I have tried explaining some of the reasons for the 10 year period here:
viewtopic.php?p=181088&highlight=adr#181088
and here
viewtopic.php?p=174826&highlight=adr#174826
@ Rover
I am a mechanical engineer, an international welding engineer and a certified pressure equipment inspector. I work for a notified body in the EU.
I have been involved in pressure equipment design, manufacturing and inspection for 15 years in oil refineries, power stations, gas transmission pipelines etc.
Still, in all these years, I have never witnessed a pressure equipment failure due to pressure apart from some rare occasions during testing. On the other hand I have seen pressure vessels suffer from stress corrosion cracks, hydrogen induced cracks, creep etc. All this was found during inspection activities.
By your reasoning, since I am personally aware of no such failures, we should stop inspecting pressure equipment and take all necessary measures to prevent failure. Unfortunately, such failures although rare, are a fact and in many cases have cost human lives. Apart from proper design and manufacturing periodic inspection is the only preventive measure that we have to identify dangerous defects before they lead to failure. In the case of air gun cylinders, the small size and relatively low cost, makes their inspection uneconomical compared to their replacement.
So in the end it is: replace or risk failure
Out of date AP cylinders
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Seeing as the only failures that have actually occurred are due to manufacturing defects and failed long before 10 years maybe the ISSF should focus their attention on manufacturing and testing methods. If this is done truly for safety and to ensure we are self policed that would make far more sense then arbitrary times picked out of thin are which have no basis in evidence or science. If there is evidence or science then publish it so we can all see it.
It's a pretty crappy way to cover ones own ass too, now when one fails at let's say 7 years I can guarantee you a lawyer will stand there and say the ISSF, the highest body in shooting says that these cylinders are good for ten years. The cylinders have gone through the EC many times and were checked that they had not expired, yet my client was horribly maimed.
Yes I know that's bull but all the lawyer has to do is sway a jury that a big bad entity who has money and resources should have known, and indeed did know that there was a possibility of these failing they even anticipated it by writing a rule about it. Then explore how the hell they came up with ten years, not 7 or 5.
It's a pretty crappy way to cover ones own ass too, now when one fails at let's say 7 years I can guarantee you a lawyer will stand there and say the ISSF, the highest body in shooting says that these cylinders are good for ten years. The cylinders have gone through the EC many times and were checked that they had not expired, yet my client was horribly maimed.
Yes I know that's bull but all the lawyer has to do is sway a jury that a big bad entity who has money and resources should have known, and indeed did know that there was a possibility of these failing they even anticipated it by writing a rule about it. Then explore how the hell they came up with ten years, not 7 or 5.
Richard,
The ISSF have merely adopted the lifespan most manufacturers have already put on their equipment. The ISSF can't be culpable for anything like that because they didn't make the items nor did they come up with a date longer than the manufacturers. They could however be culpable if they said 20 years is OK, i.e. they went against manufacturers recommendations.
Rob.
The ISSF have merely adopted the lifespan most manufacturers have already put on their equipment. The ISSF can't be culpable for anything like that because they didn't make the items nor did they come up with a date longer than the manufacturers. They could however be culpable if they said 20 years is OK, i.e. they went against manufacturers recommendations.
Rob.
Exactly.RobStubbs wrote:Richard,
The ISSF have merely adopted the lifespan most manufacturers have already put on their equipment. The ISSF can't be culpable for anything like that because they didn't make the items nor did they come up with a date longer than the manufacturers. They could however be culpable if they said 20 years is OK, i.e. they went against manufacturers recommendations.
Rob.
In my view both rules (manufacture date and the 10 years) make sense. If a manufacture says it's cylinders are good for say 5 years, then the first rule applies, if they say it's 15 or 20, then the 10 year rule applies. In either way ISSF is bound by the EU legislation to a maximum of 10 years as taz wrote.
Since in most places the dates are not checked and not many seem to care, I see only one practical solution to this problem: If it saves just ONE person from a cylinder induced neurosis, then a total ban on PCP guns must go into effect.
Lest some feel they unfairly treated, a governing body buy-back, at say one-third of their value, must be adopted.
This will not be a hardship on any but the feeble, who feel that cocking a SSP is too exhausting.
Lest some feel they unfairly treated, a governing body buy-back, at say one-third of their value, must be adopted.
This will not be a hardship on any but the feeble, who feel that cocking a SSP is too exhausting.
If one's good enough to qualify to an international event here the date of your cylinder will impede you to shoot, then it's probably a good idea to replace it.
Otherwise what's the problem? It's not like you have to change it every year...
And if it's mandatory by law in Europe to have those 10 year limit (as taz wrote), then it does not make sense to have one rule for the world cup in Munich and Milan and another set of rules for Bangkok, Sydney and Fort Bening (assuming that they don't have similar legislation).
If one's more limiting than another, then we must opt for the first, so that the plates stay level during all the world cups.
Otherwise what's the problem? It's not like you have to change it every year...
And if it's mandatory by law in Europe to have those 10 year limit (as taz wrote), then it does not make sense to have one rule for the world cup in Munich and Milan and another set of rules for Bangkok, Sydney and Fort Bening (assuming that they don't have similar legislation).
If one's more limiting than another, then we must opt for the first, so that the plates stay level during all the world cups.
