Classify this please doubting myself

[ShaunCorbs]

At risk of getting poc back in

Ar for me all day

 

[firemant]

NCS DOES still exist. You just cannot use it on warning notice. This is basic stuff that has been discussed extensively.

If the hole was 30mm higher/ further away, it would not even be NCS.

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.

 

[Burger]

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't, but also doesn't show NCS or the ID that you class it as? Unless I should get to specsavers - got in before someone else

 

[Burger]

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.[/QUOTE]

Unless this is where it is?

6.2 AT RISK (AR) APPLIANCES/INSTALLATIONS

An AR appliance/installation is one which is potentially dangerous i.e. where one or more faults exist and which, as a result, may in the future constitute a danger to life or property. In general, the appliance/installation should be turned off with the responsible person’s permission to make the situation safe and a “Danger Do Not Use” label attached.

 

[Aire]

NCS DOES still exist. You just cannot use it on warning notice. This is basic stuff that has been discussed extensively.

If the hole was 30mm higher/ further away, it would not even be NCS.

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.

I said the terminology doesn't officially exist so when dealing with unsafe situations you cannot use NCS

And following this chart, I would class the install as AR

 

[Aire]

The other problem with NCS is for a newly qualified engineer such as myself. We aren't taught about it. All we are told is it no longer exists and the only terms we now have are AR and ID.

 

[firemant]

I said the terminology doesn't officially exist so when dealing with unsafe situations you cannot use NCS

And following this chart, I would class the install as AR

View attachment 37674

Thank you, Craig. However, I would not agree that a danger exists from that old terminal being 270mm away. If you look at the flue distance chart, a FF must be 300mm away from an OPENING. So this terminal is a mere 30mm from being perfect. Even if it was a 600mm x 600mm window permanently open.
Think about how a FF throws the POCs into the atmosphere. For it to enter the premises, it has to travel forward under fan presure, then the end must blow it back at the correct angle for it to enter the home. Then think about the dilution occcuring, especially if the weather is windy enough to push it back. Most of the POCs will be dispersed. THEN look at the terminal outside. The actual openings are relatively tiny. Put all this together, and you don't have AR. IMO.

In fact, the OP said he could see the plume wafting around the teminal, but there was no ingress. If he suspected there was, he should have tested, and a positive result would be ID. Which sort of proves my point.

 

[firemant]

The other problem with NCS is for a newly qualified engineer such as myself. We aren't taught about it. All we are told is it no longer exists and the only terms we now have are AR and ID.

Thats interesting, Craig. What do they suggest when you come across situations which are non compliant, but clearly not AR?
TBF, I do not have a huge amount of respet for the training institutions. theey charge large fees, but do little to prepare the candidates for the real world, IMO.

FWIW, NCS does exist, but is not part of the UP. My practice is always to highlight NCS sits on my report/invoice sheet, and always has been.

If you notice non compliance, but do not note it, you run the risk of the next guy trying to score points by "spotting" things that have not been noticed by previous RGI's. How often do you read of (esp. when someone has followed BG into a job) the punter expressing surprise because "the other guys never did ....". (Insert various options). Often this is b*llocks, but the new guy then proudly jumps on the internet.

As a newbie, you don't want to be the "other guy".

 

[Aire]

I appreciate what your saying, but the flue still falls outside of the minimum requirements. And they are requirements, not recommendations. So when you follow the chart "does a situation exist which may lead to an unsafe situation". In my eyes yes it does. An extremely windy day, could blow POC's back into the opening. So the appliance is at risk and should be turned off until rectified. After all, I don't want to be the "other guy" .

And regarding NCS, in my training, we was told that instead of NCS we now have 2 categories of AR, 1. Where turning the appliance off would remove the risk and 2. Where turning the appliance off wouldn't remove the risk.
From what I can gather, it's to make the warning system clearer for the client. Label something as NCS and the client will take no action, label it as AR and the client will be more likely to act. So as far as I'm aware, when an appliance is non compliant, we fill out a warning notice but we don't attach a label and we don't turn the appliance off.

