Does anyone use a Borescope to inspect flues in voids?

[PlumbBobBob]

oh dear dont think the op is going to like that

 

[GrahamM]

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.

No, I think it's NCS this year, but from next year it will have to be At Risk, and turned off.

If a flue cannot be fully inspected it may be classed as NCS upto next year if there is a working CO alarm in every room the flue passes through. Otherwise it is AR.

Mbear is spot on above. As per the regs there must be an inspection hatch of minimum 300x300mm within 1.5m of every joint. This puts the inspection camera idea to bed!

 

[Mbear]

If a flue cannot be fully inspected it may be classed as NCS upto next year if there is a working CO alarm in every room the flue passes through. Otherwise it is AR.

Mbear is spot on above. As per the regs there must be an inspection hatch of minimum 300x300mm within 1.5m of every joint. This puts the inspection camera idea to bed!

Thanku Graham, it does my nut when non gs-engineers (the OP) try qoute the rules to me

 

[GrahamM]

I have already AR'd a load as customer would not cough up for CO alarm. And there has been a few running through bathrooms, so CO alarms cannot be used so automatically AR until inspection hatches put in.

 

[Mbear]

I have already AR'd a load as customer would not cough up for CO alarm. And there has been a few running through bathrooms, so CO alarms cannot be used so automatically AR until inspection hatches put in.

I reckon I've AR'd at least 200 since it came into force mate, there's so many new flats/apartments round here and they're all getting stung now.

 

[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