the same concerns that a scuba shop might.

This "know your customer/cylinder" point is an important part of the equation. A few years ago a local shop in my area condemned a cylinder and drilled a hole in the side of the tank before returning it to the customer. The customer took the tank home, ran a screw into the hole, shaved the head off, painted the tank and returned it to service. Or how about the diver that took the PSI course so he could do his own inspections but forgot to replace the neck O-ring before slapping his sticker on the tank and bringing it in for a fill. Then there was the shop that went out of business several years ago and sold all of their VIP stickers - they still show up with current dates at least a few times every year...and so it goes.

The PSI protocols are simple and direct: if there is any reason to suspect that a cylinder has a problem, a full visual inspection following all of the protocols and standards is in order. Not a once-over-lightly looky-loo sneak peek but the full Monty. As a former dive shop monkey, I was very comfortable asking someone that brought a cylinder in that was drained or that was open to either pay for a visual or take it somewhere else for a fill. Simply put, I found that the divers who complained the loudest about the inequities of this inspection policy were also the ones that I trusted the least to scrupulously follow good procedure when no one was looking and I was strongly disinclined to trust my butt to their integrity and good sense. Frankly, for anyone contemplating traveling for a dive vacation, it seems to me that squabbling about paying a few dollars to recertify equipment that you disassembled is akin to a two-dollar player sitting down at the ten-dollar table and complaining about the ante.

 

[rjack321]

Heh. At the risk of hijacking this thread, it's been my experience that when OSHA, NFPA, CGA, etc. get together to write a protocol for inspections, the results tend to be quite formal and you won't find them using terms like "looky-loo."

I don't know what the standards are (they're proprietary and I don't want to pay the money to find out, nor do I want to publish them here and violate copyright) but I suspect that you are correct to some degree: the each-use inspection may not be as thorough as the PSI inspection.

Simply put, I found that the divers who complained the loudest about the inequities of this inspection policy were also the ones that I trusted the least to scrupulously follow good procedure when no one was looking and I was strongly disinclined to trust my butt to their integrity and good sense. .

My PSI book talks about prior to use or filling type "inspections". The term "looky-loo" was my synopsis of that list of exterior items.

Regarding the moaners, I couldn't agree with you more (if my butt were on the line). But there's also a littany of shops out there with some nonsensical inspection requirements.

IMO if a cylinder comes in drained but with a current visual, I'd just pop the valve and have a look in there, then fill it. I'd be checking the hydro date and the other exterior items anyway.

BTW the bolt in the side of the condemned cylinder story is part of PSI's class (sounds like you might have taken it?). They now advise destroying the threads with a cold chisel.