 

[Msjc]

Found this that will clear up this NCS stuff. Long red box on the side.
UnsafeSituations-1.pdf
I would class this as NCS as if it was AR it would mention in in the GIUSP, only mention is if POC are entering then it is ID.
But if it has no terminal guard and is within 300mm of the boundary to next door then it could be argued to be AR but still not a 100% AR.

 

[firemant]

..but the flue still falls outside of the minimum requirements. And they are requirements, not recommendations. So when you follow the chart "does a situation exist which may lead to an unsafe situation". In my eyes yes it does. An extremely windy day, could blow POC's back into the opening. So the appliance is at risk and should be turned off until rectified. After all, I don't want to be the "other guy" .

And regarding NCS, in my training, we was told that instead of NCS we now have 2 categories of AR, 1. Where turning the appliance off would remove the risk and 2. Where turning the appliance off wouldn't remove the risk.
From what I can gather, it's to make the warning system clearer for the client. Label something as NCS and the client will take no action, label it as AR and the client will be more likely to act. So as far as I'm aware, when an appliance is non compliant, we fill out a warning notice but we don't attach a label and we don't turn the appliance off.

TBH, you have slightly confused the 2 types of AR issue. There are a couple of instances where this applies, one of which is a built over service. You issue a Notice, but not a Label. There are one or 2 similar ones, but cant think of them right now. It has nothing to do with NCS.

The new system WAS brought in to try to avoid confusion. I assume you were not around with the old? We had a DO NOT USE label, which was only used on ID - IIRC, there was no AR label, just a notice, but I am honestly not sure. Either way, both AR and ID are now labelled more emphatically.

NCS was removed from the UP as it felt it was confusing and diluted the message. (I am not convinced, but that is another debate). You can still write down NCS but NOT on a warning notice.

Re non compliance = automaticaly AR: Absolutely not.
You have presumably not had the advantage of seeing the old Unsafe Procedure Book, which listed many more scenarios, which were indicated as NCS. The scenario in question would have been in the old book. If I can find an old one, I will copy and post.

For example, a cooker point should be 750mm above the floor. Would you AR it if it was 650mm? The 750mm is a REQUIREMENT as well. There are countless examples.

Without looking it up, do you remember, if specifically told, or work out, what the classification is for an ECV that is passing gas when OFF?.

On an extremely windy day, the POCs will be massively dispersed and diluted. No way will they enter through the grid on the old terminal (I assume you do know what the outer wall part of that terminal in the picture is like?)

Just noticed your last comment:
So as far as I'm aware, when an appliance is non compliant, we fill out a warning notice but we don't attach a label and we don't turn the appliance off.

That is wrong. With the exception of the couple I mentioned earlier, every Notice is accompanied by a Label. You DO NOT use a WL for anything other than a declared AR or ID.

Incidentally, how would you "turn off" an AR appliance?

 

[Msjc]

File named TB 001 is old GIUSP with NCS. Other one is newest i currently have.

 

[firemant]

Found this that will clear up this NCS stuff. Long red box on the side.
UnsafeSituations-1.pdf
I would class this as NCS as if it was AR it would mention in in the GIUSP, only mention is if POC are entering then it is ID.

Agreed

But if it has no terminal guard and is within 300mm of the boundary to next door then it could be argued to be AR but still not a 100% AR.

Still NCS

 

[Harvest Fields]

NCS DOES still exist. You just cannot use it on warning notice. This is basic stuff that has been discussed extensively.

If the hole was 30mm higher/ further away, it would not even be NCS.

A challenge: show me where in the Unsafe Procedure this is AR.

@Riley what boiler is it?

 

[firemant]

@Riley what boiler is it?

All FFs are 300mm, if that is why you are asking?
If not, over to Riley

 

[Aire]

TBH, you have slightly confused the 2 types of AR issue. There are a couple of instances where this applies, one of which is a built over service. You issue a Notice, but not a Label. There are one or 2 similar ones, but cant think of them right now. It has nothing to do with NCS.

