Air cylinders – Differences in working pressure and valve types

  • Safety Flash
  • Published on 6 December 2020
  • Generated on 14 February 2026
  • 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:

Fall from height during mooring due to rope tension reaction

Rope became entangled with the propellor during mooring operations of a tanker causing the operator to lose balance and fall onto the lower platform.

Read more
Missing protection – progressive wear on hydraulic hoses causes damage

During an inspection, several hydraulic hoses and fuel hoses were found in direct contact with surrounding surfaces and sharp edges.

Read more
Small engine room fire – flammable object ignited

While ramping up the starboard main engine, a small flammable foreign object ignited.

Read more
Positive: damage to Fast Rescue Craft davit wire rope caught before failure

During routine checks, it was observed that the FRC davit wire rope had a visible fracture at the socket termination area.

Read more
BSEE: Miscommunication and trapped pressure causes injury during valve maintenance

BSEE has published Safety Alert 509 relating to a gas release incident on an offshore platform.

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.