Air cylinders – Differences in working pressure and valve types

  • Safety Flash
  • Published on 6 December 2020
  • Generated on 18 September 2025
  • IMCA SF 33/20
  • 2 minute read

What happened?

There was confusion when the wrong kind of cylinders for SCBA sets were supplied.  A vendor supplied 6.8 litre 300 bar cylinders instead of 9 litre 200 bar SCBA cylinders (as ordered).  There was no explanation.

There is only a small difference in overall size of the two types of cylinders and the size of thread for the air delivery is the same on both vent valves (v/v) heads.  Fortunately, a 300 bar filler (from a compressor) will not properly fit a 200 bar cylinder vent valve, so a 200 bar unit cannot be over-pressurised. However, a 200 bar filler and SCBA backpack will fit a 300bar cylinder vent valve.  This meant that the 6.8 litre cylinder could be filled to 200 bar (providing only 1360 litres of air rather than 2040 litres as designed).

The wrong type of SCBA cylinder v/v were also ordered, the heads come in two types – an ‘in line’ type and a ’90 deg’ type (see photo).

The wrong type of SCBA cylinder v/v were also ordered, the heads come in two types – an ‘in line’ type and a ’90 deg’ type

What were the causes?

  • The supplier did not respond properly to the request for a quote (RFQ) and made assumptions about what was being requested rather than checking the RFQ carefully.

  • The purchasing department did not notice or recognise that the quote provided by the supplier was not in line with the RFQ, as there was no explanation of the variation between the RFQ and the quote. At a glance, the quote looked like it related to the RFQ.

  • The person originally generating the request specified the size and pressure rating of the cylinder but did not specify the type of cylinder head vent valve.

Actions

Ensure more thorough communication between procurement / purchasing department, vendors and persons actually generating requests.

Latest Safety Flashes:

SWL plate dropped from crane block

An “SWL” plate weighing 0.9kg fell from the auxiliary hook block and landed on the main deck of a newly purchased vessel.

Read more
Unsafe Lifting practices during dry dock

An unsafe attempt was made to lift 14 empty oil drums using only a web sling, without clamps, certified frames, or proper securing.

Read more
Handling alarms on the bridge – a DP incident

DPO accidentally pressed the adjacent "Take" button on the DP panel.

Read more
Uncoordinated Emergency Shutdown due to pipe failure

All cargo pumps (No. 1, 2, and 3) tripped simultaneously due to Emergency Shutdown (ESD) activation.

Read more
UK HSE: oil company fined after serious failure of elevator

The UK HSE has fined a North Sea oil and gas operator £300,000 after three crew members descended into a water filled lift shaft on a floating platform in the North Sea causing them to become partially submerged.

Read more

IMCA Safety Flashes summarise key safety matters and incidents, allowing lessons to be more easily learnt for the benefit of the entire offshore industry.

The effectiveness of the IMCA Safety Flash system depends on the industry sharing information and so avoiding repeat incidents. Incidents are classified according to IOGP's Life Saving Rules.

All information is anonymised or sanitised, as appropriate, and warnings for graphic content included where possible.

IMCA makes every effort to ensure both the accuracy and reliability of the information shared, but is not be liable for any guidance and/or recommendation and/or statement herein contained.

The information contained in this document does not fulfil or replace any individual's or Member's legal, regulatory or other duties or obligations in respect of their operations. Individuals and Members remain solely responsible for the safe, lawful and proper conduct of their operations.

Share your safety incidents with IMCA online. Sign-up to receive Safety Flashes straight to your email.