The new system WAS brought in to try to avoid confusion. I assume you were not around with the old? We had a DO NOT USE label, which was only used on ID - IIRC, there was no AR label, just a notice, but I am honestly not sure. Either way, both AR and ID are now labelled more emphatically.

NCS was removed from the UP as it felt it was confusing and diluted the message. (I am not convinced, but that is another debate). You can still write down NCS but NOT on a warning notice.

Re non compliance = automaticaly AR: Absolutely not.
You have presumably not had the advantage of seeing the old Unsafe Procedure Book, which listed many more scenarios, which were indicated as NCS. The scenario in question would have been in the old book. If I can find an old one, I will copy and post.

For example, a cooker point should be 750mm above the floor. Would you AR it if it was 650mm? The 750mm is a REQUIREMENT as well. There are countless examples.

Without looking it up, do you remember, if specifically told, or work out, what the classification is for an ECV that is passing gas when OFF?.

On an extremely windy day, the POCs will be massively dispersed and diluted. No way will they enter through the grid on the old terminal (I assume you do know what the outer wall part of that terminal in the picture is like?)

Just noticed your last comment:
So as far as I'm aware, when an appliance is non compliant, we fill out a warning notice but we don't attach a label and we don't turn the appliance off.

That is wrong. With the exception of the couple I mentioned earlier, every Notice is accompanied by a Label. You DO NOT use a WL for anything other than a declared AR or ID.

Incidentally, how would you "turn off" an AR appliance?

No I was not around with the old system. Worked on gas installs but that was it. My training was all based round the new system but even that was vague. I haven't seen the old unsafe book, haven't seen the new one either, I really should order one.

Regarding ncs, wasn't that for old installs that don't meet current regs? Not a get out clause for poor new installs. I don't know when the boiler in this post was installed but i can guarantee it was installed when regs stated 300mm from an opening. So how can you classify it as NCS?
The terminal I can't tell you what it looks like. I also can't see how it matters, you can see clear daylight through it with not much restricting it.

The cooker hose I don't know, again you can't install to NCS so what does an engineer do who spots it? I would say it depends if the hose is touching the floor or not.

Let by on an ecv i guess would depend on whether there was a smell of gas or not, with no smell I'd at risk it and ID if there is a smell. Either way you call the emergency number for them to come change the ecv. And now you'll be wondering if I looked that up or not .

 

[firemant]

Regarding ncs, wasn't that for old installs that don't meet current regs? Not a get out clause for poor new installs.
The terminal I can't tell you what it looks like. I also can't see how it matters, you can see clear daylight through it with not much restricting it.

The cooker hose I don't know, again you can't install to NCS so what does an engineer do who spots it? I would say it depends if the hose is touching the floor or not.

You are absolutely correct, one must work to the standards, and if a customer were to have gas Safe inspect a job, everything not correct would be subject to demand that you alter it. But, if a GS inspector were to spot a vent too close to a boiler, or a cooker point in the incorrect position, he still would not apply the AR procedure - because those situations are classed as NCS.

So, faults that you come accross have to be assessed for safety, and you must decide in which category it falls. Even of the job is 2 weeks old, it is existing. Not every fault is classed as at risk, but things like fumes are not as black and white as, say, a cooker point. I suppose my main ssue with this situation is "why would you leave it, if you fee l is AR". If you apply AR properly, the appliance is only turned off at the customer control, the customer then decides whether to use it or not. It is often quicker to sort out problems than complete the paperwork, explain to the punter and field all the arguments.

If an RGI spotted the cooker hose, he would either note it as NCS or ignore it. Or, obvioulsly, quote to rectify. You cannot INSIST that the work is done, and it would be wrong to do it, charge and tell the customer that youwere required to do it. You cannot invoke an AR procedure because it "looks wrong", to CYA, or "to err on the side if safety". You will struggle to get paid for the paperwork etc, whereas you can legitimately charge for the rectification - provided you have set up your systems properly. In this case, TBF, it may have been more awkward as the terminal is in the neighbours garden.

