flue regs

[gasmanrob]

Never mind potentially dangerous or immediately dangerous. The word dangerous isn't stern enough or descriptive enough to alert people to the inherit risk of using an appliance under those categories jumping out of a plane, driving whilst using a mobile phone, swimming with sharks and shopping with plumb centre are all dangerous but people do those things everyday.

However potentialy leathal and and leathal if opperated in my mind stirs related images and thoughts that would be enough to alert people to the real risk of using such an appliance and hopefully put the fear of the almighty into them

 

[newcastle phill]

Jtsplumbing, it's not confirmed yet, but my understanding is that NCS will not be part of the IUP, as it's confusing customers, as it's NCS, (ie was perfectly fine when put in but not now as regs have changed, and therefore doesn't really need to be upgraded, but customer can if they want) it shouldn't be part of the IUP as it isn't unsafe, however there will still be the requirement to advise the customer that it's NCS, only AR and ID will be part of the paperwork for reporting, so in effect the only difference is the way we advise people that something is NCS, which seems fine as NCS seems to reduce the seriousness of the IUP
Newcastle Phil, I don't agree about AR & ID being the same, ID gas leak or spillage, AR corrosion on pipe that might leak later, or 90 degree bends and horizontal open flue increasing the RISK of spillage, but might never spill, so if AR we advise they don't use it just in case, if ID it must go off

Yes but my point is in each case we turn it off (inc cap) until its put right what sort of makes the distinction a waste of time.
We may aswell just have the one course of action based on the lower risk threshold.

 

[Dotty]

Taking on board what Rob said I've modified my opinion slightly. The two categories should be

NCS

And

IYTTOIWFKY.

 

[GrahamM]

So let me get this straight. Some of you are advocating getting rid of AR and more or less jumping straight to ID?
For example. 70% combustion ventilation & flues in voids with no inspection of joints should be cut & capped? :confused5:

 

[buckley plumb]

spoke to gas safe today and they say ntcs its been like that for years do room test and co alarm to cover me

 

[arran197]

Yes, the flue too close to an opening is either ID or NCS. If there are pocs entering through the opening then it's ID. If you can test and find that there are no pocs entering, then it's just Ncs.

In all honest, if AR were made to be cut and cap, id I'd be extremely unhappy. Having to carry round 22mm caps for every flue that is missing a clip is over kill. It's not always a case of capping the meter, the customer might have a cooker and fire they want to use whilst the boiler is off or whatever. So you cut the gas pipe, have to do a tt, then have to return and connect the gas back up when you do the repair. What's the point? Extra hassle and more to go wrong. Turn the appliance off, isolate at the tap and remove the fuse from the spur, job done. If the customer decides to put it back on after all that then they're the idiot and the making a rod for their own back.

 

[mountainman]

Yes, the flue too close to an opening is either ID or NCS. If there are pocs entering through the opening then it's ID. If you can test and find that there are no pocs entering, then it's just Ncs.

In all honest, if AR were made to be cut and cap, id I'd be extremely unhappy. Having to carry round 22mm caps for every flue that is missing a clip is over kill. It's not always a case of capping the meter, the customer might have a cooker and fire they want to use whilst the boiler is off or whatever. So you cut the gas pipe, have to do a tt, then have to return and connect the gas back up when you do the repair. What's the point? Extra hassle and more to go wrong. Turn the appliance off, isolate at the tap and remove the fuse from the spur, job done. If the customer decides to put it back on after all that then they're the idiot and the making a rod for their own back.

You speak common sense, but when does common sense apply to regulations?

 

[arran197]

Thanks. Imo, just change the At Risk to Potentially Dangerous. Immediately Dangerous should be Extremely Dangerous, just so the customers know there's a danger. Jo public don't know what at risk and immediately dangerous mean, that's the issue. It sounds too technical and doesn't get the message across.

 

[GasmanxxxR1]

If someone doesnt know the meaning of 'immediately dangerous' after having it explained, wouldn't they be better off out of the gene pool?

 

[Matt06]

Surely if the appliance is not installed to MIs then that would be At Risk And if the wind changes from the day you carried out a room test then POCs can enter the property, i had a few the other day similar to this by the sounds , 3-4 natural draft water heaters directly under windows etc i told him i would not certificate them but he found someone that would, To my mind if they are not even installed to MIs how can it not be AR or Potentially dangerous ? and should be rectified

These were only fitted 2-3 years ago 1 was 1 year old ,

 

[arran197]

That's the regs. I agree with you.

 

[Ermintrude]

I haven't got a warning pad just loads of caps and discs