Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

air bottlas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • air bottlas

    if a air bottle new date is 1996 and was req in 2009 since it has been 15 years is that bottle good for another 3or 5 years?

  • #2
    Not sure exactly what your asking. Maybe this will help.

    Steel and alumiun bottles have to be hydro tested every 5 yrs and are good for life if the pass hydro.

    Composite/fiberwrapped bottles have to be hydro tested every 3 yrs and have a life span of 15 years from manufacture date.

    Carbon bottles have to be hydro test every 5 yrs and have a life span of 15 yrs.

    They are working on a carbon bottle with a 30 yr life span not sure if it's on the market yet.

    Also if the bottles life span is up on lets say March 2011 and you have them hydro test in Feb. 2011 they are still only good till March 2011.

    Comment


    • #3
      I just bought 30 year composite bottles from SCI. The price was less than what Scott wanted for a 15 year bottle. The air pack companies are trying to discourage purchasing after market bottles. I was also able to have decals put on while the outer wrap was being applied so the decals can't be removed.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ok I knew the 30 yr bottles were comming out soon. There is a liablity to using after markey bottles becuase it's against NFPA but there again that is push more by the SCBA company's then as real safety issue since the after market bottles are made by the same companies and the bottles for the SCBA's.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that it would be prudent for you to discuss the use of "Non-approved" bottles on Scott BA with the Scott service department. I have been hearing for a long time about voiding of warranty and liability when mixing parts or bottles that are not approved by the manufacturer of the BA. Should your company experience a failure that results in death or injury to one of your firefighters, you might be opening up the fire company and your municipality to a civil suit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by KuhShise View Post
            I think that it would be prudent for you to discuss the use of "Non-approved" bottles on Scott BA with the Scott service department. I have been hearing for a long time about voiding of warranty and liability when mixing parts or bottles that are not approved by the manufacturer of the BA. Should your company experience a failure that results in death or injury to one of your firefighters, you might be opening up the fire company and your municipality to a civil suit.
            We know that only a couple of companies produce SCBA cylinders and supply them to the SCBA manufacturers. We also believe the cylinders to all be the same. Even so, it's not reasonable to expect an SCBA manufacturer to stand behind a component that they have or had no control over.

            If the cylinder manufacturer makes a production run of cylinders and then ships them to the SCBA manufacturer, then at least the SCBA company has the opportunity to inspect, test and accept them before allowing them to go into the field with their name on them. If we buy cylinders directly from the cylinder manufacturer, the SCBA manufacturer has no control over them and cannot reasonably be expected to support them.

            On the other hand, all cylinders are made to a D.O.T. specification (Specification Packaging, in D.O.T. langauge) or are made under the terms of a Special Permit, called an Exemption when I was still involved in HazMat regulatory compliance (Exemption Packaging).

            The specifications and exemptions are there to ensure that the packaging (cylinders, in this case) are safe for use. Unlike an awfully lot of government regulations, they work quite well.

            Ideally, we should separate out responsibility for the cylinders and for the SCBA. If a cylinder fails, it's on the cylinder manufacturer. If it's something else on the SCBA, it's on that company. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen any time soon. For one, the SCBA people aren't about to hold still for it. Plantiff lawyers are still going to come after them, even if their product didn't fail.
            Last edited by chiefengineer11; 01-31-2011, 12:21 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by chiefengineer11 View Post
              We know that only a couple of companies produce SCBA cylinders and supply them to the SCBA manufacturers. We also believe the cylinders to all be the same. Even so, it's not reasonable to expect an SCBA manufacturer to stand behind a component that they have or had no control over.

              If the cylinder manufacturer makes a production run of cylinders and then ships them to the SCBA manufacturer, then at least the SCBA company has the opportunity to inspect, test and accept them before allowing them to go into the field with their name on them. If we buy cylinders directly from the cylinder manufacturer, the SCBA manufacturer has no control over them and cannot reasonably be expected to support them.

              On the other hand, all cylinders are made to a D.O.T. specification (Specification Packaging, in D.O.T. langauge) or are made under the terms of a Special Permit, called an Exemption when I was still involved in HazMat regulatory compliance (Exemption Packaging).

              The specifications and exemptions are there to ensure that the packaging (cylinders, in this case) are safe for use. Unlike an awfully lot of government regulations, they work quite well.

              Ideally, we should separate out responsibility for the cylinders and for the SCBA. If a cylinder fails, it's on the cylinder manufacturer. If it's something else on the SCBA, it's on that company. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen any time soon. For one, the SCBA people aren't about to hold still for it. Plantiff lawyers are still going to come after them, even if their product didn't fail.
              The funniest part about all this is Luxfer and SCI make the bottles for ALL the Scba mfgs. The differences is the LABELING. It is my understanding Niosh is looking into modifying the rule allowing ONLY branded bottles to be used. HAS NOT happened yet but they are looking into it. T.C.

              Comment


              • #8
                thanks, that was a big help so your saying that if the date on the bottle is 1996 of may and it was last tested in may of 2009, there are done in may of 2010, and are scrap that sound about right to me

                thanks tom(engineer).
                (56-5 new kensington pa,)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by volfireman034 View Post
                  Ok I knew the 30 yr bottles were comming out soon. There is a liablity to using after markey bottles becuase it's against NFPA but there again that is push more by the SCBA company's then as real safety issue since the after market bottles are made by the same companies and the bottles for the SCBA's.
                  What SCI does not answer (on their website) is how the claim/have a 30yr life. DOT sets test standard and cylinder life. For carbon every 5yr and 10yr life. As far as I've been able to find there is no other life standard for carbon cylinders than 15yr. So where does the SCI 30yr claim come from? Pull out of their ......?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by neiowa View Post
                    What SCI does not answer (on their website) is how the claim/have a 30yr life. DOT sets test standard and cylinder life. For carbon every 5yr and 10yr life. As far as I've been able to find there is no other life standard for carbon cylinders than 15yr. So where does the SCI 30yr claim come from? Pull out of their ......?
                    I don't think any of these cylinders are "Specification Cylinders." They are all manufactured under a "Special Permit," formerly "Exemption." If you can get the Special Permit or Exemption number, you can look up the terms of it on D.O.T.'s web site.

                    I have an acquaintance who recently retired from that branch of D.O.T. Some years ago she told me that someone (MSA, maybe?) had inquired about extending the 15 year life. D.O.T. was willing to entertain a proposal, but no data or formal application was ever made.

                    Comment

                    300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                    Collapse

                    Upper 300x250

                    Collapse

                    Taboola

                    Collapse

                    Leader

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X