In short, you have the concept and practice of the Unsafe procedure slightly muddled. I am not trying to have a go at you, you are not unique and one has to gain experience. Unfortunately, there are a lot of experienced guys who get it wrong, especially on this forum - but be careful not to follow the herd.

You say you have not got the book? You don't really need it, as it is all online. (I assume you have seeen the online version?) If you do not carry a tablet, then it is worth buying the printed version, even if it is to be able to show an argumentative customer.

 

[firemant]

No I was not around with the old system.. My training was all based round the new system but even that was vague. I haven't seen the old unsafe book, haven't seen the new one either, I really should order one.

.

This is the OLD version 6, when NCS was part of the Procedure. Have a look at 8.5:

Microsoft Word - TB 001 GIUSP Edition 6 - publication V1.1.doc


I assume you have seen the new one? From Page 23:

igem-g-11-gas-industry-unsafe-situations-procedure-april-2018-amendments.pdf

 

[Burger]

You are absolutely correct, one must work to the standards, and if a customer were to have gas Safe inspect a job, everything not correct would be subject to demand that you alter it. But, if a GS inspector were to spot a vent too close to a boiler, or a cooker point in the incorrect position, he still would not apply the AR procedure - because those situations are classed as NCS.

So, faults that you come accross have to be assessed for safety, and you must decide in which category it falls. Even of the job is 2 weeks old, it is existing. Not every fault is classed as at risk, but things like fumes are not as black and white as, say, a cooker point. I suppose my main ssue with this situation is "why would you leave it, if you fee l is AR". If you apply AR properly, the appliance is only turned off at the customer control, the customer then decides whether to use it or not. It is often quicker to sort out problems than complete the paperwork, explain to the punter and field all the arguments.

If an RGI spotted the cooker hose, he would either note it as NCS or ignore it. Or, obvioulsly, quote to rectify. You cannot INSIST that the work is done, and it would be wrong to do it, charge and tell the customer that youwere required to do it. You cannot invoke an AR procedure because it "looks wrong", to CYA, or "to err on the side if safety". You wll struggle to get paid for the paperwork etc, whereas you can legitimately charge for the rectification - provided you have set up your systems properly. In this case, TBF, it may have been more awkward as the terminal is in the neighbours garden.

Inshort, you have the concept and prctice of the Unsafe procedure slightly muddled. I am not trying to have a go at you, you are not unique and one has to gain experience. Unfortunately, there are a lot of experienced guys who get it wrong, expecially on this forum - but be careful not to follow the herd.

You say you have not got the book? You don't really need it, as it is all online. (I assume you have seeen the online version?) If you do not carry a tablet, then it is worth buying the printed version, even if it is to be able to show an argumentative customer.

You clearly have a great in-depth knowledge of the regs, I wasn’t around when the old book was in place either - EDIT I was just found the old book and what firemant sates is in there, to clarify I wasn’t doing much gas work at the time so didn’t come across this one. The other thing I noticed is, that this is no longer in the new unsafe situations.

You said:

TBF, I do not have a huge amount of respet for the training institutions. theey charge large fees, but do little to prepare the candidates for the real world, IMO.

IMO - I don’t think some companies you train with give you adequate training on stuff either.

 

[Burger]

One thing I can’t seem to comprehend, we are working to the latest version of GIUSP, which doesn’t give clear guidance on this particular issue from what I can see. Therefore how could you possibly know that previously it was ID or ncs, you couldn’t unless you sought advice from gas safe/this forum? Therefore I can’t see doing wrong what you as an engineer think is the right thing?

Sparked a long and healthy debate there @Riley

 

[firemant]

One thing I can’t seem to comprehend, we are working to the latest version of GIUSP, which doesn’t give clear guidance on this particular issue from what I can see. Therefore how could you possibly know that previously it was ID or ncs, you couldn’t unless you sought advice from gas safe/this forum? Therefore I can’t see doing wrong what you as an engineer think is the right thing?

