Does anyone use a Borescope to inspect flues in voids?

[AlexGas]

From 1 January 2013, all installations without appropriate inspection access provided will be classified as AR and should not be used until adequate access for inspection is provided.

 

[kirkgas]

Hi puddle,
Are you able to point to anything official saying that the use of cameras are not acceptable?
I really want to distinguish legal requirements from word of mouth.
Thanks,
Ryan

the document you need to read is produced by Gas safe Register asnd is listed as TB008 edition 2 (TB Technical Bulletin) without getting involved int he politics and legality which i have no problem with you doing, but the wording of the document clearly state the dimension and location of hatches to allow inspection of the flue, if no hatches then the installation is to be deemed AR (At Risk) so no matter what fancy equipment anyone has, we will not be in a position to argue the validity of a document we are legally bound to comply with via our gas safe registration, as i said more power to your elbow if you wish to engage legal council to fight this on your behalf, but cant imagine it will be cheaper than getting a vent fitted, and without seeing your actual property i think £100 is way excessive and you would be better spending time engaging a builder or joiner and getting 46 jobs for him and adjust the price to a mutually agreeable level for all

 

[kirkgas]

I'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.

please find yourself corrected haha

 

[kirkgas]

We can only isolate an appliance if it's ID and with the 'responsible persons' permission.
AR situations you cover yourself and write it up.

if you are replying to anz, he is 99% correct by saying AR and turn off (he would have got 100% if he said after gaining owner/responsible persons permission) the end result of this is that if there are no hatches i will call it AR and ask for permission to turn off, if permission is refused i will write it up as that, take my money and go back next year and do the same again

 

[kirkgas]

And inform the gas supplier who can legally isolate the appliance/installation.

i have replied to a few of your posts on this, you really need to get your head round your legal requirement under the IUP

 

[kirkgas]

i might have to re-read the tb to check but i thought it suggested a min size so you could get you head inside the void i hadnt even considered a borescope till this thread learn something new every day

there isnt any point in considering a borescope as the TB clearly state the size and frequency of a hatch and if not there is is AR, someone nneds to go down the legal route to challenge the statement not us as we are on the inside and need to comply, if i advise a customer i would like to turn it off and label it as AR and they refuse its no skin off my nose as i have the required paperwork to keep me from jail, i can guarantee that as i have fully complied with their requirements and therefore cannot be blamed

 

[AlexGas]

there isnt any point in considering a borescope as the TB clearly state the size and frequency of a hatch and if not there is is AR

It is correct if you read TB 008.

But, if you have a look at TB 008 (Edition 2) - no access or inadequate access provided to allow satisfactory visual inspection of the chimney system/route can be NCS providing the risk assessment is OK. And the appliance may be left operational until 31 December 2012.
From 1 January 2013, all installs without appropriate inspection access provided will be AR.
It's all in the TB 008 (Edition 2).

 

[Halesowen1]

Originally Posted by mountainmanI'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.

please find yourself corrected haha

Can it not be NCS untill 31/12/2012??

 

[AlexGas]

If the risk assessment is a fail - it could be AR or ID.

 

[mountainman]

The problem I find with regulations is that they are written by people who have never been or are no longer 'on the tools'
We, the great unwashed, spend a lot of time, money and effort in order to go to work yet there seems to be no definitive answer to a simple question.
This thread is proof in point.

 

[AlexGas]

yet there seems to be no definitive answer to a simple question.
This thread is proof in point.

It is clear it the TB 008 (Edition 2), have a look.
You have to work with the latest info.

 

[Mbear]

Originally Posted by mountainmanI'm open to correction but if a preexisting flue in a void does not have inspection panels then the installation would be classed as NCS, not AR.
Plus, in my opinion, a remote camera view could not come close to a proper visual inspection.




Can it not be NCS untill 31/12/2012??

It can be but only if it passes the risk assessment, ie carbon monoxide alarms in every room along the flue route and the parts of the flue u can see have to be fitted perfectly. It's much easier for a flue to fail than it is to Pass the risk assesment

 

[Mbear]

Here's how I'm proceeding ATM.
Pre 2013
•Flue in void, no hatches, no co alarm/s for every room/space, visible flue ok = AR
•flue in void, no hatches, co alarms in every room, visible flue ok = NCS
•flue in void, no hatches, co alarms in every room, visible flue has NCS 's = AR

The last bullet point could be up for debate slightly

Post 2013
No hatches = AR no matter if co alarms fitted. Although if stains are visible on voided space (gyproc or whatever material) then its ID until proven the flue is not at fsult

 

[Halesowen1]

It can be but only if it passes the risk assessment, ie carbon monoxide alarms in every room along the flue route and the parts of the flue u can see have to be fitted perfectly. It's much easier for a flue to fail than it is to Pass the risk assesment

Just trying to say that Kirkgas is not always correct as he keeps telling us, it can be NCS.