Rob no need to argue the logic of this with me. I sit in court on a regular basis and believe me the lawyers will take anyone they can think of to court on the most bizarre claims (I'm in Canada and it's even less here than the US). One of the reasons Cessna stopped making single engine general aviation aircraft for a number of years, they were being sued when people crashed 20, 30 plus year old planes. Finally there were some changes made to tort and product liability and they started making them again.RobStubbs wrote:Richard,
The ISSF have merely adopted the lifespan most manufacturers have already put on their equipment. The ISSF can't be culpable for anything like that because they didn't make the items nor did they come up with a date longer than the manufacturers. They could however be culpable if they said 20 years is OK, i.e. they went against manufacturers recommendations.
Rob.
The other things to remember many companies just settle, cause its cheaper and a sure thing, product liability cases often are very technical and the juries are lay persons, and to fight a case it's expensive even if you win or lose.
So don't waste your time arguing the logic of my statement because there is no logic in it, just like many of these court cases. Don't believe me look up some product liability on line.
Why do you thing your new toaster says to not use it in the tub and the hot plate manual warns you about sleeping with it?
Oh ya and believe me there's room for all of them at the plaintiffs table. Where often they start turning on one another and sell each other out.
The law is a mess...
There is a legal requirement for this and it is covered under Part 6 of BS 5430, 1994 Periodic inspection, testing and maintenance of transportable gas containers (excluding dissolved acetylene containers)
Part 6, Specification for seamless steel and aluminium alloy containers having a water capacity of Less than 0.5 litre.
That's a 2 and 4 year inspection period I believe.
BS 5340 (pt.6) was withdrawn (http://www.worldwidestandards.com/shop/ ... ?prod=3741).
BS EN 1968:2002 is now the relevant document for testing and periodic inspection of steel cylinders (BS EN 1802:2002 for Alloy cylinders)
PVE/3/7[23.020.30]
This European Standard specifies the requirements for periodic inspection and testing of seamless steel transportable gas cylinders (single or those from bundles) intended for compressed and liquefied gases under pressure, of water capacity from 0,5 l up to 150 l.
NOTE As far as practicable, this standard may also be applied to cylinders of less than 0,5 l water capacity.
May... not must, or must not. In other words... guess?
So where does the 10 year thing come from, because it would appear that being in date is not enough for the past and current legislation, yet that the inspection may not be practicable so is left for 10?
As I've mentioned to Taz... if you don't have markings on your tube for whatever reason do we get a nail out and start scratching one in? Does the custom quickfill in my walther tube pass because i've left the walther markings on the tube at the other end?
I'm all for putting things in place... whatever, but at least be constant with the reasoning... if it's law, have inspections. If it's not deemed serious enough to have the 2-4's done, then when does it become so at 10 years?
FWIW surface only use bottles are allowed a 5 year gap here, but water ones have to be done every 2.5. There's no law preventing a fill, the advice though is that if it blows and it's not been inspected, you might not have cover.
Anyone looked at their insurance policy wording document recently? ;)
There is a legal requirement for this and it is covered under Part 6 of BS 5430, 1994 Periodic inspection, testing and maintenance of transportable gas containers (excluding dissolved acetylene containers)
Part 6, Specification for seamless steel and aluminium alloy containers having a water capacity of Less than 0.5 litre.
That's a 2 and 4 year inspection period I believe.
BS 5340 (pt.6) was withdrawn (http://www.worldwidestandards.com/shop/ ... ?prod=3741).
BS EN 1968:2002 is now the relevant document for testing and periodic inspection of steel cylinders (BS EN 1802:2002 for Alloy cylinders)
PVE/3/7[23.020.30]
This European Standard specifies the requirements for periodic inspection and testing of seamless steel transportable gas cylinders (single or those from bundles) intended for compressed and liquefied gases under pressure, of water capacity from 0,5 l up to 150 l.
NOTE As far as practicable, this standard may also be applied to cylinders of less than 0,5 l water capacity.
May... not must, or must not. In other words... guess?
So where does the 10 year thing come from, because it would appear that being in date is not enough for the past and current legislation, yet that the inspection may not be practicable so is left for 10?
As I've mentioned to Taz... if you don't have markings on your tube for whatever reason do we get a nail out and start scratching one in? Does the custom quickfill in my walther tube pass because i've left the walther markings on the tube at the other end?
I'm all for putting things in place... whatever, but at least be constant with the reasoning... if it's law, have inspections. If it's not deemed serious enough to have the 2-4's done, then when does it become so at 10 years?
FWIW surface only use bottles are allowed a 5 year gap here, but water ones have to be done every 2.5. There's no law preventing a fill, the advice though is that if it blows and it's not been inspected, you might not have cover.
Anyone looked at their insurance policy wording document recently? ;)
-
Marc Orvin
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:23 am
- Location: Colorado
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I wonder when one buys a new cylinder, is he getting a brand new cylinder or something that has been in dealer inventory for 5 years. If the latter, you are buying a product that is half used up. That has to be a major burden on a dealer to stock cylinders on speculation that they will all sell within a year or or two in order to be worth the purchase price.
It's not that you can't find the legislation, it's that the legislation pointed to says 2.5 or 5 years, not 10.taz wrote:Don't bother.
I have mentioned tped in various occasions (see my links above) yet some people still can't find any legislation for vessels below 1 liter or where the 10 years period comes from.
Module Grobf wrote:It's not that you can't find the legislation, it's that the legislation pointed to says 2.5 or 5 years, not 10.taz wrote:Don't bother.
I have mentioned tped in various occasions (see my links above) yet some people still can't find any legislation for vessels below 1 liter or where the 10 years period comes from.
"4.1. The notified body must affix its identification number or have it affixed to the transportable pressure equipment and draw up a certificate of conformity for the tests carried out. This certificate must be kept for a period of 10 years."