Sparked a long and healthy debate there @Riley

That is a valid point. In essence, if the situation is not covered in the book as AR/ID, then it probably isn't AR/ID. But, obviously, everything is subject to engineering judgement, which is where it is difficult.

But one has to properly apply skill and judgement, and I feel that this is where the industry is lacking. Everyone is scared of their shadow, and jump too readily to AR, on the basis of covering ones backside. I do understand that, but it is not demonstative of skilled gas fitter / RGI.

 

[firemant]

I agree, with the others AR, and turned off (as it removes the risk). It terminates into neighbours garden? I’d be looking at advising a plume management kit also. Recommended to remove that old flue and brick up/fill with suitable,material.

It doesn’t actually remove the risk, if they turn it back on again

 

[Aire]

You are absolutely correct, one must work to the standards, and if a customer were to have gas Safe inspect a job, everything not correct would be subject to demand that you alter it. But, if a GS inspector were to spot a vent too close to a boiler, or a cooker point in the incorrect position, he still would not apply the AR procedure - because those situations are classed as NCS.

So, faults that you come accross have to be assessed for safety, and you must decide in which category it falls. Even of the job is 2 weeks old, it is existing. Not every fault is classed as at risk, but things like fumes are not as black and white as, say, a cooker point. I suppose my main ssue with this situation is "why would you leave it, if you fee l is AR". If you apply AR properly, the appliance is only turned off at the customer control, the customer then decides whether to use it or not. It is often quicker to sort out problems than complete the paperwork, explain to the punter and field all the arguments.

If an RGI spotted the cooker hose, he would either note it as NCS or ignore it. Or, obvioulsly, quote to rectify. You cannot INSIST that the work is done, and it would be wrong to do it, charge and tell the customer that youwere required to do it. You cannot invoke an AR procedure because it "looks wrong", to CYA, or "to err on the side if safety". You will struggle to get paid for the paperwork etc, whereas you can legitimately charge for the rectification - provided you have set up your systems properly. In this case, TBF, it may have been more awkward as the terminal is in the neighbours garden.

In short, you have the concept and practice of the Unsafe procedure slightly muddled. I am not trying to have a go at you, you are not unique and one has to gain experience. Unfortunately, there are a lot of experienced guys who get it wrong, especially on this forum - but be careful not to follow the herd.

You say you have not got the book? You don't really need it, as it is all online. (I assume you have seeen the online version?) If you do not carry a tablet, then it is worth buying the printed version, even if it is to be able to show an argumentative customer.

Thank you for your time and detailed replies, I'm still confused at the whole ncs thing, but that's down to training and to be fair, in my current role I don't come across that many unsafe situations, haven't even wrote a warning notice out.
I haven't seen the online version of the unsafe situations procedure and I don't carry a tablet, I will invest in the book though, if it contains all the situations and how to class them then it will be more than worth the investment for someone like myself.

 

[Burger]

It doesn’t actually remove the risk, if they turn it back on again

Wow, you really know how to lower someone’s self esteem - I bow to your superior knowledge. I thought joining this forum would make me a better engineer, but all it’s done is make me question my ability as an engineer. However I must thank you for making me realise that sooner rather than later. I can now look to be either doing something else or carry on with my mediocre work and life.

I’ve lost face, ive lost faith in the gas industry and some of the training methods used, and lost faith in myself. I hope you can impart your superior wisdom and knowledge to someone who isn’t afraid of his own shadow.

 

[firemant]

Wow, you really know how to lower someone’s self esteem - I bow to your superior knowledge. I thought joining this forum would make me a better engineer, but all it’s done is make me question my ability as an engineer. However I must thank you for making me realise that sooner rather than later. I can now look to be either doing something else or carry on with my mediocre work and life.

I’ve lost face, ive lost faith in the gas industry and some of the training methods used, and lost faith in myself. I hope you can impart your superior wisdom and knowledge to someone who isn’t afraid of his own shadow.

jeez, sorry if I upset you. I recommend that you steer clear of working on a building site . As far as the rest, refer to my next post - a response to Craig.