Search the forum,

Classify this please doubting myself

Post new thread

Discuss Classify this please doubting myself in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Craig Watson said:
..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.
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

  • TB 001 - Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure Edition 6 Inc. Amd 1 and 2.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 1
  • igem-g-11-gas-industry-unsafe-situations-procedure-april-2018-amendments.pdf
    832.5 KB · Views: 1
Msjc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed
Msjc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still NCS
 
firemant said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 o_O.
 
Craig Watson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Craig Watson said:
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.

.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
firemant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CBW1982 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
CBW1982 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t actually remove the risk, if they turn it back on again
 
firemant said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
firemant said:
It doesn’t actually remove the risk, if they turn it back on again
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CBW1982 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

I hope you are not as pis$ed off with me as much as CBW:).

But, seriously, how can a course provider consider their job complete without you having seen one f the most imortant document that we refer to. Unbeleivable. That is not your fault - but it does emphasise that most learning is done through experience rather than at a desk.
It would be a god idae to buy a hard copy, I find stuff sinks in better via the printed word, but then, I am something of a dinasour, age wise.
Have you got an onsite guide of some sort? I assume you had one for use during training, but they are invaluable in the van for those "WTF do I do now" moments?

Are you SE or on the books?
Are you install or maintanence or both?
I am guessing that, by now, you have worked out that you can never know it all, and never stop learning.
For new service guys, I would always reccomend going on the Baxi 3 day course. It used to be £270 for 3 days, but it is a well structured, non sales logical course. You will find a lot of guys liking it on different forums, and maybe here. Try looking at "the other" site, there is a wealth of knowledgable guys, some of whose work pictures will blow your mind.

I genuinely hope that you (and CBW, if you are not actually the same person - I've just notice the initials ;) ) keep going, learning and developing. This can be a great, and financially rewarding, job - but you have to deal with a lot of muppets (from the ranks of Bosses, colleagues, competitors and definitely customers).

Finally, co not be led down the road of negativity. But question everything, and learn how to find or confirm the answers, rather than taking some of the ridiculous statements here and other plces at face value.

Good Luck (to both of you)
 
Craig Watson said:
I'm still confused at the whole ncs thing,
Click to expand...
Not to Current Standards:-
This is when you would advise someone that their appliance/installation is not installed in accordance with current installation standards.

It is issued when the appliance or installation is safe to use but the end user should consider bringing it in line with current standards.

If it is an installation which has been carried out recently then they should contact the installer for advice.

If the installation is not recent then the situation may have been brought about by the introduction of revised standards.

A Gas Safe Engineer can advise you on whether or not the installation should be brought in line with current standards.

There, that is a rough wording of how Corgi suggested we should explain it to the end user or responsible person.

It is still a category we still use but the reason it is frowned upon (for want of a better way of putting it), was most likely due to the fact that you are saying (in writing) that something is actually safe to use and only needs altering due to regulations and standards.

The customer/end user/responsible person tended to take the view that 'it's safe so why change it' and that is understandable. They also saw any improvement as a distress purchase/unnecessary spend.

It is a useful category though. I for example, have this week used it to explain why I cannot replace two commercial Heating appliances like for like but the customers are fine to continue using the existing appliance until they fail.

Hope this helps.
 
At the end of the day we have all read the same rules, regulations and standards. We all have our own slight differences in the interpretations and understandings of those too. However, the one thing that always overrides in the real world is the Engineers Discretion.
There's my thought for the day!
 
New posts

Reply to Classify this please doubting myself in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net

Similar plumbing topics

P
Repeated Airlock in Bathroom
Hi, Can anyone advise as to why the cold water to my bathroom keeps airlocking? This originally happened about 12 months ago and has happened 3-4 times since. It’s an upstairs bathroom, fed from a tank in the attic. The tank is about 8 Meters away and feeds a bath, sink and toilet. The tank...
Replies
9
Views
315
Chuck
C
Creating content since 2001. Untold Media.

Newest Plumbing Threads

Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock