More news on Dive Cylinders..

[WingNut]

I was chatting to the guy who tests and fills our cylinders, and he told me some usefull information.

Current testing for our Dive Cylinders (not the ones on the gun), are 2 and a half years visual test and 5 years visual and hydrolic.

I asked him why we have to have such stringent rules on the cylinders we use because we don't actually breath the air from them. Unfortunately, it's the LAW so there's no getting away from that.

There is, however, a move we can use to side-step this LAW just a little.

Most of our cylinders (the one's I've seen) are always painted one colour, mostly either yellow or white.

Now, if we respray these cylinders to the colour of an SCBA tank, then we can skip the 2.5 year visual test.

Seems weird, I know, but that's what he told me. I have no reason not to beleive him.

So, if you spray your entire cylinder grey, then mask the top section into quarters (obviously this has to be done one at a time), then spray the first quadrent white, the next one black, then white, then black, it is then classed as an SCBA cylinder and not a DIVE cylinder, so you only need a test every five years.

I'll find a picture on the internet somewhere and post it up later.

Now he told me that a visual test cost £23.50 + VAT for each cylinder (from them anyway). Our team has eight of these. That means that between the cyclinders we have, just with a bit of paint, we can save (as a team) £220.90

Seems worth it to me.............

Just thought I'd share the info..!!!!

 

[Parksy]

Tests are there for a reason to me mate.... rather than try and work your way around a piece of legislation which is there for yours and others safety why not just pay the costs of the tests?

 

[Ben Frain]

Mmmmm, maybe it's just me but I'd rather pay the £20 odd quid than go through the hassle of respraying the dive tank (spray paint plus time and hassle would probably cost more time than getting it tested).

Interesting info though

 

[WingNut]

Originally posted by Parksy
Tests are there for a reason to me mate.... rather than try and work your way around a piece of legislation which is there for yours and others safety why not just pay the costs of the tests?

That's just it, it's not a legal requirement if it's painted this colour, which to me, means it's quite LEGAL and SAFE.

The colouring i'm refering to is the same colour that the firefighters BA cyclinders are sprayed. Now if it wasn't safe, then why make the legislation so????

Seems a bit odd to me that a little paint can change the way in which an items is classed, but it does, so why not do it IMO.

Like I said, our team owns 8 of these. Not individuals, the team. If it were a case of £27 to have my own bottle done, then I'd probably do it. It just so happens that a guy on our team is a car body spray painter, so he'll do the lot for about £20-25 (paint cost, obviously labour will be free).

Thats a saving of, like I said, £190 (ish).........

 

[IanC]

The type of valve also changes the class of cyclinder, regardless of its paint job!

A diving tank fitted with a non-submersible valve also becomes subject to less stringent testing proceedures.

GPV regulations make no sense, but for what its worth i'd rather have my 12 Ltr 300 Bar bomb inspected by an expert on a fairly regular basis!!!!

Compressed gas is baaad mmmm'kay!!!

 

[Parksy]

Originally posted by IanC
i'd rather have my 12 Ltr 300 Bar bomb inspected by an expert on a fairly regular basis!!!!

Compressed gas is baaad mmmm'kay!!!

That was my point... I understand it is legal to do what it is you suggest. My point was I would rather not use a loop hole in tank legislation, not when you are dealing with such a dangerous item.

Your reference to the fire service as well is legitimate. But do you think for one minute they don't have people inspect there tanks on a very regular basis?

After seeing the results of what a faulty bottle can do I would much rather have someone in a staging area next to me filling with a tested bottle than one that has been resprayed...

Your call though... but I would rather just pay the £30 a bottle

 

[WingNut]

Your all missing the point...........!!!!!!!!!!

If it WAS NOT SAFE, then there would be legislation AGAINST IT.

If it's safe enough for our countries Fire Fighters to use this system of testing, then it's good enough for me or anyone else for that matter.

Do you really think that a Fire Fighter would charge into a burning building, with a BOMB (as it's been refered to) strapped to back ?? I really don't think so!!!!!

No helping some people I suppose......

 

[IanC]

Originally posted by WingNut
Your all missing the point...........!!!!!!!!!!

If it WAS NOT SAFE, then there would be legislation AGAINST IT.

If it's safe enough for our countries Fire Fighters to use this system of testing, then it's good enough for me or anyone else for that matter.

Do you really think that a Fire Fighter would charge into a burning building, with a BOMB (as it's been refered to) strapped to back ?? I really don't think so!!!!!

No helping some people I suppose......

Well perhaps we need to put a different slant on this, Wing nut I can see what you are trying to say, and if everyone was carefull with their tanks, stored and handled them correctly and made a habit of checking for knocks and bumps, then everything would be fine.

The BA rigs used by the firebrigade are cared for far better than many ballers care for their kit! We've also got to bear in mind that firefighters have had training in the use of BA kit, are certified as such, and although I do not know this for a fact I would assume that part of the certification training would cover the inspection of kit prior to use!!

Many paintballers won't inspect anything unless it has broken into several bits or ceased to function properly!!! Would you want to be around a knocked about tank when it goes pop, I wouldn't!!!!

Laterz

Ian

 

[Tom Allen]

Wing Nut, what they've failed to see is, the 2 1/2 year test is visual, and is there to test for visual damage, rust, bad paintwork causing rust. If you're bottle is not for diving use, and you don't subject to immersion in salt or freshwater then the visual 2 1/2 year test is deemed unnecessary.

The 5 year full test is the structural test, this is the test that's important to us, as it tests the cylinders pressure cpabilities, and is only required every 5 years

 

[WingNut]

I hear what your saying Ian, and I must admit, I agree with your safety issues........

But the inspection at 2.5 years is only visual. It does not have any hydrolic test performed until the 5 year test. All they do is check the 'o' ring in the valve, and take a look inside to see if it's OK.

This type of cylinder is not just used by Fire Fighters. Water comany employee's use them when they are diving in the reservoirs, and so on..........

Tom, that is EXACTLY what I'm trying to get across. We don't use our tanks for diving / breathing purposes, but we use diving cylinder with diving Valves, therefore, they fall into the categary of diving equipment regulations. Although we don't need the 2.5 year test, we have to have it by LAW. By changing the colour of the cylinder, we are not changing the fact that it is a high pressure cylinder, we are just clarifying what it's use is for.

I've seen lately, a few stickers on peoples cylinders reading 'Surface Use Only' ..... This mean absolutely nothing. In fact, it's a waste of money buying them and time sticking them on.

Boy am I glad that someone else can see where I'm coming from.......