Dive Bottle Test - Short & Curly's?

[rhyslightnin]

For anyone who might still be interested.. I contacted the IDEST chief engineer regarding my experience as per my opening post. In short the outcome was as follows:

Q1. Do the DIN threads form part of the test?

A1. Valve assemblies fixed to the bottles have to be tested. The threads checked are the cylinder threads, valve stem threads and the DIN outlet threads.

Q2. Is it normal in your experience that DIN outlet threads with such little and very careful use fail. Are they that fragile?

A2.No not usually, but we often have problems with tolerances. If a male thread has a low end measurement and the thread gauge has a high end measurement then it will indicate a fail and vice versa. They are not fragile but can be damaged.

Q3.Should the test centre have given me the option to purchase a valve from elsewhere for them to fit free of charge as they would have to refit the valve anyway after disassembly?

A3. Yes most definitely. All options should be made clear to the customer i.e. source their own preferred valve (free fitment) or test centre to supply.

Q4. Given that it was only the valve assembly that failed (DIN outlet threads), is it correct that the centre can withhold the bottle (which is OK) or even scrap it if I do not authorise the valve replacement?

A4. Definitely not. The bottle cannot be withheld by the test centre and should be returned to the customer if this is their wish.

After talking this through in some detail, we came to the agreement that in terms of the test performed, there is no evidence to say that the test centres findings were not justified, no matter how rare it may be that DIN threads with such low and light use fail.

However the way in which the test centre chose not to fully inform me (the customer), of all the options open to me along with falsely giving the impression that the bottle would also have to be destroyed was not in my best interest.

He finished off by saying that IDEST cannot get involved with a business' chosen practices and can only police that testing practices / methods are correctly applied and performed. He did say that he would be including details of this in their monthly news letter / magazine and although he would not be mentioning any names, hopefully, they would recognise the details which might make them look at their ways.. Not convinced but who knows?

So that's it in a nutshell. Take from that what you will... but I know I'll not be giving them anymore of my money.

Bye the way, the IDEST engineer was very helpful and informative. He wanted me to pass on (to those interested), that he welcomes anyone who has any concerns around practices or questions regarding testing of bottles to contact him without hesitation.

His contact details are on the IDEST website ---> https://www.sita.org.uk/idest/

So... Will you be publishing your findings to the shop in question via a proverbial "brick with a note wrapped around it through there front window?"! I'd proverbially be driving a challenger tank with a note taped to the front through there window!!!

Quiet type me

[rabbitslayer]

So... Will you be publishing your findings to the shop in question via a proverbial "brick with a note wrapped around it through there front window?"! I'd proverbially be driving a challenger tank with a note taped to the front through there window!!!

Quiet type me

Tempting.. but, coming from 100% Sicilian stock I'd probably go for a note pinned (with a stiletto blade), to a severed horses head that would be found swinging above the test centre entrance door... but I'm not at all bitter...

Ciao.

[rabbitslayer]

Surely, that couldn't be taken as anything other than the overt sarcasm is so obviously was

I thought it obvious...

[Trumpetier]

I thought it obvious...

Me as well

[Aimstraight]

It is re-assuring that the threads on the DIN outlet are checked; it would not be good to have a newly tested cylinder with an inferior DIN outlet.

Out of interest did the test centre confirm that the cylinder had been passed the inspection, checks and hydraulic pressure test?

I ask because the IDEST Information Leaflet (SITA/Information Leaflets/Testing Dive Cylinders) states that the valve has to be checked/serviced and the bottled checked/pressure tested. Just wondering if some test centres delay the pressure test until any corrective action to the valve has been agreed with customer. The information leaflet states that when the valve/cylinder are assembled, the cylinder can be stamped up. If they were to return the cylinder only, it may not be stamped (even if tested); which may be prudent as it might subsequently suffer moisture ingress/corrosion if not fully sealed. Just a thought.

[rabbitslayer]

Hi, Aimstraight,

Out of interest did the test centre confirm that the cylinder had been passed the inspection, checks and hydraulic pressure test?
I ask because the IDEST Information Leaflet (SITA/Information Leaflets/Testing Dive Cylinders) states that the valve has to be checked/serviced and the bottled checked/pressure tested. Just wondering if some test centres delay the pressure test until any corrective action to the valve has been agreed with customer.

No they didn't. All they confirmed at the time was that 'it' had failed because the DIN threads failed the 'no go' gauge test. Because they didn't mention problems with the bottle, I assumed (possibly wrongly), they had already tested it and that it was fine.

Surely, they wouldn't get me to pay for a new valve and then test the bottle? What if the bottle then failed? I'd have paid £61.00 for a valve I'd have no use for... That wouldn't make sense unless they'd have expected me to pay for a new bottle as well? A complete, brand new 3 litre 300 bar cylinder set up can be had for around the £140 mark and wouldn't need testing for another 5 years. It just wouldn't be a viable option. The new valve along with the test / service charge came to £91.00 as it is. If you then added the cost of a new replacement bottle I bet I wouldn't have had much change back from 200 notes.

The information leaflet states that when the valve/cylinder are assembled, the cylinder can be stamped up.

Yes

If they were to return the cylinder only, it may not be stamped (even if tested); which may be prudent as it might subsequently suffer moisture ingress/corrosion if not fully sealed. Just a thought.

Yes. I don't think anyone would expect a bottle only (without valve), to be returned and stamped as 'passed'. If they did stamp it, that would leave it open to having the wrong / unsafe valve being fitted and would make the whole IDEST cylinder testing procedure a totally pointless one.