 

[billybob150811]

im not fighting kirk,s battles he,s big enough and ugly enough to do that but as i have been to carry out test in a flat with a broken flue you start to work backwards to defend the installer this one had a baby going to a hospital for oxyhaemglobin test and lawyers to screw are all about so do you print off that 14 page assesment and fill them out and keep them its a hard battle to fight so being a coward i go for hatches that is the practical approach i feel what do others think

 

[Mbear]

Hatches all the way, it's the safest option for both onsite GSR eng and customer alike. We can sleep sound at night knowing the 'would be flue' is safe as houses and the cust can also sleep in the knowledge that we have ok'd the flue rather than "it might be ok but as we can't see it u can use the boiler at ur own peril I u wish"

 

[Halesowen1]

All it means is that private customers will stop the guys coming to service their appliances, or worst case scenario is they will get a dodgy gas man in or have a go at doing it themselves.
Here is a little question, in theory the flue could get damaged the day after an inspection, so could be loosing P.O.C into the said flue boxing for best part of 12 months. If it was sealed before up into loft, this would more than likely have been safe for the home owner as no P.O.C into the main living areas. If you then put these hatches in for inspection, the P.OC could then be loose around the house if these hatches are not 100% sealed (and we know they wont be), may have an hatch in kids bedrooms etc.

 

[Halesowen1]

Hatches all the way, it's the safest option for both onsite GSR eng and customer alike. We can sleep sound at night knowing the 'would be flue' is safe as houses and the cust can also sleep in the knowledge that we have ok'd the flue rather than "it might be ok but as we can't see it u can use the boiler at ur own peril I u wish"

All we know is that it was safe at time of inspection, but now we have potentially serious holes in the flue boxing, maybe in kids rooms etc for the flue products to leak out from if the flue gets damaged in between services.
I can see the good point in being able to inspect whole of flue and joints, but I can also see the potential hazards.

 

[mountainman]

Excellent points, guess who would end up out of work and in court arguing the folly of opening an inspection access into a void.
Is there a BS EN Specification for access panels??

 

[Mbear]

All it means is that private customers will stop the guys coming to service their appliances, or worst case scenario is they will get a dodgy gas man in or have a go at doing it themselves.
Here is a little question, in theory the flue could get damaged the day after an inspection, so could be loosing P.O.C into the said flue boxing for best part of 12 months. If it was sealed before up into loft, this would more than likely have been safe for the home owner as no P.O.C into the main living areas. If you then put these hatches in for inspection, the P.OC could then be loose around the house if these hatches are not 100% sealed (and we know they wont be), may have an hatch in kids bedrooms etc.

It's The same for a gas safety/landlord inspection or even a car mot. There's not alot u can do about that

 

[kirkgas]

Just trying to say that Kirkgas is not always correct as he keeps telling us, it can be NCS.

if i supported another footy team i would be paranoid haha
i responded in a light hearted manner to anothers post, ? in reply to what i answered, the comment was about it being NCS, he didnt mention CO alarms so i went on the current TB which i understand completely, so based on his comments its AR, take a chill pill hales

 

[Halesowen1]

if i supported another footy team i would be paranoid haha
i responded in a light hearted manner to anothers post, why have i put your nose out of joint? have i rebukked you too many times? in reply to what i answered, the comment was about it being NCS, he didnt mention CO alarms so i went on the current TB which i understand completely, so based on his comments its AR, take a chill pill hales

Just by saying you are always right, you were incorrect and should not be telling people things that are not correct, you should know better.

 

[Puddle]

Back to co alarms,most are not suitable in bathrooms due to moisture,so all flues in boxing through bathroom,which there are many,have to be inspection hatched now or AR ?

Someone mentioned to me the other day,you can fit one in the room(s) next to bathroom,is this correct?

 

[Mbear]

Back to co alarms,most are not suitable in bathrooms due to moisture,so all flues in boxing through bathroom,which there are many,have to have inspection hatched now or AR ?

Someone mentioned to me the other day,you can fit one in the room(s) next to bathroom,is this correct?

Pretty sure if flue is fitted over a wc this equals a straight AR mate

 

[kirkgas]

All it means is that private customers will stop the guys coming to service their appliances, or worst case scenario is they will get a dodgy gas man in or have a go at doing it themselves.
Here is a little question, in theory the flue could get damaged the day after an inspection, so could be loosing P.O.C into the said flue boxing for best part of 12 months. If it was sealed before up into loft, this would more than likely have been safe for the home owner as no P.O.C into the main living areas. If you then put these hatches in for inspection, the P.OC could then be loose around the house if these hatches are not 100% sealed (and we know they wont be), may have an hatch in kids bedrooms etc.

i totally agree with this, and its something a lot of guys have said as soon as we tell them about TB008 when they are in for re-assessment (it is shocking that they dont know about it by now, but that just shows their firm or their own (if SE ) procedure for keeping up to speed is way short of what it should be) but they are sharp enough to know that as soon as they start filling out the Warning Notice and sticking on the AR aticker then they wont get called back again next year, so something that is intended to increase safety could end up decreasing work to the guys who are doing a good job