The point I was trying to make is that the test centre I dealt with was misleading me into thinking that if I didn't pay for the replacement valve, they would have no option but to scrap the whole lot.. hence the opening post was titled 'Short & Curly's

But we now know this is not the case and there are other options open to customers as mentioned / explained previously in this thread.

[Aimstraight]

......No they didn't. All they confirmed at the time was that 'it' had failed because the DIN threads failed the 'no go' gauge test. Because they didn't mention problems with the bottle, I assumed (possibly wrongly), they had already tested it and that it was fine.

Surely, they wouldn't get me to pay for a new valve and then test the bottle? What if the bottle then failed?......

My local Dive centre was very busy with lots of bottles lined up for test or/and fill, a compressor was running constantly. It might make more sense for them to do the bottle test after the valve checks, and when that has passed, actually charge for the new valve.

If they have not confirmed the bottle had passed test, there might be a risk in attempting to take it elsewhere for a new valve and full test....it might fail. To my mind the customer has paid for it, so they should have done it (a second dive centre would need to repeat it and stamp the bottle complete with valve).

Glad you got a response from SITA.

[angrybear]

Hi, Aimstraight,


No they didn't. All they confirmed at the time was that 'it' had failed because the DIN threads failed the 'no go' gauge test. Because they didn't mention problems with the bottle, I assumed (possibly wrongly), they had already tested it and that it was fine.

Surely, they wouldn't get me to pay for a new valve and then test the bottle? What if the bottle then failed? I'd have paid £61.00 for a valve I'd have no use for... That wouldn't make sense unless they'd have expected me to pay for a new bottle as well? A complete, brand new 3 litre 300 bar cylinder set up can be had for around the £140 mark and wouldn't need testing for another 5 years. It just wouldn't be a viable option. The new valve along with the test / service charge came to £91.00 as it is. If you then added the cost of a new replacement bottle I bet I wouldn't have had much change back from 200 notes.

The point I was trying to make is that the test centre I dealt with was misleading me into thinking that if I didn't pay for the replacement valve, they would have no option but to scrap the whole lot.. hence the opening post was titled 'Short & Curly's

But we now know this is not the case and there are other options open to customers as mentioned / explained previously in this thread.

If the valve thread was U/S that would stop the rest of the tests until you have agreed to fit a new one

There's no way to complete the tests without changing the valve, so you say "short & curlys" where they will say they've hit a brick wall because without a new valve they can't pressure test the re assembled unit.

You say they misled you, but you ASSUMED what you did not know & didn't ask direct questions.

The more I read the more obvious it is to me, that the only issue here is lack of communication skill because you were not talking face to face where things could be properly explained.

[rhyslightnin]

Tempting.. but, coming from 100% Sicilian stock I'd probably go for a note pinned (with a stiletto blade), to a severed horses head that would be found swinging above the test centre entrance door... but I'm not at all bitter...

Ciao.

Hahaha!!! Very good.. many ways to skin a cat. I came from a fairly punk background where the word subtle Was a word to be be taken only as a reason to be even more extravert. Brilliant.

[SuffolkRifle]

For anyone who might still be interested.. I contacted the IDEST chief engineer regarding my experience as per my opening post. In short the outcome was as follows:

Q1. Do the DIN threads form part of the test?

A1. Valve assemblies fixed to the bottles have to be tested. The threads checked are the cylinder threads, valve stem threads and the DIN outlet threads.

Q2. Is it normal in your experience that DIN outlet threads with such little and very careful use fail. Are they that fragile?

A2.No not usually, but we often have problems with tolerances. If a male thread has a low end measurement and the thread gauge has a high end measurement then it will indicate a fail and vice versa. They are not fragile but can be damaged.

Q3.Should the test centre have given me the option to purchase a valve from elsewhere for them to fit free of charge as they would have to refit the valve anyway after disassembly?

A3. Yes most definitely. All options should be made clear to the customer i.e. source their own preferred valve (free fitment) or test centre to supply.

Q4. Given that it was only the valve assembly that failed (DIN outlet threads), is it correct that the centre can withhold the bottle (which is OK) or even scrap it if I do not authorise the valve replacement?

A4. Definitely not. The bottle cannot be withheld by the test centre and should be returned to the customer if this is their wish.

After talking this through in some detail, we came to the agreement that in terms of the test performed, there is no evidence to say that the test centres findings were not justified, no matter how rare it may be that DIN threads with such low and light use fail.

However the way in which the test centre chose not to fully inform me (the customer), of all the options open to me along with falsely giving the impression that the bottle would also have to be destroyed was not in my best interest.

He finished off by saying that IDEST cannot get involved with a business' chosen practices and can only police that testing practices / methods are correctly applied and performed. He did say that he would be including details of this in their monthly news letter / magazine and although he would not be mentioning any names, hopefully, they would recognise the details which might make them look at their ways.. Not convinced but who knows?

So that's it in a nutshell. Take from that what you will... but I know I'll not be giving them anymore of my money.

Bye the way, the IDEST engineer was very helpful and informative. He wanted me to pass on (to those interested), that he welcomes anyone who has any concerns around practices or questions regarding testing of bottles to contact him without hesitation.

His contact details are on the IDEST website ---> https://www.sita.org.uk/idest/

Very useful information, thanks. Worth a new post so it can be made into a sticky.

Knowing how stuff disappears on the web, I've copied and saved as a word document on my PC (including the link)